I'm not sure I understand everything that went on here, but it seems like there's some kind of community understanding that two or more corporations should never cooperate against a common enemy. I can understand if there are exploits where two cooperating corporations gain an unfair advantage by working together, but I don't see why two corporations combining their strength to take down a more powerful opponent is somehow taboo. If that's the case, every game of Risk I ever played, we were all cheaters.

Again, I'm sure I'm missing something about the tactics that are being called "cheats" here, but it just seems like shrewd strategy to seek out an ally against a mutual enemy. And when Tebow confided that this was the strategy, it seemed to me that he was saying "despite our best efforts, you were just too much for us", not that he was confessing that they were cheating against you. If he thought it was cheating, I'm sure you'd be the last ones he'd be telling about it. I think it was more like "Darn, what's it take to beat these guys?", basically giving props to a worthy opponent. And you raked him over the coals for it. Yeah, that's fun.

When I think of all of the ludicrous ways you guys circumvent the intended spirit of this game, that you draw the line on corporate alliances just blows my mind. I guess I'll never understand the mindset...

Cruncher...talking to tebow...he said he took out your cashing sectors and captured some of your corp ships and left them there... check the log you will see tebow took out a bunch of ports...

We never gave c1 a cent... we only cashed in our bubble... like i said im a bubble hugger...i dont leave my bubble...i like to do everything under protection...

Yes we had a no attack alliance...

we all cashed everyday... we all had the same number of figs... game will go go no where if we all sat there ...so yes we attacked you first.... the c2 decided to take a run at you... no rules broken... they didnt help us we didnt help them...

Ah.. that explains it then. Yeah Tebow blew two of our ports, so we were getting attacks from both sides, that's when I asked for a non-agg with Corp 1. I initiated the conversation, Orian and I of are the same mindset, we don't much care for planets being used as weapons.

I'm too busy to keep track of furbs... I only yell if I need one and it's not at the ready. LOL

I'm not sure I understand everything that went on here, but it seems like there's some kind of community understanding that two or more corporations should never cooperate against a common enemy. I can understand if there are exploits where two cooperating corporations gain an unfair advantage by working together, but I don't see why two corporations combining their strength to take down a more powerful opponent is somehow taboo. If that's the case, every game of Risk I ever played, we were all cheaters.

Again, I'm sure I'm missing something about the tactics that are being called "cheats" here, but it just seems like shrewd strategy to seek out an ally against a mutual enemy. And when Tebow confided that this was the strategy, it seemed to me that he was saying "despite our best efforts, you were just too much for us", not that he was confessing that they were cheating against you. If he thought it was cheating, I'm sure you'd be the last ones he'd be telling about it. I think it was more like "Darn, what's it take to beat these guys?", basically giving props to a worthy opponent. And you raked him over the coals for it. Yeah, that's fun.

When I think of all of the ludicrous ways you guys circumvent the intended spirit of this game, that you draw the line on corporate alliances just blows my mind. I guess I'll never understand the mindset...

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but if two corp trade assets and mega corp to take down a third, seems like a doulble edged sword to me.

Sure, you gain a big advantage to take the common enemy, but once its down, its a disavantage for the corp that shared assets when it come to take the other one down.

If my assesment is right, it sound a lot more like a strategic decision than cheating.

Sure, you gain a big advantage to take the common enemy, but once its down, its a disavantage for the corp that shared assets when it come to take the other one down.

It's debatable if it's ever in the long term interest to support an enemy against a common foe, but it's sometimes hard to resist the urge. And I think the psychology of it makes the game more interesting.

You guys are beating a dead horse here. You also are talking about 2 different things. Mixed corps and megacorping aren't the same thing.
Mixed corp = A corp with conflicting alignment
Megacorping = Two seperate corps working together and sharing hard assets for a common goal.

As far as megarob being the only reason for a mixed corp, that is false.

We run mixed corps in practically every type game and as long as the blues keep thier alignment around 1000, then the penalty for experience loss is acceptable.

Totally agree with you there. I really can't understand why some consider it cheating tho

Back when the rules for Corps were created, only one corp member was allowed in the game at a time. So much has changed since then. Personally, I think it's an issue that a one-man corp or even solo player is at a disadvantage vs multi-man corp in a time-limited game, simply as a function of time spent in the game. If there is to be any parity between corps of various sizes, there needs to be an equal number of turns/time for every corp, regardless of size. Just something to consider...

I don't understand why people feel it isn't cheating for it to be 6 vs 3 when there are 3-player corp sizes. What sport, where there are rules, allows one team double the players and resources?

Megacorping breaks the parity that the bold text refers to just as surely as a corp of 6 vs a corp of 3.

With respect, I have no idea what your point is. Sincerely. I do understand your english, it just makes no sense. Nonsense?