Jump to content

Caleb279

Banned
  • Content Count

    443
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Caleb279

  • Rank
    Banned in-game.
  • Birthday 10/08/1995

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://mouthofthequack.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Portland, Oregon
  • Interests
    CN obviously...and writing. I host my own College Football blog, and write comedy for Cracked.com

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    ThatOneNation
  • Alliance Name
    Legacy
  • Resource 1
    Fish
  • Resource 2
    Lead
  • CN:TE Nation Name
    ThatOtherNation
  1. It burns. So does Shakira's abhorrent singing. Stop...just stop.

  2. For those of you thinking its fine to protect what you want...isn't it still dumb to do so?
  3. I don't think so, however several nations are at war with each other in game. I'm sure we'll see a STA DoW soon with the CB listed as "GGA".
  4. A few weeks ago GGA disbanded...it was sad to see an alliance with such a long history disappear, however I never liked them much anyway. So \m/, being the aggresive little bling stars that are, stepped in and basically declared them tech raidable by ONLY \m/. STA, being the honorable all stars, stepped in and declared GGA was now protected by STA, and basically ordered \m/ to stop...which has now led to war between the two alliances. In my opinion, \m/ was doing what they do best. STA was doing what they do best: bust up fun and games. Protecting "dead" or disbanded alliances is stupid to me, and so are the nations that choose to remain under a defunct AA. I'm too lazy to read the 100 or so pages between the two topics on everything people are said, so I want to know your thoughts: is it ok to protect "dead" AA's? Is it stupid?
  5. Great essay, I liked the comparison.
  6. Not VanHoo, thats for sure. Used to be Electron Sponge for me...perhaps Archon.
  7. Oh wow, because we have no idea how to click on the OWF--AA forum.
  8. They didn't jump to conclusions either way. One of their members was being attacked, and RoK was playing stupid diplomacy. If they had investigated they would've found no proof, as TENE as yet to provide any. This is RoK using a protectorate and friends to try and start another big war.
  9. Indeed. Their own logs prove that.
  10. Recently NSO has gotten into a bit of trouble with Ragnarok and their protectorate TENE. Let me run down the timeline for you: -Sedrick complains on the TENE forums, asks out. -He steals aid, refusing to pay it back -He attacks several TENE nations, putting them in anarchy, claiming they spied on him. -Sedrick leaves TENE and tries to join MHA...who refuse. -Sedrick joins NSO Now NSO had no knowledge of the trouble Sedrick was in. While they never contacted TENE, why should they have? They had no reason too. -NSO becomes aware of issues. -NSO supports Sedrick; gives aid; claims TENE never gave reason of attacks. Now as I see it, NSO is caught up in the middle of something they didn't ask for here. They had no knowledge he was a rogue, and quite frankly it's TENE's fault for not trying to make amends with NSO. I think NSO did a very honorable thing by not backing off without solid reasoning. They also didn't ask for any help as they try to resolve this issue. TENE...not so honorable. -Ragnarok declares war on NSO. -Viridian Entente declares war on NSO. -GOD declares war on NSO. Ragnarok made a DoW as protectorate of TENE. Completely understandable. But calling in allies, in my personal opinion, was wrong. There's some blame to be put on NSO, of course, but TENE as well. While Ragnarok is obligated to attack the New Sith Order, I don't think calling in any allies is necessary, no matter how strong your bonds are. Here's a quote from the Decree of the Sith: And then Ragnarok's DoW, complete with logs, stated that aiding a rogue is considered an act of war. However NSO also made it very clear that TENE attacked first, and that Sedrick was the victim, with no proof of him spying. NSO proceeded to aid Sedrick, stating Ragnarok's DoW to be unjust, stupid, and a political ploy. The numbers are clearly against the New Sith Order, however I can't see what they did wrong. Honestly now, what would you have done? Kicked the "rogue" to the curb? There isn't proof of anything either way, so NSO did what they should've...continued protecting their member until he's proven guilty. Ragnarok was unreasonable in my opinion. I am neutral in the conflict, and I have good friends in both alliances. However, if I had to chose an alliance to support it would be the New Sith Order. They appear to be the victim of a irrelevant alliances's problems, and Ragnarok's hunger for war/ lack of compromise. What do you think, is NSO being stubborn, or is Ragnarok being unreasonable?
  11. Thanks. I agree...we should be able to bend shapes of our nations, and not go into oceans, etc. Eventually (I doubt it would ever happen, however...) I would love to see CN incorporate this into the game. Then, nations are only allowed to be placed within their alliances borders. Another map will be placed for alliances under 1mil NS, and those not in alliances, or too small to be recognized don't get a spot. This encourages nations to join REAL alliances. Who knows, it may happen one day.
  12. I might consider alliances between 200k and 1mil being allowed 1 territory each. We'll see...this isn't actually a bad idea. Alistair: NO U
  13. Population might be good. Maybe somebody will create a thread with all versions posted in it And Alistair, you could always just reach 1mil and party with the big boys
  14. I remember back in the day when world maps were kind of a big deal. It appears its starting to get popular again. Edifice of DecadentPast has decided to make a new one. The formula, rather than NS= total size, is 200,000 NS= 1 territory. The territories being taken from Hears of Iron 2. I don't play it, but the map is pretty snazzy. Throughout his topic "New CN World Map", there have been a few legitimate complaints. There will not be enough territories to accompany all alliances above 200K NS. Especially when these alliances start to grow, as pointed out by James Dahl, and Letum here: I propose a new map, where one territory= 500K NS, but only alliances over 1 million NS can stake claims. Upon conflicting claims, preference is given to the alliance with higher NS. This is not only easier to keep track of, but also leaves plenty of room for new alliances to enter the game, and currently standing alliances to grow. To see my chart (complete with AA's, formulas, and hex codes), click here. I don't mean to steal Edifice's thunder, but I think my idea is better. Let me know what you think...is his idea better, or mine? Or do they both need fixing?
×
×
  • Create New...