RaH????

[Scouse]

Originally posted by K-W
Erm scouse, Read the thread, I never said otherwise. I never adressed or argued this point. Any other points that ive never argued that you guys want me to "get now"?

I don't know why you've taken such an interest in this point, it was made to Kjeldoran, not to you. Perhaps we're just misunderstanding each other.

Originally posted by K-W
Did your fleetcatches significantly hurt Fury, NO, they didnt.

Did your roiding our planets sidnifcantly hurt Titans, NO, they didnt.



I'm not just being argumentative here either. Like I said, losing a few roids over the last few weeks probably cost us a few ranks here and there, hardly much.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by K-W
You can fight a war using fleet catches. Did your fleetcatches significantly hurt Fury, NO, they didnt. Doing several fleetcatches is not a war campaign parracida. Fleetcatches are often used in wars, I dont think any war that was based soley on fleetcatches would go well. Until rd 10 starts PA is about roids.

Thank you. I'm sure you were trying to tell me a war was based solely on roids earlier.

Titans werent the winning allaince catching a few fleets for fun, so Im not sure why you compare yourselves to allainces who did that.

I was making the point that there was more to war then just roid capping. I never stated that it was 'just' about catching. You seemed to ignore fleetcatches at all as a part of war, I was making a point, you have conceded to it.

That wasnt what you did, you werent rd 8 titans or rd 9.5 xan or rd 10 ecl.

What?

I never said it was your problem we didnt get retals. Why do you and scouse keep saying that.

We tell you: 'every Titan member was part of the war xept for psi'
You tell us: 'No, because I wasn't allowed to hit certain Titan members by virus/legion'
We tell you: Well thats your problem and has nothing to do with our point.

Thats why we keep saying it, your arguement that 'proves' not every Titan took part in the war is not valid at all.

Actually I said both those things. But I guess reading is not very trendy these days. You do rely on rd 8 for your legacy. Titans without round 8 is a significantly less impressive legacy.

Already edited before you posted your reply
I forgot to type one word, my posts are riddled with spelling mistakes atm, I'm quite tired, please forgive me

[K-W]

Originally posted by Scouse
I don't know why you've taken such an interest in this point, it was made to Kjeldoran, not to you. Perhaps we're just misunderstanding each other.

Because you quoted me, made that point and then said "get it now?" I assumed you were adressing me.

Originally posted by Scouse

Did your roiding our planets sidnifcantly hurt Titans, NO, they didnt.

We came after your roids, we took them. I call that a military victory for us. I dont know that there is much to say after that.

Originally posted by Scouse

I'm not just being argumentative here either. Like I said, losing a few roids over the last few weeks probably cost us a few ranks here and there, hardly much.

Theres little damage anyone can do in the last few weeks, thats the circumstances of the war.

We went after your roids, we faced little resistance. Now if you chose to just give up your roids, (as I said before) then I should put alot less weight on that when gauging your military strength, fine. But Fury walked on you, you let us walk on you, but we were able to quickly succeed in our objectives.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by K-W
We came after your roids, we took them. I call that a military victory for us. I dont know that there is much to say after that.

We came after your ships, we killed them. I call that a military victory for us. I dont know that there is much to say after that.

[K-W]

Originally posted by ParraCida
We tell you: 'every Titan member was part of the war xept for psi'
You tell us: 'No, because I wasn't allowed to hit certain Titan members by virus/legion'
We tell you: Well thats your problem and has nothing to do with our point.
Thats why we keep saying it, your arguement that 'proves' not every Titan took part in the war is not valid at all.

Erm, i never claimed anything about titan participation in the war. I dunno if this point is aimed at KJ and I just walked into the crossfire, but be clear that I never claimed anything about titan participation in the war. So please dont respond to my words with arguments on that point. My only point was that due to political red tape Fury couldnt really get to the planets in allied galaxies. Thats all.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by K-W
But Fury walked on you, you let us walk on you, but we were able to quickly succeed in our objectives.

Originally posted by Scouse
That was exactly our plan. You got what you wanted. We got what we wanted. Super.

Originally posted by K-W
You can fight a war using fleet catches. Did your fleetcatches significantly hurt Fury, NO, they didnt

Originally posted by Scouse
Did your roiding our planets sidnifcantly hurt Titans, NO, they didnt.

So the Titans-Fury war in round 7 was really a tie?

Neither alliance got significantly hurt and both achieved their military objectives. Interesting.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Scouse
We came after your ships, we killed them. I call that a military victory for us. I dont know that there is much to say after that.

And I say that if your objective is to kill some ships in a largely superficial campaign to hurt some high profile players in the rankings without doing much damage to the allainces as a whole, then youve lost. YOu decided you couldnt make an attempt to beat Fury, so you chose a campaign of revenge and annoyence. Thats fine and good, but dont tell me that just because you didnt put up a fight to actually try and defeat us, that means that you succeeded.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Scouse
We came after your ships, we killed them. I call that a military victory for us. I dont know that there is much to say after that.

You're actually using the same type of argument here that you're accusing madcows of in the "virus" thread. Military victories in the end are decided by the total number of ships scorewise that can be committed to a battle at any given moment. Much as in round eight the fact that the round ended prevented your fleets being destroyed/vastly outgrown.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by K-W
And I say that if your objective is to kill some ships in a largely superficial campaign to hurt some high profile players in the rankings without doing much damage to the allainces as a whole, then youve lost. YOu decided you couldnt make an attempt to beat Fury, so you chose a campaign of revenge and annoyence. Thats fine and good, but dont tell me that just because you didnt put up a fight to actually try and defeat us, that means that you succeeded.

Aha, but would you actually have tried to win the war you would have stopped our annoyance to a few high profile players.

But apparantly, you were not at power to do so.

[K-W]

Originally posted by ParraCida
So the Titans-Fury war in round 7 was really a tie?

Neither alliance got significantly hurt and both achieved their military objectives. Interesting.

Thats the case scouse is making I suppose, but by that logic, ldk could claim that they tied too because they also did fleetcatches and such. Titans made thier objective killing some ships because they saw the futility of aiming at defeating fury or winning the round, I dont see that as a victory. A morale victory maybe. A small victory in a lost war maybe. But to give up on winning the war and aiming instead at an easier to accomplish objective, and then when accomplishing that to claim success. Something about that seems a bit off.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
You're actually using the same type of argument here that you're accusing madcows of in the "virus" thread. Military victories in the end are decided by the total number of ships scorewise that can be committed to a battle at any given moment. Much as in round eight the fact that the round ended prevented your fleets being destroyed/vastly outgrown.

Incorrect, first of all the Virus/Madcow thing about using an excuse is because they wanted something but settled for something else afterwards as an excuse. In this case the 'something' we wanted was clearly described from the start off. Had fury 'won' the war they would have been able to stop us from fulfilling our attempt.

Second, total number of ships scorewise that can be commited to battle at any given moment is not exactly a good description. So an an alliance with 1000 n00b members but with more total score than a top alliance with 100 members is stronger? What about if Alliance A has 50 mil score more than alliance B, but Alliance B is primarly composed of aussies/kiwis. Does that make Alliance A the winner during day and Alliance B winner during night?

Theres no way to 'define' the strength of an alliance, there is only performance.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by K-W
Thats the case scouse is making I suppose, but by that logic, ldk could claim that they tied too because they also did fleetcatches and such. Titans made thier objective killing some ships because they saw the futility of aiming at defeating fury or winning the round, I dont see that as a victory. A morale victory maybe. A small victory in a lost war maybe. But to give up on winning the war and aiming instead at an easier to accomplish objective, and then when accomplishing that to claim success. Something about that seems a bit off.

If it was such a futility why couldn't you stop us from doing it? Surely that would have been 'the' sign of winning the war?

And no, that wasn't the point scouse was making, that was just something interesting I picked up from both your posts.
Also, Fury had 3 times the members that Titans did, so comparativly we had an equal amount of top players in each alliance, had you 'won' you'd actually had removed all our top players. Perhaps you should've tried fleetcatching them

[Scouse]

Originally posted by K-W
And I say that if your objective is to kill some ships in a largely superficial campaign to hurt some high profile players in the rankings without doing much damage to the allainces as a whole, then youve lost. YOu decided you couldnt make an attempt to beat Fury, so you chose a campaign of revenge and annoyence. Thats fine and good, but dont tell me that just because you didnt put up a fight to actually try and defeat us, that means that you succeeded.

I've already said, we both set out to achieve different things, and we both succeeded. Fury 'won' simply because the common aim of wars in PA is to take roids, no matter what stage of the round. We took a different approach, that could have resulted in Fury losing more score than Titans, but we'll never know that.

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
You're actually using the same type of argument here that you're accusing madcows of in the "virus" thread. Military victories in the end are decided by the total number of ships scorewise that can be committed to a battle at any given moment. Much as in round eight the fact that the round ended prevented your fleets being destroyed/vastly outgrown.

I don't follow.

My problem with MadCows in that thread is that as soon as someone mentions failure, they automatically try and pass it off by saying 'Out community was good' or 'We aimed to have fun'. None of them are accepting that, by general PA standards, they failed to be a major alliance and do well, which they clearly aimed to do as they entered block politics. If they only cared about having fun and their community then why block together to try and win a round?

And how is that similar to what I'm saying here?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Incorrect, first of all the Virus/Madcow thing about using an excuse is because they wanted something but settled for something else afterwards as an excuse. In this case the 'something' we wanted was clearly described from the start off. Had fury 'won' the war they would have been able to stop us from fulfilling our attempt.

To be honest I doubt your aim at the start of the round was fleet-catch fury's fleets in the final couple of weeks but fair enough I wasn't privy to the internal workings and machinations of the Titans high command. New circumstances arise and as I said the war wasn't completely finished. However if it had lasted another 3, 4, 5 weeks it would have been.

Second, total number of ships scorewise that can be commited to battle at any given moment is not exactly a good description. So an an alliance with 1000 n00b members but with more total score than a top alliance with 100 members is stronger? What about if Alliance A has 50 mil score more than alliance B, but Alliance B is primarly composed of aussies/kiwis. Does that make Alliance A the winner during day and Alliance B winner during night?

Theres no way to 'define' the strength of an alliance, there is only performance.

That's why I said at any given moment. Having 450 idiots who are online twice a month won't do any alliance much good. Equally having top planets unable to attack due to protection being lifted means their fleets are useless as a means of winning a war. It probably would for the first few days but then the more powerful alliance would inflict more damage each night and the smaller alliance correspondingly less.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Equally having top planets unable to attack due to protection being lifted means their fleets are useless as a means of winning a war. It probably would for the first few days but then the more powerful alliance would inflict more damage each night and the smaller alliance correspondingly less.

Which wasn't the case with Titans. So I don't follow (again).


'But, if ....' argument are crap.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Scouse
I've already said, we both set out to achieve different things, and we both succeeded. Fury 'won' simply because the common aim of wars in PA is to take roids, no matter what stage of the round. We took a different approach, that could have resulted in Fury losing more score than Titans, but we'll never know that.

I doubt fury was losing more score than titans if they had all your roids. You both succeeded in your short-term goals but which alliance succeeded in the goal they set themselves at the start of the round (this is also why I'm comparing your statement to the one you made concerning madcows).

I don't follow.

My problem with MadCows in that thread is that as soon as someone mentions failure, they automatically try and pass it off by saying 'Out community was good' or 'We aimed to have fun'. None of them are accepting that, by general PA standards, they failed to be a major alliance and do well, which they clearly aimed to do as they entered block politics. If they only cared about having fun and their community then why block together to try and win a round?

And how is that similar to what I'm saying here?

^^^^



I feel like I'm getting a bit confused about the topic of this thread as it is now though. What's the actual argument being contended?

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
To be honest I doubt your aim at the start of the round was fleet-catch fury's fleets in the final couple of weeks but fair enough I wasn't privy to the internal workings and machinations of the Titans high command. New circumstances arise and as I said the war wasn't completely finished. However if it had lasted another 3, 4, 5 weeks it would have been.

That's kind of a thick arguement. We made a certain decision right after the option of choice had arisen. For Madcows/Virus that was the start of the round, for us it was fury's declaration of hostile intent. I'm sure you can see that.

We made our decision in regards with the amount of time left in the round, if it had lasted longer we would have made a different decision, so saying 'if' the round would have lasted longer it would have been different is quite useless.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by ParraCida
That's kind of a thick arguement. We made a certain decision right after the option of choice had arisen. For Madcows/Virus that was the start of the round, for us it was fury's declaration of hostile intent. I'm sure you can see that.

We made our decision in regards with the amount of time left in the round, if it had lasted longer we would have made a different decision, so saying 'if' the round would have lasted longer it would have been different is quite useless.

Well to be honest in that case a war (in the normal sense) was not fought. It was a timed contest, more aptly compared to a boxing match. Again what's everyone's actual argument in this thread?

[Scouse]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I doubt fury was losing more score than titans if they had all your roids.

Sandsnakes fleet loss alone probably amounted to lots and lots of roid income over a couple of weeks. That's without the other fleet catches and the valy battles.

which alliance succeeded in the goal they set themselves at the start of the round

Both of us. Our aim was to kill the hostile block. We both succeeded in that.

What's the actual argument being contended?

I began posting to argue Kjeldoran's absurb point that FAnG were better than Titans. I'm currently still posting (not arguing really, as we're agreeing to disagree), in response to Germania, over the outcome of the round 7 war.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally posted by Scouse
Sandsnakes fleet loss alone probably amounted to lots and lots of roid income over a couple of weeks. That's without the other fleet catches and the valy battles.

I can't even begin to answer this in a vaguely factual fashion without detailed information as to what titans roid losses were, the precise value of fury et al ships lost and so on. I'm sure you're better informed however and trust that you know which side was gaining more for their losses.

Both of us. Our aim was to kill the hostile block. We both succeeded in that.

Ideas of winning the round didn't enter your minds at all?

I began posting to argue Kjeldoran's absurb point that FAnG were better than Titans. I'm currently still posting (not arguing really, as we're agreeing to disagree), in response to Germania, over the outcome of the round 7 war.

Ok. I somehow got the impression that you were claiming titans were beating fury in the final war. My bad.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
Ideas of winning the round didn't enter your minds at all?

Actually no, Round 7 was supposed to be about revenge.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by JonnyBGood
I can't even begin to answer this in a vaguely factual fashion without detailed information as to what titans roid losses were, the precise value of fury et al ships lost and so on. I'm sure you're better informed however and trust that you know which side was gaining more for their losses.

Nah, I don't claim to know everything. I'm not denying that Fury won, in the PA-roid-grabbing sense, but Titans achieved their aim as well. I don't know the total roid loss and fleet loss for both sides, it's just an interesting discussion.

Ideas of winning the round didn't enter your minds at all?

Having played the round 6 that I played all I wanted to do was to beat WENX. We were aiming to win as a block. If we hadn't of gone to war with Fury I still would have been happy to call Fury the winners of the round, even though they had our help (and other allies) doing so. Titans never aimed to soley win the round, with the 60 odd members that we began round 7 with, we knew our chances of being declared as 'winners' would be tough.

[Razorback]

Para please dont try to hold us all for fools, you like anyone else knows fairly well in r7 we had only clusters and a 1 million eta 6h fighterdrop was more or less undefendable unless the galaxy was pretty big. So please dont sell a weakness or impossibility in game mechanics as a victory for titans.

Facts are, you lost score and roids during the war, much more than fury. while you inflicted damage to single players.

None of our top10 players got bashed by your fleetcatches, so infact you avoided the high profiles pretty much and focussed even on smaller galaxys and ppl not that strong themself.

On the contrary side is simply the fact all your pure titans lost their roids during the war, if they chickend them away like you did to fred, or if they lost them to fury is basically irrelevant.
The mainpoint is you were at no given point in time able to fight and win a proper war.
You may claim you had other goals but even that looks shady and clearly more like an excuse to the inability to win yourself.
No Titansmember in the top 20 and only 1 in the top30 (and this one beeing in vacation mode).
In the final conclusion when it comes down to win or lose, you simply lost, atleast the stats tell us this. Quiet simply from the fact that fury did at no point of time consider you annoying enough to fleetcatch one of your planets so you cant really compare apples and bananas here.
I did more then once admit you played a well structured battle and sold yourself as exspensive as you could but in the end it was a loss. Dont try to turn this into a tie or a moral victory or anything because no logical facts support this at all.

[genosse27]

rah is a very nice place to stay, the only think i dont like is that they allways act as fury's/eclipse's puppies. I would love to see them once fighting against them!

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Razorback
Para please dont try to hold us all for fools, you like anyone else knows fairly well in r7 we had only clusters and a 1 million eta 6h fighterdrop was more or less undefendable unless the galaxy was pretty big. So please dont sell a weakness or impossibility in game mechanics as a victory for titans.

Interestingly enough we sent most of our fleetcatches at ETA 7.
Second of all, we send fleetcatches into big galaxies so they could have gotten a load of ingal defense, but kileman was afraid to loose some score to save a fellow gal/alliance member.

Facts are, you lost score and roids during the war, much more than fury. while you inflicted damage to single players.

Facts are that you lost more score then us due to direct combat.
And since when is Fury not an alliance composed of single players?

None of our top10 players got bashed by your fleetcatches, so infact you avoided the high profiles pretty much and focussed even on smaller galaxys and ppl not that strong themself.

Wether we bash 10 top 250 or 1 top 10, its still a load of fleet.

Quiet simply from the fact that fury did at no point of time consider you annoying enough to fleetcatch one of your planets so you cant really compare apples and bananas here.

Really, I 'do' wonder then who all those planets were attacking me when I was returning from sentions planet. Personally I believe Fury was too lazy to do fleetcatches, the fact that you couldn't defend against ours shows that whereas Titans scrambled Fury continued to do the launch and get up 8 hours later thing we all had gotten used too during the aftermath of the block war. Fury made their name by allying others in huge blocks and then dropping them and winning war on roids. You were fighting for roids this time as well, people don't go on fleetcatches for roids, hence your members / command weren't interested in fleetcatching. It was not exactly a part of fury ethos. And for once I'm not trying to belittle fury, but it simply is the truth. Fury's way of playing was fighting for roids, defending and using political play, fleetcatching was not a part of that.

[Razorback]

This might be partly right, even if it changes the outcome not at all. You lost more and more on growth and with 25% salvage many tight fought battles did not as much damage as you wished to inflict. No you dont need to be a genius to calculate how long you could have kept up this campaign your planets roided dry, outnumbered and your topplanets slowly dropping out of the toprankings.
You dont have to be a fortune teller to see where this leaded to.
From an alliance viewpoint infact every alliance consists of singleplayers but the outcome of 2 ppl of 200 losing their fleets means indeed very little to the fighting spirit or abilities to fight on for the alliance itself.

Another point you forget to mention is clearly the eonium. With 500 roids you cant support a 20 million score fleet for long so sooner or later your campaign would have run dry because the real attacks were defended.

Ironically your claim to kill off certain planets would be correct if it would benefit your own ranking, and this is a chainpoint which makes any of your arguments null and void. Even if you killed XY's ships he was most likely just replaced by another fury in ranking. And the top100 support this view especially if you follow the track of the fury and the titans planets in there you can already read a trend.

P.S. Sention was Rah.
P.P.S. We could have lost a hell of alot more score, simply from the facts we had a bigger starting score and a bigger growthrate so discussing this is simply moot if the costs made the difference.

[K-W]

I was with you up till now parra, but now you are just being silly. Your fleetcatches were nothing more than a little high profile annoyance revenge. Claiming that you did more damage to Fury than we did to Titans is silly.

Is titans really down to the IPC argument now? "We werent trying to win so we are the real winners."

Your analysis of Fury is downright silly parra. We didnt do fleetcatches because fleet catches are stupid. No allaince thats vying for a top spot or trying to win a close war fleetcatches. Its not a good tactic. Fleetcatches are for allainces that have ships to spare because they are either winning, already defeated and no longer targetted, or have given up doing any real damage or fighting any real battle. Roids are what makes winners in planetarion. Well, in pre rd10 planetarion. But I suppose it makes you feel better to portray Fury as a bunch of morons who just got lucky in being good for all those rounds.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by Razorback
Facts are, you lost score and roids during the war, much more than fury. while you inflicted damage to single players.

I'd argue that. We lost more roids, yeah, but I'd say Fury lost more fleet score.

you avoided the high profiles pretty much and focussed even on smaller galaxys and ppl not that strong themself.

We hit top galaxies, Sandsnake was in Kileman's galaxy.

On the contrary side is simply the fact all your pure titans lost their roids during the war, if they chickend them away like you did to fred, or if they lost them to fury is basically irrelevant.

Wrong. Mano, koff, Parra, Preach, etc were all decent targets with a fair few roids. So not 'all' by a long shot.

[b]The mainpoint is you were at no given point in time able to fight and win a proper war. [/b/

It wasn't an ordinary war, time was limited, and you still think roids meant more than fleet score?

You may claim you had other goals but even that looks shady and clearly more like an excuse to the inability to win yourself.
No Titansmember in the top 20 and only 1 in the top30 (and this one beeing in vacation mode).
In the final conclusion when it comes down to win or lose, you simply lost, atleast the stats tell us this. Quiet simply from the fact that fury did at no point of time consider you annoying enough to fleetcatch one of your planets so you cant really compare apples and bananas here.
I did more then once admit you played a well structured battle and sold yourself as exspensive as you could but in the end it was a loss. Dont try to turn this into a tie or a moral victory or anything because no logical facts support this at all.

We've been over our reasons for this already in this thread, and I've already said Fury won (in everyone's perception of winning).

But let's pretend Fury had lost more fleet score than Titans did, including the extra resources they got from the roids they took from us, would Fury still have won that war, simply because they took our roids?

[Razorback]

i guess you missed my other reply and i think yes for many reasons. Para gave his roids away, dont forget this please

Originally posted by Scouse

...
I've already said Fury won (in everyone's perception of winning).
...

Than we are all fine i guess and i think we can close this discussion. Please try to get para to admit it aswell so we can in future abstain from r7 flashbacks and "wasnt it a tie or a moral victory" argumentations.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by Razorback
This might be partly right, even if it changes the outcome not at all. You lost more and more on growth and with 25% salvage many tight fought battles did not as much damage as you wished to inflict. No you dont need to be a genius to calculate how long you could have kept up this campaign your planets roided dry, outnumbered and your topplanets slowly dropping out of the toprankings.

Have you read the last 2 pages? The fact that it was the end of the round was a major part in our decision. Any arguement that says 'well if it had lasted longer' is invalid because it didn't, and we counted on it.

You dont have to be a fortune teller to see where this leaded to.
From an alliance viewpoint infact every alliance consists of singleplayers but the outcome of 2 ppl of 200 losing their fleets means indeed very little to the fighting spirit or abilities to fight on for the alliance itself.

I'm quite sure it was a bit more then 2 people, also, it doesn't matter where it would have lead too, it didn't lead to anything, the round ends when the round ends, hell, FLTV would have won Round 6 if it were allowed to continue, but it didnt, and we didn't win it.

Another point you forget to mention is clearly the eonium. With 500 roids you cant support a 20 million score fleet for long so sooner or later your campaign would have run dry because the real attacks were defended.

We had enough stockpiled to last us as long as the round lasted, again this was something we calculated. Personally I initted some eonium roids because I had a big fleet and was very active. However, overall we had no real problems with our eonium supply. This btw falls under the arguement 'if it had continued'.

Ironically your claim to kill off certain planets would be correct if it would benefit your own ranking, and this is a chainpoint which makes any of your arguments null and void. Even if you killed XY's ships he was most likely just replaced by another fury in ranking. And the top100 support this view especially if you follow the track of the fury and the titans planets in there you can already read a trend.

So you only kill enemies so your ranking will be higher? Personally I kill enemies because they are my enemies and must not be allowed to fight me, but that's just me.

P.S. Sention was Rah.

That doesn't mean fury didn't try to catch me.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by Razorback
No you dont need to be a genius to calculate how long you could have kept up this campaign your planets roided dry, outnumbered and your topplanets slowly dropping out of the toprankings....

Another point you forget to mention is clearly the eonium.

We knew how long the round had left, if there was 6 weeks left we wouldn't have taken the course of action that we did.

Originally posted by K-W
No allaince thats vying for a top spot or trying to win a close war fleetcatches. Its not a good tactic.

Wrong. After about half way through the round in any situation fleet catching is good. Winning, losing, whatever. You're at war. Killing enemies fleets is hardly pointless.

Originally posted by Razorback
Para gave his roids away, dont forget this please

If anything, this supports my point of view, rather than yours.

[ParraCida]

Originally posted by K-W
No allaince thats vying for a top spot or trying to win a close war fleetcatches. Its not a good tactic. Fleetcatches are for allainces that have ships to spare because they are either winning, already defeated and no longer targetted, or have given up doing any real damage or fighting any real battle. Roids are what makes winners in planetarion. Well, in pre rd10 planetarion. But I suppose it makes you feel better to portray Fury as a bunch of morons who just got lucky in being good for all those rounds.

Bull****, utter bull****. Killing a top player with a fleetcatch is VERY valuable in a close war, it gets rid of a large amount of fleet and strikes a huge moral blow. Titans/LDK used fleetcatches during mid war conditions in round 8 with great success and they have become common practice since round 7.

Secondly, I never said 'we were trying to win hence we were the real winners', I didnt even mean to imply it. Fury 'won' Round 7, fury 'won' the war as defined in PA measures, I already said we had no way of 'winning' many times and in other threads as well.
Fact of the matter is that we 100% sure did more damage in direct combat to Fury than Fury did to Titans. Wether this evened out in the overall war effort I couldnt say. If you are going to be 100% fair and take all the roids fury took from Titans, see what score they gave and then lay it next to the dead fleets from catches / defenses I dont' know who'd win. But since Fury did a hell of a lot more then 'just' hit Titans during that period and our growth was stumped the end difference and the overall power balance shifted in fury's favour.

[K-W]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Bull****, utter bull****. Killing a top player with a fleetcatch is VERY valuable in a close war, it gets rid of a large amount of fleet and strikes a huge moral blow. Titans/LDK used fleetcatches during mid war conditions in round 8 with great success and they have become common practice since round 7.

lol, well id never let you within two feet of an alliances military with silly ideas like this. Fleetcatches have always been common practice in the situations I listed. There were never and arent now common practice as a tactic to win a war. Too bad you werent facing a well organized resistance in round 8 or stupid military strategies like that might have cost you the round. Thats the kind of silly resource use that hands other allainces the game.

Originally posted by ParraCida

Secondly, I never said 'we were trying to win hence we were the real winners', I didnt even mean to imply it. Fury 'won' Round 7, fury 'won' the war as defined in PA measures, I already said we had no way of 'winning' many times and in other threads as well.
Fact of the matter is that we 100% sure did more damage in direct combat to Fury than Fury did to Titans. Wether this evened out in the overall war effort I couldnt say. If you are going to be 100% fair and take all the roids fury took from Titans, see what score they gave and then lay it next to the dead fleets from catches / defenses I dont' know who'd win. But since Fury did a hell of a lot more then 'just' hit Titans during that period and our growth was stumped the end difference and the overall power balance shifted in fury's favour.

I dont care who killed the most points really. Thats not how wars are decided. You phrase it well at the end of your post.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by K-W
lol, well id never let you within two feet of an alliances military with silly ideas like this. Fleetcatches have always been common practice in the situations I listed. There were never and arent now common practice as a tactic to win a war. Too bad you werent facing a well organized resistance in round 8 or stupid military strategies like that might have cost you the round. Thats the kind of silly resource use that hands other allainces the game.

Hahaha. There are so many funny things about this paragraph.

I dont care who killed the most points really. Thats not how wars are decided.

But this bit takes the biscuit.

[SpazMonster]

How is that last statment wrong? In the end its not about how much damage you do (score), but about how much faster you grow (roids). Killing ships means nothing if you can't take roids.

[Scouse]

Originally posted by SpazMonster
How is that last statment wrong? In the end its not about how much damage you do (score), but about how much faster you grow (roids). Killing ships means nothing if you can't take roids.

Like I said it wasn't an ordinary war. In a 2 week period, if Titans had killed more score than Fury did, including the extra score they gained through our roids then I'd say we did better than they did. I'm not saying that was the case because I don't have the facts, but it's an interesting question.

[SpazMonster]

ya.. but you could also argue percentages. since fury had more score, maybe it balanced out, or even, maybe they took a higher percentage of score off titans than titans did from fury.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Scouse
Hahaha. There are so many funny things about this paragraph.

But this bit takes the biscuit.

Once again the question arises in my head. Did he not include an argument because he doesnt have one?

Wars arent decided by who kills the most score, they are decided by who is on top at the end. I'm sure the two things are strongly correllated, but they arent one in the same. Also Spazmonster makes a very good point.

As far as the funny things in my paragraph, oh do enlighten us, I'm always up for a good laugh. Fleetcatches are not a good wartime tactic. They simply aren't. Judging from the fact that they are very rarely used during a close war most of the military people throughout PA history know that, parracida apparently does not. Every alliance has a certain amount of ships, ships sent on one type of mission are ships that cant be sent on another. Looking from a cost benefit aspect, the cost of sending overwhelming kill fleets at a planet just to kill off one planets fleet is not a terribly good idea. The ships could be more efficiently spent in other ways. Thus the only times we see alot of fleetcatching is when an allaince has an advantage already, and thus can spare the ships. In which case I agree they are a good tool for morale breaking. Or when an allaince has lost or given up and thus chooses to risk it all on a high profile strike at the enemies morale or just does it for the boost to thier allainces morale in a high profile hit.

If we are in an even war and you invest your ships in a fleetcatch on one of my players. I am going to finish that day better than you are, for I will have roided you where you could have defended and not lost roids where you could have roided.

This is just general tactics though, at the end of the round roids are indeed less valuable.

[Cicada]

fleet catching not a valid military tactic?

since when?

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally posted by Razorback
Your logic is flawed because you use statistics which dont resolve arround the real universe at all.
By your logic if we had lets say a virus with 300 members in the top 100 and a ToT with 60 members aswell Virus would need 5 members per ToT member in the top 100 to be called equal, so if infact ToT had 10 members in there Virus would need 50 additionals to be considered equal ? That is far off, First of all you must note down that top100 rank is not top100 rank, simply from the long roundtime and from the exponential growth a top2 planet had simply 3-4 times the firepower of a top90 planet. Furthermore you cant compare raw numbers as not every planet was active, so infact Virus might have had 300 planets on paper, all active ? hardly. whilst titans might have maintained a highly active 60 ppl core.
Furthermore and in this im refering to scouse who brought this point up first, you must estimate how active a planet is in the war. A planet marked in the top100 as Virus or any other alliance (im taking Virus/ToT as examples to avoid any more legion/fury arguments) would still have to FIGHT for Virus, and not just sit the round out to be worth the name. So infact a notification of 7 top100 planets means nothing if those 7 arent dedicated to their alliance (r7 was private galaxys so many loyalties were indeed towards gal prior to alliance). Take Valvy for example who went on day 2 she left for titans into vacation mode and came never back, still managed a top21 ranking.
Furthermore it would be hard to proof how much damage was done, simply from the fact that different tactics can not be evalued while final ranking can be. As much as i congratulate Scouse to his successfull and partly annoying guerillia campaign, Titans did neither purely hit Fury (they might have hit planets in fury gals thats correct) neither did it pay off for them remarkably. They can claim well played which would every enemy support, but incase of "winning" you must bring up the real ratios of the round end.

In my opinion (again in support of scouses previous post) its pretty hard to decide who of the "underdogs" did better. Whilst Fang claims their strategy held off Virus AND Legion, Titans claim they did damage to the other side. So its pretty hard to decide which one did better in his selfclaimed task as they are totally different and even after 3 additional rounds the personal views are still hardened.

My point was only that you can't present raw data as a final anaylsis. Your point is that my grossly oversimplified stats analysis is flawed. Hell I know this, but it's still better than the raw data approach. Yes in theory what it actually needs is an awful lot of tidying up, but as a rule of thumb for general comparisons the one I gave you isn't bad, it's just as you point out it's far from perfect. Tho that only really serves to compound the point I was trying to make anyway.


Scouse, yeah I was being a little optimistic (or erring on the side of caution, which ever way you like to look at it )


And to the fury boys who can't seem to think there way out of a wet paper bag (try farting on it, it'll probably be enough force to rip it), in an end game, how much score are you prepared to lose to gain roids, if time is very limited until the final count up and rankings to determine who won?

Answer: not a lot, and why? because even if you aquire a vast ammount of roids, you have to get them very cheapy for them to have time to pay back the score you lost in robbing them. That's why you'll see people doing calcs which say "no more than 4k a roid or it's not worth it now", and then "no more than 2.5k now, barely any time left". It was under these conditions Titans decided to say, Sodf roids, they'll matter sod all for rankings when they call time, lets see how many Fury planets we can knock down the ratings before the round ends.

It's really simple logic, which I might add was brilliantly executed. Titans barely lost any score, because for the large part they kept their fleets intact, whilst Fury, although gaining a pile of roids, were dropping in rank.

it was something I'd say very few other alliances could do either, because no-one could match Titans percentage of fully active players in their alliance. I think we would manage about 70% activity for all but 2 out of 24 hours, and even then it only dropped to about 50%. I've never seen anything like it in my PA career before or since. Titans quite literally was a machine. (Had I seen the inside of LDK - read actual liths- and been able to understand a word they said, I would probably have to consent to their superiority in this department, but no matter I haven't )

[Kjeldoran]

Originally posted by Scouse

We hit top galaxies, Sandsnake was in Kileman's galaxy.

let's not forget who actually helped a fair part in catching sandsnake's fleet shall we?

rgds Kj

[Kileman]

Originally posted by ParraCida
Interestingly enough we sent most of our fleetcatches at ETA 7.
Second of all, we send fleetcatches into big galaxies so they could have gotten a load of ingal defense, but kileman was afraid to loose some score to save a fellow gal/alliance member.

[/b]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but when you sent 600+ million score to Sandsnakes planet fleet catching him, both mine AND Degrees fleet was eta 5 return from Valy. I could have sent in time to get there for his 2nd tick, but by that time his fleet was destroyed, there wouldnt have been enough defence, and I had my own incomings to worry about. I did however send in gal when I could, and we did force a recall on a number of planets due to in gal defence. I was never afraid to lose score to save my galaxy friends, but I do know that sending ships to die for no due reason, isnt smart planet management, so dont insinuate that I am greedy in this respect, as I *always* sent my defence fleet out EVERY DAY, regardless of the impending threat, with the only time me not doing this was within the final week or so, when every cnut in the universe was trying to fleet catch me. I did however send out if I was online to recall before ticking to eta 6 away from home.


And while we did lose a large amount of fleet that night. We did also liberate 17000 roids (yes count them, 17000) from Titans top galaxy, taking down your ONLY top 10 planet and knocking out of the top 10 your ONLY top 10 galaxy, while I would have liked to have seen my galaxy finish #1, it was still (nearly) a hit that was 'worth it'.
________
Gsx1100S

[Scouse]

Originally posted by Kjeldoran
let's not forget who actually helped a fair part in catching sandsnake's fleet shall we?

rgds Kj

I don't recall FAnG sending much, if any.

Originally posted by Kileman
And while we did lose a large amount of fleet that night. We did also liberate 17000 roids (yes count them, 17000) from Titans top galaxy

Have you not been reading the thread?

Originally posted by Kileman
and knocking out of the top 10 your ONLY top 10 galaxy

5 of the finishing top 10 galaxies were Titans galaxies, but I suppose you're going to waffle on about how if you don't control the galaxy it doesn't count, right Kile?

[ComradeRob]

Originally posted by Scouse
I'd argue that. We lost more roids, yeah, but I'd say Fury lost more fleet score.

I can see where you get that idea, but I think overall you are probably wrong. You're presenting a statistic, and statistics can be made to say just about anything.

As a final end result of all of the battles between Fury and Titans, Titans lost roids, and Fury lost score. From my memory of things, this is an accurate description.

What you're forgetting is that that roid advantage is generating score 24/7. An alliance with 4k roids on average (per member) will generate 2.4mil score per day, per member. An alliance with half as many roids on average gains 1.2mil score per day per member.

Let's assume two 100-member alliances - alliance A (Fury) has the higher roid-count. They make 240mil score per day (2.4mil x 100). Alliance B (Titans) makes 120mil per day. This is actually a fallacious example, because Fury had more members and so had a bigger income advantage, but we can ignore that.

To have gained more score than Fury over the course of the war as opposed to simply in battles, Titans would have had to kill off more than 120mil of Fury score every single day of the war, and I very very much doubt that this was ever even close to happening, even on Fury's worst days.

So, even with Titans fleet-catching, Fury would still have been gaining more score than Titans on a daily basis, which shows the 'Titans lost roids, Fury lost score' statement in a rather different light than it might initially appear.

[Parthos]

Originally posted by Scouse
5 of the finishing top 10 galaxies were Titans galaxies, but I suppose you're going to waffle on about how if you don't control the galaxy it doesn't count, right Kile?

By that reckoning, Rock's owned us all the past several rounds \o/ according to their posts on the subject of their members in top gals; I've never really paid attention to em myself.

Yes, we drove ourselves insane keeping our Titans members' roids in our gals where they belonged, against the likes of norty Kile busting in every night on authed retals . I give Titans credit (like I did unpopularly in the public channel a few days ago lol) for the extra effort they put in to defending members like my gal's Mesiaz. That was fun balancing getting bitched at if you tried to defend ingal, having ppl tell you you shouldn't even get defense for tits/fang galmates etc, and deciding the happy medium was not defending ingal but making damn sure their alliance covered em. That our Titans members finished in top 50 planets was due to tits defense of them, but they would never have gotten that defense if I hadn't been a bad bad Fury member and made sure you got their info.

While I respected my FaNG and Titans galmates' right to do good by their own alliances—and they did—we were always a Fury-controlled galaxy. And if I hadn't been a norty Fury member they would have been roided down like the rest of Titans.

[K-W]

Originally posted by Cicada
fleet catching not a valid military tactic?
since when?

ITs a valid military tactic, just not a very good one to choose when a war is neck and neck. ITs a very good tactic to use when you have an advantage and want to make a high profile morale hit. Especially if you can catch a HC or officer and hope they get frustrated and do their jobs more poorly. Its also a good tactic for what the Titans wanted, which is to do some high profile damage to Fury to show that they didnt just die and that they could hurt us.

Thats all well and good, but if you are trying to defeat an allaince in a close war that is going back and forth every night, investing ships in fleetcatches is a mistake.

Originally posted by MAdnRisKy
snip

Erm there are some fundementally large problems with your statements here. First off, there was enough time left in the round for roids to pay off. Secondly Fury members are well aware of roid value based on ticks left in the round. Your charecterization of us as stupid just proves that you are just a biased troll with no clue what is going on. Of all the things Fury has been called, stupid has to be the most baseless one I've ever seen.

Titans Decided to give up thier roids because they knew they had no chance of protecting them and indeed thier value was diminished.

Fury were dropping in rank? Hallucinate much m8. When did Fury ever drop in rank. Some individual Fury planets dropped in rank. Fury overall continued to gain in rank and strengthen their position as strongest allaince in the game.

And Titans certainly did drop in rank.

Were you even around for rd 7? You seem to have no clue what happened.

What titans did in rd 7 could have been done by a handful of allainecs. Such fleetcatches have been done by many allainces and others are certainly capable of it.

But your post shows pretty clearly that you think titans are the second coming, so I doubt there is much point trying to show you facts.

Originally posted by Scouse
5 of the finishing top 10 galaxies were Titans galaxies, but I suppose you're going to waffle on about how if you don't control the galaxy it doesn't count, right Kile?

Erm, waffling? Since when does having one or two members in a gal make it your gal. As parthos pointed out, Rock could claim numourous top gals. Which should clearly point out the rediculousness of your statement.

[MAdnRisKy]

Yeah germ I was around.

I'd try to show you the number of players who dropped ranks from Fury's point of view, but you seem to believe Fury are the second coming so I don't see much point :/

(for the record, no i don't see Fury as stupid, sorry if my explaination seemed a little patronising, it's just that no-one seemed to grasp the fundamentals from scouse and parra's earlier 20 odd posts :/)

The thing is, Titans were on the losing end. Less members thus less control of the total score base of flttttvvvfffllttvv etc. And then they had everyone and his dog want all their shiny rocks. They could have rolled over and died. They didn't, and their achievement in terms of damage and frankly annoyance on the part of their targets, was not bad. Not bad at all.

[furssie]

Originally posted by ComradeRob
Which shows the 'Titans lost roids, Fury lost score' statement in a rather different light than it might initially appear.

He said "fleet score", saying "score" alone will obvously get him wrong, especially if the arguement is the race for the end goal which is a race for score. Though I agree to your mathematical analogy.

[Knight Theamion]

Titans played on an average playerskill level maybe good, maybe even extraordinary, but in the end, they still lied belly-up, so stop bragging how good you were, indeed you put up a good fight, but you were just outgunned and outnumbered. This combined with Fury's usually sublime politics made you eventually lose.

Now **** off.

[Kjeldoran]

Originally posted by Scouse
I don't recall FAnG sending much, if any.

well, I'm sorry if your memory abandons you there, but we did send a fair share so claiming titans did it is only like 60% of the truth, you "forgot" to mention the other 40%.

Why else do you think I had several officers from fury asking me why we did it, cause weren't officialy in war with Fury.

And on that topic, eventhough we did not have a war with Fury, let me tell you that there was a fair load of retals both from our part as theirs.
Some of members didn't really like Fury for "dumping" us (lo Lockhead) and we actually also hit 23:23 and even Kileman (though not succesfully).

rgds Kj