AntyCrist
-
Posts
104 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by AntyCrist
-
-
510% isn't a real number
sure it is. It is equal to 5.1
-
"Walks into a trap" you say. So Lady Dakota put down a trap that torpedoed peace and that's alright with III%? While personally I agree Methrage should have used a more diplomatic approach after the sanction, surly everyone can agree this re-escalation was not one-sided.
Given the first two sentences id say the second clause of the last sentence depends on the first. Or put another way, can anyone demonstrate to me how the reescalation isn't III% sided alone?
-
Personally, I'm rooting for III%, but then, I have a massive crush on LadyDakota's avatar.
I was before this thread. Now, not that anyone wold listen to me, I wold oppose relations with III%.
-
Methrage is truly cybernation's answer to Che Guevara. Much respect to you my friend.
seconded
-
But, but chaos is equivalent to fun! I do not approve of anti-fun!
I think you confuse incompatible with equivalent.
-
There are a lot of good choices it seems, but I am not sure whether I want to join one of the top alliances or a smaller one.
Small alliances are risky. Big you know who has a target. you also want mass (as opposed to eleat) if your asking Leaving out NpO and Mi6 as targeted you shuld look at NPO, Iron, GPA (if you don't like war), VE, or ODN.
-
By my read it's NPO with secondary choices of Umb., us, and DBDC.
-
As the head of VE's military, to say that MI6 hasn't been doing a terrific job would be ridiculous because they have been. There are many more alliances that deserve ridicule and scorn for their performance this war, but MI6 isnt one of them.
I've only been against Sparta but IRON can atest to sparta and m16 been spending there pixels expensively.
-
We have the hole fark and MHA not on here
-
I had an Idea:
What if you used the sum of the starting strength of all alliances in a coalition (on the day it is a stranthlost page) as a starting strength and used that as the starting strength of the coalition.
-
Wait, when did you wind up in charge of TPF? I must have missed that memo or somebody's been goofing with the wiki.
I'm not sure why you would be upset if NPO stuck aggressively to clearly defined goals,
achieved those goals, and thenbefore completing it sued to end the war--to the benefit of your mutual allies across the no man's land in C&G. Setting aside all the fluff about what GATO did or didn't do that was brought up earlier in the thread, would you have preferred a longer war at their (and INT's) expense?Fixed
-
If being arrogant is a CB, I like this brave new world. You may want to rethink that before you tout it.
But it will make a CB that's always been negotiated away into a war.
-
You mean you wanted reps to the amount GOONS received?
no the 30 day clause for NPO to stay in the war with minimal PM.
-
So your allies in INT were acceptable collateral damage to keep hitting MK/Umb.... at least unlike anyone else in IRON, i can respect you for your honesty. More of your alliance should be that forthright.
Id have loved to find a way around it but were the rubber met the road it seemed nesery at the time. Gavin the outcome, I'm less confidant.
-
Again, I can simultaneously hold no ill will to NPO or IRON but want to see them hit harder in a war they are opposing me in. Can IRON hold no ill will to C&G but want to see them hit harder in a war they are opposing them in?
By them being guarding a target; since you wouldn't get out of the way (to your credit) we had to go threw you: unforchenetly.
-
It doesn't seem logical to reconcile the two. From what I understand IRON and others wanted to try to pile even more onto our front to try to make us quit before DH was out....NPO knowing that would never happen squashed it to save us a little extra damage.
And so we were willing to nock you out for that rason, but dont WANT to hert you.
-
I understand that point...but IRON themselves has direct ties to CnG.....so what is the point of calling CnG conflicting in the case of NPO? It seems IRON is in the same boat as NPO as far as CnG is concerned. You would think IRON and NPO would have a common interest as far as CnG goes. I wonder why they don't.
To me Int/GATO are one thing and ODN (being DH in all but name) are another by ODAP with MK and Umb.
-
I wasn't aware it took 22 wingmen to get that cockbloc out of the way, but whatever works I suppose.
All we can say is that we are sorry for our friends in IRON in having to take this juncture (and hope it works out for them), and wish the best for our friends' friends in NPO. Anything else beyond that is speculation and a bunch of people giving their free opinions.
Thanks I hope it works out for you as well.
-
It's easy when its 20+ on 5 isn't it? We fought our way and it worked exceedingly well. Your frustration of not finding people to pile on and our top tier outnumbered those we fought combined. Also, we didn;t knock them down we pretty much destroyed them. None of this is either here or there. I'm still interested in why IRON thought CnG had to die..... I mean we knew that was their plan after reading AI trying to calm the fears of some of the smaller alliances whose top tiers were being decimated... He said getting CnG out was a priority. The thought was as laughable then as it is now.
If CnG wold surender without DH, it wold have been unnery, but you woldent (to your credit) so it was a mwans to an end.
-
Can I just get a listing of the terms IRON wanted? That will make all future OWF Posting and MK/IRON relations much easier.
I'm not government but I wanted something like the NPO preempt.
-
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.
The best explanation besides the OP Ive seen. :smug:
-
Just for clarity, to IRON the destruction of CnG would have been a preferable end to the last war?
not as a gole in itseff but as it wold have hapened if we got what we wanted on the Umb/MK frunt.
-
I've already made a post address that. IRON is welcome to think what our intentions were, but that doesn't make them right.
In the end, it doesn't matter what the intentions were: the fact so many of the rank and file came to that conclusion means the trust nessery for MDP has failed but I wold have liked to see a downgrade not cancellation.
-
I find the assertion that the NPO is to blame that coalition called Equilibrium failed to achieve "solid victory" is wrong. I find the conflict against Doomhouse due to Umbrellas action in handling the rogue on Ai, ending in a clear victory. That it could have been even more decisive, I find not the failing on part of NPOs action during that war.
Among many words, there was a clear level of criticism leveled at us on that point, I felt so called to shortly answer it.
Good luck and happy trails IRON.
This point is hotly debated inside IRON the OP is in the middle. Best of luck to you, hope to se the ODAP reestablished in time.
To be named War Chart
in Open World RP
Posted
were's the STA on the warchart?