Quote:
Originally Posted by vuLgAr
I guess they are all doing it wrong then?
I havn't seen one person from the app/tgv block complain about stagnation, nor did I see anyone from ND complaining the round before about it. it seems to me like it's more butthurt from the losing block than actual fact / opinion.
Good Luck with that.
|
Well maybe I can answer your question, from TGVs perspective we had an agreement with App to help each other if a block targets us, we had a 10+ day fort avoidance with CT to manage our incoming and a NAP for the whole round with ODDR. We were engaged in a war with ND/Fang initially and then ND/Fang/CT so the agreements were set up to manage our incomings and to concentrate on our enemy.
Unfortunately App/TGV took such a tremendous lead that ND/Fang couldn't stand up to us and so they got more alliances to help them. TGV took a beating but we kept on fighting.
Did we think we stagnated the round...possibly but on paper ND/Fang vs App/TGV was a pretty fair fight, we just managed to get a huge lead early on and kept it. Even when CT joined them we still were able to hold our own since the block could only land on us if they all hit us, if only 2 of them did then they couldnt.
According to the PA community, they felt we stagnated the round and wanted for us to turn on our ally Apprime. We refused because all that would do is hand the win to some other alliance so why should we give the win to someone else after App/TGV fought hard for it.
Anyways if you are wanting to pursue this further I would suggest making a new topic since at this point I would say your straying from the original intent of this thread.