JonBoy16 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Burning Glory' timestamp='1306804879' post='2720933'] Really? I think TPC is as good as ever.....See we at TPC don't feel the need to crush any alliance, when one ask for peace we grant it, what ever their reason to request peace!! Always was that way, always will be. I like to think any alliance playing TE would do the same and I'm quite sure PS would be as honorable BG. [/quote] Well if anyone is qualified to speak on a matter between TPC and PS, I think I would be. Both alliances have some great people in them, though TPC has lost some of the more prominent ones over the last several rounds. I love TPC and I have many friends over there still, but there are and always have been some issues within the alliance. The main issue (unless it has changed since I left) is always trying to stack the odds in their favor. All the treaties over the years, etc. In comparison to PS: The leadership of PS decided to go to war against two AA's (both at the same time) who's stats were higher in EVERYTHING (except one category I think. I think we had two more members). TPC decided to hit one smaller AA, let another small AA join later, then reach peace with the first small AA while still warring with the second small AA. Not much of a crisis war as far as TPC is concerned and very conservative. This very reason is why I wanted to join PS when I came back to TE and why I didn't want to go back to TPC. There's an attitude of respect and a larger desire to war than I've seen. The biggest thing I've noticed since joining PS is how incredibly organized they are! FAR better than any other AA I've ever seen. There's a cancerous attitude within TPC, and it emits a sense of maintaining a public perception of being a war machine while trying to sustain as little damage as possible. That's why we get wars like the one TPC is involved in right now. I mean, y'all just started this stinkin' thing three days ago and you're already peacing out? Its also why TPC has more 'nuke free' wars than anyone else. Its the smoke-screen wars that is cancerous. I do love y'all over there at TPC though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einer Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Four paragraphs, and you managed to totally avoid mentioning how we tried to include DF in our declaration. Impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dealmaster13 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 [quote name='Einer' timestamp='1306824127' post='2721232'] Four paragraphs, and you managed to totally avoid mentioning how we tried to include DF in our declaration. Impressive. [/quote] Always good to fully understand the whole situation before commenting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMuz Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 I agree that PS had a more impressive war, but really, TPC isn't PS. That's not necessarily their fault though. PS builds itself as a small, elite, organized alliance, while TPC has a larger, less experienced member base. Alliances like PS and LE actually [i]need[/i] to updeclare to have a fair fight, because of their experienced membership. Unlike SE, skill is a much more important factor in determining victory than NS. You can't just compare NS and numbers. TPC slightly down declaring is as much a challenge to them as PS slightly updeclaring. Also, I think JonBoy's point was that TPC's chooses to fight lots of wars that do little damage. DF war shouldn't even count, since they're at war with Warriors. It would only reinforce the point about trying to maintain a false public perception Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einer Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 But the point is that they [i]weren't[/i] at war when we were drawing up our war plans. It struck me as a pretty solid plan - fight GR for the upper tier nukefest, then DF for a mostly conventional slugging match in the midtier. It was our bad luck that DF declared on Warriors about 5 minutes before we were supposed to hit them, and their good luck that we have a solid enough organization to stop almost everyone from attacking them while they were busy blitzing. (My suggestion was that we should just hit Warriors too. Ah well...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespassianus Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 I don't know why people are crying, TPC looks satisfied, GR enjoyed the fight and Synergy looks happy too. Everyone has fun, where's the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonBoy16 Posted June 1, 2011 Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 [quote name='Einer' timestamp='1306824127' post='2721232'] Four paragraphs, and you managed to totally avoid mentioning how we tried to include DF in our declaration. Impressive. [/quote] Nah...I would have praised you guys had the thing worked out with DF too. The thing is though, it didn't, so TPC warred against a small alliance while they waited for a different AA to attack. I've always been against wars that are crazy uneven no matter who is involved in them. Even if its my friends in TPC. So no- I'm not crying, I'm just pointing out the failure. Y'all should have stopped the GR attacks too and made different plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scytale Posted June 1, 2011 Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 I still say you should have released them for a free for all. Who know how many alliances would have joined in on either side. Could have been a glorious global war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul711 Posted June 1, 2011 Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 [quote name='JonBoy16' timestamp='1306889349' post='2721624'] Nah...I would have praised you guys had the thing worked out with DF too. The thing is though, it didn't, so TPC warred against a small alliance while they waited for a different AA to attack. I've always been against wars that are crazy uneven no matter who is involved in them. Even if its my friends in TPC. So no- I'm not crying, I'm just pointing out the failure. Y'all should have stopped the GR attacks too and made different plans. [/quote] I agree with this sentiment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centaurus Posted June 1, 2011 Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 (edited) Edit: just deleted everything. Edited June 1, 2011 by Centaurus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonBoy16 Posted June 1, 2011 Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 [quote name='Centaurus' timestamp='1306911866' post='2721890'] Edit: just deleted everything. [/quote] I wish you would have let me see it first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevieG Posted June 1, 2011 Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 [quote name='JonBoy16' timestamp='1306889349' post='2721624'] Nah...I would have praised you guys had the thing worked out with DF too. The thing is though, it didn't, so TPC warred against a small alliance while they waited for a different AA to attack. I've always been against wars that are crazy uneven no matter who is involved in them. Even if its my friends in TPC. So no- I'm not crying, I'm just pointing out the failure. Y'all should have stopped the GR attacks too and made different plans. [/quote] I could only imagine the outcry on these boards, had TPC peaced with GR after barely an update of war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonBoy16 Posted June 1, 2011 Report Share Posted June 1, 2011 [quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1306935016' post='2721989'] I could only imagine the outcry on these boards, had TPC peaced with GR after barely an update of war. [/quote] Stopping the war in general would have been a better idea. They could have prepped for another couple days and found a better option than the course they chose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts