Rush Sykes Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325215953' post='2888943'] The thing with that is, Fark is usually really ornery about CBs. They'll complain about virtually any war, hence my frustration with their lack of support for iFOK or hell pretty much everyone in the Pandoran War. [/quote] Editing out alot of supposition by me: I was invited, some time back to a back IRC channel. I certainly felt, from my time in the channel, that I was being sold a war against NOR. It is my personal belief that the actual intent of Fark-SF towards NoR , is probably somewhere in the middle of a path to war and war is imminent. It was certainly, IMO, not an over-hyped over-reaction from people outside the situation. Probably not as bad as the worst opinions make it out to be, but certainly not as innocent as the most favorable ones make it out to be. I felt like I was tried to be sold a potential war on them. Just my $.02. Edited December 30, 2011 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1325266392' post='2889186'] I was told it would be a PB-DH-C&G-SF-XX communication channel. [/quote] I'm sure PF's invitation from Xipho was somehow lost in the mail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325232461' post='2889090'] Actually, it's more because I don't like the idea of it being an MK client state and don't want to put up with their crap. [/quote] Can you be more specific? Always wondered why you left Umbrella. Was a shock to me. In regards to OP's terms. No reps. Beating them up to your satisfaction should be reward enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoctor Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1324769063' post='2885865'] Believe what you want about Xiphosis and how much of SF's fall from grace is his fault, but this is pure nonsense. There was never a 'hegemony' until after GW3 (the term was actually coined much later, as part of Karma), and the Initiative and Continuum would both have crushed SF without batting an eyelid. That's presumably something that SF knew and which had a strong influence on their decision to bind themselves tightly to the hegemony (pretty much every alliance had an NPO treaty). During the Continuum era, SF held quite a bit of influence as a secondary 'swing state' (a bit like Citadel), but never had anywhere near the power of Continuum. OP have shown enough that GOD should take the opportunity of coalition peace talks to get some reasonable terms from them. I doubt OP would demand much, merely making GOD surrender to them would be a PR victory great enough to satisfy most purposes, and there's still a lot of scope for material damage (not to mention the humiliation of having your leader ZI and in bill-lock from a group of 'rogues'). [/quote] Military power and political power are not the same thing. While SF could have been crushed by Q in a straight out bloc war SF managed to position themselves in a place on the web where they became an essential piece to victory for what everyone knew was an impending world war (much like Citadel at the time). So he overstated maybe but it is not at all complete nonsense. Also, hi Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 Hi Srqt, nice to see you actively participating again. What he said was that SF could 'stop the hegemony' and 'without CG' (by which I assume he means C&G) to boot. That's a wholly different thing from saying they were in a position not to be rolled, which indeed they did by political manoeuvring (and by tying themselves to the hegemony). It took an awful lot more than SF to stop the hegemony (in fact it took the hegemony falling apart before it was even possible, and even after that they needed support from Citadel and C&G to make it an even fight). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 [quote name='President S O' timestamp='1325251112' post='2889136'] I've got nothing of substance to add other than, obligatory: all ranges should be nuclear. [/quote] I'm working quite hard to be our low-nuclear range, at least for the next couple weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regent of Omerta Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 No terms until they all come out to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDoctor Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1325276732' post='2889252'] Hi Srqt, nice to see you actively participating again. What he said was that SF could 'stop the hegemony' and 'without CG' (by which I assume he means C&G) to boot. That's a wholly different thing from saying they were in a position not to be rolled, which indeed they did by political manoeuvring (and by tying themselves to the hegemony). It took an awful lot more than SF to stop the hegemony (in fact it took the hegemony falling apart before it was even possible, and even after that they needed support from Citadel and C&G to make it an even fight). [/quote] I missed the without C&G part. Yeah that wasn't happening. We needed everyone to take them down in fact I remember thinking we were going to lose while arguing with Chill in the Karma gov channels the night the war started. Good times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted December 30, 2011 Report Share Posted December 30, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Krack' timestamp='1325244119' post='2889124'] You must believe this all just happened ten minutes ago. The current state of affairs started, in part, years ago* and was very much "arranged" by Roquentin as much as anybody. He's just mad now because he figured out he was only running things as long as he was doing what Ardus wanted. [/quote] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=97396&view=findpost&p=2586833 I'm not really assenting to this, but let's look at this doozy of a thread which sent people into a defensive posture about an "MK preempt", in which I was lampooned, despite no preempt being established until the day of , just so tamerlane could tell people like NpO that it was my idea(which I was never secretive about) and they just "went along with it." Pretty much everyone just wanted to believe I was an MK puppet instead. Why did Archon post? Well, mpol said FAN wasn't going to post a DoW and if I had known Archon would disappear afterwards, I'd have posted it. There'd have been no NPO preempt without FAN and all my discussions with them were premised on NPO joining in through other alliances, with offensive action as a last resort. edit: by last resort, I mean, I had given them enough time to get their stuff together. [quote name='Regent of Omerta' timestamp='1325278007' post='2889262'] No terms until they all come out to play. [/quote] Ah, I see you've taken a lesson from Doomhouse. Also, pretty much GOD dug its own grave by refusing to enter on the NPO front and gave MK ammo to go after with them with by taking the fall for CSN. Also, instructing someone to go to VE or MK when they'd have been harmless in terms of being one of the dozens of leakers at MHA is a CB. Deal with it. Edited December 31, 2011 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President S O Posted January 1, 2012 Report Share Posted January 1, 2012 [quote name='Schad' timestamp='1325277543' post='2889257'] I'm working quite hard to be our low-nuclear range, at least for the next couple weeks. [/quote] That's a start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1325250201' post='2889134'] The next 2 wars are already in the pocket for NG. Just saying. Sorry GPA and Polar. [/quote] Am I the only one in this world that likes seeing GPA as the #1 alliance? And you can't really roll Polar. They are [url="http://www.cybernations.net/allNations_display_alliances.asp?Alliance=New%20Polar%20Order"]basically impervious to attack[/url]. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 No, I love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhysicsJunky Posted January 2, 2012 Report Share Posted January 2, 2012 [quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1325493716' post='2890603']Am I the only one in this world that likes seeing GPA as the #1 alliance?[/quote] I think most of us enjoy it, but we're closely related to the dirty hippies and the opinions of neutrals inherently don't make much of an impact. As a somebody who's been around long enough it is comforting nostalgia regardless of politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 [quote name='Sniper Joe' timestamp='1323553767' post='2872871'] This is what you actually believe. OOC: To answer your question, Xiph should have to play a full game of EU3 (1399-end) as the Byzantine Empire or some one province minor all the way through on the highest difficulty without cheats and without getting destroyed. If he fails, he can try again. [/quote] I think Hawaii is fairly safe 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.