Analysis of T10 alliances

[alch]

The_fish, you are clearly right ;p you are arrogant, at least one point we agree on.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by alch

We would and i know my stuff.


An increase in Alliances capable of playing wouldnt have make us unable to end top10 but in the opposite, i think we would have get ranked higher, for the simple fact, that the alliances would have fought so hard and and in a disciplined way, that there wouldnt be any Planetary NAP and 1up would have hit theses alliances in question and the other alliances would have concentrated on them, we would have gotten less BIG Random incoming from all the top10 alliances because they wouldnt be allowed to hit a neutral target while they have a solid as rock adversary on the battleground still breathing.
our last 2 weeks were one of the hardest because, come random players from alliance who were supposed to fight 1up were hitting us to gain roids on random day attacks/nights, and 1up who had Planetary NAP had to go elsewhere to gain their roids, and hit us (while i know for fact we werent on their target list as an alliance but just because we werent napped and we were "easy roids" in technical terms).
Now after listening to Chika laying down his vision which i find it a little bit stupid (no offense mate, but you aint the "oracle" and no matter what you think you know from Angels, you are far from the reality) i Am very tempted to give myself a one more shot for the next round just to prove to other guys that Angels has very high chances to end top10 again with the same limited core member, and if we decide to go on with the same senate as this round, the possibility that we will recruit up to 100 is 0%.
We have learnt that its better to drag an alliance with 30-40 members who want to play and play for one cause, than playing with 60% of loyal guys with another 40% disloyal and immature players who in fact drag the other 60% of the alliance.

About what behem0th said, he is right, 1up done impressively well, and i was surprised they ended top1, i never though they would end top1, and for all the alliances HCs that claimed they would all round and said "oh look evil 1up are top6 but they know their stuff and will play it dirty" my question to you guys is: if you knew they would win and everyday you tried to recruit more alliances in the cause to take them down, why didnt you start from your inside alliance and started to recruit your own member to the cause to fight them instead of recruiting outsider.
When a country goes for a very difficult decision to go to war against another nation, they have to make sure that their own citizens believe in this decision before even allying other nations to help them in the cause.

Dear Alch, KJ, and the rest of the fightin', biten', growlin' ANGELS.

First, ANGEL is a used alliance name already. I know cause I was in it, and there wasn't an Alch in power nor peon status there. Second, Though "ANGELS" (In quotation because its a stolen name) played a great round, they DID start out in MISTU. I beleive had you all not started out there then you would not have gained the score you did, nor would you have finished top 10. You saying you would have been top 10 without MISTU, is like me saying I would have been top 10 without 1up. Third, I would love to see your 35 member attempt next round, NOT starting with hep from another ally, but solo.
Actually, I have to back track a bit, with the current alliance base MAYBE (a HUGE maybe) You guys could pull a top 10 finish. But the point of my original post was, with a decent amount of proper alliances playing, Your "ANGELS" (quotes cause its a stolen name) as well as other SUB-par alliances would not have finished top 10. This is not "Chika's Vision" Its the way it would happen. Consider me as a relay person, relaying that your alliance only finished top 10 because we have wank allies like VSN/VGN/MISTU playing.
Thanks.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Chika

Dear Alch, KJ, and the rest of the fightin', biten', growlin' ANGELS.

First, ANGEL is a used alliance name already. I know cause I was in it, and there wasn't an Alch in power nor peon status there. Second, Though "ANGELS" (In quotation because its a stolen name) played a great round, they DID start out in MISTU. I beleive had you all not started out there then you would not have gained the score you did, nor would you have finished top 10. You saying you would have been top 10 without MISTU, is like me saying I would have been top 10 without 1up. Third, I would love to see your 35 member attempt next round, NOT starting with hep from another ally, but solo.
Actually, I have to back track a bit, with the current alliance base MAYBE (a HUGE maybe) You guys could pull a top 10 finish. But the point of my original post was, with a decent amount of proper alliances playing, Your "ANGELS" (quotes cause its a stolen name) as well as other SUB-par alliances would not have finished top 10. This is not "Chika's Vision" Its the way it would happen. Consider me as a relay person, relaying that your alliance only finished top 10 because we have wank allies like VSN/VGN/MISTU playing.
Thanks.

Angels isn't a stolen name because aslong as there aren't copyrights on it, it's not stolen. alch however has copyrights on Angels so incare you'd use it for an alliance e.g., we could actually sue you.

Fury is a stolen name aswell, not like they invented that name. Same goes for 1up etc. So stop going to this pathetic level plz.

I'm not gonna react on the stuff you said after that. To me that 100% bollocks, if you really wish to discuss it then by all means, pm me, but what you wrote there I don't think deserves a decent reply.

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by Chika

Dear Alch, KJ, and the rest of the fightin', biten', growlin' ANGELS.
I beleive had you all not started out there then you would not have gained the score you did, nor would you have finished top 10.

When I left mistu, I was ranked near 500 had lost close to 2k roids due to only getting def once in all the attacks against me. Once Angels/Fang/whatever came into play I lost roids once due to a gal mate forgetting to send but finished in the top 100. So ill have to disagree with the above statement.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Angels isn't a stolen name because aslong as there aren't copyrights on it, it's not stolen. alch however has copyrights on Angels so incare you'd use it for an alliance e.g., we could actually sue you.

Fury is a stolen name aswell, not like they invented that name. Same goes for 1up etc. So stop going to this pathetic level plz.

I'm not gonna react on the stuff you said after that. To me that 100% bollocks, if you really wish to discuss it then by all means, pm me, but what you wrote there I don't think deserves a decent reply.

ANGEL was a PA alliance in round erm 6-7 (thats when i knew of them prob more). "ANGELS" (quotes cause its a stolen name) Is a name you guys came up with to go public cause you didn't want to use FAnG(lets be truthful for a bit.) Make sense? If another FURY or another 1up is formed in the future, and it has nothing to do with the alliances of the past and present that we know, I charge all members of these alliances to inform the "New" (stolen name) alliance that they are idd stealing the name.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

When I left mistu, I was ranked near 500 had lost close to 2k roids due to only getting def once in all the attacks against me. Once Angels/Fang/whatever came into play I lost roids once due to a gal mate forgetting to send but finished in the top 100. So ill have to disagree with the above statement.

M8,

We will never truely know what "ANGELS" (you know why the quotes by this point) would have done without MISTU at the start. Why? because they didn't do it. When you do do it, call me. In fact since we all are making wank predictions on what we would have done. If i would have left 1up and stayed allianceless mid round, I would have still ended top 10 and to add a little spice since I did finish top 10 and i can say anything I want because there is no way anyone can argue that I couldn't have and predictions come true I would have 3 waved Aif and tek every day.
Sound familiar? Sounds a tad stupid also huh? yer, thats what ANGELS are doing in these posts. I sound stupid, you guys sound stupid. Lets be stupid together.

[Zo0f]

As usual Fishy, your talking bollocks. Much like jerome does, probably why i love you both

I presume NDs performance was much like the start of the round, while i was still active. Which in all honesty was terrible. You fell apart when we (Howling Rain) hit you for a few days. As i had much fun talking about with Marinho. If you did better later on it was probably due to me explaining HOW and WHY we raped you. Therefore any improvement can be put down to Howling Rains kindness, or 1up doing your politics for you.

However, 3rd is great for ND. While i would of prefered HR got it, im happy ND did well reguardless. As for HR, im always amazed they do so well, they put what they do have to very good use (mainly). No matter what happens they always fight. Which is partly why i chose HR over any other alliance in PA.

In the end, 1up won and thats all that matters. A miss is as good as a mile. So better luck to everyone next round!

P.S. Hope you had a great christmas Fishy and nubome`.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Chika

ANGEL was a PA alliance in round erm 6-7 (thats when i knew of them prob more). "ANGELS" (quotes cause its a stolen name) Is a name you guys came up with to go public cause you didn't want to use FAnG(lets be truthful for a bit.) Make sense? If another FURY or another 1up is formed in the future, and it has nothing to do with the alliances of the past and present that we know, I charge all members of these alliances to inform the "New" (stolen name) alliance that they are idd stealing the name.

like you said it yourself, ANGEL exists. ANGELS however was not an alliancename so really, drop it. And call us the new FAnG if you like that, it doesn't matter nor do I really care.

Only 36 pple know the truth, the rest of the entire PA community are basicly clueless about anything related to Angels. Makes you look even more rediculous when you try to claim different.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Chika

M8,

We will never truely know what "ANGELS" (you know why the quotes by this point) would have done without MISTU at the start. Why? because they didn't do it. When you do do it, call me. In fact since we all are making wank predictions on what we would have done. If i would have left 1up and stayed allianceless mid round, I would have still ended top 10 and to add a little spice since I did finish top 10 and i can say anything I want because there is no way anyone can argue that I couldn't have and predictions come true I would have 3 waved Aif and tek every day.
Sound familiar? Sounds a tad stupid also huh? yer, thats what ANGELS are doing in these posts. I sound stupid, you guys sound stupid. Lets be stupid together.

Chika, wtf has happened to you? I mean, seriously ...

We sound stupid because WE BELIEVE we could have been top10 regardless of mistu? WE sound stupid because you don't agree with us? What kinda litle child are you if that's your approach on things?

you are correct, you sound stupid. Don't generalize this!

this is what makes me mad the most, pple insulting others (or in your case calling them stupid) because THEIR OPINION DIFFERS FROM YOUR OWN ....
It's sad the world has too much of such pathetic pple around. this is just a board, the meaning of a discussion is to have different opinions. Only immature pple start insulting instead of discussing. Sadly, in this thread, you're on of those Chika (and you know I generally like you or your posts).

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Chika, wtf has happened to you? I mean, seriously ...

We sound stupid because WE BELIEVE we could have been top10 regardless of mistu? WE sound stupid because you don't agree with us? What kinda litle child are you if that's your approach on things?

you are correct, you sound stupid. Don't generalize this!

this is what makes me mad the most, pple insulting others (or in your case calling them stupid) because THEIR OPINION DIFFERS FROM YOUR OWN ....
It's sad the world has too much of such pathetic pple around. this is just a board, the meaning of a discussion is to have different opinions. Only immature pple start insulting instead of discussing. Sadly, in this thread, you're on of those Chika (and you know I generally like you or your posts).

No, Alch originatted the use of the word "Stupid" in this thread. i have to admit, I took offense to that and felt miserable. And universally we all know that Misery LOVES company. so i invited other indivduals that I felt were stupid to join me. Nothing has happened ot me. You and others only looked at the - (negative) aspect of my posts. I never said Angels were bad. You were 35 members!! Everyone who reacted negaively to a none negative post are the ones out of line. I never discredited "ANGELS" (deep breaths). You guys took it as such. Get off your high horse, you would not have done the same (as my original arguement before people so RUDELY twisted what I said) if ANY decent amount of proper alliances were playing.
There are 3billion gazillion opinions out there. Mines was that you guys would not have finished top 10 without starting with MISTU. Period. Anything eveolving from that is all of your "ANGELS" (/me shakes head) doing. Read up.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

like you said it yourself, ANGEL exists. ANGELS however was not an alliancename so really, drop it. And call us the new FAnG if you like that, it doesn't matter nor do I really care.

Only 36 pple know the truth, the rest of the entire PA community are basicly clueless about anything related to Angels. Makes you look even more rediculous when you try to claim different.

I know you guys were trying to avoid being called the second FAnG. I never implied that you guys were. I did imply the fact that you guys are using a name already used. just because you added an "S" on it does not make it right. That was the weakest attempt you could have possibly done to defend the ANGELS name.
I have a new alliance: Wolf Packs. Pleeeaaasssseeee!

[lokken]

Yeah Zo0f, we really fell apart with all those top 100 planets and fleet catches and stuff.

A broken alliance would never do this

These 2 HR being dumped on their arse were clearly nobbed by the shadows

I'll leave it for you to judge if we got better or not, because those 2 reports are things ND could not do at the start of this round. It's better to make mistakes, see your errors, fix them and get on with life, rather than play consistently mediocre. I personally have no beef with HR, I just wanted 3rd badly, because we deserved 3rd at least on our performance. We could have realistically won this round, HR can't say that. While we went full into war, HR just skirted round the edge, occaisonally providing alliances with a headache for a day or two. While HR look as if they have gone sideways, we've gone forwards.

Don't think I believe ND are suddenly a top alliance, we're far from that - but we've shown that we can be a threat, that we can identify weaknesses, and that we can exploit them in our enemy, and recognise them for the future and that we have potential to be a lot better if we get some consistency to our play.

[Veedeejem!]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

1)
8) ToF - Was quiet again, but 8th is a position they hoped for, and half way through Im sure they didn't expect to get it. Well done for the ex-Valhalla alliance, good rank and hope to see them next round.

You're right that we didn't expect this half way through, we had a pretty bad start, but managed to finish 8th anyway.
So far each round we've played we've managed to make some progress and I'm proud of that.
Looking forward to seeing you all next round, where I hope we'll do even better

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by lokken

Yeah Zo0f, we really fell apart with all those top 100 planets and fleet catches and stuff.

A broken alliance would never do this

These 2 HR being dumped on their arse were clearly nobbed by the shadows

I'll leave it for you to judge if we got better or not, because those 2 reports are things ND could not do at the start of this round. It's better to make mistakes, see your errors, fix them and get on with life, rather than play consistently mediocre. I personally have no beef with HR, I just wanted 3rd badly, because we deserved 3rd at least on our performance. We could have realistically won this round, HR can't say that. While we went full into war, HR just skirted round the edge, occaisonally providing alliances with a headache for a day or two. While HR look as if they have gone sideways, we've gone forwards.

Don't think I believe ND are suddenly a top alliance, we're far from that - but we've shown that we can be a threat, that we can identify weaknesses, and that we can exploit them in our enemy, and recognise them for the future and that we have potential to be a lot better if we get some consistency to our play.

Youve spent too much time around Fish

My reference to 'falling apart' was about the early squabble ND and HR had. Where after two nights of attacking us with NoS we barely saw 2-3 hostile fleets a night from you for a week. Our early launches put you into defence mode, which shot yourselves in the foot. Where as we were launching at 20+ ND planets a night. Once we were ahead of you again, we agreed to a cease fire and we both hit MISTU. I surpose in your world it was the other way round?

I dont know what your idea of a strong alliance is, or what you concider a good performance. I on the other hand dont concider an alliance not attacking for 4-5 days due to being attacked to be anything special, quite the opposite infact.

I dont want to specifically attack ND, i just dont like listening to all the arrogant rubbish some of you guys spew. Yes ND did well this round, but nothing you have done has earnt you the attitudes you have.

[AndroX]

well, since every body is again flaming eachother or other alliances then the one they are in theirselfs

VisioN's point of view?

Easy, before the round started we kicked out EVERYONE.
And started off with 4 hc's.
We then recruited some of our old/loyal players back that didn't wanted to leave.
After that we made ourselfs a goal to get 80+ members during the round.
For ranks, as posted in another thread on these forums, we aimed for a top 20 spot.

After gaining these achievements that are way higher then we expected I can be proud of
vision and most of all about its members.
Making this alliance belong to the 'top' alliances is a hard thing. As we aint based on military
strategies like most other alliances. We're just a happy bunch of people that want to play a game together and have fun in it, winning or losing doesn't really matter. Its like, shall we attack
ok then lets do so. Nothing goes really prepaired (except a few things ofcourse). Keeping an alliance this way is hard, I can ensure you that. About 1 month before the round was ended, and alot of thinking I felt it was the time to resign. So I did. Picked two excellent guys to replace me. Angmar and StDomingo. Im sure you'll be hearing or reading alot from them in future rounds.

For other alliances, I wont judge you nor will I say any bad things. Its been an honor to play with you guys in this wonderfull community. And Im sure you'll see me from time to time.

Good luck to all, and I want to wish you all a happy and healthy 2005.

:xmas:

[Lord Angmar]

and its welcome in to Angmars reign of terror, Long live Lord Angmar!!! just kidding, i'm nice... honest.

[Gate]

Originally Posted by Zo0f

Youve spent too much time around Fish

I dont want to specifically attack ND, i just dont like listening to all the arrogant rubbish some of you guys spew. Yes ND did well this round, but nothing you have done has earnt you the attitudes you have.

I know that I've been stunned by ND's spirit once I started to play more and realise what was going on. For 4 nights in one week, and 2 nights the next, we had more incoming fleets than members, and on one day over 210 fleets were launched at us. Then heavy incs continued constantly for weeks, until near the end of the round. Every time ND were knocked below 100k, we bounced back up again by hitting LCH, VisioN and their allies instead of going for the easy roids. It left our core MO crew absolutely exhausted and we even had MOs burn out, and when a DC took a break the strain was felt. It was common for me to have 10-20 fleets to deal with personally for a single tick, and a similar number appear over the next 2 ticks; and I'm sure it was the same for other DCs when I wasn't there.

I'd consider it impressive that in the later part of the round, under far more incs than HR, we never once fell below their roidcount. The ecstasy at holding firm until the end of the round, grabbing 3rd (Despite a last ditch strike by HR) and also stopping LCH from winning the round (Combined with other factors; if ND turned on 1up, LCH would have won and ND most likely would have been slowly forced to their knees and to rank 4, 5, or below... it's quite an ego-inflation when you played such a role) was a great feeling. That, and for once, ND managed some genuinely co-ordinated strikes, despite a chronic lack of BCs, bodes well for the future from an alliance that is all about the community and fun aspect of PA.

In summary, I think we're stunned with ourselves regarding the fact we actually roided someone, stop stealing our fun!

[Troll]

I'd just like to say

DLR OWNS

nuff said

oh and ND owns too but only in small case letters

sorry fish you know it's true

[LynchMob]

yAwn

[The_Fish]

indeed, I do not doubt that the average DLR member is better than the average ND member.

But similar to Angels, if ND took its best x amount of members, I'm sure we could achieve what you did, you can't compare like for like. But DLR did an excellent job this round.

[Legator]

Originally Posted by Lord Angmar

and its welcome in to Angmars reign of terror, Long live Lord Angmar!!! just kidding, i'm nice... honest.

OMG !!!!!!11

quality \o/

[Remy]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

2) LCH - They played for 2nd, they got 2nd. Had they played for 1st, they might have got it, or they might have got 3rd.... they didn't take a risk for it, so I guess a well done on 2nd is in order. To win a round, they will have to grow some more balls and channel its military strength better, but 2nd is a good finish.

In other words, you have no clue.

We played for 1st, but since ND did every effort to get 1up to nr1 as good lapdogs, we had to focus on ND too to prevent mass incs from 1up AND ND (and some others...). Focusing on 2 alliances who even defend higher etas of each other (mostly nd defending 1up of course, since sid was smarter then ND and didnt def you guys a lot while you deffed 1up......), is a bit much to handle, so we dropped to nr2.

Main problem was that targetting 1up and ND got us too few roids. Add being targetted by 1up/nd constantly. Call it an error, I call it a brave attempt by our members. You win some you lose some.

My analysys of ND: well played, but next time stand on yer own feet.

[Alki]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

...

Stop wanking 1up's ego's...

need i say more

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by Chika

I know you guys were trying to avoid being called the second FAnG. I never implied that you guys were. I did imply the fact that you guys are using a name already used. just because you added an "S" on it does not make it right. That was the weakest attempt you could have possibly done to defend the ANGELS name.
I have a new alliance: Wolf Packs. Pleeeaaasssseeee!

Tbh, None of us was aware that an alliance called Angel already existed. We decided to call ourselves Angels and that's what we'll be. We don't care if therre previously was an alliance called Angel.
Also, must have been a crap alliance since most pple here don't even know it. So it's not like we abuse the name to add some past glory to our name so it'd sound more impressive.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

indeed, I do not doubt that the average DLR member is better than the average ND member.

But similar to Angels, if ND took its best x amount of members, I'm sure we could achieve what you did, you can't compare like for like. But DLR did an excellent job this round.

no, take your 35 best members and you'll not come to the same quality as Angels. Yes, that is my own opinion so don't flame me for it simply because you don't share it.

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

Tbh, None of us was aware that an alliance called Angel already existed. We decided to call ourselves Angels and that's what we'll be. We don't care if therre previously was an alliance called Angel.
Also, must have been a crap alliance since most pple here don't even know it. So it's not like we abuse the name to add some past glory to our name so it'd sound more impressive.

Ok, you we discussed this a tad, and you asked me to get off the name bit but then you post. :| Actually the REAL ANGEL rocked. At least to noob me. Also, to my recolection they didn't take anyones name. Also, the fact that you would keep the name sucks. Get your own name. Someone thought they were so 1337 "lets be "ANGELS!!!!". LOL. Whoever that was, don't think of nothing else.

[Shev]

Originally Posted by Chika

I know you guys were trying to avoid being called the second FAnG. I never implied that you guys were. I did imply the fact that you guys are using a name already used. just because you added an "S" on it does not make it right. That was the weakest attempt you could have possibly done to defend the ANGELS name.
I have a new alliance: Wolf Packs. Pleeeaaasssseeee!

Could you have picked a worse example when talking about an alliance name to steal?

[Recluse]

I love how all these outsiders judge our alliances skills (Angels) based upon "what if's"

tbfh I can come up with alot of "what if's" that would have cuased 1up to finish 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th.

tbfh I can come up with alot of "what if's" that would have cuased Chika or any other t10 planet to end ranked 200, 300, 500, or 1000.

And yet I don't see anyone doubting their skills. When we had our 35 people all in-game, we were #6 in average score and I believe #7 in average roids. We ended #2 in average roids and #2 in average score. We ended with total roid counts to rival all those around us with 2x our members number. You say we should shut up about t10 till next round when we prove we can do it from the beginning of the round, and to that I say the same, until you can prove us wrong next round -_-

[Chika]

Originally Posted by Strider2k

I love how all these outsiders judge our alliances skills (Angels) based upon "what if's"

tbfh I can come up with alot of "what if's" that would have cuased 1up to finish 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th.

tbfh I can come up with alot of "what if's" that would have cuased Chika or any other t10 planet to end ranked 200, 300, 500, or 1000.

And yet I don't see anyone doubting their skills. When we had our 35 people all in-game, we were #6 in average score and I believe #7 in average roids. We ended #2 in average roids and #2 in average score. We ended with total roid counts to rival all those around us with 2x our members number. You say we should shut up about t10 till next round when we prove we can do it from the beginning of the round, and to that I say the same, until you can prove us wrong next round -_-

Sad, but you steered off topic with your first sentence. NOONE doubted "ANGELS" ( stolen name) skills. Its hard to even debate on AD because you say an argument and people answer something else. You logged on and posted inaccurately.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Zo0f

Youve spent too much time around Fish

1)My reference to 'falling apart' was about the early squabble ND and HR had. Where after two nights of attacking us with NoS we barely saw 2-3 hostile fleets a night from you for a week. Our early launches put you into defence mode, which shot yourselves in the foot. Where as we were launching at 20+ ND planets a night.

2) Once we were ahead of you again, we agreed to a cease fire and we both hit MISTU. I surpose in your world it was the other way round?

1) "Improvement" suggests we were carp at the beginning, and got better as the round went on. I don't deny we were poor at the start of the round, because we were - but instead of being happy with our level of play like a lot of alliances, we decided to make changes, step up to the plate and make a real fist of r12.

2) Knowing the full facts of that situation, I'm not going to dispute that.

Our attitude at the moment, as Gate points out is simply one that's letting off steam. We've been frustrated at every turn this round in terms of other alliances choice of targeting. As an side, Gate's been our outstanding player of this round in my view, and he's in the best position to judge our levels of incoming, and increase in performance.

Moving on.

Originally Posted by Remy

We played for 1st, but since ND did every effort to get 1up to nr1 as good lapdogs, we had to focus on ND too to prevent mass incs from 1up AND ND (and some others...). Focusing on 2 alliances who even defend higher etas of each other (mostly nd defending 1up of course, since sid was smarter then ND and didnt def you guys a lot while you deffed 1up......), is a bit much to handle, so we dropped to nr2.

Main problem was that targetting 1up and ND got us too few roids. Add being targetted by 1up/nd constantly. Call it an error, I call it a brave attempt by our members. You win some you lose some.

My analysys of ND: well played, but next time stand on yer own feet.

Dear Remy,

When your planets appear to target us from day 1, and behave the way they do, you shouldn't even expect any help from us. When you do anything of the sort, ND can hardly be expected to help you out, or indeed not do things that will annoy you. Your antics forced our position in my view, not to mention the various pro LCH alliances that you have employed in this round.

The idea of ND defending 1up is cute but ultimately false. ND this round has not endorsed members defending any other planets other than our own, because we've had enough incomings. The only likely scenarios of defence therefore is ND defending 1up in gal (my 1up in gal defended me too!). Do you think we'd be so stupid as to agree to a policy? Or infact any alliance? Generally the only way defence could occur at higher ETA is in an arrangement between mates to defend each other.

It's amusing you overlook your close relationship with LCH(B) this round, and the organising of several alliances to target ND, yet choose to snipe at ND for choosing 1up as their partners, when they didn't really have a choice. The only reason your 'members' target ND as opposed to 1up, is because of your alliance's continuing policy to allow fencesitting, meaning that the only way you can pull off a credible attack is by not attacking 1up - Sid wasn't joking when he thanked fencesitters - their antics were far more contributory than any assistance ND gave to 1up. I'd hardly call targeting ND as brave when we're seen by the majority of the universe as crap. The fact is your policies promote a 'second best' attitude in LCH, because it allows members to hold personal score at the detriment of the alliance - you might as well just become a personal defence force for them, and give up being an alliance in the normal sense of the word.

As for standing on our own two feet: our HC will decide what political tack is appropriate round on round, in whatever situation. I'd like to think we approach things with an open mind, and that any personal grudges are of secondary concern.

[AzureWrath]

Originally Posted by Remy

In other words, you have no clue.

We played for 1st, but since ND did every effort to get 1up to nr1 as good lapdogs, we had to focus on ND too to prevent mass incs from 1up AND ND (and some others...). Focusing on 2 alliances who even defend higher etas of each other (mostly nd defending 1up of course, since sid was smarter then ND and didnt def you guys a lot while you deffed 1up......), is a bit much to handle, so we dropped to nr2.

Main problem was that targetting 1up and ND got us too few roids. Add being targetted by 1up/nd constantly. Call it an error, I call it a brave attempt by our members. You win some you lose some.

My analysys of ND: well played, but next time stand on yer own feet.

My advice to LCH: Don't shelter fencesitters, use them on your enemy. If those big guys in 31:3 would have just hit 1up during key points in the round..

[MiX]

(all ment as a reply to lokken s post but Azure posted while I was typing o_O)
Why do you quote the entire post when only referring to the "ND defended 1up" bit?

I think he was trying to point out that while we were targetting 1up we got retalled by 1up/ND/etc. So we thought it would be more tactical to take out the biggest of the etc alliances first because we couldnt take on all at a time. Kind of funny was that while targetting ND we DIDNT get 1up/ND/etc retalls, but just ND retalls. Which where alot easier to handlle. This might be why he referred to you as "lapdogs". At this point going for ND seemed to us as a smart way to make 1up easier to focus on without interuption.

However once we were ready to go for 1up again activity was awfull and we couldnt cope with it. We did try on multiple occassions on the last few days (so saying we settled for 2nd is nonsence). We did target ND last day because we realised 1up was too far away and we were scared by some 1ups leaving thinking they might join ND last tick to make them overtake us.

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by Gate

I know that I've been stunned by ND's spirit once I started to play more and realise what was going on. For 4 nights in one week, and 2 nights the next, we had more incoming fleets than members, and on one day over 210 fleets were launched at us. Then heavy incs continued constantly for weeks, until near the end of the round. Every time ND were knocked below 100k, we bounced back up again by hitting LCH, VisioN and their allies instead of going for the easy roids. It left our core MO crew absolutely exhausted and we even had MOs burn out, and when a DC took a break the strain was felt. It was common for me to have 10-20 fleets to deal with personally for a single tick, and a similar number appear over the next 2 ticks; and I'm sure it was the same for other DCs when I wasn't there.

I'd consider it impressive that in the later part of the round, under far more incs than HR, we never once fell below their roidcount. The ecstasy at holding firm until the end of the round, grabbing 3rd (Despite a last ditch strike by HR) and also stopping LCH from winning the round (Combined with other factors; if ND turned on 1up, LCH would have won and ND most likely would have been slowly forced to their knees and to rank 4, 5, or below... it's quite an ego-inflation when you played such a role) was a great feeling. That, and for once, ND managed some genuinely co-ordinated strikes, despite a chronic lack of BCs, bodes well for the future from an alliance that is all about the community and fun aspect of PA.

In summary, I think we're stunned with ourselves regarding the fact we actually roided someone, stop stealing our fun!

Aye sorry mate, wasnt trying to say you ponies didnt make a lot of headway this round. Infact, for the first few nights we hit you back near the start, I was very impressed that the DCs kept up such a good job while no-one bothered arranging attacks. I was just trying to point out things werent as wonderful as was being made out. }{ Gate

[General Martok]

Originally Posted by lokken

Yeah Zo0f, we really fell apart with all those top 100 planets and fleet catches and stuff.

A broken alliance would never do this

These 2 HR being dumped on their arse were clearly nobbed by the shadows

I'll leave it for you to judge if we got better or not, because those 2 reports are things ND could not do at the start of this round. It's better to make mistakes, see your errors, fix them and get on with life, rather than play consistently mediocre. I personally have no beef with HR, I just wanted 3rd badly, because we deserved 3rd at least on our performance. We could have realistically won this round, HR can't say that. While we went full into war, HR just skirted round the edge, occaisonally providing alliances with a headache for a day or two. While HR look as if they have gone sideways, we've gone forwards.

Don't think I believe ND are suddenly a top alliance, we're far from that - but we've shown that we can be a threat, that we can identify weaknesses, and that we can exploit them in our enemy, and recognise them for the future and that we have potential to be a lot better if we get some consistency to our play.

Lets start with saying that the quality difference between ND and HR is minimal, I believe our militairy power is/was quite equal. The fact ND ended up above HR has much more to do with the political situation than skill/activity, imho.

Zo0f clearly meant the first struggle between HR and ND, around tick 500ish?, and then you come with a battlereport 2 ticks before the end of the round . That other battle was also way after that initial fight.

During the entire round ND switched places with rank 3/4 (at first rank 4/5, when MISTU was still top3), and if ND had been really significantly better than HR, they would have run away with the 4th rank in that initial fight, but instead HR regained our #4. So saying ND was a realistic candidate for winning the round while HR never was is bullsh1t. If you only look to the final part of the round ND ended #3 due not having 1up incs and recruiting chika, not due superiour tactics/activity over HR.

Though I must say I'm not very pleased how our HC handled our external affairs. While the entire universe screamed LCH and HR were allied/napped, we certainly were NOT. My own planet has had LCH incomings several times during that period, so I think I can say I'm an experience expect on that

Imho HR should have allied LCH back then. Our only allies were insomnia, which were about rank 15 or so back then....

[This is only my opinion, not an official HR statement, I'm only a peon ]

[alch]

Originally Posted by chika

Get your own name. Someone thought they were so 1337 "lets be "ANGELS!!!!". LOL. Whoever that was, don't think of nothing else

Chika, in fact i decided to go with Angels, as my old alliance was "Furious Angels" from round2, just removed the "furious", so please before you insult someone and his BG name, know the history a little bit better, on another note, i see chika is rather vexed by me calling him stupid about his assumptions and so on... and knowing we are friends, ill rather stop this stupid argument with him in public and let him WIN at the intraweb!

[Riddim]

zo0f, u are right , we suck terribly and couldn't have done this well without the help of the mighty HR (yes, you showed us what we were doing wrong and that fact kinda saved our round in the end) and the stalin-like 1up, who took possession of our minds (and ships) in their evil quest for planetary dominance..
We suck :\

[The_Fish]

The reason I, and many others, think ND could have ended #1, and HR couldn't, is that politically they stood no chance.

Had LCH (+ friends) beaten 1up, they would have won the round. Had 1up (and friends) beaten LCH, there would be no way HR could have won. However, ND could have slipped past 1up, with alliances around us targetting 1up instead of ND.

It's the 2nd round in a row where ND and HR have performed to a similar standard, and I can see it being similar again next round.

[Zo0f]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

The reason I, and many others, think ND could have ended #1, and HR couldn't, is that politically they stood no chance.

Had LCH (+ friends) beaten 1up, they would have won the round. Had 1up (and friends) beaten LCH, there would be no way HR could have won. However, ND could have slipped past 1up, with alliances around us targetting 1up instead of ND.

It's the 2nd round in a row where ND and HR have performed to a similar standard, and I can see it being similar again next round.

No offence, but ND stood about as much chance of winning this round as jerome` stood of getting laid this x-mas (please say he didnt, hes only 12 fs).

1up won, because they can lead. Not only lead an alliance, but lead other alliances too. 1up beat LCH, by leading you and others to attack LCH. Who was going to lead everyone else attacking 1up in an effective manner afterwards? no-one. It did not happen and there was never a chance of it happening.

I do agree that HR and ND are very similar though. Just with different strengths and weaknesses. In the end both perform on the same level.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

The reason I, and many others, think ND could have ended #1, and HR couldn't, is that politically they stood no chance.

Had LCH (+ friends) beaten 1up, they would have won the round. Had 1up (and friends) beaten LCH, there would be no way HR could have won. However, ND could have slipped past 1up, with alliances around us targetting 1up instead of ND.

It's the 2nd round in a row where ND and HR have performed to a similar standard, and I can see it being similar again next round.

tbh I think at no given point did ND have a chance to win this round, no offense really.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Zo0f

No offence, but ND stood about as much chance of winning this round as jerome` stood of getting laid this x-mas (please say he didnt, hes only 12 fs).

better chance than you atleast(which materialized though not on the day :|), you crossdresser:/ (<3 )


ND & HR only had glimpses of a chance to end #1 at certain points during the round, MISTU had a pretty strong look at it but then got smacked down ofc, throughout the round, quite honestly I can't see anyone claiming that anyone other than 1up or LCH were the main contendors for actually winning.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

tbh I think at no given point did ND have a chance to win this round, no offense really.

None taken really, cause it's just your opinion.

[mazzelaar]

Originally Posted by Remy

In other words, you have no clue.

We played for 1st, but since ND did every effort to get 1up to nr1 as good lapdogs, we had to focus on ND too to prevent mass incs from 1up AND ND (and some others...). Focusing on 2 alliances who even defend higher etas of each other (mostly nd defending 1up of course, since sid was smarter then ND and didnt def you guys a lot while you deffed 1up......), is a bit much to handle, so we dropped to nr2.

Main problem was that targetting 1up and ND got us too few roids. Add being targetted by 1up/nd constantly. Call it an error, I call it a brave attempt by our members. You win some you lose some.

My analysys of ND: well played, but next time stand on yer own feet.

If I thought this post was even vaguely serious I'd post a reply. But I assume, from the ear bleeding innacuracy that you have to be joking?

[Kjeldoran]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

None taken really, cause it's just your opinion.

unlike your posts, mine wasn't meant to even be insulting. At no point did I see ND win this round, as I did at no point see mistu or Angels or HR win this round.

btw I just realize I wasted my 2000th post on you (it's a sad sad day )

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Kjeldoran

unlike your posts, mine wasn't meant to even be insulting. At no point did I see ND win this round, as I did at no point see mistu or Angels or HR win this round.

btw I just realize I wasted my 2000th post on you (it's a sad sad day )

Good job on finding an insult when it wasn't there. Seriously, whether you think ND could have won, or whether I thought we could have, its all irrelevent, as at the end of the day, we didn't, so it's pointless.

PS: I know you love me really.

[alch]

Originally Posted by DA_Fish

PS: I know you love me really.

Damn, i knew it!!!

[Fyodor]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

The reason I, and many others, think ND could have ended #1, and HR couldn't, is that politically they stood no chance.

Had LCH (+ friends) beaten 1up, they would have won the round. Had 1up (and friends) beaten LCH, there would be no way HR could have won. However, ND could have slipped past 1up, with alliances around us targetting 1up instead of ND.

It's the 2nd round in a row where ND and HR have performed to a similar standard, and I can see it being similar again next round.

From the things I heard from various chats, it seems like the moment It became known that ND was....working together on a semi regular basis with 1up, the became the prime targets for attack. The consensus that I heard was that people would rather of had 1up win it all, then have ND ride the coat tails of 1up and have 1up be ND's kingmakers. Whether these people were right in their analysis or not, from that moment on ND became the targets as many other alliances did not want to see them win.

[The_Fish]

Originally Posted by Fyodor

From the things I heard from various chats, it seems like the moment It became known that ND was....working together on a semi regular basis with 1up, the became the prime targets for attack. The consensus that I heard was that people would rather of had 1up win it all, then have ND ride the coat tails of 1up and have 1up be ND's kingmakers. Whether these people were right in their analysis or not, from that moment on ND became the targets as many other alliances did not want to see them win.

Spot on analysis. I personally thought more people would want ND to win, more on the fact that 1up had won R11, and a lot of people hold grudges.

[Nitros]

i think most people want an allaince to win which actually deserves it
ND came this far by teaming with 1up, alone they wouldnt have come this far (imo)

same counts for 1up though..

[cypher]

talking about deserving a 'win'.... lch comes WAY at the bottom of the list tho with the way you guys play...

you got some nice guys but heh as an alliance... you try and take the easy way out a bit too often

[Nitros]

have i mentioned anything about LCH rocking the world etc?

no? -ok thx bye