Vladimir Stukov II Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1358875992' post='3083790'] Yeah, and you considered MK more important than all of PF and IRON. Additionally, some (not all) wanted to leave IRON regardless. [/quote] PF and IRON were obviously very important to us but in the end we were closer to MK and shared the same goals as them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 Not sure how this came about or why, but have a good fight. I can think of several dozen other alliances I'd rather fight than you guys for many reasons. It is what it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1358875992' post='3083790'] Yeah, and you considered MK more important than all of PF and IRON. Additionally, some (not all) wanted to leave IRON regardless. [/quote] Our alliances both held Umbrella treaties, and even aside from that, TOP had been treatied to MK for almost a year before PF came about. We always knew DH was a pillar of our FA. I don't think it's quite the situation Vlad describes, because when you look at goals being met it always PF/IRON goals anyway, but so be it. [quote name='mhawk' timestamp='1358876429' post='3083799'] Not sure how this came about or why, but have a good fight. I can think of several dozen other alliances I'd rather fight than you guys for many reasons. It is what it is. [/quote] Well put. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1358876216' post='3083793'] Yes, I'm glad that you understood it. [/quote] We have always sided with our closest friends in every war. Where we messed up in the past was hanging onto conflicting treaties until it was too late. That is a valid criticism. To say we just abandon our friends to join the winning side is nothing more than you spewing !@#$ to paint us in a bad light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1358830690' post='3083046'] Coalition forms out of hatred for MK. Not one nation in MK is declared on in multiple-bloc blitz. [/quote] And yet IRON, NPO were not hit in opposition. We know why, lets not be obtuse here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1358873154' post='3083756'] But we never considered dropping MK, and that seems to be the whole reason we are no longer allies. [/quote] I think it was more of TOP putting more value into their MK treaty over their bloc (which had a priortiy clause) and their long time allies in IRON. You guys were simplify in love with MK, thats fine, but then you can't fault your other 5 or 6 allise from feeling negative towards that especially when they had been with you for some time. It was obvious that if it came to PF/IRON or MK, you'd chose MK. Edited January 22, 2013 by Dcrews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 This'll be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilyn Caster Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 This is pretty funnny, I have to admit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1358875764' post='3083785'] [img]http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002793701/5511360215_410995797_HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW_answer_1_xlarge_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg[/img] [/quote] You know, for a "joint" announcement, there are surprisingly few actually in this thread. Much to my chagrin. I mean, look at that man's sexy elbows... Thank you for your contributions, D34th. This coalition on the whole, however, is sorely disappointing in this regard, and I do not appreciate the false advertisement. [spoiler]Okay, you can all go back to arguing things you don't believe to people who know you're full of !@#$ now.[/spoiler] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) Wrong thread Edited January 22, 2013 by Dcrews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megamind Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1358872614' post='3083744'] Pretty much this. TOP wanted to go wholly to the MK side of the web, while the rest of us wanted to stay where we were and gather more allies on our (then-current) side. TOP thought they had the winning strategy, and we thought we had the winning strategy.[/quote] No, that is nowhere near the truth. We were happy staying tied to both sides, it was you that made the decision that you wanted to be completely on the DR/NPO side and not have any strong ties to the other side. [quote]No, you guys seemed to think that this was going to be the winning strategy. You wanted to set up a new mega power that could not be challenged by joining forces with DH and C&G. I remember this because I was very specifically trying to get everybody to see the value in the alliances currently on my side, such as Blue, XX, and SF. [/quote] Again inaccurate. We made it very clear that we wanted to stay in the middle. Our objection to getting ties to Blue, XX and SF had nothing to do with wanting to remain on the DH/CnG side and everything to do with you not being able to convince us that any of the alliances in those 3 groups were worth getting tied to. [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1358875764' post='3083785'] [img]http://images.sodahead.com/polls/002793701/5511360215_410995797_HA_HA_HA_OH_WOW_answer_1_xlarge_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg[/img] Good joke! But, no. [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54723"]http://forums.cybern...showtopic=54723[/url] [/quote] Oh my god! Something happened 3 years ago! [quote name='Aeternos Astramora' timestamp='1358875992' post='3083790'] Yeah, and you considered MK more important than all of PF and IRON. Additionally, some (not all) wanted to leave IRON regardless. [/quote] I can say for a fact that there was absolutely no support for cancelling on IRON in TOP. Had it been up to us then we would have kept the tie regardless of us being on opposite sides in this war and then work on getting on the same page again after the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1358877012' post='3083806'] And yet IRON, NPO were not hit in opposition. We know why, lets not be obtuse here. [/quote] Because NPO really isn't the threat here and we can trust IRON to leak members after receiving a few rounds of nukes from Umbrella. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='Dcrews' timestamp='1358877204' post='3083809'] I think it was more of TOP putting more value into their MK treaty over their bloc (which had a priortiy clause) and their long time allies in IRON. You guys were simplify in love with MK, thats fine, but then you can't fault your other 5 or 6 allise from feeling negative towards that especially when they had been with you for some time. It was obvious that if it came to PF/IRON or MK, you'd chose MK. [/quote] Except it wasn't a choice *we* made. When PF was signed, we already had MK as an ally. Back then, it didn't seem to bug out anyone. In the process, however, some of the PF/IRON signatories decided that they disliked MK more and more. We didn't see any reason to hate on MK, if that hate wasn't also shared on Umbrella or NG, two of MK's most "evil" partners in crime. For some reason, PF and/or IRON would largely keep ties to Umb-NG until the end but would clamor that MK was the most evil thing since viceroys. We didn't share that analysis. Changes in governments in PF (OMFG disbanding, Gräms and Argent having internal changes) meant that we were headed to a clash of ideas. We didn't choose an ally over another. We chose a path over another. We held - and still hold, despite some people's most gracious efforts - no ill will towards our former bloc mates or ex-allies in IRON. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurthwaite Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1358860625' post='3083634'] Oh no, the horrors of a few ground attacks and an apology afterwards. Truly we are the monsters everyone always said we were. [/quote] Either present a cheer or take off your skirt and get in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Warrior Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) [quote name='tamerlane' timestamp='1358880084' post='3083839'] we can trust IRON to leak members after receiving a few rounds of nukes from Umbrella. [/quote] Oh this again. It tends to happen to a mass recruiting alliance in a dying game. I assure you that no one who is actually a part of IRON's core will leave because of a war. [quote name='Megamind' timestamp='1358879745' post='3083832'] No, that is nowhere near the truth. We were happy staying tied to both sides, it was you that made the decision that you wanted to be completely on the DR/NPO side and not have any strong ties to the other side[/quote] I cannot speak for how things occured between PF and TOP, but I do know about the TOP/IRON relationship. You may have been happy staying tied to both sides MM, but as time went on it started to become clear that you had chosen one of your allies and had put their interests above your other allies'. That's sort of what I'm reading into the PF debate as well. Could be wrong, but that's how it seems. Edited January 22, 2013 by The Warrior Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='Megamind' timestamp='1358879745' post='3083832'] No, that is nowhere near the truth. We were happy staying tied to both sides, it was you that made the decision that you wanted to be completely on the DR/NPO side and not have any strong ties to the other side. Again inaccurate. We made it very clear that we wanted to stay in the middle. Our objection to getting ties to Blue, XX and SF had nothing to do with wanting to remain on the DH/CnG side and everything to do with you not being able to convince us that any of the alliances in those 3 groups were worth getting tied to. Oh my god! Something happened 3 years ago! I can say for a fact that there was absolutely no support for cancelling on IRON in TOP. Had it been up to us then we would have kept the tie regardless of us being on opposite sides in this war and then work on getting on the same page again after the war. [/quote] You should just admit you were running around telling people how you would not be allied or connected with NPO at all. Even after you (TOP) sure as hell talked a different game during Dave. Stop acting like you don't have exactly happening here that you wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Havok Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1358875534' post='3083782'] Who was D33rd? [/quote] I figure you are like Ultron and just turn to a new version every time you molt I can't wait for D35th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1358881905' post='3083859'] You should just admit you were running around telling people how you would not be allied or connected with NPO at all. Even after you (TOP) sure as hell talked a different game during Dave. Stop acting like you don't have exactly happening here that you wanted. [/quote] We're not. Also, we wouldn't want to be allied with you but we didn't really mind being connected to you. Of course, it's an entirely possible that, when asked about it, a Paradoxian Grandmaster could have said that he prefered not to be any closer to Pacifica. I don't see how this DoW and our general relations are really related to Pacifica. This whole war started between Umbrella and Anarchy Inc., after all. Not between TOP and NPO. We will, however, defend our FA. We have always assumed our moves and choices. Other alliances should do the same and stop trying to blame us. They're the ones who chose a different path than the one they had been on for a few years. As for ourselves, we have been relatively stable since late 2010. Edited January 22, 2013 by Yevgeni Luchenkov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 That is not what TOP has said. But I understand the need to put out a general party line. o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord bagel Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='TRON IX' timestamp='1358855343' post='3083594'] Nope, There's more. [/quote] I sure hope so.I need to have some sort of a challenge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luis Quezada Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='Brehon' timestamp='1358882675' post='3083872'] That is not what TOP has said. But I understand the need to put out a general party line. o/ [/quote] You are contradicting yourself in one sentence... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oedipus Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 This makes me so very happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='Luis Quezada' timestamp='1358883022' post='3083874'] You are contradicting yourself in one sentence... [/quote] I was speaking to Yev about a conversation he and I had. TOP was not saying they would be willing to work with NPO and that was right after the Dave war where they had something entirely different to say. That was followed by me letting Yev know I understood he had to pull a party line. At the time of those incidents Yev was in NPO. Run along now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krashnaia Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1358871980' post='3083736'] We don't abandon our friends for political expedience. [/quote] [quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' timestamp='1358876357' post='3083797'] PF and IRON were obviously very important to us but in the end we were closer to MK and shared the same goals as them.[/quote] So: 1) You don't abandon you "friends" over your agenda, but... 2) Who your friends are, is determined by who shares your agenda at the moment. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 22, 2013 Report Share Posted January 22, 2013 [quote name='Krashnaia' timestamp='1358888420' post='3083925'] So: 1) You don't abandon you "friends" over your agenda, but... 2) Who your friends are, is determined by who shares your agenda at the moment. Interesting. [/quote] You act as though this is something new in CN, and is not something that every single alliance does. Two foolish assertions. The only thing I would change if I were you, is I would change "friends" to "allies" because friends and allies are not the same thing. 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.