|
|
11 Dec 2008, 13:40
|
#1
|
The Original Carebear
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
|
Weathering a storm
By the looks of it the last few rounds, what makes or breaks a winning alliance is the ability to survive being attacked (Note, I'm not saying planet-targeted) by several other alliances for a while. I'm a bit curious as to what peoples thoughts on how to get through something like this, and still be in a winning position, is.
I can't remember where I read this, but I seem to recall someone saying that it was probably a bad idea to planet-target one of the attacking alliances, instead concentrating on efficient (As in profitable) raids, and good defense. I find myself disagreeing here because I honestly believe that hitting back hard is more likely to make the attacking alliance reconsider, and start doing something else, but I'm no expert on military strategy.
I genuinely think though, that the most important thing here is morale. Looking back on the rounds I've played this game, what separates the winning alliances from the others is generally a confidence that they will win, that most alliances don't have. Keeping up morale in your memberbase while being attacked by many alliances can be a hard thing, but efficient defense is likely to make the other alliances morale suffer a lot too. In Ascendancy, I think our biggest advantage is simply efficient defense (Read: A JBG that never seems to run out of energy and will to save our asses).
It seems pretty obvious that it's easier to make your opponents get tired of attacking you, than utterly destroying their planets, so I guess any strategy to get out of a situation like the one I described should base itself on this. What's the best way to do that? What have alliances chosen to do in the past?
Essentially, what I want to discuss is what it takes to get through say, a week, of constant attack by many alliances.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.
Oh crap, I might be back. I should take my own advice.
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 13:53
|
#2
|
LDK
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
|
Re: Weathering a storm
I remember eXi go all out attacking at some point. No def.
At that point the xp played a bigger part though, and eXi didnt have a massive roid lead.
As it is atm, if you are infront roidwise, its more efficient to just defend ur roids. 2 fleets defend, 1 fleet for attack. If possible use the fake fleet for attack, and def with real.
the gains from salvage makes it so much more worthwhile to def than to attack.
__________________
[Omen]
Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
|
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 13:58
|
#3
|
Just like science!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cabinet of the Glorious Leader
Posts: 158
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wishmaster
I remember eXi go all out attacking at some point. No def.
At that point the xp played a bigger part though, and eXi didnt have a massive roid lead.
|
Round 15, ND had a big value and sizable score lead, but had grown soft from a round of little action. This, combined with the "all or nothing" nature of Xan v Xan def that round meant that XP landings could be highly benificial for future attackers. This was because vsharrak fired after tzen, which meant that cover had to be perfect (100% kill) or near perfect to deter a landing, and the loss even a single sizable vsharrak fleet often meant that a Xan planet became a wasteland as hordes of Tzen rushed in.
Re: topic, I'll get back to you.
__________________
Injelititis - Incompetance and jealousy interacting according to the formula I^3J^5
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 15:52
|
#4
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Wasn't that r16? I remember playing Xan that round and basically only checking for Vsh on Xans or Marauder on Ziks.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 16:46
|
#5
|
The Original Carebear
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 1,048
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Wasn't that r16? I remember playing Xan that round and basically only checking for Vsh on Xans or Marauder on Ziks.
|
It's possible that it was round 16 too - but it was definitely how things were in round 15. I remember being top 30 on value, then having by vsharrak fleetcaught and dropping a few hundred ranks in a week.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.
Oh crap, I might be back. I should take my own advice.
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 16:56
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 91
|
Re: Weathering a storm
It depends a lot on the position of the alliance under attack.
I presume its the #1 alliance, which is the reason why its under attack by several alliance...
There are many factors now...roidlead, value lead etc. etc...so you can“t answer this too easy.
Though if an alliance wants to win a round, usually its hc shouldn“t be so stupid to be nearly alone if several alliances hit you...there should be plans for counters on such "blocks", for example political contracts with other alliances to help each other out in time of need...
Another thing is the fear factor...if an alliance is known to defend hard, and to fight back hard...its more likely some alliances of that temporary block will stop attacking soon, so pick the weakest first...hit it hard back the 1st night, very hard...and go on like that every night til it stops attacking you then move on the the 2nd weakest alliance in the block etc. etc....
Also keeping the morale of the ppl losing fleet/roids up is important, make sure your dc“s are in sharp, have enough ppl stepping up to fill spots of tired officers...
its not magic, its simply some effort to survive and win...
__________________
For Fetish I Fall
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 17:34
|
#7
|
CRASHING BEATS 'N FANTASY
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cold Country.
Posts: 1,912
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Assuming that your alliance is bigger than any of the attacking alliances...
Primary goal in such a situation should be to limit the growth of your most direct opponent. Reason for this is simple: they have most to gain from hitting you. If you start making it unprofitable for them they are most likely to lose faith into their ability to pick you back. Usually there is a 3rd party that is then catching up on you, but also on your direct opponent, so your direct opponent is losing his position faster. Remember: he is trying to gain something from attacking you, if it looks like he is losing his starting position to someone else without having gained on you then his morale is likely to drop very fast.
How you achieve this goal is then a totally different issue. It helps to crash less value, to not hide production, to not stockpile and to find partners. And to try to use your fleets as efficient as possible, for example by launch-recall-relaunch tactics to gamble on your opponent being less active and thus more likely to waste his fleet slots.
__________________
Ią! Ią! Munin F'tagn! - [*scendancy]
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 17:50
|
#8
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kree
Another thing is the fear factor...if an alliance is known to defend hard, and to fight back hard...its more likely some alliances of that temporary block will stop attacking soon, so pick the weakest first...hit it hard back the 1st night, very hard...and go on like that every night til it stops attacking you then move on the the 2nd weakest alliance in the block etc. etc....
|
Isnt that what Denial did this round to the block? heavily hitting Aud one night with enough incs to make them reconsider.
The only real way to get through the block and come out the other side in a winning position, is to take down the strongest link. You cant let your strongest competitior have an easy ride through the block.
Anywayz, the thing i see it as.. Is that defence is the most optimum way to come through a block , without a very good defence.. you wont get anywhere regardless of how good your attacks are (unless its mid-end round, then it might work?).
As far as attacking goes, its either ignore the block and go for easy roids to recoup any of your losses or go for the strongest competitor in the block to stop them out growing you (As in this round for example, who would you prefer to outgrow you? Asc, ND or Aud?).
Asc just had everything this round and played politics near perfectly. They had by far the best defence and also the best attacks, they easily are the alliance which deserves to win.. Its just if other alliances had played the politics game better, it might of been closer fight.
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 20:17
|
#9
|
Just like science!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Cabinet of the Glorious Leader
Posts: 158
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Wasn't that r16? I remember playing Xan that round and basically only checking for Vsh on Xans or Marauder on Ziks.
|
I have vague recollections of going Terran in round 16 and whoring XP, with this shitty little XP alliance called Ascendancy winning.
Back on topic, however. The primary resource for an alliance is value in play and fleet slots. While keeping roids is important for building value, it's almost more important to keep and take roids to maintain morale. Once the number of fleet slots starts dropping off, you're losing both resources: the value your alliance has in play is lower and the number of fleet slots is down as well.
This is, in my opinion, the primary reason planet targeting is so effective. By planet targeting, you might gain less, but you'll demoralize more of your opponent's players. Some might stop getting up at night to send defense. Some might stop joining raids (even better raids against you).
__________________
Injelititis - Incompetance and jealousy interacting according to the formula I^3J^5
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 20:51
|
#10
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by qebab
By the looks of it the last few rounds, what makes or breaks a winning alliance is the ability to survive being attacked (Note, I'm not saying planet-targeted) by several other alliances for a while. I'm a bit curious as to what peoples thoughts on how to get through something like this, and still be in a winning position, is.
I can't remember where I read this, but I seem to recall someone saying that it was probably a bad idea to planet-target one of the attacking alliances, instead concentrating on efficient (As in profitable) raids, and good defense. I find myself disagreeing here because I honestly believe that hitting back hard is more likely to make the attacking alliance reconsider, and start doing something else, but I'm no expert on military strategy.
I genuinely think though, that the most important thing here is morale. Looking back on the rounds I've played this game, what separates the winning alliances from the others is generally a confidence that they will win, that most alliances don't have. Keeping up morale in your memberbase while being attacked by many alliances can be a hard thing, but efficient defense is likely to make the other alliances morale suffer a lot too. In Ascendancy, I think our biggest advantage is simply efficient defense (Read: A JBG that never seems to run out of energy and will to save our asses).
It seems pretty obvious that it's easier to make your opponents get tired of attacking you, than utterly destroying their planets, so I guess any strategy to get out of a situation like the one I described should base itself on this. What's the best way to do that? What have alliances chosen to do in the past?
Essentially, what I want to discuss is what it takes to get through say, a week, of constant attack by many alliances.
|
First of all I think you need alliances that are battle wary and that doesn't necessarily mean experience (although experience does help). First of all a successful alliance in war accepts it is going to take losses and just considers them as part of the game. The less a loss affects you gives you an increased chance of weathering a storm.
Secondly, you need to focus on your enemies. The sooner you can persuade them that their attacks are futile by a solid defence and a focussed attack and hopefully making sure they end up in the negative roid column, the sooner their spirit will be crushed.
Thirdly, you need to be persistent. Sheer belligerence helps in spadeloads to suck the confidence of an opponent.
Finally and most important of all, you need people with the personal qualities to work together as a team, play competently and be willing to take a hit for the team.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 22:09
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 531
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Give the impression that your alliance is unbeatable. It's what Asc did with Denial this round, and also last round (when JBG swapped in high roid recruits to mask any nights of losses). The reason that I think we beat Denial when P targeting them is that they seem a lot 'softer' in terms of being battle ready. Projecting an image of strength while being in a position of relative weakness will stand you in good stead.
For example this round, Asc was in a position of weakness on the few nights 4 alliances hit them, however we projected to Denial (the main organisers it seemed) that no matter what they did they wouldn't beat us. Combine that with a night where defence clicks into place and you basically hold your ground in terms of roid loss, they start to believe what you are saying.
There is nothing more demoralising than spending hours organising what you think will be effective raids only for them to make minimal impact on the target alliance.
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 23:15
|
#12
|
-||-
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 92
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Game^
Give the impression that your alliance is unbeatable. It's what Asc did with Denial this round, and also last round (when JBG swapped in high roid recruits to mask any nights of losses). The reason that I think we beat Denial when P targeting them is that they seem a lot 'softer' in terms of being battle ready. Projecting an image of strength while being in a position of relative weakness will stand you in good stead.
For example this round, Asc was in a position of weakness on the few nights 4 alliances hit them, however we projected to Denial (the main organisers it seemed) that no matter what they did they wouldn't beat us. Combine that with a night where defence clicks into place and you basically hold your ground in terms of roid loss, they start to believe what you are saying.
There is nothing more demoralising than spending hours organising what you think will be effective raids only for them to make minimal impact on the target alliance.
|
Just one question, as im really not caring much more about anything this game has to offer, when was it the gangbang started on asc this round? I cant remember you see, so around what tick was it, just out of curiousity?
__________________
-Death walks in many ways, IM only one of em-
|
|
|
11 Dec 2008, 23:25
|
#13
|
Muppet
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Posts: 301
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestorn
Just one question, as im really not caring much more about anything this game has to offer, when was it the gangbang started on asc this round? I cant remember you see, so around what tick was it, just out of curiousity?
|
Going by when my late signup planet got roided into the ground it must have been from around t700-750 it started.
__________________
ex... [Ministry][LCH][Ascendancy]
Retired.
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 00:45
|
#14
|
Guest
|
Re: Weathering a storm
No, ElAlan - you missed the point!
What nestrum has cleverly managed to do is through feigning ignorance, he's drawn a huge great big circle around his idea that Ascendancy haven't had any mass gangbangings this round!
It appears to have been too subtle for you, my friend!
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 00:56
|
#15
|
Mind-boggling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 1,468
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
No, ElAlan - you missed the point!
What nestrum has cleverly managed to do is through feigning ignorance, he's drawn a huge great big circle around his idea that Ascendancy haven't had any mass gangbangings this round!
It appears to have been too subtle for you, my friend!
|
But basically nestrum comments are irrelevent as he is missing the point of which people are trying to state what wins a war etc and the way asc have played this round won this round for them, wether it happend t750 or t300...
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. (Winston Churchill)
R21-Randy Dandys Winners R21
1:9:5 -SoClose- -YetSoFar-
You have pending friend requests from Newt.
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 08:24
|
#16
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenny
No, ElAlan - you missed the point!
What nestrum has cleverly managed to do is through feigning ignorance, he's drawn a huge great big circle around his idea that Ascendancy haven't had any mass gangbangings this round!
It appears to have been too subtle for you, my friend!
|
I am very much afraid he is not in fact feigning it.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 10:44
|
#17
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 531
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nestorn
Just one question, as im really not caring much more about anything this game has to offer, when was it the gangbang started on asc this round? I cant remember you see, so around what tick was it, just out of curiousity?
|
The tick it happened is irrelevant, the fact that Ascendancy vs 4 alliances means that Ascendancy is in the weaker position is the key point here. If those 4 alliances had carried on hitting Ascendancy the entire round the result may have been different.
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 11:42
|
#18
|
Drink is Good
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,122
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Hello qebabababa, how are you?
We have a 'weathering the storm' magazine at work due to the current economy, its quite a shit magazine really but i thought it was relevent.
In the earlier rounds of pa i probably would have opted for hitting the weakest link in the block full out, whilst concentrating defence against the main opposition, this can spread your resources too far though. Nowadays i dont think hitting the weakest link is as beneficial anymore, continuous attacks are a rare thing to come across, i dont think ive seen anyone manage to continously smash an opponent like exi did to 1up, even when 1up were roiddry they continued as hard as ever.
Stopping you main opponent is the only path you can take really, why would you waste your time on anyone else.
__________________
Can we please have a moment of silence...........
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 12:17
|
#19
|
Hibernating
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Team Kesha
Posts: 1,621
|
Re: Weathering a storm
I agree completly on everything alki just said in the post above.
Grab your opponent by the throat as early as possible & don't let him go till he's dead...
__________________
[InSomnia]
Official designated driver
[ToF] - [eXilition] - [Rock] - [Denial] - [DLR] - [eVolution] - [ODDR] - [HR] - [Ultores] - [Apprime] - [Ironborn]
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 13:03
|
#20
|
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: In bed with your mum.
Posts: 664
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Tbh the most important thing is activity. You can have as many game plans as you want, but at the end of the day, it all comes down to if youre online to put the plan into practice.
Launch/Recall/Launches, for both attack and defense. Weve all been in the position where we struglle to get a wave of incs covered, defender launches then tags up nn, only to have the attacker recall 10 seconds before tick, and relaunch leaving you with a fleet deffing against nothing, and an attacker landing against nothing.
Late recalls. Every tick or 2 that the enemies fleet is wasted, is a tick or 2 they are weaker
You need ally flak to step up to the plate. HC cant do all the work, at some point you need other people to step in and give a hand. The more the load is shared (read teamwork) then the lower the chances that someone/s will break.
Agression. From what ive come to learn from life, which can also relate to PA, the more you attack, the more they are forced to defend. If they are defending your attacks, then they arent attacking you
The sexy ideas ill keep to myself incase i ever run an ally of my own
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 14:32
|
#21
|
LDK
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 2,220
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ******master
Round 15, ND had a big value and sizable score lead, but had grown soft from a round of little action. This, combined with the "all or nothing" nature of Xan v Xan def that round meant that XP landings could be highly benificial for future attackers. This was because vsharrak fired after tzen, which meant that cover had to be perfect (100% kill) or near perfect to deter a landing, and the loss even a single sizable vsharrak fleet often meant that a Xan planet became a wasteland as hordes of Tzen rushed in.
Re: topic, I'll get back to you.
|
I am thinking about r13 though, where this was not the case really.
__________________
[Omen]
Quote:
Originally posted by Newt
I would give me right testicle to be in a gal with you wishmaster!!! wonder if thatd be enough to bribe spinner with hmmmm
|
<JC`> i sent him a msg saying Wishmaster 0wns, so he recalled
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 15:01
|
#22
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 936
|
Re: Weathering a storm
I would say its all about knowing your enemy. Having good intel helps here.
Fake on the ones whom leach def.
Half cover (make it costy) to def versus scorequeens.
Sacrifice some fleet to kill a hc, if all is dependandt on his/her organisation and gaminig motivation.
Retall the planets with most roids and attacks that are going thrue.
Unless you hold a huge lead/domination, I think u can reallistically bring only one alliance down with you. If you have enough lead, u can indd try to knock down the little helpers first. To try make them quit launching at you. Assuming they care about their own score aswell.
__________________
If the opponent resists, CaRnage there will be!
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 16:55
|
#23
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Weathering a storm
What ive seen a lot of HCs lack now days is the ability to motivate members and keep them going.
Lot of times the HCs is the first to go inactive when the alliance start to struggle instead of upping their level of activity and commitment.
Some cases alliances is runned by officers who still have a planet competing for a top finish at the end of the round, cus all those who took a job to run things in the start of the round has had their planets bashed, and just dont give a **** anymore.
Ive also heard A LOT of times when another alliance has taken the lead for 3-4 days, that the HCs decide to go for easy roids, because members want roids, and are fed up with TA.
This is some of the reasons why most alliances suck now days, and why asc is able to make a little gap bigger and deciding the round in matter of a week or so.
When a alliance is pulling away, the solution for the competing alliances is not to go for easy roids to keep members moral up. What we have seen the last two rounds is when this has happend Ascendency pulled away and secured the win.
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 20:10
|
#24
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 91
|
Re: Weathering a storm
i disagree with the wide spread argument that hitting the 1st competitor of the block is better than trying to smash the weakest in order to make them quit the block...
reason:
i would have NO problem at all if the 1st competitor gains more roids than the others - it just will draw the attention on him, and the others will realise that they are just used to make their "partner" win... which is not at all beneficial for them
also the defense you usually face is better than when hitting the weaker out of the block
__________________
For Fetish I Fall
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 20:32
|
#25
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Asc manage to not get too much attention.
Even though their spamming forums, and eating babies.
Whats the reason for this?
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 21:12
|
#26
|
You've Seen The Light
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,152
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kree
i disagree with the wide spread argument that hitting the 1st competitor of the block is better than trying to smash the weakest in order to make them quit the block...
reason:
i would have NO problem at all if the 1st competitor gains more roids than the others - it just will draw the attention on him, and the others will realise that they are just used to make their "partner" win... which is not at all beneficial for them
also the defense you usually face is better than when hitting the weaker out of the block
|
That works for every block which doesnt have Asc in it. Alliances are hesitant to attack Asc
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 21:25
|
#27
|
fanboy
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 492
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kree
i disagree with the wide spread argument that hitting the 1st competitor of the block is better than trying to smash the weakest in order to make them quit the block...
reason:
i would have NO problem at all if the 1st competitor gains more roids than the others - it just will draw the attention on him, and the others will realise that they are just used to make their "partner" win... which is not at all beneficial for them
also the defense you usually face is better than when hitting the weaker out of the block
|
I think the thing in Ascendancy's case is that Denial were the only alliance they really considered a threat for the #1 position, so they decided they were better off making sure the gap between Denial and Ascendancy didn't get too big. Also I think they considered Denial the 'leader' of the allies hitting them, so demoralising them would break the 'block'.
__________________
Ascendancy, former [ 1UP] & Ministry.
FOUNDER OF THE OFFICIAL ASCENDANCY LADY GAGA FAN CLUB
ASCENDANCY DEMOLITION MAN
|
|
|
12 Dec 2008, 21:37
|
#28
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kree
i disagree with the wide spread argument that hitting the 1st competitor of the block is better than trying to smash the weakest in order to make them quit the block...
reason:
i would have NO problem at all if the 1st competitor gains more roids than the others - it just will draw the attention on him, and the others will realise that they are just used to make their "partner" win... which is not at all beneficial for them
also the defense you usually face is better than when hitting the weaker out of the block
|
The problem I think is that XP changed all this. It's now far more profitable to hit your nearest rival, rather than try and chip away at the opposition.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 05:40
|
#29
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 499
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kree
i disagree with the wide spread argument that hitting the 1st competitor of the block is better than trying to smash the weakest in order to make them quit the block...
reason:
i would have NO problem at all if the 1st competitor gains more roids than the others - it just will draw the attention on him, and the others will realise that they are just used to make their "partner" win... which is not at all beneficial for them
also the defense you usually face is better than when hitting the weaker out of the block
|
This is exactly what Denial attempted to do in hitting Audentes out of the "war" (successfully btw!) and then moving onto ND etc etc but when ur facing multiple alliances you just run out of time, especially when the alliances hitting you are too narrow minded (I refrain from using the word "dumb") to realise when its no longer worth their time and effort to continue doing so (Denial were still being targetted when Asc had had a roid lead for over a week.. logic thrown completely out the window! - Note: CURRENT RANKINGS ARE NOT THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, THIS GAME IS NOT AS BLACK AND WHITE AS YOU'D LIKE TO THINK).
It helps though when you are convinced beyond reasoning that Denial is the only threat by Ascendancy (AKA clever politics! though the early head start we had was enough to convince some, I guess a fault of Denial has always been our strength at growing early/quickly!) who are then able to free ride the way through to #1 by which time its too late for the other allies to admit their mistakes and act on it (Apologies for generalising here, since ND actually did this, but still it was too little too late).
__________________
Founder and HC of [Denial] and [Evolution]
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 07:38
|
#30
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by qebab
By the looks of it the last few rounds, what makes or breaks a winning alliance is the ability to survive being attacked (Note, I'm not saying planet-targeted) by several other alliances for a while. I'm a bit curious as to what peoples thoughts on how to get through something like this, and still be in a winning position, is.
I can't remember where I read this, but I seem to recall someone saying that it was probably a bad idea to planet-target one of the attacking alliances, instead concentrating on efficient (As in profitable) raids, and good defense. I find myself disagreeing here because I honestly believe that hitting back hard is more likely to make the attacking alliance reconsider, and start doing something else, but I'm no expert on military strategy.
I genuinely think though, that the most important thing here is morale. Looking back on the rounds I've played this game, what separates the winning alliances from the others is generally a confidence that they will win, that most alliances don't have. Keeping up morale in your memberbase while being attacked by many alliances can be a hard thing, but efficient defense is likely to make the other alliances morale suffer a lot too. In Ascendancy, I think our biggest advantage is simply efficient defense (Read: A JBG that never seems to run out of energy and will to save our asses).
It seems pretty obvious that it's easier to make your opponents get tired of attacking you, than utterly destroying their planets, so I guess any strategy to get out of a situation like the one I described should base itself on this. What's the best way to do that? What have alliances chosen to do in the past?
Essentially, what I want to discuss is what it takes to get through say, a week, of constant attack by many alliances.
|
Honestly, there is no one set strategy, as EVERYTHING revolves around your position and the position of the alliances around you.
The key i suppose is to regain almost as many if not more roids than you lose.
Follow that with making it unprofitable for one of your opponents to hit you, and any block should start folding.
In the ideal situation this resolves into a cease fire while the alliances involved go looking for greener pastures.
How this normally plays out is entirely different.
Now to be in a winning position after an extended war? Downright impossible half the time unless you have a large lead (value wise) to begin with. That and having the right fleet compositions help, allowing you maximally defend with the least amount of ships, and covering more incs.
The more important factor to coming out of a war into a position to win as the political situation.
So to answer your question, no, being able to handle the incs does not make or break a "winning" alliance. Other factors play a far greater role in the outcome. The earlier in the round this takes place, the more this holds true.
__________________
Round 4: 129:6:15
Round 7: 8:16:??
Round 12 11:9:2 - Insomnia HC
@Rob: p6 was like, the parallel of doom
Ren: (Rob): y u say that??
@Rob: it had 20% fewer roids than the next parallel up or something
Ren: that would be our fault
@Rob: it was bizarre :\
Ren: :P
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 09:54
|
#31
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
This is exactly what Denial attempted to do in hitting Audentes out of the "war" (successfully btw!) and then moving onto ND etc etc but when ur facing multiple alliances you just run out of time, especially when the alliances hitting you are too narrow minded (I refrain from using the word "dumb") to realise when its no longer worth their time and effort to continue doing so (Denial were still being targetted when Asc had had a roid lead for over a week.. logic thrown completely out the window! - Note: CURRENT RANKINGS ARE NOT THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, THIS GAME IS NOT AS BLACK AND WHITE AS YOU'D LIKE TO THINK).
It helps though when you are convinced beyond reasoning that Denial is the only threat by Ascendancy (AKA clever politics! though the early head start we had was enough to convince some, I guess a fault of Denial has always been our strength at growing early/quickly!) who are then able to free ride the way through to #1 by which time its too late for the other allies to admit their mistakes and act on it (Apologies for generalising here, since ND actually did this, but still it was too little too late).
|
First of all talking about politics like its some amazing cheat tactic makes you a bit of a loser.
Secondly, your ridiculing of the statement: "Denial is the only threat to Ascendancy". First of all talking as the block leader of someone hitting Ascendancy makes you pretty much the biggest threat there is and in our minds, the only one we need to care about. Second of all, politics may not have anything to do with it, because you didn't have to put in much effort to make out Denial as the clear round contender. We didn't need to say or do anything, because neutrals genuinely thought you were the real threat. As a little experiment, lets cast our eyes back to the prediction thread.
CBA, not Ascendancy at time of posting:
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...22&postcount=2
Qerr, not Ascendancy, quite possibly ever:
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...52&postcount=9
Cha, not Ascendancy:
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...3&postcount=14
Vladel, Denial member:
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...1&postcount=19
Vistion, not Ascendancy:
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...2&postcount=31
Veedejem, retired player, never Ascendancy
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...5&postcount=32
Bubert Samson, not Ascendancy
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...5&postcount=35
Kenny, Conspiracy Theory:
http://pirate.planetarion.com/showpo...7&postcount=47
This is just page 1 - there are a few posts that counter this point of view, but there was certainly a large body of thought who didn't need any manipulating from us. All you ever do is cry about your problems and blame them on us, when there's plenty you could do yourself to fix. Really I don't think much of it is about politics at all. Even when you had a very large threatening force attacking us (and arguably beating us politically), you didn't have the gumption to hold it together. We're more than happy to be challenged in the game, it'll make it more interesting for everyone - when people try and oppose Denial you sit and cry about it - and therein lies the difference in management of our two alliances. For us, there's never any shame in losing to a larger force, but we want to beat them regardless.
The Denial memberbase are pretty competent by and large and I think most of Ascendancy and indeed as the posts above detail, a lot of the player base in general respect their ability. They're just let down terribly by incompetent, egotistical, spineless and instantly dislikeable HC who are pretty much screwing up any kind of strategy that's implemented. They'd be better off finding some better HC, or getting themselves a new alliance. You might argue that you've won a round, but given that it was through political and military russian roulette, I wouldn't be giving yourselves too much credit. And by you I mean your command, because the players you have aren't that bad at all.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Last edited by lokken; 13 Dec 2008 at 10:04.
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 13:52
|
#32
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 499
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
First of all talking about politics like its some amazing cheat tactic makes you a bit of a loser.
|
I never did this. Congrats on making up an argument for the sake of it. Expected better from a mod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Secondly, your ridiculing of the statement: "Denial is the only threat to Ascendancy".
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
It helps though when you are convinced beyond reasoning that Denial is the only threat by Ascendancy
|
If you're going to quote me and rant atleast get the quote right or so, a BY and a TO makes all the dfiference, ofc we were YOUR biggest threat, I never said otherwise, but we weren't EVERYONES.
Half your examples of predicting Denial #1 btw are Denial members, ofc they are going to predict their own alliance as #1, Ascendancy are the only ones that don't do this because they'd rather lie and pretend like they aren't going to be #1 every round to avoid incomings, I do wish our members would do the same but I guess they are just honest.
Another typical ascendancy response that doesn't respond to the valid argument in my posts and just results in trying to personally insult me off the boards or something.
__________________
Founder and HC of [Denial] and [Evolution]
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 14:13
|
#33
|
fanboy
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Trondheim, Norway
Posts: 492
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
Half your examples of predicting Denial #1 btw are Denial members, ofc they are going to predict their own alliance as #1, Ascendancy are the only ones that don't do this because they'd rather lie and pretend like they aren't going to be #1 every round to avoid incomings, I do wish our members would do the same but I guess they are just honest.
|
Honestly, most of Ascendancy didn't expect to be playing for #1 this round, as last round was supposed to be the last 'serious' round for most of the members. However, they found themselves in a lucky spot, and some people decided to step up and do some work to get #1. People might have wanted to play it down even if we did expect to play seriously, but in this case atleast most of them weren't being dishonest.
__________________
Ascendancy, former [ 1UP] & Ministry.
FOUNDER OF THE OFFICIAL ASCENDANCY LADY GAGA FAN CLUB
ASCENDANCY DEMOLITION MAN
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 14:16
|
#34
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
I do wish our members would do the same but I guess they are just honest.
|
Good job at not getting caught up in your bitterness and not implying something retarded like saying 70 plus people are involved in a massive conspiracy where they deliberately tell lies in order to win at an online spreadsheet. What a typical Denial response
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 14:23
|
#35
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 499
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Good job at not getting caught up in your bitterness and not implying something retarded like saying 70 plus people are involved in a massive conspiracy where they deliberately tell lies in order to win at an online spreadsheet. What a typical Denial response
|
I didnt say that either. Man you guys need to learn to read posts. I was just pointing out that Ascendancy members are more inclined to predict other alliances above them instead (a lot of allies do, and i wish our members would do the same! said this already!) of predicting themselves as #1, so they can slip in under the radar, whats untrue about this? its GLARINGLY OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE WHO EVER READS A PREDICTIONS THREAD. Maybe your members are just negative and never think you can actually win, I dont know, but the arrogance shown by them once they get the #1 position everytime pretty much shows they know they're better than everyone else and can win every round without trying, so why arent they all predicting you #1 before every round?
__________________
Founder and HC of [Denial] and [Evolution]
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 14:49
|
#36
|
Apprime Troll HC
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 857
|
Re: Weathering a storm
I actually predicted asc to win, or CT if they settled everything early with members and routines. I wasnt alone to predict Ascendancy to win either.
Always keep in mind that Ascendancy is capable of changing their schedule midround, turn things around and win with only a few weeks left.
This should be pretty common knowledge, and the denial HC seems to have realised this.
However its hard for people with less round-experience to understand the capasity of Ascendancy, which is why they somehow thinks Ascendancy has no chance at all just because they arent playing that active. This leads to a number of posts saying either Denial, CT or newdawn will win, placing Ascendancy further down.
Sadly Ascendancy always has the chance to win, no matter how active they play from the start.
So ofcourse the Ascendancy members themself, with a lot more information about their own alliance then outsiders, will say they arent playing to win, and they dont expect to win, because thats TRUE.
But as the round is played, its like Linkie says and they realise they can actually win anyways. Then someone steps up and do the effort needed for them to fight for victory, and just like that they changed from the non-active alliance to an alliance playing for #1. Pretty unique but it never surprise me.
Thats just my little notes on Ascendancy though
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 14:53
|
#37
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
I didnt say that either. Man you guys need to learn to read posts. I was just pointing out that Ascendancy members are more inclined to predict other alliances above them instead (a lot of allies do, and i wish our members would do the same! said this already!) of predicting themselves as #1, so they can slip in under the radar, whats untrue about this?
|
Bar the fact it's not true? For the predictions thread last round there were 6 ascendancy members at the start of the round who offered predictions, of these 5 predicted ascendancy to win and 1 didn't (**** you isildurx). Even for this round I managed to read up to the end of page 8 of the r29 predictions thread and found 3 asc members at the start of the round who offered predictions, 2 predicting ascendancy to win and 1 (me ) not. That said for the r27 predictions thread 3 asc members offered predictions, all 3 predicting ascendancy not to win. Hmm, from the correlation between the final rankings and the predictions offered by ascendancy members you'd almost think they were actual honest predictions!
Sorry for just another typical ascendancy response ignoring your valid argument incidentally.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 15:11
|
#38
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
I never did this. Congrats on making up an argument for the sake of it. Expected better from a mod.
|
Ha! The moderator argument. Poor once more. Can't bash the post, bash the moderator. Now look, this is a statement of astonishing bitterness:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
It helps though when you are convinced beyond reasoning that Denial is the only threat by Ascendancy (AKA clever politics!
|
It's almost as if you find it incredible that an alliance might paint you negatively through political manoevres. I'm sorry but such a suggestion is just poor.
Quote:
If you're going to quote me and rant atleast get the quote right or so, a BY and a TO makes all the dfiference, ofc we were YOUR biggest threat, I never said otherwise, but we weren't EVERYONES.
|
Why are people predicting you to win then? And if you're a threat to Ascendancy, you're pretty much a threat to everyone - I mean I could pull up posts where people were using Ascendancy and Denial interchangeably, but the first list was boring enough. All you're doing here is debating semantics rather than the actual situation.
Quote:
Half your examples of predicting Denial #1 btw are Denial members, ofc they are going to predict their own alliance as #1, Ascendancy are the only ones that don't do this because they'd rather lie and pretend like they aren't going to be #1 every round to avoid incomings, I do wish our members would do the same but I guess they are just honest.
|
It's not my problem if a large number of posters on the forum make out YOUR alliance as the favourites to win. This makes you seen as a threat to everybody. This is not politics, this is something that's within your control. Ascendancy players for what it's worth are generally quite honest, as we never know how its going to turn out. We know we're equally as capable of finishing 10th as we are of finishing 1st because we know we have to earn victories.
Edit: thanks to JBG for pulling together some useful statistics.
Quote:
Another typical ascendancy response that doesn't respond to the valid argument in my posts and just results in trying to personally insult me off the boards or something.
|
Asserting an argument is valid doesn't make it valid however hard you think it up. This is just painful to watch.
Quote:
only the resillence and strength of our members as a collective team that won through for us on those fateful final ticks.
|
To be honest, it's statements like this (from a PD thread for those who haven't been reading it) that pretty much confirm that your members could do well without a HC team. To conclude:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VenoX
I said it was our members that won it, not the HC, why are you trying to argue with me you ****ing idiot.
|
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Last edited by lokken; 13 Dec 2008 at 15:22.
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 22:01
|
#39
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyBGood
Good job at not getting caught up in your bitterness and not implying something retarded like saying 70 plus people are involved in a massive conspiracy where they deliberately tell lies in order to win at an online spreadsheet. What a typical Denial response
|
Well, it worked for eXilition in round 19... And they were far less subtle, with that idiot Cartman pretty much posting "we're not going for the win" 2-3 times a week throughout the duration of the round until the end when they merged with their second tag.
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 22:20
|
#40
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Kila_
Well, it worked for eXilition in round 19... And they were far less subtle, with that idiot Cartman pretty much posting "we're not going for the win" 2-3 times a week throughout the duration of the round until the end when they merged with their second tag.
|
Seventy. Plus.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 22:34
|
#41
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: Weathering a storm
wat
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
13 Dec 2008, 22:51
|
#42
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Kila_
wat
|
One HC, or a small group of them, saying something untrue for political reasons isn't a massive conspiracy. (Could we really avoid getting into some pedantic argument where I have to clarify myself in five separate posts when you already know precisely what I'm talking about thanks.)
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2008, 00:06
|
#43
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: Weathering a storm
You didn't exactly have 70 Ascendancy members on the forums saying "oh we're not going to win".
Your post was making the "downplaying our chances" strategy sound completely absurd, which it isn't.
Whilst it doesn't really look like you used it, Venox seems to be accusing you of doing so and your response is pretty shit.
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
14 Dec 2008, 00:11
|
#44
|
Banned
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Further to the right
Posts: 19,441
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Kila_
You didn't exactly have 70 Ascendancy members on the forums saying "oh we're not going to win".
Your post was making the "downplaying our chances" strategy sound completely absurd, which it isn't.
Whilst it doesn't really look like you used it, Venox seems to be accusing you of doing so and your response is pretty shit.
|
No but the sampling is fairly random from our members, same as it is for Denial's. My point was that we didn't use the downplaying our chances strategy. Which we didn't. Which you acknowledge. So your point is that my ridiculing a strategy for being absurd which nobody uses, and nobody has used on a large scale (this would be outside a group of HC), is somehow wrong. Maybe it actually is absurd to suppose that people go out and downplay their chances when nobody ever does it!
Four to go.
__________________
Some might ask what good is life without purpose but I'm anticipating a good lunch.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2008, 00:36
|
#45
|
break it down!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,087
|
Re: Weathering a storm
I'm pretty sure it was more than just eXi HC who posted on the forums claiming that they weren't going for the win. And people still do downplay the chances of their alliance, but as you've pointed out it hasn't really been done on a large scale. People just tend to do so individually, although this doesn't mean that a large number of these individuals can't be in the same alliance without having co-ordinated it.
Also you're telling me that it was only eXi HC claiming that they wouldn't win before/during R19? I'm pretty sure if I went through the round 19 predictions thread I wouldn't find a single eXi poster predicting them at first. I also seem to remember Lizardking (not HC, right?) posting some drivel about them not winning or something.
__________________
I put the sex in dyslexia!
|
|
|
14 Dec 2008, 01:36
|
#46
|
Propaganda Chief
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Under the Rainbow
Posts: 4,740
|
Re: Weathering a storm
The Ascendancy propaganda machine
__________________
RainbowS
RB Ely MISTU Angel Fusi0n 1up ToF VisioN CT FAnG ROCK
|
|
|
14 Dec 2008, 02:28
|
#47
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Weathering a storm
BB reminds me of the Wakey of old. Long live the Ascendancy Troll Squad! Down with Gandhi!
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
14 Dec 2008, 11:40
|
#48
|
Apprime Troll HC
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 857
|
Re: Weathering a storm
I dont feel like anyone is making any propaganda before or through the round. I read close to all the threads posted on the forums, especially AD, and im just scanning in #scans. Not taking any sides just telling you how i experience the forum
|
|
|
14 Dec 2008, 12:28
|
#49
|
Hibernating
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Team Kesha
Posts: 1,621
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Veedejem, retired player, never Ascendancy
|
I was Asc once for about 400 ticks or so before i got kicked
__________________
[InSomnia]
Official designated driver
[ToF] - [eXilition] - [Rock] - [Denial] - [DLR] - [eVolution] - [ODDR] - [HR] - [Ultores] - [Apprime] - [Ironborn]
|
|
|
14 Dec 2008, 12:46
|
#50
|
Mind-boggling
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 1,468
|
Re: Weathering a storm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veedeejem!
I was Asc once for about 400 ticks or so before i got kicked
|
HAHA i lasted longer then you
__________________
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. (Winston Churchill)
R21-Randy Dandys Winners R21
1:9:5 -SoClose- -YetSoFar-
You have pending friend requests from Newt.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24.
| |