Robster83

If you recognise that you aren't the target, then fair play. However some people said the opposite. That's a logical fallacy. You can't argue against me when I have the required information to cast a valid judgement, and you don't. Yes I see the logic behind what Alex said, but it still doesn't change the fact that his conclusion is wrong. You can't expect me to give the specifics at this point in time, but they will become clear as the war unfolds. The point is that no matter which alliance was in your position, they would of been treated the same -- if not even countered more effectively. Because let's face it, we're hardly piling on all of the resources possible solely on you, which we could do. Anyway I will be bowing out of this slugfest. If it makes you feel more important to think that this war has suddenly took a turn and become about you, then it's all good. :laugh: PS: Still waiting for that counter. :awesome:

So if we're on the same page, and you agree that TOP/Umb oA'ing in was purely strategical, and having nothing to do with the fact that the target is Plan B, what do you keep arguing about?

That was a consequence of us allowing TIO/NATO to have a free pass at Sparta for so long. Even then, TOP/Umb were the only ones to oA in I believe -- just like they did on others, and the strategical reason behind that is obvious. Hint: It's not because this war is now suddenly about you.

Not sure why you quoted that particular post, since I was merely pointing out that it was an ad hominem trying to deflect from the argument. Yet again, you are making assumptions without knowing the full details. Perhaps post war you will be able to look back, analyse what really went on when it unfold, and admit you were wrong. Also the reason why you are being attacked is also due to treaty chains. If you have not noticed TOP have 6 allies, NpO/Umb/MI6/UPN/DoD/GOONS -- all of whom are engaged on this "main front" as you call it. Would you rather the alliances that attacked you didn't go in on an MD clause? Because I am sure as hell you would be whining about alliances going in on an oA if it happened, and you would still think it's a conspiracy revolving around R&R, albeit with different people out to get you.

I see your logic. But it's simply wrong. You are making assumptions there without knowing our plans. Do you not admit that I am in a better position than you to judge whether or not we have made Plan B the priority target? As I said before, you have already been given preferential treatment over all of the other alliances involved. Yet still this war is about you according to some. :laugh:

Doesn't change the fact that you are appealing to personal considerations as opposed to logic or reason to deflect from the points I made. For the record, an opinion is an extension of said person.

Incorrect. STA aren't the type of alliance to leave the war before their goal was accomplished. Had TPF stayed in, I am more than confident that STA would of stayed in until the ally they entered for got peace. They have a long history of doing so. Therefore piling up resources on them, is just like piling up resources on you... except we haven't reached anywhere near the level of resources when considering the tier breakdowns in comparison to the resources on STA. So again, I ask you, if that's your logic, why weren't they crying and whining that the war had now become about them? As I told you before, the capability and the resources are there to fill the vast majority of your defensive slots. Why do you think that hasn't been done yet? Because there is no !@#$@#$ agenda against you. :laugh: If you do exit this war, or don't until the end, is up to you. It's not something we have control over. That doesn't mean that just like all the other alliances in this war, that you will get a free pass and not get covered.

What do I have to be upset about? :laugh: I don't think it's just being dis honest in public. I genuinely think they are deluded enough to think that this war has now become about them.

If there was an agenda to focus our efforts on Plan B, we would never of offered you a fair exit out of the war, and certainly would not of made certain concessions out of our discretion at the start of the war, where TIO/NATO were allowed to have an advantage over Sparta. We have been way more than understanding of your position and several alliances went out of their way to help you. Yet now that you are adequately covered, many rounds after the war started, you whine and accuse others of opportunism. Pathetic. Strong ad hominem bro.

The relevance is that STA's was just like R&R in terms of how they entered the war. The odds they faced were far greater than R&R. By your logic, you would say that the new motive of the war was to wreck STA -- even though that's nonsensical. For the record STA did not complain and whine about the fact they were covered, nor did they make up conspiracies that the war is now about them. You have such an over inflated opinion of yourself to think that this war has now become about you.

Not really any more than all of the others. In fact I would still say that the current forces facing R&R are hardly overwhelming. If you considered tier breakdowns, and essentially removed the Umb/TOP/other nations that are no longer relevant in this war, then you would see that STA faced a much more difficult task, against IRON/NADC/TTK/GOD -- with a view to adding more resources on that front. You really think there was an agenda to hurt STA? If our main objective was to focus on them, the vast majority of their defensive slots would be filled to the max. Which isn't the case.

I didn't mean arrogance on your part. I ment TIO/NATO. Not sure why they kept citing that they were winning on that front, when as you say that concession was made by us from the start. Either way, we let it all unfold, and I don't think anyone on our side of this front has an issue with how they acted and the decisions they made. Just pointing out that we were reactive to those decisions, as opposed to proactively having an agenda against them. Some of these theories that Plan B have become the new center of the war are stupid.

They were only enabled to be in such a favorable position on the front by some alliances in our coalition. The arrogance to suggest that it was down to them was hilarious, because had we wanted to, Plan B could of gotten wrecked pretty early on. This is a consequence of their decisions. We have no issue with that -- and personally I fully understand why the offer was rejected. They did whatever they had to do. And so did we. But let's stop with the conspiracies that targeting Plan B is some sort of ulterior motive. If that was the case, we wouldn't of allowed the TIO/NATO front to go well for them for as long as it did out of our own discretion, and certainly wouldn't of offered them a fair exit point.

The motive was that you entered on the other side, and were not adequately covered, and now you are. Not sure what you don't understand.

You are acting as if you have been facing overwhelming forces for many rounds. The quicker you realise that you had an advantage up to the point GOONS entered the better. RnR only received adequate coverage upon their entrance. It doesn't even compare to the odds that STA/TLR faced from the get go. If the intention was to wreck RnR, believe me, it could be done.

Yet you were still getting outdamaged by us, despite having an advantage. Right, ok. You're deluded. There have been no mass messages to your members to surrender and join us. As far as I know we haven't even sent messages for others to surrender -- unlike you folk, not that I take an issue with it. Just because one guy may of done it, doesn't reflect the alliances position or that it's government sanctioned. Why would we want to accept traitors? Use some logic. And once again, none of the government in years has had anything to do with what that poaching you accused us of doing in BiPolar. You've received your forced public apology. Get the $%&@ over it. It's getting pathetic. :laugh: Let me guess, at some point you will bandwagon onto us, and then bring back the point that someone told R&R to surrender and join UPN, and demand reps/apology. :v

No one on this front cares if you get out of the war or not. Also not sure where you got those statistics from -- no surprise that your military is inept. We currently have 18 offensive wars declared, that are going on right now. 53 wars over the last 2 weeks. In two rounds of war, you dished out 241k damage to us, and we dished out 311k to you. Whilst YOU had a great advantage over us, in the tiers that we fought. You got significantly out damaged, whilst you had the numbers on your side, facing an alliance that has already been in a lengthy war. That's pathetic. As for the comment about us begging GOONS, that was far from the case. You were not adequately covered, and yes, as part of the 'winning' coalition we requested adequate coverage, that considered the tier breakdowns. If we wanted to make you burn, we would of made that happen. It was good discretion on our part, due to some of your allies being on this side of the coalition. You have a 1.1million negative damage output disparity. The worst out of everyone in the war -- even though you entered fairly late. How is that not underperforming? Edit: Just realised what you ment by those statistics. And that's an awful metric to measure it by, and you know it. :laugh: What the $%&@ are you talking about? I see nothing has changed since our last war, trying to hold something against me when I have no clue what you are on about. Reminds me of that conversation with you in the PB/NpO peace discussions, where you requested a forced apology, for things that we did not do, and then threatened to disband us if we ever attack you again :v

To be fair you were more effective than HB was in the first round.

I wasn't making a point about loyalty. I was more so referring to the fact that R&R likes to talk tough, but when it comes down to it, you don't perform. Up until now, R&R has had a significant advantage in fighting UPN in the tiers the vast majority of the fighting has been done between us. As TOP/Umb are top heavy and can't help much in the below 50k NS range, we relied on some of MI6's nations to help, and let's be frank HB's effort in the first round was pretty poor -- with their 7 or so offensive wars in the first round, where they got heavily outdamaged. All that combined with the fact that you had plenty of nations with maxed out nukes, were fresh for the war, and had a long time to prepare for it. As opposed to us, where quite a few of our guys were already running out of nukes, or took significant damage in the 2months leading upto this particular engagement. R&R wasn't being adequately covered for a fairly long time. Yet you still performed badly. Many of your members referred to us as cannon fodder and such, be it in jest or seriously, and yet we still outdamaged you, while you held a significant advantage, whilst not performing to the best of our abilities. As for your point about not losing as much tech/NS as the others. No !@#$, you haven't been involved in this war for all that long. Which makes the damage output disparity even more laughable.

Your bark is bigger than your bite. The bravado isn't going to change the statistics.

You're the only one out of the loop here.

Good to have you onboard.

Well then I don't know why you questioned me, because I was just clearing up the misinformation that some were trying to spread, in saying that it was NpO/TOP who were the driving force behind the quoted reps.

I feel my other posts already provided sufficient information on the topic, and I didn't think it warranted a further response. Before I bow out of this topic I will say this. You seem like a smart guy, and should know that entering in defense of an ally is often a pretense to going in for other reasons. If you think there were no other self-serving agendas from other parties, bar NpO and their CB, then you are deluding yourself. Just because you keep repeating that TOP/NpO are the main culprits responsible for the terms you received, doesn't make it true. In fact it's pretty hilarious watching you make argue certain points, when we know what the truth is -- objectively.

Ouch.