round 35 politics
since there will be no fortress gals, wich many alliances said fortress gals caused big blocks, can we see this round no blocks forming ?
I really mean whoever will become top1, will we see no 5-6ally block forming against it this time? or it will be happen once again as previous rounds |
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Fortress gals wont disappear unless exling does,which wont happen.
Blocks always occur when a massive force needs to be stopped that one against germany worked in the 40s,,hmm could england russia and USA stop apprime? |
Re: round 35 politics
I cant see the lack of fortress gals meaning that there will not be blocks. If an alliance is winning there is still the same incentive to team up with a few others to take it down, it may mean that it is slightly easier to do so meaning the block war does not last so long.
The one thing it will mean is that we are unlikely to see blocks against alliances that are back in 4th or 5th but who are likely to climb up. There will be more opportunity to knock them down once they reach the top so less need to attack them preemptively - not that blocks were ever very good at identifying threats before they occur anyway. |
Re: round 35 politics
nature of this game has shown that there's been blocks and can't see why this round would be different. Blocks are unfair, but still they always seem to appear no matter what ally the fight against. I hope this round the block will go after Asc and App like it did last round. The round will tell...
|
Re: round 35 politics
"Blocks are unfair, so I hope they'll happen to someone else."
Nice attitude. :) |
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
I cant see how apprime can manage to NOT win this round!
They got the gathered forces of excessum this round! From pt1 even. |
Re: round 35 politics
Everytime there has been block formed we have seen lots of whinings from the members in the alliance who fight against the block, but not too many 'blocks are bad' -messages from people who are involved in the current block. And because the block targetted alliance(s) changes at times there's players who have been in both sides of the block but still only whine when being playing against the block. So, aren't those players also showing attitude that they have problems with formng a block only when it's against them?
|
Re: round 35 politics
Blocks are not something that are made to pick on one particular alliance; they take a great deal of effort to make and maintain and they only ever appear in order to stop a single ally running away with the round.
The old pre-PAX formation of blocks pre-round then playing for victory long term in them does not really happen. Blocks normally only last as long as is needed to stop the ally they oppose; who usually prolong it with a counter block. I guess what im saying that blocks are a good thing and irreplaceable if u want to have any choice of avoiding r28 or r29 type total dominance by a single ally. And ofc ppl moan, its a pa players nature but really the moaning is either, because the block is working (Good) or to show how great they themselves are by highlighting the numerical superiority of the opponents. And fortresses are really a different issue; blocks were here first. |
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
I was certainly not advocating blocks as something that should be aimed at; i was simply trying to counter the opinion that seemed to prevail in this thread that they were necessarily a bad thing.
I clearly stated they were an instrument for stopping allies running away with the round, by implication being overly dominating, which is rare enough. Quite frankly the game is more fun either without blocks or with them being fluid, allies moving in and out situation changing day by day. Too often the battle lines harden into a long boring and acrimonious slog. However I have no confidence Euphoria are anything like as good as Apprime given the latter has taken the best of Asc. (Tho not playing last round makes my knowledge of the comparative strengths very unreliable indeed) |
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
not sure if I should laugh or cry. cry I think! :( |
Re: round 35 politics
btw. Great work guys. This round there wont be any fortress gals at all! :p
|
Re: round 35 politics
Zik fortresses ftw
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Er I wasn't actually implying that Euphoria are as good as apprime. It was a hypothetical, hence the "if" and I have no idea what you mean by "assuming the question". I'm not assuming anything, I have no real idea how good exactly euphoria are. My post was just to say that if two alliances are as good as each other then blocks don't need to develop in order for a relatively balanced round to result. I felt, perhaps incorrectly that londo viewed blocks as something that every round required in order to prevent the #1 alliance from dominating totally and was merely looking to offer evidence that events can transpire differently. That said it looks relatively even so far so maybe we can avoid building blocks and writing off the #1 alliance as shit for another few ticks...
|
Re: round 35 politics
If two allies are quite close in strength; or even if there is a great disparity but the smaller ally is very determined, thus tieing down the bigger ally, there is idd no reason why blocks should form.
Indeed most allies usually see their best interests in evading the war and thus blocks if at all possible - this was certainly true in the mid to late 20's (rounds not years) and may have contributed to the stomping great asc wins. Ppl seem to have now become accustomed to the idea that Asc (or now App) will win by a great margin with apparent ease and this makes blocks more likely since ppl will be less willing to wait and see if euph really can take on app since blocking too late was a problem against asc.... thus a block may not be necessary but may form anyway simply for fear it will be necessary, as can be shown that (I believe) DLR and Euph are already allied, which given DLR was the ally that had before last round held out of wars or on the fringes if it could exemplifies the change Im trying to point out. |
Re: round 35 politics
so, how long before Apprime gets bashed for the first time this round? We should have a parallel game to place bets on such things :D
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
Why would any other alliances join in? 1v1 as it is, is ideal for all others. |
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Alki says Euph have lost the war against App. Ergo it must be true and we can all start R36 now.
|
Re: round 35 politics
Alki hasn't posted here.
|
Re: round 35 politics
im surprised there hasn't been more posting and bitching on this thread :p
Anyone willing to speak about how the Euph/App war is going? :) |
Re: round 35 politics
It meanders. I for one am hoping for some more action tonight though!
|
Re: round 35 politics
what happened to ascendancy?
|
Re: round 35 politics
A quick look at sandmans tells me Conspiracy for the win what with their 70 million point lead.
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
i suppose we can read between the line to grasp your opinion on both ascendancy's performance last round and Theams performance as HC last round? |
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
I'm not standing up for you in public you fool. That's my opinion on last round. And fine, to me, means more like tolerable, rather than great.
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
JBG actually left, he was not in Ascendancy nor in #ascendancy during that time.
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
Allthough rumours has it that they were the ones to blame for CT getting such a headstart, but atleast they moved forcefully in to correct the errors of their ways. |
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
But you also said 'left', which makes it seem like he didn't really leave.
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
And since we are splitting hairs: Theam, I dont think bearable makes ur role sound any better than tolerable. |
Re: round 35 politics
Quote:
|
Re: round 35 politics
I think Theam and Reese did a decent job last round, they made mistakes with politics in the latter stages of the round from lack of experience, but they were competent (I wasn't around enough to gauge how good) in every other aspect and didn't do anything actively bad.
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:42. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018