Jump to content

Recognition of Hostilities


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wars happen once a year generally, so yes, you went roughly two years(give or take maybe 3 months) without a war. It was an intentional decision to allow yourselves to be in a stronger position for this war.

 

Those older nations have in fact by even your own admission sat out the previous slugfest and as such did not have to take the same damage(see, roughly 6 months MINIMUM of tech imports) that everyone else incurred. this afforded you a major advantage over those other nations, you're currently rolling and then for some reason bragging about curbstomping when you have a 5:1 ratio of nations in the upper tier.

 

It really wasn't, but you keep holding onto losing to CSN as a great example of your underdog status.

Plenty of others could make "deft" political moves, but at the cost of loyality to their allies, and those "deft" political moves involve allying an alliance that has proven repeatedly its allies are not of any value to it besides pawns.

 

Oh please, missing one war season is missing one war season and nothing more.  Trying to tease it apart that the actual year in time covered 2 calendar years is hair splitting at its finest to win a sematnic point.

 

We don't plan to win on semantics, or did you miss that whole protip advice?  Clearly semantics is your only avenue of victory here though because we are doing everything else right.

 

I've been fighting in underdog status since '06 and this is my first time to be a jack booted thug.  So cry me a river, Mogar, because your tears are delicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think any of our allies question our loyalty, but please enlighten me!

Surely it was your loyalty and not Umbrella's I was calling into question!

 

Because you were *shocker* incorrect about DT never losing a war.

because *shocker* losing one war 5 years ago is totally the same as being on the losing side of 3/4th of the wars fought over the past 5 years!

 

 

Oh please, missing one war season is missing one war season and nothing more.  Trying to tease it apart that the actual year in time covered 2 calendar years is hair splitting at its finest to win a sematnic point.

 

We don't plan to win on semantics, or did you miss that whole protip advice?  Clearly semantics is your only avenue of victory here though because we are doing everything else right.

 

I've been fighting in underdog status since '06 and this is my first time to be a jack booted thug.  So cry me a river, Mogar, because your tears are delicious.

the semantics argument is valid since tech importation is what is relevant, and alliances that needed to use their slots to actually rebuild their lower tiers would take even MORE time than simply the wartime to recover the lost tech due to having to use the slots for outgoing money and not for incoming tech.

 

You plan on winning by allying everyone with an upper tier, and then more than likely attempting to cozy up with the alliances you're currently rolling in order to roll the other half of your coalition that you no longer require.(An unlikely scenario however, if anyone knows how holds a grudge, it's Polar.)

You personally has no relevance on your alliance as a whole though. You should leave the bravado to greater men, you sound like a poor man's Pacifica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You plan on winning by allying everyone with an upper tier, and then more than likely attempting to cozy up with the alliances you're currently rolling in order to roll the other half of your coalition that you no longer require.(An unlikely scenario however, if anyone knows how holds a grudge, it's Polar.)

 

Speaking for myself, I heartily lol at the idea that DBDC and their ilk would ever manipulate Polar into helping them roll those who (imo) should be Polar's natural allies.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

because *shocker* losing one war 5 years ago is totally the same as being on the losing side of 3/4th of the wars fought over the past 5 years!


Then come up with a better argument then. :)

The statement

"wait until you lose a war and then talk"

implies we have either 1) never lost a war or 2) are now allowed, by you for the past 5 years and on, to 'talk'. Can't blame me for not understanding what you are talking about when you continue to shift the goalposts around. It's almost as if you are implying that without DBDC, we could never win a war!
 

You plan on winning by allying everyone with an upper tier.


Everyone has to have a hobby. Ours is collecting upper tier allies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the semantics argument is valid since tech importation is what is relevant, and alliances that needed to use their slots to actually rebuild their lower tiers would take even MORE time than simply the wartime to recover the lost tech due to having to use the slots for outgoing money and not for incoming tech.

 

You plan on winning by allying everyone with an upper tier, and then more than likely attempting to cozy up with the alliances you're currently rolling in order to roll the other half of your coalition that you no longer require.(An unlikely scenario however, if anyone knows how holds a grudge, it's Polar.)

You personally has no relevance on your alliance as a whole though. You should leave the bravado to greater men, you sound like a poor man's Pacifica.

 

Nice try with the sematics again, but you lose.  We have lower tiers too that we have to repair and we will do it the same way everyone else does, namely with overgenerous tech deals. 

 

The real fact is that your herd was lazy about its tech growth and now you are paying the price.  Tech was hard to lose in wars.  Only the new nuke changed that and that wasn't around in the last war season.  The reason you are weak on tech is because you didn't put the effort into it.  Don't blame us for your slovenly ways.

 

I love your predictions on our future though.  We'll see how well you blindly wish prognosticate as time goes by.

 

As for relevancy, I've always been more relevant than you.  Just never as annoying or noisy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't blame Mogar for being what he/she/it is.  I blame you all for feeding Mogar.  Your wall of texts and reason give sustenance to this ball of hatred festering on the OWF.  Won't you do your part to make these forums a better world and stick to answering people who are actually interested in what you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a cute retort, even though it was referencing that while you personally may have always been on the losing end of a war your alliance has not!

 

Underdog doesn't mean being on the losing end.  It just means being outnumbered.  There is a very distinct difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow rude, I don't even hate anyone, that'd be a waste of energy in this world!

 

 

Underdog doesn't mean being on the losing end.  It just means being outnumbered.  There is a very distinct difference.

 

Considering I'm used to one versus six warfare, there might be a difference but you're still going to take far more damage in either situation than you are going to in your alliance's current position.

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely different alliance that the one that currently exists, you know that. As for damage, yeah its easy to do when you've done nothing but collect tech for the past two years while everyone else is using their statistics.

 

Others have already pointed out the fallacy of this statement. But the one thing I know about DT is that the culture won't change which is pretty much the same as any other alliance really. And as Bob has stated, SupaTrooper and TiTaN have led DT for far too many years. :P

 

Surely it was your loyalty and not Umbrella's I was calling into question!

 

because *shocker* losing one war 5 years ago is totally the same as being on the losing side of 3/4th of the wars fought over the past 5 years!

 

the semantics argument is valid since tech importation is what is relevant, and alliances that needed to use their slots to actually rebuild their lower tiers would take even MORE time than simply the wartime to recover the lost tech due to having to use the slots for outgoing money and not for incoming tech.

 

You plan on winning by allying everyone with an upper tier, and then more than likely attempting to cozy up with the alliances you're currently rolling in order to roll the other half of your coalition that you no longer require.(An unlikely scenario however, if anyone knows how holds a grudge, it's Polar.)

You personally has no relevance on your alliance as a whole though. You should leave the bravado to greater men, you sound like a poor man's Pacifica.

 

3 years actually. The CSN-LoSS front started Jan 2011. As for how and who DT treaties, that has honestly stayed the same since I was there. A lot of thought, effort, and planning goes into who they treaty. Even Mjolnir was done for a purpose with a lot of planning involved in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow rude, I don't even hate anyone, that'd be a waste of energy in this world!

 
 

Considering I'm used to one versus six warfare, there might be a difference but you're still going to take far more damage in either situation than you are going to in your alliance's current position.

 

 

Well I'm disappointed then.  While I disagree with the vast majority of what you say, I had hoped there was some semblance of *passion* behind it rather than just trolling for the sake of trolling itself.  I can see someone being passionately wrong about stuff, but I guess I don't quite understand how you want to sustain this level of effort in thread after thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well I'm disappointed then.  While I disagree with the vast majority of what you say, I had hoped there was some semblance of *passion* behind it rather than just trolling for the sake of trolling itself.  I can see someone being passionately wrong about stuff, but I guess I don't quite understand how you want to sustain this level of effort in thread after thread.

I am able to separate leaders from nations.

 

(OOC: the game from the actual players, ICly I'm against just about everything DBDC does so long as they keep raiding RIA and its allies, OOCly I have no issues with any of them and quite frankly am impressed with what they've managed to do and the lack of anyone to actually make the needed movements to stop them. Feel free to throw Dajobo a query some time and ask him who I !@#$%*ed the coalition at large about not actually focusing, the tools were there to actually cement a genuine victory up until last war, but the drama between TOP and IRON sealed any chance of that actually coming to fruition. But I could never genuinely hate anyone over this, it's a game, I play a character on the forums but I would gladly befriend anyone regardless of IG politics, I think separation of the two is a good thing, even though those of us who actually partake in the genuine RP are limited in number.)

Edited by Mogar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

because *shocker* losing one war 5 years ago is totally the same as being on the losing side of 3/4th of the wars fought over the past 5 years!


Yea it was 2011, but hey, semantics right? Anyway, I don't see that as a bad thing.... In fact I see that as a true testament to our ability to choose our allies thoughtfully. I see that as a compliment. Being in only one losing war in 3-4 years while we are consistently on the winning side in all the other wars is pretty damn good in my opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea it was 2011, but hey, semantics right? Anyway, I don't see that as a bad thing.... In fact I see that as a true testament to our ability to choose our allies thoughtfully. I see that as a compliment. Being in only one losing war in 3-4 years while we are consistently on the winning side in all the other wars is pretty damn good in my opinion.

I see it as ignoring your allies on occasion to ensure you stay safe, just like Umbrella has done.

 

Mogar, if you genuinely feel this way then why did you come at us individually like that earlier?

OOC: you realize this is an IC forum, and your alliance is actively participating in a curbstomp of my alliance and several of its allies for no actual IC reason besides some alleged accusations about the terms for Pacifica being harsh last war, even though the largest proponent of those terms is currently orchestrating your war coalition. Am I expected to be happy with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Why don't you hit Polaris for hitting terror suppliers in DT probes then, rather than uninvolved and innocent alliances?

it seems that Polaris is for the most part very well covered,, and this seems to have had the desired impact.

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it as ignoring your allies on occasion to ensure you stay safe, just like Umbrella has done.


Who did we ignore last war? I wanted to war so badly in Disorder. It was just the circumstances outside of our control that kept us out. I'm sorry.

OOC: you realize this is an IC forum, and your alliance is actively participating in a curbstomp of my alliance and several of its allies for no actual IC reason besides some alleged accusations about the terms for Pacifica being harsh last war, even though the largest proponent of those terms is currently orchestrating your war coalition. Am I expected to be happy with that?


I fully understand that however I think you already crossed that line earlier with those slanderous comments. You can do what you want, it doesn't concern me. In my opinion, role playing doesn't give you an excuse to be a dick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is your alliance is bragging about being a "superior military alliance" while on the winning side, wait until you lose a war and then talk.


Not sure if serious. Nobody in DT made so much as a post about this war until you people started making stupid claims about our military proess. Your reap what you sow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it as ignoring your allies on occasion to ensure you stay safe, just like Umbrella has done.

 

OOC: you realize this is an IC forum, and your alliance is actively participating in a curbstomp of my alliance and several of its allies for no actual IC reason besides some alleged accusations about the terms for Pacifica being harsh last war, even though the largest proponent of those terms is currently orchestrating your war coalition. Am I expected to be happy with that?

 

Reasons for participation in a coalition are never universal and you are well aware of that.  It's pretty clear there were enough issues even if they aren't the same ones that people  have with alliances on the other side to make this reach critical mass. It would be odd to speculate people who didn't participate in the last war or were even on the Polar/TOP side(not just Umbrella) are motivated by revenge over it.

 

I also didn't see any of these complaints in the last war when the coalition was made up of most of Eq and a few of Eq's primary targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely different alliance that the one that currently exists, you know that. As for damage, yeah its easy to do when you've done nothing but collect tech for the past two years while everyone else is using their statistics.

 

Gonna have to call bullshit on this. The core is still here, and we haven't changed. I don't think someone outside the alliance has more authority over that than the actual alliance members.

 

Pixel hugging or not: 

Number of Soldiers Lost:

 

7,667,769 Attacking + 9,767,403 Defending = 17,435,172 Casualties

:ehm:

I don't blame Mogar for being what he/she/it is.  I blame you all for feeding Mogar.  Your wall of texts and reason give sustenance to this ball of hatred festering on the OWF.  Won't you do your part to make these forums a better world and stick to answering people who are actually interested in what you say?

Everyone else is silly and I just wasted my time reading all these replys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna have to call !@#$%^&* on this. The core is still here, and we haven't changed. I don't think someone outside the alliance has more authority over that than the actual alliance members.
 
Pixel hugging or not: 

Number of Soldiers Lost:
 


7,667,769 Attacking + 9,767,403 Defending = 17,435,172 Casualties
:ehm:

Everyone else is silly and I just wasted my time reading all these replys.


Yea my ugly mug is still here after all these years. Lol

Stop bragging lol
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...