CptAmerica wrote:
You misunderstood me.
Everyone is claiming we have so much support. But if that's the case, why are we attacking ops of an alliance claimed to be helping us.....and why is another alliance that is supposedly on our side making deals with UN1?
It just doesn't add up. We don't have the support everyone claims. It's this fabrication that was the reasoning to form this monstrosity aka UN.
Oh my god.. You are taking the OPs of the alliance that is helping you? I think we have a clear confession of OP farming here.
thechessshark13 wrote:
Sigh. If UN needs support to defeat AI, damn right they do. Are they any less good because they do? Hell no. No one should be ashamed for needing the help of many allies, or to get the help of many allies. If you dislike it so bad, then surely you must also have a way to counter it. No? Then you're just hating what's effective. As far as I've heard, getting friends to fight alongside you wasn't dishonorable. I'm not saying every hated trick is hated because it works, but in this case, they're no rule or code of honor that says you can't get friends for your own protection; true enough, you're acting while knowing your personal battle skills were not good enough to face them 1 on 1, but your diplomatic skills covered for it. Being #1 doesn't mean you have the right to face the rest of the world 1 on 1: the world has their own right to team against those who cannot fall otherwise.
As for this.. We differ in opinion here. I think allies to an extent are good, but I believe subs, and especially subs this massively, are simply wrong. They are effective indeed, I do not think anyone denies that. It's also rather effective to backstab, to boost the entire era long, it would actually be rather VERY effective to bribe an admin. That does not mean it is a honorable way to play, a skillful way to play, or even a fun way to play.
As far as "If you dislike it you must have a way to counter it", that is one of the most nonsense arguments I have heard. I believe this shows where your argument goes wrong:
"Sir, they have an atomic bomb! What can we do?!"
"Well, we dislike their atomic bomb. We must miraculously have some wonder weapon we can use against that, RIGHT?!"
"Err well Sir.. We actually have nothing that could possible save us if it hits."
Anyway, I could write a rant describing how I think you are wrong on so many levels, but I'll write it off as a difference of opinion. There seems to be a current field of players that is perfectly comfortable winning eras on mostly the strength of their support teams and the fact that they can simply send 10 subs at whoever opposes them. If that is the way you want to play, I can not blame you. As you said, it is a VERY effective way to play. But then you must also understand that for those (oldschool?) players that would rather win an era by using their own power, their own activity, their own strategy, this way of playing seems very meagre. And indeed, you do not need any real skill or activity for this way of playing. I believe that is the great criticism of the style of playing. All you really need to do is get a large group of players that are utterly bored and content just to build up all era, suicide units and display no skill in general.