"Nightwish did do a lot of attacks but indeed system clearings, also a lot of small fams have been grabbed by them, and the end 200 planets they took from what was 42? sick." - love

if your talking about 642, nightwish didn't gain shit from us EoR, 200 planets is completely absurd

eor everyone is even so u can attack everyone, but attacking 20+ rank after expofase for like 50 planets aint good

haha

24 Hours until the sky turns red with blood!

Milky Way free spots : 68 of 420

24hours for some of the lower fams to become Contenders, gogogo join Milky Way its the bestof the best.

gogogooooooo

omg, me too...

thats twice in a row... X(

Eh, actually, it's more like 72 hours. There is a 48 hr ban on ops/atks.

> hummy wrote:

> Eh, my point exactly.

"Due that we had 0 big wars and perfect econ"

"We haven't fought any big fam due we had too many planets in our personal core to clear..
3k+ pl is bad result ?"

An, you claim to have good atkers? You fought no wars, you avoided em, and infra-whored. You were a big fam, who could afford sloppy, lazy inept atkers, and keep funding them, an you did.

Eh? This is what you refer to?

He admitted to doing no wars. Just core clears and preventative clears. I did not argue about their right to the rank they ended with, or the strat they chose. I did argue, they cant claim to have good atkers. I did not say they were [Early in the morning] (and I abhor the term [Put him in the hold with the Captain's daughter], I prefer wimp. [Put him in the hold with the Captain's daughter] is sexist and demeaning to women) I merely said, they cant claim to have good or great atkers.

As to 666's strat. You did as you had to. I dont argue against that, or your ending rank. But with that said, dont argue you had great atkers. You didnt, and admit as much. An inactive atker = a lame atker.

Finally, why did no one war them? idk. Could it be the infra, and the fleet it could supports?

i could and i would!

will

walt

who?

> Jets2k8 wrote:

> hummy as i understand what ya saying. I also disagree. As attackers in big fams can be lazy at times.you may say well they had more to work with thier not better. for that one round yeah they are.

you say well attackers in small fams have to retake and keep the planets they have. yeah and this hurts them from getting more.retaking isn't something that makes an attacker great.

To be honest mw was weak in attackers last round. the ones i seen and fought against yeah was mostly from top fams ,but some smaller fams guys could of done more so i noticed them. for 1 round of judgement top attackers were in the bigger fams.

Ah, Jets. I think you confuse success with being good. My point is indeed who does the most with what he has? That is a messure of an atker. Atkers in big fams can afford to be sloppy, and stupid, and inactive and get away with it. Atkers in small fams must count cost, and work with way less. For that one round,  atkers in a big fam are more successful, yes, but are they really better?

Atkers in small fams must do retakes and defend. And, I disagree, doing retakes does NOT make an atker less worthy. Defending the fam, and doin the retakes on a shoestring proves an atker is great. Again you are wrong, you count planets taken, as more important than planets defended, or who does what with what they have.

Your def of a good atker seems to be how successful he is and how many planets he takes. Mine is how he does with what he has. How he works for his fam, and how he succeeds in spite o the odds.

If I was in a big fam, and had unlimited fleet, and unlimited ability to replace it, I would rule, I would take the entire galaxy.
But, would that make me a good atker? I doubt it.

Hummy do you always make life storys when you post? :S

> - ANUBIS - wrote:

> Hummy do you always make life storys when you post? :S

Lol, not always. But did I tell how I was orphaned at a young age, and was taught to steal by Fagin, and..........