|
|
13 Jun 2008, 11:27
|
#51
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: No new alliances?
I think ascendancy's problem is that a lot of our players still play with the idea that there are people called HCs out there who are defined by the fact that they're not them. So they're quite unwilling to make, what would be elsewhere, HC level decisions.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
13 Jun 2008, 11:39
|
#52
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Re: No new alliances?
I wasn't disputing that are alternatives to the current system - nor that they (sometimes) work.
But the results of a couple of rounds don't constitute evidence to refute our assertion that there aren't enough potential officers around to support many new alliances.
Asc's ingenuity in finding new ways to play has been demonstrated throughout many rounds - but, in my opinion, most PA players aren't capable of succeeding in that way.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
13 Jun 2008, 13:49
|
#53
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArcChas
Asc's ingenuity in finding new ways to play has been demonstrated throughout many rounds - but, in my opinion, most PA players aren't capable of succeeding in that way.
|
That is the path of fear, and fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the darkside, which in turn leads to pointless hierarchy.
|
|
|
13 Jun 2008, 14:35
|
#54
|
Pr0nstar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 495
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
That is the path of fear, and fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to the darkside, which in turn leads to pointless hierarchy.
|
One of the reasons I return to play every once in a while is due to an alliance like Ascendancy. Here people can more or less play as the feel, activity wise and planet wise.
There are no imposed rules on activity, amount of attack or defence fleets sent.
No desire from command for phone numbers to get hold of their players to send defence in the middle of the night.
Problem with all these hierarchily controlled alliances are in my humble opinion that it moves a game into a time consuming unpaid job.
Quite a few alliances have some set goals for what they want to achieve as an alliance and a lot of it doesn't fit that much with their members.
Ascendancy has the same proportion of shit players that other alliances have, the difference here is that everyone is treated equal(apart from alki, jer etc). Noone is judging you on what rank you can achieve in a mediocre to crap online game.
Problem with a lot of players are, that they are used to the imposed boundaries set by the HC/BC/DC players and are afraid to break free of these bonds. The game would be a lot more dynamical if the "peons" actually tried to risk playing the game instead of letting other people decide the flow of your fleets and ressources.
A lot of this is probably deranged blabber to most of you, but just my 2 cents worth on a bored afternoon at home.
__________________
PROUD Chief Pimp of the only pr0nstars
Ascendancy - While you were trying, we were sleeping
(@Karmulian) i deffo got roided looking at my planets
|
|
|
13 Jun 2008, 14:37
|
#55
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: No new alliances?
Sometimes I send myself private messages on irc just so I can feel like I'm in charge.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
13 Jun 2008, 16:50
|
#56
|
that one dude
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 200
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Desse
One of the reasons I return to play every once in a while is due to an alliance like Ascendancy. Here people can more or less play as the feel, activity wise and planet wise.
There are no imposed rules on activity, amount of attack or defence fleets sent.
No desire from command for phone numbers to get hold of their players to send defence in the middle of the night.
Problem with all these hierarchily controlled alliances are in my humble opinion that it moves a game into a time consuming unpaid job.
Quite a few alliances have some set goals for what they want to achieve as an alliance and a lot of it doesn't fit that much with their members.
Ascendancy has the same proportion of shit players that other alliances have, the difference here is that everyone is treated equal(apart from alki, jer etc). Noone is judging you on what rank you can achieve in a mediocre to crap online game.
Problem with a lot of players are, that they are used to the imposed boundaries set by the HC/BC/DC players and are afraid to break free of these bonds. The game would be a lot more dynamical if the "peons" actually tried to risk playing the game instead of letting other people decide the flow of your fleets and ressources.
A lot of this is probably deranged blabber to most of you, but just my 2 cents worth on a bored afternoon at home.
|
and what makes you think other alliances are different?
__________________
Gypsie - HC [GPY]
Coven - HC [CoV]
NoS - [NoS]
ROCK - DC [ROCK]
The Galactic Vikings - DC [TGV]
Vengeance - DC [VGN]
CareBears - DC [CB]
Rounds 9.5,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,26,27,28,38
|
|
|
13 Jun 2008, 18:30
|
#57
|
Pr0nstar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 495
|
Re: No new alliances?
Lets see.
Over my playing career, I have been in:
Wolfpack, Deus Ex Machina, Titans, Olympians, RaH(very shortly), Vision, 1up, Exilition and Ascendancy.
Apart from Ascendancy they have all worked under a hierarchical command structure.
So I do indeed have something to base this opinion on.
__________________
PROUD Chief Pimp of the only pr0nstars
Ascendancy - While you were trying, we were sleeping
(@Karmulian) i deffo got roided looking at my planets
|
|
|
13 Jun 2008, 23:30
|
#58
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by exblade
and what makes you think other alliances are different?
|
Can you name any other allies without a heirarchy?
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
14 Jun 2008, 00:37
|
#59
|
The Evil Hamster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Norrköping - Sweden
Posts: 41
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Kila_
Can you name any other allies without a heirarchy?
|
Penis-Allianz!
__________________
Ascendancy
"Dovie'andi se tovya sagain" - It's time to toss the dice.
#Spacehamsters
|
|
|
14 Jun 2008, 05:24
|
#60
|
that one dude
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 200
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Kila_
Can you name any other allies without a heirarchy?
|
many alliances have a heirarchy yes but its not as strict as one would think.
some alliance yes, its hardcore by the book
other alliances theres quite a bit of freedom
__________________
Gypsie - HC [GPY]
Coven - HC [CoV]
NoS - [NoS]
ROCK - DC [ROCK]
The Galactic Vikings - DC [TGV]
Vengeance - DC [VGN]
CareBears - DC [CB]
Rounds 9.5,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,19,26,27,28,38
|
|
|
14 Jun 2008, 10:23
|
#61
|
Bragpack™
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 815
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by exblade
many alliances have a heirarchy yes but its not as strict as one would think.
some alliance yes, its hardcore by the book
other alliances theres quite a bit of freedom
|
Where!
|
|
|
14 Jun 2008, 11:41
|
#62
|
Warden
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 137
|
Re: No new alliances?
Here!
|
|
|
14 Jun 2008, 12:50
|
#63
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 8
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by exblade
many alliances have a heirarchy yes but its not as strict as one would think.
some alliance yes, its hardcore by the book
other alliances theres quite a bit of freedom
|
On the other hand, a lot of this "freedom" is very often(not necessarily always) just a byproduct of commands inability to control their members. They would like everything to work through strict hierarchy but lack authority and means required to control all of their members.
In such a situation you can often do a lot of things that are against "the rules" because you know that you will get away with it. Either they never even notice it or then they are just going to complain to you about it. So your actions won't have any real consequences in any case.
It's kind of an "pseudo-freedom". There are rules and you should follow them but in practice they can be ignored(at least to some extent) as no-one is effectively enforcing all of the rules. You could say that it's just an failed attempt to adopt hierarchical command structure. Generally it leads to inefficiency and most likely it's just easier to say that "we have freedom...." than "we are failing on what we are trying to do".
__________________
[F-Crew] - Vengeance - eXilition - ROCK
|
|
|
16 Jun 2008, 13:02
|
#64
|
Drink is Good
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,122
|
Re: No new alliances?
also i want total freedom
__________________
Can we please have a moment of silence...........
|
|
|
16 Jun 2008, 17:43
|
#65
|
Poblacht na hÉireann
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,167
|
Re: No new alliances?
But what you are is total chaos.
|
|
|
16 Jun 2008, 19:59
|
#66
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
But what you are is total chaos.
|
You are ugly when you're jealous, you know that?
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
17 Jun 2008, 07:47
|
#67
|
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: ******
Posts: 2,326
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by exblade
many alliances have a heirarchy yes but its not as strict as one would think.
some alliance yes, its hardcore by the book
other alliances theres quite a bit of freedom
|
Then why have the hierarchy at all? Why does someone have to sit at the "top" and feel important? Do those alliances still have separate channels for HC and/or Officers? Do they have differentiated access to alliance resources?
I'm not saying they're bad, it's good to have less hierarchy! (IMHO, obviously.) I'm just saying that there's a difference between crap hierarchy and continually trying to improve the lack of hierarchy.
Miksu's points are also very salient. I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on them.
|
|
|
17 Jun 2008, 11:41
|
#68
|
Up The Hatters!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kenilworth Road
Posts: 3,012
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banned
Ascendancy's core of players wasn't "brilliant" in round 26.
|
But I played with you guys in round 26!
__________________
Planetarion veteran
|
|
|
17 Jun 2008, 11:52
|
#69
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Kila_
Can you name any other allies without a heirarchy?
|
That's a tough one. Back in when I came back to Planetarion for round 13, we didn't have such hierarcy in the ******** Omen side. The Hydra battlegroup was very loose internally too, but obviously, to an extent, dominated by being inside a hierarchical alliance. That be said, a lot of choices that were made by certain parties (again, with little hierarchy involved) inside the battlegroup clashed with the interests of the Wolfpack. By definition, though, it's probably impossible to find another group of players (better said, an entity) that have worked the way Ascendance has over rounds and rounds.
|
|
|
17 Jun 2008, 11:55
|
#70
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: No new alliances?
Oh my, did this free round I see people mention start already?
|
|
|
17 Jun 2008, 12:59
|
#71
|
add
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 178
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Oh my, did this free round I see people mention start already?
|
i hear no one really knows :/ only one guy signed up i hear it was u
__________________
r16 - solo
r17 - Heroic
r18/19Omen - r20 HC of Omen
r21 Wolfpack
r22 Jenova
r23 Destiny
Last edited by add100; 17 Jun 2008 at 15:36.
|
|
|
17 Jun 2008, 13:01
|
#72
|
Commodore
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,176
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
Oh my, did this free round I see people mention start already?
|
yeah mate, its about tick 250.
I'm a scanner! \o/
__________________
#Strategy ; #Support - Sovereign
--- --- ---
"The Cake is a Lie."
|
|
|
17 Jun 2008, 13:43
|
#73
|
Good Son
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Finland
Posts: 3,991
|
Re: No new alliances?
That made devastatingly little sense add.
|
|
|
17 Jun 2008, 14:02
|
#74
|
add
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 178
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tietäjä
That made devastatingly little sense add.
|
yes that's normal u should know that :/
__________________
r16 - solo
r17 - Heroic
r18/19Omen - r20 HC of Omen
r21 Wolfpack
r22 Jenova
r23 Destiny
|
|
|
8 Jul 2008, 06:24
|
#75
|
Laziness pays off NOW!
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Pensacola, FL, USA
Posts: 596
|
Re: No new alliances?
The average player in Planetarion is generally shit, because of how the word "average" is defined. Say for instance you wanted the 100 people in your alliance to be in the top 100--that would require removing the dumb fecks from the alliance completely. The only way to do that is to have the precious few at the top (who care enough to do so and know what they are doing) control the rest. Which basically means a structure in which those at the top control the rest.
I mean, sure, you can have 100 solo players end in the top 100--but generally the more players you have, the greater the odds that some of them will screw their planet up eventually. This is also the reasoning behind TA'd attacks. Fleet assignment is effective (leaving synergy of coordinated attacks out of the equation) because the people who assign are generally better players (hence BCs) and can usually find targets that yield more gain than what people would find themselves--this is true more blatantly so in smaller alliances since the higher results can be seen clearly in the numbers, but is just as true in the better alliances--the gain is still just as high based on %ages, but not nesseccarily 'seemingly' as large.
__________________
Proud to have been :
[ReBorn] High Council - Wing Leader
[Knights] High Council - Founder
[Silver] High Council - Military
[WolfPack] High Council - Military
[Ascendancy] Member
[eXilition] High Council - Defence
7-Round Official Planetarion #Support Team Member
Retired Since Round 21
|
|
|
8 Jul 2008, 06:29
|
#76
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 158
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Sometimes I send myself private messages on irc just so I can feel like I'm in charge.
|
hey, we can't all be winners, we need janitors too.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 19:47
|
#77
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 16
|
Re: No new alliances?
is it any wonder you dont see any new alliances this is what I got when I created one as a casual newb.
"pirate.planetarion.com/showthread.php?t=196702"
Remember at one point you must have all been a new to this you dont get experienced instantly.
Casual players do start alliances, whether thy are long lasting, succesful or deterministic is another matter
:-)
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 20:03
|
#78
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: No new alliances?
I don't think our definition of the word "alliance" extends to tags with less than 5 people.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 20:09
|
#79
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 16
|
Re: No new alliances?
lol!
point taken, however, it does seem that some people feel that people shouldnt even bother trying to create a new alliance because it wont work anyway.
What do you think?
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 20:14
|
#80
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: No new alliances?
I think that, while it's possible for a brand new alliance to succeed (after all, it worked in the days of early PA), it's highly unlikely. Further, you'll probably have a lot more fun in an established alliance, where you can also gain experience with for example BCing and DCing. And once you've spent a few rounds in an existing alliance, any attempts to start a new one will have much higher odds of succeeding.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 20:20
|
#81
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 16
|
Re: No new alliances?
well I cant account for all newbies but I am having a really good time hence why im playing so much.
my alliance is up to 93 in the rankings now which is good in my eyes. :-)
to be honest though my galaxy is good and has helped me with advice and support.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 20:25
|
#82
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: No new alliances?
Well, as some people tend to forget, this is a game, and if you're having fun you should definitely continue doing what you do.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 21:05
|
#83
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesr1ley
lol!
point taken, however, it does seem that some people feel that people shouldnt even bother trying to create a new alliance because it wont work anyway.
What do you think?
|
Ofc people should give it a try and more people should be willing to give it a try. But at the same time you have to be realistic and understand the social responsability you have. At the moment your alliance has 1 member, thats yourself so having a bit of fun is perfectly fine as your lack of experiance and knowledge can only have a negative effect on yourself but what happens when you recruit your first member. Its not now just about you and the more members you get the greater responability you have.
Now we arent playing Round 1 through 4 anymore. New players are a rarish commodity, and even rarer are the new players with the attitude that gives them a glimmer of hope of enjoying the game. What isnt that rare though are alliances like yours, some setup with good intentions, others to fulfil a desire for power but either way somewhat i'll conceived and badly planned. These 'black hole' alliances syphon off more and more players and the chances of ever seeing them again are a million to one which isnt good for the game.
Are you capable of putting together an alliance that isnt a black hole? Yes you probally could BUT the timing for you just isnt right as at this moment you have nothing in place and nothing going for you and without streatching your wings and learning the game things arent going to start going for you. You need to get the experiance, you need to get to know how things work, you need to get to know people and you need to get people with/gaining experiance willing to come on board with you.
If your just happy to have a bit of fun on your own then just keep doing what your doing BUT if you are serious about getting additional members you need to open your eyes to the full picture and embrace the responsability your going to be taking on due to the kind of member you will generally be restricted to
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 21:08
|
#84
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: No new alliances?
So creating a shit (lets assume) alliance is fine, because you're only affecting yourself. But when people join a shit alliance (as much a free choice a starting one) it's suddenly the fault of whoever started the alliance? That's retarded.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 21:38
|
#85
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
So creating a shit (lets assume) alliance is fine, because you're only affecting yourself. But when people join a shit alliance (as much a free choice a starting one) it's suddenly the fault of whoever started the alliance? That's retarded.
|
I did not say the players were faultless. If they join an alliance without any infrastructure they have clearly made a bad choice. But its a choice that really only effects them and no-one else.
When you create an alliance and you lack the experience, knowledge and tools and you surround yourself with either no support or support in the same boat as you simply don't posses any of the qualities needed to have a realistic chance of becoming a viable alliance. If you then plough ahead with the idea whether you know it or not your being socially negligible even more so if you suger coat the position your in to potential members by not being open and honest (which many of these alliances cant help as they are often very deluded to how easy running an alliance will be). And this is a big issue as its not just yourself you are resigned to having nothing but a negative effect on but every person you persuade to join
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 21:42
|
#86
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: No new alliances?
You're not answering my question, merely changing it.
So creating a shit (lets assume) alliance based on incorrect or incomplete information is fine, because you're only affecting yourself. But when people join a shit alliance (as much a free choice a starting one) based on incorrect or incomplete information it's suddenly the fault of whoever started the alliance? That's retarded.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 22:05
|
#87
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Re: No new alliances?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
You're not answering my question, merely changing it.
So creating a shit (lets assume) alliance based on incorrect or incomplete information is fine, because you're only affecting yourself. But when people join a shit alliance (as much a free choice a starting one) based on incorrect or incomplete information it's suddenly the fault of whoever started the alliance? That's retarded.
|
I did answer your question if you had actually bothered to read it. I said that while the player who joins has to take some responsibility for making the bad choice of joining, the people who setup the alliance are ultimately at fault.
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 22:15
|
#88
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 108
|
Re: No new alliances?
I'll change the answer for you to laymans terms, big boy; If you lie then you are responsible.
And the one who didnt see through the lie is just stupid or gullible.
__________________
[SPOOOON]
|
|
|
10 Jul 2008, 22:35
|
#89
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: No new alliances?
No one is lying.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
11 Jul 2008, 13:43
|
#90
|
Fightin-irish for life
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: guinness brewery
Posts: 2,177
|
Re: No new alliances?
having played in ascendancy last round it is easy to say if a little effort was put into covering inc then they would easily win every round as everynight someone would set up an attack so that was not an issue , but having said that the way they play is great as it leave's you the responsibilty to manage your own planet as you see fit
although winding JBG up that we crashed 5 mil value in the last week was a little evil
__________________
Ascendancy, now with added Irish
"In the absence of orders, find something and kill it."
-Rommel
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23.
| |