Seerow

We were given indefinite protection. I have no intention of pretending like I'm going to play this game ever again, so I'll keep on collecting and sitting on the AA. The alternative of looking for a new alliance or dealing with tech raiders on and off until I get knocked out of range for any of them don't sound like any better options.

[quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1341151563' post='3001150'] War exhaustion results in a higher willingness to end the war with less damage done. Or let an uninvolved third party build up while their growth is stunted. Or just make it really annoying and inconvenient to hit the SF sphere, and SF doesn't plan on making friends with the MK side either. There's more of the larger winning side being held in peace mode as well, and that's also doing damage. It does mean that the winning coalition will want the losing one punished further, but the losing side will want to drag it out long enough that the winning coalition will be too tired to push for harsh terms. [/quote] So you're trying to tell me the entire coalition is trying to pull a FAN? Because short of that, the strategy you're describing doesn't work. Or if it does work in the short term, it just encourages people to go attack you again in the next war.

[quote name='AAAAAAAAAAGGGG' timestamp='1340843271' post='2998860'] MK is literally Apple. Archon is literally Steve Jobs. [/quote] So when Steve Jobs died, he actually quit to go work for Microsoft? I'd say that makes sense, but Windows 8 looks like it's going to be a flop.

The correct answer, as demonstrated time and again by everyone from every side on OWF is that Reparations are good, as long as you're not the one paying them. On the other hand, the losing side ALWAYS finds something to complain about. When it's not reparations, it's "I don't want to admit defeat!" or other similarly stupid things. Better to just always impose reparations to avoid those sorts of stupid arguments.

[quote name='Stonewall Jaxon' timestamp='1340730101' post='2997349'] Are you still so dense as to not see the sheer idiocy of treatying an alliance that had just gotten through mashing you into the ground? To MK you're a tool until you're a threat, so enjoy the "tool" portion of the cycle; I suppose it's the more fun one. Even so, signing that treaty is something so nonsensical I can't imagine what goes through your head. If someone had run me down like CnG demolished you, or demolished NPO [i]twice[/i] I wouldn't be running to their arms once they pretended to like me. How bad of a whipped dog to you have to be to do something like that? [/quote] Are you implying we treatied the NPO?

[quote name='Ostrogothi' timestamp='1340686418' post='2996751'] How the hell is this even possible? [/quote] The same way it's possible that NPO totaled my car back in '07. (that is to say it isn't)

[quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1340300329' post='2991959'] A better question would be, is anyone other than myself surprised he hasnt deleted again due to inactivity? [/quote] Nope, I've been shocked about how good he's been at logging in every so often.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1340260730' post='2991588'] To be fair, NATO hasn't had the opportunity to extort massive amounts of tech in a series of unjustified wars. [/quote] Here's a tip: If you're relying on reparations to build your nations, you're probably doing something wrong. I've noticed reparations actually tend to cause the nation receiving them to lose efficiency due to delays in packages being sent, and later when it's over those who were receiving reps getting lazy. Seriously, compare our tech growth with TOP's between the last war and now. I'm pretty sure MK gained more despite not getting any reps at all.

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1340260057' post='2991574'] You realize he's in your own alliance right [/quote] Cheeky's probably too drunk to realize he's actually on the forums right now, much less who he's responding to. Edit: But that's okay because apparently Perceus didn't notice it either.

[quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1340259421' post='2991557'] I'm still waiting for you to catch on that that doesn't just apply to the bottom tier any longer. [/quote] Yes, whichever tier you and your allies put entirely into peace mode is entirely irrelevant because there's nothing for them to do.

[quote name='Perceus' timestamp='1340259144' post='2991552'] The same over to your side, seriously, I go on all happy declaring on my target only to find out he is not fighting back? what afraid of the fire or something? such a shame, was looking forward to that casualty count increase. When your guys start to fight back, let me know, I'll go take a nap in the meantime. [/quote] Low tier nation complaining about low tier nations sucking, while still pretending like what goes on in those tiers matters in the least.

[quote name='Perceus' timestamp='1340258981' post='2991547'] oh how I wish I could! but dont worry, I'll be waiting here for you, once you drop down to the mid tier range, I'll gladly dance with you. [/quote] Your alliance has a good 10 or so nations in my range, they just all happen to be in peace mode. I'm sure we can work out something. If you're expecting the guys I hit to bring me down to your range anytime soon, we'll be waiting for that fight for a long time. Edit: Also lol@the implication that 44k is 'mid tier' range.

[quote name='Perceus' timestamp='1340258800' post='2991542'] and this is your target yes? because unfortunately your slots were filled, so no NATOan could engage you. Too bad, such a shame. [/quote] No, it was already stated outright twice it was not his target. On the other hand I have 3 open slots. Please, take advantage of them.

[quote name='Perceus' timestamp='1340258305' post='2991528'] oh you mean THOSE three, yeah no that was on purpose, we wanted to be fair and give YOU specifically a head start.[/quote] Well as much as I appreciate it, please send out the people who actually fight. I already had one boring round from CSN, I was kind of hoping for some more here. [quote]boy oh boy, you caught a ghost! Thank you very much for the ghost busting, now would you like a cookie for that? [/quote] A ghost who is sending out 6 aid slots to NATO members marked as "Growth Aid" and "NATO SoC"? Man we need to start collecting ghosts like that.

[quote name='Perceus' timestamp='1340257488' post='2991498'] we don't believe in flying. The only thing we accept flying is our nukes. Duh! Ofcourse you got lucky! feel privileged about it, doesnt happen quite often. [/quote] Not my fault the only three guys in your whole alliance above 72k NS not in peace mode don't have planes. I mean things like that seem to be more of a pattern than a "Oh hey I hit the lottery". I mean, they were intended to be out of peace mode and attacking, not just grossly inactive right? It's not like you guys would declare war while intending to hide EVERY nation of a meaningful strength level from participating...

So I'm curious does NATO have a policy against keeping planes during peace time, or did I just get lucky with both nations I hit?

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1340237141' post='2990796'] As has already been stated, this has nothing to do with the ongoing war and this sentence exists outside of the war. While Seerow is typically an informed individual and a solid poster, he is confused on this situation. The issue has been brought up in private and will be remedied. [/quote] This is correct. And is a good example of why I shouldn't post while not being on IRC to see what people are saying.

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1340236029' post='2990763'] Committing a CB [i]while already at war[/i] is no justification for starting the war in the first place. Acts of war during a war don't post hoc rationalise beginning the war! [/quote] It is however plenty of justification for continuing the war regardless of the circumstance of the war being started. In fact, the acts committed during war are most frequently what keeps a war going after the war has been started, to the point where the starting point is frequently irrelevant.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1340235969' post='2990759'] The more you try to say its legitimate using arguments like that, the less legitimate it seems. [/quote] So which CB do you think is wrong, protecting someone from being attacked for spying, or attacking someone for spying?

I'm not sure I see the problem. We now have two totally valid CBs in play here. I can't imagine anyone being opposed to both of them while trying to maintain any facade of logic. Why do people still try to insist that our war is illegitimate?

1337 posts individual surrender terms. People who didn't see the original topic assume the terms were for CSN as a whole. Yep, nothing of interest to see here.

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1340079277' post='2988512'] "Says backing OOC attacks is wrong" "Declares in defense of [B]MK[/B]" [/quote] Interestingly, we've never pushed OOC attacks to the point of declaring war for them. But I get it, it's okay. LSF are the good guys, MK is the BBEG. We can only hope and pray for MKarma to save us all, and free the land from our tyranny.

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1340079188' post='2988503'] Really? If backing ooc attacks with aggressive action makes you better than us by all means have at it. [/quote] And they say [i]we've[/i] become the monster.

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1340077819' post='2988443'] It's not about being "gentle", it's about being decent allies and decent people. It's about actually making yourself a valuable ally. You have undermined the credibility of CnG, INT, and your own alliance with one lulzy move. I hope you enjoy it. Good luck with your wars old friend. [/quote] Two allies of two different alliances in the same bloc were under attack. Why is helping one honorable and helping another one undermining the credibility of the bloc? You're just mad they didn't make the choice you would prefer.

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1340077562' post='2988425'] Maybe R&R asked to be rolled? Did you ever think about that? And yes, that was sarcasm and humor at work. [/quote] I was under the impression attacking MK was implicitly asking to be rolled at this point. Why would your statement be sarcasm?