SoADarthCyfe6 Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='the wompus' timestamp='1311366189' post='2761454'] RE's upper tier [i][u]had[/u] [/i]plenty of size and plenty of nukes and it was and is still a [b]good solid updeclare[/b] when all factors are considered. [/quote] I'm sorry, in just no way of OP hitting RE in this war any sort of an up declare. Like at all. I still generally think that this is a good match up, but calling it an up declare is a major stretch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomasj_tx Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='ADude' timestamp='1311397112' post='2761895'] OP is much more active and coordinated then RE, there is almost no one that will argue with that[/quote] Thanks! We do our best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADude Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='paul711' timestamp='1311389919' post='2761757'] Funny how only the RE side is saying this. *facepalms* Only OP can declare on an AA 2.5 times its size in numbers, similar nukes, and more toatl NS and its still called a curbstomp. I suggest you guys concentrate on fighting and less on this thread. [/quote] Its only because I have pissed to many other people off in the past Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owney OSullivan Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1311389109' post='2761747'] I'll bite. It's an up declare if the defending alliance(s) have a better than even chance of winning the fight post-blitz. It's a down declare if the defending alliance(s) have little chance of winning the fight post-blitz. It's a curbstomp if the defending alliance(s) have zero chance of winning, and little chance of even fighting back. I've only seen a few up declares in TE. Most wars in TE are in the grey area between up/down declare. This one is pretty firmly in curbstomp territory. You [i]might[/i] have had a case for up declare if this war happened before IRON's attacks. But calling "kicking 'em while they're down" an up declare is so delusional it's funny. [/quote] Did a small alliance like IRON have you "down"? I thought you guys were going to give them some "assisted suicide". Perhaps they gave you way more trouble than I thought, though I shouldn't be surprised.(For several reasons, really.) Good job IRON! o7 That's honestly the last thing I expected you guys to complain about. They were 83k NS at their peak, attacking the #1 alliance in TE. Solid brass ones, if you ask me. But did IRON really STILL have you at [i]that[/i] much of a disadvantage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jraenar Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='Owney OSullivan' timestamp='1311436608' post='2762106'] Did a small alliance like IRON have you "down"? I thought you guys were going to give them some "assisted suicide". Perhaps they gave you way more trouble than I thought, though I shouldn't be surprised.(For several reasons, really.) Good job IRON! o7 That's honestly the last thing I expected you guys to complain about. They were 83k NS at their peak, attacking the #1 alliance in TE. Solid brass ones, if you ask me. But did IRON really STILL have you at [i]that[/i] much of a disadvantage? [/quote] IRON did not have us at a disadvantage. If they had bothered with an actual declaration, rather than just attacking, I would call it a clear up declare. Lacking the "declare" part, "suicide" fits. Their goal was never winning though. The strategy consisted only of sledding through most of the round, buying an MP, then launching as many nukes as they could while their nations burned. I don't care who a war is against, it still slows down growth and costs money to replenish military. If you check out the history graph for RE, you can see the trend line leveling off during the fight with IRON. Then you see an uptick as cadet nations joined the AA and the upper tier began to rebuild (you realize that half of RE's upper tier was not even one day out of nuke effects?). Then you see the curbstomp. So like I said: if OP had attacked around when IRON attacked, it would have been a decent fight. Attacking a weakened opponent makes it not a fight at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantanX Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 RE is toasted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADude Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='Owney OSullivan' timestamp='1311436608' post='2762106'] Did a small alliance like IRON have you "down"? I thought you guys were going to give them some "assisted suicide". Perhaps they gave you way more trouble than I thought, though I shouldn't be surprised.(For several reasons, really.) Good job IRON! o7 That's honestly the last thing I expected you guys to complain about. They were 83k NS at their peak, attacking the #1 alliance in TE. Solid brass ones, if you ask me. But did IRON really STILL have you at [i]that[/i] much of a disadvantage? [/quote] Really? I never said anything about IRON putting RE at a disadvantage, what they did took balls of course and no one is debating that. As you know fighting a war requires a lot of cash no matter who you fight, when IRON attacked they hit (and we hit them with) our middle to lower tier, those nations still had to burn cash even for IRON also the fact that a few (like myself) were nuked several times and just coming out of the effects when OP declared. its pretty simple stuff to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADude Posted July 23, 2011 Report Share Posted July 23, 2011 [quote name='gantanX' timestamp='1311447225' post='2762201'] RE is toasted [/quote] Cumi I see that you have recovered decently from earlier in the round Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeros Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 Not to be sour grapes or anything, but one of my opponents had 20 Nukes going into this conflict. I think that say's everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owney OSullivan Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 [quote name='ADude' timestamp='1311457336' post='2762291'] Really? I never said anything about IRON putting RE at a disadvantage, what they did took balls of course and no one is debating that. As you know fighting a war requires a lot of cash no matter who you fight, when IRON attacked they hit (and we hit them with) our middle to lower tier, those nations still had to burn cash even for IRON also the fact that a few (like myself) were nuked several times and just coming out of the effects when OP declared. its pretty simple stuff to understand. [/quote] Umm, I never said YOU said anything about RE being at a disadvantage due to IRON. If you look at my post, I was quoting jraenar, bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jraenar Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 [quote name='Owney OSullivan' timestamp='1311487891' post='2762603'] Umm, I never said YOU said anything about RE being at a disadvantage due to IRON. If you look at my post, I was quoting jraenar, bud. [/quote] No, you said: [quote name='Owney OSullivan' timestamp='1311436608' post='2762106'] Did a small alliance like IRON have you "down"? I thought you guys were going to give them some "assisted suicide". Perhaps they gave you way more trouble than I thought, though I shouldn't be surprised.(For several reasons, really.) Good job IRON! o7 That's honestly the last thing I expected you guys to complain about. They were 83k NS at their peak, attacking the #1 alliance in TE. Solid brass ones, if you ask me. But did IRON really STILL have you at [i]that[/i] much of a disadvantage? [/quote] Which I never said IRON had us at a disadvantage, either. I *did* say that attacking RE just as we were coming out of war put us at a disadvantage, and that would have been true no matter who we were warring with. But, I guess OP just was looking to find any war to win. Which is why all of you waited 30 days and picked a weakened target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owney OSullivan Posted July 24, 2011 Report Share Posted July 24, 2011 ^^So, because you were just in a small war, it had you at a disadvantage. So following your logic, the war with IRON had you at a disadvantage when we attacked. (Which is exactly what I said so I have no idea what you're trying to argue here?) And yeah, OP doesn't look for wars they can easily win. Or we wouldn't have attacked the #1 alliance in the game with more than twice our member count, way more NS, and I believe more nukes. They only advantage we really had stat-wise was ANS. Also, I remember a certain war when RE/Syn did a HUGE down-declare on OP, and we still whooped on you guys. (Yeah, we don't forgive/forget) As a matter of fact, I remember a lot of RE down-declares, so even if your point was valid, you would have no room to complain. Oh and btw we didn't wait til day 30 to war, we hit FARK for their down-declare on TFK. Do you think we didn't lose any infra or spend any money in that conflict? Do you think it didn't stop/slow our growth at all? It was a war, there was a DoW and our nations hit FARK. So I don't know why you keep repeating the same "OP waited 30 days to war" nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeyrox Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 [quote name='Owney OSullivan' timestamp='1311529504' post='2762819'] And yeah, OP doesn't look for wars they can easily win. Or we wouldn't have attacked the #1 alliance in the game [/quote] You are trying to say that you attacked us for a challange? What spin! What hype! What lies! As I told Paul on IRC, I see through your clever machinations - this war was declared on because I am simply too sexy for my pixles. Nothing more, nothing less. Well congratulations, I no longer have any pixels to be too sexy for! The world can breathe easier Really though, peace has arrived, its time we all stop bickering If you take the internets seriously, well, it will destroy you - they say mean things on here o/ OP o/ RE o/ RE-building and RE-rolling (see what I did! aren't I so clever ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owney OSullivan Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 You're taking my post out of context and putting words in my mouth, and accusing me of spinning things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swatch0 Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 Why argue over a simple game that resets now and then. War in TE needs no reason. It's just for fun. Build a bridge and get over it both of you. Their is always another chance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt01867 Posted July 25, 2011 Report Share Posted July 25, 2011 [quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1311472373' post='2762474'] Not to be sour grapes or anything, but one of my opponents had 20 Nukes going into this conflict. I think that say's everything. [/quote] So... i know how to build my nation. Maybe you should coordinate with your partner and alliance to spy them away(no spy attacks on me) . OP does that. And at least i peaced but you are now attacking me on the 25th when peace was declared between alliances?!?!?! Now i can take more tech! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts