omg lol

[G.K Zhukov]

Leinad: Pm me on irc and I tell you a thing or two. Right now you just showing that your clueless.

Lord_Thunderball: LCH has failed. They have little control over their firepower. Their members seems unwilling to hit "hard" targets (anyone with half a braincell can see this using sandmans site). If LCH+friends cant hit 1up with full force, how do you think 1up is going to be taken down? By hitting ND with full force???? What LCH thinks with is beyond me, but its obviously not their "big head".

So LCH HC; When are you going to start hitting 1up?

And to add another question to LCH HC: When will you learn your members to post descent PR on these boards (I assume Thunder and kilroy among others is LCH)

[furssie]

Originally Posted by The_Fish

That is more down to LCH being idiots and directing far more firepower at ND than 1up. As every tick passes, it makes me want 1up to batter them more and more.

Judging LCH's shoes.

Will you continue to target an alliance the next day whose defense is so tight and ending up that particular day having 5-6% roid loss to your members? Whilst 1up have a friend who have a bit easier roids?

[Barrow|Pony]

OK. Without naming names - you can choose one of the following.

Attack the alliance with 67 members who has cooperated with you for the mutual success of both alliances.

OR

Attack the alliance with 90 some odd members who's military officers flood your defense bot with childish insults, repeatedly target your alliance despite its lack of tactical significance, ignore their quest for number one in order to bash your alliance into the ground.

Take your pick gents, take your pick.

I will contend that we will make our decision accordingly.

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by furssie

Judging LCH's shoes.

Will you continue to target an alliance the next day whose defense is so tight and ending up that particular day having 5-6% roid loss to your members? Whilst 1up have a friend who have a bit easier roids?

I hear Rock has even easier roids! If thats the qualifications being used for the inordinate target procedures, then why not aim LOWER. Do they want number one or not?

[furssie]

Ok, to summarize the blows of this thread:

1. ND are flaming/questioning or whatever you call it, LCH why they refuse to hit 1up - and hitting them instead.

2. LCH are flaming/questioning or whatever you call it, ND why they refuse to hit 1up - and hitting them instead..

I therefore conclude that the winner of this round will either be ND or LCH... no doubt.

gg you two.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Razorback

@Judge

1) ND cant defend 1up as
-its unlikely with ingame mechanics
-they are more of a tgt themself all the time
-it has already been proven a few times thats not the case

2) ND hasnt blocked
-they have been hitting the #1 alliance and decided to go for LCH to sort their beef with them.
-fluid politics allow ppl to cooperate for a common goal
- 2 alliances wouldnt be a block, otherwise how do we call vsn/mistu/lch coop of the past ?

1) News scans have revealed ND fleets defending 1up planets on many occasions. (and vice-versa)
2) Incoming waves of attacks have been a combination of 1up/ND fleets, often on the same tick. (possibly coincidental) but unlikely when it is the same planets attacking on the same targets on several different occasions.
I have not seen any proof, only tthe purile rantings on here................oh maybe that is proof ?


Cooperation in attacks/defence by 2 of the top alliances can only be described as a block.

What else would you call it?

[Judge]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

And to add another question to LCH HC: When will you learn your members to post descent PR on these boards (I assume Thunder and kilroy among others is LCH)

"Assumption is the mother of all f*CK ups"

[Barrow|Pony]

Let's talk about double-standards?

If you're going to deny an argument based on assumptions, then please expain how you came to your conclusions regarding the political state of the universe.

[Legator]

Originally Posted by Judge

1) News scans have revealed ND fleets defending 1up planets on many occasions. (and vice-versa)
2) Incoming waves of attacks have been a combination of 1up/ND fleets, often on the same tick. (possibly coincidental) but unlikely when it is the same planets attacking on the same targets on several different occasions.
I have not seen any proof, only tthe purile rantings on here................oh maybe that is proof ?


Cooperation in attacks/defence by 2 of the top alliances can only be described as a block.

What else would you call it?

oh cmon judge, stop talking bullshit.

[Judge]

Originally Posted by Legator

oh cmon judge, stop talking bullshit.

You would know, you have been the expert for years

[Gate]

Originally Posted by furssie

Judging LCH's shoes.

Will you continue to target an alliance the next day whose defense is so tight and ending up that particular day having 5-6% roid loss to your members? Whilst 1up have a friend who have a bit easier roids?

Sure, ND are far easier to roid than 1up, yet 13 days ago, over 4.5k roids were taken from 1up by immense attacks, so it's not impossible. LCH gained roids that day, as did VisioN, MISTU, Vengeance and HR..

I suppose a lot of my statements are just annoyed as I expected something different from teh round. I thought that LCH would have got MISTU/VisioN to try and tie up ND whilst co-operating with HR on 1up. Maybe I'm just a gigantic pussy who wants an easier ride?

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

]

And to add another question to LCH HC: When will you learn your members to post descent PR on these boards (I assume Thunder and kilroy among others is LCH)

Does this mean that I have to go too?

[DrunkenViking]

Originally Posted by Judge

1) News scans have revealed ND fleets defending 1up planets on many occasions. (and vice-versa)
2) Incoming waves of attacks have been a combination of 1up/ND fleets, often on the same tick. (possibly coincidental) but unlikely when it is the same planets attacking on the same targets on several different occasions.
I have not seen any proof, only tthe purile rantings on here................oh maybe that is proof ?


Cooperation in attacks/defence by 2 of the top alliances can only be described as a block.

What else would you call it?

roflmao, i've defended my lch galmate this round, and nd, and nos, and veneratio and 1up.... oh and i know of at least 3 nos attacks landing on same targets as lch and same tick, and 2 times we accidentily piggied vsn aswell....(not defended my 1up galmate for a few weeks as he phucked up and got closed)

tbfh, thats as much proof as bush had that saddam had weapons of mass destruction.....

[Razorback]

Originally Posted by Judge

1) News scans have revealed ND fleets defending 1up planets on many occasions. (and vice-versa)
2) Incoming waves of attacks have been a combination of 1up/ND fleets, often on the same tick. (possibly coincidental) but unlikely when it is the same planets attacking on the same targets on several different occasions.
I have not seen any proof, only tthe purile rantings on here................oh maybe that is proof ?


Cooperation in attacks/defence by 2 of the top alliances can only be described as a block.

What else would you call it?

1) Newsscans also revealed nearly everyone defending someone from another alliance. As stated in other threads this concept is called "friends" or "galaxym8s". Same could be said about LCH and any other alliance who has no official "input" in this kind of defence.
Organized Shipswaps from ND -> 1up seem unlikely considering ND have been targeted harder and more then 1up, What HC could explain that to his members and what logic would be behind that ?

2) Mutual attackplanning is not a new concept, LCH does it with Mistu and others do it with others, welcome to pa. Even if we wouldnt assume they coordinated their efford the attacks could be more or less coincidental, knowing there is not that many galaxys worth hitting out there, if you ignore "own" galaxys or focus on a common enemies fortress gals. Piggybacking even occures in blocking rounds and even more in random rounds tho it doesnt imply cooperation or better organisation behind it.

To your last question, it shows that you have a selective view on things and base your "knowledge" or conspiracy on a few pieces of evidence which are "common play" in the whole game. Sadly those pieces of evidence are not that dense that it would hold any water or add up to enough proof, as we have seen in kilroy "i tried to be funny and made some bullshit pr" attempt not long ago.

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Razorback

@Judge
2) ND hasnt blocked
-they have been hitting the #1 alliance and decided to go for LCH to sort their beef with them.
-fluid politics allow ppl to cooperate for a common goal
- 2 alliances wouldnt be a block, otherwise how do we call vsn/mistu/lch coop of the past ?

THEIR beef? Damn that beef must be going off soon cos its been their beef since the HR-ND cease fire?

2 allies wouldnt be a block, well i think you'll find blocks are usually NOT determined by the number of alliances BUT the combined size in relation to surrounding opponents. Anyways, if you wanna use your route, just check out what Sin, Wp, ToF are doing!

Originally Posted by Barrow

Attack the alliance with 90 some odd members who's military officers flood your defense bot with childish insults, repeatedly target your alliance despite its lack of tactical significance, ignore their quest for number one in order to bash your alliance into the ground.

Tactical significance, u seriously trying to downplay NDs role in current affairs?

[lokken]

ND can't do much if their hands are tied, as Barrow makes out.

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by lokken

ND can't do much if their hands are tied, as Barrow makes out.

The fact that their hands are tied, would imply they are drawing attack fleets away from 1up? Now if their incomings are so heavy, then you must only assume their attackers aint leaving much home to hit 1up with?

So they are doing quite a lot tbh.

[The_Fish]

It's not a complicated concept.

By hitting ND, LCH are letting 1up get further and further into the distance.

Later on they may expect everyone to hit 1up to stop them winning. Whereas by hitting us, we are not going to do ANYTHING to help them.

[Razorback]

thats actually spot on fish.
LCH whine they cant get through 1up so pick on someone else and wonder they get still incomings from 1up and the ppl they actually fight with.
More ironical their endgame planning involves the very same ppl they new hit because they are "easier" to sort their victory for them.

LCH cant be that dense to think someone would want to help if they keep this up, right ?

[The_Fish]

The only thing i can think of is LCH coming to ND soon and saying 'nap with us and let us hit 1up or we keep hitting you'. Which would be funny \o/

[Seth Mace]

Like you two, im not apart of LCH HC but if they are hitting ND its for a good reason no?

Later on they may expect everyone to hit 1up to stop them winning. Whereas by hitting us, we are not going to do ANYTHING to help them.

ND wouldnt do anything to help them anyway, this has been stated by many posters on this thread already.

[Barrow|Pony]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

THEIR beef? Damn that beef must be going off soon cos its been their beef since the HR-ND cease fire?

2 allies wouldnt be a block, well i think you'll find blocks are usually NOT determined by the number of alliances BUT the combined size in relation to surrounding opponents. Anyways, if you wanna use your route, just check out what Sin, Wp, ToF are doing!



Tactical significance, u seriously trying to downplay NDs role in current affairs?

Ok Seth - if HR is in LCH's spot - and fighting for number 1, who do you attack?

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by Barrow|Pony

Ok Seth - if HR is in LCH's spot - and fighting for number 1, who do you attack?

This isnt about HR, this is about those certain ND'ers crying (as usual) on ADs about an alliance attacking them. Do you see the threads and posts from HR complaining of 1up, Sin, Wp & the odd ND incomings? Do you see threads posted by other alliances complaining?

No? Me either:/

Oh btw, did ND target 1up when 1up was above them?

[JonnyBGood]

If ND start hitting 1up now they won't finish number one. However if ND, HR, VsN, VGN and WP all start hitting 1up and LCH at an astronomically high rate then neither 1up or LCH will finish number one. Of course this just isn't realistic. LCH can still win if they start hitting 1up now (assuming VsN/HR hits ND). Many things depend on the quality of LCH etc. As I find this dubious I'd recommend a big huge ****-off block being formed to nail 1up as that's your only real hope because let's face it we're not exactly talking Hannibal versus Scipio here

[jerome]

Did you miss the whole reasoning to why their "Common sense" told them to hit LCH rather than 1up with what LCH hitting ND and all, or you just selectively retarded ?

In addition to that, firstly, ND did not post this thread, secondly, neither was it a whine thread for the incoming they have received from LCH, more rather they are using it (like others) as a pointer to how LCH are misplacing their firepower and/or tactically & politically inadept.

[Lord_Thunderball]

Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov

And to add another question to LCH HC: When will you learn your members to post descent PR on these boards (I assume Thunder and kilroy among others is LCH)

1. Kilroy is not LCH, and never was!
2. I'm not posting on behave of LCH.

[Barrow|Pony]

Seth, I'm not talking about HR. I'm talking about what decision you would make.

If you were in LCH's place, what would you do to give your alliance a better chance at #1.

[Lord_Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Razorback

thats actually spot on fish.
LCH whine they cant get through 1up so pick on someone else and wonder they get still incomings from 1up and the ppl they actually fight with.
More ironical their endgame planning involves the very same ppl they new hit because they are "easier" to sort their victory for them.

LCH cant be that dense to think someone would want to help if they keep this up, right ?

And you are in LCH Officer channels since??

[Barrow|Pony]

Yes Thunder, because the judgements that YOU achieve on these boards are based on extensive knowledge on what happens in other alliances channels.

[Seth Mace]

Originally Posted by _ryzekiel_

Did you miss the whole reasoning to why their "Common sense" told them to hit LCH rather than 1up with what LCH hitting ND and all, or you just selectively retarded ?

Its good to see a poster getting personal, its usually a good marker to pinpoint the start of their arguementive decline.

If you made that comment towards my question about why ND didnt attack 1up, when they were directly below them. Well go re-read my post and try understand the tone i wrote it in, under the context of the post i replied to;

Originally Posted by Barrow

Ok Seth - if HR is in LCH's spot - and fighting for number 1, who do you attack?

Originally Posted by Seth

Oh btw, did ND target 1up when 1up was above them?

Targetting is not as simple as some people on here would like it to be, it stopped being vaguely simple once 1up & others started hitting LCH. While there was other minor coops about, this started the chain of events which we find ourselves at now.

Where are we now? We are at a point where no alliance can just attack the alliance directly above them and hope to reach greater heights, why? Because there are ally relationships and grudges that prevent this "ideal" scenario.

If LCH hit ND, then they must believe that gives them the best chance of #1, why else would they attack you as hard as you make out?

In addition to that, firstly, ND did not post this thread, secondly, neither was it a whine thread for the incoming they have received from LCH, more rather they are using it (like others) as a pointer to how LCH are misplacing their firepower and/or tactically & politically inadept.

Aye it wasnt but the likes of Fishy turned it into one.

[Barrow|Pony]

You get bonus points for successfully evading the question.

You ask if ND attacked 1up when 1up was directly above us. Again, I provide you with the two logical courses of action:

We could attack 1up, who had not been hostile, and who consistently focused on the one alliance that hit us nightly.

We could attack LCH, who had been and continues to be hostile, and who consistently focuses on our alliance.

Now, its readily apparent to anyone which way we decided to go. And again, I ask you, what would you do?

So, if you were in LCH's spot, trying to get to #1, where would you hit, and if you were in ND's spot, trying to get to #1, where would you hit?

[Barrow|Pony]

And for gods sake Seth, cut it out with the whining re: whining.

[jerome]

Originally Posted by Seth Mace

Its good to see a poster getting personal, its usually a good marker to pinpoint the start of their arguementive decline.

Congratulations on your best reply to date, though you failed to confirm my "fears" about yourself with regards to my question.

likes of Fishy turned it into one

No they didn`t. To quote myself:

"Secondly, neither was it a whine thread for the incoming they have received from LCH, more rather they are using it (like others) as a pointer to how LCH are misplacing their firepower and/or tactically & politically inadept."