More slander please?
 

I'm a bit disappointed about the posting in here!

Why ain't CT people posting some unfair posts....they do get some beating now right?

Normally we usually had (by now) some angry members trying some propaganda lines....

This board should be more alive.....common guys – please post some that makes the rest to react!


On a sidenote I think this round is rather cool, XP gaining from fat CT planets is rather fun....

Does CT got some cleaver plan to turn things over again or are they destine to be overrun by Urwins in a few.... if so then what?

/me like this take down the top allie tactic..........should the same happen when Urwins are there?

Re: More slander please?
 

Shame the blocks couldnt ahve any balls in other rounds when the likes of exi and 1up played.

Says it all really.

Re: More slander please?
 

urwins will win. they got pnapers in ct (who at this moment continue to hit non-war targets). they have a substantial value lead over CT, and their command team seems slightly less incompetient than CT (militarily)

Re: More slander please?
 

i dont think new dawn is completly out of the game yet ;)

Re: More slander please?
 

Think you'll find most of the people who have organised the demise of CT would ordinarilly be playing in either exi or 1up if they were about...

Re: More slander please?
 

i think you'll find the people who organised the demise of CT were in CT themselves.

(i believe their nick is incompetency)

Re: More slander please?
 

bitter?

Re: More slander please?
 

CT lost because they played politics very stupid. instead of killing their many compettor early (erwin) they nap them and let them grow. Why do no1 in pa understand that you cant nap yourself to victory? no1 learnedf from eXi/1up ?

ofcos alliances would target them when they break nap with erwin?! and ofcos they would collapse after couple night beating(thats coz no alliance in pa knows how to fight war/lose roids+stay motivated)

in the end all alliances competing for top 3 this round suck, its just the 1 that sucks less wins..

Re: More slander please?
 

oh yeah.. the old all alliances suck.. the one that wins sucks the least comment..

If Urwins win, they win cause they fought well.
They planet targetted CT right from the start of the war.. cutting their egde as soon as possible.. think mithrandir and a few others really did a great job with urwins.. sorting def, doing fleetcatches on CT.. destroying their morale and such!

Cheers

Re: More slander please?
 

i take it you are urwins then? they were far worse than ct this round

Re: More slander please?
 

Did something interesting happen then?

Re: More slander please?
 

No

Re: More slander please?
 

no, surprisingly

Re: More slander please?
 

Im not even playing the round and even i know that Urwins cant be classed as 'they fought well'

Although i have a lot of respect for Urwins, due to the fact i know a lot of people within the alliance. Fact was they still napped with Conspiracy for 3 quaters of the round avoding any war at all until they were in a stable position. And lets face it, they only really dropped the nap with CT becuase the 4-5 alliances below them turned there attention to them for one nite, which caused Urwins to drop the nap 24 hours later. Then all these alliances hit Conspiracy i presume? So of course its never a one on one war is it?

Anyway fair play. Also heard btw they p targeted ND last nite although told ND they dont p target unless there hit first? I feel some false info there :p Bit silly for the ND HC to beleive that also, due to the fact it was obvious Conspiracy was now to small for Urwins to hit. Of course they would turn there attention to ND.

Re: More slander please?
 

you heard wrong.

Re: More slander please?
 

They didnt maybe p target us, but they at least sent some lovely hostile fleets toward us. Fair play to em. Guess it was invevitable of course with the roids we had and the fact CT is virtually dead.

Re: More slander please?
 

Then i stand corrected i just heard from ND members themselves, plus of course sandmans :p

And even Assman himself above before i managed to finish my post ^^

(btw Assman didnt you quit? :p)

Re: More slander please?
 

The timeline here is incorrect

Re: More slander please?
 

Enlighten us.

Re: More slander please?
 

i must have missed this night.

not really. some that had hit them earlier in the round then sided with them, or at least stayed out of it.

ofc not. but to imply that ct is/was alone is mistaken as well.

Re: More slander please?
 

I'm guessing that planetarion has now reached the level where I could HC and win which is a pretty bad level to be at guys.

Re: More slander please?
 

you cant pull the night to do it .
you hc or near it , and you would be one the first i would hit .

for the discution around maybe that is the way you are watching the game that is wrong , since a allaince should have theyr leader and proctect i do not see , unless you are pawn and dont know what is happening , how player that join half the cannot be , after a few week , be a match for most of you , in only beta i did , theyr was fleet catch so often untila allaince took the lead that no player could claim to be a master planet .

from past hisory i can tell that the 40% size minimum for a target give a player few target to hit and make the war harder after a few week whitout being hit

Re: More slander please?
 

it was 3-4 nights, with incoming from 5 alliances, and if you missed it, you were probably the only non CT planet in PA that did



after we were less than favorable targets, some backed off, others didn't

CT was napped to urwins, until right after the 3-4 nights of incoming from alliances other than urwins, then they dropped the nap and piled on. If anything, I suppose you could call them opportunistic. As for being alone, we have no direct allies, we have a couple of alliances we don't hit, and that don't hit us (one of those being urwins until they dropped the nap after the majority of the damage had been done), leaving one remaining, which is no huge secret, considering they've been our friends since CT was created.

As for our military abilities, all things being equal, if 2-3 ppl could have looked past their own noses and not left the alliance leaving the rest of the ppl screwed, and if the ppl from one alliance we allowed to join had some integrity and weren't completely untrustworthy causing them to either leave the tag when it counted, or be kicked after we found out what they were pulling, we would be another 18-19 mil or so to the good now, and still in the lead. No sense whining about it, shit happens, we'll know better than to recruit people we had no reason to trust in the first place in the future.

Re: More slander please?
 

you are correct ofc, it appears i misunderstood willzzz's post, reading back it seems he was talking about ct getting hit then urwins dropping it, and not the other way round. either way, ct was getting hit for a lot longer than 24 hours before urwins dropped the nap, so to suggest that they immediatly dropped it when ct came under pressure is incorrect.


i seem to remember the time from you first being hit to the nap being dropped being significantly longer than 3-4 days, more like a week, but then if someones doing your dirty work for you, then theirs no need to get your hands messy ;)

no doubt, i was merely replying to willzzz's insinuation that urwins had a significantly larger number of allies by the time the nap was dropped.

Re: More slander please?
 

not true! After eXcessum had 'finished' p-targetting you for the ~7th night of the round, I had one guy pm me asking who the **** ct were despite very actively particpating in the war :( Though he didnt even know a war was on.

And by the way, jupp deserves all the credit for what happened to ct. True story. His coords are deleted if any of you ct chaps want to go release some pent up anger on him.

Re: More slander please?
 

Well those coords will be hard to find considering his nick is in his ruler name....

Re: More slander please?
 

I m certain jupp did his outmost to hide them, and I m certain newt is serious when he claims jupp was the main reason behind their demise.

I m afraid he does want incs on jupp though :P

Re: More slander please?
 

Maybe if these people werent treated like shit in the first place they wouldn't have left? Decisions in CT at hc level have just been awfull this round, the lack of an eu hc has also been detrimental but the final blow was really when pnapping the enemy was allowed.. Overall theme has been the same throughout the round, good attacking abilities with awefull def, the choice was made early to flagship a few people instead of spreading the coverage and that pissed off some people. From what I've seen both excessum and urwins have done more with less fleets, be it members willing to wake up more often or better tools or dc's that actually talked to the planets under attack I dont know, fact is still that for the massive value ct had, very little good was done with the fleets when it mattered.

These days you can't just instantly expect loyalty when someone joins a new ally, the alliance will have to earn the loyalty of the players and ct were far from doing that. I wonder how many people that had a pnap from the start and were left out on targeting joined in on attacking ct when the inc started :) Not few.. and everyone was whining about the pnaps ensuring victory for ct when in fact they lead to the defeat. :bunny:

Re: More slander please?
 

I have to question some of the claims put forward by CT here tbh. When we (TGV) made it clear that we did not want to have anything to do with fight upstairs and they kept hitting us bringing our inc count to about 20% CT rest others, made me wonder how many napped planets CT really had around in the universe. Anyways, good going to both Urwins and ND whom I see as a much more deserved winnertypes than CT this round.

Re: More slander please?
 

You wouldn't be saying that if you knew as much about them as you do about CT.

I'd say CT thoroughly deserve to win the round, and not really sure why we were hell-bent on taking them down :( Guess jsut because they were #1 and had junglemuffin as a member.

Re: More slander please?
 

[quote=Kargool]I have to question some of the claims put forward by CT here tbh. When we (TGV) made it clear that we did not want to have anything to do with fight upstairs

seen you guy hit a galaxy like 3 time in the first week of the game :mad:

Re: More slander please?
 

Actually when ct and urwins dropped their nap urwins had a significant value lead. A lot of blame here goes on members who crashed fleets either for xp or due to apathy and disinterest. And while CT haven't been good this round I really haven't seen anything from anyone else that made me think they were more worthy winners.

Re: More slander please?
 

I think Urwins wins on the fact that they have a rather active HC/BC team that you can actually work with on a day to day basis and even reach someone during the morning or afternoon :-)

Re: More slander please?
 

Hope you spent less time on your avatar than was spent on mine jupp :(

btw, noticed how we had a -3.9% roid gain coinciding with my removal from excessum?!? Hope you can live with the guilt dude :(

Re: More slander please?
 

Trust is something you earn golan. Its all about buckling down when things get though and not bust out the whines and the cries. Altho I suppose that concept really does elude this particular group.

Re: More slander please?
 

the only whining and crying, bitching and moaning came from the ppl who eventually left or were kicked (and in fairness, not all of the ones who were kicked whined, they were doing sometrhing totally different, that was also unnacceptable)

the only loyalty that should be owed, is the loyalty to the other 69 players in the alliance your playing for, over time, if you decide the command team your playing for is worthy of loyalty, then great. But, to screw over the ppl you are gaming with is unnacceptable, leaving the members your gaming with holding the bag isn't, and never will be ok. As for the people who arranged naps with enemies, it was addressed, and those ppl complied, except one, who was dealt with.

End of the day, internal problems can be addressed and solved, leaving, and just screwing the people that worked beside you to achive something can't be fixed. truth is, if those ppl hadn't left, CT wouldn't be 16 mil behind now, and the ppl who fought beside those who left wouldn't be screwed. I suppose if you were raised to believe that quitting is ok, then there isn't much that can be done about that character flaw

Re: More slander please?
 

ok lets go with :

Beermonster has spent the round completely sober ...

Forest has decided to campaign for the little player ...

Kargool wil spend upto christmas being cheerfull...

AngryDuck will not be loosing his temper anymore ..

I think they will do for a bit ;)

Re: More slander please?
 

So aNgRyDuCk, why recruit certain people that nearly anyone could tell you would cause problems? If HC recruit people who have dodgy reputations, I'd say the blame lies with you not the people who end up screwing you over.

Like when I gave you proof about junglemuffin - granted I was very drunk and being a tw*t - but still I doubt any of your hc doubted the validity of the logs at all. Still, JM was top20 so unkickable..... (there's a point made somewhere there)

(ps. in my defence, I only quit / **** about when the round is too easy ;) not when the going is hard - so not quite the pot calling the kettle black)

Re: More slander please?
 

What, like porting your channel for the amusement of others?

Re: More slander please?
 

yup Newt, recruiting questionable ppl, my bad, with the amount of ppl available and the 70 member limit we made some concessions in that respect, but your right, our bad for giving them the benefit of the doubt

jm wasn't unkickable, no one is, but I wasn't convinced he was doing anything but his part to help us, what he did before tickstart was irrelevant, I chose to believe him

Re: More slander please?
 

Oh, was expecting you to reply angrilly and help me turn the thread into a flame fest :(

But yeh, even exc has recruited 1 or 2 ppl that are potentially dodgy in terms of trust (1 or 2 = ~5). For any exc reading this, feel free to pm me on irc with your guesses at who they are, if anyone wins i'll give you a credit next round.

Re: More slander please?
 

stilll is ok to multi as long as they dont do more that what normal player does , unless you got piss at your gal and they don defend anymore or bitch slap you alot .

so gay to lose ship defending in gal because the person tough he was to big and didnt bother answering pm , whe your to small to just denied it .
allaince go gay and stop making scan or hc attack you and dont let you have defence.

_____
still got beta?

Re: More slander please?
 

It is not ok to multi.

Re: More slander please?
 

Unless you are not getting caught?

Re: More slander please?
 

Not even then, Heartless, and you know that :p

Re: More slander please?
 

So to sum this up, CT tried to napwin this round and flagshipping some planets that had pnapped everyone and their fence, and some people didn't like it, and said they would leave if nothing changed, and nothing changed and they left.. HOW DODGY! They even gave you a heads up and said what the problem was several days before leaving. It's not like they just said "haha, lets screw ct over and leave now!!!!!!" which would be more logic considering it's THAT GROUP WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, give me a break.

and for JM, he even left that said group once or twice last round over some emoreason, thats just him in a nutshell...

for my whining this round it's come down to: Why are we napping everyone, why are we flagshipping some people for fun, why are said flagships napped to the enemy when the alliance is at war and OMFG WEBTOOLS ARE SO CRAP IT BRINGS AIDS TO A NEW DIMENSION.

whoever things webtools are made of win should get something to poke their brains with. "whoops did i just claim 10 waves on someone and i wont remotely consider launching, oh well no one knows or will react on it..."

Re: More slander please?
 

yawn

Re: More slander please?
 

yawn idd....

ct's web tools r pretty decent actually, when they're up

u just have to get used to them (very useful as a bc anyway)

Re: More slander please?
 

yes useful to know when first wave lands and go ahead of it aint it? :)

tools being decent etc requires people to use them correctly, and they werent...

Re: More slander please?
 

??? when attacking with a bot I allways knew then the first wave landed.. didnt you... moron