Earth Empires Logo


Verified:

Marco Game profile

Member
1259

Aug 26th 2011, 9:32:30

If l:l is agreed upon and the first hit is a DH

Do you:
A. Continue the l:l retals as if nothing happened?
B. Hit 1 more time, if you didn't make it on the first hit you get a 2nd retal anyway, so why not?
C. Cease hitting, you could have made l:l on your first hit but you blew it, tough luck pal.


I've thought all 3 ways, and I can't come up with a reasonable solution.

Pontius Pirate

Member
EE Patron
1907

Aug 26th 2011, 9:34:20

l:l always ends on DH. who the hell plays the other way? you could just lemming countries otherwise.
Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

Marco Game profile

Member
1259

Aug 26th 2011, 9:47:01

Like I said I've felt all 3 options at one point in time or another, just wanted to hear everyone else. I know c. is the community accepted policy, but why call it l:l then?Since if you odnt get a chance after a dh, obviously it wasn't l:l it was 1:1


*edit* removed sleep

Marco Game profile

Member
1259

Aug 26th 2011, 9:47:17

nodded out.... lol

Flamey Game profile

Member
895

Aug 26th 2011, 11:17:49

I'd assume with close allies you could let them continue, but with unpacted nope.

Dragonlance Game profile

Member
1611

Aug 26th 2011, 11:51:34

if some bloke double taps an alliance, and said alliance DH's the first, they should take 2 more and take standard 1:1 escalating..

if anyone has an issue with it... don't double tap, single tap:p

JanPaul

Member
503

Aug 26th 2011, 11:57:56

stop all this ranting and whining.

start a war and buy my oil!!!

hanlong Game profile

Member
2211

Aug 26th 2011, 22:22:58

if you fail a L:L retal, you should just self-delete your country
Don Hanlong
Don of La Famiglia

Ivan Game profile

Member
2362

Aug 27th 2011, 13:37:49


L:L doesnt end on def held and id love for you to try and enforce that on us

fluff!

Pontius Pirate

Member
EE Patron
1907

Aug 27th 2011, 13:58:26

What a big surprise to see Ivan here defending some retarded policy. Even bigger a surprise would be any other SoF head enforcing this policy. As usual, to "enforce" it on SoF all you need to do is message someone who is not Ivan.
Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

TheVoices Game profile

Member
101

Aug 27th 2011, 18:06:17

This thread amuses me greatly.

I remember when L:L retal policies were new and shiny and super controversial.
wut.

Oceana Game profile

Member
1111

Aug 27th 2011, 22:58:27

And if it a 90% L:L policy you should really try for 89% on the retal so your entitled to a second retal?

Chaoswind Game profile

Member
1054

Aug 28th 2011, 0:06:40

if you get 89% and you go ahead and hit a second time, then be ready to get a lot of hate from the guy, specially if is me.

Personally L:L should be based on 60% and only if Ghost acres didn't make up the rest.

60% L:L or 1:1, that is what makes sense in my book :P
Elysium Lord of fluff
PDM Lord of fluff
Flamey = Fatty
Crazymatt is Fatty 2

TheVoices Game profile

Member
101

Aug 28th 2011, 3:29:42

@89% L:L retal, it all breaks down to how good your FAs are, and what tags are involved.

People may not like it, but not everyone is willing to get into a fight over it, and not everyone has the political or military muscle to force the issue.

Personal feelings really don't mean much. :P
wut.

Marco Game profile

Member
1259

Aug 28th 2011, 3:37:23

"If during a retal land gained is close to 80% (without ghost acres) FA contact will be made."

Rivals L:L retal policy

Ivan Game profile

Member
2362

Aug 28th 2011, 6:09:01

lol@pontius

god some people are delusional

echlori Game profile

Member
241

Aug 28th 2011, 10:19:01

That's silly, how close is close? 2%? 5%? 10%? Then why not call it 70% L:L?

Marco Game profile

Member
1259

Aug 28th 2011, 10:46:02

Close is an fa decision so we don't have people aiming for a specific number

diez Game profile

Member
1340

Aug 29th 2011, 4:49:51

definitely a C for me. You blew your chance dear attacker, too bad bro.

echlori Game profile

Member
241

Aug 29th 2011, 5:18:59

Gee Marco, that's really arbitrary.

Marco Game profile

Member
1259

Aug 29th 2011, 20:56:46

actually fas decided on a # its just not in the pact so we don't have members aiming for specific numbers

Marco Game profile

Member
1259

Aug 29th 2011, 20:58:42

Basically, if you're trying to beat the system, an fa gets involved. Just trying to prevent it by adding and removing specific pact terms

Drow Game profile

Member
1680

Aug 29th 2011, 21:09:51

I see marco's point there. deliberately aiming to come in 1% or less UNDER the threshold of when l:l is considered complete, specifically to take another (potentially bigger) grab for more than you would otherwise be entitled is no more than a cheap trick. I'd consider it on an alliance I was unpacted/disrespect, but for an alliance with whom I have a pact, or with whom my alliance is friendly, it would seem wrong.

Paradigm President of failed speeling