The Ironborn Backstab
In there first round of playing did the mighty Ironborn pull off one of the finest backstabs of recent PA era? A backstab that will lead them to glory? Or was it a short sighted move by a cripple? Only time will tell.
"Hi all Lots of rumours flying around so I thought you could hear it from me direct, at least then if you hate me, you can blame me from a position of knowledge. This round, IB needed help on Ult, we were hitting ult gals. I said I was worried they would all wander off and leave us alone on Ult, they assured us they wouldn't. That is EXACTLY what happened and we continued to hit after they all stopped. Then yesterday, they requested we rejoin on ult as it was starting again. I agreed and we hit ult gals again, with a view to joining fully as soon as possible (I had some other pols I needed to sort out). We hit them last night. Another of Ib's problems were they were getting hit hard, so I worked my ass off to ensure that they didn't get so much incs. IB were insistent that carn wouldnt stop hitting them. I spoke to carn, smoothed things over and got things moving with regards to a nap between IB and carn. Carn and IB napped and IB then immedietly napped Ult with a view to coming after us for easy roids. I have supported IB a lot this round and as far as I am concerned, they backstabbed. We have been offered naps by people over the past week or two. I said no, my reason being 'we are all hitting ult and I trust your word'. This was a huge mistake by me but done is done. Ult and IB want to roid race us. We are already putting things in place to ensure that doesn't happen. Everyone thinks we will be smashed tonight by everyone, we are working hard to ensure that won't happen. We may have ND and DLR incs, but they are co and we are covered. Also, it won't last. We may get otters and stellar, but again it wont last. We will get hit by IB hard, and I would think this will continue till the end of the round. As such, all defence orders previously are now void. We will get new defence orders out tonight, but I can tell you now, they will be anti-IB. Priority on defence will go against IB. We were in with a chance of winning but I think ult just guaranteed themselves the win. I will update further later tonight once I m home and have sorted out a few naps.. From this point onwards, anyone in CT who can arrange an alliance nap between CT and any other alliance, please come to me asap. We have some of the best, most influential players in the game, let's make it count. Incase I cant be clearer, IB screwed us and the aim now will be to ensure they lose. My apoligies Forest" So now we have Ultores / Carnage / IB & CT in a roid race. With Ult heavily in the lead and only 2 allies that can actually hit them? Carnage politically untouchable. IB can only hit CT What is CT's next play? :devil: |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Damn, my spelling is bad.
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
*in their...
Next moves: Forest goes back to school. Astatores is currently not napped to Ironborn. Create a new super block with astatores to take down "What do I do?" and Ironborn. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Ironborn have indeed pulled off one of the finest moves in pa history and secured themselves in second place glory.
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Lots of fiction in there, it was ult that sorted the carn nap. Look at ct fleet movement, hit non ult more than ult in the galaxies you hit. Sitting on the fence not properly taking a side, usually this leads to both sides hitting said alliance, happened many times in recent and long forgotten rounds. Settling for second is better than constant incoming for the rest of the round and finishing fourth. It allows members to sleep at night. If carn or norse had been neutral we could have had an interesting round since they chose not to we got another shitty round. I mostly blame pa team, nerfed xp too much in addition to choosing defensive stats. I'd rather play xp every round than blocktarion.
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
Quote:
(And you were gaining on Ult AND more help was coming the next night, and your incs were gonna drop substantially, both of which your HC knew. And I am fairly sure you won't finish 2nd :salute: Quote:
The first quote in this post is you complaining about CT not blocking, this part is you saying you hate blocks. This post says everything about IB tbh. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
If you dont give 440 incs the first part, among with 3 other tags. People are happy to be more neutral. :)
If you even came solo, it would be another scenario. An eye for an eye ;) Respect from trying to get the win tho, didnt see that coming. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
I'd just like to congratulate Agar3s and Ult for being better in every single facet of the game than VecoX and StillBorn.
Congratulations. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
Funny thing you wouldn’t have lost roids anyway;) |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
I wasn't going to bother giving this thread the time of day since I know the majority of those involved, know full well that Forests mail to CT was full of factual inaccuracies and were quietly pleased when Forests attempts at controlling multiple blocks into a war that benefits CT, blew up right in his face but here goes anyway..
First of all, calling something a backstab implies that Forest wasn't aware of the deal about to be agreed to with Ult and Co. This is simply not the case. I'll explain.. Forest was happy for CT to quietly ride the fence and attempt to benefit from the drawn out war between IB and Ult in the hope of manoeuvring CT into a position where they could win. He would say CT will hit Ult in their gal raids and we'd end up getting just as much incomings from CT (if not more on some days) than they were putting on Ult at all. After a few days of this, a separate block channel was made without Forest/CT and we continued along without them. To be clear, Forest was claiming that he was doing this behind gm's back, that he didn't have the authority to get CT fully involved and that I shouldn't speak to gm myself because he was mad that we'd hit them in gal raids earlier in the round. Now by the time IB agreed to nap Ult and Co, we'd had incomings from 3 alliances for near on 14 days straight. Our activity was dying, we were barely launching fleets any more and due to the various politics of other alliances, there was no sign of this status quo changing any time soon. Norse had already committed to hitting us til EOR because they saw an Ultores win as them winning too. Carnage were busy kingmaking Ult by crashing red calcs on us endlessly, sapping our morale, because we were losing ships and roids regularly, even on covered defences. And this all because apparently we'd dared to attack some of them in gal raids earlier in the round when they were napped to 75% of the universe. My fellow HC in IB were tired and looking for a way out, I was against giving up and napping Ult. I suggested that I could attempt to get CT to finally commit to hitting Ult, tying up some more enemy fleets and making some morale boosting headway into Ults roid/value lead. I explained to Forest the full situation, that we were done, we had a deal on the table to nap Ult and that their free ride was going to be over unless they decided to get involved. Forest made promises again to actually put some fleets onto Ult and claimed some targets from our shared spreadsheet. At this point, Forest was fully aware and in complete control of the situation unfolding in front of him. All he had to do was commit the fleets he said he would and our deal with Ult was dead. The next day, after receiving a fair chunk of incomings from CT ourselves, we checked how many fleets CT put onto Ult. It was 21. The same old story as it had been all round. It was at that point I gave up trying to persuade my fellow IB HC not to take the deal with Ultores, and the deal was signed to end the war. I am still proud of what Ironborn has achieved in our first round as a full alliance even if we ultimately fell short of winning, at least we actually gave it a shot and didn't settle for planet/galaxy ranks like everyone else did. We have learned lessons and will be back next round to try all over again. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
He is not blaming CT for us losing the war, that is fully our shortcoming. Rather he is saying that we needed more from CT in order to take Ultores down. That they (effectively) declined is within their rights, but Forest can't claim ignorance afterwards and act like he has been betrayed.
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
And yes, way to read between the lines and completely miss the point, but you couldn't miss an opportunity to boast about your own superiority and shout down those who dared to challenge you. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
But CT trying to play the fence is a normal thing for last 10+ rounds so all normal there |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
But Otters wasn't committed at all to Ironborn winning because they went and got a deal with Norse plus wouldn't stop hitting ult . :p :) |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
How's your parole going? It's a shame you're not as good at getting consent as you are at posting shitthreads. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
CT had already gone out of their way to assist you, given they're a CR based alliance attacking DE targets. I'm not sure how you can cry foul at recieving some collateral targetting in gal raids, given your planets often had 200k+ Bucc fleets, with minimal anti CR, if any at all. You have noone to blame for your members recieving inc as part of raids on Ult heavy gals but your own members and HC/BC, for failing to assure they had a reasonably self sufficient fleet composition, instead of cheesy, one dimensional anti Ult builds. Which HC was responsible for those fleet comps? Frankly, they should be sacked for being a mug. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
IB choose a far weaker strat.. FR (LOL) Ult with DE makes them so hard to roid damn it. Only DE roiding DE has a realistic chance. Also didn't IB decide to BP with Ult as well. Like JM points out. You choose to BP with the #1 competition and then you have a poor strat.... |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
As for landing red calcs, your block gambled on our def being fake all the time and suicided loads of value for both sides, it's just that our morale doesn't dip because of it. Also, I didnt miss your point - but I enjoy winding you up a bit because you were useless in ult last round but active this round in ib. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
I wonder who came up with the tick 800 nap between Ult/IB too? That was a particularly funny one. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
As VenoX said, Carnage were willing to land 'red calcs'. If they're still willing to land, then they're not 'red' enough, which combined with the apparant susceptibility to CR from their almost allies CT, would surely lead any Mil HC worth their salt to send out the call for more anti CR. I'm no fanboi of Forest, trust me on that, but IB have shown to be their own worst enemy. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
Quote:
Yes CT assistance was great, thats why we've had 500 incs from CT this round vs the 350 you put on Ultores according to the intel Xerxes just shared with me. It just goes to support everything I've said so far about Forest/CT and completely vindicates our decision to end the war. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
And when there's a Cr crash on it's not only value we lose - our Ziks frequently lost 80% of their Pirate and stole useless Cr. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
I'd also have to disagree with the CR strat being weak againsy almost everything. The only thing 'we' (keeping in mind I'm not a HC or official representative of CT) struggled with was DE incs for one day, which was swiftly rectified by HC being humble enough to aknowledge they'd overlooked some potential vulnerabilities, and adressed it with updating build orders that same day. CT were also vulnerable to CR inc themselves, but solved that problem politicially. That's the crux of where you've gone wrong IMO, or at least one of the ways. From a fleet perspective, CT and alliances like them adapted, while IB doubled down and kept beating their head against the brick wall. Politically, Carnage, CT et al buddied up with alliances they'd struggle against, while IB buddied up with an alliance that was Cat/Xan CO based, which is utterly udeless against your opposition. On s3cond thought, not only should your Mil HC be sacked, your political HC should too. Who was responsible for these decisions? As for who was responsible for my allies strat, I can't say, as I wasn't there when it was decided. Needless to say, you will never see my chosing an ally strat which revolves around a single target TT+3 EMP ship, and a Ziko class where the 2 tick def shoots first. But hey, I chose Ter based on BS, so I'm not infallible. Quote:
As for CT not landing you after pt250: Now I know you probably won't believe it, given your somewhat paranoid perspective regarding ancillary incs on Ult gal raids, but CT didn't target you after pt250. We spent a good 300 ticks actively avoiding initiating hostilities with almost every alliance, resulting in some very lacklustre targets, and after that point attacked either Ult gals, or forts of alliances which had hit us heavily the day before. At all times, IB targets were not available other than one or two planets across multiple gals. Now that may not fit with your perspective of CT targetting you foremost while pretending to hit Ult, but it is fact. Quote:
Taking this as vindication for your final decision to nap Ult and turn on CT supports only one thing, and that is that you/IB have made a monumental cock up that in one fell swoop has managed to throw away any chance of a round win this round, alienated one of your few and strongest allies this round, turned them off you for future rounds, and shown yourselves to not be trustworthy in the future. Frankly, IB members should be absolutely ****ing filthy at their HC team, and the people responsible for these countless cockups need to put their hand up and aknowledge that they're absolutely useless/inept. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
You sure you were even looking at this round's stats? |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Ah why did I even bother responding to a troll.
Xerxes: I'm not complaining about the crashes themselves, though there is a difference between crashing on one of our four ships vs two of your three - that's a strength of your strat - but it hurts more than usual when you're Zik. Your block was stronger than ours, and yes, that's including the lead alliance. I don't see anyone deny that. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Minions please..
Many mistakes have been made this round, politically and otherwise. Now not much of that matters. From Ults POV: 1. Otters were the most hostile and the best attacking alliance. 2. ND/DLR were totally outmatched due to strat choice and did not have the proper fleets to go into a war. 3. CT was always going to play both sides if they were trying to win, they play to their own strengths. 4. IB neglected to see past Ult, even when it had been obvious for long that you couldn't roid us. So after you napped us, you could only properly roid Otters with those fleets. In short, IB (ab)used and killed multiple alliances this round that were not ready for a war with over eager blocking. I am not saying they weren't willing, but they sure weren't ready. Now IB could have easily continued on the path they were on and let other allies prepare for the war and gain more advantages before going in. But you didnt, 600 ticks from the end you started a war with an alliance that untill then had 0 DC activity, being overly confident cause you landed some waves when there was no one to send defense. PS: Ofcourse Xerx will feel superior, this is one of the weakest political moves he has ever seen from an alliance trying to beat Ult. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
Perhaps some critical reflection is in order, instead of blaming everyone else for their failures? TBH, it stinks of Narcissism. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
I'll not cast pearl before swine. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Good post to explain situation by Venox.
I'd like to add that yes, we made some strategical mistake when taking on Ult. But neither myself or Venox have much experience leading an alliance of our own. We learn from those mistakes, we move on, and we will be back stronger and wiser. Let's not forget as well that Ult did receive defense from Norse and Asta; a luxury that we did not have, and we have handled between 150 and 200 incs ourselves very finely. We were certainly on point defensively and we can see this as a successful part of our round. Muffin, keep your mouth shut until you come back down from c200. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quite a bit of bullshit here but just to add to what Venox said.
Yes you laid it down on the line for me but I then presented you with a plan for you to win, that also gave CT a chance, and would have been a 5-way fight in the last 3 days between Ult/IB/CT/Norse/Carn. And you led me to believe that I would have time to action that plan. It would have worked. At the end of the day, I was always completely open with you about my intentions to try and win, I made that very clear. The way I see it, CT as an alliance could never have won this round, we lacked in certain, important areas. We took hardly any naps and attacked who we wanted, when we wanted. That isn't fencing, we faced way more random incs as well. We were open to attacks from all sides. But through careful military, targetting and politics, we got ourselves into a position where we could have won if things had fallen for us, without having a block behind us. IB were the opposite. They had the skills, players and a big block behind them and chose to forget the win and nap for an easy two weeks. No alliance I have any say in will ever do that, I don't see the point. Things changed for us when you handed the win to Ult, but I know which alliance I would rather play for. I am damn proud of CT and nothing will change that. We played our hand, we went for the win, and we did it without a block behind us. People keep throwing this 'omg you are fencing' thing at me, but I would prefer no blocks, as I always make clear. I have done the block thing and owned pa, it is dull and boring. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Generally most people who try for a win with a weaker alliance fail.
But you generally have the choice between an easy round and coasting in an ordinary position or taking a risk. For me taking a risk may be futile but if you do pull it off its a pretty good achievement. And you will always have people criticising this and that, but they are mainly those who lack the creativity to even get things set up in the first place and maybe don't appreciate that ****ing things up is pretty much guaranteed in hindsight. Not a reference to this thread, but just my experience. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
Forest tries his best to get CT members to do what he said they would do, but when they instead choose the course of action that's best for their planets (ie, hitting down), he's powerless to change it. Your homework for the day: why? Then, when CT's reluctance to hit Ultores becomes clear, Venox, overestimating Forest's influence in/over CT, sees them failing or refusing to follow up on the promises they had made by mouth of Forest, assumes they are (or he personally is) acting malicously, which he considers a valid reason to pull out of the agreement as well, seeing as it had already fallen apart. However, Forest doesn't see it as having fallen apart, he's hard at work trying to keep to the deal. He's suddenly faced with IB pulling out, interprets this as a backstab, and that makes him write the mail quoted in the OP. PA politics. PA politics never changes. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Spot on.
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
Keep your mouth shut until you learn how to play the game, random. Actually, who are you, do you even play PA? |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
As history has shown, IB lacked the steadfastness and longevity to allow that to come to fruition, clearly, because they were desperate. That isn't CT's failure, it is IB's. CT weren't reluctant to hit Ult. I myself had begun to hit Ult by that point, after avoiding both Ult and IB where possible. People were more than happy to hit Ult, they were doing so already, unfortunately IB were much more attractive targets. If IB didn't want us to target their lone planets in gal raids, perhaps they should have made strides to remove the flashing neon sign that said 'free roids here', through either adjusting fleet comps, or getting on top of politics. It is the responsibility of IB planets to ensure their fleet comps are decent enough to deter incs on gal raids directed everywhere except towards IB planets. It's not Forest's responsibility to talk our members down from free roids. If IB wanted no CT incs whatsoever, they should have arranged a NAP. CT was already doing their dirty work for them. IB's actions reek of desparation, and in that desparation they've managed to cut their nose off to spite their face. Not only that, but they've done so for several rounds into the future. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
From past experience with both VenoX and Forest, and the uncontested claims VenoX made about incoming CT fleets to both IB and Ult, I'm more inclined to side with VenoX on this one. Personally, had I made a 'promise' about committing to hit Ult, I would not have put up IB targets. Especially when considering target/strategy compatibility, and ults reputation as a defensive powerhouse. Then again, ranting at your members when they don't comply with the 'promises' that he made out of their purview sure sounds like true commitment! |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
The 4 alliances inc killed our lead and we went napping in order to direct inc back at you. But that had little to no effect. You avoided or napped all DE alliances, had napped all co tags. Took nap from HR. Theres the 75% back at you :) I dont mind 440 incs if u come alone, but u didnt, nor u were hitting anyone else really as you wanted to fight strategy that suits u. So dont give me any gal raid stories. I don't keep it as personal, but I neither can let u walk away with it. Yes we did kingmake Ult, but out of our own interests. We crashed a few by purpose, as u couldnt rebuild the BS. Most we crashed due to work and life and stuff like that :) Something we never wanted to happen ofc. We are bold but not stupid. If you want guidance, don't give me "block inc" and then ask for support for the win. As a future lesson ;) You let the best tag grow in peace for 600 ticks. While half the universe has perfect strategy to land them early on. We did, you could have also, instead of making an effort to damage us. Respect for eventually going for the win tho, as I said, didnt see it coming, so you have come far. :up: |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
Credits to Kheros and Team, was a pleasure flying for you and securing your members dont get demotivated with the round and all the incs they had. Congratz on your rank achievement,i´d be freaking proud if i only was a member of your heroic alliance (good name fitting aswell). cya next round |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
|
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
From VenoX' story, however, it seems to me this lasted for a longer period, after which a renewed commitment was asked to focus on Ult. Supposedly you were then 'explained' there was a possible end to war coming, unless that commitment was solid. Apparently you still gave such a promise, yet failed to deliver. As such, crying wolf and calling IB out on backstabbing is a fair stretch from the actual events. Once again, this is outside (far far outside) looking in. In fact all I based my previous post on was this thread, and past experiences with the both of you. P.S. I don't comdemn playing both sides in CT's apparent situation. It was likely your only (remote) shot at winning. This thread just seems a bit of a stretch tho. P.P.S. (edit): An eye for an eye makes the world go blind, or in this case gives Ult another (easy) win. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
From my own observations in this thread and elsewhere, it certainly appears as if IB were looking to turn on CT at the first available opportunity, given they were being substantially beaten by Ult on roid count, and saw CT as a free meal. IB revoking their agreement to work alongside CT before CT had exhausted all of their options, is a reflection on IB's lack of commitment, not CT/Forest. The only accusation that IB can make towards CT/Forest is that the options available weren't utilised fast enough, which again, reeks of desperation. This isn't a case of CT being unwilling or unable to uphold their end of the bargain, it is a case of IB essentially giving CT an ultimatum of declaring all out war on Ult, and then turning on them when it didn't happen fast enough. That is weak, bully boy politics. Quote:
Quote:
Forest made a statement regarding being worried about being left holding the baby if and when CT did chose to go all in on Ult. As we've seen, those fears were well placed, given IB's decision to turn on CT at the first available opportunity. |
Re: The Ironborn Backstab
Quote:
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:45. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018