IRON Announcement

[magicninja]

I'm not talking about your entire coalition, just those two particular alliances. If you'd like to add GOONS just to get a complete idea of how many wars were declared on DH, you just need to add an additional 1100 declarations.
 
Point being, if you're acting as a meatshield, you'd imagine you could at least keep a little bit of heat off of your overlords.

Yes we have many direct treaty ties to DH. Also, thanks for reinforcing the poor meatshield theory Holton came up with. I remember RnR not having a fighting nation over 60k by the time we were done with you. Well you may have had one...Like I said.....with ease.

[WarriorSoul]

Yes we have many direct treaty ties to DH. Also, thanks for reinforcing the poor meatshield theory Holton came up with. I remember RnR not having a fighting nation over 60k by the time we were done with you. Well you may have had one...Like I said.....with ease.

 

Please see the edit in my above post.

 

I don't think GATO should be allowed to take much credit for anything done to R&R, considering you had 188 offensive wars total. You're more than welcome to offer that credit to the alliances that did bother fighting us.

Edited May 27, 2013 by WarriorSoul

[Neo Uruk]

Please see the edit in my above post.

 

I don't think GATO should be allowed to take much credit for anything done to R&R, considering you had 188 offensive wars total. You're more than welcome to offer that credit to the alliances that did bother fighting us.

188 offensive wars isn't really too bad when you consider they fought entirely above a certain NS range

[WarriorSoul]

188 offensive wars isn't really too bad when you consider they fought entirely above a certain NS range

 

And then you realize they declared fewer wars than they had nations and you gain some perspective.

[magicninja]

Please see the edit in my above post.
 
I don't think GATO should be allowed to take much credit for anything done to R&R, considering you had 188 offensive wars total. You're more than welcome to offer that credit to the alliances that did bother fighting us.

Is that all the wars it took us to eradicate the 25 RnR had over 60k (Save Langara who actually had tech, HB kept him busy for us. No infra or nukes for most of the fight.) when we started? So we're efficient too. Good to know. I still had my target lists.. had to go count to make sure I was remembering right.

And then you realize they declared fewer wars than they had nations and you gain some perspective.

We had about 160 nations then...and even then 30-40 ghosts. We're back on the dropdown so we've inflated a bit. Edited May 27, 2013 by magicninja

[Master Holton]

Holton...Yeah I'm not buying it. You slipped up and now are trying to save yourself without even trying to explain what you said. You know why? You can't. You look nearly as bad as Imp a few pages back.

 

IRON at least played it smart and shut up before they dug themselves too deep. I wonder if they really believe they can say NPO liked CnG so we're dropping them and not have us be insulted.

 

At least we can both agree to dislike IRON :wub:

[WarriorSoul]

Is that all the wars it took us to eradicate the 25 RnR had over 60k (Save Langara who actually had tech, HB kept him busy for us. No infra or nukes for most of the fight.) when we started? So we're efficient too. Good to know. I still had my target lists.. had to go count to make sure I was remembering right.

 

I'm going to forgive your notion that GATO should take all the credit for the damage done to our nations above 60k NS. Please, keep the ignorance to a minimum.

 

 

We had about 160 nations then...and even then 30-40 ghosts. We're back on the dropdown so we've inflated a bit.

 

GATO had 192 nations at the beginning of the war. So unless you're saying that GATO actually had closer to 70 ghosts, you need to educate yourself. But for your argument's sake, we can say that GATO had 160 nations. That's 188 wars. That's 160 nations. That's pathetic.

[magicninja]

At least we can both agree to dislike IRON :wub:

Now I suppose. Before this announcement I was fine with IRON. How they are trying to explain it to me is that they wanted to get to DH and so they wanted to pile on us to get us out of the war so they could have DH to themselves. Hilarious in and of itself, since we were going nowhere. but you would think it would just be best to pile on DH if their destruction was your goal.....

[Neo Uruk]

And then you realize they declared fewer wars than they had nations and you gain some perspective.

Wait, you're telling me most GATO nations weren't told to declare wars because they were going to get swamped in the mid-tiers? Whoa.

 

Anyways, this is about IRON's poor FA strategy. Not your inability to count wars vs potential wars.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Neo Uruk

[Master Holton]

I'm going to forgive your notion that GATO should take all the credit for the damage done to our nations above 60k NS. Please, keep the ignorance to a minimum.

 

 

 

GATO had 192 nations at the beginning of the war. So unless you're saying that GATO actually had closer to 70 ghosts, you need to educate yourself. But for your argument's sake, we can say that GATO had 160 nations. That's 188 wars. That's 160 nations. That's pathetic.

 

For argument's sake, if GATO was only engaging in a certain NS range (what's the argument here? Above 60k?) then 188 wars split between their top tier nations isn't that bad actually.

 

The have about 50 people above or at 60k NS, but they also have a bunch over 90k NS where I believe the targets were sparse pickings.

 

edit: this is using stats from the time of this post btw. I don't know how many 60k+ NS nations GATO had before the war.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Master Holton

[magicninja]

I'm going to forgive your notion that GATO should take all the credit for the damage done to our nations above 60k NS. Please, keep the ignorance to a minimum.
 
 
 
GATO had 192 nations at the beginning of the war. So unless you're saying that GATO actually had closer to 70 ghosts, you need to educate yourself. But for your argument's sake, we can say that GATO had 160 nations. That's 188 wars. That's 160 nations. That's pathetic.

No, there was 2 weeks of fighting or so before we took over but there was still a lot of meat left on the bone. We picked it pretty clean though.

We fought with about 30-35 nations most of the war. At least 188 is more realistic than Impero's 16 and honestly? With the damage we did do to you Legion and DB4D (we won't count GOD or Invicta...) that is pretty efficient work. Legion had about 29 over 60k that were pushed under. DB4D had about 10. Invicta and God Combined had like 5. So fighting with 35 guys over 188 wars we were able to push almost 70 nations under 60k from the top tier.... Not bad. I had never looked at it like that before. Thanks.

[magicninja]

For argument's sake, if GATO was only engaging in a certain NS range (what's the argument here? Above 60k?) then 188 wars split between their top tier nations isn't that bad actually.
 
The have about 50 people above or at 60k NS, but they also have a bunch over 90k NS where I believe the targets were sparse pickings.
 
edit: this is using stats from the time of this post btw. I don't know how many 60k+ NS nations GATO had before the war.

We were fightng over 80k. 80k can declare down to 60k which is why we could push them down that far. We didn't fight them all at once. It took us 2 weeks to dismantle Legion up top and then we moved onto RnR and finished them off. GOD, Invicta, and DB4D were little inbetween meal snacks.

[Minilla Island]

I never thought I would see the day IRON and NPO were not allies in some way. A very sad day for the old school.

[Schattenmann]

IRON at least played it smart and shut up before they dug themselves too deep. I wonder if they really believe they can say NPO liked CnG so we're dropping them and not have us be insulted.

What kind of babies are you?

 

Hear that, IRON, good thing you wised up and shut up! 

[Ardus]

What the hell does GATO's intrinsic quality as an alliance have to do with IRON dropping NPO?

[Micheal Malone]

GATO managed to declare 16 offensive wars in a period of two months while its ally and blocmate burned. Sixteen. In two months. You are a non-factor, a rounding error in war statistics, unable to do even the most basic of allied functions. Have you asked yourself what exactly your alliance is good for? Have you wondered if your allies have asked themselves the same thing? Given that your uselessness is axiomatic at this point, I have to say I truly believe that, at the end of the day, it is you and GATO that no one cares what happens to magicninja.

I just wanted to take the time to clear up this fallacy.

Looking at the war records, in the days from Januar 18th - March 27th (dates taken from Wiki page), GATAO declared 186 offensive war slots and had 230 defensive war slots... Soooooo about that point you made.

Edit:
Also, those 186 declarations came from roughly 75'ish nations. Give or take a couple due to tired eyes. Edited May 27, 2013 by Micheal Malone

[IYIyTh]

I just wanted to take the time to clear up this fallacy.

Looking at the war records, in the days from Januar 18th - March 27th (dates taken from Wiki page), GATAO declared 186 offensive war slots and had 230 defensive war slots... Soooooo about that point you made.

Maybe he forgot the 8

[kerschbs]

What the hell does GATO's intrinsic quality as an alliance have to do with IRON dropping NPO?

 

I've been trying to figure this out for a while now, hence why I havent been posting much in this thread.

 

My apologies to my allies in NPO and to IRON for sidetracking this thread to this extent.

[Helbrecht]

[spoiler]We apparently live in an age where treaties cannot be cancelled because alliances are moving in different directions and one party comes to the conclusion that it cannot work out. There has to be a misconduct by one side, according to the logic here. So when IRON cancels a treaty for a reason that happens to involved a reference to another block, it can only be because we regard NPO as having acted in a very evil way by considering that block. Which means we must hate that block. 
 
Doesn't follow. I know some of you have agenda's to push. Magicninja and Rush Sykes (given neither of you are FA officials I will not tie your opinions to your alliances) are now broadcasting that they already knew IRON to be a bad sort and have a desire no doubt to justify that by assuming that IRON hates NPO and CnG and all their works because it then makes them the aggrieved party. 

Others just want to make a split between NPO and IRON because they are two of the most powerful players around, and not seeing any obvious wrongdoing from IRON towards NPO or NPO towards IRON they want to scream at NPO "SEE!! SEE!! THEY WANT TO BURN YOUR ALLIES." Which given we are still allied to their allies doesn't really make sense. But whoever lets sordid things like facts get in the way of good propoganda eh? 
 
The truth is IRON didn't, does not, and will not want to watch CnG get pounded. We didn't like it during the last war, and if it happens again (which I doubt will be in the near future) we are not looking forward to it. Clearly some in their number have a mild dislike towards us so we are unlikely to trade Christmas cards with those individuals, but we are still allied to and friends with The International so screwing over CnG means screwing over our allies. Given that isn't what IRON does I can only assume that others are projecting their standards onto us....make of that what you will. 
 
The truth of this matter is that we do not see a good future with NPO. Our paths are divergent and not likely to immediately realign. They accept that. We accept that. The examples in the OP are of us not working well together, not of us having a bitter dispute or completely misaligned goals or some great wrong that we are punishing with cancellation. It was just a sign that we do not work well together at this present time. We went down the road before of keeping a treaty that could not work well until a major wrong was committed. Seeing as so many have brought it up people should be aware of what that was. Was that a good idea? Did it end well for either side? Is it a practice to be encouraged? No. Should IRON tred the same path? No. 
 
That is all this is. We didn't work well together. Not "your goals are abhorrent to us." Not "you have betrayed us." Not "you are a great evil." Simply, "we don't work well together." I know that is a rare thing in this world, hence everyone assuming that we believe CnG must be destroyed at all cost because they are used to the idea that something must have been done wrong for a split. But that is not the case. To those on both sides trolling the other, you are like the "bros" that call the ex a hoe after an amicable break up...you are not helping and a great many of you I think are doing it not because you feel bad about the break up but because you disliked the ex. When quite frankly, I still expect to see NPO down at the bar on Friday night and hope to see them around plenty. 

Peace. [/spoiler]

Well now, I hope you are happy, you killjoy. Taking the fizz out of everyone's bubbly like that.

[Illidan Stormrage]

While there is a link between the cancellation and the recent war the discussion has reached such a point where this link is very difficult to find. Please return to the subject of the original post.

[magicninja]

What kind of babies are you?
 
Hear that, IRON, good thing you wised up and shut up!

Big ones Schatt....

The point is that around these parts past actions can signal future ones. IRON calls for our destruction once if suits them why wouldn't they do it again? At least we know where they stand.

Maybe he forgot the 8

Believable if it was a one off but he stated the 16 figure a few times in his post.... Edited May 27, 2013 by magicninja

[Schattenmann]

Big ones Schatt....

The point is that around these parts past actions can signal future ones. IRON calls for our destruction once if suits them why wouldn't they do it again? At least we know where they stand.Believable if it was a one off but he stated the 16 figure a few times in his post....

 

The problem is that IRON never "called for [your] destruction" nor has anything they've said here indicated that they want C&G destroyed.  But because they happened to cite the elephant-in-the-room that is C&G in context of NPO's dichotomous foreign policy, you've extrapolated out the most dumb assumption you could make followed by the most dumb threats you could make (because you are big babies). 

I can see how this is all very difficult and confusing for C&G since conflicting FP is your natural state, but lots of alliances see it for the Hell it is, and they will go so far--stick with me, here--they will sometimes go so far as to cancel some treaties to keep things less--less, not completely, just less--complicated.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Schattenmann

[magicninja]

The problem is that IRON never "called for [your] destruction" nor has anything they've said here indicated that they want C&G destroyed.  But because they happened to cite the elephant-in-the-room that is C&G in context of NPO's dichotomous foreign policy, you've extrapolated out the most dumb assumption you could make followed by the most dumb threats you could make (because you are big babies). 
I can see how this is all very difficult and confusing for C&G since conflicting FP is your natural state, but lots of alliances see it for the Hell it is, and they will go so far--stick with me, here--they will sometimes go so far as to cancel some treaties to keep things less--less, not completely, just less--complicated.

It seems to me its cutting off your nose to spite your face but I'll accept the explanation that they were upset that NPO did not fully commit to the war effort because they were worried what might happen to CnG. While I still think it says a little something about how IRON feels about CnG....I guess in the long run it's not that big of a deal to us....even if it is to IRON.

[trimm]

It seems to me its cutting off your nose to spite your face but I'll accept the explanation that they were upset that NPO did not fully commit to the war effort because they were worried what might happen to CnG. While I still think it says a little something about how IRON feels about CnG....I guess in the long run it's not that big of a deal to us....even if it is to IRON.

IRON only mentioned CnG in the context of conflicting treaty problems (a problem that CnG happens to typify). You are the one in here that's turned a molehill into Mount Everest.

[magicninja]

IRON only mentioned CnG in the context of conflicting treaty problems (a problem that CnG happens to typify). You are the one in here that's turned a molehill into Mount Everest.

I understand that point...but IRON themselves has direct ties to CnG.....so what is the point of calling CnG conflicting in the case of NPO? It seems IRON is in the same boat as NPO as far as CnG is concerned. You would think IRON and NPO would have a common interest as far as CnG goes. I wonder why they don't.