Perceus Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Watson895' timestamp='1325697253' post='2892377'] Who said anything about dying? We have a hundred nations under 10k NS able still clearing huge piles of money due to the wonders. We are never going to run out of money, so therefore... never "die". Ever try fighting three nations with no military wonders while you have the whole lot? Let me tell you, it's enjoyable. [/quote] yup, "hundreds of nations under 10k, plus you know, the half a dozen that have been ZI'ed within the past two rounds of the war by NATO, and oh yeah, lets not forget that those "hundreds of nations under 10k" make up about...800k NS...oh wait, thats the nations you have out of peace mode, the rest are hiding away right? and you're right! it is quite fun to fight all those former 90k+ nations that are now under 30k and still manage to give them a beating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325726663' post='2892869']I don't really think the two alliances on FAN were needed, so I don't know why there was a necessity for NoR to hit Fark outside of the Croc issue. [/quote] The only problem with that is that of FAN's expectations. FAN appears to have expected that because it was not countered last war, NPO would not counter it this war. The difference is that NPO had allies to call on in this war. Why should NPO hold back from calling those in against a purely aggressive attack on FAN's part, and the second such attack in as many years? I haven't done the math, but I don't think the odds are any worse than faced by Fark, where more alliances were called in to assist with the lower tier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1325728668' post='2892897'] The only problem with that is that of FAN's expectations. FAN appears to have expected that because it was not countered last war, NPO would not counter it this war. The difference is that NPO had allies to call on in this war. Why should NPO hold back from calling those in against a purely aggressive attack on FAN's part, and the second such attack in as many years? I haven't done the math, but I don't think the odds are any worse than faced by Fark, where more alliances were called in to assist with the lower tier. [/quote] I can understand countering FAN, but given the limitations of FAN's offensive capacity being known, I think there could have been less of a deployment on them, while achieving similar results. TPF has numerous peripheral alliances that are willing to jump in on their say-so, so that's how I would have handled it. It seems a bit like inefficient allocation of resources. NATO could have gone with TFD on MHA or something. Edited January 5, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1325695029' post='2892345'] Except they left DT and NV still in war getting pummeled. FAN believes they done it to them now too. Also, they now seem to be doing the same thing with ASG and LoSS, out of fear of FOK. I don't personally know anyone in NoR, but I have a negative opinion of their alliance. [/quote] So you're saying FAN's pissed at the actions they supported last time around? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perceus Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325728937' post='2892900'] I can understand countering FAN, but given the limitations of FAN's offensive capacity being known, I think there could have been less of a deployment on them, while achieving similar results. TPF has numerous peripheral alliances that are willing to jump in on their say-so, so that's how I would have handled it. It seems a bit like inefficient allocation of resources. NATO could have gone with TFD on MHA or something. [/quote] while that is true, I think we both also agree that MHA had enough alliances jumping on them as well. Having said that, at the time NATO came in for NPO, TFD had no idea whether it would enter and if so through which side. And we entered with TFD last war while we were forced to stay on the sidelines and watch our close allies in NPO take a beating, we could not allow for the same to happen again. And considering FAN does not make its treaties public (as many are now finding out the relationship with NoR, or former relationship), we were being cautious, knowing there was the potential of NATO being countered, at which point, should the need arise, we could have had help or could have handled it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) [quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1325729305' post='2892905'] So you're saying FAN's pissed at the actions they supported last time around? [/quote] The issue with Omni's statement is that it's completely BS. They didn't leave NV out to dry or anything. They supported NV who got taken advantage of. They skewered wF and the end result was a deescalation agreement between NV and wF. The AZTEC front closed. The DT issue was a tricky thing since they couldn't just hit CSN and DT probably didn't ask them for help. I think it was kind of shortsighted for DT to jump in if TIO-LoSS weren't planning to stay in for the entirety of the war, but reps for an ODP were stupid. [quote name='Perceus' timestamp='1325729439' post='2892907'] while that is true, I think we both also agree that MHA had enough alliances jumping on them as well. Having said that, at the time NATO came in for NPO, TFD had no idea whether it would enter and if so through which side. And we entered with TFD last war while we were forced to stay on the sidelines and watch our close allies in NPO take a beating, we could not allow for the same to happen again. And considering FAN does not make its treaties public (as many are now finding out the relationship with NoR, or former relationship), we were being cautious, knowing there was the potential of NATO being countered, at which point, should the need arise, we could have had help or could have handled it. [/quote] Ah, you believed there was a potential of NATO getting countered? Understandable then. Though, it's not really hard to find out who FAN is allied to. Edited January 5, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 How was NV taken advantage of? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325729665' post='2892908'] The DT issue was a tricky thing since they couldn't just hit CSN and DT probably didn't ask them for help. I think it was kind of shortsighted for DT to jump in if TIO-LoSS weren't planning to stay in for the entirety of the war, but reps for an ODP were stupid. [/quote] Correct on the fact that DT didn't ask for help. That being said, it could be viewed shortsighted/growth stunting for DT but there would have been no need for it to continue as long as it did if ridiculous reparation demands weren't made. Could have had everyone out much sooner. Edited January 5, 2012 by Penlugue Solaris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325726663' post='2892869'] While I think this announcement was overblown and FAN shouldn't have overreacted since they should have known how the political scene was turning out, if NoR held a grudge against Fark for the incident, why does RoK still hold a treaty with Fark? I say this with keeping in mind that I hold the deepest respect for NoR. I don't really think the two alliances on FAN were needed, so I don't know why there was a necessity for NoR to hit Fark outside of the Croc issue. [/quote] Non Grata asked if we could send a handful of nations to help cover some areas and we did. Also TOP chained in through us per our treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perceus Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325729665' post='2892908'] Ah, you believed there was a potential of NATO getting countered? Understandable then. Though, it's not really hard to find out who FAN is allied to. [/quote] true, but we just wanted to cover all our bases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) [quote name='pd73bassman' timestamp='1325729864' post='2892912'] Non Grata asked if we could send a handful of nations to help cover some areas and we did. Also TOP chained in through us per our treaty. [/quote] Ah, now that makes more sense. I thought it was more of a revenge hit since some people made it seem that way. Edited January 5, 2012 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurunin Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 am i the only one who is thinking FAN did not have a problem with NoR not fighting alongside them, but that NoR decided to use an Optional clause of a treaty to joined in a dog pile? (OP mentions being the #11 alliance to join the war on them i believe?) more along the lines of "it's cool that you don't want to fight with us man that's your own business....wait why the hell did you just attack our ally and we are allied ourselves?! Not only that, but why be a part of a curbstomp against said ally? where's the respect for us in all of this?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1325730127' post='2892915'] am i the only one who is thinking FAN did not have a problem with NoR not fighting alongside them, but that NoR decided to use an Optional clause of a treaty to joined in a dog pile? (OP mentions being the #11 alliance to join the war on them i believe?) more along the lines of "it's cool that you don't want to fight with us man that's your own business....wait why the hell did you just attack our ally and we are allied ourselves?! Not only that, but why be a part of a curbstomp against said ally? where's the respect for us in all of this?" [/quote] Honestly, it's not entirely reasonable given that Fark was a huge alliance. If Fark had played it differently, it'd have been a lot harder to take them down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325729665' post='2892908']Ah, you believed there was a potential of NATO getting countered? Understandable then. Though, it's not really hard to find out who FAN is allied to. [/quote] We have a fairly good idea, but still don't know whether or not any of them support FAN's aggression Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 Well this is fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rogal Dorn Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 i like FAN, nice move. NoR i hope you diaf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 That's why you don't not sign conflicting paperless arrangements. Or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Doomee Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1325730980' post='2892929'] We have a fairly good idea, but still don't know whether or not any of them support FAN's aggression [/quote] You could just ask us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Doomee Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Perceus' timestamp='1325728187' post='2892893'] yup, "hundreds of nations under 10k, plus you know, the half a dozen that have been ZI'ed within the past two rounds of the war by NATO, and oh yeah, lets not forget that those "hundreds of nations under 10k" make up about...800k NS...oh wait, thats the nations you have out of peace mode, the rest are hiding away right? and you're right! it is quite fun to fight all those former 90k+ nations that are now under 30k and still manage to give them a beating. [/quote] Percius, one of our members was wondering why your mighty alliance has less than 16 nations fighting right now? 24 actual wars, and an engagement ratio of only 0.2 wars per war mode nation?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perceus Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Princess Doomee' timestamp='1325732903' post='2892957'] Percius, one of our members was wondering why your mighty alliance has less than 16 nations fighting right now? 24 actual wars, and an engagement ratio of only 0.2 wars per war mode nation?? [/quote] oh thats because most of our nations are in the middle and upper tiers (30k and above) and well, you guys just stopped providing targets for us, trust me, ask around, our upper tier nations are bored 'cause they did damn too good of a job in bringing all our targets down to under 10k NS. If you have any of those 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90K nations in peace mode, tell them to come out! our members will gladly dance with them. oh and its 26 active wars [quote]You could just ask us. [/quote] we did! ask Sir Humphrey, his reason for war in his first target was a question asking if we could have your treaty lists Edited January 5, 2012 by Perceus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Doomee Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Perceus' timestamp='1325733264' post='2892960'] oh thats because most of our nations are in the middle and upper tiers (30k and above) and well, you guys just stopped providing targets for us, trust me, ask around, our upper tier nations are bored 'cause they did damn too good of a job in bringing all our targets down to under 10k NS. If you have any of those 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90K nations in peace mode, tell them to come out! our members will gladly dance with them. oh and its 26 active wars we did! ask Sir Humphrey, his reason for war in his first target was a question asking if we could have your treaty lists [/quote] I am happy to provide our complete list of treaties here: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Princess Doomee' timestamp='1325732903' post='2892957'] Percius, one of our members was wondering why your mighty alliance has less than 16 nations fighting right now? 24 actual wars, and an engagement ratio of only 0.2 wars per war mode nation?? [/quote] No offence, but is this one of those FAN scholars who could not work out how NATO got involved in the war, despite NATO having had a published MDP with NPO for the past 2 years? For the record, my initial dec did not request a treaty [i]list[/i] but an actual treaty. I figured FAN likes tough love Edited January 5, 2012 by Sir Humphrey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Princess Doomee Posted January 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1325734584' post='2892988'] No offence, but is this one of those FAN scholars who could not work out how NATO got involved in the war, despite NATO having had a published MDP with NPO for the past 2 years? For the record, my initial dec did not request a treaty [i]list[/i] but an actual treaty. I figured FAN likes tough love [/quote] Scholar? Not at all although he does help us with our home brewing questions. As for treaties, we do NOT have any treaties. I really don't know why you people can't get that through your collective heads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perceus Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 well, then perhaps we were not being cautious of your treaties, but of your "friends" you know, you do have those right? like FARK and before NoR... just in case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted January 5, 2012 Report Share Posted January 5, 2012 [quote name='Letum' timestamp='1325717712' post='2892687'] Wait, does that mean that the only reason NoR would join in one pre-empt but not the other is because you hate FARK? [/quote] I don't know if that was the actual reason, but if it was, it's certainly good enough for me. 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.