eesmith4
-
Posts
76 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by eesmith4
-
-
RIP preacher, a good mule is hard to find.
-
Dude, how can you call it "the Mississippi Confederation" when Mississippi isn't even in it? (OOC:Mississippian here)
-
without a doubt this is the single most apropos avatar for a poster I have ever seen.
-
New flag looks pretty good.
best of luck with your alliance.
-
You know, I was just about to pop in here and make a quip about how nice it is to have a yellow drama thread that doesn't involve FAN in any way but then I read down a few posts...
I find myself in agreement with the above post, and thus am quoting it.
Looks like 'ole yeller has been invaded by children while we've been otherwise distracted.
-
You're classier than that. I know it.
No he really isn't, trust me, I know!
-
State of Failure
The Divisions of Lady Pacifica and her Enemies
The problem with our enemy is that they continue to surmount to an abject failure. By any rational or illuminating calculation, they are unable to compete at any ‘heightened’ level of warfare or diplomacy, and not simply because the odds have always been stacked against them
Might want to check the war screens, going by what I see "abject failure" isn't a word I would use. Well, at least in regards to your enemies, NPO on the other hand......
-
Wait, Crohl deserted in a world war AGAIN?
-Bama
shocking, isn't it?
ETA: I voted for arcades in the poll, however......
-
wow. just wow.
BTW, "o ya baby", I just lol'd so fracking hard at your av.
best explanation for what happened in this war I've seen, and in picture form to boot! -
I'm proud that I'm able to call Vox our allies.
o/ Vox!
-
Damn, I'm glad we were able to get you back on the forums Mpol.
obligatory gun pron:
-
*goes to alliance stats*
DefCon 1,614,861 NS
FAN 733,897 NS
hmm... i think we will stay
That's the ones we WANT you to see.
-
I confess that I AM Prodigal_Chieftain.
Hmm, come to think of it, you DO remind me of him.....
-
To the OP: You seem like a smart guy, though I didn't read your whole post to be honest due to the length.
Perhaps it is time for you to move on to a different alliance. FAN's day has passed.
Not an option, the entire alliance membership is on perma-ZI, with no sort of terms offered or even hinted at for individual nations. A couple that tried received "advice" to just delete and quit the game.
Most of us came to this game for FAN, and have no desire to join anywhere else.
-
You guys say you're "committed to moving on, through bombs or peace" (or something to that effect), but yet you set in stasis without doing anything. Movement requires action, and you can take no real action while in peace mode doing nothing.
Man up and fight - hiding in peace mode shows how cowardly FAN really is.
Protip: When you attack someone that you also outnumber 20 to 1, it's bad form to accuse them of cowardice just because they decide not to play it the way you want them to.
I haven't accused NPO of cowardice for bringing all their meatshields(even though I have even more right to it as you for yours), because I also recognize it as a valid tactic, much like peace mode.
-
Because you and Nations like you are cowards.
Interesting, being called a coward by people that attack us with 40X our NS.
-
I am getting pretty sick of this bandwagon BS. Not only did TORN have every right (based on multiple treaties) to be in this war but seeing as though TPF did not request us to stay out of the war we were actually OBLIGATED to enter it via our MDAP (which we were more than happy to do). I dont know about you but my word means something to me and I hardly consider living up to it bandwagoning.
Spend about 5 minutes browsing the treaty web and you'll find at least 3 other alliances technically obligated to join in due to MADPs with involved parties, but strangely enough I can't find their war decs anywhere.
Oh, that's right, they aren't suffering from attention-whoring "me-too"ism.
-
Its of FAN at its height. He didn't like what it became. He made that abundantly clear.
As someone who knew arcades probably a bit better than you, I can say with some authority that that opportunistic alliance-hopper(and a few others like him) were what was wrong with FAN and bear a good bit of responsibility for what happened.
-
The NPO has the Continuum and One Vision now, remember?
In a few months once they kill off these meatshields I wonder what the next bloc will be called? They're quickly running out of decent names.
-
Whats the problem here? 20% means 20%, minimum military. You can now tell the game exactly how many soldiers you want, so if you don't put in exactly 20%, then who's fault is that? And you just admitted that you were in violation of the terms, regardless of how small the violation was or how few nations were in violation. It is your job to make sure people in violation are reported and make sure it is known they are ghosts or have been expelled.
I posted this in another thread, but it bears repeating:
a couple things to make this situation a little clearer. It's only recently that admin has changed it so that you can buy an exact number of troops, it used to be you had to select from several different size blocks of troops from a drop down menu. As a practical matter it was impossible to nail 20% exactly. As such, many of our guys were in the low to high 20 percentile range when we came to the agreement.Another couple things to keep in mind is that frankly yellow is a bit of a wasteland for trades, and as such alot of our guys have set up trade guilds where the members swap out trades on a regular basis. This helps prevent only a handful of our guys having decent trades and the rest stuck with garbage. The reason I mention trades is that as I'm sure you know, resources have an effect on population count, which directly tie into troop percentage.
For example, I have a regular temp trade partner that gives me the agricultural trade set, which is a population boosting one. As such, I have to maintain a 23% troop level on my off time, so that I may accept the temp trade without sending my population into unhappiness. As such, in my case a very good argument can be made that 23% is my minimum level for population happiness, which is the requirement specified in the terms.
also we have an infra jumping program in FAN that provides funds and instruction for infra growth, and many players often buy a nice cushion of soldiers to maintain their population happiness in preparation for their jump. As a matter of fact, in the days before NPO's attack we were beginning to prepare for a mass jump by 80 or so players.
in the context of the realities of nation growth and management, the variations in troop count are easily explainable and quite understandable.
-
Never know what might of popped up. Well good night. Hopefully this calmness will last the night...so I wont have to make another long post. Good night all. May peace come to those who need it quickly.
Ariana, a couple things to make this situation a little clearer. It's only recently that admin has changed it so that you can buy an exact number of troops, it used to be you had to select from several different size blocks of troops from a drop down menu. As a practical matter it was impossible to nail 20% exactly. As such, many of our guys were in the low to high 20 percentile range when we came to the agreement.
Another couple things to keep in mind is that frankly yellow is a bit of a wasteland for trades, and as such alot of our guys have set up trade guilds where the members swap out trades on a regular basis. This helps prevent only a handful of our guys having decent trades and the rest stuck with garbage. The reason I mention trades is that as I'm sure you know, resources have an effect on population count, which directly tie into troop percentage.
For example, I have a regular temp trade partner that gives me the agricultural trade set, which is a population boosting one. As such, I have to maintain a 23% troop level on my off time, so that I may accept the temp trade without sending my population into unhappiness. As such, in my case a very good argument can be made that 23% is my minimum level for population happiness, which is the requirement specified in the terms.
also we have an infra jumping program in FAN that provides funds and instruction for infra growth, and many players often buy a nice cushion of soldiers to maintain their population happiness in preparation for their jump. As a matter of fact, in the days before NPO's attack we were beginning to prepare for a mass jump by 80 or so players.
in the context of the realities of nation growth and management, the variations in troop count are easily explainable and quite understandable.
-
Before I say anything, I would like to say that I mean to disrespect NO ONE in this thread. If for some reason you feel I am being disrespectful to anyone here I apologize.
Well I haven't really been active in the Open World Forum for the past week because of finals at my school. I knew the war was going on, but didn't feel like commenting on it much or anything till now. I just read all 38 pages of this thread and over 750 posts. From what I gathered at reading here is my thoughts:
It seems to me that the main the problem is how different people interpreted the treaty. Some people felt certain parts of it meant one thing whiles others another. This is a fault of both parties. Both parties should of understood what the other is thinking, as is the point of any treaty in my mind. Wether it meant 20% or 30% or 2- to 80% or whatever I don't know, nor do I honestly care to much. The point is there was miscommunication here and that seems to be the cause of problems.
Now I have not been a member of the Cyber Nation community long enough to get to knowledgeable on history. I personally think this is an advantage, so I don't have any seriously biased opinions based on the past of FAN or NPO. Obviously the alliances of NPO and FAN have had some problems in the past, past issues will always influence opinions in this game, so who knows maybe NPO does has some past anger that might of also contributed to this or not, or maybe they are controlling it and have honestly got over past issues. I cannot say which is correct. Although I hope the second one is more accurate.
Sadly, I must disagree with the NPO on their chosen course of action. To go straight to war (although I have no authority in this and it is all NPO's choice) was not the best or preferred course of action for many in my opinion. I personally would of rather NPO diplomatically contact FAN and say "Hey some of your guys aren't following the surrender terms, we meant this when we said this." FAN then could of said "Oh our bad. We will fix this ASAP" NPO could of then said "Okay have a week then we will attack anyone who hasn't gotten into the surrender terms by then." And the issue could of been solved with MINIMUM damages done.
I won't take sides on this matter. In my opinion both alliances are at fault. Both made mistakes and handled situations that could of been done differently. The terms of the surrender should of been more clear (Please don't argue with the 'Oh but they were clear in our minds they meant this.' The point is both groups thought two different things), a fault of both parties. FAN should of done better at keeping these terms, as it seems a few that aren't that incomprehensible were broken by a few nations (not many). NPO could of handled the breaking of these terms better in my opinion. So yeah this mess could of been resolved easily.
As I said at the beginning of this post. I mean no harm to anyone. I am just posting what I've concluded from these 750+ posts and 38 (possibly 39 now) pages of information. If I have misinterpreted something then I apologize, but this is how I took everything. So stop arguing guys. Honestly its getting you no where and its making you all look like idiots. You guys are honestly a lot smarter than this and I personally think your all better people than to just start yelling at eachother because of a difference of opinion.
Good day to all. Hopefully this can be resolved in some fashion quickly.
~Lady Ariana, Foreign Affairs Officer of M*A*S*H. The Mighty Armed States of Honor.
Lady Ariana, this is one of the more level headed and impartial posts in this thread and I thank you for it.
-
When FAN made no attempt to uphold their surrender terms they voided them themselves, and as such there was no standing treaty for us to break.
One could also claim that since NPO consistently failed to protect FAN from tech raiders and rogues as required in the terms, they voided it well before we were accused of breaking it.
-
(Bilrow @ Dec 19 2007, 08:09 PM) *
What are you smoking?
<smirk>
ok, I lol'd.
RIP preacher, a good mule is hard to find.
FAN Announcement
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
Did ya hear that "whooshing" sound? that sound was the point of the OP going over your head.