Jump to content

A joint Roman Empire and Warriors Production


Recommended Posts

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357541586' post='3072338']
I got defensive slots left. Come get some, son :P
[/quote]
Heh. If I was a lesser man I might have acceded to that act of passion. I'll stick with destroying your boys though. Let the kings duel amongst themselves as is only proper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I also notice the wars you declared were huge down-declares.

[quote name='shirunei' timestamp='1357542136' post='3072342']Heh. If I was a lesser man I might have acceded to that act of passion. I'll stick with destroying your boys though. Let the kings duel amongst themselves as is only proper.[/quote]

Translation: I talk it but I don't walk it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357542379' post='3072344']
I also notice the wars you declared were huge down-declares.



Translation: I talk it but I don't walk it
[/quote]
Counter Point
Your time will come. Until then I have two slots open myself. Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dogbite' timestamp='1357541633' post='3072340']TW finds themself where TPC was last round.[/quote]

Well I dunno about THAT. This is a pretty even war. It might even be that RE has an edge since they have 2x our nukes, but whatever. We each hit other alliances just to make things weird. It should be lots of fun :awesome:

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1357541308' post='3072335']Remember the old song, "American Pie"?

This war will be the "day TE dies".[/quote]

Pfft our wars are significantly harder than your war lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B-)

Way to go RE 'n Warriors...! This kind of "Spin" puts some 'Salsa beat' to the TE Party!!!

BTW, -bcortell... ! What a Surprise! :excl: Good luck trying to Nuke 'em, man... I couldn't nuke you(dont have'em)... but now i am digesting very well the one you served me this morning...! :lol1:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heart scytale!

Y'all know, since every other alliance ducked the two of us up to now?
I'd have to say that this war was mostly arranged by all y'all lol :smug:

---

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357539986' post='3072324']Damn, TPC has been the most manly AA so far this round. They're the only ones that chose to fight after being stomped on for a little bit instead of just taking peace. I can't say I would see you or Stelios do the same. Paul used to, but I haven't been around for a couple rounds.[/quote]

Since you have questioned my manliness, and I happen to have stupid free time right now, and I'm a night person anyways who happens to be really bored for something to do, I shall now begin to crush you with the twin iron grips of reason and math. We shall begin by comparing your war with ours to see who is really more manly.

First of all, stats:
[quote name='Samwise' timestamp='1356764045' post='3069045']War Doves avg NS: 3,521
Muscle Hamsters avg NS: 5,078[/quote]

These are our stats from last updated: 1/7/2013 5:25:58 AM
Roman Empire: 53 nations | 46 active | 392,062 tot ns | 7,397 avg ns | 121 nukes
Warriors: 61 nations | 46 active | 364,994 tot ns | 5,984 avg ns | 58 nukes

Hey we've actually closed the pre-war avg gap a bit, wtg us. However, they do have 2x+ as many nukes as we do. I think our stats certainly look a lot better than yours does. This is pretty much an updeclare for us, and you pretty much declared down. As a matter of post-fact, the results of your war ALONE say you didn't fight people tough enough. The pre-war stats just back that up.

[quote name='President S O' timestamp='1357279398' post='3071165']
Annnnd still no return wars :\[/quote]

According to the war screens, you guys got very few return wars. However this won't be a problem in our war (even though Stelios won't send ME anyone to play with), seeing as how we will probably get about an equal number of offensive and defensive wars. I'm pretty sure you can't say the same about your war.

Yet more points:

1. YOU used nuclear weapons against nations you knew absolutely could not nuke you back.
I expect to get nuked repeatedly in the wars I declare. Can't say the same, can you? tW > MH

2. YOU fought an alliance with no nukes.
WE are fighting an alliance with twice as many nukes as us. tW > MH

3. YOU started your war with a blitz against apparently unprepared opponents.
WE started our war against people who knew the exact second we were coming for them. tW > MH

4. YOUR war was stopped after a couple days. Three maybe? Not your fault, but still true.
OUR war goes at least 5 days under much tougher conditions. tW > MH

On every scale ours is bigger than yours - but then you guys are hung like hamsters :P
My manly just slapped your manly upside it's food hole, didn't it?

Tl;dr: When all is said and done, our war will have been a LOT more fun than yours was. That goes for nations of all alliances involved and on every tier. Your war seems to have not even been fun enough for you, much less the alliance you hit down on. On the "total fun" index, this war slays every other war this round by a longshot. tW > MH.

[size=5]...also: [b]WE ARE MORE MANLY THAN YO[/b][/size][size=5][b]U. tW > MH.[/b][/size]
[size=5]Do the Muscle Hamsters know the meaning the of word "scoreboard?"[/size]






[size=1].....of course you do get to say you're in this war too...[/size]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357538184' post='3072311']
These pre-arranged wars seem like cop out to getting out of real wars.
[/quote]

Clash does it every round...takes minimal damage...then pretends to have the moral authority to judge others.

Have fun with your rigged fight ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357561398' post='3072392']
I heart scytale!

Y'all know, since every other alliance ducked the two of us up to now?
I'd have to say that this war was mostly arranged by all y'all lol :smug:

---



Since you have questioned my manliness, and I happen to have stupid free time right now, and I'm a night person anyways who happens to be really bored for something to do, I shall now begin to crush you with the twin iron grips of reason and math. We shall begin by comparing your war with ours to see who is really more manly.

First of all, stats:


These are our stats from last updated: 1/7/2013 5:25:58 AM
Roman Empire: 53 nations | 46 active | 392,062 tot ns | 7,397 avg ns | 121 nukes
Warriors: 61 nations | 46 active | 364,994 tot ns | 5,984 avg ns | 58 nukes

Hey we've actually closed the pre-war avg gap a bit, wtg us. However, they do have 2x+ as many nukes as we do. I think our stats certainly look a lot better than yours does. This is pretty much an updeclare for us, and you pretty much declared down. As a matter of post-fact, the results of your war ALONE say you didn't fight people tough enough. The pre-war stats just back that up.



According to the war screens, you guys got very few return wars. However this won't be a problem in our war (even though Stelios won't send ME anyone to play with), seeing as how we will probably get about an equal number of offensive and defensive wars. I'm pretty sure you can't say the same about your war.

Yet more points:

1. YOU used nuclear weapons against nations you knew absolutely could not nuke you back.
I expect to get nuked repeatedly in the wars I declare. Can't say the same, can you? tW > MH

2. YOU fought an alliance with no nukes.
WE are fighting an alliance with twice as many nukes as us. tW > MH

3. YOU started your war with a blitz against apparently unprepared opponents.
WE started our war against people who knew the exact second we were coming for them. tW > MH

4. YOUR war was stopped after a couple days. Three maybe? Not your fault, but still true.
OUR war goes at least 5 days under much tougher conditions. tW > MH

On every scale ours is bigger than yours - but then you guys are hung like hamsters :P
My manly just slapped your manly upside it's food hole, didn't it?

Tl;dr: When all is said and done, our war will have been a LOT more fun than yours was. That goes for nations of all alliances involved and on every tier. Your war seems to have not even been fun enough for you, much less the alliance you hit down on. On the "total fun" index, this war slays every other war this round by a longshot. tW > MH.

[size=5]...also: [b]WE ARE MORE MANLY THAN YO[/b][/size][size=5][b]U. tW > MH.[/b][/size]
[size=5]Do the Muscle Hamsters know the meaning the of word "scoreboard?"[/size]






[size=1].....of course you do get to say you're in this war too...[/size]
[/quote]


Those war stats still aren't very accurate for us.

12/28 Pre-war
W.D 16 nations, 13 built, 59,861 NS, 4275 ANS excluding 0 infra nations (numbers above are off)
M.H. 10 nations 10 built, 50,777 NS, 5078 ANS

To me, thats pretty close. Taking an 800 ANS advantage but giving up 3 extra nations and 9k NS.

I won't say that the fighting back made it a great war because it didn't. War Doves centered all there counters on 2 smaller nations, adopting the strategy that they would rather win versus 2 lower nations and lose badly in 8 then fight all 10 close.

But along with the above correction, it also didn't end after 3 days -- it picked right back up with fresh declares on the 3rd. And again it would be pretty silly to hold the unexpected server downtime against the declare? :wacko:
And immediately at the break of peace, we were back at it, fighting against Skaru in what is either a raid or defense of their declaration on us 24 hours earlier. We're not sure because they still aren't sure.

But the thing is, more then anything you are right that it was a blitz. Thats how you do maximum damage.

You can say you didn't blitz nations as an argument for how well your hung. But both of you did grab other AA's and blitzed them in this prearrangement, so its not entirely true. (Something I don't begrudge :D )

And while it sounds good to say we are presetting a war versus each other so the other person will be able to fight back more. [b]But the result is you also aren't blitzed[/b]. They aren't blitzed. And you can build without worrying about the fear of an incoming attack up to the minute before the war starts. So to everyone not in it, it looks like both parties are playing nice, making sure not to get pantsed and that no one gets completely wrecked -- a win for both.

I'm not personally a fan of prearranged wars. This is war, if your really going to do it why are you waiting for when they are set and not blitzing the pre-arrangement. Instead, it just looks like a prearranged war game.

But good luck getting those nukes flying at each other, and a war that is worth bragging about it -- this definitely has the potential to overcome the hurdles it is starting from and looking like that.

Edited by hartfw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's going to be fun embarrassing you Clash.

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357561398' post='3072392']
I heart scytale!

Y'all know, since every other alliance ducked the two of us up to now?[/quote]
True, no one DoW'ed you. That doesn't mean you couldn't have DoW'ed someone long ago. Instead, you chose to just sit back for the first two weeks of the round. Don't complain when people pass on you if you're going to do that.


[quote]uFirst of all, stats:

These are our stats from last updated: 1/7/2013 5:25:58 AM
Roman Empire: 53 nations | 46 active | 392,062 tot ns | 7,397 avg ns | 121 nukes
Warriors: 61 nations | 46 active | 364,994 tot ns | 5,984 avg ns | 58 nukes

Hey we've actually closed the pre-war avg gap a bit, wtg us. However, they do have 2x+ as many nukes as we do. I think our stats certainly look a lot better than yours does. This is pretty much an updeclare for us, and you pretty much declared down. As a matter of post-fact, the results of your war ALONE say you didn't fight people tough enough. The pre-war stats just back that up.[/quote]
We had 9 guys active to their 17 (really 16 if the 3 NS nation didn't build up, but he did, so 17). Those stats were after the blitz, where it's entirely possible to lose 500-1000 NS per nation. They hovered around 12K total NS higher than us. With our small AA's, it isn't difficult to have the number of nations actually matter more than ANS. For us, it was a war to see how we would do. This AA isn't PS. It has a few players from PS, but most of our guys are playing TE for the first time (or first time on an AA). They're learning the game.

You're right, I (my nation) had to downdeclare in our wars. I took their highest NS nation. When CoS posted that DoW, I took the highest NS nation out of all the AA's. When we decided to hit CoS, I hit their highest nation along with another in their top 3.

[quote]According to the war screens, you guys got very few return wars. However this won't be a problem in our war (even though Stelios won't send ME anyone to play with), seeing as how we will probably get about an equal number of offensive and defensive wars. I'm pretty sure you can't say the same about your war.[/quote]
I believe we had 18 wars in our blitz. We anarchied 5 out of 17 nations. They countered with 6-8 of their own declarations. Hardly few returns considering the AA sizes.



[quote]Yet more points:

1. YOU used nuclear weapons against nations you knew absolutely could not nuke you back.
I expect to get nuked repeatedly in the wars I declare. Can't say the same, can you? tW > MH[/quote]
When we blitzed, it was 1 nuke to 0 nukes. Our guy's nuke was spied before the first update (he should have known better). So 0 to 0 nukes by midnight of the first night. I wasn't in the top 5% at the time of the blitz.

Either way, a nuke is just an extra powerful CM. There is nothing wrong with using all the tools available to you to beat someone. We don't play the bull !@#$ you do with non-nuclear scuffles and crap like that.

Clash -1

[quote]2. YOU fought an alliance with no nukes.
WE are fighting an alliance with twice as many nukes as us. tW > MH[/quote]
You just tried to use this point above. Once again, we only had 1 nuke at the time of the blitz and 0 nukes by the time midnight hit. Neither of our AA's had nukes. I was just able to get into the top 5% because of other wars (not by yourselves, of course. You wanted to sit in the top 5% loading up on nukes before warring).

Clash -1

[quote]3. YOU started your war with a blitz against apparently unprepared opponents.
WE started our war against people who knew the exact second we were coming for them. tW > MH[/quote]
Like I said, this pre-arranged stuff is ridiculous. You knew either they would come for you, or you would go after them. Instead of trying to outsmart your opponent, you make a deal with them about the war. Here's one for ya... Will there be peace before a winner and loser of the war is decided? Of course not, you guys aren't men. You don't fight to win. Go ahead, prove me wrong. Fight until there is a clear winner in the war. When was the last time you've done that?

Clash -1

[quote]4. YOUR war was stopped after a couple days. Three maybe? Not your fault, but still true.
OUR war goes at least 5 days under much tougher conditions. tW > MH[/quote]
This is how I know you're full of !@#$. Your statement is completely wrong. Minutes after TE came back online, we were declaring wars. We had 9 of the first 10 wars declared after TE came back. The only other war was one of your guys on a tech raid, because of course, you were still just sitting around.

We continued to fight until peace was reached. Peace hadn't been reached before TE went down nor was it once TE came back. We filled our slots with wars until peace was reached, which was 1/6/2013.

Clash -1

[quotes]On every scale ours is bigger than yours - but then you guys are hung like hamsters :P
My manly just slapped your manly upside it's food hole, didn't it?[/quote]
Your war is bigger, you have more nations. Very smart of you to be able to comprehend that.

And be careful what you say about the hamsters..
[img]http://dailypicksandflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/hamster-with-a-gun.jpg[/img]

Clash -1 (My picture is better than your joke)

[quote]Tl;dr: When all is said and done, our war will have been a LOT more fun than yours was. That goes for nations of all alliances involved and on every tier. Your war seems to have not even been fun enough for you, much less the alliance you hit down on. On the "total fun" index, this war slays every other war this round by a longshot. tW > MH[/quote]
This is really what shows me how pussified TE has become. Fun is now fighting pre-arranged wars, most likely for only five days, and then peacing them without caring who won or lost. It used to be coming up with a plan for the round, executing it while kicking the !@#$ out of everyone along the way, doing whatever you needed to win wars. You're more worried about a "total fun" index than winning. Truly a womenly thing. Take the kids to soccer practice, Clash. Hopefully, they have fun.

Finally, look what I can do. :P
[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KnNUNIoJ3BQ/UApQGkgDkzI/AAAAAAAANHs/if_Nb8nP3M4/s640/Hamster.jpg[/img]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you guys should have let us in on the pre-arranged nature of the war. if you had we wouldn't have immediately used all our slots on skaro who had previously threatened action against us and later actually declared war against us only to take it back within minutes. war doves had actually delayed peace which apparently was so that skaro + gang could get on us (which as mentioned didn't work out for them). now all of our offensive slots are completely filled with skaro nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357571449' post='3072417']
And while it sounds good to say we are presetting a war versus each other so the other person will be able to fight back more. [b]But the result is you also aren't blitzed[/b]. They aren't blitzed. And you can build without worrying about the fear of an incoming attack up to the minute before the war starts. So to everyone not in it, it looks like both parties are playing nice, making sure not to get pantsed and[b] that no one gets completely wrecked -- a win for both.[/b]
[/quote]
Except Stelios. He's lost nearly as much infra in the blitz as all of opponents.. combined.

[quote name='dockingscheduled' timestamp='1357571856' post='3072420']
you guys should have let us in on the pre-arranged nature of the war. if you had we wouldn't have immediately used all our slots on skaro who had previously threatened action against us and later actually declared war against us only to take it back within minutes. war doves had actually delayed peace which apparently was so that skaro + gang could get on us (which as mentioned didn't work out for them). now all of our offensive slots are completely filled with skaro nations.
[/quote]
Stelios added us in last minute just so he could hit us.

Edited by bcortell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wth we sit around for the first 2 weeks of the round waiting for someone to get the balls to attack us for once and noone does so we take the obvious war with the only alliance we can attack without being called little !@#$%*es for a major down declare and people are !@#$%*ing that we just made shure that re knew we were comeing? if re has any brains they knew we were comeing anyway so i dont see the big deal about a joint announcement. if people have a problem on how we war i have a suggestion grow a pair and attack us for once and dont make us go looking for a fight be a nice change of pace

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357542792' post='3072346']
Well I dunno about THAT. This is a pretty even war. It might even be that RE has an edge since they have 2x our nukes, but whatever. We each hit other alliances just to make things weird. It should be lots of fun :awesome:



Pfft our wars are significantly harder than your war lol
[/quote]You are arguing with Thomas.. he wont ever see anything the right way.. He cant read stats..
[quote name='wasso' timestamp='1357553733' post='3072371']
Pre-arranged wars ? I expected more .

Good luck though :)
[/quote] Really? what did you expect?
[quote name='Freddy' timestamp='1357568284' post='3072412']
Clash does it every round...takes minimal damage...then pretends to have the moral authority to judge others.

Have fun with your rigged fight ;)
[/quote]Clash will take damage.. trust me ;)
[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357572033' post='3072421']
Except Stelios. He's lost nearly as much infra in the blitz as all of opponents.. combined.


Stelios added us in last minute just so he could hit us.
[/quote] I did not add you last minute. to be honest.. you for sure were a target more than tW was.. I have been planning on shoving my fist in you since you started going off on IRC again :3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much to answer so I'm skipping parts of it.

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357571449' post='3072417']
Those war stats still aren't very accurate for us.

12/28 Pre-war
W.D 16 nations, 13 built, 59,861 NS, 4275 ANS excluding 0 infra nations (numbers above are off)
M.H. 10 nations 10 built, 50,777 NS, 5078 ANS

To me, thats pretty close. Taking an 800 ANS advantage but giving up 3 extra nations and 9k NS.[/quote]

Those stats come before you sucker punch the other alliance with quads, make sure you pick all the intial wars, etc. So actually I don't think they are the most accurate at all. The stats I used come after you got in first attacks. You guys were already stronger and they were already weaker.

Each side in this war has fought back a lot harder than WD did with you guys. I hope you aren't going to try and argue that? Already in this war, each side has fought back much much harder than WD did in your entire war.

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357571449' post='3072417']I won't say that the fighting back made it a great war because it didn't. War Doves centered all there counters on 2 smaller nations, adopting the strategy that they would rather win versus 2 lower nations and lose badly in 8 then fight all 10 close.[/quote]

Well I think was more like they were utterly unorganized and had no plan at all, which means they do almost nothing, except for a couple easy to win wars. Occam's razor hard at work. Those are all the counters you got, really? We have a lot more than that on a nation-by-nation basis.

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357571449' post='3072417']
But the thing is, more then anything you are right that it was a blitz. Thats how you do maximum damage.

You can say you didn't blitz nations as an argument for how well your hung. But both of you did grab other AA's and blitzed them in this prearrangement, so its not entirely true. (Something I don't begrudge :D )[/quote]

What bcortell said, I just threw someone in so our little nations - who kind of sucks anyways and are usually inactive former unaligns - had someone to fight too. we had 9 molre nations than RE so I picked an alliance with 11 nations. Meh..

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357571449' post='3072417']And while it sounds good to say we are presetting a war versus each other so the other person will be able to fight back more. [b]But the result is you also aren't blitzed[/b]. They aren't blitzed. And you can build without worrying about the fear of an incoming attack up to the minute before the war starts. [/quote]

What are you talking about? Did you not look at the war screens? We blitzed each other, it wasn't just one-sided. This argument that someow sucker punching an unorganized opponent first makes for a better war than hitting someone who is very organized, expecting you and hitting you back, is just silly. For competition's sake, it's not even close.

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357571449' post='3072417']This is war, if your really going to do it why are you waiting for when they are set and not blitzing the pre-arrangement.[/quote]

I don't think there was going to be much of a surprise. Stelios and I were in the same channel watching the OP wars start. We knew we were going to be hitting each other. So what we should have hurried and blown off the football games to attack at noon? Blasphemous!

I think you guys think a good war is a curbstomp. Thats what you did against WD after all, and apparently it's all you ever want to fight. Well I think those are the wars that really kill the game. I'll stand by what i said: Across all alliances involved, from top to bottom, this war will be a LOT more fun than your war was.

Why are you guys so afraid of a straight-up fight?
That's the way I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree with Bcortel's point about fighting to win. OP likes to have fun but we want to win every war we fight, I suspect others do as well, hence the constant TE bickering in almost every war.

Another poster said Bcortel should join TPC because of his praising their continuing their war. TPC has earned that respect for ponying up and playing the hand dealt them. OP would have continued and has in the past a few times alongside PS and LE. I am no fan of TPC but I have to /salute them.

Edited by paul711
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1357575487' post='3072437']
I do agree with Bcortel's point about fighting to win. [/quote]

Everyone fights to win. Hell, if all I want to do is win, we would have hit New league of Nations a long time ago and crushed hem. Sure we win. But I prefer a good fight to even winning. This war is straight up. It's a lot harder than the one you guys picked, and I'll match that up against anything you want to throw at me. After all, you guys blitzed an unwary opponent and we blitzed one we made sure was as wary as they could be. We pick harder wars than you do. It's not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357575075' post='3072435']
So much to answer so I'm skipping parts of it.



Those stats come before you sucker punch the other alliance with quads, make sure you pick all the intial wars, etc. So actually I don't think they are the most accurate at all. The stats I used come after you got in first attacks. You guys were already stronger and they were already weaker.

Each side in this war has fought back a lot harder than WD did with you guys. I hope you aren't going to try and argue that? Already in this war, each side has fought back much much harder than WD did in your entire war.



Well I think was more like they were utterly unorganized and had no plan at all, which means they do almost nothing, except for a couple easy to win wars. Occam's razor hard at work. Those are all the counters you got, really? We have a lot more than that on a nation-by-nation basis.



What bcortell said, I just threw someone in so our little nations - who kind of sucks anyways and are usually inactive former unaligns - had someone to fight too. we had 9 molre nations than RE so I picked an alliance with 11 nations. Meh..



What are you talking about? Did you not look at the war screens? We blitzed each other, it wasn't just one-sided. This argument that someow sucker punching an unorganized opponent first makes for a better war than hitting someone who is very organized, expecting you and hitting you back, is just silly. For competition's sake, it's not even close.



I don't think there was going to be much of a surprise. Stelios and I were in the same channel watching the OP wars start. We knew we were going to be hitting each other. So what we should have hurried and blown off the football games to attack at noon? Blasphemous!

I think you guys think a good war is a curbstomp. Thats what you did against WD after all, and apparently it's all you ever want to fight. Well I think those are the wars that really kill the game. I'll stand by what i said: Across all alliances involved, from top to bottom, this war will be a LOT more fun than your war was.

Why are you guys so afraid of a straight-up fight?
That's the way I see it.
[/quote]

I think your making my point. The initial blitz was where considerable damage was done. Instead, both tW and RE choose to assure that the one other AA that could initially blitz them and do that much damage wouldn't. Its pretty simple.

Its much safer to have your alliance hit when you know its coming, you can't bother arguing otherwise. Its much safer to keep building knowing that this won't come until the prearranged time. tW and RE made sure to make sure that neither got sucker punched. Instead, they told their opponents when to line up defending troops, collect before hand, swap in as much military improvements etc.

You took the safe route. Don't pretend otherwise. Your blitz you sent out and yoru blitz you received wasn't a blitz. It was lines of soldiers with muskets waiting to fire in turns. Maybe better for casualties, but not intended for maximum damage -- how can it be when its arranged to coincide with maximum defense?

You considerably dulled the initial impact of war for both alliances involved.


And adding ridiculous comments like why are [b]you[/b] guys so afraid of a straight up fight is sad. We haven't complained about being included, (just refuting the claim that you have the moral high ground for not blitzing). We, or at least I, are saying that you were afraid of getting sucker punched and hit. Or not ballsy enough to hit RE and take it to them. It is [i]war[/i]. Either way, now you sound like Stellios, might as well just add a no u.

But since you took the safe route and built up until now, you should have robust nations to gentlemanly war each other with, and I wish you the best in making it the bloodbath it can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...