Jump to content

Bajoran Federation

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
  • Alliance Name
  • Resource 1
  • Resource 2
  • CN:TE Nation Name
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    United Nations

Recent Profile Visitors

964 profile views

Bajoran Federation's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  1. So, we have come to that time again where we are looking for a fight someone to fight for the love of casualties. Most everyone seems to be in anarchy except a fine few bunch of AAs who seem to be itching for a fight. Either way we can help reduce your bills and fill up your graveyards, as we are sure you will ours. With all that said we do like a fair fight. The combined 18 active appearing nations of DCS WD and NDO we challenge you to a face off with 13 of our vaunted warriors. feel free to counter any and all of the lucky 13. We are sure you will not disappoint. We'd also like to point out we grouped you together so you mainly only need to coordinate inter AA. We are that nice! 13 warriors: Las Vegas - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000074 Asgardia - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000118 Asgard - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000041 Los Angeles - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000073 Ozistan - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000123 Maple King - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000084 Metal - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000098 Loserville - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000034 Fury1 - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000033 Valyria - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000086 Neo Uruk - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000094 Ropey - https://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000089 Unlisted Warrior (#13) -
  2. great DoW as usual brew. glhf guys! glad to see some life back in TE
  3. What is up with your post? Did you mess up the simple task that is quoting lol? I've said all I needed to say. And yes, you were mislead. Go cry about it, I guess?
  4. So next time, don't nuke newbies on day 7 and they won't have to reroll. And please stop lying for once, you lost about 2m kills from the rerolls, no more. My bad, you never said indefinitely, you actually gave a time frame lmao: https://imgur.com/k0a7TNC There are many other examples too, but I don't feel like digging through 1000s of messages of you crying. He tried to force one of our new players to join RE, and then when our newbie didn't comply, cowboy messaged him threatening him. Is that mercy? Lol, look at you trying to tell me who my members are. North Korea is not Bdrocks, it's NikolaP. Anyone in the Wolves' server knows this. You're clueless, HG; Bdrocks was one of the Dawners. One of those "meatshields" has the most destructive war with you, and he's winning. And if stat padding is considered allowing members who have been with you all round and have fought with you all round, one of whom is low-gov, to join the AA, then I guess that's what we're doing. It's quite clear you're continuing to attempt to manipulate the other AAs into forming a coalition, and it's both transparent and idiotic. Keeping them off AA allowed for a few things: it allowed them to build in peace instead of being at constant war, it allowed them to not be hit with IRS ops by some psychotic dude named HiredGun, and it allowed us to be flexible in when they were deployed into war. But I'm done debating something so foolish. The simple fact is this: the Dawners are UN members. They've been here all round, and one of them is low-gov and has been with us for rounds now. They fought in both of our wars against D1 earlier this round, and are now fighting in our current war with D1. Furthermore, they'll be back with the UN next round, and will continue to fight with their alliance. If anyone has a problem with us deciding to allow our members to come to their AA, I simply couldn't care less; that demonstrates a level of idiocy that far surpasses logic or reason, and one could only hope that this colossal idiocy is reserved for only HG.
  5. Are you forgetting that we fought one more war than you have? Go read your own messages in the TE server. I never claimed you personally messaged anyone. However, cowboy has messaged our rerolls with threatening messages. Would you like a screenshot? (you've already seen the screenshot, btw). No he hasn't, you idiot. That's my entire point; Bd was one of the Dawners. Why wouldn't we? They're fully built, have WRCs and got declared on by D1. The only reason we had them off AA in the first place was to prepare for this war. And who's talking about individual flags?
  6. Lmao what? Do you know what a "ghost" is? It's someone who you don't know, who sits on pending on your AA. Temps do not = ghosts. Second, are you claiming D1 has no temps off AA? I know for a fact you guys do.
  7. That's a matter of interpretation. They had no autonomy at all. I do not, and never have, considered them seperate, whether or not they were in a different AA; just as I never considered The Raiders or LoG to be a seperate alliance. This was merely a strategy enacted so we were able to build them up adequately instead of bringing them on AA right away, which would've meant they'd be hit by IRS ops, nukes, etc. How can you seriously sit there and blame us for not being able to keep all of our members on AA without them being bullied and their round ruined? We did what we had to do, and what we had to do has literally nothing to do casualties, nor AA score. Can everyone stop jumping to conclusions and let the round conclude? D1 will inevitably win strongest AA and the wolves will inevitably win most soldiers killed. We weren't trying to keep our stats low. I'm unsure what the point of keeping stats low would even be? The plan was for them to get back at D1, yes. That's obviously part of our feud and doesn't concern you. They were never here to boost stats, nor do we need them to. I don't think you realize how many temps we have off AA; we could easily call them all onto AA and set a score that no one can beat, but have we, or will we? Nope, because since day 7 of this round we haven't been trying to win a single award. They wont? Instead of making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, let the round conclude. There's still plenty of time left. You just contradicted yourself. How was rerolling to spite D1 in terms of casualties when the ones who rerolled where the ones who topped the casualty count? If they hadn't deleted, the UN would probably be winning the race for most soldiers killed. Lol, this was supposed to be a secret, but Bdrocks is one of the Dawners. You know him quite well by now, yeah? He's been with us for rounds now, he's an economic officer and one of our low-gov (most likely will work his way up to gov shortly.) He's in this very thread. So, tell me, is he not a legitimate member? Should he be condemned to stay off AA just to satisfy you? And another thing, WD are currently allowed access to our Discord server. They know exactly who the Dawners are. They've been coordinating with every single one of them. So, before you make a bunch of idiotic assumptions, you should really vet the situation fully. It's impossible to lie about who they are when they're coordinating with a foreign AA in our server. Such bs. You've said several times all round you're going to continue your vandetta indefinitely. But you're most certainly right, we do have a grudge. Did you expect to nuke us on day 7, hit us with IRS ops, blockades, hit and blockade unbuilt nations then build up to 4k+ Infra, and send threatening messages to our rerolled nations who you were able to idenetify, and we would just shake hands and go seperate ways? What does reality look like to you? A very terrible analogy. None of our members left for a new alliance. They were told to stay off AA while they beelined WRCs; in no way is that "leaving for another alliance." If you don't like our strategy of keeping members in a temporary, non-legitimate AA, then try to actually let our players have a chance to build without your psychotic leader hunting them down.
  8. They're not a separate alliance, nor have they ever been. If anyone would've hit them they would've found that out. They joined because they've always been UN members, since the very beginning of this round, on day 1, they were under the UN AA. They fought in both wars against D1 and one of them is low-gov and has been with us for rounds now. The plan was always for them to join up when it came time for war. Take a look at their wonders and you'll see their purpose isn't to help us with casualties (which we pretty much have no chance of winning anyway), but instead to drop WRC nukes (on D1). It's not our fault we weren't allowed to keep members on AA without them being nuked and not getting a chance to actually build or play the game. Are you actually being serious? We should keep legitimate members off AA, one of whom is low-gov, so that we don't threaten your precious award? We have more members than you do, there's nothing we can do about that other than what you suggested, which is both childish and unfair to our members. Beating a score of 66 is not near impossible, even with 5 less members. You have more cash then us; when you guys drop all that cash on tech you'll very easily surpass that score. Strength does count for something, albeit it counts a lot less than member count, but it still matters. And if by some chance you don't have a high enough score to beat it, have some friends join. Like I've said a million times, we do not care about winning strongest AA. If we did, we'd have all of our temps on AA too. And, again, for the record, this is literally the third time we've kept members in a different AA this round; it's nothing new. We did this with The Raiders, LoG and the Dawners. So please stop all the crying; it's pointless when the round hasn't even concluded yet.
  9. One of the Dawners who joined is literally low-gov; does that not make him a UN nation? Or does that not qualify as a legitimate member in your eyes? You fought every single one of these 5 nations twice this round, btw. Whether or not we kept them in a different alliance is irrelevant, and was only necessary so they'd actually have a chance to build and play this game instead of getting nuked right out of the gate. We did this 3 times this round with 3 different alliances. If your leader wasn't obsessed with us, we would've never had to. Are you kidding me? You nuke a bunch of newbies on day 7 and then fault them for rerolling? I don't think you understand how most soldiers killed works. Generally, an alliance has to fight wars to earn those kills. If you want to win that award, you should fight a war. In case you've failed to realize, we haven't declared one war this round; the casualties were given to us, we haven't pursued them once. And for the record, most soldiers killed is supposed to be chased and competed for by alliances. Going for it isn't bad, nor has it ever been considered so. As for strongest alliance, no, we're not trying to win, and no, we won't win. D1 will very easily beat a score of 66 after they rebuild. You are welcome to do so. We don't care, nor are we the deserving alliance this round. That goes to D1, which is why they'll win it. This round hasn't been about winning awards for us since day 7. However, most soldiers killed can't be manipulated, as you pointed out. It doesn't "belong" to any one AA. It belongs to the alliance that finishes the round with the most kills, period. Which, yes, will probably be the wolves.
  10. Are you not whining with this post? I don't think I've seen a recent post from you where you weren't whining.
  11. First off, we just got out of a war a week ago, so you're quite obviously clueless. Second, you seem to have missed the point, maybe it's the alcohol, idk, but I'll reiterate it for you: we were in the middle of collecting. Going through the collection process is not "living a dream." You saw an opportunity to ruin our collections and you jumped on it. Pathetic.
  12. How can we enjoy the game when we have to constantly deal with a psychopath who has a disturbing obsession with us? You simply suck the fun out of TE.
  13. Your point? Hahaha, you can't be serious. Only 4-5 of our nations have collected. I'm personally sitting on a 13 day back-collect, as is 80% of the AA. We were as well defended as possible considering we're still unbuilt from our previous war. I had max troops, tanks and air and I very narrowly escaped anarchy. The nation I linked earlier, North Korea, was literally one trade away from collecting and now he's down 400 Infra and anarchied. If only your leadership shared your empathy; they might've just waited the extremely short time we needed to finish collecting.
  14. And that's relevant how? We don't count the top 22 because you're not focusing on the top nations, you're focusing on the weak, unbuilt and uncollected nations. Furthermore, 3/4 targets per nation means you can cover 66-88 people. What?
  15. ....why would we only count the top 22? You're either blind or a liar. Of course we were going to war. That's not the issue here lmao...
  • Create New...