Rush Sykes' Blog

Can you do the neutrals too? I want to see what you think of the Top 3 alliances.

Can you do the neutrals too? I want to see what you think of the Top 3 alliances.

I see what you did there. But i have already edited IRON into the 1st entry. It was just a copy and paste fail , as I wrote this in word before I posted it.

It seems like you call Umb "filth" and NG "polarizing", but you seem to be describing them similarly. People that don't love NG probably think they're filth, and those that love Umb probably feel similarly about them as you feel about NG.

It seems like you call Umb "filth" and NG "polarizing", but you seem to be describing them similarly. People that don't love NG probably think they're filth, and those that love Umb probably feel similarly about them as you feel about NG.

The NG-Umb dynamic is completely irrelevant to my personal opinions of either of them. MK, GOONS, ODN , can all confirm the my opinions of Umb are based solely on my own personal interaction. You can only be requested by allies (MK, GOONS, ODN) to bridge a gap to a working relationship with an ally of theirs that you are at odds with (Umb) so many times, and be totally, completely dismissed on each and every occasion (except for Domisi actually trying once, kudos to him)... before you get sick of the arrogance and dismissive attitude. No other alliance in the top 20 has earned my opinion more than Umb has.

Nice to see what you think these days, Rush. Even though it's still hard for me to read these opinions and connect them to the guy I used to talk to daily.

Can't wait to see all the hate towards Argent.

If TOP have such a good military where was it for the last two years?

If TOP have such a good military where was it for the last two years?

In Peace Mode

please do mi6

It seems like you call Umb "filth" and NG "polarizing", but you seem to be describing them similarly. People that don't love NG probably think they're filth, and those that love Umb probably feel similarly about them as you feel about NG.

That's what makes these "judgements" golden. They're a "who do I like" elementary school list, not "what do I like" critical value judgements.

That's what makes these "judgements" golden. They're a "who do I like" elementary school list, not "what do I like" critical value judgements.

I think you are completely wrong. They can absolutely be both. And my judgement of Polar pretty well exhibits that. With specific regards to Umb, it 100% is a WHAT do I like. I do not like allies of allies who refuse to make an effort at a working relationship. It goes to destabilizing power spheres.

I think you are completely wrong. They can absolutely be both. And my judgement of Polar pretty well exhibits that. With specific regards to Umb, it 100% is a WHAT do I like. I do not like allies of allies who refuse to make an effort at a working relationship. It goes to destabilizing power spheres.

And yet you encourage TIO to attack allies of allies. You think TOP are pigdogs for playing the political game (finally!) while you think Valhalla is on the right track.

It's just a mess of who do I like or dislike, now how do I wrap what they're doing around my personal feelings.

And yet you encourage TIO to attack allies of allies. You think TOP are pigdogs for playing the political game (finally!) while you think Valhalla is on the right track.

It's just a mess of who do I like or dislike, now how do I wrap what they're doing around my personal feelings.

I didnt ENCOURAGE them to do so. I encouraged them to understand that enemy coalitions will try to use your treaty ties to handcuff your coalition. We are all big boys, we choose the side of the war we are on. The old saying goes, all is fair and love and war. Once the nukes start flying, the friend of my friend CAN be my enemy.

Also, nearly none of my diatribe on TOP was demeaning (except for the bit about loyalty). I simply said I think their attempt at making this empire will fail because it is built on, and relies on, too many people who have divergent plans. I was pretty clear that their playing the game was a-ok with me.

The NG-Umb dynamic is completely irrelevant to my personal opinions of either of them. MK, GOONS, ODN , can all confirm the my opinions of Umb are based solely on my own personal interaction. You can only be requested by allies (MK, GOONS, ODN) to bridge a gap to a working relationship with an ally of theirs that you are at odds with (Umb) so many times, and be totally, completely dismissed on each and every occasion (except for Domisi actually trying once, kudos to him)... before you get sick of the arrogance and dismissive attitude. No other alliance in the top 20 has earned my opinion more than Umb has.

You present an interesting case. I suppose all of your relationship gap bridging was done on IRC since the only forum posts I saw from you were, I think, in MK coalition forums (that is, not on Umbrella forums), where you and a few others may have been some of the largest proponents of wanting peace at the expense of a several months long extended war of all of Eq vs Umbrella. You may note that every one of my posts on those forums displayed a grateful attitude to allies and non-allies alike, even people like NG who might have gone to the other side merely for a shot at Umbrella. But I am only one person. Perhaps you spoke to the various pres/VPs of Umbrella over time rather than at our forum, in any case.

Yes, you fought in our coalition, but you did not burn for Umbrella. You burned for C&G and maybe MK. Umbrella was the nuisance that started the war (I will note that although you were always angry about our "arrogance" and "attitude" you were supportive and spent time arguing that the CB was a "because they wanted to" and not the grounds for war people make it out to be, which I appreciated). Though, I would argue had we sat back and tried to lay low like Pacifica in the past, it would have only given time for alliances like ODN to sign their treaties prior to engaging in war rather than promising not to announce/sign until after. Time was running low and prospects would only get worse had that war not started when it did.

As for Umbrella not being thankful to the allies of allies, you'll note that most of them, say even in Your immediate sphere, were tied to the hip with Pacifica, the alliance that had just organized the hit against us. Does it make sense to be thankful and rest in the laurels of having OTPs more loyal to our biggest enemy than to ourselves, or does it make sense to go out and make new friends, like Valhalla, and leave the years long rocky relationship that Umb/MK became? We chose the latter. It's filth to you, but for Umbrella, there was no better choice.

You present an interesting case. I suppose all of your relationship gap bridging was done on IRC since the only forum posts I saw from you were, I think, in MK coalition forums (that is, not on Umbrella forums), where you and a few others may have been some of the largest proponents of wanting peace at the expense of a several months long extended war of all of Eq vs Umbrella. You may note that every one of my posts on those forums displayed a grateful attitude to allies and non-allies alike, even people like NG who might have gone to the other side merely for a shot at Umbrella. But I am only one person. Perhaps you spoke to the various pres/VPs of Umbrella over time rather than at our forum, in any case.

Yes, you fought in our coalition, but you did not burn for Umbrella. You burned for C&G and maybe MK. Umbrella was the nuisance that started the war (I will note that although you were always angry about our "arrogance" and "attitude" you were supportive and spent time arguing that the CB was a "because they wanted to" and not the grounds for war people make it out to be, which I appreciated). Though, I would argue had we sat back and tried to lay low like Pacifica in the past, it would have only given time for alliances like ODN to sign their treaties prior to engaging in war rather than promising not to announce/sign until after. Time was running low and prospects would only get worse had that war not started when it did.

As for Umbrella not being thankful to the allies of allies, you'll note that most of them, say even in Your immediate sphere, were tied to the hip with Pacifica, the alliance that had just organized the hit against us. Does it make sense to be thankful and rest in the laurels of having OTPs more loyal to our biggest enemy than to ourselves, or does it make sense to go out and make new friends, like Valhalla, and leave the years long rocky relationship that Umb/MK became? We chose the latter. It's filth to you, but for Umbrella, there was no better choice.

Typically narrow minded and short-sighted.

Just took a !@#$. Confirming that it did not stink.

Just took a !@#$. Confirming that it did not stink.

See a doctor my friend.

As for Umbrella not being thankful to the allies of allies, you'll note that most of them, say even in Your immediate sphere, were tied to the hip with Pacifica, the alliancethat had just organized the hit against us. Does it make sense to be thankful and rest in the laurels of having OTPs more loyal to our biggest enemy than to ourselves, or does it make sense to go out and make new friends, like Valhalla, and leave the years longrocky relationship that Umb/MK became? We chose the latter. It's filth to you, but for Umbrella, there was no better choice.

this is hilarious given the MK/VE relationship. VE at least once acted just to spite MK (Grudge War comes to mind). Not only that, but Umb deliberately aided GOD during Dave, so it isn't as if NG/CnG had reason to ditch NPO just to cuddle up closer to DH. MK understood the situation and played it smart, Umbrella decided to just fulfill their own prophecy.

TOP? Best military? They went 4V1 with me and barely managed slightly greater than equal damage. If we were to do cost based... I wrecked Centurius, Crymson, and his lackeys he had hit me in his defense. I disagree. The wars are on record to reflect this. If that's the best that the "top" military alliance can do.. then I'd say we've fallen a long way in our global war fighting abilities. Those results were even with me not being able to participate for a day due to rl events that prevented me from logging in. Dread if I had gotten one more days of nukes off.

When good players fight good players, it tends to be a good fight. I think by calling TOP the best military machine, he was saying "TOP has a lot of good players." You sir, may be a good player, and you may end up underwhelmed. If you've fought some of the crappier alliances on Bob, guys that send 60 bombers, guys that spy you out of defcon 5 before their GA's......I guess what I'm getting at is the bar may be pretty low these days.

You know Arentak, you have a good point there. You might just be right.

TOP? Best military? They went 4V1 with me and barely managed slightly greater than equal damage. If we were to do cost based... I wrecked Centurius, Crymson, and his lackeys he had hit me in his defense. I disagree. The wars are on record to reflect this. If that's the best that the "top" military alliance can do.. then I'd say we've fallen a long way in our global war fighting abilities. Those results were even with me not being able to participate for a day due to rl events that prevented me from logging in. Dread if I had gotten one more days of nukes off.

You were able to launch way more nukes regardless having a stockpile against greater numbers. 15 nukes on them to their 6 on you. Which means that if they did indeed do more damage to you than you to them, they were able to make up 9 extra nukes worth of damage in other types of attacks.

TOP? Best military? They went 4V1 with me and barely managed slightly greater than equal damage. If we were to do cost based... I wrecked Centurius, Crymson, and his lackeys he had hit me in his defense. I disagree. The wars are on record to reflect this. If that's the best that the "top" military alliance can do.. then I'd say we've fallen a long way in our global war fighting abilities. Those results were even with me not being able to participate for a day due to rl events that prevented me from logging in. Dread if I had gotten one more days of nukes off.

hey mate, one of crymson and Cent lackeys here.

Here is something for you to think about. You were nuking each one of us , while only one of the 5 can nuke you back(I fired only 2 nukes your way iirc). Some math and you doing a good job make it easy for you to get equal damage done even outnumbered in the first week of the war. If war damage statistics were available when TOP went against CnG and many more, you could have seen how much more damage we were inflicting than receiving. I still have a screenshot of the infra damage I was doing to my targets in the first week of the war.

As you can see, my biggest infra damage inflicted was 3.8k (my nation had around 6k tech at the time iirc). While your nation with its +10k tech had its best war performance in infra damage with 3.4k. So, yea...

Oh, and you aren't the only one with RL issues. Cheers and it was an honor to fight against you!

nice work Rush, thank you