SpacingOutMan
-
Posts
6,596 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by SpacingOutMan
-
-
because *shocker* losing one war 5 years ago is totally the same as being on the losing side of 3/4th of the wars fought over the past 5 years!
Then come up with a better argument then. :)
The statement
implies we have either 1) never lost a war or 2) are now allowed, by you for the past 5 years and on, to 'talk'. Can't blame me for not understanding what you are talking about when you continue to shift the goalposts around. It's almost as if you are implying that without DBDC, we could never win a war!"wait until you lose a war and then talk"
You plan on winning by allying everyone with an upper tier.
Everyone has to have a hobby. Ours is collecting upper tier allies. -
It really wasn't, but you keep holding onto losing to CSN as a great example of your underdog status.
Because you were *shocker* incorrect about DT never losing a war. -
Maybe you shoulda couped Liz then.
Who do you think pushed for reps on CSN from our side during the Grudge War. :ehm: Hint: rep terms weren't imposed on us by DT. And Liz wasn't in charge at the time of CSN-LoSS... in fact she wasn't in charge until some time after because Goose went inactive. Could I have left CSN after the war and move on? Sure, but there was that sentimental feeling for the place at the pit of my stomach that kept me there (along with the musings of Xiphosis, Liz, and all of the other good folks in CSN/SF! up until SF's demise) until, well, I lost my bet with Bob and joined DT as a consequence.
-
Considering you were IN that CSN, MoFA at the time I believe even, and if I recall supported the terms, I think you prove my point excellently.
The first point you are correct; the latter is funny, but no, I did not. I was quite outspoken about it, which I know pissed both Goose and Liz off immensely.
-
Completely different alliance that the one that currently exists, you know that. As for damage, yeah its easy to do when you've done nothing but collect tech for the past two years while everyone else is using their statistics.
Add "shifting the goalposts" to your knowledge-base; it may help you make a relevant point.
You: "You've never had to face adversity."
Us: "CSN-LoSS Front my friend."
You: "Oh, well, that wasn't the [i]real[/i] DT, it was someone completely different!"
It doesn't work like that.
-
The point is your alliance is bragging about being a "superior military alliance" while on the winning side, wait until you lose a war and then talk.
PB-NpO War but okay, let's not let pesky facts get in the way of your agenda. I'm not sure where we were bragging about being a superior military alliance. It's not our fault that people are incapable of understanding that we've been at war with Fark and GO for some time preceding these attacks on GDA/Menotah/Avalanche. But it's okay; no one in our entire group whatsoever have ever faced adversity. Ever. None of us fought in, say, any of the first 3 great wars on the losing side, the 1V-GATO curbstomp, earning a spot to be attacked in Grudge War, Dave War, etc. etc. In any event, it's all a wash: we all know you will continue on in making insipid and ultimately asinine comments regardless of what is actually happening.
-
Seriously though, I've been in every major war since Unjust except for the Disorder war last year.... I also wasn't in the Coalition War of 2008 because I was getting my _____ raped by NPO at the time. So your point Mogar?
Nah dude, [b]everyone[/b] in DT comes from the [b]same[/b] background and are absolutely clueless about [b]everything[/b]. That's why Mogar is a well-respected alliance leader and we are but just peasants following the our big brother's plans.
-
The Flying Tigers [b]always[/b] win.
-
Do you even know what you are talking about? goons let TOP know early on that their hands were tied and would be unable to help us. We knew going in that GOONS couldn't help us and we acted as such. Unlike Valhalla who let us know they weren't helping after we had already anticipated their help.
Don't fault GOONS for not fighting in a war with half their treaties on one side and half on the other. They could have oA'ed on some weak target and called it a day, but they respected both their sets of allies and didn't.Probably one of the few things I could respect GOONS about. RIA had a similar experience where they would literally split smack-dab in the middle of two sides and managed to make sure that they fulfilled their treaty obligations to their best of their ability. Seeing some of the comments specific people are spouting - though to no surprise - it's obvious that they are being intentionally obtuse for the sake of scoring cheap, but worthless, political jabs.
-
Actually, yes. It's a common theme of the isolated, lonely tyrant. Frankly, the right choice would be to not catch up to them at all. If they wanted to not be bored they wouldn't have chosen the unstoppable path. A weaker alliance like, say, the RIA, has never had a chance to be the big guy, so every time a big war rolls around it gets into the s*** with everyone else. We have our fun. We make use of our time. Instead of being able to say "We dominated everyone and always won by nuke turtling the few times we had to go to war." we'll say "We had the greatest adventure a world like this could possibly afford, with friends and enemies both genuine and false, forging a strong identity that every member understands from the moment they join, and a sense of purpose that has gone unshaken for years despite the ravages of time on the world as a whole."
(In a sense, the way to fight a tech giant like DBDC is to attack the players directly, instead of their nations, through boredom. I understand the hypocrisy in what I'm saying as someone who has been fighting a DBDC nation for the past month, but still. >_>)
If I was DBDC, and I wanted some sense of purpose without sacrificing the ridiculous strength, I'd drop all political ties and declare war on every single nation I could get my hands on. I think it's only a matter of time before that happens.
It's not necessarily a bad strategy; it's just that it requires a [i]very[/i] long investment in all likelihood... one that I doubt would ever be cashable.
-
I don't mind them hiding up in their citadel and lobbing rocks down at us, but in a siege we can still burn the farmlands that feed them tech.
So... what, they can wait a year or two for the rest of you to catch up? Interesting strategy: [i]bore them to death[/i].
-
What could have been. :( The RIA was awash in the political ocean at the time. We were on the objectively wrong side of the second largest coalition line ever to exist in CN, still working out our identity. It wasn't until the Unjust War, after we signed the Superfriends Pact with Farkistan and the ASC, that we came into our own as an alliance. We just wanted some kind of safety from getting raided back then, and we were already friendly with ONOS, so GUARD it was. D:
We were close to ONOS AFAIK at the time (King Arthur in particular before he became a butt).
-
For one brief glorious moment, the RIA was a member of GUARD. ;>.> Now we're a lot of things, but spineless definitely ain't one. But we don't really count in that case, do we?
GUARD had potential to actually be worth something but instead decided that neutrality was the best sort of action which, in turn, basically isolated the entire bloc. Granted, ONOS probably deserved what they got for running a pretty shoddy spy ring but all the same the entire event for GUARD was absolutely pitiful. Also, Charles was really bad at leading the bloc; why he was the de facto leader still eludes me to this day. -
No particular order:
*Monos Archein - Too much to discuss.
*North Atlantic Defense Coalition - Too much to discuss.*International Communist Party - "Try, try again" didn't work out too good for them...
*The Phoenix Federation - UJW shenanigans.
*Illuminati - Couldn't back up their talk.
*Grand Global Alliance - Did they ever stop suckling NPO's teat?
Notable bloc shoutouts:
*GUARD - Absolutely spineless; sorry ONOS!
*CDT - Why even bother?
-
You can't be serious. Our forums are filled with a thousand posts a day of people complaining we aren't in war, for every day our alliance war screen wasn't full.
We would love to take on more - much more, and would have loved this all along. Too bad so much of your side is hiding in peace mode.I think I accounted for half of those. :S
-
I think you'll find that white peace here has always included a proviso that the loser of the war will not reenter the ongoing conflict.
wait i mean o no doom squad how dare you impose such horrible terms!!11!1
Largely because we have whitewashed the term "white peace" in order to make surrender more appetizing to the loser. Before we all bastardized the term, white peace is status quo ante bellum; that is to say, ending a war without an unconditional surrender. I'd argue that peace in exchange for both a formal surrender and/or no re-entry is not inherently white peace.
I guess I'm just being overly pedantic. Debellation is really the ultimate goal of every CN war anyways.
-
In other words, we've come full circle now to pre-Karma, where merely having warm relations with an unfavored alliance is an "act of war" against the ruling class.
Round of drinks and a pat on the back to all involved!For what it's worth, we've come full circle to pre-Karma a long time ago: Grudge War (specifically the DH-Chestnut front, as short-lived as it was).
That may be, none of that adds up to anyone deciding that Polar has no right to exist or that they are fighting for their survival though.
It does't add up, yet it doesn't really matter. The narrative has become that Polar is fighting for survival and is faultless for its current predicament. I won't presume to know the inner-politics and backroom deals (I'm sure a lot of this war is founded on old resentments to the Polarsphere). I look at this way: because of the current cluster$%&@ and genital measuring, I can only foresee increasingly bitter conflicts going forward. Whether that tickles your fancy or not is up to you I suppose.
-
And yet you perpetuate it. I left CSN because I thought it had acted in a classless manner towards TD. I was disgusted by the idea of reps.
I awkward as it makes me feel to say, now, I see that just maybe, Liz was right.
This AA just made my "I will rogue you before I leave this realm" list.
Perhaps I am playing a role in perpetuating it. I'm simply not active enough anymore to involve myself in alliance politics and you should know very well my tenure in CSN was an exhausting one. I guess now I'm along for the ride and really nothing more, as very unfortunate as that is. You're not wrong in that this is basically everything I was against: I fought vehemently against DT reps, desperately tried to convince people that joining SF! was a good idea because we were friends with them (not because it only offered political convenience...), etc. etc. After I let CSN disband I've taken a backseat role and voila, here we are I suppose.
-
i feel like this took so much effort for such an unfunny joke... just saying
:O
Hey buddy. :wub:
Would you agree that Shogun should be in the top five for consideration? ;)
-
I really need to get to know who the forum posters are these days. I thought this could be an interesting thread but now it's pretty much garbage.
I should have listened to the rest of you!
You really don't want to know.
-
The cycle does not continue, it is continued.
And will be continued, much to our chagrin.
-
Well, that's disappointing coming from you, SOM.
He wanted a CB or logical reasoning why war was declared; I simply provided it. I'm not going to lie and say I'm thrilled about how things turned out. This whole war is just one giant clusterfuck and the best part is we will all say that things will be different going forward. Reparations will be off-limits... CB-less declarations won't be tolerated... an attack on one is an attack on all... etc. etc. And so the cycle continues.
-
Every single poster in this topic and nearly everyone on Bob, had and is allied to alliances that adopt one form or another of avoidance of damages.
Its pathetic that people are trying to score points on the subject when they or their allies do the exact same thing.The same people who complain about it are the same people who get butthurt that people don't play by their rules. People still do it at the beginning of every war when people are in PM despite being a viable strategy for years.
-
I'm okay with TOP's upper tier in PM despite that resulting in a paucity of targets in range of me. I think Keshav was right insofar as better timing of Polar and friends' upper tiers entering but it is what it is. TOP can enter as fresh legs [i]at some point[/i] in the future once some DBDC [i]et a.l[/i] have been worn down, but I'm not sure how tenable a strategy that is since a lot of us aren't sustaining any damage. For example, my GDA target hasn't attacked back at all or tried to rebuild since, presumably, he is away and unable to respond. I won't presume as to what the end-game here is for Polar, but there are only so few options remaining. Just food for thought. :v:
Hershey-Nascar War Stats, powered by RI5
in Open World RP
Posted
I half agree with you. NS damage is definitely a useful metric, but right now it lacks context. Are we talking about military or 'real' damage? That is to say, how much of the NS being lost are destroyed soldiers/tanks/nukes/aircraft/navy (military) or infrastructure/technology/land ('real')? I think that is an important distinction because given the current state of warchests, the only way to do real damage is to take away infra/tech/land since military is pocket change. While this will be very different in the low-tier where warchests are lower and military therefore makes a proportionally larger contribution to the costs of war, it would be lovely if we could somehow tease these two out. Is there any way to extract infra/tech/land loss? If so, I think that would be a great way to depict 'real' damage since those three economic items (especially tech) can set you back months, if not years, depending on the severity of the war.