Flagshipping

[jerome]

hey it's like we've done almost a full circle of alliances almost and returned to the stage where bg's hold extreme weight in top alliances, alliance hc lie to their fellow hc & basically work for their own planet win above all else and officers in alliances thinking they are worth more than anyone else in alliance by issueing threats to people saying "if i had suicided on you, i'd have fleetcaught you using my alliance round the clock"

of course none of these things ever really went away but 1up/exilition SORT OF, ALMOST made it seem like it wasn't as prevalent.

but here we are.. once again, i'd like to credit ascendancy by our complete ignorance of alliance ranks since r16 and consistent members in high ranks since must surely have provided inspiration for this

[lokken]

Originally Posted by jerome

hey it's like we've done almost a full circle of alliances almost and returned to the stage where bg's hold extreme weight in top alliances, alliance hc lie to their fellow hc & basically work for their own planet win above all else and officers in alliances thinking they are worth more than anyone else in alliance by issueing threats to people saying "if i had suicided on you, i'd have fleetcaught you using my alliance round the clock"

of course none of these things ever really went away but 1up/exilition SORT OF, ALMOST made it seem like it wasn't as prevalent.

but here we are.. once again, i'd like to credit ascendancy by our complete ignorance of alliance ranks since r16 and consistent members in high ranks since must surely have provided inspiration for this

I'd tend to agree. There seems to be very little of a 'team' ethic this round in alliances. Their agenda seems to be to focus on protecting a few planets and helping them get rocks rather than attack each other in any kind of focussed fashion. They don't seem to be deploying any tactics of any shape or form other than protect their flagship planets, which suggests the standard is dropping.

I am in a very small galaxy with no presence of any of the top alliances. Today we have had planets with 7 or 8 waves, which I'll be honest - was going to be happen some day. The main three protagonists are Destiny, Conspiracy, ND after extended enquiries with Munin (they are arranged is some semblance of waves, so I presume it was an organised affair with us being horrendously triple booked)

ND to be fair to them have nothing to play for in terms of winning this round, so I consider it a fair hit because I think we (and myself in particular) were a good target. Destiny and Conspiracy hitting the same galaxy/planets is however hugely ironic considering they are meant to be trying to beat each other. I'm struggling to see how alliances who are supposedly meant to be of round winning calibre expect to do well and win rounds by attacking a galaxy like us now, when they could let us get fat and roid us after they've won. My guess is that there are personal agendas at work, because someone wants their planet to win planetarion.

I don't see how any of the top alliances can say they deserve to win this round of planetarion. I'm glad I'm out of alliance warfare this round, if people are taking personal offence to their planet being roided then it's not something really worth being a part of.

[Bane]

I've only just returned to playing pa after a sojourn of about 3 years or something but I find the strategy element of wars pretty much absent.

Let me tell you a little bit about what I am, I'm playing xan and was top 50 this morning but then my gal was hit by CT and ToF (so bad luck to us). Usually I would receive enough defence to take one alliance maybe two back in the old days but I wasnt able to cover even one because I was told most people are out roiding and looking for xp. Usually I would conclude this is simply a bad alliance but tbh I've seen the records of covering incomings and it's still good. The problem is that it's simply not worthwhile to cover everyone.

With xp playing the main part, etd being designed to gain roids easily but lose aswell just as quick and it's simply very easy to pick up roids but not hold them by anyone it's become easier just to attack each night, suicide most of your fleet and pick up xp, doesnt matter how big your fleet is because for the most part you cant target well enough the type of ships you get incoming.

So it's just a case of a roid race, keeping them is really difficult unless you have everyone in your bg/ally doing their best to play like in the old day style. But why even bother when you can just get massive xp very easily? I think is the case with the etd mainly because their bs fleets are not only mega tough but not many ships target bs and do it well. I point out the etd because this may not have been a massiv problem last round because there was no etd.

Hope what I said wasnt crap, please enlighten me otherwise.

btw im top 30 for value and even after 7 waves at me I'll still be top 100 for score and top 50 for value, stupid no?
Also point is that covering isnt difficult for the HC/Officers to do on themselves if they really cared to do it but on an alliance scale it's crap since there is a large number who build to whore.

[Rinoa]

Did u just make up the word flagshipping up jerome?

[jerome]

http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Flagship planetarionised

also Bane: whilst i don't disagree with some of your points i think you misunderstand what i'm talking about in the original post. it's about alliance's power over their own members(or hc/officers in cases)

[Rinoa]

jerome i know what Flagship means of course u sure u can add the 'ing' to it?


Also that was a bizarre reference link. That explanation included a reference to Ace combat 5 ffs

[Gio2k]

Originally Posted by lokken

I'd tend to agree. There seems to be very little of a 'team' ethic this round in alliances. Their agenda seems to be to focus on protecting a few planets and helping them get rocks rather than attack each other in any kind of focussed fashion. They don't seem to be deploying any tactics of any shape or form other than protect their flagship planets, which suggests the standard is dropping.

I am in a very small galaxy with no presence of any of the top alliances. Today we have had planets with 7 or 8 waves, which I'll be honest - was going to be happen some day. The main three protagonists are Destiny, Conspiracy, ND after extended enquiries with Munin (they are arranged is some semblance of waves, so I presume it was an organised affair with us being horrendously triple booked)

ND to be fair to them have nothing to play for in terms of winning this round, so I consider it a fair hit because I think we (and myself in particular) were a good target. Destiny and Conspiracy hitting the same galaxy/planets is however hugely ironic considering they are meant to be trying to beat each other. I'm struggling to see how alliances who are supposedly meant to be of round winning calibre expect to do well and win rounds by attacking a galaxy like us now, when they could let us get fat and roid us after they've won. My guess is that there are personal agendas at work, because someone wants their planet to win planetarion.

I don't see how any of the top alliances can say they deserve to win this round of planetarion. I'm glad I'm out of alliance warfare this round, if people are taking personal offence to their planet being roided then it's not something really worth being a part of.

Sid said it once, and it's oh so true. War doesn't pay off in this game.
CT won't do warfare because they are #2 and convinced they can outscore / outroid vgn, which i am sure they can.
Destiny has been fighting either CT or VGN for a long time, and now that they dropped to #3, feel like they need a break to recharge energies.
VGN, well, no idea what they could be thinking.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by jerome

hey it's like we've done almost a full circle of alliances almost and returned to the stage where bg's hold extreme weight in top alliances, alliance hc lie to their fellow hc & basically work for their own planet win above all else and officers in alliances thinking they are worth more than anyone else in alliance by issueing threats to people saying "if i had suicided on you, i'd have fleetcaught you using my alliance round the clock"

of course none of these things ever really went away but 1up/exilition SORT OF, ALMOST made it seem like it wasn't as prevalent.

CT use the exact same system as 1up did, and being in both, I can assure you coverage is done in the same way.

[Gio2k]

I can't speak for Destiny in general, but i am in no way a flag-ship, and i get my fair share of defence, even at nights with huge incomings.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Rinoa

jerome i know what Flagship means of course u sure u can add the 'ing' to it?


Also that was a bizarre reference link. That explanation included a reference to Ace combat 5 ffs

sure i can, i can do anything i want. roiding isn't a word and neither is fleetcatching etc

forest: that quote is a near-accurate one through memory of one CT MO threatening some omen player for if he got DEFENCE against her. everyone else laughed, but it shown some characteristics of later-era 1upers as well as everything i said in the original post

[Rinoa]

Wait a CT MO who is female. Doesnt really leave much to the imagination as to who that is...

[Gio2k]

Sounds like crusie to me.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by jerome

forest: that quote is a near-accurate one through memory of one CT MO threatening some omen player for if he got DEFENCE against her. everyone else laughed, but it shown some characteristics of later-era 1upers as well as everything i said in the original post

And Caj said the same thing to me. But it didnt happen.

People alays say things trying to get something, but just because they said it, doesnt mean they do it.

[jerome]

yeah you do it all the time too but that doesn't really count because it's you. caj has already been mentioned in this thread, and the person i was talking about in ct meant it fully seriously and has thrown a hissyfit over the whole situation but you still seem to be missing the point

which is: what happened to controlling your alliance? if your hc believes he should be able to roid targets with an enemy planet so that both his alliance and his enemy's alliance can't defend, it's not the best of insights into that alliance. similarly if an alliance's 'chief of staff' believes they'd have the right to get a whole alliance's firepower just to destroy a planet who didn't bow to their command.. well i'll be just be damned impressed at the righteousness of it all

[voodoo]

that moment in #excessum with the CT officer/HC/whatever was indeed comedy gold. but she said she had just woken up and was grumpy, so thats why she reacted like she did.
but yes, jer is right. and people have been saying this for years: PA is going down the drain. and even if exi or 1up were to come back? why should they? so they can fight a handfull of half-assed alliances which they wuld probably own within the first two weeks of the game?

[Rinoa]

I wouldnt say that High ranking staff/bg's etc threatening people is anything new. Its been a feature of game as long as i can remember and wouldnt say its any worse than it ever was.

But in regards to high ranking staff wanting to have the flagship planets etc well yes i think that has changed a bit. It used to be that Hc /dc planets were on the whole never the alliances biggest planets but there has been a definite shift when the player numbers decreased to a system where it seems that the whole alliance is providing support for the command and dc/bc/mo planets etc.

But then if they are the ones who are prepared to put in all the hard work and time why shouldnt they get to be the biggest and throw their weight around?

You can always go and start a new alliance afterall

[Forest]

If any alliance I was in did that, I would simply leave.

[Mighteh]

Originally Posted by Forest

If any alliance I was in did that, I would simply leave.

bwahahah


bwahahaha


seriously !? bwahaha


anywho, to the topic:


That "flagshipping" you talk about is shit tbfh. And prioritization of defence should strictly be via def/attack points.

Alliance has to take care of their most usefull PA members. If that is HC, then HC can def leech. If its some low-end peon barely holding up in top 500, but who also managed to get alot of those points, he can def leech.

Its pretty much solely up to DCs of the alliance to appropriate defence tho.

Some alliance HCs DC for themselves... whats wrong with that ? just dont squish your alliance's forces to cover yourself with ships you can cover 3 people. its for bad morale really... Any normal player realizes that when its not a DC who is calling for chips, most likely they are calling for themselves. or their alliance galmates.

Point of the matter i guess:
A) Alliance HCs are shit if they take all the alliance def and cover themselves (i seen it happen ;/ grossly overdefended plannets ftw) as it slowly but surely kills your alliance from inside out, and if you dont care, you are a shit HC and should be shot in the foot.
B) HCs calling their own def every now and then (and as for that, members calling their own def) is ok. incoming hostile fleet is an incoming hostile fleet. it needs to be dealt with properly. just like any other. goal: cover just enough to make them not land, not send enough to kill 7 times the value of the planet)
C) flagshipping is quite an interesting term. Very precise. Imho, allianec has to get as many people into high ranks as possible to attract new blood. If you have #1 planet, you pretty much can take on as many decent shipjumpers (or mercs) as you would require to win.

[Mighteh]

double post

[Forest]

Originally Posted by Mighteh

bwahahah


bwahahaha


seriously !? bwahaha

Would you care to elaborate?

[Stoom]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Sid said it once, and it's oh so true. War doesn't pay off in this game.
CT won't do warfare because they are #2 and convinced they can outscore / outroid vgn, which i am sure they can.
Destiny has been fighting either CT or VGN for a long time, and now that they dropped to #3, feel like they need a break to recharge energies.
VGN, well, no idea what they could be thinking.

If this is true Destiny HC should be shot. As a matter of fact, all HC's should be shot

Originally Posted by Forest

If any alliance I was in did that, I would simply leave.

I think it was Bluey

[Forest]

It used to be that Hc /dc planets were on the whole never the alliances biggest planets but there has been a definite shift when the player numbers decreased to a system where it seems that the whole alliance is providing support for the command and dc/bc/mo planets etc.

But then if they are the ones who are prepared to put in all the hard work and time why shouldnt they get to be the biggest and throw their weight around?


Stoom I was referring to the post above saying that HC and MO's take all the def for themsleves etc.
Hope that clears it up.

[MAsta_MArk]

I'd tend to agree. There seems to be very little of a 'team' ethic this round in alliances. Their agenda seems to be to focus on protecting a few planets and helping them get rocks rather than attack each other in any kind of focussed fashion. They don't seem to be deploying any tactics of any shape or form other than protect their flagship planets, which suggests the standard is dropping.

From my own experience in my own alliance there is very much a team spirit, the majority of the alliance play for the alliance and themselves aswell. They play to do well for themselves but also make sacrifices to help the alliance.

I think Flagshiping is bad, putting other planets over others in defence, just on the fact they are bigger than other members in the alliance is just bad for the morale of the whole alliance. It's like saying "your a better player so were going to help you more."
Surely a new player deserves more help and defence to try to keep them in the game than a old player does.

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by Rinoa

jerome i know what Flagship means of course u sure u can add the 'ing' to it?

he didn't add "ing" he added "ping".

Originally Posted by Mighteh

That "flagshipping" you talk about is shit tbfh. And prioritization of defence should strictly be via def/attack points.

I'd actually like to hear how def for top planets in alliances such as eXi and 1up was done.
I've only DCed for SiN and while I was there, we only had toot in the t10 and he got very few incomings due to his very defensive fleet. I always gave his calls priority anyway as he's topped the defpoints every round so I have never had a problem with prioritising defense when it came to top planets.
I did, at times, prioritise def for planets with more roids even if they had a few less defpoints - eg. person A has 200 roids and 26 defpoints, person B has 800 roids and 24 defpoints. In this case I'd prioritise person B as it would be a larger gain for the alliance.

I would be interested in seeing how this worked in alliances such as 1up and eXi.



Oh and I know that Ascendancy don't do def, don't remind me.

[Forest]

Originally Posted by _Kila_

I'd actually like to hear how def for top planets in alliances such as eXi and 1up was done.

Each def point was logged.
There are 3 priorities, for example...

3 points = low priority
7 points = normal
10 points = high

When you ahve incoming the tools look up your def points and tell the MO on duty what the priority is. High priority got covered first, then normal, then low. If you have les than 3 points, you just dont get covered. We would cover no defence priorities if there was nothing else incoming adn we had ships.
I do remember sid one day refusing to allow def to someone, when we had loads of ships, to point out a message to the rest of the alliance. It worked

def points needed to move up priority moved up at roughly 6 per week i think.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Sid said it once, and it's oh so true. War doesn't pay off in this game.
CT won't do warfare because they are #2 and convinced they can outscore / outroid vgn, which i am sure they can.
Destiny has been fighting either CT or VGN for a long time, and now that they dropped to #3, feel like they need a break to recharge energies.
VGN, well, no idea what they could be thinking.

Exilition will disagree and their track record is pretty good dude

You see, what you are saying is the same strategy that ND pursued for round upon round and they got criticised for it. The difference is that here there's no 1up or exilition in the game to be miles ahead and thus even warrant such a strategy. When you have alliances that are obviously better man on man (and that has included Angels and FO at times) breathing down your neck, you have reason to be cynical. When you have alliances like CT/Destiny/VGN, the round is reasonably open and there is little need to be.

[_Kila_]

Originally Posted by Forest

Each def point was logged.
There are 3 priorities, for example...

3 points = low priority
7 points = normal
10 points = high

When you ahve incoming the tools look up your def points and tell the MO on duty what the priority is. High priority got covered first, then normal, then low. If you have les than 3 points, you just dont get covered. We would cover no defence priorities if there was nothing else incoming adn we had ships.
I do remember sid one day refusing to allow def to someone, when we had loads of ships, to point out a message to the rest of the alliance. It worked

def points needed to move up priority moved up at roughly 6 per week i think.

I was more interested in seeing how priority for top planets with many roids was sorted.
Were top ranked planets (such as Elviz in rounds 14 and 17) given more def than lower ranked ones regardless of defpoints?

[JonnyBGood]

elviz r17 was rather unique due to the insane stockpile which meant he could always self-cover. Also I'll have you know I've sent twelve def-fleets this round. The point this round is that you can finish very highly without putting in an extraordinarily high level of effort. Without a 1up or exi war machine out there a lot of people doubt their own ability to hold an alliance through a proper war. Sid was wrong when he said wars never pay off (if he did in fact say that, I can't remember), it's just that wars are rarely fought well enough to pay off.

[Bane]

Do people just 3 fleet all the time because I found if you move fleets nightly then you can attack with two and always def with one, meaning over my two alliances this round I've got a def count near to how many days we've been playing this round. If people did this then the attack/def point system wouldnt be needed tbh.

I'm in the top range of launches so maybe I'm too active for my own good lol . Also with having say 60 members in an alliance you shouldnt be too hard pressed to get defence going for pretty much everyone.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Bane

Do people just 3 fleet all the time because I found if you move fleets nightly then you can attack with two and always def with one, meaning over my two alliances this round I've got a def count near to how many days we've been playing this round. If people did this then the attack/def point system wouldnt be needed tbh.

I'm in the top range of launches so maybe I'm too active for my own good lol . Also with having say 60 members in an alliance you shouldnt be too hard pressed to get defence going for pretty much everyone.

This is incorrect really. Especially an alliance facing the prospect of a war versus another alliance if they all follow your maxim there'll be 60 def fleets trying to cover 120 attack fleets. Bear in mind predominately you need more than one def fleet to cover an attack. You also have fakes on high priority def planets to suck in defence, launc/recalling seconds before the tick. If you have proper scheduling and very active members there's no limit to the number of people you can **** up in a good night.

[Lord^]

I've honestly thought for quite sometime that there needed to be a resurrection of Deus Ex Machina in this game. For in that round playing, I personally had the most fun in planetarion. For that round, I felt that the game mechanics, the players, and creators were all on the same page and the few and brave HCs of that alliance allowed the game to experience its full potential.

I feel the best way to get over the officer/command staff drought we have is to cut off the ratio of members to command, therefore denying them their security blanket of members giving them endless supply of defence.

Make alliances much smaller. Even out the talent into more groups, so that the stagnation and eventual crowning of the winner be less obvious.

I don't see with the way the planetarion is right now to even have the need for defence. Skip defence and go and get better and more efficient targets to even out the losses that you would incure.

I'm writing this from my pda, but I usually like reading Jerome's post because he usually has a lot of helpful insight into the game. And the reason for that reference because that was the best example of selflessness and complete and utter support for the alliance, the game, the individuals all at the same time.

[Bane]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

This is incorrect really. Especially an alliance facing the prospect of a war versus another alliance if they all follow your maxim there'll be 60 def fleets trying to cover 120 attack fleets. Bear in mind predominately you need more than one def fleet to cover an attack. You also have fakes on high priority def planets to suck in defence, launc/recalling seconds before the tick. If you have proper scheduling and very active members there's no limit to the number of people you can **** up in a good night.

Oh you misunderstand me, the 1 def fleet is basically a minimum and used for early round when all you're really doing is attacking galaxies for roids. Of course later on when you face the prospect of war your attacks will be far more precise and you then use the extra fleets for def. The minimum 1 fleet for def will ensure that your def points aren't so measily as well.

I'm thinking now to attack with one fleet then def with two even though we're fence sitting. If the attack goes bad and I have to recall that seems like a night wasted unlike if I were to have two fleets attacking so more chance of making a good landing.

[Bane]

Originally Posted by Lord^

I don't see with the way the planetarion is right now to even have the need for defence. Skip defence and go and get better and more efficient targets to even out the losses that you would incure.

That's what I was trying to moan about earlier in this post lol

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Bane

Oh you misunderstand me, the 1 def fleet is basically a minimum and used for early round when all you're really doing is attacking galaxies for roids. Of course later on when you face the prospect of war your attacks will be far more precise and you then use the extra fleets for def. The minimum 1 fleet for def will ensure that your def points aren't so measily as well.

I'm thinking now to attack with one fleet then def with two even though we're fence sitting. If the attack goes bad and I have to recall that seems like a night wasted unlike if I were to have two fleets attacking so more chance of making a good landing.

You're wrong, most people attack with two fleets and def with one. Even if the proportion switched so about half the alliance attacked with one fleet and deffed with two you'd still be below the point allowing

Also with having say 60 members in an alliance you shouldnt be too hard pressed to get defence going for pretty much everyone.

to be true because usually it takes more than one def fleet to cover one attack fleet. This is why you always had winning "war" alliances putting so much emphasis on value ahead of xp and roids.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by _Kila_

Oh and I know that Ascendancy don't do def, don't remind me.

yes we do, and a good bit of it.

[Bane]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

You're wrong, most people attack with two fleets and def with one. Even if the proportion switched so about half the alliance attacked with one fleet and deffed with two you'd still be below the point allowing

Okay, was just a thought, prolly will still attack with two and def with one since I'm a valuer. So usually when I def a target I def alone.

[Gio2k]

Originally Posted by lokken

Exilition will disagree and their track record is pretty good dude

You see, what you are saying is the same strategy that ND pursued for round upon round and they got criticised for it. The difference is that here there's no 1up or exilition in the game to be miles ahead and thus even warrant such a strategy. When you have alliances that are obviously better man on man (and that has included Angels and FO at times) breathing down your neck, you have reason to be cynical. When you have alliances like CT/Destiny/VGN, the round is reasonably open and there is little need to be.

eXiltion was a warmachine it's true, but their best weapon was politics. Still, i rank them as the best roiders, the best warmachine, and the best HC / officer team.

But lets analyse this properly. There are three alliances very close in score.
A is #1, B is #2 and C is #3.
Alliance C is at #3, and has been in 2 out of 2 wars this round. What reason could they possibly have to go to war with either A or B?
Alliance A is ahead with alliance B closing behind. Which one is more likely to go to war? It depends on how confident each alliance is that they can outscore the other.

I see this round as perhaps one of the few rounds lately, where the #1 spot is still open. And having 3 alliances fighting for it so close in score is simply amazing.

[qebab]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

I see this round as perhaps one of the few rounds lately, where the #1 spot is still open. And having 3 alliances fighting for it so close in score is simply amazing.

If they were actually waging war instead of continuously chickening out it might have been. Instead they are doing galaxyraids.

[Gio2k]

Destiny have been in war with Destiny and Vgn already.
Just wait, war will break out eventually.

[Allfather]

Why should they?
People play the game for their own amusement, not to satisfy other people.
If they prefer attacking as a gal, let them.

If people have something against how people play the game, then find something else to do.

[NitinA]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

Sid said it once, and it's oh so true. War doesn't pay off in this game.

War does pay off in this game, if done right. From my expierence, extended-wars done correctly *do* pay off with a win. You may end up fighting 6 alliances up until the very end like eXilition r13, but in the end if done correctly it can pay off with a win.

Originally Posted by Gio2k

I see this round as perhaps one of the few rounds lately, where the #1 spot is still open. And having 3 alliances fighting for it so close in score is simply amazing.

I don't think a lack of competition is a good thing. With two of the top three alliances doing gal raids last night, I don't think any of them are prepared to actually fight a war for more than a day or two--none the less an extended war. It's kind of pathetic really. I had Destiny HC tell me the other day that Sid was right and since 1up and eXilition are gone, the winner will win because there's no decent alliance left, not because they're half-competent. I'm inclined to agree.

The current top 3 are playing reactive politics, not proactive politics. None of them deserve to win, imho! Even VgN whose currently #1, is playing reactive politics and prefering to just hope the status quo will stick, rather than being proactive to secure their continuation at the #1 rank. In a post from bwtmc at the end of last round, he outlined three things, that had been disucssed among exi hc several times. It seems to me, nobody has grasped these ideas yet. I would add a fourth one about solid internal structure, since that was taken for granted in eXilition, compared to the alliances around today.

Originally Posted by bwtmc

Winning alliances do some key things differently to losing alliances:

Intelligence
They change their environment if they don't like it
They plan to win

[Lord^]

These alliances are allowing others to dictate the round for them. And honestly, I have no clue who right now is dictating.

There is no top tier alliances left in the game, who are actively playing.

If someone loses roids in one night of the war, you can be assured tomorrow the war is cancelled and a truce is put in place.

If this is how mid tier alliances run Planetarion than we can stop with the naming competition and even stop calling this a war game. But silly skirmishes.

Planetarion Round 2X: Keeping the Status Quo!

I pray for a better day in PA

[Gio2k]

You can't plan everything. When 1up and eX played, everybody knew the winner was going to be either 1up or eX. You never had 3 alliances competing for #1. This is a different scenario, and the politics are not the same.

[Gio2k]

Originally Posted by Lord^

These alliances are allowing others to dictate the round for them. And honestly, I have no clue who right now is dictating.

There is no top tier alliances left in the game, who are actively playing.

If someone loses roids in one night of the war, you can be assured tomorrow the war is cancelled and a truce is put in place.

If this is how mid tier alliances run Planetarion than we can stop with the naming competition and even stop calling this a war game. But silly skirmishes.

Planetarion Round 2X: Keeping the Status Quo!

I pray for a better day in PA

Give us a longer round, and you will see longer wars.

[MAsta_MArk]

There is still (about) 4 weeks left in the round, the top3 alliances are still relativily close. There is still time for a "proper" war between them, atm they are trying to outgrow each other, which is the reason VGN were recently hit. The high roid count had started to give them a value bonus and Des+CT HC relised that later on this would mean there downfall, so they acted and reduced the lead dramatically.

There is no top tier alliances left in the game, who are actively playing

That tier(1up, eXi) has left the game, so now VGN, dest and CT are the top tier, maybe they arnt better than 1up or eXi but they are still better than the rest, making them this rounds top tier alliances.

[Lord^]

Give us a weaker Exiliton and you'll see a new number 1. Wrong. That wasn't the case in Round 19. Lets not make excuses that have no weight. Give us someone who wants, needs, and desires #1 spot. And you'll see a long extended three and four weeks worth of war.

Right now these aren't wars or battles but skirmishes that are slapped with a war label because it sounds better.

[MAsta_MArk]

Well what are wars except lots of skirmishes culminating in a final battle? often several battles maybe?

[lokken]

Originally Posted by Gio2k

eXiltion was a warmachine it's true, but their best weapon was politics. Still, i rank them as the best roiders, the best warmachine, and the best HC / officer team.

But lets analyse this properly. There are three alliances very close in score.
A is #1, B is #2 and C is #3.
Alliance C is at #3, and has been in 2 out of 2 wars this round. What reason could they possibly have to go to war with either A or B?
Alliance A is ahead with alliance B closing behind. Which one is more likely to go to war? It depends on how confident each alliance is that they can outscore the other.

I see this round as perhaps one of the few rounds lately, where the #1 spot is still open. And having 3 alliances fighting for it so close in score is simply amazing.

My point is that there is no one to be afraid of. So what if you lose some roids at this stage? It's not as if it's hard to cap roids is it. I've lost near 80% of my rocks today but i've got a good fleet and I was unlucky not to land today because I had to go out when scans were hard to find so recalled all my fleets regardless but my round is far from over.

These aren't exilition or 1up and you can cut them open if you're half decent. I mean we're talking about an alliance which gained some decent members from angels but hasn't got a great track record, an alliance full of capable but rampantly selfish players and an alliance that is solid but phenomenally uninspiring yet everyone is soiling their pants at each other for some reason. It's not as if anyone is looking at exilition where the stakes of you maybe being hit and backstabbed by someone else means that you are to all intents and purposes, dead in the water because exilition can more than roid you, they can kill you.

I mean I look at the top 3 alliances and don't want any of them to win really, they don't deserve it and although they have got some good players, being a good player doesn't stop some of them from being amongst the absolute dregs of planetarion who care more for using their alliances for personal glory and protecting their own over-inflated egos than actually competing for an alliance victory. I mean right now you're making ND's negative politics look positively adventurous and unlike ND you've got no reason to be negative because (and i'm sorry to be blunt here) when we compare the opposition to 1up or exilition, its crap. This top 3 are alliances that if you genuinely want to you can get after and cause them a lot of troubles.

Lord^ is right on many levels, except on the bringing Deus back bit, as much as I appreciate the flattery, after you've done it once you can't really do it again.

[Lord^]

Frankly for some of the said alliances, if I was a member and played today, and I saw that Vengeance was sitting pretty nicely at #1. I would reacess my faith in my HC, because obviously they have none in me whatsoever.

They had a good pre-round recruitment drive, this is very true. But give them a good but steady breeze of incomming that is higher than your normal coincidence of attacking their members in a gal raid. And you definitely see a stack of cards falling...no crumbling down.

Is it the fact that there are some gosu members amongst their ranks that you guys aren't attacking? I have to see some logical reasoning for their position right now.

For flagshipping to exist currently in this game stands to a few basic facts.

1. The command can no longer control the alliance.
2. Individuals direct the politics of the overall group.
3. The solid infrastructure for alliances are no longer needed.
4. And finally alliances are no longer a place for like minded individuals to reach #1, but a place for those who understand how to manipulate and control get their agenda pushed through.

Now I need to take a forum break, because I see the retort has resulted in showing that War is merely an escalation of a Skirmish but instead of a gradual change that pits two different ideologies and strats against one another.

[MAsta_MArk]

I agree that none of the currant alliances are worthy of winning the round at this point but there is still time.
anyway this thread has gone off topic

flagshipping ftl!