war is afoot

[paul711]

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1301290501' post='2678886']
But at the same time, holding a war for the time you said you wanted can be considered in itself bullying as well, can it not? From what I take from that is Confusion trying to support and protect friends. I mean... this is a war game after all, what other method are you going to use to get what you would like?
[/quote]
Just trying to enlighten you is all. In the future, kind of like drunk driving, friends don't let friends do stupid things.

[Vol Navy]

We got the same treatment this round from RE as the tW/G-6 situation earlier to a large extent. They technically DoW'd on 3 alliances but 80% of the war was focused on THP the first couple days, so in effect it was their 50+ nations vs our 25. I ended up declaring on 3 guys with similar infra to me, then getting declared on by 3 guys with double or triple my infra as well as some 15 or so nukes. I had 0 nukes.

I will only say this, early rounds should be quite fun for the G-6/RE bloc in the future.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1301293549' post='2678913']
G-6/RE
[/quote]

Wait, we're a bloc now?

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1301293761' post='2678917']
Wait, we're a bloc now?
[/quote]


When you are "friends" and your President is planning their wars in a fashion to weak future opponents, yes, you are a defacto bloc.

When your bloc rises, another will rise against it. I suspect you will have long rounds in the future. Hell, next few rounds might be TE Karma for your bloc from early stages onward. You can almost guarantee you won't be allowed to sit back and twiddle your thumbs while everyone else burns like you did this round.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1301294195' post='2678923']
When you are "friends" and your President is planning their wars in a fashion to weak future opponents, yes, you are a defacto bloc.

When your bloc rises, another will rise against it. I suspect you will have long rounds in the future. Hell, next few rounds might be TE Karma for your bloc from early stages onward. You can almost guarantee you won't be allowed to sit back and twiddle your thumbs while everyone else burns like you did this round.
[/quote]

Thats just hearsay. but if you want, RE can merge with us before we merge with tpc.

EDIT-i'm going to add this in here as well. :3 since you seem worried about declarations.

imagine you are fighting a single alliance. when making target lists do you:

a-make sure every target is hit

b-make sure priority targets are destroyed

so now if you take a declaration from 1 alliance, to multiple alliances. For example the war your in. When they make the target lists do they

a-make sure they hit every target in each alliances

b-make sure priority targets are destroyed

Now once you have completely answered all question read below

Answers. the answers for each are b.

if you got that right you may now graduate to big kids TE. congratulations.

you now have a brief understanding of strategy.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Frostfirefox

[StevieG]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1301290138' post='2678881']
The context is that he was trying to bully us into giving RE/Synergy peace. The words of Confusion are right there, the unbrainwashed will see them what they are.
[/quote]

Once THP joined in, the only advantage RE/SYN held was nukes. And not even that nuke advantage could enable them to take on 3 elite AAs. Once they were soundly beaten there was no reason to hold them in war for the rest of the round. How could that war be viewed as a curbstomp when you soundly defeated them?

Some of you like to throw around "curbstomp" quite a lot. Even last rounds war you viewed as a curbstomp when you came in on RE, and even though I repeatedly show how it was a pretty fair war, you wont apologise or show any remorse. This current war is probably the most lopsided war in a few rounds, and even then its only due to the insane levels of nukes, and probably the upper tier.

But I dont care. OP is getting the beating they deserve.

[Stelios]

Well when you guys settle this thing out. Stop by rome for some beers.

[Einer]

Less talk. More fight.

[bcortell]

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1301304074' post='2678971']
Once THP joined in, the only advantage RE/SYN held was nukes. And not even that nuke advantage could enable them to take on 3 elite AAs. Once they were soundly beaten there was no reason to hold them in war for the rest of the round. How could that war be viewed as a curbstomp when you soundly defeated them?

Some of you like to throw around "curbstomp" quite a lot. Even last rounds war you viewed as a curbstomp when you came in on RE, and even though I repeatedly show how it was a pretty fair war, you wont apologise or show any remorse. This current war is probably the most lopsided war in a few rounds, and even then its only due to the insane levels of nukes, and probably the upper tier.
[/quote]

We continued to fight them until they acknowledged they were beaten. You were in the negotiations; we weren't trying to humiliate them. If they didn't want to get into a war where they might have had to admit defeat, they shouldn't have attacked. PS did it with GR this round and RE a few rounds back, so it's not like the precedent wasn't there. Though, it seems, that since we've let them off, RE's goal was just to hit THP for revenge.

[bcortell]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1301294340' post='2678925']
Thats just hearsay. but if you want, RE can merge with us before we merge with tpc.

[/quote]
I really wonder if TPC wants to be included in that seeing as how many people and AA's seem to dislike RE and G-6. I mean that in all seriousness with having people from other AA's speak for them, so to speak.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301283485' post='2678776']
So the party benefiting from the state of affairs only agrees [i]somewhat[/i] that the situation is skewed in their favour, and that's somehow indicative of the sides being balanced? Free head from behind here; anyone who paid attention to that war knew that it was rather one-sided, and no amount of revisionism is going to change that.
[/quote]

Actually tW would not have conducted the war if they thought the sides were not even in the beginning. Go figure, they only agreed that you were coorect about the ANS difference but also went on to state that the total members and total NS made it much more even. It is becoming rather obvious you have difficulty with reading as I posted 2 quotes that stated that tW did not think the war was uneven or unfair. Go figure, despite the ample amount of proof that proves you totally and completely and utterly wrong, you continue to attempt to revise history.

[quote name='Mark8240' timestamp='1301285381' post='2678808']
BP= Confusion

<paul711> They all told me you did the targetting for them
<BarelyPolitical> I helped with target lists, Yes.



<BarelyPolitical> I don't want RE/Syn to get 40 days
<BarelyPolitical> because you're convinced of something
<paul711> I'm convinced as are PS and THP that there are reprecussions to acting in a dsihonorable way
<BarelyPolitical> I'm convinced as are my friends that I'll DoW THP etc. if you plan on going with 40 days of war.


... Later on in that convo
<paul711> I fail to see how an AA attacks us and we decide to keep fighting is any of your business
<BarelyPolitical> It is.
<BarelyPolitical> Because it's unjust, and they're my friends.

Now go on to tell me that this is nothing and tell me to shut up again.
[/quote]

It is nothing and shut the $%&@ up. But seriously, it is nothing. Helping set up target lists does not mean that Confusion was the mastermind behind the war. Helping set up target lists does not mean that Confusion ordered RE/Syn to hit ya'll. Helping set up target lists means next to !@#$@#$ nothing. Him trying to help his friends does not mean he was the mastermind behind the war. Him trying to help his friends does not mean that he ordered RE/Syn to hit ya'll. Him trying to help his friends means that he is trying to help his friends.

So once more, you have no !@#$@#$ proof to back up your large ass mouth, so shut the $%&@ up because all you are doing is showing how utterly ignorant, ridiculous, tinfoil conspiracy idiot you are.

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1301290138' post='2678881']
The context is that he was trying to bully us into giving RE/Synergy peace. The words of Confusion are right there, the unbrainwashed will see them what they are.
[/quote]

you mean the brainwashed masses will see them as some sort of proof that Confusion forced RE/Syn to hit ya'll? because that is the proof i am still waiting for and have yet to see. Now please move along little boy and let the adults talk.

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1301293549' post='2678913']
We got the same treatment this round from RE as the tW/G-6 situation earlier to a large extent. They technically DoW'd on 3 alliances but 80% of the war was focused on THP the first couple days, so in effect it was their 50+ nations vs our 25. I ended up declaring on 3 guys with similar infra to me, then getting declared on by 3 guys with double or triple my infra as well as some 15 or so nukes. I had 0 nukes.

I will only say this, early rounds should be quite fun for the G-6/RE bloc in the future.
[/quote]

hahahahahaha. I love how Confusion is hated for carrying grudges while it is apparent that many others do the same. So glad that hypocrisy and double standards continue to reign in TE as well.

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1301294195' post='2678923']
When you are "friends" and your President is planning their wars in a fashion to weak future opponents, yes, you are a defacto bloc.

When your bloc rises, another will rise against it. I suspect you will have long rounds in the future. Hell, next few rounds might be TE Karma for your bloc from early stages onward. You can almost guarantee you won't be allowed to sit back and twiddle your thumbs while everyone else burns like you did this round.
[/quote]

Again, proof please? Yet another of the brainwashed masses claiming !@#$%^&* without a shred of actual proof. Please provide logs of Confusion ordering RE/Syn to hit anyone? I have already spanked paul117 time and time again over this matter. Am I going to have to spank you as well?

[Schad]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301321137' post='2679065']
Actually tW would not have conducted the war if they thought the sides were not even in the beginning.
[/quote]

I'm with you here. However, substantively fair and superficially fair are different things altogether; the sides in that one looked pretty reasonable if one looked solely at the raw NS, but any sort of closer inspection belied it...most of the other alliances involved were sub-nuclear and unconnected, and much of the firepower ended up being concentrated on LE.

Anyhoo, we're well and truly off subject. The reality is that going 30 days with your only involvement in war being a short, substantively skewed war fought against largely sub-nuclear opponents, naturally left you in considerably better shape than alliances who have fought multiple wars, and who have been on the receiving end of a good many nukes. Tactically, you've gotten what you wanted as a result; LE, OP and PS have been weakened by successive waves of attacks, while you've had the chance to accumulate a several hundred nukes and build up to a level where your top tier is fighting nations half their size. If it's truly about settling something with OP rather than a move in a flag chase, though, that doesn't make it any less gutless.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301322646' post='2679076']
I'm with you here. However, substantively fair and superficially fair are different things altogether; the sides in that one looked pretty reasonable if one looked solely at the raw NS, but any sort of closer inspection belied it...most of the other alliances involved were sub-nuclear and unconnected, and much of the firepower ended up being concentrated on LE.

Anyhoo, we're well and truly off subject. The reality is that going 30 days with your only involvement in war being a short, substantively skewed war fought against largely sub-nuclear opponents, naturally left you in considerably better shape than alliances who have fought multiple wars, and who have been on the receiving end of a good many nukes. Tactically, you've gotten what you wanted as a result; LE, OP and PS have been weakened by successive waves of attacks, while you've had the chance to accumulate a several hundred nukes and build up to a level where your top tier is fighting nations half their size. If it's truly about settling something with OP rather than a move in a flag chase, though, that doesn't make it any less gutless.
[/quote]

Lawlz. You keep trying don't you. That was the first week or some such, most alliances did not have many nukes go figure. iirc, neither did G-6. Given the reality, most nations were quite close so that having, in the beginning 700 ANS difference meant that most nations could hit our top tier. Considering that they had 70 more nations than we did, that means our top 10 could have easily been hit by 3 nations. but yes, this is off-topic.

on-topic: you continue to cry like a little girl over G-6 being in only a single war this round while PS fought 2 of which 1 you won. So umm... yeah, please stop crying. It truly is getting to be rather just pathetic considering how badass you are attempting to act. Be careful before you mascara starts running.

[paul711]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301321137' post='2679065']
Again, proof please? Yet another of the brainwashed masses claiming !@#$%^&* without a shred of actual proof. Please provide logs of Confusion ordering RE/Syn to hit anyone? [b]I have already spanked paul117 time and time again over this matter[/b]. Am I going to have to spank you as well?
[/quote]
Your arguments are circular and lack any kind of detailed inside knowledge, this is but a small portion of the proof that I have. Anyone with half a brain would know that for Opsec I cannot divulge everything for the sake of sources. You Sir, do not know what you are talking about.

I would like to add for Stevie, remember that you attacked us first and we are no longer bound by our promise to not attack you guys nor DR in the future. Despite all that you think and you can twist all the facts from the last rounds war, we never hit DR or G6 as we promised.

Also, I think someone posted something about G6 merging with TPC next round, does TPC know this?

Edited March 28, 2011 by paul711

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='paul711' timestamp='1301324450' post='2679086']
Your arguments are circular and lack any kind of detailed inside knowledge, this is but a small portion of the proof that I have. Anyone with half a brain would know that for Opsec I cannot divulge everything for the sake of sources. You Sir, do not know what you are talking about.

I would like to add for Stevie, remember that you attacked us first and we are no longer bound by our promise to not attack you guys nor DR in the future. Despite all that you think and you can twist all the facts from the last rounds war, we never hit DR or G6 as we promised.

Also, I think someone posted something about G6 merging with TPC next round, does TPC know this?
[/quote]

Circular? wtf you going on about? I asked you for proof that Confusion ordered RE/Syn to war THP/PS/OP. You have yet to give me a single shred of proof. So, I would suspect it is you who does not know what he is talking about. Anyone can use the "OOOOOOHH I HAS SOURCES111!!!!1111 I SWERZ I DUUUUUUUUU1111!!!!!!!!!!!!! BUT CUZ OPSEK I NO CAN TELLZ YUZE!!!!!11111111" !@#$%^&* line. Either back up your mouth or shut the $%&@ up. Either provide the supposed proof you have or don't make claims you can't proof. it is as simple as that.

cuz i can easily state that I have proof that it was in fact Thomas_jx that told RE/Syn to war THP/PS/OP. But i am unable to provide it due to OPSEC and thus I cannot divulge anything for the sake of sources. and before you claim otherwise, You Sir, do not know what you are talking about.

so kthxbaistfu.

[Schad]

[quote]
on-topic: you continue to cry like a little girl over G-6 being in only a single war this round while PS fought 2 of which 1 you won.
[/quote]

Heh, pretty sure that we won both of the wars we fought. Additionally, you fought for a grand total of three days three weeks ago, whereas we fought for fourteen consecutive days, and OP for a fairly similar total. If you're unable to see why that might've hindered our nation-building just a tad more than your brief down-declare, I'm at a loss.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301325122' post='2679096']
Heh, pretty sure that we won both of the wars we fought. Additionally, you fought for a grand total of three days three weeks ago, whereas we fought for fourteen consecutive days, and OP for a fairly similar total. If you're unable to see why that might've hindered our nation-building just a tad more than your brief down-declare, I'm at a loss.
[/quote]

Oh I get why, never stated otherwise. I have already stated throughout this thread that it is not the fault of G-6 that we did not war after our initial war. All potential targets were either at war or just getting out. And no one chose to hit G-6 even in a coalition. So, while i understand why you might be upset about this war, crying over the fact that G-6 only had 1 war will garner no sympathy from me whatsoever. hell, OP said that instead of hitting G-6 they waited to be hit. Sorry, with !@#$%^&* like that, i ain't gonna give you some slack when you attempt to call out G-6 for not being a war. Instead, I will call all of you out for not attempting to hit G-6 first. So yes, the fact that you continue to cry over the lack of wars by G-6, while ya'll sat back and did absolutely nothing to change that, is still crying. So please stop.

[Schad]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301326108' post='2679106']
hell, OP said that instead of hitting G-6 they waited to be hit.[/quote]

And you're aware of why that's the case, right? It's, like, a couple posts up.

[quote]
Sorry, with !@#$%^&* like that, i ain't gonna give you some slack when you attempt to call out G-6 for not being a war. Instead, I will call all of you out for not attempting to hit G-6 first.[/quote]

We basically had a couple-day window at the beginning of the round. I agree, though...it was a mistake not to roll you over immediately, a decision made in part because we were tired of the battle lines that have predominated in recent rounds, and bored of rolling whatever project Confusion had on the go.

[quote]
So yes, the fact that you continue to cry over the lack of wars by G-6, while ya'll sat back and did absolutely nothing to change that, is still crying.
[/quote]

...because we were ever-so-slightly occupied, what with fighting wars from late-February through mid-March.

[Shaazzam]

[quote name='some guy who swears alot']
on-topic: you continue to cry like a little girl over G-6 being in only a single war this round while PS fought 2 of which 1 you won. So umm... yeah, please stop crying. It truly is getting to be rather just pathetic considering how badass you are attempting to act. Be careful before you mascara starts running.
[/quote]

We're 2 for 2 this round.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99859
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99586

And here I thought Schad was the guy trying to rewrite history.

So will the third time be a charm?

Tune in to find out...

Edited March 28, 2011 by Shaazzam

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301326853' post='2679111']
And you're aware of why that's the case, right? It's, like, a couple posts up.



We basically had a couple-day window at the beginning of the round. I agree, though...it was a mistake not to roll you over immediately, a decision made in part because we were tired of the battle lines that have predominated in recent rounds, and bored of rolling whatever project Confusion had on the go.



...because we were ever-so-slightly occupied, what with fighting wars from late-February through mid-March.
[/quote]

The reason i saw was because OP was waiting to be hit. Great reason there. As for not rolling us in the beginning, truly i cry over your mistake. As for ya'll getting rolled, what exactly is your point? You could have hit G-6 the moment we emerged from our "skewed" war or hit us during it for all we cared. As for the rest, there was plenty of opportunity for G-6 to get hit by other alliances. none chose to do so. But please continue to blame G-6 for all your woes and inadequacies. Though my point still stands that ya'll be crying your wittle eyes out. Should drink some water though, don't want you to get dehydrated or anything.

@some guy who can't even spell a wannabe superhero's name correctly- Hey, i am not attempting to rewrite nothing. I was mistaken about how many wars ya'll won. Congrats on winning both. If i was attempting to rewrite history, i would have argued with Schad over how many wars PS won. Instead, i did not but i guess for those desperate to find some flaws in my argument, using my lack of posting a recognition of a mistake is the best ya'll got. Congrats mate. you still have absolutely nothing.

[Schad]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301328438' post='2679123']
The reason i saw was because OP was waiting to be hit. Great reason there. As for not rolling us in the beginning, truly i cry over your mistake. As for ya'll getting rolled, what exactly is your point? You could have hit G-6 the moment we emerged from our "skewed" war or hit us during it for all we cared. As for the rest, there was plenty of opportunity for G-6 to get hit by other alliances.[/quote]


Uh, you hit them on the same day that GR hit us. While you peaced out three days later, we remained at war for another week and a half. How the bloody hell were we supposed to hit you at that time?

[bcortell]

Doch may be my favorite poster now. He attempts a half-brained argument, and when that fails, he moves on to the next half-brained argument. He rarely has a decent amount of knowledge on the subject matter, yet argues so intently that I find it almost gallant. His use of words that get filtered out is also entertaining.

Edited March 28, 2011 by bcortell

[Thomasj_tx]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301324802' post='2679092']
I asked you for proof that Confusion [b]ordered[/b] RE/Syn to war THP/PS/OP. You have yet to give me a single shred of proof. [/quote]

Why do you keep asking for proof of something that no one has made an accusation of?

No one has claimed the Confusion [b]ORDERED[/b] RE/Sy to attack. But it is well known that he managed and organized the attacks. I think that he has even admitted that.

A straw man is well, a straw man.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1301318470' post='2679049']
I really wonder if TPC wants to be included in that seeing as how many people and AA's seem to dislike RE and G-6. I mean that in all seriousness with having people from other AA's speak for them, so to speak.
[/quote]

Don't worry, you guys are merging into us to. Evil is the new black.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301328702' post='2679124']
Uh, you hit them on the same day that GR hit us. While you peaced out three days later, we remained at war for another week and a half. How the bloody hell were we supposed to hit you at that time?
[/quote]

PS gained NS during the 10 days of that war.... in fact, it was some 43k NS overall that was gained. So you should not use the GR war as an example of being beaten down. As for the RE/Syn war, ya'll went from 196k NS to 154k NS and pre-war you had went to 237k NS. The war ended on the 14th and we did not hit ya'll for 9 days. So there was plenty of time then to hit G-6. Hell for that matter, you could have gained quite a coalition to do so.

As for us peacing out 3 days later, had G-6 gone any longer i would guarantee you would be crying over us doing that. Frankly, the fact that you are one of the first, loudest, and most prevalent criers in any G-6 threads is quite amusing.

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1301329122' post='2679130']
Doch may be my favorite poster now. He attempts a half-brained argument, and when that fails, he moves on to the next half-brained argument. He rarely has a decent amount of knowledge on the subject matter, yet argues so intently that I find it almost gallant. His use of words that get filtered out is also entertaining.
[/quote]

I am happy to entertain but no, i do not use half-brained arguments. And there is plenty of material on the boards to back up my arguments. I just tire of people crying over being hit instead of manning up and just fighting. The crying over the fact that G-6 has only fought 1 war this round can easily be countered by my claiming that plenty of opportunities were had to gather a coalition of alliances and hit G-6. There has yet to be nothing more than a half-assed argument to refute it. oh and just for you, !@#$..

[quote name='Thomasj_tx' timestamp='1301329797' post='2679133']
Why do you keep asking for proof of something that no one has made an accusation of?

No one has claimed the Confusion [b]ORDERED[/b] RE/Sy to attack. But it is well known that he managed and organized the attacks. I think that he has even admitted that.

A straw man is well, a straw man.
[/quote]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100322&view=findpost&p=2677638 This one has paulwhatever claiming that Confusion ordered GR to hit PS and some alliance to hit OP should ya'll help LE. Also states that Confusion took part in the war planning which was refuted by Syn and RE. he set up a spread sheet and nothing more.
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100322&view=findpost&p=2677889 refute post

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100322&view=findpost&p=2678496 This is the first. Sorry, i misspoke when i claimed ordered. But "actively encourage" basically could mean the same thing given ya'lls pension for tinfoil hats.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100322&view=findpost&p=2678630 Mark whatever stating flat out that Confusion [b]had[/b] other alliances hit or i.e. ordered them which i am assuming includes RE/Syn.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100322&view=findpost&p=2678702 post stating that all the proof ya'll have is Confusion giving a spreadsheet, then also claims he helped to plan the war without any proof of this.
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100322&view=findpost&p=2678738 again this allegation that Confusion planned anything is refuted

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100322&view=findpost&p=2678744 you claiming that Confusion managed the war again without any proof whatsoever. (though this post could be meant as a joke hard to tell with the smiley face, so if it was meant as a joke, i apologize now for my mistake)

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=100322&view=findpost&p=2678808 Markwhatever posting proof that Confusion only created a spreadsheet but no proof of his other claims including Confusion managing the war or his earlier claim that Confusion ordered other alliances to hit ya'll.

I can't help it that the two people i was arguing against changed their arguments from Confusion ordered/actively encourage other alliances to war ya'll, to Confusion managed/directed the war. They could not find proof for either claim and went with one that they had at least something for, that being the spreadsheet Confusion created. The fact that both attempted to take the spreadsheet and stretch that act into managing the entire war is what is ridiculous. so yes, 2 people in fact made accusations of what i am demanding proof of and both those people are in OP.