war is afoot

[Schad]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1301280971' post='2678730']
To be fair, you'd call us out for everything. If we decom'd all our nukes you would still complain.So at that. I propose a marriage. You become my wife and PS and G-6 merge under G-6's name.
[/quote]

Thus begins the self-martyring. On this, you're entirely wrong: we could not give less of a $%&@ about your conduct when you aren't going out of your way to behave in a pathetic manner. If G-6 operated in the manner of most TE alliances -- fighting against like-sized opponents, avoiding attacks on those who'd just gotten out of wars -- we wouldn't say word one. That's the case with the majority of other alliances in TE; we've run across most, and most of those we've come away liking. However, you've (by which I mean G-6 and its many Confusion-led predecessors) made a habit of some of the most embarrassingly opportunistic moves we're ever likely to see; I can't think of a single time where you've shown the gumption to go after someone who was in a position to mount an adequate response.

And I'm sure I'll now be privy to an excellent spiel about tactics...but the reality is that anyone can put together a curbstomp. Most don't. That G-6 et al continually do betrays a sad reality...your only hope of success has tended to rest with overwhelming odds. Typically in the past, you've still found a way to fail. And while that 300 nuke advantage means that you'll probably win this battle, it's my sincere hope that we do enough damage that someone later in the round will pick up the pieces and win the war.

[Thomasj_tx]

So you are not denying that Confusion managed the war.


Good to hear!

[sarasate]

um, what's wrong if Confusion had actually managed the war (not that I know anything, I'm basically new to this topic)? The more I hear about it, seems more like he's doing an awesome job masterminding a game...

[Confusion]

I'd like to add something,


SDI's have freakin worked for the first time in history!



Thank you, and that's all.




Confusion.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301281569' post='2678743']
Thus begins the self-martyring. On this, you're entirely wrong: we could not give less of a $%&@ about your conduct when you aren't going out of your way to behave in a pathetic manner. If G-6 operated in the manner of most TE alliances -- fighting against like-sized opponents, avoiding attacks on those who'd just gotten out of wars -- we wouldn't say word one. That's the case with the majority of other alliances in TE; we've run across most, and most of those we've come away liking. However, you've (by which I mean G-6 and its many Confusion-led predecessors) made a habit of some of the most embarrassingly opportunistic moves we're ever likely to see; I can't think of a single time where you've shown the gumption to go after someone who was in a position to mount an adequate response.

And I'm sure I'll now be privy to an excellent spiel about tactics...but the reality is that anyone can put together a curbstomp. Most don't. That G-6 et al continually do betrays a sad reality...your only hope of success has tended to rest with overwhelming odds. Typically in the past, you've still found a way to fail. And while that 300 nuke advantage means that you'll probably win this battle, it's my sincere hope that we do enough damage that someone later in the round will pick up the pieces and win the war.
[/quote]

Is that a yes? or a no?

[dogbite]

You crazy kids. You should be more like LE and enjoy the fact you got a real war on your hands. Your in a war game and you got war. Be happy and know your not dead yet.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301280730' post='2678726']
...and then after looking at the stats, KOwens agreed that the situation favoured them, and then both tW and Zippy stated that peace was on the table whenever their opponents desired it. Failing to see that the war against LE was hardly an even-odds affair requires considerable contortion and willful ignorance, but I suppose that's par for the course.
[/quote]

So again you are attempting to rewrite history. Congratulations.

"After looking at the stats I agree with you somewhat. But you have to take in account we blitzed their top nations so that would happen. ANS is also most important but were also hoping the 70 nations disadvantage can be used against us. Like I said this is not a war to crush anyone. We, the Warriors, will be willing to peace out whenever our enemies are ready. I am not into the grudge game just to fight."

That is KOwens post. 1) noticed how he said that after looking at the stats, he only agrees with you [b]somewhat[/b]. He then goes on to explain his reasoning behind that. So, he does not see that the war against LE/et al was unfair regardless of your reasoning since total nations and total NS was against G-6/tW.

memoryproblems also posted much the same with this:

"Well, what were you expecting? Clash has moved on and is no longer directly involved in the operations of the Warriors. Things change, such is nature.

But in a Clash-esque fashion, I've compiled some stats.

G-6/tW: 116 members, 478,790 NS, 33 nukes, 4127 ANS.

LE, BFF, LEFT, CMEA, Snowflake, Hollywood, MI6: 187 members, 537,013 NS, 34 nukes, 2871 ANS

So while we have an advantage in ANS, we obviously don't have one in members or total NS. I wouldn't say that its an unfair fight."

Read the last sentence, it is an important one.

KOwens also posted:

Haha we never hit above our ANS, even with Clash. We hit more numbers. Thats where we fought. We have never had a great ANS. Thats not us. We wanted new wars, fighting Confusion for 4 rounds gets annoying. We still have respect for LE, we don't war to crush people, we war people to have fun.

And when I ran stats earlier today we had a 70 nation disadvantage and 80k NS disadvantage. Avg NS was something like 3.7k to 3k.

But again we are always criticized for any war we enter on so"


Going through the entire thread once again shows that you are revising history since those 3 posts above show that tW never thought the war was unfair. Peace was offered as usual. Though I have a feeling if peace was not offered, then we would have seen you and others post how evil G-6/tW was for withholding peace. Ya'll just love to whine about everything though, so I am getting used to hearing your crying in every G-6 DoW.

But please, try and continue to revise history on something around a month old, in a thread everyone can read and see how you are attempting to revise history.

[Schad]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301282800' post='2678766']
So again you are attempting to rewrite history. Congratulations.

"After looking at the stats I agree with you somewhat. But you have to take in account we blitzed their top nations so that would happen. ANS is also most important but were also hoping the 70 nations disadvantage can be used against us. Like I said this is not a war to crush anyone. We, the Warriors, will be willing to peace out whenever our enemies are ready. I am not into the grudge game just to fight."

That is KOwens post. 1) noticed how he said that after looking at the stats, he only agrees with you [b]somewhat[/b]. He then goes on to explain his reasoning behind that. So, he does not see that the war against LE/et al was unfair regardless of your reasoning since total nations and total NS was against G-6/tW.

memoryproblems also posted much the same with this:

"Well, what were you expecting? Clash has moved on and is no longer directly involved in the operations of the Warriors. Things change, such is nature.

But in a Clash-esque fashion, I've compiled some stats.

G-6/tW: 116 members, 478,790 NS, 33 nukes, 4127 ANS.

LE, BFF, LEFT, CMEA, Snowflake, Hollywood, MI6: 187 members, 537,013 NS, 34 nukes, 2871 ANS

So while we have an advantage in ANS, we obviously don't have one in members or total NS. I wouldn't say that its an unfair fight."

Read the last sentence, it is an important one.

KOwens also posted:

Haha we never hit above our ANS, even with Clash. We hit more numbers. Thats where we fought. We have never had a great ANS. Thats not us. We wanted new wars, fighting Confusion for 4 rounds gets annoying. We still have respect for LE, we don't war to crush people, we war people to have fun.

And when I ran stats earlier today we had a 70 nation disadvantage and 80k NS disadvantage. Avg NS was something like 3.7k to 3k.

But again we are always criticized for any war we enter on so"


Going through the entire thread once again shows that you are revising history since those 3 posts above show that tW never thought the war was unfair. Peace was offered as usual. Though I have a feeling if peace was not offered, then we would have seen you and others post how evil G-6/tW was for withholding peace. Ya'll just love to whine about everything though, so I am getting used to hearing your crying in every G-6 DoW.

But please, try and continue to revise history on something around a month old, in a thread everyone can read and see how you are attempting to revise history.
[/quote]

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.

[dogbite]

[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]
It was one sided after the blitz. Thats why we made with the peace early. Even in this war we are not looking to end the round for anyone but i fear your not going to take peace.

[Schad]

[quote name='dogbite' timestamp='1301284087' post='2678786']
It was one sided after the blitz. Thats why we made with the peace early. Even in this war we are not looking to end the round for anyone but i fear your not going to take peace.
[/quote]

Indeed; it was rather skewed before the blitz, and it was wholly one-sided thereafter.

As for peace, given Zippy's statements about exacting revenge against OP for offenses unknown, is it really a surprise that we wouldn't exactly consent to a hit-and-run attack? The nuke disparity ensures that we can't win the war, but we'll make as much of a mess of your mid/lower tiers as we can, and with good fortune the top tier will end up getting dragged down as the end of round shenanigans heat up.

[dogbite]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1301284757' post='2678793']
Indeed; it was rather skewed before the blitz, and it was wholly one-sided thereafter.

As for peace, given Zippy's statements about exacting revenge against OP for offenses unknown, is it really a surprise that we wouldn't exactly consent to a hit-and-run attack? The nuke disparity ensures that we can't win the war, but we'll make as much of a mess of your mid/lower tiers as we can, and with good fortune the top tier will end up getting dragged down as the end of round shenanigans heat up.
[/quote]
Good luck to you then.

[Mark8240]

[quote name='SoADarthCyfe6' timestamp='1301281370' post='2678738']
Really? Just really? This needs to stop because it's becoming highly annoying now.



Just stop, please.
[/quote]
[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301280177' post='2678724']
You mean the only proof you have is Confusion putting nation links in a spreadsheet. That is all you got. Seriously? So like I said, shut the $%&@ up since it is obvious you have no proof but your own bias. Thanks for finally admitting it.
[/quote]

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.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Mark8240

[paul711]

[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]
OUCH that has to sting just a little.

[dogbite]

I have saved aa,s by doing that in TPF-te but in the end i got stabed in the back.

[Wabooz]

[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's nothing. Move on, shut up and fight.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' timestamp='1301280971' post='2678730']
To be fair, you'd call us out for everything. If we decom'd all our nukes you would still complain.
[/quote]

Try it.

[White Chocolate]

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

In retrospect, perhaps should have just said "fine, see you on the battlefield." Ended up that way anyway.

That's what I'll suggest for the future in any dealings where Confusion threatens war. There is actually no real threat if he's going to declare war a couple weeks later anyway.

Confusion, you totally lost your bargaining chip.

Edited March 28, 2011 by White Chocolate

[Axolotlia]

[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]

1st, id like some context please, as anyone can take quotes...

2nd why does it matter?

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1301288421' post='2678853']
Try it.
[/quote]

I enjoy launching them at your nations though

[paul711]

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1301289881' post='2678873']
1st, id like some context please, as anyone can take quotes...

2nd why does it matter?
[/quote]
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.

[Cellardoor]

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1301289881' post='2678873']
1st, id like some context please, as anyone can take quotes...

2nd why does it matter?
[/quote]

I'm not certain what context those could possibly be taken in to not prove the point. And it doesn't matter. Most of us know what Confusion is about. His being underhanded is the third of life's certainties...perhaps above taxes.

Anyways...everyone knows our feelings on this, so I don't really feel like beating a dead horse when everyone already knows what part of the horse we're dealing with, so on to a compliment:

Emperor Badger has been terrific so far both in his skill and banter. Kudos to you sir!

[Axolotlia]

[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]

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?

[Cellardoor]

[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]

You attack us, you die or we die. I'm not really certain what part of that is bullying. PS doesn't really deviate from that. Hell I think it's in our charter. It's not like we at PS haven't known this has been coming since the first of the three alliances ranked in the top 3 at the time declared on us. At least we got a week to build up some at least.

[Axolotlia]

[quote name='Cellardoor' timestamp='1301290786' post='2678890']
You attack us, you die or we die. I'm not really certain what part of that is bullying. PS doesn't really deviate from that. Hell I think it's in our charter. It's not like we at PS haven't known this has been coming since the first of the three alliances ranked in the top 3 at the time declared on us. At least we got a week to build up some at least.
[/quote]

That sounds like a personal problem.

[Cellardoor]

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1301290928' post='2678892']
That sounds like a personal problem.
[/quote]

I don't view it as a problem. No one in PS does. If they did there's plenty of alliances to chose from. We've been in this situation before going back to the last time Confusion sent this many alliances our way. And even further, going back to when Thaisport was chasing them Guerrilla style back in the early rounds (before my time). My only point was that I don't see how you can construe us making our attackers pay as bullying. It's not like you don't know what you're walking into when you attack us. Unless Confusion somehow kept that a secret despite our history, wiki page, and GR's fate.