Tulafaras

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='02 February 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1265071172' post='2151540'] If you lose an air attack, you very rarely do damage. I have had this experience in BLEU war and Karma ... sending a full air squadron (92/3 sometimes) and losing ridiculous numbers (I think my worst was 77). [/quote] to be honest the Air strike portion is the most random part of fighting a war. I've lost 2 bombers and 32 fighters against 18 defending fighters in this war.... GA's give pretty decent odds, but air strikes sometimes fail for no reason and pretty much always favor the defender (even more so if he has the AADN)

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='03 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1265154344' post='2154109'] Edit: aw man you edited out and made me waste 2 minutes of quality time [/quote] Sorry, but quite frankly i don't have the patience to continue arguing this. You aren't willing to concede anything and are grasping for straws so quite simply it isn't worth the effort to compose legible replies where i am trying to argue semantics at 1am when i have to get up in 5h to react to the nukes Polar is going to send my way...

edit: you know what, forget it, i don't have the patience to argue with a brick wall.. Bob is rather obviously not even considering what kind of sophistry he is posting so i cannot be bothered to try to argue against it... Have fun wasting another 40 pages, i'll take my leave of this thread

[quote name='elborrador' date='02 February 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1265133730' post='2153449'] i can't wait to burn God to the ground. it is unfortunate that RoK is allied to alliances such as GOD but when you attack NSO you also attack Polaris, and you have to deal with the consequences of your actions. [/quote] and hello ignorance. Why don't you go back to the hole you crawled from and leave the talking to the people who actually say something. Edit: spelling

[quote name='Chron' date='02 February 2010 - 06:54 PM' timestamp='1265133289' post='2153437'] Ha I see what you did there. That stipulation was already rejected. [/quote] That's why Ivan's post 3 pages back confused me massively, since he sounds as if he would accept that stipulation...

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='02 February 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1265128393' post='2153297'] To be fair, IRON declared an offensive war against alliances that were not directly involved in the conflict against the wishes and advice of their allies in NSO. They did so with the knowledge that NSO would not realistically, considering the odds set against it at the time, be able to render any material or military aid in their endeavor. We wish them well but I do not hold any misconceptions on what occured. The NSO never joined to be in a crusade or to see any other alliance or bloc destroyed. [/quote] correct me if i am wrong but wasn't that pretty much the only thing FARK was demanding? That you would agree not to re-enter this current conflict to defend IRON?

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='02 February 2010 - 07:29 AM' timestamp='1265092156' post='2152514'] You know, since it seems to be so much concern that Polar has attacked an ally of an ally or some such nonsense perhaps if the offended parties had spoken to their ally when they attacked an ally of Polar and settled this reasonably a few days ago this wouldn't be happening. [/quote] You do remember that Xiph spent nearly a day organizing peace with and for you before you posted the "renewal" of war notice. If instead of grandstanding you had spent another day talking you'd already be out of this war. On topic: Well considering how Polar has behaved so far, it doesn't surprise me to see you reach a new low. Have fun and we'll see each other on the battlefield. edit: @deSouza: it is too early to try to change history. No matter how you try to turn it around Polar posted the DoW and sent the first attacks so they started it.

Honestly RV your empty claims about the evilness of SF are beyond boring. Can't you find some fresh material if you want to fish for attention?

Considering that your side is fighting for "community standards" it seems kind of strange to suddenly run straight over a number of standards that have been universally accepted. Preemptive attacks have never been accepted, and in this case the situation is even worse because the attackers didn't even have a treaty to chain them into the war. Trying to compare that to our declaration is laughable at best and empty rethoric. @PrideAssassin: when you grow a brain give us a ring, aye?

An honorable move to stick to your treaties and to try to untangle your other allies. Though i must admit i am slightly confused why you think Fark's declaration has anything to do with you, but your opinion is your own, do what you will

you obviously didn't read it either. @JTAG: SF is an MADP not and MoADP. so there wasn't even anything optional about it. (R&R used their oA clause to declare)

I have no idea what CnG would have done. I am not a diplomat and not in any high gov position. What i do know is that we have been expecting a counter by IRON for days now, and it never appeared. Instead they attacked the only block which was completly in the middle of this entire mess. Many MK posters supported both sides, and many made their opinion clear that they disliked \m/. Frankly i was unsure where the chips would fall. Maybe TOP had some insider information, but frankly i cannot accept that MK would throw their allies under the bus simply because you say they would do so. It doesn't fit into how i know MK at all. Them being neutral was probably the most likely scenario i saw. Regardless you seem to have missed my point. CnG was NOT engaged at all. A preemptive attack is questionable at best during a coalition war, but CnG was rather far removed from the opposite side coalition.

to be honest when IRON sent their nations into peace mode almost everyone expected them to hit someone. Personally i was expecting a DoW on us, since they had a direct treaty line to NSO and we had not been countered. When they instead declared on CnG i almost fell out of my chair.... (For the record, i have no inside information, and am not a gov member so i don't know anything beyond what i read on the OWF and see in ingame stats).

nope, i just don't get why exactly TOP and IRON are being willfully stupid. If they wanted to enter this war, they had a perfectly fine treaty with NSO they could have followed. Maybe CnG would have countered maybe not, i do not have any inside info so i don't know. But by the standards of Cybernation (something thrown around a lot in the past two weeks) that behaviour would have been perfectly fine. Instead they attacked someone who was not in the war, without a CB and without a treaty to connect to, something which is generally just not done on CN.

what sides? Seriously, not a single CnG alliance was involved at the point of your attack, so what sides are you talking about?

Well at least this mess is over. To be honest i did not enjoy the thought of nuking this war out for 3 weeks for such a stupid disagreement... So congratulations to \m/, NpO and the others to finally sitting down and working this out.

errr what?

good luck Sparta

that's the way i read it... Not sure if i missed something, but so far i have found nothing...

you know, usually you include on whom you plan to DoW....

you know, i promised myself to not waste my time arguing in this war anymore, but for you to declare a "Coalition War" as you called it, it might have paid of to target an alliance which was actually involved in this war. Instead you attacked a bystander. Nice going, so much for your rethoric...

we did that once, the cries of "fail blitz you missed update lololol" were almost defeaning. Honestly the only reason why attacking before update makes sense is because many people are online. Try to get 50% of your alliance online at noon on a workday

would you prefer the RIA to attack you? They would have a treaty. Of course they also outweigh you by about a factor of ten but considering how much you are whining here that shouldn't be a problem should it?

seriously people could you lay off those comments? They were annoying in the TPF war, they are annoying in this war. No one says they have to extend their full might, considering Umbrella's treaties it might even be called wise to keep a majority back to prepare for counters. If they sent enough nations to keep Umbrella busy (ideally to cover them fully among themselves) that is enough.

honestly it's not as if UINE will miss the PIAT from the "tone" of the OP so why the drama and hate? It seems as if both alliances weren't really invested into this treaty so cancelling it becomes rather logical...