Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles
Because it's an ineffective strategy? This issue has been widely discussed before, during and after last round. Trying to band people together with a dual loss philosophy runs contrary to many of the vital ingredients needed to actually win. It's a short-sighted strategy that has no viable endgame and fails to consider human self-interest at all. If you could get an actual army of pure zealots then, sure, go for it. If not then perhaps trying something rational might be the better.
I honestly think this should be evident to anyone who's genuinely tried to deconstruct last round. This was the strategy that was tried. People did their best to execute it. It failed. Not for lack of effort but for lack of foresight. Proposing the exact same plan again is, as a better man than me has said, retarded.
|
I'm sorry Achilles, although your post is of outstanding quality, there are fundamental flaws which need to be addressed. A short-sighted strategy by deafting the best alliances in the game, I think not. human self-interest works in a number of ways and I feel with the common goal of defeating Ascenancy and with the propaganda we see from Ascendancy every round on these forums, I think all of those non- Asc peoples would have alot of interest in this strategy.
Last round what you are saying, did not happen. The effort was not really there, the foresight was not really there to the same extent of what I'm debating here.
Tell me at what stage in the round Ascendancy was without an alliance and targetted by 5 numerous alliances at one particular time. Did it happen? Did it last? I think we all know the answer, but I'll let you inform me.