Kueller
-
Posts
9 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Kueller
-
-
[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='15 February 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1266290382' post='2184175']
Do you have ANY evidence that we were going to pre empt TOP and IRON? Please, give me ANY evidence of this.
We would have defended our allies if attacked, as was stated by Archon. How is that the same thing as attacking us, not in defense of allies but because they dislike us?
[/quote]
/m\ wouldn't have acquiesced to Polar's terms when it did if it were not for TOP/IRON's entrance. Archon admitted as much in saying efforts were stepped up to resolve that conflict upon hearing the news (that top/iron would enter). Had TOP/IRON not entered CnG themselves would've entered shortly thereafter, and then TOP/IRON would've had to enter defensively. Exactly the situation they were trying to preempt... -
None beat Chuck Norris...
-
Except with everyone else using nukes, your presence is un-needed unless you use them. Just a waste of slots otherwise.
EDIT: spacespeed > mine
Last I checked a nation can only be nuked once per day...So what's the point in having 3 people trying to launch nukes when only 1 can hit?
-
Can someone who has spied on them recently fill me in on what NPO's warchests look like anyways?
-
Hell, they were all quaded. The war was a mistake, they should expect some sort of compensation.
The war was not a mistake. Even if 1 of their tech raiders was a ghost, it happened 3 times. And from the tone of this thread, the arrogant attitude clearly wasn't a misunderstanding.
-
Knowing Exoatus (the ambassador who got banned), he probably was rude to BotS. He's rude to everyone though, it's part of his charm. Kind of like Ivan is a megalomaniac, but still has his fans.
-
I'll ask again - so you were willing to sacrifice your entire alliance just because a smaller alliance was treating you the way you and your "Unjust" allies treat every other alliance in the game?
Definitely not. Mainly because we do not see defending ourselves against repeated aggression as something that would place us in danger. Are you willing to sacrifice your whole alliance to defend a bunch of arrogant nations in a 600k alliance that tech raids WUT members at will and then hides behind its MDP with you?
Nevermind, you already answered that by not making so much as a statement in support of BotS in our original declaration thread.
So see, we weren't risking our alliance in the first place.
-
I don't know what you guys were thinking declaring war on them, but let's hope for your sake that BoTS accepts.
If you'd been as caring and involved when BotS was tech raiding us -- the first three times, and NpO was still in WUT -- this whole business could've been nipped in the bud.
Nuke Turret Nations
in Gameplay Discussions
Posted
[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='20 February 2010 - 01:18 AM' timestamp='1266646694' post='2193161']
If you can't beat them, change the rules mid war. You basically want to penalize players for building their nations to survive a long war. [b]Is it a bad thing that it's not as easy to curbstomp every alliance in the game?[/b]
[/quote]
It is when you're trying to curbstomp that 1 alliance.