Jump to content

Who would win? 2.0


Zoomzoomzoom

  

311 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1309397658' post='2744556']
At this point, you are literally making things up lol. Let's think about this logically: why would a "pre-empt" consist of [i]3 destroy nuke spy ops?[/i] Are you really saying Sparta is [i]that bad[/i]? And what is this "collecting warchest info" nonsense? Again, completely making it up. Trust me, I would love nothing more than to claim we were going to declare on Sparta...but it just never was going to happen.

You keep logs of everything, so please, go ahead and post the entire logs of that discussion. I think that would just clear this all right up :smug: .

Edit: or ask anyone else in that channel for the log dump. Surely one of them keeps logs.
[/quote]
1. We ordered spy ops, and then literally right as the order went out, it was recalled via our gov skype call due to exodus telling us you weren't hitting us after all. If you expected an entire blitz in a span of 30 seconds from spy order given to order canceled, well, I'd like to see NSO do it.

2. Exodus gov told me you were collecting our warchest info from them. Are you calling them liars?

3. I'm not on the same computer anymore, so no comp = no logs. Maybe someone else has them.

Edited by Hyperion321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1309398517' post='2744565']
1. We ordered spy ops, and then literally right as the order went out, it was recalled via our gov skype call. If you expected an entire blitz in a span of 30 seconds from spy order given to order canceled, well, I'd like to see NSO do it.

2. Exodus gov told me you were collecting our warchest info from them. Are you calling them liars?

3. I'm not on the same computer anymore, so no comp = no logs. Maybe someone else has them.
[/quote]
I'll ask around for the logs. As for the Exodus gov claims, who said it? And even if true, just collecting warchest info doesn't mean we were going to declare war on you- maybe we just wanted to laugh at how sad they were :awesome:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1309398598' post='2744568']
I'll ask around for the logs. As for the Exodus gov claims, who said it? And even if true, just collecting warchest info doesn't mean we were going to declare war on you- maybe we just wanted to laugh at how sad they were :awesome:
[/quote]
- A friend said it. I'm not outing him here.

- You asked for our WC info. If it were for military purposes, sure I can see that move under coalition warfare, but if you were just spying for the sake of spying, well, quite frankly you're lucky you were already getting turned into a crater by the time we peaced with AZTEC.

Not spying on sanctioned, well connected alliances is CN 101. Considering your history, I'm shocked you haven't learned that.

edit: Thrawn's right. If you want to continue this elsewhere, I'm game. Haven't had me an NSO argument in way too long.

Edited by Hyperion321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1309399243' post='2744578']
- A friend said it. I'm not outing him here.

- You asked for our WC info. If it were for military purposes, sure I can see that move under coalition warfare, but if you were just spying for the sake of spying, well, quite frankly you're lucky you were already getting turned into a crater by the time we peaced with AZTEC.

Not spying on sanctioned, well connected alliances is CN 101. Considering your history, I'm shocked you haven't learned that.

edit: Thrawn's right. If you want to continue this elsewhere, I'm game. Haven't had me an NSO argument in way too long.
[/quote]
I'll be the bigger man and let you have the last word ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1309382454' post='2744389']
No, it really hasn't. For the most part it's been a reasonable and civilized discussion about the outcome of a war that seems both a possibility and a interest, given the animosity between the two sides. But you go ahead and continue to make that hypothesis [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/happy.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Interestingly enough, SF/MJ have been the civil ones so far. I'm also not sure why we keep getting mini-debates on outside treaties in here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1309396396' post='2744542']
Uhh, no lol. You posted a poll on your forums asking if Sparta should declare on NSO, [/quote]

Hyp did not do that. I did. And I was not gov at that time. The reason that I did was simple. If we have to go to war I prefer to go to someone that I dont like. However, you were really not significant and it would have been a distraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mixoux' timestamp='1309400690' post='2744609']
Interestingly enough, SF/MJ have been the civil ones so far. I'm also not sure why we keep getting mini-debates on outside treaties in here.
[/quote]
roll sf

am i doin it rite :P

Edited by Penlugue Solaris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not much of a hypothetical, both blocs have dedicated allies outside of their blocs which would help despite the odds.

But, if I played ball, I'd say both blocs would win in the end, just as I said in the previous thread.

Edited by lonewolfe2015
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Login: ***********

HELLO REICHMARSCHALL THOR!

>Hello Joshua

HOW ARE YOU TODAY REICHMARSCHALL?

>Doing fine.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME?

>Love too. How about GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR?

HOW A NICE GAME OF CHESS?

>Not today. I would like to play GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR.

FINE.

******ROUTINE RUNNING******

Edited by SF Austin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1309407998' post='2744786']
I like this, through all of the passive aggression of the past 3 or 4 threads concering Mj I think we have gotten a(reasonably) amicable repoire going between SF and MJ. Thanks everyone! Back to roll Legion and NPO I think.
[/quote]

inb4 NoR-GOD MDoAP [img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif[/img]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1309398517' post='2744565']
1. We ordered spy ops, and then literally right as the order went out, it was recalled via our gov skype call due to exodus telling us you weren't hitting us after all. If you expected an entire blitz in a span of 30 seconds from spy order given to order canceled, well, I'd like to see NSO do it.

2. Exodus gov told me you were collecting our warchest info from them. Are you calling them liars?

3. I'm not on the same computer anymore, so no comp = no logs. Maybe someone else has them.
[/quote]


[quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1309398598' post='2744568']
I'll ask around for the logs. As for the Exodus gov claims, who said it? And even if true, just collecting warchest info doesn't mean we were going to declare war on you- maybe we just wanted to laugh at how sad they were :awesome:
[/quote]

I feel the need to contest this. I recall Exodus wasn't even allied to NSO at the time. To have them come in for us instead of their own allies (who were bound to enter or get hit) would just be silly. On top of this comes the fact that telling you, our adversary at the time that they were coming in wouldn't have been a good strategic decision :P

I was a triumvir at the time and I never heard anything official about NSO entering for us. Neither has there been anything official in our gov. forums in which it was discussed. Whoever told you they would enter was talking out of his ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Centurius' timestamp='1309351260' post='2744144']
Listen to this guy, it'll save the world a lot of fights.
[/quote]

Isn't that a reason to [i]not[/i] listen to him? :awesome:


You know I'm seeing these threads becoming CN's version of The Deadliest Warrior. Maybe we could try pitting past blocs/coalitions against other past blocs/coalitions that they never actually faced, or even against modern blocs.


Also, I voted MJ.

Edited by LegendoftheSkies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mixoux' timestamp='1309400690' post='2744609']
Interestingly enough, SF/MJ have been the civil ones so far. I'm also not sure why we keep getting mini-debates on outside treaties in here.
[/quote]
Probably because the poll is irrelevant. People would rather discuss what would happen(how outside treaties fall) rather then this scenerio which wont ever take place.

It's also possible that sf and their allies(if they are the ones bringing up outside treaties...not gonnna look :P ) feel that this poll leans to Mj because it is strictly military and doesnt involve the political side of things, which SF probably thinks favors them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mixoux' timestamp='1309400690' post='2744609']
Interestingly enough, SF/MJ have been the civil ones so far. I'm also not sure why we keep getting mini-debates on outside treaties in here.
[/quote]


[quote name='Aurion' timestamp='1309405311' post='2744751']
Need more caps, Bob.
[/quote]
ROOOLLLLLLLLL SF

AM I DOIN IT RIGHT :P

[quote name='SF Austin' timestamp='1309407739' post='2744784']
Login: ***********

HELLO REICHMARSCHALL THOR!

>Hello Joshua

HOW ARE YOU TODAY REICHMARSCHALL?

>Doing fine.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME?

>Love too. How about GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR?

HOW A NICE GAME OF CHESS?

>Not today. I would like to play GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR.

FINE.

******ROUTINE RUNNING******
[/quote]
How about a game of Tic Tac Toe Thor :lol1:

Delta is probably closest to being on the money. If this war were to take place it would come down to resolve period. As I am a member of Val of course i believe our resolve to be greater than most and I believe my allies in MJ share that, otherwise what would be the point of the bloc. If a 1v1 were to happen both blocs would become militarily insignificant untill they could be rebuilt and now it comes down to WC. Politically SF has more ties politically atm so maybe the loose militarily but win politically or vice versa. The real winners of such a 1v1 scenerio would be those who wished to see both blocs taken out of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...