| Re: FA7: Fledgling Admirals needs replacement player |
Mon, 04 July 2011 21:59   |
|
|
|
| Eagle of Fire wrote on Tue, 05 July 2011 07:05 |
GS already told me the same thing. And even though we are actually allied, I told him I would object myself because of conflict of interest.
So, I object because of conflict of interest.
|
I thought of GS as well but it's not the same situation with Void.
I might not be able to put this succinctly, but....
the original 43 has been at war with you and GS,
while had a low level/zero conflict with me and grendal.
In the case of Void, he's
been at an low level/zero conflict with you and GS,
while he has been at war with me and grendal.
If I had to choose, as a player, between three options
A> 43 being inactive,
B> 43 being taken over by GS
C> 43 being taken over by Void...
I would choose the last, despite the fact that if he takes over 43 it could mean complications due to our war, but it would still be better than 43 going inactive, imo.
Even if I personally see the next 43 working informally with you (taking the attacks down a notch), if GS replaces 43 it would be a definite eventuality.
Thus the conflict of interest as you pointed out.
However if Void replaces 43, from his previous posts, I don't any sudden alliances being reworked.
There's no love lost between Void and me/grendal or him and you/GS.
I'm guessing he would work with snot to take the best action possible.. which could either mean
> sticking to the original alliance of 4 and attacking grendal/me > or perhaps you, or
> attacking oceanics/copoids.
It would depend on how Altruist reads the situation and if he makes the alliance between Snot (BK) and 43 (GS/Void) a permanent one.
edit - post changed.
[Updated on: Mon, 04 July 2011 22:08]
I know my minefields.. but I'm a chaff sweeper.
I used to curse when I got stuck in traffic... till I realised I AM traffic.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
