the rebel Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) And the fact is... no matter how you shake it or break it down , in this last war, Polar , once again, in typical Polar fashion, dicked over its entire coalition. It kinda makes it difficult for those that they dicked over this past war, to accept the whole "we have changed" thing. And to those dicked over by Polar in the past, prior to this new "changed" Polar, they are left to look at it as a broader picture of "yep, same old Polar" and snicker as they sit and watch the fallout. If you want to nitpick; both orders "dicked over its entire coalition" as both orders defended their allies against the wishes of the entire coalition. You slag off one and not the other for doing the same thing, the horror! Edited July 24, 2013 by the rebel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Vicarious Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 Are you for real? I am not trying to speak for NpO's allies, and that is a silly notion. The old "Such and such alliance has changed" thing is used by literally every alliance in CN. Sometimes its true, sometimes it isnt. The proverbial proof, however, is in the pudding. And the fact is... no matter how you shake it or break it down , in this last war, Polar , once again, in typical Polar fashion, dicked over its entire coalition. It kinda makes it difficult for those that they dicked over this past war, to accept the whole "we have changed" thing. And to those dicked over by Polar in the past, prior to this new "changed" Polar, they are left to look at it as a broader picture of "yep, same old Polar" and snicker as they sit and watch the fallout. Always interesting to see who's playing the "Polar dicked over their whole coalition" card and who isn't. It seems that a majority of alliances who fought on the Equilibrium Coalition side of things are pretty OK with Polar's actions and choices while those who either fought on Umb's side by their own choice or those who sat out of the entire war while fighting a micro want to bring this up over and over again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 If you want to nitpick; both orders "dicked over its entire coalition" as both orders defended their allies against the wishes of the entire coalition. You slag off one and not the other for doing the same thing, the horror! You can make that argument, sure, but the one thing you cant escape from. NPO did what NPO said they were going to do. If people choose to get shocked that they did exactly what they said they would do, then that blame, my friend, falls on the beholder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 Always interesting to see who's playing the "Polar dicked over their whole coalition" card and who isn't. It seems that a majority of alliances who fought on the Equilibrium Coalition side of things are pretty OK with Polar's actions and choices while those who either fought on Umb's side by their own choice or those who sat out of the entire war while fighting a micro want to bring this up over and over again. The irony is,, just enough were annoyed with their actions that the balance of power is not what it should be post-war for the winning side. The fact is, you can defend it till you are blue in the face, but they told the coalition one thing, then did completely another. If that is ok to you, so be it. It clearly is not ok to a great many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Cyan Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 If you want to nitpick; both orders "dicked over its entire coalition" as both orders defended their allies against the wishes of the entire coalition. You slag off one and not the other for doing the same thing, the horror! IVAN MOLDAVi COALITION!!! Nonetheless, agreed. However... HOWEVER.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 Considering that you were one of the prime offenders and apologists of Polar dicking over allies, this is not overly shocking. Of course I was. :rolleyes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) The fact is, you can defend it till you are blue in the face, but they told the coalition one thing, then did completely another. No. They did exactly what they said they would. Dajobo and Eatemup from NpO and someone from FARK whos name I don't recall at this time said multiple times that TLR will get countered if you entered. If your sources chose to selectively ignore it to suit whatever agenda you may of had, then the blame really isn't with the NpO, who did exactly what they said they would do. Let's face it there is a reason why such extreme butthurt was limited to NPO/NG/TLR at the time. ... Loving the spin and outright lies though! :) Edited July 24, 2013 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Vicarious Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 The irony is,, just enough were annoyed with their actions that the balance of power is not what it should be post-war for the winning side. The fact is, you can defend it till you are blue in the face, but they told the coalition one thing, then did completely another. If that is ok to you, so be it. It clearly is not ok to a great many. I said that a majority of participants from the Equilibrium Coalition are perfectly ok with Polar's actions and decisions. A majority is a well defined quantity, a great many is not. In fact, a great many could even be in the minority if a greater many were on the other side of things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 Are you for real? I am not trying to speak for NpO's allies, and that is a silly notion. The old "Such and such alliance has changed" thing is used by literally every alliance in CN. Sometimes its true, sometimes it isnt. The proverbial proof, however, is in the pudding. And the fact is... no matter how you shake it or break it down , in this last war, Polar , once again, in typical Polar fashion, dicked over its entire coalition. It kinda makes it difficult for those that they dicked over this past war, to accept the whole "we have changed" thing. And to those dicked over by Polar in the past, prior to this new "changed" Polar, they are left to look at it as a broader picture of "yep, same old Polar" and snicker as they sit and watch the fallout. Had Polaris not defended Sparta for the greater good of the coalition, you would be saying how Polaris doesn't defend its allies. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) Looking at the break down, NG has clear advantage in the upper tiers. 13 nations over 100k and below 200k (not even counting NG's top 2 since they can't hit Polaris's #1 nation) in NG vs 5 in Polaris. Yes, NG has 60 nations 50k NS and over and Polaris has 59 nations 50k NS and over. But if you actually take a look at the breakdown, NG has 14 nations over 10k tech, Polaris has 4. NG has a clear advantage in the 100k NS range. Sure, NG will have a fight, don't get me wrong but this past war has shown what a clear tech and high tier numbers can do. If you include NSO, you include 7 more nations over 100k and 6 more nations over 10k tech. So while Polaris will have more nations overall, those nations will be sustaining more damage on average. This means that NG/NSO can take the time to recover either via PM or just chilling and then sell off infra to hit smaller Polar nations while maintaining a clear tech advantage. Even in a Polaris vs just NG matchup, Polaris would have to spend a ton of their warchests to build up to NG levels and continue the fight against their upper tiers. This is not eQ where there were 4+ nations to a single opponent. In an NG vs Polaris matchup, it would be about 2v1. If you include NSO to this, Polaris only has dominance in the under 10k NS level and that is not even by that much (around 20 or so nations). Doch I am a fan of yours but this just isn't the case, the tech advantage NG has over polar in the relevant tiers (100k on down) just isn't that significant. Again you are looking at ONLY the very top tier, which if Polar was smart they would just peace over 70k anyways. The actual war would be fought between 100k and 0. This is a reality people seem to want to avoid for some reason. Edited July 24, 2013 by Ogaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific Fleet Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 Being a typical hater as always.... First you grumble about not defending our allies. When we start to defend our allies, you pull out another bs statement from your rear. Saying NPO may have dicked over the coalition but they did what they said they were gonna do.... Biased much? We never said we were pushing NPO's agenda, and we did exactly what we said was gonna happen. What other whacked up statements do you have Rush? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 You can make that argument, sure, but the one thing you cant escape from. NPO did what NPO said they were going to do. If people choose to get shocked that they did exactly what they said they would do, then that blame, my friend, falls on the beholder. This is great, because NPO's doctrine of "an attack on one is an attack on all" was followed through by Polaris against the desires of Pacifica. Your generalizations make for good rhetoric until you look at some specifics and realize how off base you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) NG and Polar both fought the war on basically the same terms, but only Polar gets criticized for it. The only difference was Polar's allies were all on one side. The irony is,, just enough were annoyed with their actions that the balance of power is not what it should be post-war for the winning side. The fact is, you can defend it till you are blue in the face, but they told the coalition one thing, then did completely another. If that is ok to you, so be it. It clearly is not ok to a great many. Polar told the coalition they would defend their allies and that's what they did. You are stating your own opinions and beliefs as facts, where no such facts exist. The mythos you wish to perpetuate is inaccurate on several counts. One of the biggest stumbling blocks of the Eq coalition was the lack of communication. fact: Eq coalition leadership never communicated to NpO that NG's allies were not to be countered. This fact is not in dispute, it may be the case that the assumption was made that NpO should have inferred this or guessed it or something, but it never occurred. The only direct order was not to attack MK, and the only explanation was that MK was "reserved for IRON and NPO" and no further explanation was given. This was an early and significant communications failure. The conspiracy theorist could argue that we were deliberately kept in the dark as tiptoeing around C&G and NG would not be popular amongst the SF, Aftermath and XX crowd, and would have made the coalition less popular to join. The proof of this is the fact that our front, declared a mass, 22 alliance declaration against ODN and INT expecting to be countered and to be able to rapidly and broadly counter C&G and anyone they brought in. If we had been given orders that C&G was to be attacked with surgical precision to avoid NG being brought in against us, we would not have attacked with a sledgehammer (22 alliances) but rather a scalpel (2 or 3 each). I can only assume that the risk of informing our front of the true nature of the war was considered a larger risk than sending us after C&G without enough information, which clearly was a bad bet. The failures of Equilibrium were not ones of 'competence' but all stemmed from a lack of trust. This lack of trust and confidence in the various components of the coalition were the cancer that ate away at the heart of the Eq coalition. The coalition leadership mistrusted many components of the coalition and did not confide in them, and the broad coalition grew to distrust the coalition leadership as the war progressed. Edited July 24, 2013 by Ogaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
conistonslim Posted July 24, 2013 Report Share Posted July 24, 2013 (edited) Seeing as during the length of the grudge there were numerous times they could of hopped on board a Polar beat down and settled the grudge it actually does have some relevance. Conistonslim knows more about being allied to NpO than you and most of the Sith so no need to try and tell him about what Polar does to its allies. On your oA point, I dont think he was mocking them for having to latch on to someone like NG. Just that they should probably stop acting like they are the ones that Polar should be afraid of. NSO looks like a chihuahua barking at a pitbull. If that doesnt look bad to you then ok. Yeah pretty much this. Edited July 24, 2013 by conistonslim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xR1 Fatal Instinct Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Rush knows everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 No. They did exactly what they said they would. Dajobo and Eatemup from NpO and someone from FARK whos name I don't recall at this time said multiple times that TLR will get countered if you entered. If your sources chose to selectively ignore it to suit whatever agenda you may of had, then the blame really isn't with the NpO, who did exactly what they said they would do. Let's face it there is a reason why such extreme butthurt was limited to NPO/NG/TLR at the time. ... Loving the spin and outright lies though! :) You will often find that what is spewed in public and what is spewed in private are not one in the same, I suggest you dig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Being a typical hater as always.... First you grumble about not defending our allies. When we start to defend our allies, you pull out another bs statement from your rear. Saying NPO may have dicked over the coalition but they did what they said they were gonna do.... Biased much? We never said we were pushing NPO's agenda, and we did exactly what we said was gonna happen. What other whacked up statements do you have Rush? Do you understand how the fact that you even had to type "when we start to defend our allies...." reflects? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Red Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 fact: Eq coalition leadership never communicated to NpO that NG's allies were not to be countered. This is officially incorrect, and Polar gov knows it. If you want to keep beating this horse you may feel free to see me directly, but I think it's already dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) This is officially incorrect, and Polar gov knows it. If you want to keep beating this horse you may feel free to see me directly, but I think it's already dead. Red I was there, I experienced it all in real time. The highs, the lows, the triumph of victory and the agony of derp. Edited July 25, 2013 by Ogaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Red Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Red I was there, I experienced it all in real time. The highs, the lows, the triumph of victory and the agony of derp. So was I. In fact, I still have the war boards. And from that experience I now have a list of things to never, ever do or allow to be done in any coallition I'm ever a part of again. That particular stylish event is on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific Fleet Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 (edited) Do you understand how the fact that you even had to type "when we start to defend our allies...." reflects? Yes, but I am referring to pre bi-polar. We did some stupid things back then. We have come a long way from what we used to be. We take our relationship with our allies seriously. We don't treaty just to gain power, its true loyalty. We got their back and vice versa. Now back to the real point of the story. All I am saying is that you are finding excuses to pin the blame on us. Dajobo said what we were gonna do, and we did what we said we were gonna do. We defended our allies and now are getting blamed for doing the right thing. Our agenda was never to roll the members of Competince but to support those we treatied, and that's exacty what we did. Of course anyone can find an excuse to blame somebody, no matter how pure the intention was. Why do you care about what happened to eQ anyways? It's not like you were on this side of the fence. Edited July 25, 2013 by Pacific Fleet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 This is officially incorrect, and Polar gov knows it. If you want to keep beating this horse you may feel free to see me directly, but I think it's already dead.As a known authority on horses, I can say with professional confidence that it's not dead yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Red Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 As a known authority on horses, I can say with professional confidence that it's not dead yet. In that case, I shall have to get out my shotgun and put it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 Dear Lady Red, Polaris did what Polaris said it would. If that upsets Pacifica that is just a bonus, if it upset NG that is delightful and if NSO wants that to be a reason to hate us it suits me fine but we did not do it to annoy you specifically . If members of a coalition want to take a mywayorthehighway approach to leading it, it is somewhat inevitable that some people may not share your goals, especially when then run completely counter to ours. Polaris did not sign up for your bullshit, we do not drink from your Kool-Aid dispenser and factually we do not now or ever care about or support Pacifica's post war agenda. You might find quite a long list of people from that coalition who also did not buy into your new world dream. So Lady Red, please remember next time you end up on the same side as us, we do not answer to you, we answer to our allies, those same allies you wanted to sacrifice to keep your little agenda nice and simple... you know the one, we know the one, in fact everyone knows the one, I am referring to. I look forward to seeing your jackboots marching towards us to teach us about your superiority and to cleanse us from our sins. All hail Pacifica the one true light in this world of darkness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightmare448 Posted July 25, 2013 Report Share Posted July 25, 2013 I love new treaties! o/ Polaris o/ XX PS i make pretty good Kool-aid 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.