Mompson
-
Posts
669 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Mompson
-
-
She's our deputy MoFA...
Then it's even more laughable that she implies the views of one member of NG are different than the views of NG's government as a whole.
-
That's not very threatening. If you think "Do something about it" is threatening, well, then I have nothing to say to you other than I feel sorry for you. In fact, quite a few members from NpO told NG members to "come do something about it", so very ironic.
I've read through all of the pages, and if I had the
patiencetime I would quote each statement which I have a problem with. What I can tell is that a lot of people from other alliances comment on NpO's coalition history and then members from NpO say it's "NG, if you have a problem with NpO's coalition" blah blah blah... Also very ironic that one member from NpO said that Nigras should join NpO after his wars expire, and when he got called out for that, NpO took the stance that he is only a member and it's not the official response from NpO government... but when a member from NG gives his opinion then the leader of NpO talks about "NG" saying this and that. It's just very ironic. So, if it's not a comment/statement from a government official, don't take it as NG's position on things.You either don't know your government's official position towards us, or don't understand irony.
Carry on.
-
No, they came in here offering to harbor rogues, whether sarcastically or not I cannot tell. Keep trying that victim role though.
Polar: Rogue Protectors
Come on, you're smarter than this.
-
What a ride. Good luck to all of you in the coming weeks and months.
-
Oh that's what that was, I was wondering what that watermark text was.
How does survivor work? I've seen it but I've never followed it.
If I remember correct, a group of alliances start and then every day the one with the smallest gain is elimanated. -
you should come on
Maybe towards the end of the summer. -
Awesome to see!
-
Good luck R&R
-
Tom Riddle isn't on other planets.
-
You would have thought that former PC members would have learned their lesson about nation gifting, but apparently that's not the case.
-
What Gopher said. In addition to this, you can gain it through trades, improvements, wonders, and a clean environment.
-
Most alliances don't really care if you aren't active on IRC, but in all honestly it's a must if you want to work your way up to a government position.
-
Always glad to have a stamp of approval.
-
Join MK.
Seriously though, most alliances won't take you in and just protect you from an alliance that wants you for debt or most other reasons. You may be able to work out a deal with an alliance to pay your debts for you if you really cannot pay them, but you're pretty much out of debt if you want someone to just take you in and nullify the debt.
I'd get on IRC and talk around to people. You won't find too much help here on the OWF.
-
One page comparing all of the blocs on all of the categories listed would be great.
-
Just make sure you get an important place in the Derp Rush table next war.
Is this an insult? Because I think you just told them to make sure and be in the winning coalition again next war.
-
Yeah I tried drawing one a while back that didn't turn out well at all.
And for some reason, I imagine all of the spheres in a specific position in my head, and these positions shift when treaties are signed or cancelled.
-
-
If they did punk everyone in EQ into not going after CnG (Newsflash none of you had to listen...)
Newsflash we are all incompetent and need a strong alliance like NPO to sit on the laps of.
Seriously though, so you respect the fact that if you stick by the view of the majority, Polaris didn't listen and went after TLR regardless? -
They were not pushed aside during peace talks. We were told to negotiate it. They were more than welcome to be present; most of the time their own government was either not present or told us we were good to go.
As far as the position goes, you understand the concept of negotiating. Let's not insult each other's intelligence. We had agreed with them on a high demand in order to get something we wanted. All of a sudden, they came to us and told us the war needed to stop. I'm sorry if their position evolved rapidly. We did what we could to adjust the demands. The fact that we achieved peace in a few days is a testament to our efforts in that case, not something that should be held against us. It would have been foolish to simply give up our entire position simply to spare a few days of fighting. You don't plan a war for a year and then spend two months fighting it only to completly abandon your political position in the last three days because your ally has a change of heart.
You are correct, that would be foolish. But if they told you a few weeks in advance that they didn't want reps anymore, and then you guys go ahead with pushing for reps (the full amount that you wanted in the first place in fact), it looks as if you are completely disregarding their wishes. You surely didn't believe that we would take your first offer, so starting off as high as you did even after IRON was out of the reps talk seems unnecessary. It seems like it would slow the entire process down and keep them at war longer than necessary.
Don't get me wrong, I completely see your position here in the fact that reps were the long term plan, but at the same time, you have to look at what your allies are saying. We didn't listen to STA as well as we should have, and we paid for it. We lost what much of CN considered to be our closest ally.
When IRON changed their mind about reps, did you guys change how you went about demanding them? If you didn't, it gives the appearance of you ignoring what they want, and just going about what you had planned and what TOP wanted. If the answer is no, then whether you made the conscious decision to not change or whether it just happened, it looks like you are ignoring IRON from an outsider's perspective, and I would imagine from the viewpoint of IRON as well. -
Mompson, we didn't force IRON's hand during the Grudge War. We had also been clear from the get-go (actually, for more than two years) that we wanted revenge. IRON was fully on board. A few weeks before, they told us that they wouldn't take reps because they actually favored taking them "on the battlefield", in "blood". Let's not rewrite history. When IRON started talking about going for peace, we said we would try to speed things up. We simply weren't going to give it all up and go from a previously-agreed position to pure white peace just because they suddenly felt it needed to happen now. It would have been ridiculous.
It wasn't so much about a forcing the hand action as much as it was about the fact that IRON was stuck at war after they already wanted out. You guys couldn't do much damage (or take much damage) purely off of how our alliances were and are built. It was your war in title, but IRON and Valhalla's war on the battlefield. The fact that IRON may have changed their mind about reps is of minor relevance, but don't you think that the alliances who did the brunt of fighting should have more of a say in peace talks? We didn't negotiate with IRON or Valhalla, we negotiated with you and then had your allies okay it.
In both of these wars, IRON did a major portion of the hard fighting, and found their wishes pushed aside during peace talks. Who wouldn't be frustrated with this?Edit: Missed one question mark..
-
That is a rather silly line to tout when you consider some 25 alliances hit ODN. Quit with the propagandizing.
What line am I touting here? The line that people weren't happy with the amount of damage done to CnG and that this appears to be one of the factors leading up to this cancellation? I'm not sure how you can argue against this.
-
Limit damage to C&G? Does our damage look limited? ODN shed ~60% of its NS and 50% of its tech. TLR numbers were the same. INTs numbers were actually slightly higher. GATOs were slightly lower. In fact, on a sheer tech %, ODN , TLR and INT all 3 lost more than NpO did during the grudge war(speaking solely of tech).... limited damage? Are you freaking kidding me?
First off, during Grudge, we were already in a poor, low tech position due to being in a losing war 8 months earlier. The last time ODN was in a losing war was 2007. Int had never lost one. GATO's was 2008. I believe TLR had never lost one. More tech leads to a higher percentage lost generally. But I'll give you that point regardless.
And what of the 15-20% of CnG nations that stayed in PM for the entire war? They took zero damage and through that CnG was able to avoid around a fifth of the damage they could have taken. If you are saying that the coalition as a whole agreed with NPO's push for peace, that's laughable. If you're saying that NPO was justified in ending it when they did, that may be true, but once again, they've lost IRON over what priority they gave CnG over their wishes. -
So, IRON soured on TOP because TOP kept them at war too long in the Grudge war. IRON soured on NPO because NPO didnt keep them at war long enough. Makes total sense. For goodness sake make up your minds which it is that you want.
They want to push their own personal agenda instead of being told what to do by others.
They wanted no reps during the Grudge War, and despite the fact that they did the majority of fighting against Polar, TOP told them to keep going while they negotiated reps.
They wanted to fight a full and actual war here, but were told along with everybody else by the self appointed leaders (NPO) they they were to tiptoe around CnG and NG. Then came a hard push for peace from NPO, followed by a treaty with ODN. It was clear that NPO was using it's leadership during the war to limit the damage given to CnG as a whole. Is this good strategy on NPO's part? Absolutely, but they paid the price here and lost a good ally when they prioritized CnG over IRON.
Apology to AE
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted