Jump to content

shahenshah

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,676

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by shahenshah

  2. Keelah

    Posted

    Long long overdue.

    One can research for suspect behavior of individual nations here:

    https://cybernations.lyricalz.com/aid

    If you cannot copy paste tables in excel, there are plenty of addons in chrome to copy paste tables in excel or Google sheets. Once in tables, you will be able to better organise and interpret data.

    Hoping moderation teams could share nation ids of multis, that would speed things up.

    Alternatively, one can out suspect I'd of receiving nation on that field and see the aid history and you may be able to spot past banned nations and AAs and correlate and report a suspicious behavior via that route.

  5. Rush Sykes

    Posted

    I don't think anyone ever denied LoSS wanted to fight NG. However, I was told the biggest component of the rush to sign and attack was they were worried about a treaty partner on the other side being hit first. Honestly, with some more effort, an actual treaty chain could have been constructed to get them to NG. I wasn't involved much yet with the coalition when it happened, so I don't know why there wasn't more of an effort to get a non-last minute treaty chain through, tbh.

    Probably, anyway, bygones are bygones, and I'm not the one to give anyone any grief over it esp after many people keeping their faith in us.

  6. Rush Sykes

    Posted

    First, my complements on the work that went into the OP. I always appreciate Rush's incites, even when I disagree.

    I was government in a now defunct AA and feel I can share a bit of what was OPSEC at the time, as a member of the oa coalition.

    LoSS came to NPL and wanted to roll with us during that war (it was the newest treaty each AA had and we were in the "I love you, man" phase). As the coalition was planning, LoSS also indicated they would really like a shot at NG, which fit in nicely with the undercurrents (that I was actually too naive to see) that Rush touched on. The only way anybody would make that happen was the VE signing.

    Please note, IRON threatened to hit LoSS in retaliation. I sincerely believe they would have. However, they were smart enough to see what would happen if they did. I, for example, threatened to hit them with NPL. While NPL's NS was no match to IRON, it would have been the end of the coalition and would have caused defeat, ultimately.

    On a completely different note, I would be curious to see what you have say about several other AAs.

    Please expand your OP, as it is rather delightful

    Good to know that LoSS hitting NG was more than just 'we just want to be on this side' crap which everyone was selling us. Can add this to the long list of BS in addition to our own mistakes on what all went wrong.

  11. Rush Sykes

    Posted

    IRON was well received and I don't think the negative !@#$ really began until the war itself started and bickering over distribution of forces and coverage began.

    Yes, when we realized we were asked to do the heavy lifting for others while they sat with comfortable odds and where a leading coalition partner was caught saying wanting us dead around the same time. When those coverages were changed without consulting us (we were present during those days), that was our first hint on the designs to screw us. Our relations with NG and NPO were not good at the time for myriad of reasons. You and friends saw that and took your opportunity, I don't blame you for it at all. We've sorted all that out now and realized we have chances to create better opportunities for us working together.

    TLR wasn't the alliance IRON was originally supposed to fight. They were supposed to fight GATO but threw a fit over the prospect of fighting GATO's upper tier. TLR was a compromise that IRON chose and insisted upon.

    It wasnt TLR, nor GATO, it was ODN, we did'nt go on that becase INT, who was allied requested not to and to keep that on the low because it'd piss the rest of you off. We were being $%&@ed anyway, why screw INT. GATO's top tier? GATO's top tier was in peace mode more than anyone in CnG, their top tier was'nt a threat, and it wasnt gonna be coming out to fight, because that was the sensible thing to do for them. Everyone and their grand mothers knew that.

    LoSS was rushed in because they were concerned they would end up getting pulled in by the otherside. The decision to put them on NG was made spur of the moment by people who had little to do with the macro-management of the coalition itself.

    You expect anyone to really believe that? People knew the situation around IRON and NG was sensitive and people were very very aware of it, hindsight 20/20, trying to be transparent with all was'nt really the best of ideas, I think it should honestly depend on the kind of people you're dealing with. Furthermore, we were told it was a genuine tie and there was a genuine error in us not being informed of the ghost treaty. What's even more interesting, we were weren't told of it after it was dropped post war, found out on the off-the-hand comment a few months later ;-), but that's a discussion for other medium and nothing that we fussed over, bygones are bygones. Point being the gap between your version and the other version further adds credibility to screw IRON by design.

    The LoSS episode screwed us internally, while we were able to keep momentum going on the fronts we were on, the fronts we won and closed which you conveniently forget. Tho, it limited our ability to do anything else and frankly, by that time, we should'nt have been doing anything else for that !@#$ of a coalition. If it werent for us imploding internally from top to bottom, a hit on TLR probably would not have occurred. You would not find a man more happier than myself when LoSS imploded into nothing and NG taking the cake on it, poetic. It was a !@#$ piece of alliance known to jump ships on the eve.

    I distinctly recall the last minute reassignment to TLR, mainly because I was allied to TLR at the time. Was not terribly happy about that reassignment

    Yyou had one/two liner token statement of protest when TLR was being hit as opposed to leading the rants and threats regarding the prospect of TOP hit. You were fine with your ally getting hit by someone you weren't allied to and detested just like you're likely going to be absolutely fine this time around too.

    Regarding 90% of TLR in peace mode: Most of them were mid tier nations we hit and took to lo-tier, top tier NS of TLR was in peace mode before the hit and rightly so. You are using that tactic yourself IAT. If those lo-tiers was a problem, you'd throw in others to cover it, but you threw in a alliance that's mostly top heavy with very little mid and lo tier numbers. There were plenty of alliances that were sitting with alot of idle capacity, waiting to trigger the TIO/NATO front to screw RnR and IRON, could have used those. If TOP was so concerned, there were the 66% of your alliance that could have made a contribution too if they came out of peace mode.

    tl;dr, We made mistakes, you capitalized on it through chance, no problem, you had no reasons to keep our interests at heart, quite the opposite as your actions have suggested, but disregarding the design to screrw us as we learned about as the information leaked slowly post Disorder and denying that is really insulting the intelligence, not just of us, or our friends, but of also the people around you.

    Let's see if you guys manage to do more for some of your friends than we did for some of ours in Disorder.

  16. Rush Sykes

    Posted

    Sard, why act surprised or shocked or pissed? we said if that front escalates, things can go down. We said it openly and transparently, we were assured not to worry. Coalition, steered by a few, moved away from that preagreed notion and several others. It was a well designed setup, its not your fault for trying to screw us, it was our mistake to trust some people.

    Anyways, what are you complaining about? We didn't do enough? We did more for that coalition than, if I know your character right, you're going to be doing for anyone, in near future.

×
×
  • Create New...