Jump to content

A joint Roman Empire and Warriors Production


Recommended Posts

This post was pretty much silly long. I'm breaking it in two lol

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357571782' post='3072419']
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]
Yeah we could have blitzed someone is a big down-declare like you guys did but we ended up with a much harder fight. No one was complaining. I love this trend where pointing out the truth is twisted as a complaint. Hell all you have done is complain all night long. You are whining like the south of France over there.

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357571782' post='3072419']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. [/quote]
Again, my point in the differences between our wars and why yours sucked. THEY lost 500-100 per nation and you didn't. This is why the stats I provided are more accurate. There was no such imbalance in this war between RE and tW. it was straight up. That last line is BS. I can take down multiple nations that are smaller than me by myself if I have better planes and they don't have the nukes to kill them. They must coordinate together just to win grounds - which isnt always possible, all it takes is conflicting life schedules.

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357571782' post='3072419']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]

Yeah there was a big difference between the amount of wars you recieved as opposed to the ones you declared. This is why your post about how them having more nations makes a difference is wrong - because it did NOT make a difference. In this war it's pretty much even. I'll take a straight up mano-y-mano fight against your blitz down-declare every time.

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357571782' post='3072419']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.[/quote]

Just a big long string of stupid insults and circular reasoning, and not a point to be made. It sucks because it sucks and it sucks because I said it sucks and I'm going to whine a lot blah blah blah. It used to be that huge curbstomps were the norn and not the exception. I think TE is a lot better than that now, well at least over here. Over there all you care about is winning a fight, not the quality of the fight.

Taking the easy war doesn't make you good.
This war is a LOT harder than your WD war and you are insane if you think differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 154
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357576521' post='3072440']


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.
[/quote]

Clash I have no problem with the war, I was merely talking about the general facade rampaging throughout TE regarding fun wars. I think your war is a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeez I hope I lined this crap up right.

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357571782' post='3072419'][quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357561398' post='3072392']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.[/quote]

This one was about YOU, not MH. I should have made the difference clearer.

YOU used nukes against nations you admit were a lot smaller than you. Wow you gotta suck and I think that makes you a big fat wimp. That CM stuff is always just stupid too, especially since you were doing the nuking and weren't takling any. Have you ever seen the damage comparason? LOL A CM doesn't put you in nuclear effects. I bet they had no warchest to begin with and you felt like a big tough guy nuking 'em and trying to make 'em reroll. It just underlines your down-declare.

...and yes you DO play non-nuclear scuffles. [b]YOU DAMN WELL DO.[/b]
Well, for YOU, not the other alliance. The nuke screens don't lie.

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357571782' post='3072419']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).

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357561398' post='3072392']2. YOU fought an alliance with no nukes.
WE are fighting an alliance with twice as many nukes as us. tW > MH[/quote][/quote]

This was about the alliance, not you specifically. Your alliance had nukes. Theirs did not. You dropped nukes. They did not. All your excuses don't change this. In this war our opponents have twice as many nukes as we do. Compared to your war, there is no comparison.

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357571782' post='3072419']
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?

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357561398' post='3072392']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][/quote]

We aren't your puppets either. I do not WANT to fight all round long just to make YOU happy. What kind of stupid is that?

[u]Everyone[/u] fights to win, even those who suck at war. However, we have always fought to win as evenly matched wars as possible, or even updeclares - whereas ALL you do is fight to win, any way possible. You guys were all flag huggers too, something we never did.We appear to have very different goals in this game. My goal is for as many people as possible to have as much fun as possible. That's winning for me, and I don't give a flying !@#$ whether you like it or not. Got it?

Games are for fun, thats why they are games after all. You appear to just want to curbstomp someone and win no matter what, and if they don't have any fun in your stomp well screw them. I don't think that makes you good. I don't think that has been good for CN, and I don't think it's good for TE.

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357571782' post='3072419']
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.

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357561398' post='3072392']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][/quote]

...so you got in TWO blitzes on them?! You are complaining about this war with a mutual even blitz, and your war you had TWO of them? You took that 500-100 ns advantage damage thing you were talking about TWICE and you think that as a good war and use stats that hide it? What the hell is wrong with you? Can you not even do MATH!?! Wow. Nicely underlines what I meant about "much tougher conditions" for this war than you had.

We are very far apart in what we want from TE.
No wonder most of PS quit - and most of tW has stayed. We are still having fun.
Which underlines my point the best way possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm getting tired of stupid long posts, and I'm sure most everyone else is too.

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357577157' post='3072443']
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?[/quote]

We appear to have very different ideas of "safe." I think safe is hitting an alliance you know you are going to kill, when you have much bigger nations, and you are suckerpunching them when they aren't looking. That's the safe move. It's what everyone does. According to bcortell you do 500-1000 ns damage to the other guys before they do any to you. THAT is safe.

By your own count you had a lot fewer defensive wars than offensive wars. Again, that's safe to me. You aren't going to take as much damage as the other nations are. You chose the wars, not them. Well, in this war the number of offensive and defensive wars should end up about even. There was no safe advantage like you took - TWICE.

You are not going to convince me that a straight up war is safer than suckerpunching someone twice. You guys nuked and didn't get nuked, that's safe. I don't think you even remotely putting in a good argument. Like, don't talk about muskets, that's just cluttering things up. There were no "turns" in this war, it happened all at once. There were turns in YOUR war - you took first turn, twice.

We really do appear to have diferent goals in TE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Prozenz' timestamp='1357572745' post='3072425']Ah, the planned 5 days of war, this is so RE, Clash. I expected better from tW. :([/quote]

Where the heck have you been? Did you quit the game because it wasn't fun anymore?
Well, we are actually trying something different from the way that bored you off the planet.

Seriously people. Evolve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357580830' post='3072465']
I'm getting tired of stupid long posts, and I'm sure most everyone else is too.



We appear to have very different ideas of "safe." I think safe is hitting an alliance you know you are going to kill, when you have much bigger nations, and you are suckerpunching them when they aren't looking. That's the safe move. It's what everyone does. According to bcortell you do 500-1000 ns damage to the other guys before they do any to you. THAT is safe.

By your own count you had a lot fewer defensive wars than offensive wars. Again, that's safe to me. You aren't going to take as much damage as the other nations are. You chose the wars, not them. Well, in this war the number of offensive and defensive wars should end up about even. There was no safe advantage like you took - TWICE.

You are not going to convince me that a straight up war is safer than suckerpunching someone twice. You guys nuked and didn't get nuked, that's safe. I don't think you even remotely putting in a good argument. Like, don't talk about muskets, that's just cluttering things up. There were no "turns" in this war, it happened all at once. There were turns in YOUR war - you took first turn, twice.

We really do appear to have diferent goals in TE.
[/quote]

The WD war was a terrible war. But not because it was guaranteed to be lopsided, again they had more NS, more nations and the ANS advantage wasn't large. ANS, nations, and nukes were all closer then this current affair. And a good portion of our nations hadn't done TE before. It was terrible because they didn't fight back except where they found the least amount fo resistance at all, making what could have been a decent war into something considerably less so.


This war hopefully will be a great war, you two can really have at it if you let yourselves. But at least to me, there is a clear softness and safety of having your nation not attacked until you know exactly when it will be. If that softness and safety is needed for you to enjoy TE, well then I guess I'm glad you found someone who is so eager to have the same for them. But its not a trait I look up to or would brag about like you have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Komplex said! Those who have done it know how much fun it is :)

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357581394' post='3072469']
1. The WD war was a terrible war. But not because it was guaranteed to be lopsided, again they had more NS, more nations and the ANS advantage wasn't large.

2. ANS, nations, and nukes were all closer then this current affair. And a good portion of our nations hadn't done TE before. It was terrible because they didn't fight back except where they found the least amount fo resistance at all, making what could have been a decent war into something considerably less so.

3. This war hopefully will be a great war, you two can really have at it if you let yourselves. But at least to me, there is a clear softness and safety of having your nation not attacked until you know exactly when it will be. If that softness and safety is needed for you to enjoy TE, well then I guess I'm glad you found someone who is so eager to have the same for them. But its not a trait I look up to or would brag about like you have been.
[/quote]

1. The avg NS was not remotely as close as you guys are trying to make it out to be. Include your two blitzes into the equation. More Ns and nations doesn't mean crap when you have bigger ones by nearly 50% right after the opening attack. How is that close?

2. No they were NOT. You nuked them four times and they never nuked you. You guys did most of the wars, you guys blitzed them twice, the list goes on and on. I love that your idea of "close" is you having clear definate advantages. You admit they didn't fight back - well we made absolute sure that RE would fight back. You guys ended up with a very safe war. We chose differently.

3. I think the clear softness and safety is knowing you will be doing the attacking and not being attacked back, that you will be dictating the wars not your opponents, etc, etc. We had nations flying back and forth at each other, that was a lot more exciting than just the same ol' suckershot that everyone usually does.

It's pretty simple, the build up for the war was for most of both sides not just one.
Thats not safer. That's tougher. A lot more fun too, for both sides not just yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357539986' post='3072324']Damn, TPC has been the most manly AA so far this round.
[/quote]

Who wants to be "manly" anyway? :P

For the past couple weekends and certainly past few days, we tW membership must of gotten a message at least every other day about making sure that we had built up because we were likely to get attacked, etc. etc. I think Clash was actually looking forward to being on the receiving end of an attack. And we've both taken spy attacks over the past two weeks, I'm guessing ours are from RE.

In any case, we weren't attacked. You know as much as anyone that regardless of all the tough talk, when an alliance is large and/or has a reputation as good builders, fighters, etc. etc. - actually being attacked is a rare treat, if it happens ever. If Clash hadn't done something, there may of been an internal revolt. WE LIKE OUR CASUALTIES after all, and pickings for tech raiding are hard to find when at the level of being able to buy nukes without a MP.

Personally I probably would of just said, "all right then, if you're not going to do it, we will" and attacked without making any sort of pre arrangement - but that's me, not clash and he and company are doing all the organizing work so they can get me my casualties their own way and if it means arranging an attack with the other side, so be it.

If anyone thinks this is going to be any less bloody, not on my part it isn't - and I doubt any other Warrior would put up with that either. :war:

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1357583686' post='3072486']
Who wants to be "manly" anyway? :P

For the past couple weekends and certainly past few days, we tW membership must of gotten a message at least every other day about making sure that we had built up because we were likely to get attacked, etc. etc. I think Clash was actually looking forward to being on the receiving end of an attack. And we've both taken spy attacks over the past two weeks, I'm guessing ours are from RE.

In any case, we weren't attacked. You know as much as anyone that regardless of all the tough talk, when an alliance is large and/or has a reputation as good builders, fighters, etc. etc. - actually being attacked is a rare treat, if it happens ever. If Clash hadn't done something, there may of been an internal revolt. WE LIKE OUR CASUALTIES after all, and pickings for tech raiding are hard to find when at the level of being able to buy nukes without a MP.

Personally I probably would of just said, "all right then, if you're not going to do it, we will" and attacked without making any sort of pre arrangement - but that's me, not clash and he and company are doing all the organizing work so they can get me my casualties their own way and if it means arranging an attack with the other side, so be it.

If anyone thinks this is going to be any less bloody, not on my part it isn't - and I doubt any other Warrior would put up with that either. :war:
[/quote]

agreed if we had not gone into battle soon clash mite have had a revolt on his hands, we just were hopeing for once to be the ones attacked

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357582270' post='3072476']
What Komplex said! Those who have done it know how much fun it is :)



1. The avg NS was not remotely as close as you guys are trying to make it out to be. Include your two blitzes into the equation. More Ns and nations doesn't mean crap when you have bigger ones by nearly 50% right after the opening attack. How is that close?

2. No they were NOT. You nuked them four times and they never nuked you. You guys did most of the wars, you guys blitzed them twice, the list goes on and on. I love that your idea of "close" is you having clear definate advantages. You admit they didn't fight back - well we made absolute sure that RE would fight back. You guys ended up with a very safe war. We chose differently.

3. I think the clear softness and safety is knowing you will be doing the attacking and not being attacked back, that you will be dictating the wars not your opponents, etc, etc. We had nations flying back and forth at each other, that was a lot more exciting than just the same ol' suckershot that everyone usually does.

It's pretty simple, the build up for the war was for most of both sides not just one.
Thats not safer. That's tougher. A lot more fun too, for both sides not just yours.
[/quote]

They WD war was closer in initial stats. The stats obviously diverged as they war went on. To me this was much much more a product of tactics then initial unevenness. The ANS wasn't that large after the first round, but they choose to have all their counters on 2 nations and watch their top nations all go under instead of supporting them. If they had countered differently, it could have been much better. They did have the nations NS, ANS and WC's to do so.

I'm happy to keep talking about it and if the target was indeed to fluffy to begin with (in hindsight they clearly were), but maybe we should move that to the declaration thread for that war?


But in all your attention to that war, you seem to be barely addressing what was actually being brought up about this war. Namely that the prearranged war between RE and tW is clearly much safer for both of you then a non prearranged war between tW and RE. And for choosing the safer option, more then a few people have said thats a shame to see. That said, this does have the potential for being a great bloody war and I'm hoping for your sakes that it is great and delivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357571449' post='3072417']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.[/quote]

What you (and maybe other people) are missing here is that this war is NOT something that RE and tW planned out a long time ago. Clash and other tW leadership have been sending us messages for a LONG time now about RE maybe attacking us and we need to be ready, etc. etc. I don't even know how many times I've swapped in G-Camps because of being told expect an attack tomorrow and then nothing happens at all.

Below isn't even the first example. We got similar "we are likely to be attacked" messages after the Xmas holiday. I just happened to have this one and deleted the prior ones.

[b]To:[/b] [url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000319"]Sylvia Midnight[/url] [b] From:[/b] [url="http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000011"]Clash[/url] [b] Date:[/b] 1/3/2013 11:06:35 PM

[b]Subject: [/b]Warriors War Alert: DEFCON 1

[b]Message:[/b] Here we go Warriors!

We have a spy attack that caught on our spy screen records. A Roman Empire nation got caught spying one of ours. It is unlikely we will get hit in this coming update (1/3-12/4) but after this update be expecting anything.

Your Orders: GET READY FOR INCOMING WAR!

Every nation needs to be set up with full Guerrilla Camps and Barracks immediately after collecting on 1/4. If you don't, well I guess you suck don't you? You will get anarchied and killed right away and you'll be useless for our counter-attack.

You have been warned and ordered.
There is NO EXCUSE for not being ready for war!

Let's go Warriors!
We will show them what war truly looks like.

o7 WARRIORS!

--------------
Note the date, January 3rd! Then we got another the 4th and another the 5th - none of them stating that anything was planned out.

So yeah - we/'ve been on "high alert" just like any other alliance, basically every weekend since after the holiday - same as everyone else. In fact, the day I even knew that war would happen for sure via a message was 1/6/2013, and that one I just figured was via good intelligence.

So we had no advantage, this wasn't any sort of long term plan. If Clash did anything wrong, it was waiting to long in the hope that someone would declare war on Warriors first and when that didn't happen just decided to do it this way as opposed to a surprise attack. I wouldn't have done it this way, I would of just said "oh well" and given up on the idea of someone attacking us and just doing the declaration. But if Clash and the RE leadership decide to do it this way - so be it.

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357579974' post='3072463']


We are very far apart in what we want from TE.
No wonder most of PS quit - and most of tW has stayed. We are still having fun.
Which underlines my point the best way possible.
[/quote]

eh. personally i could careless about how this war of yours started, i actually don't think its a big deal how u went about it. to me its just different. not better, not worse, just different. whatever floats ur boat.

however, please don't try to comment about PS. i hold the days of PS as some of the most fun i ever had in TE, and we were never short of innovative ways to play TE. i mean there's a reason u played with us for a round under a different name, we were fun and really good. people didn't quit cause they were bored. people just moved on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me personally I remarked about fighting to win rather than merely to have fun because, like PS, OP has always been smaller than many of the other big massive AAs. This has made us evolve to make blitzing an artform and something we take pride in, the PS blitz on MI back in the day was a thing of beauty and an inspiration for us. To be on the recieving side of an OP blitz, no matter if you hate us or not, is devastating and our bread and butter, we rely upon doing that intial damage to overcome numbers. Prearranged wars for fun, nothing wrong and I am not knocking this war at all, takes away from our strength and we will never do one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Stelios' timestamp='1357574912' post='3072434']
You are arguing with Thomas.. he wont ever see anything the right way.. He cant read stats..
Really? what did you expect?
Clash will take damage.. trust me ;)
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
[/quote]
Better try harder. You're the one getting stomped right now.
[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357575075' post='3072435']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.[/quote]
Hilarious. Pre-war stats are always what is used and for good reason. It shows a picture of the AA's before they build up and attack. That shows how even a war can be. Not after a blitz. I'm just laughing at your quote right now. It has to be one of the farthest things out there said on here in a while. The stats that the guy from WD are before they could have built up. If they had (tanks and air), they probably would have had a similar ANS to us (closer than even the 800 ANS difference)


[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]
You blitzed each other. You barely have any counters. Do you know what a counter is?


[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]
Oh hey, here you say you blitzed each other. So are they counters or did you blitz each other? They're not the same thing. I'll explain it to you later if ya need me to.

But, I guess we'll see what type of counters you guys (RE and tW) put together for tonight. I'll be waiting..

[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![/quote]
Yep, an off hour blitz would have been better, as I've already said. Didn't need to be at noon, so the football games isn't an issue. But, an evening hour or whenever your AA could do it would have been a better war. Would have been smart. It also would have shown what type of coordination one AA had in a blitz, what type of counters the other could muster (real counters, not whatever it is you think), which should have been a decent amount since most guys were maxed out militarily.

[quote]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. [/quote]
Hilarious. First, this AA is not PS. But, since you want to seemingly bring PS' history up, this quote is hilarious. PS has quite a more storied history of updeclares, multi-round wars, and tougher wars than tW will ever have. As Paul remembered, our war against MI was probably the biggest updeclare in TE. We ended up hitting LE at the end of the round, being severely overmatched and outnumbered in every faucet of the game. Got our asses whooped pretty decently, but we had the balls to do it. We also beat GR after three rounds of fighting, only to go to war against RE and Syn (alongside LE and OP) the same night. We won that war. We anarchied all of Catharsis less than 24 hours after THEY blitzed us. (That's from counters.) We chose to fight and subsequently wrecked RE (they were the number one AA, were were in the 5-7 range) when we (believe it was you and I) organized that massive top 10 or top 12 AA war. (For the uniformed, no not a pre-arranged top 12 AA war. We organized six of the AA's and everyone went to war at the same time.)

That's just some of PS' recent history that you guys can't come close to matching.

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357576521' post='3072440']
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.
[/quote]
A win against NLoN doesn't mean much. If one of you guys would have used some strategy in attacking the other and the other AA put together a nice counter attack AND you actually fought to a winner and loser, then this would be a nice win.

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357577995' post='3072452']Again, my point in the differences between our wars and why yours sucked. THEY lost 500-100 per nation and you didn't. This is why the stats I provided are more accurate. There was no such imbalance in this war between RE and tW. it was straight up. That last line is BS. I can take down multiple nations that are smaller than me by myself if I have better planes and they don't have the nukes to kill them. They must coordinate together just to win grounds - which isnt always possible, all it takes is conflicting life schedules.[/quote]
So you're saying one AA can coordinate to put together wins on the ground but the other. Now you're just talking out both sides of your mouth.

[quote]It used to be that huge curbstomps were the norn and not the exception. I think TE is a lot better than that now, well at least over here. Over there all you care about is winning a fight, not the quality of the fight.[/quote]
Maybe for your AA, but that was never the case for my past AA. PS probably had the most updeclares, gruely wars out of anyone (LE might give us a run for our money). You really can't match our history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357579974' post='3072463']
YOU used nukes against nations you admit were a lot smaller than you. Wow you gotta suck and I think that makes you a big fat wimp. That CM stuff is always just stupid too, especially since you were doing the nuking and weren't takling any. Have you ever seen the damage comparason? LOL A CM doesn't put you in nuclear effects. I bet they had no warchest to begin with and you felt like a big tough guy nuking 'em and trying to make 'em reroll. It just underlines your down-declare.

...and yes you DO play non-nuclear scuffles. [b]YOU DAMN WELL DO.[/b]
Well, for YOU, not the other alliance. The nuke screens don't lie.[/quote]
We had one nuke in the blitz (that was subsequently spied away), as I said. But, yes, we don't do non-nuclear wars because we're not !@#$%*^. Can you say the same? We use every tool available to us at any given time in a war. Oh the big bad nuke. It's just another tool.


[quote]We aren't your puppets either. I do not WANT to fight all round long just to make YOU happy. What kind of stupid is that?[/quote]
Wouldn't take all round to win/lose a war. It's more likely to be in the 10-15 day range. Going from five days to 10-15 isn't much of a difference in a 90 day round. But, your quote shows me you have no concept of actually trying to win wars. You have barely an idea of how long it would take. And, you probably have no idea what it would actually take to win a grueling war in-game.

So, knowing a little more than what you did before, is this war going to go until there is a winner and a loser? It might take 5-10 days more than you were planning before. Think you can take that?


[quote[u]]Everyone[/u] fights to win, even those who suck at war.[/quote]
False, many AA's just fight to say they fought a war. Hell, even when people talk about wars recently, it's not about winning or losing them (besides Paul). It's, "Yeah, we fought so and so." It's not, "Yeah, we beat so and so."

[quote]However, we have always fought to win as evenly matched wars as possible, or even updeclares - whereas ALL you do is fight to win, any way possible.[/quote]
This AA is not PS, but if you want to compare our histories, do it. You don't have a chance. But yes, I do fight to win any way possible. I don't hold back once I go to war.

[quote]You guys were all flag huggers too, something we never did.[/quote]
Yep, we mixed it up. We also did civil wars, individual tournaments, and many other things. We play the game to the fullest. You play the game in five day wars.



[quote]...so you got in TWO blitzes on them?! You are complaining about this war with a mutual even blitz, and your war you had TWO of them? You took that 500-100 ns advantage damage thing you were talking about TWICE and you think that as a good war and use stats that hide it? What the hell is wrong with you? Can you not even do MATH!?! Wow. Nicely underlines what I meant about "much tougher conditions" for this war than you had.[/quote]
Yep, once we're at war, it's on. We don't hold back. If they were online when TE came back, they could have tried to hit us. One AA (TPC) has already shown that could have been done. That's because Hellas misplayed their war. We didn't misplay ours.

[quote]We are very far apart in what we want from TE.
No wonder most of PS quit - and most of tW has stayed. We are still having fun.
Which underlines my point the best way possible.[/quote]
Once again, this AA is not PS. Guys that were in PS moved on from SE, and since we used TE as a supplement to SE, moved on from TE too. It wasn't because of how we played the game, though.

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357580830' post='3072465']
We appear to have very different ideas of "safe." I think safe is hitting an alliance you know you are going to kill, when you have much bigger nations, and you are suckerpunching them when they aren't looking. That's the safe move. It's what everyone does. According to bcortell you do 500-1000 ns damage to the other guys before they do any to you. THAT is safe.[/quote]
Nope, that's just a decent blitz. It doesn't mean you're safe at all. Good AA's can put together a nice counter attack.

[quote]By your own count you had a lot fewer defensive wars than offensive wars. Again, that's safe to me. You aren't going to take as much damage as the other nations are. You chose the wars, not them. Well, in this war the number of offensive and defensive wars should end up about even. There was no safe advantage like you took - TWICE.[/quote]
Yep, which is why everyone uses pre-war stats to determine equality of wars.


[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357581183' post='3072467']
Where the heck have you been? Did you quit the game because it wasn't fun anymore?
Well, we are actually trying something different from the way that bored you off the planet.

Seriously people. Evolve.
[/quote]
No, you're not at all. Not if this war goes 5 days and then some arbitrary peace is reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1357583686' post='3072486']
Who wants to be "manly" anyway? :P[/quote]
Haha hi WC.

[quote]For the past couple weekends and certainly past few days, we tW membership must of gotten a message at least every other day about making sure that we had built up because we were likely to get attacked, etc. etc. I think Clash was actually looking forward to being on the receiving end of an attack. And we've both taken spy attacks over the past two weeks, I'm guessing ours are from RE.[/quote]
Looks like it. Clash even posted a thread about RE spying them. A better AA would have just warred RE.

[quote]In any case, we weren't attacked. You know as much as anyone that regardless of all the tough talk, when an alliance is large and/or has a reputation as good builders, fighters, etc. etc. - actually being attacked is a rare treat, if it happens ever. If Clash hadn't done something, there may of been an internal revolt. WE LIKE OUR CASUALTIES after all, and pickings for tech raiding are hard to find when at the level of being able to buy nukes without a MP.[/quote]
Remember when you and I were leading PS one round? We tried to hang back and let someone attack us so we could practice being on the defensive side of a war. Turned out terribly. What he should have done is this:

[quote]Personally I probably would of just said, "all right then, if you're not going to do it, we will" and attacked without making any sort of pre arrangement[/quote]

But, Clash has been working on a pre-arranged war since the start of the round. He even asked us if we wanted to be in one earlier this round. (We declined, obviously.) I'm guessing he wasn't looking to be on the defensive end (he still could have been in a pre-arranged war), he was just looking to have a pre-arranged war. It's a cowardly move all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I'm drawn to this thread. Haven't really been keeping up since mid last round. Yeah that last round, sorry that whatever I was working on didn't flesh out completely. Was trying to do something different but inactivity and to a lesser degree Sandy got in the way. Was even going to post something at the end and didn't even do that. :psyduck:

Just want to add that whatever AA that I'm in now was just made for laughs. We didn't actually expect anything of it and I actually believed it would die after 25 days. Ended up being used for some "noob" training instead so this war is good. I seemed to be the only one keeping the nation going in any shape and that only due to habit I guess. But, there was no pre-arranged plan that brought whatever AA I'm in into the war. I think it was just added literally as stated in the OP. I woke up with an email alert about war and got all excited thinking an SE war finally started until I realized it was TE. You guys tricked me. Oh well, consolation prize I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not even going to bother reading all that stupid crap. You really like this whiny little go back and forth huge post bs, and I hate it.This is exactly why I don't post here most of the time. Geez dude, are you really only good for crying like an immature wench when someone tries to do something different?

I'm not going to waste any more time on your ridiculous posts. You used to be respectable. Not anymore, apparently all you do these days is whine like Napa valley. So $%&@ off. You're a waste of space and time.

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357595939' post='3072545']
But, Clash has been working on a pre-arranged war since the start of the round. He even asked us if we wanted to be in one earlier this round. (We declined, obviously.) I'm guessing he wasn't looking to be on the defensive end (he still could have been in a pre-arranged war), he was just looking to have a pre-arranged war. It's a cowardly move all around.[/quote]

If you aren't looking for an offensive war, then you HAVE to be waiting for the defensive, idiot. We waited for someone to hit us after giving great provacation, and no one did. You can't control someone attacking you, someone just has to gather up the guts to do it. No one did.

I try to do what makes things fun for the members of my alliance. I think the fact that my alliance is still here, going strong, growing, getting better and having as much fun as ever - while most of yours quit the game - means I'm better at that then you are. You failed to evolve. This game is down to a fraction of what it once was because of sniveling little clowns just like you.

The idea that your weak punk down-declare was somehow "more courageous" than what we've done here - in a stupid game, no less - is absolutely moronic at best and barking mad at the worst. I offcially no longer give a !@#$ what you think. I still have slots open, You got a problem with me, come get me. Send someone you pathetic clown.

I think you're a crying little !@#$%* who lacks imagination and can only fight down anymore. I have already repeatedly beaten the crap out of your stupid little war where you were afraid to fight anyone who would threaten you. This war is a lot better by every measure possible. Most importantly - in a game - fun. Are you really going to just cry and complain everytime someone does something you don't like?

Since it seems sniveling is what you love most about this game, then I guess we've given you the most fun you've had in rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='scytale' timestamp='1357598451' post='3072562']I think it was just added literally as stated in the OP. [/quote]

Thanks and exactly. We had about 10 extra little crappy inactive nations more than RE and I wanted to give them someone to fight. You guys happened to have 11 (mostly) smaller nations. I literally tacked you onto the bottom of the target list the last second before sending it out, after I ran out of RE targets to assign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dockingscheduled' timestamp='1357587739' post='3072500']people didn't quit cause they were bored. people just moved on.[/quote]

I didn't say bored. People play games because they are fun. This is why they are called games and not real life. This game happens to be down to a fraction of what it once was. You can come up with a thousand little reasons why, but all of them add up to this: The fun/time ratio in this game wasn't worth it anymore or else they would still be playing. You are exactly right about that last part, they moved on to something else they found more fun, and for them, worth the time spent from their lives.

When someone down-declares and beats the crap out of someone in an easy war - MAYBE they had fun. The ones who they hit though, usually didn't. This is what SE has become, where all they want to do is curbstomps and win no matter what. I don't find it much fun on either of those sides, and that so many fewer people play the game now says to me most of them didn't either. This is what TE used to be, and for some people, still is. People quit playing a game when it's not enough fun for them anymore.

Well, we are still haing fun over here. This is why so many Warriors keep on playing.
For me, the only part that isn't fun right now is all the crying, whining and sniveling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1357598855' post='3072565']
I'm not even going to bother reading all that stupid crap. You really like this whiny little go back and forth huge post bs, and I hate it.This is exactly why I don't post here most of the time. Geez dude, are you really only good for crying like an immature wench when someone tries to do something different?

I'm not going to waste any more time on your ridiculous posts. You used to be respectable. Not anymore, apparently all you do these days is whine like Napa valley. So $%&@ off. You're a waste of space and time.[/quote]
When you can't debate actual point, I guess you just say the other guy is whining. Fair enough, I was done dismantling your argument.


[quote]If you aren't looking for an offensive war, then you HAVE to be waiting for the defensive, idiot. We waited for someone to hit us after giving great provacation, and no one did. You can't control someone attacking you, someone just has to gather up the guts to do it. No one did.[/quote]
Read the quote right above that. That's what should have happened.

[quote]I try to do what makes things fun for the members of my alliance. I think the fact that my alliance is still here, going strong, growing, getting better and having as much fun as ever - while most of yours quit the game - means I'm better at that then you are. You failed to evolve. This game is down to a fraction of what it once was because of sniveling little clowns just like you.[/quote]
Now you're just trolling. Members left because of SE and RL reasons. TE had absolutely nothing to do with it, as more than one person has pointed out to you. But, I guess you were too busy "evolving" to be able to read and comprehend something.

[quote]The idea that your weak punk down-declare was somehow "more courageous" than what we've done here - in a stupid game, no less - is absolutely moronic at best and barking mad at the worst. I offcially no longer give a !@#$ what you think. I still have slots open, You got a problem with me, come get me. Send someone you pathetic clown.[/quote]
All my offensive slots are from wars we've already been fighting. We didn't wait 22 days into the round to war.

[quote]I think you're a crying little !@#$%* who lacks imagination and can only fight down anymore. I have already repeatedly beaten the crap out of your stupid little war where you were afraid to fight anyone who would threaten you. This war is a lot better by every measure possible. Most importantly - in a game - fun. Are you really going to just cry and complain everytime someone does something you don't like?[/quote]
Once again, when you can't debate actual points, just go with the crying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='hartfw' timestamp='1357584081' post='3072490']stuff[/quote]

I don't even think we are using terms the same. You seem to think a blitz means one side getting killed by another side at update. To me, a blitz is attacking right before update, then attacking again right after update. There is no logic at all to thinking that a blitz going both ways is safer than a blitz where you just pound on someone who wasn't paying enough attention. You guys always take the safe route. We try to be braver than that.

OK finally this one lol

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1357590137' post='3072514']
For me personally I remarked about fighting to win rather than merely to have fun because, like PS, OP has always been smaller than many of the other big massive AAs. This has made us evolve to make blitzing an artform and something we take pride in, the PS blitz on MI back in the day was a thing of beauty and an inspiration for us. To be on the recieving side of an OP blitz, no matter if you hate us or not, is devastating and our bread and butter, we rely upon doing that intial damage to overcome numbers. Prearranged wars for fun, nothing wrong and I am not knocking this war at all, takes away from our strength and we will never do one.[/quote]

Now take everything you just said here about why you love a blitz - and double it, because there were two alliances blitzing instead of one. It's double the blitz and double the fun! It wouldn't take away from your strength at all, if anything it highlights it. Can you out-blitz the other alliance? When there are wars going both ways I guarantee you it's more exciting than when they are just going one way.

According to your war screens you have around 83 offensive wars and 8 defensive wars. While you guys clearly do this better than most, it's definately not uncommon for the attacking alliance to have twice as many (or a lot more if they got a lot of anarchies) attacking wars as defensive wars. MH's WD war was just like that, almost no return wars. Well, not in this case! We have as many defending wars as we do attacking wars.

I'm sure you are having more fun than SUN is. Wouldn't you be having even more fun if you got incoming wars as well as offensive wars? More war = more fun? The more wars you have the more stuff gets blown up? All alliances are going to get blown up, not just one side.Top to bottom, across all alliances involved, there will be more fun had here than in any other war of the round. I don't care what any sniveling little "we have to win at all costs cause my self-esteem is involved" weasels have to say, I think thats a fact.

Edited by Clash
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just for clarification clash, u keep referencing the WD-MH war but to be genuinely frank, the problem with that war was that WD just didn't fight back. we had no way on knowing that when the war was declared. we hardly put any of them in anarchy off the blitz cause we simply didn't have enough nations to cover 14-15 of them with our 8-9. their small retaliation wasn't anything we could help, and we certainly couldn't help that their limited counters were basically all on our inactive 10th nation. numbers were good, we just had no way of knowing they 1. wouldn't counter with wars, 2. didn't have great warchests 3. didn't coordinate

anyway, you keep referencing PS as if it was some bully that down-declared and kept things safe when truth is PS was almost always the underdog fighting an up hill battle. PS accomplished everything it really wanted to do. flags, civil wars, success in the face of overwhelming odds, lots of fun was had. i think the amount of time we dedicated to TE wore a lot of us out, and quite honestly these grudges grow old too. our involvement in this is nothing more than a grudge, and that isn't very entertaining for me anymore.

Edited by dockingscheduled
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1357600147' post='3072578']
When you can't debate actual point, I guess you just say the other guy is whining. [/quote]

I debated all your stupid points many posts ago and beat the crap out of them. Your war was a big down-declare where you hit and nuked an alliance without nukes, etc etc etc. This war will have more wars going both ways than your stupid down declares ever do, etc etc etc. This war will have more fun for more people involved than your wars ever do etc etc etc. Nothing you have babbled about contradicts any of that.

That you continue to constantly snivel means nothing to me, but yeah all you have done so far is cry and !@#$%* and snivel some more and whiiinneeeee some more. That is literally the only thing not fun about this war - your incessant sniveling like a spoiled little child mad because someone did something you don't like. No wonder so many people quit this game if that's the way you and so many others want to play it. Grow a pair, quit your repeated crying and pull up your panties, or quit and go away. Either way makes this war more fun.

Edited by Clash
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...