Jump to content

Bob Janova

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bob Janova

  • Rank
    His Royal Majesty, King of Seria

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
  • Alliance Name
    The Order of Grämlins
  • Resource 1
  • Resource 2

Recent Profile Visitors

2,986 profile views
  1. They might be a crappy alliance no-one cares about but this still isn't right.
  2. This seems like a mixture of private channels ftw and :facepalm: to me. Taking your dispute with your former alliance here isn't going to help you. I would be amused, but the incoherent writing just hurts my head too much to care.
  3. Wait, this war is still expanding? I thought it should be pretty much over and rolling back by now. Also What?
  4. Just goes to show what a nonsense it is to claim that Avalanche is hit because of their treaty with NpO, then, doesn't it, if holding an MDP with NpO is so okay that they hold an MDP with an alliance that does it.
  5. No, it's really not the 'same thing'. Hitting alliances that are part of the enemy coalition during an ongoing coalition war is fair enough, though usually treaty chains are manipulated even in that case to give a semblance of alternative justification for it. Hitting alliances which are not part of the war until you declare on them is entirely different, and pretty much the definition of noCB warfare. If being allied to NpO is enough, then why not hit Valhalla?
  6. Attacking an alliance that is not involved, without a DoW, is bad. Attacking an alliance that is allied to the main enemy of the war, and claiming that is your CB, without a DoW, is arguably worse. If you're attacking alliances for holding a treaty with Polar then where's the offensive dec on Valhalla and whichever other large but inconvenient alliances that would logically include? Before someone plays the 'why are you supporting them then', I'm just a retired grumpy old man with no say in geopolitics these days.
  7. I'm surprised the GPA feel they've done enough to dissuade further raids. I imagine what they've got is a promise from o ya baby that neither he nor anyone else in DBDC will raid them again. Promises from powerful alliances and individuals who like to push the envelope have been broken before. I hope I'm wrong and that the GPA has indeed resecured itself from raids, though.
  8. Five years on, everyone's just an old timer.
  9. Second part: I don't believe that, he's at least been encouraged by a culture of raiding aligned nations and having a bit of a laugh about it, though what happens in DBDC private channels is obviously speculation to the rest of us. First part: "treated too harshly"? He's a nuclear rogue by any normal definition. They normally get sanctioned, ZI'd and kept there, don't they? I don't think it's necessarily in GPA's interests to go that far (as I said earlier I think they should make sure o ya baby loses at least the equivalent of 10 raids, which should provide a sufficient disincentive for furt
  10. Looks like GPA are actually doing the right thing in response to a rogue 'raiding' them. Hold him at war until you've cost him as much as at least 10 successful raids, and it'll get the message across that GPA isn't for raiding. And given the situation, going self-anarchy with 0 soldiers is exactly the right move. That way, the aggressor can't get any gains from GAs.
  11. Wait, alliances really just let their top tier nations get raided and didn't do anything about it? That is beyond dumb, it goes right to the fundamentals of what an alliance is supposed to be about. If you can't protect your members from foreign aggression then are you even an alliance?
  12. There's an interesting topic to be written about the interaction between upper, mid and lower tier nations, and if you want to call them 'parasites' and 'producers' that only partly invalidates your argument. (Though in particular the suggestion that only small nations take on all the non-physical 'production' roles is just nonsense.) But this isn't it, it's a bad "Polar good DBDC bad" thread and you should be ashamed. You, sir, are no Vladimir.
  13. I never got around to moving in December so I can tell you that November's spot (-37, +140) has an efficiency of 68%.
  14. I know this is a few years old but ... what is this i dont even just about covers this one. Happy new year alliance name!
  15. I think someone's really trying to win themselves Worst Poster of the Year. Badposting at the end of December is far more memorable in voters' minds than stuff that happened months ago. I read those last four pages. I regret it. I can't see this move doing a lot for Valhalla's ability to make new friends in new spheres. What they've basically said here is that they won't honour their treaty with you if they hold one with your enemies as well, and since they already hold treaties with the two main sides, there's a very high chance that this situation will happen again.
  • Create New...