Jump to content

Kowalski

Members
  • Posts

    1,134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kowalski

  • Birthday 07/06/1978

Previous Fields

  • Sanctioned Alliance
    Umbrella
  • Nation Name
    Killallippies
  • Alliance Name
    Viridian Entente
  • Resource 1
    Fish
  • Resource 2
    Iron

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    England

Kowalski's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. Where's all the love gone? Not even Hal digging himself a hole big enough to fit his ego in is enough to save this thread.
  2. You mean your alliance didn't immediately inform you of peace in-game? What kind of a cruddy, disorganised mess of an alliance are you a mem...oh, wait. I see.
  3. So you say that while you're officially neutral you want to be frank, and then make three non-commital comments exceeded in their neutrality only by their banality. Way to get us excited that you and GPA finally got hold of some personality only to disappoint yet again.
  4. Well we got one hell of a hiding but have a whole new set of axes to grind and at least Umbrella didn't have to accept those preposterous original terms. A pleasure (in a sadistic way) fighting IRON and props to MW, UCoN and Deinos.
  5. You had problems. You've admitted that. You can try and row back on it now but it's clear your nations didn't respond as you would have liked and you also admitted that you made mistakes. If "in the end" the result being "satisactory" is good enough for you then fair enough, but you aren't exactly showering your performance with praise and pardon me if I doubt whether it deserves the credit it's been getting. But I will.
  6. I'm really struggling to understand what part of "the problem is people giving you credit for things you haven't done". It's only twelve words, perhaps you can pinpoint which ones in particluar you're having a hard time with? You seem intent on creating this image that I/we have a problem with how you've played this war. Maybe it plays into the great plan of how to deflect critisism, to try and create the impression that VE hates GATO no matter what the actual issue is so that out points can be dismmissed. Maybe you just see a post from VE mentioning GATO and without reading it have a response already lined-up. The fact is that you haven't gone out out of your way to contribute much. Whether that's the memebrs, gov, or coaltition's fault or whether you should ever have been expected to or not the fact remains that you could have contributed a hell of a lot more. You didn't, you chose not to, the world keeps turning. However you have to expect that when people say you have it's natural for some people to stand up and say 'hang on, no they haven't'. As for your 'strategy', the result of the war would not have ben any different. If the outcome of this war was ever in question then it would never have been started, that's how wars work nowadays. So no, your strategy of us all staying in peace mode while the alliance initially attacked gets ground to dust would not have had any great effect (as previous wars have shown). Also if you think that using Legion as an example of how it would work is going to convince anyone that it could work on some like IRON you're sadly mistaken. There's a slight difference in class between those two.
  7. Oh dear Lord, 'the GATO way'. You've said yourself that members didn't respond when you wanted them to and that you made mistakes deciding when to ask nations to come out of peace mode. Is that 'the GATO way'? I can certainly see it becoming a template for successful coalition war planning. Alliance leaders of CN! Do you want to be involved in a coaltion war so that you can fulfill your base obligations to your bloc and some allies but also take minimal damage because it isn't your war? Then employ 'The GATO Way' today! Also I can't believe you keep mentioning Legion as if taking them to pieces requires some kind of skill. Like I said (and keep saying) fight the war how you want, we've been in your situation before, just be honest about it and don't try and justify credit for your involvement when it hasn't been earned.
  8. The fact that some of your members either didn't want to fight or were sloppy/inactive is part of it. The other part of it is that such a large amount weren't even asked to fight. Put those two together and whether it's down to refusal to fight, unwillingness to fight, inactivity or piss-poor organisation the fact remains that GATO have not, compared to most other alliances, contributed a great deal to this coalition's war effort or taken much damage for the cause. Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with that, I imagine it was the plan from the start, but that fact remains and is why when GATO start getting posts of support and praise in this thread for being involved in a beatdown and taking a lot for their allies that people will disgaree with that. Unless you think that GATO have been involved in a beatdown and have gone out of their way to make a difference?
  9. Well I certainly can't disgree with that, the less nations fighting does usually mean less damage received.
  10. GATO getting credit for being involved in a beatdown and going through the mill for their allies GATO getting credit for being involved in a beatdown and going through the mill for their allies GATO getting credit for being involved in a beatdown and going through the mill for their allies GATO getting credit for being involved in a beatdown and going through the mill for their allies GATO getting credit for being involved in a beatdown and going through the mill for their allies GATO getting credit for being involved in a beatdown and going through the mill for their allies I'm not sure how many times it can be said before you get it?
  11. A good point. A flippant answer would be that mutual membership of a coalition should also include fighting together and that there are other examples on display of acting in a manner that counters coalition strategy, but I wouldn't want to get involved in that.
  12. I think he's referring to a previous war when VE fought on the other side to GOD but still tried to protect GOD by only 'allowing' certain alliances to hit them.
  13. Your members didn't follow orders. Either they stod up and said no, they saw the request and chose to ignore it or were so inactive that they didn't see the request until days/weeks later. Either way your military performance in this war has been disinterested and flimsy, which is why I disgreed with people saying that you've been involved in a beatdown and had gone through a lot for your allies. You haven't. There may be a good reason for this and you may never have had the intention or responsibility to do so, but it doesn't change the fact that you guys getting credit for it is wrong. Ever seen that Chris Rock skit where he goes on about how parents claim credit for looking after their kids, before reminding them that YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DO THAT DUMBASS!? Well congratulations GATO, you've committed minimal resources to war effort on the same side as your bloc in an unresponsive and ineffecient manner. That's the bare minimum expected of you and you managed to hit those targets, well done. If you're happy with that and the "we did what was asked of us, I don't see what more we could have done" approach is one that you're comfortable taking then fine, but don't be ashamed of it. Like I said if people are going to give you credit for what you've done then I reserve the right to disagree. And I'm eternally grateful that GATO doesn't owe us anything, as that would be one debt that would never be repaid.
  14. Perhaps you could 'just say' where I criticized them for it it? I said it happens. Magicninja seems to be under the impression that we're upset that we didn't receive help, I was pointing out that we didn't expect help for the reasons given. Didn't say they were wrong to do it, didn't say it hasn't happened before or won't happen again.
  15. Go find some, there's plenty out there.
×
×
  • Create New...