Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MadScotII

  1. And as such, the whole premise that you were an Umbrella Rogue, and we should have been thankful for their help is nonsense. As you were not Umbrella, and technically nor were you rogue either.
  2. A very professional looking treaty there. I like it, a lot! o/ Ai. o/ Argent o/ No BS type treaties
  3. [quote name='lord6dread' timestamp='1347406953' post='3029249'] Not on the wages Stets pays. [/quote] Shocking. Although sure he owes me entry money. I'm never getting that am I
  4. Anarchy Inc. like DT, DT like Anarchy Inc. .... I can accept that o/ DT o/ Anarchy Inc. o/ Many lines
  5. Why would we be unhappy about it? As NE says, Good to see TENE continue a relationship with the alliance that helped them at the start. o/ TENE o/ GPF
  6. Yes, finally! Good to see our business interests will have some top muscle protecting them o/ TENE o/ SE
  7. So this is the war plans a number of people from a few alliances were worried about. You're going down NpO, suffer the wraith of Ai! o/
  8. Back in old Valhalla days, ML was one of my first Diplo postings. Good to see the friendship with Ai continue. o/ ML
  9. [quote name='deathcat' timestamp='1344624601' post='3020555'] Have I told you how much I love you CJ? Don't worry, too many words for them to comprehend in one sitting... perhaps over the course of 2 dozen individual posts where they can deflect/spin the truth again... That seems to be how they like to digest their daily diet of OWF oo/ [/quote] You better have some love left for me after you've finished with CJ Also on note, I do love a good auld he said, she said (can I also see these Ai war plan screenshots - I seem to have missed them on our home )
  10. Unbelievable that this had to be posted. Although I agree with Joe32320. this should have been posted within seconds of the DoE o/ Duckroll
  11. You overstate our ability! We have only made 6th o/ Anarchy Inc.
  12. [quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1282402554' post='2425669'] That's not actually an answer to the question I asked and the question you quoted, but alright. I'm wondering why an alliance would have a treaty obligating defense and treat this obligation as optional when they already have a previous optional agreement. I don't care what the NPO does at all. I'm just saying that logistically, things don't add up. That, or it's cowardice. Take your pick. [/quote] Neither. It's perfect planning (and the NSO haven't been perfect much, but here they have). They've got a very large
  13. [quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1282401304' post='2425657'] Hardly. I don't know about the spirit of the treaty, but the letter certainly isn't being adhered to. Why even have a treaty if the contents of the treaty are optional (including the parts that are obligatory)? I mean, the NSO already declared that any and all alliances have the option of defending them through the new Moldavi Doctrine. Why have an MDP obligating defense when you're going to treat it as optional when, all the while, you have a planet-wide standing ODP? Seems less like brilliance and more like piss poor p
  14. [quote name='white majik' timestamp='1281589259' post='2412284'] I see a trend here....So to treaty Val all you have to do is war them? [/quote] Yep, although a good showing in that war helps too o/ Valhalla o/ NoR o/ Mead
  15. [quote name='Joe32320' timestamp='1281375175' post='2407835'] ^^ sums it up nicely for me Poor show GATO, could have at least waited till after the war [/quote] Especially when the NSO went on to make sure GATO would have been out of harms way by declaring that this is an NSO defensive action only
  16. It just amazes me Alliances are going through the same rig-maroll they did back in 2007. No one has come up with a different statagies on declaring war. Maybe if they did we wouldn't need 800+ nations to take on less than 200. If Military stategists did some work and actually came up with new ways of working, all this nations running to Peace Mode would be ineffectual and a waste of time. But hey ho, it seems nobody has the brains to "think outside the box" in this world
  17. [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1281373426' post='2407786'] Hint: Don't offer protection for people until you know why they need it. Maybe you've done it before successfully but generally people needing protection have someone mad enough at them to actually want to fulfill their desires to punish them. Had you instead told Hoo, can we work out this situation with the rogue, so you can get your licks in and then he can become a member of NSO, we wouldn't be fighting this war. But instead of that, he was told you guys were protecting him. Well, you got your wish. Protecting means willing
  18. [quote name='Phetion' timestamp='1281373564' post='2407789'] Could you please explain where that came from? I see no agreement, unless, you're agreeing with what I said and therefore those wars Valhalla played a part in, had poor planning? Right. If that's the case, I suppose I can... No, sorry, I couldn't even [i]try[/i] to comprehend where you got that from. [/quote] Probably could if it was aimed at you. But it wasn't so heh hum.
  19. So you agree, poor military planning from RoK. Good to see we agree. Still a bit overkill regarding the amount of alliances on the one NSO. But it's the way of thing on Planet Bob I did not know Valhalla has spoken. One sec, I will go check... nope, no member of the Einherjar has spoken.
  20. [quote name='Logan' timestamp='1281363361' post='2407415'] Probably wouldn't have been necessary to bring in more alliances had NSO not ran to peace mode. However they needed to bring in more nations who were online at the time when they started scampering. At least that's how I see it. [/quote] 35 Nations of a 169 are in Peace Mode. Fair do's. I have to admit that is the best reason to have this pile up I have seen. Due to NSO running to peace mode, RoK needed more of their slots taken up by other alliances. Are you really saying that RoK don't have the military organisation to hit
  21. [quote name='Millencolin' timestamp='1281289369' post='2404634'] I agree with some points. Make the game fun again instead of fearing the treaty web, work on dismantling it by forcing small alliances or weak alliances to change or die. Survival of the fittest, my friends. [/quote] Make the game fun? Don't fear the treaty web? So, in other words say \m/ember raids someone, then someone from another alliance is entitled to raid that \m/ember without their alliance being up on a war with \m/, but then a member of another alliance is allowed to raid that guy who raided the \m/ember and rins
  22. [quote name='sammykhalifa' timestamp='1280946422' post='2400857'] The issue doesn't have anything to do with how many or how few alliances there are. The fact is that there are many, many more options for these types of online games these days (stupid facebook farms, etc.), and they're much more visible and accessible than CN at the moment. [/quote] And much more welcoming. The regulars on here are to blame for the lack of accessibility. Too many have IC characters that think they're hard men - usually brought out because they lack that ability in the real world. Sad really. Saying t
  23. [quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1280872900' post='2399981'] like someone just mentioned, BadScotsman would still make sense whereas, as far as anyone can tell, Posaris is actually a rip off of NpO's alias. and this isn't to say anyone is up in arms about it... i'm sure the guys in Polaris are chuckling over it. But it certainly doesn't look well on the alliance when they obviously can't even come up with an original name. I mean let's be honest here, can you possible envision an alliance named Posaris succeeding? I'm not one to believe in fate, but if the pixel gods were ever gonna kick som
  24. May the great Admin should delete all alliances that were created after a certain date? How about 1 January 2008? Maybe 2007? How about all those not created in the first year of the formation of Planet Bob?
  • Create New...