Jump to content

LoSSes to be had


andyt2k

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 333
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Well I guess the MHA pre-empt..but even then we were considering our treaty with TLR.

 

I guess this is the part where I laugh at andy2k.....lol

you know if you'd like to do something productive instead of whining on the forums about how we disappointed you, you can always message me on our forum or even your forum( i messaged dream earlier to tell her the same thing). we've never taken out our grievances with you on the OWF we've always done it in query.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......................

 

The latter group includes nations from NADC, NPO, NATO, RIA, GOD who have hit us without a formal DoW, but obviously we recognise we're at war with these guys as well .......................

 

 

 

Does your DH treaty not say if you hit one you hit all?  Or was this just used for war convenience?

 

Don't get me wrong I am not debating its validity.  Who is using it better has no bearing because we can debate it forever.  The point is it allows wars to be opened up so they can't be danced around by abusing the treaty web.  For anyone to say there aren't two sides here is silly.  For anyone to say we both aren't using pressure and convenience to obtain our goals is lying.

 

All the debating about verbage and etc, while certainly has its place and entertaining, is nothing more than propaganda, dogma and frankly bullshit.

 

It is a tactical use, just like PM is, was and will be.  So are we done being stupid and ready to admit we all just don't like when those tactics are used against us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does your DH treaty not say if you hit one you hit all?  Or was this just used for war convenience?

 

Don't get me wrong I am not debating its validity.  Who is using it better has no bearing because we can debate it forever.  The point is it allows wars to be opened up so they can't be danced around by abusing the treaty web.  For anyone to say there aren't two sides here is silly.  For anyone to say we both aren't using pressure and convenience to obtain our goals is lying.

 

All the debating about verbage and etc, while certainly has its place and entertaining, is nothing more than propaganda, dogma and frankly bullshit.

 

It is a tactical use, just like PM is, was and will be.  So are we done being stupid and ready to admit we all just don't like when those tactics are used against us?

 


Does it upset you to be reliant upon people too stupid to correctly declare war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EvU was a direct treaty partner man. Don't think AI is a direct treaty partner of LoSS.... It's an excuse to bandwagon without a treaty. Some alliances fall for that bullshit as evidenced here. Some actually follow their treaties like a decent alliance should. See NG. Never thought I'd see the day I'd think higher of NG than LoSS but hey if it's what LoSS wants I can dig it.

Having been on the boot side of a DH bandwagon, I'm not gonna go to bed with a guilty conscience tonight, and neither should LoSS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's hard to pretend to be 'hard' when most of that alliance is in the lower tiers. It doesn't matter if GOONs nations can't be as good as Umb or MK's if their opponents don't know what they're doing.

 

I can strongly confirm that this is the case.  Few if any of our opponents in this war know what they're doing, from a tactical or strategic standpoint.

 

The unescorted bombing runs from NPL, the warchests even worse than ours in LoSS.  We might not be the best, but we're certainly better than these laughable sorts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's hard to pretend to be 'hard' when most of that alliance is in the lower tiers. It doesn't matter if GOONs nations can't be as good as Umb or MK's if their opponents don't know what they're doing.


Yet, neither does GOONS, so it's about as fair as a war can get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am seriously cracking up at all the outrage from all these people who happily supported b.s like "For DAVE!!" and the Pre-Empts of the past when we'd have to fight people from alliances who never declared war on us, but it was okay because you were in a coalition together. What makes anything this coalition is doing any less legit than Umbrella declaring they were just going to attack the upper tiers of every alliance for the coalition? You people supported that, you supported Dave, you've supported GOONS here taking reps every time someone fires a shot at them, you support Umbrella starting this with AI. You've pissed off and screwed over nearly all of Bob the past 4 years. And all you've spoken of during those 4 years to any who complained was gems like 'Cry more" "we love tears" "bring it" "do something about it" etc. Now something is being done. Live with the world you created and the hatred you seemed to relish when you had the might of arms to stomp people out. You all said you looked forward to the day when people came to try and topple you. Well it's here, you should be happy.

 


The difference is when we did a preempt we called it a preempt, whereas your trying to call an apple an orange.

 

 

DH vs Ninjas

GOONS and co vs Kaskus

 

Thats two that quickly come to mind!

 



Both of those were escalating wars.  Since you clearly do not remember both inidents, they involved Ninjas declaring war on GOONS, and Kaskus declaring war on GOONS.  Both kaskus and Ninjas declared war on GOONS.  They both had a solid middle tier which was capable of giving GOONS trouble, much like Umbrella upper tier is giving AI trouble.  DH came to GOONS defense against Ninja's and Kaskus because they weren't able to take the initiative in the middle to upper tiers.  Not because GOONS sucks, but because they just didn't have enough nations in that range. We did.  Sort of like how you needed 22 alliances to take on 2.  Like how you needed .. what is it now, 7 or 8 alliances to take on Umbrella.

 

Basically both those events were not a result of GOONS being a big bad meanie to small alliances, but small alliances with built up nations wanting to take a piece of GOONS, and then being crushed when GOONS called in their allies.  You can't really blame GOONS for Kaskus or Ninja's.  Kaskus didn't want to negotiate peace, as evident by the current conflict regarding Kaskus, and Ninjas was utilizing tiered strategies to cause some hurt which resulted in us using tiered strategies against them in defense of a MD level treaty partner.

 

Basically what I'm saying is using Kaskus and Ninjas as exampled of "the big bad DH dogpiling on alliances" is pretty laughable considering both kaskus and Ninjas started the wars. 

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...