mhawk
-
Posts
2,543 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by mhawk
-
-
[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1301029343' post='2675758'] I look forward to their quick surrender so that the conflict can wind to a close.
[/quote]
You have no idea how hardcore those guys are. -
[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1301028652' post='2675732']
Because I clearly knew that VE was going to attack Avalon when I joined? Or maybe you should rethink your statement about me attacking Avalon when I am clearly not attacking them.
Anyway, Guffey has explained it here so that's that.
[/quote]
Perhaps it was presumptuous to think you'd know of the attack. I saw the 0 day seniority, combined with DoW on this day and quick post after dow to indicate that relation. Do you support VE's role in assisting the unprovoked aggression of Doomhouse? -
[quote name='Guffey' timestamp='1301028434' post='2675721']
WC joined VE shortly after CB disbanded. We built a relationship with him during his time in CB which he participated in FoS with us. He has already discussed this with us since the DoW. Yes his alliance is at war with us now, but please don't discredit what WC has mentioned.
[/quote]
I'm mostly going at VE's and his support for the unprovoked attack and subsequent extortion orchestrated by Doomhouse. -
[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1301027389' post='2675696']
I wasn't aware I was attacking anyone in Avalon. They know my stance on the matter and we still have great respect for each other. Do try to be more informed before speaking.
[/quote]
Unless you can identify how your alliance just didn't declare on Avalon, or just declare a war in support of an unprovoked attack I'd say I'm perfectly well informed on the matter. Perhaps you should think out the statement a bit more before throwing out a one liner that makes no sense in this context.
Further supporting that statement is the fact you joined the alliance the day they attack Avalon?
I know if I greatly respected folks at the time I wouldn't join an alliance that is declaring on them that day. -
[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1301025751' post='2675625']
We take forum security pretty seriously, actually. Do you have any evidence that we've ever abused that information?
[/quote]
There is plenty of evidence you've used that area for your cesspool of an alliance to mock individuals ooc. If you want the details feel free to find me. -
[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1301026235' post='2675645']
Hoping we can end this front quickly as Avalon are a great group.
[/quote]
They fight against un provoked aggression, you fight in support of unprovoked aggression. Perhaps if you respected them as such you wouldn't attack them. -
Another addition to the pack of criminals.
-
[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1301010189' post='2675250']
If that's the minimum, I'm fine with it. We're helping to get this front closed sooner, and I'm sure that in the end it'll have a satisfactory end for all those who are involved. Which you are not, by the way.
[/quote]
You did just hit a treaty partner of ours. -
A great way to ridicule and marginalize an ever shrinking community.
-
[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300998410' post='2674966']no one's going to be friends with NPO after this and they're the biggest alliance in the group.
[/quote]
I'm not really sure how attacking NPO without solid reason and then issuing unacceptable terms somehow would make people dislike NPO if they previously were favorable. On the other hand I can see how it would completely solidify a bloodlust for you and company that didn't exist in any form prior to you raising the black flag (unacceptable terms - 95% in warmode, clock for a 4 week beat down doesnt start until reach and stops if anyone goes back into pm). -
[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300998120' post='2674955']
Well, I was more referring to it only being NPO's upper tier as opposed to say TPF's.
[/quote]
I'm sorry but when you say 95% or more of the alliance must be in warmode, stating you're ONLY asking for a select group totally loses meaning. -
[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300997813' post='2674944']
I don't get how "only NPO's upper tier comes out of peace mode" is extermination. That's literally the issue that's causing them to drag it out. No one else needs to do it.
[/quote]
So the part you guys said about less than 5% of the total AA can be in peacemode counts as "only NPO's upper tier". -
[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1300633577' post='2671086']
MK knows we would slit theirs if the time came too.
MK/TOP are locked into a deadly dance.
[/quote]
I hope there is a music video. -
[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300516217' post='2670000']
Mostly because of the peace mode tactic employed that prevented the war from being fought.
Here's the difference with Valhalla: Valhalla had a clear bad history with Polar and made it clear they weren't going to enter on Polar's behalf. Duckroll in general had ties to our side and it was never really a possibility that they'd betray TOP to help Polar.
NPO and its allies were supportive of Polar throughout the war. The only connection that you had to our side was Hydra and LSF. The decision to not help Hydra had been already made. LSF was not countered and NATO was rolling with TFD from the start. At that juncture, Exodus had already been been countered and Valhalla did not ride in. Oly wasn't attacked and ML was never formally countered either. If Pacifica and TPF did not want to enter and wanted to make it clear, a simple announcement would have likely made that intent clear for all to see.
Further elaboration: TPF had just signed with NpO's main ally STA. The NPO itself was trying to upgrade a treaty with a Polar ally. The alighment prior to the war was pointing in one specific direction which makes it entirely different from Duckroll, who had moved away from NPO and hated Polar. NPO and TPF were getting closer to Polar.
[/quote]
First off, it is comical to assert that myself and polar are on friendly/supportive terms. I remember bipolar just as well as TOP or Valhalla, you'd remember we all got screwed there. You'd probably also remember karma where polar hit DOOM - which recently folded into us - after stating they were staying out of the war. Actually they had said they were supportive of NPO until the dow happened. You'd recall I fought against polar in WoTC or whatever you want to call it, called sponge out very hard. Hell I even fought against them in GWIII. STA knew our stance regarding Polar, our treaty with them was about putting grudges aside and growing the white sphere for prosperity and unity. You'll notice around the time of that signing about 6 alliances moved to white team with some help from other members of the sphere. Fact is we had 2 treaties with duckroll, and we knew they wanted to stay out and so did we. This was posted to our duckroll allies, it was said clearly in every skype our leadership was put in, and I said it how it was when Crymson came asking about it. Of course you'll say that was all lies or deception, but a look at history regarding the players involved would support my statements. Your conclusion a pre emption was necessary are wrong, we weren't going to enter, you screwed up.
All the above is irrelevant for my question I posed to you though. You say the war has not been fought, yet it has gone on for 7 weeks or more, many in our coalition and yours suffering 50% or greater NS loss. The war might not have been fought how you would like it, utilizing umbrella's strengths against our weakness, but there can be no argument made that the war has not been fought. There is not a single alliance on either side that has not taken significant losses... except perhaps umbrella. -
[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300515540' post='2669983']
I think there was enough to go on, ultimately and it wouldn't have made a difference in a tangible sense if we had just hit Legion, NSO, or TPF preemptively except for the fact that they are not as big as NPO.
It was close enough to a reality. The Athens-STA scenario, that is.
[/quote]
If your argument is that the preemption was to secure the flanks of those hitting polar/polar allies, why the need to continue the destruction beyond what is done now that the entire front is peaced out?
To be clear I'm still stating neither NPO nor TPF was going to enter that front anyways, same way you can say Valhalla was clearly not going in with NoR to hit wF, or with Oly, or to defend ML. Yet, you did not pre empt or call them out? -
[quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1300489049' post='2669497']
Where's the or?
Also Banksy hit the nail on the head: they still were infra heavy, and I'm sure you know how fast an infra heavy nation with little tech falls, right? Well apply that to one of the most populated alliances in the game and you have your answer. It isn't rocket science...
[/quote]
Exactly, it isn't rocket science. Stating NPO hasn't fought is incorrect and mere wordplay. -
[quote name='PinkV' timestamp='1300488787' post='2669486']
Yes. I feel that this is a horrible way to represent NPO even in a time of war, regardless of the situation. Also, please note that this man started this well though out conversation with me. Instead of honorably fighting a war, he decides that his "Trash talking" will somehow help his alliance in anyway.
[/quote]
Bringing the bitter comments of a random NPO member to the world view isn't quite being honorable and just fighting the war. What is your purpose. -
[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1300488449' post='2669474']
you'll have to ask them why they are performing so poorly. as far as i can tell, they lost soft NS (infra and land) which comprised the majority of their NS pre-war. this can easily and quickly be rebought as they have (on the whole) adequate warchests due to the gap between karma and this war.
three rounds of war will hardly cripple them, especially considering that after the second round they will probably outmatch us in the middle tier with the drop in NS.
[/quote]
The point stands that an alliance can't lose that amount of NS without either losing a large number of nations if they didn't fight. NPO has fought, you guys just want more damage to be done than you've currently or are likely in the future to accomplish. -
[quote name='PinkV' timestamp='1300488485' post='2669475']
Implying I started the war/chose when to fight it.
[/quote]
You certainly chose to post this topic. You didn't choose to start the war, but you chose how to conduct yourself and this reflects on that. -
I'm curious if you're proud to bring this to the owf, given your position of jumping into an aggressive curbstomp of NPO more than a month after the war started.
-
[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1300487214' post='2669447']
yes, and they have a tiny NS so it doesn't really affect us. the figure for the NPO is not, however, compromised in any way. the point is that the NPO has not come out to fight. some DH members have entered PM to restock or for 'other realm' reasons, but we are fighting, whereas the NPO is staying in PM.
[/quote]
How can an alliance lose 50% of its NS by not fighting? Did they just sell it? -
[quote name='Ryuzaki' timestamp='1300486236' post='2669424']
The figures stated by Banksy represent all of doomhouse, not just MK.
edit: Banksy got there first.
[/quote]
Considering there are around 160-200 nations in Doomhouse that are younger than the actual war (less than 45 days old), that statistic would seem to be pretty biased. -
[quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300478546' post='2669285']
Somehow you turned 18% into 50% with no math or appearances whatsoever. Just so you're aware, it's a stat we track. Last I checked it was ~30%. NPO's was 80%, Legion's is 99%, and GOONS less than 15%. That number only goes down as the war progresses if, as in your case, half of your largest nations are all in peace mode and have never left. Our alliances lose NS evenly across the board, and so the disparity of loss between large and small nations is equivalent, maintaining our ratio. GOONS nations in peace mode are usually only there for the five day minimum.
[/quote]
First of all, it was the mk guy that stated 18%. - A figure you state is at least almost half of the true number you estimate. I'm saying that if 27% of the total MK ns is in pm in just the top 40 nations. I find it highly unlikely that your figure of 30% - 3% difference makes any sense. Saying that another 50 nations in PM only account for 3% of the total NS of MK is foolish.
Top 40 nations in MK. 1,861,355NS in PM
1861355/6,732,538 = 27%
Either way the mk guy was clearly wrong, by your figures or mine. That was my point. -
[quote name='Kyaris' timestamp='1300477349' post='2669261']
Nation strength, not numbers of nations. Nice try though.
[/quote]
Then that is a horrible way to try to analyze a situation. Obviously % of NS in PM will increase to near 100% as a losing war goes on. You could have large nation in PM and it account for the majority of your NS over time if you're in a losing war. Also the figure of NS is wrong.
Top 40 nations in MK. 1,861,355NS in PM
1861355/6,732,538 = 27%
Considering that is just looking at the top 40 mk nations it would seem intuitively obviously far greater than the stated 18% is in PM across the entire alliance. I'd guess closer to 50%.
Declaration of War
in Alliance Announcements (IC)
Posted
[quote name='Xiphosis' timestamp='1301029611' post='2675774']
Harder than Max? Because he's pretty hardcore.
[/quote]
No idea who max is.