BrJLa
-
Posts
64 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by BrJLa
-
-
Neither is declaring on people 1/3rd or smaller of your size, but apparently Pacifica looks for that in allies.
Man, last war you took so much pride in how you were just freelancing on the Polar side. All I know is Pacifica likes fighting. We broke a pretty good record lately for the most wars declared in a day. That's the stat I'm proud of.
-
Man, it's seriously not that hard to have a favorable damage ratio. Be motivated to be on at update. Check in multiple times a day. Be a little clever. Managing your deployments helps. That's it.
Most rulers are not that motivated to be good at war. Running around punching people who don't care as much isn't that impressive.
-
Last war we went directly for who we had an issue with.
This time around we have Pacificans saying they hit SNX to get at Polaris. Do I need draw you a map? I will if I need to.Last war, NpO insisted that just because their coalition wanted reps didn't necessarily mean Polaris cared about reps. Just because our coalition wants to hit Polar, that doesn't necessarily mean NPO cares whether we hit Polar.
-
You were given terms because you wanted out before we ever expected you to want out, and because your allies demanded to know what your terms would be when we had no plans to treat you any differently than anyone else, so you got what you wanted: terms.
Hmm. My recollection is that the message early on to all our allies was, "You have to peace out, you have to peace out, you have to peace out, we can't even begin to discuss how NPO will get peace until all its allies peace out." Which then turned in to, "Let us be clear. NPO is not getting out without terms."
-
Best thing I've seen all day(so far)
To his credit, he successfully anarchied all three of them.
-
Congrats ODN and NATO.
-
Yeah, you probably don't belong on the list. They're in an entirely different league.
-
Malkavian is far worse than Danaerys IMO.
Danaerys is the very worst. Tywin is second worst. Malkavian is third worst.
-
We are the neo-imperialist moralist side right?
Tywin will PM you an essay on the subject, but here's a link to read up on it in the meantime: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/120605-what-is-neo-imperialist-moralism-an-lnn-special-investigation/
-
Awesome manifesto, Tywin! Very helpful.
It doens't sound like my nation, Hippyland, belongs in the ROP, though. Would GATO be the closest alliance to a champion of democracy, peace and freedom?
Tywin is the village idiot, and politics don't really work like that on Bob.
Politics here revolve around the wars we have once or twice a year, and what you think of the powers that be, and what you think about how different alliances have conducted themselves in both recent and ancient history. And it takes a long time to figure things out, because people refer to different alliances and blocs and events, and it's hard to keep track of who likes who, and who is pissed at whom because of what.
You should get some recruitment messages. Check them out. Find an alliance that seems like it has active membership, and that has a vibe along the lines of what you're looking for. Lay low for a while, get involved with your alliance, learn how the things work, pay attention to what's happening with the politics. Then, when you have a better handle on things, you can always apply to a different alliance if you figure out there's one out there that better embodies what you're looking for.
-
We dont really recruit much, this was more about protest against current world rule. BtW RnR had to call in NATO lol now we are fighting both RnR and NATO
A protest against alliances that can offer active membership, resources, allies, and sound advice on how to develop your nation?
-
The funny thing is, Farrin offered us tech reps as well as a much lengthier aid restriction at one point, we declined.
Agree with the terms or not, an aid restriction on less than 10% of an alliance's nations doesn't strike me as all that harsh in the grand scheme of things.
Less than 10% of an alliance's nations staying in peace mode doesn't seem like the kind of egregious behavior that would warrant punitive terms.
Farrin's offer was responsive to what your side claimed their concerns were about these nations (that they were a reservior of NS and tech), while preserving what we insisted was important to us about these nations (their ability to send cash aid). -
In any case, if NPO had fought with all they had, instead of reserving a significant amount of their firepower, today we would be reading just a protocolary surrender with no terms (unless you found the idea of surrendering morally reprehensive and insisted on turning the war into an occupation conflict).
*cough*bull shit*cough* -
Hurray for peace.
o/ Farrin and the NPO leadership
o/ NPO's allies, and to our allies' allies, who stood by us
o/ To the nations and alliances I fought - it was great fun.
Bring it mate. You make notes and so will I. Like I said, I am already betting on all you folk who claims white peace is the only way nowadays, breaking that same mantra the moment you win a war. Here we are, less than a day out and you are already proving me correct. Keep up the hypocrisy mate. It looks well on ya.
It's great that you're permanently positioned to demand reps when you're on the winning side, and to call it hypocrisy when and if you lose. But as the most butch, tough-talking proponent for reps in the entire war, maybe you should delegate the hypocrisy policing to someone else?
-
Thanks Samus, interesting to see the numbers. But I've done over 700,000 in dmg this war I believe and it says this from Nov. 2 to Feb. 9.
Steve Buscemi of Creepville
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=205718
49,974.65 Strength
26.00 Infrastructure
9,971.33 Technology
2 Nukes
War Mode
6 offensive wars
30 defensive wars
126,719 damage dealt worth of NS.
22,683 damage lost worth of NS.
Last updated: 2014-02-08 21:16:34
I don't think it's picking up damage from defensive wars. -
Congratulations!
-
Is it the TOP/Umb coalition, the TOP/Polar coalition, the TOP coalition, or the Polar coalition? You guys really ought to get together and align your conspiracy theories.
Polar's like Tettaglia, and TOP is Barzini.
-
Problem with your logic is, NPO proved in eQ that they are unreliable to work with. Therefore, no one in the current winning coalition wants to work with them in the future.
Wait, weren't IRON and XX among the loudest voices insisting DH needed to go down in the run up to the last war? And wasn't it XX who disregarded our coalition's plans and forced our allies to come in on the opposite side?
-
You don't seriously believe this do you? Politics/War/This world does not/do not work that way.
Well, obviously we wouldn't sit it out. Obviously, the whole war planning on the oA side anticipated we wouldn't sit it out. But we didn't join the war because we owed the oA coalition a certain level of engagement, or a certain level of damage. There is no "your debt to the oA Coalition hasn't been paid", unless you accept that the purpose of the war was to accomplish something other than what the CB was ostensibly about.
I guess I just don't know what the horse shit is about. The war planning anticipated NPO would have to join on the NSO/NG side, and the oA coalition-building was built on the premise that you would draw NPO in, then make NPO pay. You've been going on since early December that the war couldn't end until NPO was isolated. If y'all are pissed about Eq, say it's about Eq, so that when this war is over we can all agree the debt has been settled.
-
You have already been told the reason NPO is being singled out for terms. The answer will not change just because you do not like it.
There terms are only for NPO's peace mode top tier. Terms have been dropped for nations who came out and fought. These terms are only levied upon the peace mode nations. Reasons have been gone over so many times in this thread already that I think you will have no trouble figuring it out for yourself.
Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean its a wrong answer.
Yeah, right.
NPO doesn’t have an obligation to take a certain amount of damage to anyone except the allies it came in to defend, and the allies that came in to defend it. And I don’t hear them complaining . There’s no obligation to the other side to take any damage at all. We could have just sat out. There’s no claim on the other side for an amount of damage NPO owes it.
You can demand claims because you’re in a position to demand claims. But there’s no rationalization for how beaten down NPO needs to be before the war can end that doesn’t have at its foundation a desire on the oA side to see NPO beaten down. There’s no “how beaten down NPO has to be” that proceeds from the premise of what this war is supposed to be about.
But I don’t know why the oA side doesn’t just cop to it. You’re hacked off about Eq, don’t like NPO generally, and NPO has to pay. Then forcing terms on NPO at least makes sense, and the horror of forcing terms on an alliance that came in on an MD goes away. -
I don’t get this corny semantic argument. The name “reps” isn’t what makes the concept of reps offensive. These terms are offensive for the same reason reps are offensive (at least, to the extent reps are offensive – they’re equally as non-offensive if you’re not offended by reps). People use “reps” as a shorthand for punitive surrender terms.
The offensive thing isn’t that it takes value away from one alliance and gives it to another. It’s that it makes big wars that everyone participates in less viable. That’s why they’ve fallen out of favor. -
I'm glad NPO doesn't generally maintain a huge presence on the OWF, but I'm glad to see an official pronouncement on how we perceive the state of things.
o/ Farrin
-
Congratulations.
-
Seems like they should just go ahead and lock this one right now.
Oculus - MI6 War Stats!
in Open World RP
Posted
Is this how I found out I got traded?