A JOINT WAR DECLARATION

[wasso]

Whatever was said here , there is no excuse for the warriors to have such low amount of money in hand . Anyway cowbody has contacted me recently about a "single " peace offer , i was okay with it but i am kinda IMPRESSED how TW gov is dealing with this in an irresponsible way . Now if you want peace let us know and we're opened for anything further . 

[memoryproblems]

I for one know that you planned to hit some of us and considering the nuke advantage and your WCs from sitting for 30+ days would have been trouble for anyone. Then you and D1 merge and barely any explanation at all, what were We to think?

My intention was not, nor was is it ever, to destroy warriors, unlike the proven track record of your new members towards OP.

So war is to continue?

 

Well I can't and don't speak for the Warriors, but what you think is really no concern of mine, nor the actual tW government I'd assume, similairly I'm unsure as to why you would think you would receive an explination, I wasn't aware it was necessary for tW to broadcast it's internal workings to the world. To assage your concerns however, I would say that from what I know (which while not everything, is a fair bit), the merger was not a one-round strategy ploy, it was something to fit into the long-term vision of Clash and to address certian issues with tW leadership.

 

That you attacked us is not the concern I have, rather what bothers me is the manner in which you went about it. I think you know full and well that 2 of the four alliances fighting us could have made for a good war, minus the nukes issue, but you can't honestly tell me that in your infinite wisdom you couldn't have found a more equitable way to address that factor? I'm generally not a party to whining, but that you assembled a group of alliances with more then twice as many members as tW, that you presumably chose the best equipped, the best trained and most active of that pool to attack us is frankly shameful.

 

That all said, I don't speak for tW, so my comments should not be taken as an official opinion, and if you honestly want to evaluate the timetable of this war, I can't imagine it'd be too hard for you to find the proper people through message. (Although to be honest, I couldn't even really tell you who that might be these days.)

Edited November 2, 2013 by memoryproblems

[King James XVIII]

It's a shame that I'm no longer involved to the extent that I once was. I find it absolutely ridiculous though that you want to talk about how you only have certian members engaging tW. You combined the forces of 4 of the top 7 alliances in the game with a combined membership of roughly double that of the Warriors.

 

You can talk about how you're not all engaged, how you've only sent certian nations, but what I'm sure you didn't take into account is to make your assembled forces have similar demographics to our alliance. Like any alliance, we have a mix of well-built nations and not so well-built nations, of good fighters and not so good fighters, of active players and not so active players. I can only assume in building your forces, you chose the well built, the good fighters, and the active players, so where your numbers and size may be accurate, it is far from a fair engagement.

 

You talk about not wanting to destroy the warriors, but the evidence of your acts demonstrates otherwise. I'm no longer party to the decision making in tW, but if I were, I'd begin work immediate, and my intent would be your destruction, or at the very least to make you unable to perpetrate any such cowardly and despicable actions in the future.

 

We're all for good war and fair play, and this is neither. Matters such as these are not quickly forgotten.

 

Damn right we did. Did you see your stats relative to the rest of TE pre-war? We had to bring all we had and were still nervous about how things would shake out. If it looks like you are being destroyed, take a look at your warchests for the answer.  

 

I for one know that you planned to hit some of us and considering the nuke advantage and your WCs from sitting for 30+ days would have been trouble for anyone. Then you and D1 merge and barely any explanation at all, what were We to think?

My intention was not, nor was is it ever, to destroy warriors, unlike the proven track record of your new members towards OP.

So war is to continue?

 

This. I like and respect plenty of people in Warriors and D1, but once the merge happened there was no way we could have taken on that nuke/nuke nation/potential WC disadvantage. Even with the traditional 2 alliance joint op.

 

Well I can't and don't speak for the Warriors, but what you think is really no concern of mine, nor the actual tW government I'd assume, similairly I'm unsure as to why you would think you would receive an explination, I wasn't aware it was necessary for tW to broadcast it's internal workings to the world. To assage your concerns however, I would say that from what I know (which while not everything, is a fair bit), the merger was not a one-round strategy ploy, it was something to fit into the long-term vision of Clash and to address certian issues with tW leadership.

 

That you attacked us is not the concern I have, rather what bothers me is the manner in which you went about it. I think you know full and well that 2 of the four alliances fighting us could have made for a good war, minus the nukes issue, but you can't honestly tell me that in your infinite wisdom you couldn't have found a more equitable way to address that factor? I'm generally not a party to whining, but that you assembled a group of alliances with more then twice as many members as tW, that you presumably chose the best equipped, the best trained and most active of that pool to attack us is frankly shameful.

 

That all said, I don't speak for tW, so my comments should not be taken as an official opinion, and if you honestly want to evaluate the timetable of this war, I can't imagine it'd be too hard for you to find the proper people through message. (Although to be honest, I couldn't even really tell you who that might be these days.)

 

I don't think anyone is saying that the merger was some part of a larger conspiracy. If they are, I disagree. Personally, I don't need anyone to explain anything to me. My eyes work just fine. Collectively you guys built almost 3x the nukes than any other single alliance, and twice the nuclear nations. That was combined with almost 40 days of uninterrupted peace and NS charts that were leveling out suggesting growing warchests. Any competent alliance leader should have seen a threat to the security of their people. 

 

I mean sure, Warriors could have declared the next day on the world or whatever, but looking at your comments it wasn't too crazy to believe that Warriors would have been just fine taking on 2 of the 4 engaged alliances. I can't speak for the others, but TPC is still recovering from our first war. I firmly believe that even if you took on TPC/OP we would have been slaughtered. 

 

If anyone is looking to be treated with kid gloves when it comes to war, go somewhere else because TE ain't that place. I would expect the world to do the same if we held ourselves out of war for as long as you guys did and had such a statistical advantage. And to be clear--it wouldn't have mattered to me what the reason for no war up to this point was.

 

Four alliances that have beaten the hell out of each other and built plenty of distrust and hate between them came together without hesitating to take on this challenge. That should tell everyone all they need to know. 

[lonewolfe2015]

The forces used to attack us were A. Active nations (the number not fighting for us is frankly absurd) and B. Had full complements of Generals (greater income and warring capacity) and ultimately C. Were 2x the average NS of the nations attacked in Warriors.

 

It was not this big disadvantage being made out to be and whomever we had attacked would still have been at an advantage as there was no individual alliance we could have hit.

 

But this war looks more personal than anything else from what I can tell.

[hartfw]

The forces used to attack us were A. Active nations (the number not fighting for us is frankly absurd) and B. Had full complements of Generals (greater income and warring capacity) and ultimately C. Were 2x the average NS of the nations attacked in Warriors.

 

It was not this big disadvantage being made out to be and whomever we had attacked would still have been at an advantage as there was no individual alliance we could have hit.

 

But this war looks more personal than anything else from what I can tell.

 

There is just no way the 2x the average NS comment is remotely correct.

 

But for the sake of engaging in the absurd hypothetical.  How incompetent are you that nations that had been nuked repeatedly and in war are literally double your size and have larger warchests?

 

Oh yeah. The 2x average NS was a joke, never mind.

[DevilDog]

Sorry I haven't done 50 posts in here with you girls about just how badly this war has looked for you all but I didn't start playing this game so that I could "cackle" on the OWF with the women folk.

I came here to fight and to possibly have some fun doing so. Meet a few interesting people from around the world, and kill them. (their pixels that is)

I will have to admit that I have made some friends here along the way. Besides the ladies and gents I have fought beside of round after round and have had the honor of leading, though I can't really use the term "leading" as I consider them my equal in every way, most have been pretty decent folk in my book.

King James and Stelios seem like pretty decent guys and I talk to them pretty much every round of TE and I can partially understand why they are in this war as they do have to look out for their own.

The part that I just can't wrap my mind around is why they would be a part of such a huge lopsided war. 

The reasoning that we had to "hit you guys at such a disadvantage before you possibly did the same to us" just isn't cutting it fellas. You both have never struck me as men of that mindset.

 

Now Paul and Bomb I could see doing something like this 6 days a week and twice on Sundays. Hell the only other thread in here I have even glanced at this round was the one where both Paul and Bomb are threatening the Misfits with military repercussions for their part in attacking an alliance smaller than them. I can't be the only person in here that has saw that thread and can see the irony between it and this one right?

I have seen enough of those two in the last 20 some odd rounds to not put anything past the two of them and can only speculate in what info they might have been giving to James and Stelios to make them believe that we were going to attack either of them one on one. Damn I would have hoped that either of you guys would have known better than that!!

Only reason I have not posted before now about who we were planning to hit was that Paul has done posted so and told about half of the TE community that he has an "inside man" that I was just waiting on him to post who we were going to hit and post screenshots of our government forum along with shots of the target list for absolute proof.

It is not a subject that I have tried to avoid or anything as no one has so much as even asked me. Nor have I received a single pm from any of the 4 alliance leaders since this war has begun, though I did receive several before it started so I know you guys have my address, about any peace negotiations.

I haven't pm'd any of you guys about peace as you are the ones holding all the cards in this "war" and if you are waiting on a begging for peace letter or anything along those lines then this is going to be a long damn war for sure. That would never happen in RL and is most certainly not going to happen in this game. Just not in me I guess.

 

To tell the truth I don't know which amazes me more is the fact about how lopsided this "war" is or the fact that most of you guys keep bringing up about this 900 trillion dollar war chest that every member of our alliance should have at this point.

As long as you guys have been playing this game and you still haven't figured out the new game changes and what they mean monetarily wise in game?

You should talk more to your members then because apparently most of them have figured it out already as they have over twice the war chest as any of our members, myself included. (and yes we do have the spy ops to back that statement)

Whether you have a "fluff" war at the games onset or you just had weak opponents you make more cash by around the 1 month mark than those who have not fought at all yet if you take minimal damage in your war and they are building their nations for military strength and not for monetary strength.

I am not taking into consideration "raids" either since your opponent can just check the "give no XP" box and they have just taken away your reason to raid them and no I can't blame the "noobs" for not knowing this.

I will admit though that it does make me wonder about some of you guys as leaders or others as members as why one has not asked what your members war chests are before a war or why others would lie to their alliance leaders about said war chests. Hmmmm.

 

I am sure that those of you that know me do know that I have never been a big OWF person since my beginnings here with LE and you know by now why you have not seen a dozen posts from me here about this war. I have always been and will most likely always be a "punch you in the face instead of argue" kind of guy.

 

James and Stelios I do have enough respect for you guys that if you honestly think that this war was just and needed for the welfare of your alliance then that is enough said and even if I don't see eye to eye with you on the matter then what is done is done and we move on from here agreeing to disagree.

 

Paul I don't really know what to say to you as all I feel for you is pity as all that I have ever heard about you from day 1 here in TE has been bad and yet I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am the one who lives with that regret everyday.

 

And lastly Mr Wasso. You are a nice enough gent but a way too much of a "yes man" for my liking. Grow yourself a pair my friend and quit letting people like Bomb and Paul influence every decision you make and lastly I couldn't give a rat's ass on whether or not you are impressed by my leadership role at the Warriors. I don't remember seeing "impress Wasso" anywhere on the list of things Clash expected of me when he asked me to take over.

 

As far as peace when the first set of wars expire I have no problem with that.

I would have thought that since I see where all of the other alliance leaders have posted in this thread that they would have read the thread with Clash stating that I was going to be taking the lead at the Warriors for this round and would have known to just shoot me a pm about peace.

My bad apparently for assuming such.

[King James XVIII]

Sorry I haven't done 50 posts in here with you girls about just how badly this war has looked for you all but I didn't start playing this game so that I could "cackle" on the OWF with the women folk.

I came here to fight and to possibly have some fun doing so. Meet a few interesting people from around the world, and kill them. (their pixels that is)

I will have to admit that I have made some friends here along the way. Besides the ladies and gents I have fought beside of round after round and have had the honor of leading, though I can't really use the term "leading" as I consider them my equal in every way, most have been pretty decent folk in my book.

King James and Stelios seem like pretty decent guys and I talk to them pretty much every round of TE and I can partially understand why they are in this war as they do have to look out for their own.

The part that I just can't wrap my mind around is why they would be a part of such a huge lopsided war. 

The reasoning that we had to "hit you guys at such a disadvantage before you possibly did the same to us" just isn't cutting it fellas. You both have never struck me as men of that mindset.

 

Now Paul and Bomb I could see doing something like this 6 days a week and twice on Sundays. Hell the only other thread in here I have even glanced at this round was the one where both Paul and Bomb are threatening the Misfits with military repercussions for their part in attacking an alliance smaller than them. I can't be the only person in here that has saw that thread and can see the irony between it and this one right?

I have seen enough of those two in the last 20 some odd rounds to not put anything past the two of them and can only speculate in what info they might have been giving to James and Stelios to make them believe that we were going to attack either of them one on one. Damn I would have hoped that either of you guys would have known better than that!!

Only reason I have not posted before now about who we were planning to hit was that Paul has done posted so and told about half of the TE community that he has an "inside man" that I was just waiting on him to post who we were going to hit and post screenshots of our government forum along with shots of the target list for absolute proof.

It is not a subject that I have tried to avoid or anything as no one has so much as even asked me. Nor have I received a single pm from any of the 4 alliance leaders since this war has begun, though I did receive several before it started so I know you guys have my address, about any peace negotiations.

I haven't pm'd any of you guys about peace as you are the ones holding all the cards in this "war" and if you are waiting on a begging for peace letter or anything along those lines then this is going to be a long damn war for sure. That would never happen in RL and is most certainly not going to happen in this game. Just not in me I guess.

 

To tell the truth I don't know which amazes me more is the fact about how lopsided this "war" is or the fact that most of you guys keep bringing up about this 900 trillion dollar war chest that every member of our alliance should have at this point.

As long as you guys have been playing this game and you still haven't figured out the new game changes and what they mean monetarily wise in game?

You should talk more to your members then because apparently most of them have figured it out already as they have over twice the war chest as any of our members, myself included. (and yes we do have the spy ops to back that statement)

Whether you have a "fluff" war at the games onset or you just had weak opponents you make more cash by around the 1 month mark than those who have not fought at all yet if you take minimal damage in your war and they are building their nations for military strength and not for monetary strength.

I am not taking into consideration "raids" either since your opponent can just check the "give no XP" box and they have just taken away your reason to raid them and no I can't blame the "noobs" for not knowing this.

I will admit though that it does make me wonder about some of you guys as leaders or others as members as why one has not asked what your members war chests are before a war or why others would lie to their alliance leaders about said war chests. Hmmmm.

 

I am sure that those of you that know me do know that I have never been a big OWF person since my beginnings here with LE and you know by now why you have not seen a dozen posts from me here about this war. I have always been and will most likely always be a "punch you in the face instead of argue" kind of guy.

 

James and Stelios I do have enough respect for you guys that if you honestly think that this war was just and needed for the welfare of your alliance then that is enough said and even if I don't see eye to eye with you on the matter then what is done is done and we move on from here agreeing to disagree.

 

Paul I don't really know what to say to you as all I feel for you is pity as all that I have ever heard about you from day 1 here in TE has been bad and yet I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am the one who lives with that regret everyday.

 

And lastly Mr Wasso. You are a nice enough gent but a way too much of a "yes man" for my liking. Grow yourself a pair my friend and quit letting people like Bomb and Paul influence every decision you make and lastly I couldn't give a rat's ass on whether or not you are impressed by my leadership role at the Warriors. I don't remember seeing "impress Wasso" anywhere on the list of things Clash expected of me when he asked me to take over.

 

As far as peace when the first set of wars expire I have no problem with that.

I would have thought that since I see where all of the other alliance leaders have posted in this thread that they would have read the thread with Clash stating that I was going to be taking the lead at the Warriors for this round and would have known to just shoot me a pm about peace.

My bad apparently for assuming such.

 

You know I have the utmost respect for you. I don't believe that this war is as lopsided if not for the warchest disparity. I have had this happen plenty of times leading TPC where the stats look great but the predicted WCs aren't there once the bombs start dropping. That's not something any aggressor can really know going into war without doing mass spying pre-war.

 

I wouldn't commit my guys to something like this (especially against you and your guys) unless I thought it were absolutely necessary. I was never given info or concerned that you would lead a war against one alliance, I was (and I think a lot of us were) very concerned that Warriors would do a 1v2 alliance war. Pre-war, you could have put any combination of the 4 together and gotten a war that seemed even total NS wise, but lopsided nukes/nuke nation/depth wise. No one is afraid of a tough war, but knowing you could get slaughtered keeps you up at night. 

 

As for the warchest argument, any war really starts and ends there. Nukes can help, but all the strength in the world doesn't matter if you don't have that.

 

I'm not leading this effort, but I'm cool with peace when the wars expire. 

 

Don't worry DD, it'll only be a few days before these alliances are back to hating each other because one hit the other too quickly after this war ends. (calling it now)  :facepalm:

[bombuator]

Sorry I haven't done 50 posts in here with you girls about just how badly this war has looked for you all but I didn't start playing this game so that I could "cackle" on the OWF with the women folk.

I came here to fight and to possibly have some fun doing so. Meet a few interesting people from around the world, and kill them. (their pixels that is)

I will have to admit that I have made some friends here along the way. Besides the ladies and gents I have fought beside of round after round and have had the honor of leading, though I can't really use the term "leading" as I consider them my equal in every way, most have been pretty decent folk in my book.

King James and Stelios seem like pretty decent guys and I talk to them pretty much every round of TE and I can partially understand why they are in this war as they do have to look out for their own.

The part that I just can't wrap my mind around is why they would be a part of such a huge lopsided war. 

The reasoning that we had to "hit you guys at such a disadvantage before you possibly did the same to us" just isn't cutting it fellas. You both have never struck me as men of that mindset.

 

Now Paul and Bomb I could see doing something like this 6 days a week and twice on Sundays. Hell the only other thread in here I have even glanced at this round was the one where both Paul and Bomb are threatening the Misfits with military repercussions for their part in attacking an alliance smaller than them. I can't be the only person in here that has saw that thread and can see the irony between it and this one right?

I have seen enough of those two in the last 20 some odd rounds to not put anything past the two of them and can only speculate in what info they might have been giving to James and Stelios to make them believe that we were going to attack either of them one on one. Damn I would have hoped that either of you guys would have known better than that!!

Only reason I have not posted before now about who we were planning to hit was that Paul has done posted so and told about half of the TE community that he has an "inside man" that I was just waiting on him to post who we were going to hit and post screenshots of our government forum along with shots of the target list for absolute proof.

It is not a subject that I have tried to avoid or anything as no one has so much as even asked me. Nor have I received a single pm from any of the 4 alliance leaders since this war has begun, though I did receive several before it started so I know you guys have my address, about any peace negotiations.

I haven't pm'd any of you guys about peace as you are the ones holding all the cards in this "war" and if you are waiting on a begging for peace letter or anything along those lines then this is going to be a long damn war for sure. That would never happen in RL and is most certainly not going to happen in this game. Just not in me I guess.

 

To tell the truth I don't know which amazes me more is the fact about how lopsided this "war" is or the fact that most of you guys keep bringing up about this 900 trillion dollar war chest that every member of our alliance should have at this point.

As long as you guys have been playing this game and you still haven't figured out the new game changes and what they mean monetarily wise in game?

You should talk more to your members then because apparently most of them have figured it out already as they have over twice the war chest as any of our members, myself included. (and yes we do have the spy ops to back that statement)

Whether you have a "fluff" war at the games onset or you just had weak opponents you make more cash by around the 1 month mark than those who have not fought at all yet if you take minimal damage in your war and they are building their nations for military strength and not for monetary strength.

I am not taking into consideration "raids" either since your opponent can just check the "give no XP" box and they have just taken away your reason to raid them and no I can't blame the "noobs" for not knowing this.

I will admit though that it does make me wonder about some of you guys as leaders or others as members as why one has not asked what your members war chests are before a war or why others would lie to their alliance leaders about said war chests. Hmmmm.

 

I am sure that those of you that know me do know that I have never been a big OWF person since my beginnings here with LE and you know by now why you have not seen a dozen posts from me here about this war. I have always been and will most likely always be a "punch you in the face instead of argue" kind of guy.

 

James and Stelios I do have enough respect for you guys that if you honestly think that this war was just and needed for the welfare of your alliance then that is enough said and even if I don't see eye to eye with you on the matter then what is done is done and we move on from here agreeing to disagree.

 

Paul I don't really know what to say to you as all I feel for you is pity as all that I have ever heard about you from day 1 here in TE has been bad and yet I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am the one who lives with that regret everyday.

 

And lastly Mr Wasso. You are a nice enough gent but a way too much of a "yes man" for my liking. Grow yourself a pair my friend and quit letting people like Bomb and Paul influence every decision you make and lastly I couldn't give a rat's ass on whether or not you are impressed by my leadership role at the Warriors. I don't remember seeing "impress Wasso" anywhere on the list of things Clash expected of me when he asked me to take over.

 

As far as peace when the first set of wars expire I have no problem with that.

I would have thought that since I see where all of the other alliance leaders have posted in this thread that they would have read the thread with Clash stating that I was going to be taking the lead at the Warriors for this round and would have known to just shoot me a pm about peace.

My bad apparently for assuming such.

 

I don't know how many times we have to say, how could we have known how crappy Warrior's warchest were? Someone, I think it was King James, said that every Warrior should probably have around 30-60M, something nearly half of the alliances fighting you guys probably had. Now, if you all had those kind of warchests this war would be completely different, and that's what we all presumed it would be. Don't cry wolf though because you guys haven't warred, you easily could have declared a war, you aren't the victim. Whoever was the receiving side of any war you declare (Unless it was like against all 4 of the alliances involved) would have been a slaughter, and frankly a lot worse, that's mostly the reason all 4 of us decided this war was the correct plan of action. Still, Warriors had around the same amount of 10K and 20K NS nations, where the majority of the fighting is, this war isn't lobsided by terms of actual NS, possibly coordination, warchest and activity though.

 

I never threatened to hit Misfits, you might have seen it as being implied. I was mad about the declaration of that war, because getting declared on by an alliance much larger with 2x ANS isn't fun at all. The thing that pissed me off the most was that Swazz said that it was agreed upon beforehand, obviously not true after I messaged NLoN's leader and he had no idea about it.

 

Why are you shittalking Paul and I though? Have we shittalked you on the OWF, no. 

 

What does this mean 

 

I don't remember seeing "impress Wasso" anywhere on the list of things Clash expected of me when he asked me to take over.

 

Was impress Bomb and Paul on there? 

[King James XVIII]

I never mentioned what a proper WC was Bomb. I'd be in heaven if I had some of that cash lol.

[bombuator]

I never mentioned what a proper WC was Bomb. I'd be in heaven if I had some of that cash lol.

Thought it was you, maybe it was Chess, nevertheless someone said it! 

[hartfw]

I look at the nukes still and see a tW that has more nukes than the next two highest aa's combined. That is one heck of a a lot of nukes and navy (1300+ at war start) that it would normally take a heck of a lot of activity to gather.

 

I've seen an opponent with 40m wc and one with under 1m (please don't blame this on a lack of generals, which would be as absurd as saying they were double us in ANS size).  I'm not sure anyone expected the number of sub 5m wc's and level of turtling and not even cm's or nukes.

 

I'm personally fine saying tw turned out not able to back up what their nations looked like on paper.  But if we are going to argue that this was the case, I think we should also be honest about what they were on paper, and not put up this charade pretending to have not been that.

[Eljierro]

DD, tell your guys to stop crying over naval blockades. If they can nuke me then I can mess up their collections. 

[Warhammer]

I for one know that you planned to hit some of us and considering the nuke advantage and your WCs from sitting for 30+ days would have been trouble for anyone. Then you and D1 merge and barely any explanation at all, what were We to think?

My intention was not, nor was is it ever, to destroy warriors, unlike the proven track record of your new members towards OP.

So war is to continue?

You need to sling that bullshit elsewhere as it is falling on a deaf ear here.

Infrastructure: 96.08 (Peak Infrastructure 2,799.99)

I can't for the life of me understand why no one has asked you guys this question yet.

If your plans from the get go were to only have certain nations from each alliance in this war then why

is there no mention of it and the stats not in the very first post in this thread?

Not so much as even a mention of this "partial" members from all 4 alliances doing the fighting until Fox Fire asked about the stats.

Hell Bombuator never mentioned it either and he posted right after Fox Fire. Was he not on the need to know list?

 

Judging by the nice war declaration it wasn't something thrown together in a minute or two yet not even the wompus thought it necessary to include the "partial" members and their ns.

I am going to have to call you guys on this bluff.

Same as the above statement by Paul.

[bcortell]

I now see why tW don't like wars longer than three days. 

[paul711]

Sorry I haven't done 50 posts in here with you girls about just how badly this war has looked for you all but I didn't start playing this game so that I could "cackle" on the OWF with the women folk.
I came here to fight and to possibly have some fun doing so. Meet a few interesting people from around the world, and kill them. (their pixels that is)
I will have to admit that I have made some friends here along the way. Besides the ladies and gents I have fought beside of round after round and have had the honor of leading, though I can't really use the term "leading" as I consider them my equal in every way, most have been pretty decent folk in my book.
King James and Stelios seem like pretty decent guys and I talk to them pretty much every round of TE and I can partially understand why they are in this war as they do have to look out for their own.
The part that I just can't wrap my mind around is why they would be a part of such a huge lopsided war. 
The reasoning that we had to "hit you guys at such a disadvantage before you possibly did the same to us" just isn't cutting it fellas. You both have never struck me as men of that mindset.
 
Now Paul and Bomb I could see doing something like this 6 days a week and twice on Sundays. Hell the only other thread in here I have even glanced at this round was the one where both Paul and Bomb are threatening the Misfits with military repercussions for their part in attacking an alliance smaller than them. I can't be the only person in here that has saw that thread and can see the irony between it and this one right?
I have seen enough of those two in the last 20 some odd rounds to not put anything past the two of them and can only speculate in what info they might have been giving to James and Stelios to make them believe that we were going to attack either of them one on one. Damn I would have hoped that either of you guys would have known better than that!!
Only reason I have not posted before now about who we were planning to hit was that Paul has done posted so and told about half of the TE community that he has an "inside man" that I was just waiting on him to post who we were going to hit and post screenshots of our government forum along with shots of the target list for absolute proof.
It is not a subject that I have tried to avoid or anything as no one has so much as even asked me. Nor have I received a single pm from any of the 4 alliance leaders since this war has begun, though I did receive several before it started so I know you guys have my address, about any peace negotiations.
I haven't pm'd any of you guys about peace as you are the ones holding all the cards in this "war" and if you are waiting on a begging for peace letter or anything along those lines then this is going to be a long damn war for sure. That would never happen in RL and is most certainly not going to happen in this game. Just not in me I guess.
 
To tell the truth I don't know which amazes me more is the fact about how lopsided this "war" is or the fact that most of you guys keep bringing up about this 900 trillion dollar war chest that every member of our alliance should have at this point.
As long as you guys have been playing this game and you still haven't figured out the new game changes and what they mean monetarily wise in game?
You should talk more to your members then because apparently most of them have figured it out already as they have over twice the war chest as any of our members, myself included. (and yes we do have the spy ops to back that statement)
Whether you have a "fluff" war at the games onset or you just had weak opponents you make more cash by around the 1 month mark than those who have not fought at all yet if you take minimal damage in your war and they are building their nations for military strength and not for monetary strength.
I am not taking into consideration "raids" either since your opponent can just check the "give no XP" box and they have just taken away your reason to raid them and no I can't blame the "noobs" for not knowing this.
I will admit though that it does make me wonder about some of you guys as leaders or others as members as why one has not asked what your members war chests are before a war or why others would lie to their alliance leaders about said war chests. Hmmmm.
 
I am sure that those of you that know me do know that I have never been a big OWF person since my beginnings here with LE and you know by now why you have not seen a dozen posts from me here about this war. I have always been and will most likely always be a "punch you in the face instead of argue" kind of guy.
 
James and Stelios I do have enough respect for you guys that if you honestly think that this war was just and needed for the welfare of your alliance then that is enough said and even if I don't see eye to eye with you on the matter then what is done is done and we move on from here agreeing to disagree.
 
Paul I don't really know what to say to you as all I feel for you is pity as all that I have ever heard about you from day 1 here in TE has been bad and yet I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt. I am the one who lives with that regret everyday.
 
And lastly Mr Wasso. You are a nice enough gent but a way too much of a "yes man" for my liking. Grow yourself a pair my friend and quit letting people like Bomb and Paul influence every decision you make and lastly I couldn't give a rat's ass on whether or not you are impressed by my leadership role at the Warriors. I don't remember seeing "impress Wasso" anywhere on the list of things Clash expected of me when he asked me to take over.
 
As far as peace when the first set of wars expire I have no problem with that.
I would have thought that since I see where all of the other alliance leaders have posted in this thread that they would have read the thread with Clash stating that I was going to be taking the lead at the Warriors for this round and would have known to just shoot me a pm about peace.
My bad apparently for assuming such.

Holy wall of text Batman! You forget all that I have done for LE in the past and paint me as the boogeyman. Funny thing is your paranoia is harming you more than this war. All you have to do is ask and I will tell you.

[bombuator]

You need to sling that bullshit elsewhere as it is falling on a deaf ear here.

Infrastructure: 96.08 (Peak Infrastructure 2,799.99)

I can't for the life of me understand why no one has asked you guys this question yet.

If your plans from the get go were to only have certain nations from each alliance in this war then why

is there no mention of it and the stats not in the very first post in this thread?

Not so much as even a mention of this "partial" members from all 4 alliances doing the fighting until Fox Fire asked about the stats.

Hell Bombuator never mentioned it either and he posted right after Fox Fire. Was he not on the need to know list?

 

Judging by the nice war declaration it wasn't something thrown together in a minute or two yet not even the wompus thought it necessary to include the "partial" members and their ns.

I am going to have to call you guys on this bluff.

Same as the above statement by Paul.

I have no idea what this is, especially why posting after Fox Fire means anything. 

 

But

 

[spoiler]3,168.99 (Peak Infrastructure 3,799.99)[/spoiler]

[Owney OSullivan]

Guys, next time, let's make sure the gigantic alliance with a massive amount of nukes and a large ANS with no wars has adequate WC's before attacking. Maybe we could politely ask if they think they can handle an alliance war. Or, you all could tweak your nation building strategy so you actually have some cash on hand...

Also, I swear I read someone complaining that we have generals and tW does not, and painting it as some sort of large disadvantage. This surely cannot be the case as generals don't really help THAT much, and if y'all wanted some, you could have you know, declared a war in the first ~35 days of the round.

I thought you Warriors would be happy that you got a WAR! You're welcome!

[Kurdanak]

Your forum banner is cute, by the way. :rolleyes:

[bombuator]

Your forum banner is cute, by the way. :rolleyes:

What about RE?

Edited November 3, 2013 by bombuator

[Samwise]

http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000097

 

Could this be a deserter? Bragging about rankings I sure hope not.

[yung flow]

http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000097
 
Could this be a deserter? Bragging about rankings I sure hope not.

That's Paul's inside source on the move.
Lmao

[lonewolfe2015]

The stats were posted a few pages back Hart, 31 nations with around our entire NS, that's nearly a 2:1 advantage in size. Nukes mean nothing when you only can drop 4 per war anyways.

 

There isn't incompetence when you're facing three opponents significantly bigger and two if your squadmates aren't even fighting. Then you go on to get your government spied so that you can't even try to recover post war. This feels personal, every bit of it. I haven't fought a war in a long time where so many nations were having their government's spied, it's a dirty tactic used by people with grudges and it has always been that way. To use it in wars you have such a heavy advantage is even worse.

 

TPC, Hellas and RE get to keep the bulk of their alliances behind the 'we fought' tagline and stack up their forces while Warriors get put out to pasture due to the 'You guys weren't fighting' tagline. Anyone in this game knows that week 3 wars aren't that devastating and those XP for Generals probably made them profitable actually.  

[paul711]

The stats were posted a few pages back Hart, 31 nations with around our entire NS, that's nearly a 2:1 advantage in size. Nukes mean nothing when you only can drop 4 per war anyways.
 
There isn't incompetence when you're facing three opponents significantly bigger and two if your squadmates aren't even fighting. Then you go on to get your government spied so that you can't even try to recover post war. This feels personal, every bit of it. I haven't fought a war in a long time where so many nations were having their government's spied, it's a dirty tactic used by people with grudges and it has always been that way. To use it in wars you have such a heavy advantage is even worse.
 
TPC, Hellas and RE get to keep the bulk of their alliances behind the 'we fought' tagline and stack up their forces while Warriors get put out to pasture due to the 'You guys weren't fighting' tagline. Anyone in this game knows that week 3 wars aren't that devastating and those XP for Generals probably made them profitable actually.  

Spying gov is not a dirty tactic at all and has tactical and strategic value. Clash, myself and Bcortel had a debate on these forums (i'm too lazy to find it) about spying. I told him then that OP uses every weapon and tactic in the game. We expect them to be used against us as well. Spying gov only costs you the happiness bonus for having your populations desired gov but it does prevent counters because people cannot declare while in anarchy. I hold no grudges nor ill will towards warriors at all but do know that your new rrcruits planned to hit OP and they hold a grudge against us.

[hartfw]

The stats were posted a few pages back Hart, 31 nations with around our entire NS, that's nearly a 2:1 advantage in size. Nukes mean nothing when you only can drop 4 per war anyways.

 

There isn't incompetence when you're facing three opponents significantly bigger and two if your squadmates aren't even fighting. Then you go on to get your government spied so that you can't even try to recover post war. This feels personal, every bit of it. I haven't fought a war in a long time where so many nations were having their government's spied, it's a dirty tactic used by people with grudges and it has always been that way. To use it in wars you have such a heavy advantage is even worse.

 

TPC, Hellas and RE get to keep the bulk of their alliances behind the 'we fought' tagline and stack up their forces while Warriors get put out to pasture due to the 'You guys weren't fighting' tagline. Anyone in this game knows that week 3 wars aren't that devastating and those XP for Generals probably made them profitable actually.  

 

Nothing personal, but your math skills suck, and tW wasn't attacked by a coalition with an ANS of 24k.  Also, as has been noted, 2 of your bigger opponents were smaller -- less infra, less nukes, less navy.  Those sort of things

 

It would have helped I'm sure if the guy with 40m didn't turtle, or if you bought planes once.  But either way, it obviously couldn't be helped, right?

 

In terms of spying gov's, I will tell you here what I already told before.  If you send a spy attack to assassinate enemy generals to multiple of your targets, you most definitely have started the economic attacks. Whining about people retaliating to you here and leaving off the context is classy.

 

But by all means, complain about those bigger nations and those other people starting dirty economic tactics, and don't let any facts bother you.

[hartfw]

(And obviously before anyone knows if peace is happening after the first wars declared end, there is an important military element to spying gov.  But that is beside the point that the complaint was absurdly hypocritical)