Bajoran Federation
-
Posts
194 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Bajoran Federation
-
-
great DoW as usual brew.
glhf guys! glad to see some life back in TE
-
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?
-
48 minutes ago, HiredGun said:
Fighting in one more war doesn't mean anything when you only earned just over 1.5 mill kills in your first two wars. If most of your alliance at the time didn't delete then you'd be sitting on about 11 mill kills while we'd be sitting on about 15 mill right now.
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.
48 minutes ago, HiredGun said:Show me using discord where I said I wanted war indefinitely?
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.
48 minutes ago, HiredGun said:Cowboy gave one or two of your rerolls the opportunity to leave the UN and start a fresh, I'd call that mercy
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?
48 minutes ago, HiredGun said:Bdrocks was a member of the UN then he re-rolled changing his name to North Korea and he rejoined the UN, not The Dawners
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.
48 minutes ago, HiredGun said:as meat shields and to justify the stat padding
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.
48 minutes ago, HiredGun said:And you never needed The Dawners to be off your alliance to prepare for this war
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.
-
51 minutes ago, HiredGun said:
First, if they hadn't re-rolled D1 would be leading the race for most kills. After our first 2 wars the UN had just over 1.5 mill kills while D1 had just over 5 mill. Lol
Are you forgetting that we fought one more war than you have?
53 minutes ago, HiredGun said:Now provide proof that I said I'd continue this vendetta indefinitely
Go read your own messages in the TE server.
54 minutes ago, HiredGun said:provide proof that I had sent these threatening messages to your re-rolls. I never spoke to your re-rolls once. This is your desperation kicking in again.
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).
55 minutes ago, HiredGun said:No one here is complaining about Bdrocks, he has been on the UN since the start so he is not a good example to use.
No he hasn't, you idiot. That's my entire point; Bd was one of the Dawners.
56 minutes ago, HiredGun said:If you're not chasing any flags then why did you have the Dawners merge? Why are your flag runners spending their cash very conservatively?
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?
-
52 minutes ago, wasso said:
Congrats, thats like a fair play. GG to you and to all your hidden ghosts out there.
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.
-
3 hours ago, AL Bundy said:
When they were not within your alliance so they were separate....that's what separate means...not in, but apart.....
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.
3 hours ago, AL Bundy said:All I hear is you been trying to keep your stats low all round, and was keeping a couple nations on reserve for the end ''to get back at d1" or just boost your stats at the end of the round......
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.
3 hours ago, AL Bundy said:So when will all the one day nations join up?
They wont? Instead of making assumptions and jumping to conclusions, let the round conclude. There's still plenty of time left.
7 hours ago, HiredGun said:The big casualty earners you had that deleted were only broke cos they spent their +40 mill war chest going all out.
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.
7 hours ago, HiredGun said:Why don't you prove to us that this member of yours was lower gov, no one even knows who they were before re-rolling but I'm amazed that you're expecting us to believe every word you say
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.
7 hours ago, HiredGun said:why would we hit them out of the gate? I told you all we felt justice had been served and were moving on, the only people with a grudge here was the UN
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?
2 hours ago, KingBilly1 said:That's like HG leaving for a new alliance and claiming to still be D1 gov.
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.
-
5 hours ago, AL Bundy said:
So why accept an separate alliance into your alliance with less than 2 weeks in the round, o I know to gain more members to boost your strength an earn more casualties...
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.
5 hours ago, wasso said:According to what have been mentioned by many alliance's leaders so far and inorder to keep people playing fairly every round and especially during this round, i would suggest from you Bajor to keep your Drawners nations in their own alliance as a part of UN but separated from them. Thus their existence would help you during wars etc... but also they wont be affecting the overall total score, casualties etc.
So give what every alliance deserves to win fairly and what everyone has fought for during all these days and keep it clean.
Im saying this infront of everyone else, UN. Objections? Guess not if you claim you dont want to win the score award nor the casualties or any other word. So why not?
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.
11 minutes ago, KingBilly1 said:Beating a score of 66 is near impossible with 5 less members.
We have literally had the top 10 nations at several points this round, but strength counts for nothing against membership.
We all knew they were UN re-rolls, but that still doesn't make it fair to have them jump over this late in the round
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.
-
23 minutes ago, KingBilly1 said:
Re-rolling and sitting in another alliance for the majority of the round doesn't mean you are UN nations in my eyes.
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.
35 minutes ago, KingBilly1 said:You re-rolled resulting in massive casualty losses for D1 and then think it's acceptable to just jump into the UN 2 weeks before reset?
Are you kidding me? You nuke a bunch of newbies on day 7 and then fault them for rerolling?
8 hours ago, AL Bundy said:Haha UN trying to not only win strongest alliance but trying to get most casualties hahaha....
Got to love that those cheap shots at the end...
Al
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.
9 hours ago, Wayne World said:So if DCS moves to DF1 it should not effect Most Alliance Soldiers Lost and Most Alliance Soldiers Killed which belongs to
Wolves of the North .... BECAUSE most DCS members are former DF 1 members That should make it all ok to do such a merger, just following the logic ... Would bring DF 1 even with 28 members and make it all fair ( Bull Droppings )
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.
-
4 hours ago, AL Bundy said:
Seems like a lot of whinning! Not like you didn't have plenty of time to collect after your war...
So sad the war didn't happen at the perfect time for you.
Wish I could have caused all this crying haha
Al
Are you not whining with this post?
I don't think I've seen a recent post from you where you weren't whining.
-
15 minutes ago, wasso said:
And you have been sitting on low infra low bills low defenses for around two weeks and thats just few days before the round ends. And you still expect no one to attack you.
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.
-
35 minutes ago, HiredGun said:
We have empathy and we've shown it to many people in this game from the past and present, possibly more than any other alliance has in the history of this game.
36 minutes ago, HiredGun said:giving you and other nations peace so you'd be able to build and enjoy the game
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.
-
2 minutes ago, HiredGun said:
You were the one complaining about the stats and now you return to your first excuse.
Your point?
2 minutes ago, HiredGun said:Majority of your nations were not sitting on long back collects so what I really think happened here is that those who were have been inactive.
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.
4 minutes ago, KingBilly1 said:It's TE, surely you are wise enough to know it's not safe to sit around with poor defences when you are mid collection.
In all honesty I never even took notice of my targets, i declared and ran attacks quickly.
I would never leave myself in that position knowing war could happen at any time.
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.
7 minutes ago, KingBilly1 said:But I do feel for those who have been anarchied before they've collected, that's never a good situation, I just hope they have good warchests still
If only your leadership shared your empathy; they might've just waited the extremely short time we needed to finish collecting.
-
3 minutes ago, HiredGun said:
Because we only have 22 members.
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.
7 minutes ago, HiredGun said:I am neither blind or lying, the issue here is that you're full of yourself when many of your members had recently collected.
What?
-
2 minutes ago, HiredGun said:
but if we only counted your top 22 nations it'd be around a 28k avg.
....why would we only count the top 22?
3 minutes ago, HiredGun said:We didn't even know you were in a collection process
You're either blind or a liar.
4 minutes ago, HiredGun said:at the end of the day we were going to war once we had collected which happened yesterday, you should've seen this and the UN was an obvious choice given the limited options.
Of course we were going to war. That's not the issue here lmao...
-
3 minutes ago, HiredGun said:
This is a fairly even war, you only have to look at the stats. You can think up all of the excuses you want but the figures and your failures are all there for everyone to see. You've had around 240 hours since your last war to collect but you say you needed another 24.
The stats show a massive 10k advantage in avg NS? But what the stats don't show is infinitely more telling. The simple fact is any other alliance in the game would've waited the 24 hours until the other alliance finished the collection process they were already in the middle of. I guess it's not wise to hold D1 to the same standards, though.
-
2 minutes ago, HiredGun said:
So the UN beat an half inactive Iron? pfft
Lol, we showed each other courtesy and only hit their actives, just as they only hit our actives.
4 minutes ago, HiredGun said:Long back collects are not protective shields, if this was the case then everyone would go for them so they don't get attacked, that is only silly logic you'd spring up.
That's not my logic at all?
The problem here is opportunistically hitting an alliance who's literally in the middle of building/collecting. Here's a good example: http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000108
One trade away from collecting and he was hit and anarchied.
You can't excuse your pathetic and dirty moves. 24 hours longer and this could've been a fairly even war.
-
2 minutes ago, Brewersalliance said:
Easy route? We have like 9 total active nations right now lol I'm sorry we didn't suicide our entire alliance for !@#$% and giggles
Just them trying to put the blame on others to save face lol
-
4 minutes ago, HiredGun said:
we can see what happens when you don't and you have to fight another major alliance on an even playing field.
Lmao, have you forgotten what we're arguing over?
We fought one war this round that was completely fair/even, and we won. The only time you win wars is when you have massive advantages, period.
4 minutes ago, wasso said:You have people with more than 12 days of back Collection, during these days we had a war and we collected twice and yet you expect us to wait for you? The round is about to end, this is not our fault if your people are sitting like ducks on low defenses for more than 4 days and waiting for a 20 days happy collection.
I see no topic to argue about here...
Are you drunk? Taking one glance at our AA will tell you we started building/collecting yesterday.
-
So, to sum up his above post: It's not their fault for preying on unbuilt/uncollected nations, it's ours.
This is too hilarious lmao
-
2 minutes ago, BDRocks said:
The one built and collected http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000089 is also one of the ones not attacked. Lol D1
Lmao, yup. The ones who were built/collected weren't hit, but the ones who weren't were hit and anarchied. Smh.
-
4 minutes ago, HiredGun said:
lol we didn't wage this war cos of your uncollected nations, I only noticed that about an hour before the dow when I was making the target list. As far as we were concerned you were about as built as you were ever going to be since you had so much time to get this done. You have some very wealthy nations on your side and a strong top tier so I don't know why you bother with the excuses.
Are you really gonna pretend that you weren't keeping an eye on us?
You saw us preparing to build and collect and you decided you'd jump on the opportunity and go for the easy prey.
Your obsession with us is highly disturbing.
Get help.
-
14 minutes ago, HiredGun said:
You've had more than enough time to build, collect, pick your nose, build some more, collect some more, scratch your ass, whatever you wanted to do. You think we're going to sit around doing that, you should've been ready by now.
Did we not start the collection process yesterday? Is that not why you decided to hit at 1pm? 24 hours longer and this would've been a fair war. Instead, you decide to anarchy a bunch of unbuilt, uncollected nations.
I get it though, this is the only way D1 could ever get a win. It's unfathomable for you to meet your opponents on an even playing field.
-
And of course the almighty D1 preys upon the unbuilt and the uncollected.
-
Stats - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qNqEoqfHwiSBc1m161CuhvBQFSMdvLoDGi3foK6Nmc0/edit?usp=sharing
Props to IRON for a respectable, clean and extremely hard fought war. You guys truly are some of the best fighters in this game.
UN o/
IRON o/
SG DoW
in Tournament Edition Open World Forum
Posted
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) -