Jump to content

BDRocks

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    283

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by BDRocks

  4. Capping alliances at 12 members

    in Tournament Edition Suggestions

    Posted

    Merry Christmas everyone
     
     
     
    To add though, it's quite ironic isn't it that SG was accused of using rogues (none of which were deleted that I am aware of) only to face 10 rogues this era of which 7 were deleted for being Multis. Of all the talk of SG/UN of using multie's it's our haters that actually used them. Try all you want, cheaters and all to take us down, but better to come at us directly haters.
     
    Cheers to the clean players and best of luck

  5. The Real Issue facing CN

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    7 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:

    Lift caps on destruction in wars.  Make attacks do an uncapped % of infra/tech/land/money damage.  Destroy money spy ops should destroy and uncapped % of money.

    Or, alternatively (implementing both of these would probably be too far), allow nations to be hit with more incoming wars/spy attacks/navy attacks/nukes dependent on their size.  Why do the biggest nations in the world only get to have 3 defensive slots, can only take 1 nuke per day, etc, same as the tiniest nobody state?  If you have a wider range of assets, you should expect a wider range of attacks.  You have a bigger land border to defend, after all, don't you?  Defensive slots, nukes you can eat, incoming spy attacks, and defensive navy ops should all be increased depending on the size of the nation.  More land should mean more incoming navy and war slots.  More tech and cash should make you a priority target for spies.  More infra means more cities in your nation that people might lob nukes at.

    Make war expensive, make it hurt.  This game is stagnant because those at the top cannot be touched, not even by each other.

    Ask Dulra if those at the top can be touched or not. 

  17. Da WAE

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    5 hours ago, shahenshah said:

    The !@#$%^ alliance still existing. Atleast goons had the courtesy to disband and spare us all the sight of !@#$ that they were. You're even the color of !@#$. 

    Pot calling the kettle black. Gratz on the 12 years GATO 

  18. We come in pieces

    in Tournament Edition Open World Forum

    Posted

    1 hour ago, HiredGun said:

    It sounds more like Bd has more than one nation and you didn't know that was all said on discord. lol

    No Bajor know's exactly what you are talking about. You were intentionally mislead. I am UN low gov and was in The Dawners as a reroll. Wolves know who Trump(NorthKorea) is, it's Nikola. 

  19. We come in pieces

    in Tournament Edition Open World Forum

    Posted

    3 hours ago, wasso said:

    According to what have been mentioned by many alliance's leaders so far and inorder to keep people playing fairly every round and especially during this round, i would suggest from you Bajor to keep your Drawners nations in their own alliance as a part of UN but separated from them. Thus their existence would help you during wars etc... but also they wont be affecting the overall total score, casualties etc.

     

    So give what every alliance deserves to win fairly and what everyone has fought for during all these days and keep it clean.

    Im saying this infront of everyone else, UN. Objections?  Guess not if you claim you dont want to win the score award nor the casualties or any other word. So why not?

     

    Why would we do that exactly? They were in UN at the beginning of the round. If your actions hadn't caused them to delete, they would of been there all round. Them joining this late is worse off in terms of casualties than had we stayed. 

  20. We come in pieces

    in Tournament Edition Open World Forum

    Posted

    2 hours ago, KingBilly1 said:

    Re-rolling and sitting in another alliance for the majority of the round doesn't mean you are UN nations in my eyes.

     

    You re-rolled resulting in massive casualty losses for D1 and then think it's acceptable to just jump into the UN 2 weeks before reset? 

     

    You are not doing yourselves any favours. This round you were meant to learn from your mistakes last round. I guess yous are slow learners and it will take a bit more time.

    Bajor already said but I'll repeat it because it seems like you and your friends have a very hard time understanding simple statements. 
    A) We had to delete and reroll because of D1 and friends actions of nuking us/staggering us so we would eventually reach bill lock or complete irrelevancy.
    B) The Dawners that rerolled, were the top 5 casualty holders of the entire game at the time of deletion. Our forced deletion hurt UN casualties numbers just as they did D1's. 
    C) Don't force nations to delete and you won't be complaining about them down the road. 

  21. We come in pieces

    in Tournament Edition Open World Forum

    Posted · Edited by BDRocks

    8 hours ago, wasso said:

     

    Oh look they joined UN. And claim that they are their friends who rerolled at the behining of the round. So basically they had them join now and maybe others will follow IF NEEDED inorder to win the score record that Defcon one was holding until yesterday. 

    You hit it mostly on the head. The Dawners are rerolls of UN members from beginning of the round. Those members that D1 and Wolves combined to force to delete and reroll. Now both alliances are complaining that the Dawners are back home. It's gold. Your actions have consequences and for someone who claims to pay so much attention to whats going on, it should have been quite obvious who the Dawners were. All 4/5 of us deleted and re rolled nearly on the same day. We did wait on none and at 0.00 until our first build when we came together onto Dawners. UN still has fewer members than it did at its peak at the beginning of the round counting UN, LoG, and The Raiders(because less than half rerolled). Gratz for making new players quit.

     

    7 hours ago, Wayne World said:

    If I remember right when an Alliance merges with another there Casualties count does not move

     

    So if DCS moves to DF1 it should not effect Most Alliance Soldiers Lost and Most Alliance Soldiers Killed which belongs to

    Wolves of the North .... BECAUSE most DCS members are former DF 1 members  That should make it all ok to do such a merger, just following the logic ... Would bring DF 1 even with 28 members and make it all fair  ( Bull Droppings )

     

    This message is not saying that would happen But we seem to be following last rounds lunacy 

     

    come on United Nations Lets not start the crap again

    Its not fair to people like the Wolves of the North that have a legit chance of winning Casualty numbers for us to start combining Alliances to make the final number meaningless and screwed up .

     

     

     

     

     

    Well you are right. Casaulties don't move when you change alliances, so The Dawners coming home didn't add any casualties. We are however fighting this war and so of course our earned casualties will be with our alliance UN. Do I think we will win the award? Doubtful. Wolves are quite far ahead. Early round, me and my Dawners were the top 5 on the causality boards...if those hadn't deleted, UN would be at the top. 

     

    Secondly we aren't doing the !@#$%^&* merge League tried last round. Everyone that joined UN from The Dawners is an original member of UN and was in UN before we rerolled. Just to REPEAT AGAIN for those that don't understand. 

  22. We come in pieces

    in Tournament Edition Open World Forum

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, KingBilly1 said:

    Actually, options were limited an competition for targets drove our early declaration.

     

    You had enough time to build, in fact more time than we did.

     

    I guess you can thank IRON for taking the easy route.

    That still doesn't explain hitting our uncollected/unbuilt but avoiding our built nations. 

×
×
  • Create New...