Kajdav Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301277250' post='2678687'] Flighty, lofty, pretty sounding. But, unfortunately, shooting two cm's a day simply doesn't cut it as fighting. You have to actually numerically output some type of substantial damage to be putting up a fight, and while the other lovey dovey crap is nice to say, it doesn't translate into reality very well. This is not a story book, and when !@#$ hits the fan, romanticized ideals won't destroy infra or tech. [/quote] [url=http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u5/Kajdav/FOK.png]Numerical output.[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1301255950' post='2678425'] The only alliance that can't fight is an alliance that disbands rather than fight. [/quote] The only alliance that can't write is an alliance that disbands rather than write. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301279820' post='2678720'] Why did you use that corny smiley face? Faking a war so you can get out of actually fighting has nothing to do with length of time, it has to do with you being a wimp, so that little jab makes no sense. Also, I hope CoJ is fairing well. [/quote] If you think there was no fighting in the Bubblegum War, I'm sure Lamuella will be sure to correct you if you ask him. It had to be a real war. The callout was real, BDC's quad was real, the attacks for 3 or 4 days were real, and the surrender terms were not decided upon and were real. I did not get Browncoats out of fighting, I simply chose the fight we could come out of alive while also preventing half of Black from facing off against the other half of Black. It was beautiful and clever and ballsy, and it worked. I'm glad you brought it up as an example of how an alliance can survive rather than roll over and disband in the face of overwhelming odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300334058' post='2666890'] We near the end. The end of forced disbandment. The end of terms that cripple alliances forever. The end of silence for fear of persecution. Signed, [i]Ardus of the Mushroom Kingdom[/i] [/quote] [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1301283655' post='2678779'] The only alliance that can't write is an alliance that disbands rather than write. [/quote] Tut, tut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1301283655' post='2678779'] The only alliance that can't write is an alliance that disbands rather than write. [/quote] As far as I remember, we don't actually have to write anything, but have to pay the full reps if Schatt chooses not to write. Also I'd rather be a fighter over a period of months rather than a person who can write a great disbandment 1 day after the war is declared. [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301279820' post='2678720'] Presumptuous of you to speak for FAN. [/quote] Considering that we (Vox) were one of the other alliances fighting alongside FAN as their literal bloc partners I would say we probably know more than you would about FAN or their ability to fight for literally months on end. We certainly don't speak for them, but to imply that we didn't know them during that time is absurd. We were literally one of two alliances that did. Also I don't really get the last few arguments in this thread. We went through a period were everybody agreed that an alliance only disbands when it can no longer fight. You claim we are using peace mode to avoid the fight. Naturally it would reason that we still have plenty of fight left in us. So obviously our alliances can carry out the fight. When we've had our fill, we'll surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beefspari Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Asking someone to write a play is the same as forced disbandment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1301283754' post='2678781'] If you think there was no fighting in the Bubblegum War, I'm sure Lamuella will be sure to correct you if you ask him. It had to be a real war. The callout was real, BDC's quad was real, the attacks for 3 or 4 days were real, and the surrender terms were not decided upon and were real. I did not get Browncoats out of fighting, I simply chose the fight we could come out of alive while also preventing half of Black from facing off against the other half of Black. It was beautiful and clever and ballsy, and it worked. I'm glad you brought it up as an example of how an alliance can survive rather than roll over and disband in the face of overwhelming odds. [/quote] Golly, don't be alarmed, but you may be jesus. What's more probable, a semi micro alliance sweeping in with a move of strategic beauty for the betterment of their color, and indeed, the entire world (that only looked like a fake fight to get themselves out of war)? Or, you're a loudmouth wimp and can't face the fact that all the things you scream and yell about apply to you as well. Come to grips with it man, its not a big deal. [quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1301284747' post='2678792'] As far as I remember, we don't actually have to write anything, but have to pay the full reps if Schatt chooses not to write. Also I'd rather be a fighter over a period of months rather than a person who can write a great disbandment 1 day after the war is declared. Considering that we (Vox) were one of the other alliances fighting alongside FAN as their literal bloc partners I would say we probably know more than you would about FAN or their ability to fight for literally months on end. We certainly don't speak for them, but to imply that we didn't know them during that time is absurd. We were literally one of two alliances that did. Also I don't really get the last few arguments in this thread. We went through a period were everybody agreed that an alliance only disbands when it can no longer fight. You claim we are using peace mode to avoid the fight. Naturally it would reason that we still have plenty of fight left in us. So obviously our alliances can carry out the fight. When we've had our fill, we'll surrender. [/quote] Since I never said any of that, mentioned peace mode, etc, maybe you misunderstood my posts. So, yea. Edited March 28, 2011 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301291804' post='2678896'] Golly, don't be alarmed, but you may be jesus. What's more probable, a semi micro alliance sweeping in with a move of strategic beauty for the betterment of their color, and indeed, the entire world (that only looked like a fake fight to get themselves out of war)? Or, you're a loudmouth wimp and can't face the fact that all the things you scream and yell about apply to you as well. Come to grips with it man, its not a big deal. Since I never said any of that, mentioned peace mode, etc, maybe you misunderstood my posts. So, yea. [/quote] The second paragraph wasn't directed at you. My bad, should have made that clear. The first paragraph was addressing what you expressed about FAN (specifically that we didn't know how FAN would survive/keep fighting when they had been at war for months on end). The second paragraph was more directed at the ideas being expressed on these last couple of pages as to why we haven't surrendered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmmehhh Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 [quote name='Kajdav' timestamp='1301283404' post='2678775'] [url=http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u5/Kajdav/FOK.png]Numerical output.[/url] [/quote] We had 2 guys quitting after the NpO war, one guy was like 90k, so that explains our NS losses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1301294726' post='2678929'] The second paragraph wasn't directed at you. My bad, should have made that clear. The first paragraph was addressing what you expressed about FAN (specifically that we didn't know how FAN would survive/keep fighting when they had been at war for months on end). The second paragraph was more directed at the ideas being expressed on these last couple of pages as to why we haven't surrendered. [/quote] No problem. But yea, that wasn't what I was addressing. Your cult leader was attempting to tie in this situation and NADC's ability to continue the fight to that of FAN. I don't think anyone in their right mind should believe that war was won for FAN and Vox though CMs and tanks. It was won through, among other things, a refusal to die when faced with a situation where people where aiming directly for their death. The ability to fight that they still had was simply existing in the face of a continued desire for them not to exist. This is very, very different from the situation we have here. No one is aiming for NADC to go die in a fire forever. Their ability to fight must be measured in a numerical capacity to do damage, since they are not in this fight for their existence, but instead just to help their allies. The other option, i.e. fighting by existing or other means, is absolutely retarded in this situation.That's what I was responding to. Also, anyone else think its ridiculous that every time any situation comes up that involves people refusing to surrender or continuing to fight that it gets compared back to FAN? Are the differences really that hard to see? Edited March 28, 2011 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301291804' post='2678896'] Golly, don't be alarmed, but you may be jesus. What's more probable, a semi micro alliance sweeping in with a move of strategic beauty for the betterment of their color, and indeed, the entire world (that only looked like a fake fight to get themselves out of war)? Or, you're a loudmouth wimp and can't face the fact that all the things you scream and yell about apply to you as well. Come to grips with it man, its not a big deal. [/quote] Well, let's look at the evidence: The Bubblegum War is emblazoned in my signature, while members of VE swear you never disbanded. There's nothing to come to grips with, it was always right in the palm of my hand. I understand that you [i]need[/i] me to be like you, but it simply cannot be. I have lived deliberately. [quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1301296837' post='2678947'] No problem. But yea, that wasn't what I was addressing. Your cult leader was attempting to tie in this situation and NADC's ability to continue the fight to that of FAN. I don't think anyone in their right mind should believe that war was won for FAN and Vox though CMs and tanks. It was won through, among other things, a refusal to die when faced with a situation where people where aiming directly for their death. The ability to fight that they still had was simply existing in the face of a continued desire for them not to exist. This is very, very different from the situation we have here. No one is aiming for NADC to go die in a fire forever. Their ability to fight must be measured in a numerical capacity to do damage, since they are not in this fight for their existence, but instead just to help their allies. The other option, i.e. fighting by existing or other means, is absolutely retarded in this situation.That's what I was responding to. Also, anyone else think its ridiculous that every time any situation comes up that involves people refusing to surrender or continuing to fight that it gets compared back to FAN? Are the differences really that hard to see? [/quote] You claimed that lobbing CMs is not fighting. It is. And to illustrate the point I noted that FAN would beg to differ with you. Edited March 28, 2011 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1301352095' post='2679403'] Well, let's look at the evidence: The Bubblegum War is emblazoned in my signature, while members of VE swear you never disbanded. There's nothing to come to grips with, it was always right in the palm of my hand. I understand that you [i]need[/i] me to be like you, but it simply cannot be. I have lived deliberately. [/quote] Oh, Shattenmann. If by VE members, you mean that singular comment from Smooth individually 3 years ago, sure. Sadly, over here in the real world, that's just not the case. We acknowledge disbandment but simply don't dwell on it, and instead focus on the lengths we've come since that time. As for your own comporting act, you can "emblazon" it in your signature all you want, but you still sit here in this very thread and pass it off as some benevolent, courageous, and brilliant type jesus act, when in reality it was nothing more then a little alliance flailing about politically in a ridiculous fashion trying to save its own ass and get out of a fight. In no way have you come to grips with your own gaffs, and the only thing in the palm of your hand is a mirror so you can look at your own false self image. Your right, we are not the same, because we aren't in denial. Fact is though, you are just as guilty of all the flaws in others that you constantly scream and cry about. Thinking about it, I'm pretty sure you're well aware of the above though, and in true self absorbed fashion, you overcompensate for your own faults by being a loudmouth cavone all over this venue whenever possible. Maybe, just maybe, if you stop acting out with little jabs like you did here, you will be able to get over yourself. [quote] You claimed that lobbing CMs is not fighting. It is. And to illustrate the point I noted that FAN would beg to differ with you.[/quote] Thanks for that non responsive reacap. Edited March 28, 2011 by Il Impero Romano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kajdav Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 [quote name='Timmehhh' timestamp='1301296161' post='2678943'] We had 2 guys quitting after the NpO war, one guy was like 90k, so that explains our NS losses [/quote] Check again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volatile Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 [quote name='Kajdav' timestamp='1301464957' post='2680502'] Check again. [/quote] NADC 24-mar : 1,786.660 29-mar : 1,345.643 net loss: 441.017 -> roughly 25% FOK 24-mar : 6,146.301 29-mar : 5,940.907 net loss: 205.394 -> about 3% Timmehhh stated that from that 200k NS loss about 90K is because a nation passed away (1% net loss) I am afraid I don't get the point your are trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kajdav Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 [quote name='Volatile' timestamp='1301467360' post='2680522'] FOK 24-mar : 6,146.301 29-mar : 5,940.907 net loss: 205.394 -> about 3% [/quote] This, sir, is my point. According to Mr. Romano, numerical output is required in order to be considered 'still fighting'. Our losses are irrelevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timberland Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kajdav' timestamp='1301524615' post='2680928'] Our losses are irrelevant. [/quote] The 35 nations you've lost are irrelevant ? Edited March 31, 2011 by Timberland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattski133 Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 [quote name='Kajdav' timestamp='1301524615' post='2680928'] This, sir, is my point. According to Mr. Romano, numerical output is required in order to be considered 'still fighting'. Our losses are [i]massive[/i]. [/quote] there ya go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kajdav' timestamp='1301524615' post='2680928'] This, sir, is my point. According to Mr. Romano, numerical output is required in order to be considered 'still fighting'. Our losses are irrelevant. [/quote] How is sitting there losing NS considered fighting? How are you helping your allies at all at this point? [quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1301568256' post='2681321'] The 35 nations you've lost are irrelevant ? [/quote] The nations they have left are pretty much irrelevant too. Edited March 31, 2011 by Felix von Agnu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 [quote name='Felix von Agnu' timestamp='1301574468' post='2681362'] How is sitting there losing NS considered fighting? How are you helping your allies at all at this point? [/quote] Aren't they outnumbered? I mean really, fighting back isn't going to do a whole lot of damage when spread across numerous opponents, taking hits means that opponents are spreading attacks so less damage is done to their allies, I would imagin that to be the idea but I'm just guessing. Eitherway, being outnumbered means they are going to take bigger losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 [quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1301574711' post='2681364'] Aren't they outnumbered? I mean really, fighting back isn't going to do a whole lot of damage when spread across numerous opponents, taking hits means that opponents are spreading attacks so less damage is done to their allies, I would imagin that to be the idea but I'm just guessing. Eitherway, being outnumbered means they are going to take bigger losses. [/quote] At this point, I would think FOK or VE could handle NADC by themselves. Considering this, how are they doing their allies any good? They might as well get out, start rebuilding, and help out their allies rebuild when they get out. I don't understand how burning every nation in your alliance to the ground is seen as the only way to support your allies in a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 [quote name='Felix von Agnu' timestamp='1301575456' post='2681368'] At this point, I would think FOK or VE could handle NADC by themselves. Considering this, how are they doing their allies any good? They might as well get out, start rebuilding, and help out their allies rebuild when they get out. I don't understand how burning every nation in your alliance to the ground is seen as the only way to support your allies in a war. [/quote] Guessing that they want their allies out at the sametime and that's why they are staying in for so long, the more people in the war, the more spread the damage right? Even if VE or FOK could handle NADC by themselves, it means that one of those alliances would be distracted from hitting the other alliances to a degree. And they wouldn't be able to rebuild too well if they had reps to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 [quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1301575691' post='2681370'] Guessing that they want their allies out at the sametime and that's why they are staying in for so long, the more people in the war, the more spread the damage right? Even if VE or FOK could handle NADC by themselves, it means that one of those alliances would be distracted from hitting the other alliances to a degree. And they wouldn't be able to rebuild too well if they had reps to pay. [/quote] They had a chance for white peace. If they have reps they only have themselves to be angry at. As far as stopping us from hitting another alliance. I think any other alliance is beaten down/in peacemode. I guess if NADC wants to be a punching bag for other alliances, that's their prerogative. I just think they would be better allies if they got out when they could have, and then helped their allies rebuild/pay any reps they had. At the point where they are only absorbing damage, they hurt not only themselves but their future potential to help allies in a more significant way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Volatile Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 [quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1301575691' post='2681370'] Guessing that they want their allies out at the sametime and that's why they are staying in for so long, the more people in the war, the more spread the damage right? Even if VE or FOK could handle NADC by themselves, it means that one of those alliances would be distracted from hitting the other alliances to a degree. [/quote] Sure the damage is more spread, but in total, more damage is done as well while war continues. Either way, I respect NADC for sticking with its allies but I doubt it is all that beneficial. [quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1301575691' post='2681370'] And they wouldn't be able to rebuild too well if they had reps to pay. [/quote] Prolonging war is not really the best or obvious way to decrease-the-amount-of/avoid paying reps imho NADC's 57 (not in pm) nations have to be divided by VE/TOP and FOK, which doesn't seem distracting overall, more like annoying. Those 57 are in majority approaching a state in which they can only fight by using CM's (yeah, it is a form of fighting I know) I wonder if NADC continues per ally request (pressure) or really feel they still have a place on the battlefield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 [quote name='Felix von Agnu' timestamp='1301576434' post='2681379'] They had a chance for white peace. If they have reps they only have themselves to be angry at. As far as stopping us from hitting another alliance. I think any other alliance is beaten down/in peacemode. I guess if NADC wants to be a punching bag for other alliances, that's their prerogative. I just think they would be better allies if they got out when they could have, and then helped their allies rebuild/pay any reps they had. At the point where they are only absorbing damage, they hurt not only themselves but their future potential to help allies in a more significant way.[/quote] Trying to justify the unjustifiable, giving advice to other alliances to bail on friends so that the beating down of those friends can continue at a faster pace, ITT. Besides, let's be honest...you won't let them have a "future potential" if they grow too fast, are perceived as a threat because they are on "the other side", or hell if its Tuesday and last weekend sucked. If they are making you uncomfortable and slowing you down from achieving your objective, maybe that's good enough for them. After all, what do they have to look forward to after this? A year of rebuilding and being under terms? Might as well get in a couple more eye gouges and maybe a good swift kick in the crotch on you and make it worth it. Don't get me wrong, this war has gone on too long already, which is why people are walking around these forums with a chronic case of rectal ache and have been for weeks. To hold yourself (meaning your "side") blameless for this war lasting much longer than it should have however is to lie to yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted March 31, 2011 Report Share Posted March 31, 2011 [quote name='Felix von Agnu' timestamp='1301575456' post='2681368'] At this point, I would think FOK or VE could handle NADC by themselves. Considering this, how are they doing their allies any good? They might as well get out, start rebuilding, and help out their allies rebuild when they get out. I don't understand how burning every nation in your alliance to the ground is seen as the only way to support your allies in a war. [/quote] Considering the peace offers that are currently on the table, burning every nation in your alliance to the ground is pretty much par for the course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.