Jump to content

MagicalTrevor

Members
  • Posts

    1,220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MagicalTrevor

  1. No, I don't. IRON has shown in the past that they honored their treaties. They (according to you) were known for being a solid partner. For me, they'd still be one. I can't deny they didn't honor their treaty with NG, but they had a good reason for it (See iamthey). They chose friendship over paper, I can't blame them for that. In fact their decision was independent. They didn't follow the upcoming public pressure, but chose their friends instead.  

    While that's all partly true. The thing people are rightly annoyed at is they're fighting on the front that is directly linked to countering attacks on NG. They were also FULLY aware of this situation and purposely put themselves in it months ago. If I'm a treaty partner of IRON at this point (outside of Val/VE) then i'd be seriously considering if I want to be a second fiddle treaty partner.

     

    For clarification, I have no issue with IRON choosing a side in this war long ago. My issue is they've CHOSEN to attack on the NG front. It's just poor form.

  2. I don't recall Archon sitting in peace through Karma. Additionally, he may be one of the least active leaders of all-time, I don't see any correlation here. Further touching on that, I have no idea how you guys left him in power for so long, even if he was just a figurehead at that point.
     
    Also, welcome to TOP. I'm glad you didn't throw in the towel.

    He tried to quit several times but we didn't let him. He hasn't done anything at all for a long long time and as you said, was a figurehead not a leader. I'm also pretty sure he was in the 2nd wave in karma (so was PM for first) The point is, if NSO were expecting a beating for x time with no assistance then letting the opponents choose their targets is about the dumbest thing you can do. Your argument is based in a rhetoric given up in 2010 and makes it look like you look desperate and ill-informed.
  3. To be fair that happened years ago, and leadership has changed, and attempted to make amends since then. When I was allied to both NSO and NpO, and attempting to facilitate an end to this conflict, NpO were far more interested in burying the hatchet than NSO was. Staying mad for that many years without acting on it isn't healthy, and I have been calling for a war between these two sides for a while now because of that. Hopefully, after this, we can move on and maybe just ignore one another, if anything. We can never move forward if we stay stuck in the past.

     
    RV, I understand your point completely. It is a known fact at this point the benefit of using peace mode to rebuild and launch counters. I am not arguing that. I have no problem with regular members using it, as much as I dislike the fact that it exists in the first place. I just take an issue with leadership that drags members into war and runs and hides. Can you imagine some of the legendary leaders of CN doing that? No, and that is why they are remembered fondly.

    This is just a terrible argument. Archon was always in peace mode at the start of wars (when he had a nation) and if tactically astute so was every other "legendary leader". PM was established as a viable tactic years ago. I really was hoping we'd be past people mocking others sitting in PM on the first day of a war.
  4. No they are not. They are at war because it is the most logical point to  get at NPO. Cant hit NPO directly because AI will commit Duckroll... whom you need... Cant hit NG directly because you will trigger IRON committing Duckroll (as well as Valhalla)... so you needed to hit someone intimately connected in the middle. Stop treating the general public like they are stupid. NPO ... NG... could have ALL done this exact same thing (hint: NG did... stop trying to deny it, I was part of the talks)...and none of them would have been hit. Lets, for the 1st time in CN history, put an end to stupid pretense. You do not need to defend your action, or hide them under the guise of a CB, so why do it?

    NG have actually backed off, since steve got into a role of power he has massively reduced their "roll polar" crusade. It was Caustic who was driving that hard on their end and I've actually not seen a huge amount of them going for Polar since then. NSO on the other hand have still tried to bang that drum in the back channels. At the start it was an easy target and a score they felt needed to be settled. Sadly for them Polar finally realised that to get back into a prominent situation they had to change some of what they did and stop being seen as a victim all the time. I for one congratulate Dajabo on his actions and credit him for bringing Polar to this point.

    NG tried to play the game, weren't good enough, so backed off.
    NSO tried to play the game, weren't good enough, so carried on. This is their pennance.


    As for "getting after NPO" That is for sure a part of the larger coalitions thinking. However I would think Polar view that as a cherry on top if it were to happen. Their goal for this war has already been set. Threat neutralisation. I believe they're doing a pretty good job of it.


    Good luck Polaris, nice to be fighting on the same side as you all again. First time since that war that we shouldn't mention considering I'm in TOP now...
  5. I think we all know that TOP is the only one in position to protect MK.  Plus we all know where most MK nations are going that don't delete.  But nice try.

    Almost as though there was a reason we had TOP AND TLR protect us. Our disbandment isn't meant to cause a war between our allies while people try to feed off nations that want to peacefully delete or move on. In addition suggesting TLR couldn't bring a boat load of shit down onto anybody who touches the MK AA is hilarious.



    As to the rest of the thread. It has made all of this worthwhile and i'd like to say a sincere thank you to everybody who is still scared of us. It's truly been a pleasure.
  6. More people who weren't around for any part of any talks speculating on what happened. We dished out as much damage as any alliance in CN did this past war, put our entire alliance on the line for our ally in Umb, and didn't plot with the opposite side to limit damage or ensure specific fronts didn't get countered. People who didn't want to accept that it was their working with the enemy and avoiding the fight being the reason for the war being lost wanted a scapegoat, and I'm happy to play one if it means the people who hardly did anything are seen on an absolute opposite spectrum of us.

    If only there was a way that I ended up seeing the logs & discussions of that war. Say perhaps I became royalty in one of the key participants. Wouldn't that be nice.
  7. I'll suggest it if you want, cause it has happened in back channels.

    Are these the back channels that in the last war VE announced ignored the agreed coalition battle plan & full deployed. Then informed us they've all peace out if other alliances didn't save their arses? Or the ones that after we threw a needless amount of NS into an area of the war we knew we were outgunned in they announced they'd be peacing out with or without the rest of us?


    Calling C&G out for being bad allies when defending VE is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. How many times do I have to tell people to stop listening to the zombie alliance. What is dead should always stay dead.
×
×
  • Create New...