Varianz

[quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1318475688' post='2823862'] Already taken, sorry [/quote] Then I will take the 14th! Legion gov please find me on IRC.

This. Jesus guys, learn to read humor.

Was tempted to bet October 13th just to see how people reacted. I'll take November 5th.

I'll know it when I see it.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1318305797' post='2822693'] So the [i]inactive nations[/i] of SNAFU, NSO, NADC, CD, and PhR beat up GOONS's top tier? While taking it on the flank from Umbrella and MK since they got caught out of peacemode? Well I guess GOONS has bigger problems than warchests. [/quote] I think someone already mentioned they never had a particularly big upper tier. Umbrella will show you why GOONS don't need the upper tier etc etc.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1318305567' post='2822688'] "Caught out of peace mode"? All of those alliances declared war in defense of NPO, they weren't jumped. [/quote] For an example, take a look at Legion right now. They declared, sure, but we caught a lot of them "unready"- i.e. not built up or not in PM if they were a !@#$ nation. The inactives, basically. Same thing during the NPO-DH war.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1318305228' post='2822680'] False. The coalition leadership stuck everyone over 70k NS in peace mode "for later" and never ordered them out. SNAFU went off the reservation, but that was about it. [/quote] SNAFU, NSO, NADC, CD, PhR, and some of the ones who were caught out of peace mode. Probably more I'm forgetting. There was only one big GOONS nation who didn't get hit (and I mean really big). I only remember him because he was so damn big. Edit: also lol "coalition leadership". That went out the window about 3 days in.

[quote name='LeonidasRexII' timestamp='1318300410' post='2822630'] He's an obvious deserter who's now disobeying surrender orders that he agreed to. He's currently on Fark. Since he's not complied with the surrender orders he's fair game for anyone. As for us attacking POWs where are the Declarations? Referring to the nation's war screen it shows only the NSO dec. The nation in question was expelled from Legion membership immediately upon his desertion. [/quote] This is what they're referring to: http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=351350&Extended=1

Coalitions: fun for the whole family.

[quote name='T.Hubb' timestamp='1318224751' post='2822019'] That your level of butt hurt is epic-and that we find your arguments amusing, but somewhat pathetic. [/quote] The "nou" is [i]strong [/i]with this one. [quote name='Xineoph' timestamp='1318224944' post='2822024'] You kids are absolutely adorable. [/quote] This one too.

Breaking news, Legion discovers NSO has non-chaining treaties. Millions shocked. What's your point?

By the way, that also updates very infrequently. Like I said, go look at the in game stats. Legion has lost about 780k to NSO's 370k.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1318218094' post='2821943'] Legion, causing nations to flee in terror since 2011. [/quote] Actually it was before all that- they were upset about internal changes.

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1318217278' post='2821932'] [url=http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=476552&Extended=1]Looks[/url] like the [url=http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?search=412692&Extended=1]NSO[/url] [url=http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=260945&Extended=1]did[/url] [url=http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?search=454591&Extended=1]too[/url] Don't believe NSOs rhetoric, they aren't doing any better. Most of their forum posters have nations that are < 5k NS anyways... Also look at the [url=http://www.cybernations.net/stats_awards.asp]awards[/url], NSO has only lost 78k less than the Legion, and we're at war with 4 others... [/quote] Feel free to call in your allies then As for the "biggest loss" award, way to cherrypick stats. That stat is measured over 7 days, so it includes the 150k NS over 3 nations we had who left our AA the day before the war started, and you joining Legion adding 100k to theirs. For a more accurate statistic, check the actual in game charts. Edit: it's also hilarious that I'm a tenth your size, half as old, and still have double your casualties. No wonder you're so big, you've never fought a war.

[quote name='NoFish' timestamp='1318205332' post='2821784'] You know what? You guys just keep thinking this while you show the world that your military is on par with the Legion's. [/quote] "You're right but I don't want to admit it and I don't want to just walk away so I'm going to post something implying I'm smarter and know more to save face."

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1318195442' post='2821716'] I'm working on the assumption that whatever problems you have in the war running out of money isn't going to be one of them. [/quote] Judging from the amount I'm destroying in ops against you, you won't have that problem either. Your partners on the other hand...Cornelius the Noble only has $25mil left from his $75mil starting point.

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1318195214' post='2821714'] It's true. Coordinated attacks aren't about anarchy. It's about letting a less strong alliance mate having a chance at winning GA's by weakening the enemy's defences. Sticking with the Varianz example what difference would it make if he was put into anarchy? If he's got a WC and doesn't need to collect it would just be a pretty red A on screen. He could still fight just the same. [/quote] Well I also couldn't declare new offensive wars, but since my offensive slots are full anyways, that's not a big deal for the moment. And you'd know what my WC was if your spies could get past mine

[quote name='Sabcat' timestamp='1318194579' post='2821706'] I'm agreeing with Sith's twice on the same thread. I'm going for a lie down. NURSE! [/quote] Oh hey Sabcat showed up. Here's a perfect example of my anarchy explanation. I'm fighting Sabcat and 3 other Legion nations, 2 of whom are active. Friday night I made sure I had max soldiers and tanks etc (obviously I'd already improvement swapped and all) knowing I wouldn't be on for that update. When I finally managed to log on like 16 hours later, I'd lost something like 8 straight ground battles, with a few wins mixed in, but still wasn't in anarchy. Why? Because of my full buildup. Edit: Basically, some of you need to stop spouting the party line based on your alliances position in the treaty web when confronted with the basic mechanics of CN.

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1318194083' post='2821698'] Ok we get it, it's extremly hard to anarchy people without nukes, except for that one tactic that just about every alliance uses with every DoW. [/quote] Oh look, another idiot. Guess how many days it's been since our DoW? Go back and look at the stats for the number of Legion nations we sent into anarchy with our blitz. It was around a third of them, which, by the way, is hilarious because Legion should have warned all its nations to build up in expectation for a counterattack. Part of the reason we went in so fast is to take advantage of their lack of preparedness. Now that 6 days have gone by, however, all the Legion nations have come out of anarchy from that initial blitz, and they've finally realized they should probably build up. If you need remedial lessons in why built up nations are harder to anarchy, we do have a training program available. Usually it's just for new nations, but we can make an exception in your case, since you clearly need reminders on how long anarchy effects last and why buildups are important.

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1318193145' post='2821686'] So...there are no anarchies outside of nuclear warfare. NSO, folks! [/quote] If you're going to try and misrepresent what people say, do a better job of it. It's quite easy to understand that he's saying that any nation who's properly built up (guerrilla camps and barracks in particular) is very hard to anarchy, assuming they're active enough to log in often enough to rebuy. And that's completely true. Outside of nukes, a quad blitz by two nations is really the only surefire way of putting someone into anarchy if they've built up.

[url="http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=SalamaSond&anyallexact=exact"]Looks like Legion brought in help![/url] By the logic of some people around here, the addition of this one alliance now unbalances the war again, since I guess we only judge based on the number of alliances and not how big they are! Time to call in RoK!

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1318009456' post='2819850'] To be fair Legion did not know that our treaty had been downgraded at the time of their declaration as we didn't publically announce it. [/quote] Rofl The entire world knew it had been downgraded.

Itt, Kzopp claims to know what happens in closed door back channels.

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1317934645' post='2818857'] Mmm, well written but not entirely accurate. Once Tetris posted those screenshots no backpeddling in the world would have saved them. The action was inexcusable and as far as diplomacy was concerned, I can't fathom anything that they could have brought to the table that would rectify such blatant disrespect. It didn't matter what sort of backing Tetris had, sooner or later you just have to stand up for yourself and roll tanks. Consequences be damned. [/quote] Which is why Legion waited until the VE downgrade took effect to roll out

[quote name='Cager' timestamp='1317927111' post='2818727'] This is very cute but I highly doubt it's how it went down. I think it was more "No no stay out it'll make us look like we can't handle ourselves, this is our shot at regaining the world's respect!!!!!!! " . [/quote] With a little bit of allies saying "we love you and all, but the counters we'll get.................................do you really need us? Like reaaaaaaally need us?"