» List all forums
» » Forum: Piratical Parley and Politics
» » » Thread: Regarding sinking blockades
» » » » Post: Re: Regarding sinking blockades
Print at Feb 26, 2020 3:11:54 PM
|Posted by warp11 at Oct 3, 2012 9:15:03 AM|
Re: Regarding sinking blockades
Okay let's begin by an objective definition of attrition:
The legitimacy of attrition is irrelevant to it's nature, and/or whoever it profiteers.
Now if I understood you correctly, you don't think it's okay to rely on pushing opponents off the board with pay (agreed), but you think it's okay to use funds to punish people that use funds? The amount of logic that exists in your argument is equivalent to the amount of f*cks I give about the pricetag of a blockade. It also seems ridiculously hypocritical.
And please before you try to refute what I just said, look up about 2-3 inches and you'll see a quote that specifically says that attrition (usually) benefits the side with the most resources, which means that by using attrition blockades to punish Requisition you're essentially either helping them (if they have more funds than you) or replacing them with the same means they used to get to the position they're in; superior funding.
Clearly, SMA's are bad. But the best way to take down an SMA is to provide a healthy alternative, and not more of the same thing. Though I feel like we've somewhat strayed off topic. I'll return to my algebra, please continue moaning about how you don't like sinking blockades because you get outsunk whenever you're trying to grief Requisition.
Sigh, women =! logic.
Dahl "I have higher moral standards" gren
Powered by mvnForum
mvnForum copyright © 2002-2006 by MyVietnam.net