Jump to content

Sir Keshav IV

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,323

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Sir Keshav IV

  1. Anyone around from the Old Days?

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by Sir Keshav IV

    1 hour ago, Raydin said:

    I created an account just to reply.

     

    Played this game WAY back when I was a 12 years old ( 2006 ish. I think before that. ). It changed my perspective on politics, organization, running a company, writing better English ( I was born and raised in Lebanon ). I met some people I still know to this day as real life friends, and would love to catch up with old folks.

     

    I had first started an alliance called ALMEA that was attacked by everyone else because "The Pansy" was pissed. I later was put on some kind of hit list and would make secret names and join alliances. My main roles were usually finance-related and was pretty successful in organizing massive alliance's tech deals, trade circles, etc....

     

    I later moved on to join Valhalla, where I met a ton of amazing people. I then went on to found a few alliances with my friends Keshav and Casshern. TIO is one I remember. 

     

    This game changed my life.

     

    It's great seeing a lot of familiar faces are still around. :)

     

     

    Sup old friend :P I agree The Pansy is one very traumatising fellow! 

     

    Also Middle - 07 here. My first nation got rolled by E_S. Attacked for "stealing guides" when that was a thing lol http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Commonwealth_of_International_Nations 

     

    Came back in Feb 08, been on and off here since then. Mostly in Valhalla and DT. 

     

    Also "The Pansy" says hello @Raydin

  2. 10 years

    in Open World RP

    Posted · Edited by Sir Keshav IV

    15 hours ago, Dochartaigh said:

    So I have been playing this game for the last 10 years apparently. That is almost my entire marriage... Wow. hahaha.

     

    Please I spent my entire teens playing this game and like wasted all my young years to get out and find a lucky woman to marry gah! ( Couldn't even if I tried, this concept is alien to India :P )

     

    Also its time for all of to get out at some point. Congrats on 10 years Doch :D 

  6. A question of a platypus nature

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Sir Keshav IV

     

    If we could drag 15 DT nations down but you have to know that if we started doing any sort of real damage to DT, the rest of Aztec would have jumped in to save those 15 from getting dragged down too far. So if we go with just IRON/DT/FTW- that is 7 nations over 30k tech (excluding SCM) and 135 100k+ NS nations vs TOP's 1 nation over 30k tech and (currently) 29 nations over 100k NS... So yeah, even from the beginning y'all would have had 3 times the amount of nations TOP had over 100k NS with 7 times the nations over 30k tech... But please continue to tell me how we would have hoped to drag down 15 DT nations... 

     

    Come on Keshy, you are far smarter than this. Y'alls side has a far superior advantage in the upper tier. If every alliance on our side went balls to the wall and left all of our upper tier in war mode, we would see DBDC/DT/Umbrella/Aztec/etc dismantling them at will. We have seen it already. So can we please move on from this argument that if we (or just TOP) let (or let's) their upper tier out of PM, we have a hope of taking down anything other than our own nations?

     

    Doch, I never said TOP leaving PM at this point would do any such damage, in fact I clarified it isn't just TOP singularly but on a coalition level you could have possibly tried combining top tiers. My point was just the staggered entry timings of folks on your side made it that much easier for us to wreck your top tier. The other possibility that could have worked out was for you folks to come in combining top tiers and look to specific targeted nations to remove them from future wars and end up at the same stage now with quite a bit more damage to our side.

     

    TOP leaving pm now wouldn't change a thing and I clarified that in my previous post braah. I'm not pointing at TOP as such, just that as a coalition you guys could have looked to take down a few more top tier nations than what you folks did. As simple as that. 

     

    Edit: Forget to mention your premise that we could take them a part at will right now if they leave pm is exactly what I meant. We can do that because of the idea of staggered entries by a stretch of time, which has given us such freedom. 

  7. A question of a platypus nature

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Sir Keshav IV

     

    That is pretty damn false. Considering the tech levels on your side vs the tech levels on this side, to claim that you would take damage that is longer to rebuild is ridiculous. Y'all could easily double if not triple team most of our upper tiers and given the tech disparity, would wreak havoc on this side. Even if we all came in within a few days, we may have damaged a small percentage but it would have cost all of our upper tier to do that. 

     

    Well seeing how you folks were in the long term from the beginning, looking to drag even 15 DT nations into the mid-tier where you folks have an advantage would halve our entire 100k NS + nations. A few months down there and I'm certain the damage we've taken would bloody us far more then say it is doing now. 

     

    Just saying if you folks were going to lose an upper tier, might as well do it with the aim of bloodying the other side rather than letting us pick one alliance at a time and dismantle it without too much damage imo. 

     

    PS: I'm talking from a coalition stand point. What TOP is doing is of little concern to me as it seems a fair enough strategy seeing how they're so little against a whole bunch of folks that can be called upon. 

  9. A question of a platypus nature

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

     

    Worst damage ratio? You need to look at RI5 a bit harder mate. Fairly certain I gave you an answer. If TOP committed in this war like NATO did, they probably would have seen several oAs into them from the likes of DT/Aztec simply because why not? Y'all have such a top tier advantage that sure TOP would have committed more damage but would have sustained far more damage in return. You talk about being smarter than a post, what you are considering is basically having TOP demolished to a mid-tier alliance simply because it can do so. 

     

    I know for a fact that DT wanted to hit TOP more than Fark. Having TOP bring out their upper tiers would have allowed DT/co to rip them apart alongside FTW and IRON. They may have inflicted more damage but they would have been brought to the mid-tiers far faster for them to inflict too much and the stranglehold y'all hold would have actually grown instead of been weakened. 

     

    My point was to consolidate your side's upper tiers and use them in unison rather than having NpO go in and like 10 days later Fark goes in alone; this made it so much easier for us to group on Fark and hit their upper tiers hard, hit NpO and take their upper tiers out individually as their pool was limited to their own AA's tiers. Maybe using TOP alongside Fark and NpO could have led to far more damage taken by DT. Seeing how we're a sub-100 alliance with a member base made mostly of old farts, that damage would take us longer to rebuild than most of the mentioned alliances, which makes us one less cog in DBDC's side of things. 

     

    Just a thought of using your side's upper tiers in a far more unified manner could have possibly dragged a lot more of us semi-upper tier folks into the mid-tiers to be swamped with constant wars etc. 

     

    By staggering your entrances by weeks, we were able to pick and choose whom to eliminate as it was one set of folks running into a goddamn wall. 

     

    Also personally as a DT member, I just wanted some target, don't care who it was :P 

  10. A question of a platypus nature

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by Sir Keshav IV

     

    Hey, MI6 is the worst alliance in CN at the moment, I would figure with that honor goes a rightful amount of stupidity... :P

     

     

    As for the coalition strategy, yeah, personally I agree. It was not the smartest strategy at all, caused the war to be prolonged, and in the end our side is probably getting thrashed worse than it could have but on the flip side, we actually have no idea. For all we know, we could have entered a lot sooner and still be at war now. If we had followed the strategy y'all wanted, our upper tier would probably be considerably smaller than it currently is and everyone on this side would be in the same situation now (well actually a worse one since our entire side would have been at war for probably a month or so longer than we currently are). 

     

    Going balls to the wall is only smart if you know the war is going to end in a relatively short time. Otherwise, it just means that y'alls upper tier would be almost fully uncontested in the next war and let's face it, y'all gonna work on ensuring the next war will be yet another beatdown of our side. It would take some seriously political blundering for any alliance on your side to be on the opposite side let alone the next target.

     

    It's easier for top-tier alliances to pick a part your side top tiers one at a time giving us enough time to relax and wait for the next set of DoW's. Going in quicker may have helped give you guys some sort of co-ordinated move across the board to weaken our stranglehold in the top tier imo. You guys could have pushed to even out the playing field and dropping more of us down into the mid-tier for the grind where you guys have some sort of greater numbers could have inflicted more damage on our folks. 

     

    Just my two cents. 

  14. But your !@#$ is like the police asking us questions, !@#$%*' we don't know !@#$

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    le sighe.

     

    Clearly, Rotavele, you understand KCP far better than its arctitects and the parties privy to it. Except you fail to comprehend both what constitutes an ally to those of us that don't sign treaties as well as what yolo was actually stating when contrasting an ODP with KCP.

     

    Regarding the topic at hand, AZTEC and company's initiative would seem to be overly heavy-handed as well as altogether unnecessary given the agreement brokered between RS and SHIELD. I'm aware DT is top-heavy - hence the level of engagement - I think we're all reminded of the fact frequently with DT and company's public disbain for micros and small nations (which is interesting given their ties to DT Probes, DS, SHIELD, and comparable micros and small nations).

     

    In any event, I can at least appreciate the fact that DT has promised to handle this as a contained duel with white peace at the war cycle's conclusion.

     

    I disagree with the disdain bit. I do believe DT has a rather friendly policy towards micros, especially when it comes to offering protection, we literally are alright with supporting anyone as long as they don't screw around. RS did while they were allied to us at one point which is when our disdain for their antics really began.  

×
×
  • Create New...