Jump to content

Monty of the Herm

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    154

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Monty of the Herm

  1. Schattenmann

    Posted

    You can normally tell when someone has hit the truth (Schat), by how hard someone tries to prove them wrong (OsRavan).

    We all know ODN has demanded huge reps, and other things, we all know ODN have supported their "allies" in actions that OsRavan claim he opposes, if he truly opposed eternal wars and huge reps or reps of any kind, he would cancel most of the treaties ODN has but he wont be able to as ofc like most he puts his pixels above his so called "unpopular stance"

    In reality it's just some spin both ways, and I doubt either is going to be very persuasive to those who hold differing opinions to themselves either way. In reality the truth is somewhere in the middle, but hey then again I'm in the alliance that even up until a couple of wars ago was still being held responsible for actions our forebears took well over half a decade ago (pre-Karma) so who am I to point out spin when I see it? I'm just a puppet of the ebil NPO afterall.

    At least with the points each of these two are making they're staying close to within half a decade of our present time right now.

  2. Lord Hitchcock

    Posted

    Please, enlighten us as to what treaties Polaris canceled to not get rolled, I'd also love to hear your explanation as to your own alliance signing a treaty with anything that breathes, clearly setting yourself up for conflicting treaties in a future point.

    I think he's probably referring to Polar cancelling it's protectorate with Minc, but yeah not really sure how that really has anything to do with them avoiding getting rolled, that's just them cutting ties with a brash reckless ally who, for the time being, isn't worthy of their protection. If people wanted to roll Polar they probably could regardless of whether they cancel one treaty or not (ie the last war).

  4. Knights111

    Posted

    I could see why the past six months might make it seem as if CN drama trends towards individuals and not alliances.

    Then again joining a game that's over eight years old, as a new nation, should make it pretty clear that this is much more of a long term game then what six months of observation gives you. Which is why it's best to learn from people who have actually been here for a while and can help you learn how to play the game well.

  6. The Zigur

    Posted

    Actually, I'm just having fun presenting the truth. Everyone knows my personal opinions, but why do something dull and colorless when I can have fun with it? The folks are smart enough to see the facts and make their own opinions. Just because I present news with style, doesn't mean it's invalid.

    Your statistics you keep making a fool of yourself over in terms of the damage sustained by us from weeks ago which you now quote as "truth" is completely outdated and inaccurate at this point and since they are now outdated and inaccurate your "truth" are now in fact lies. Since you originally railed against us about keeping "relevant" nations in PM weeks ago we've had "relevant" nations (aka nations with 100k+ NS) come out of PM and sustain well over 65% damages to their NS individually by subsequently going toe to toe with your coalition.

    With that being the case your "truth" in terms of the statistics you continue to flaunt are in fact all lies at this point, and you make yourself look like even more of a fool by crusading for your "truth".

  8. The Zigur

    Posted

    Trust me, I understand the grunts perspective, but strategy is partially about distributing resources correctly. Why waste energy on defeated shells of nations considering the real problems are in PM. Theres no need to grind pebbles into sand. Regardless of Pacifican fantasies, your meaningful nations are completely beseiged.

    I'm a little more than just a "grunt" but you keep thinking I'm just that that's fine. I'm explaining to you how the last time these sort of demands were placed on us, Pacifica, in DH/NPO. At the time we had to accept the terms because absolutely no one was supporting us in the war it was us against DH, FAN, and NoR. We actually build our nations to fight those sort of wars because we have regularly found ourselves fighting in major conflicts with people shouting down the ebil NPO whether it's for the way we treated other alliances, or how we choose to play CN (ie our use of banks).

    Since DH we've been able to build relationships with other alliances so that we wouldn't be forced into the same position, and yet still at this point your coalition is still trying to force us into a similar position with NPO having actual allies who we've fought alongside and supported, and who we support and go to war alongside in return, as we are doing for NSO in this war.

    So now by "besieging" our "meaningful" nations you're going to war us like we warred FAN before Karma? Last time I checked we already paid for in Karma and the reps that followed. Once again a reason why our allies choose to fight alongside us because it's ridiculous, and you're making yourself look more laughable in the process by trying to make an argument that doesn't hold water on your terms.

  9. The Zigur

    Posted

    Your whining about us not taking enough damage isn't really doing much and admittedly from your own coalition, talking with nations I am currently fighting, your coalition is doing an atrocious job of keeping up the fight and truly pressing your advantage. Personally up until yesterday I hadn't had a defensive war for over a month. It really is rather pathetic how little actual fighting we're seeing from your coalition on our front of this war.

    Edit for spelling.

  10. The Zigur

    Posted

    Was talking about this on IRC, when someone is rallying the troops and says in their speech "Any man who doesn't want to fight can go home," do you think anyone will actually go home?

    My point is we were already in the position your coalition wants us to end up in this war in the DH/NPO War where we had to fight against a much superior coalition with no support from allies. Since then we have developed relationships in FA that actually matter and have formed alliances based on those relationships of trust which have been solidified on the battlefield in past wars.

    That being the case our friends and allies are not willing to allow what happened to us in DH/NPO happen again, because we are allies and we support each other. So your side insisting we're playing puppetmaster and holding our allies "hostage" in this war just isn't the case and has been proven by TPF's actions and the rest of our allies' actions.

    At least in DH/NPO they were honest and simply said "We Hate You" for their CB it's at least honest.

    And again I ask... Where did the "This war is about NSO not NPO" rhetoric go?

  12. The Zigur

    Posted

    "1. Allow their allies to surrender, and submit to terms when the time is appropriate."

    Actually, TPF already set the precedent with their surrender. This is about NPO holding up peace. What I would do is irrelevant.

    You just made my point for me we've already told our allies if it's in their best interests to bow out to do so, TPF did, the absolute bumbling your coalition has done to engage our coalition, and really pressure us and our allies to even consider any terms at all has strengthened the resolve of the coalition and pulled in more periphery alliances like R&R

×
×
  • Create New...