AlmightyGrub Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 Because Polaris needed help defeating an alliance half their size. We all know where this Coalition's true intentions were, and I'm glad to see them coming about. Because if you keep on saying it for long enough it will become true? At least you managed to place it in a comprehensible sentence which is a step forwards from magicninja's insanity. Our true intention was plainly stated, kill NSO. If you want to be part of the package deal, the ball is in your court, nobody cares if you live or die including your allies and certainly not us. Saddle up if you want to ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) Our true intention was plainly stated, kill NSO. It's just a complete coincidence that our block mates and allies are all hitting TOP's # 1 enemy while they hide in PM. fixed that for you Edited November 4, 2013 by berbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 fixed that for you When I need my posts edited I will call a professional thanks. I really don't care what you believe, I am not sure who you even are or whether you matter to anyone but your mum, but when I tell you that NSO and Polaris are fighting, surely you can accept that and accept that the reason why is because NSO is who they are. Happy coincidence it may be, but the notion that Polaris conspired with TOP to drag the NPO into a war is a nonsense. If you understood how much I desire to kick Pacifica's face in then you would understand if Polaris wanted then we would have declared on them. Contrary to popular theory there isn't a conspiracy under every bed. Sometimes the answer is really just as simple as what you have been told. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 When I need my posts edited I will call a professional thanks. I really don't care what you believe, I am not sure who you even are or whether you matter to anyone but your mum, but when I tell you that NSO and Polaris are fighting, surely you can accept that and accept that the reason why is because NSO is who they are. Happy coincidence it may be, but the notion that Polaris conspired with TOP to drag the NPO into a war is a nonsense. If you understood how much I desire to kick Pacifica's face in then you would understand if Polaris wanted then we would have declared on them. Contrary to popular theory there isn't a conspiracy under every bed. Sometimes the answer is really just as simple as what you have been told. I am a professional son, and if you didn't want this to be about NPO you should have let a few more TOP allies defend her instead of calling all yours in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 We bleed 70% of our NS for our allies and it's somehow "not enough". We somehow "saved more". We fought on a front where we were massively outnumbered, yet "we could have brought more out". Bcortell's stats of our "upper nations" being in PM don't reflect this fact: it wasn't an upper tier anymore but a larger higher mid tier. As our warring nations fell down the ranks, they passed by those nations that we had ordered to peace mode. Aside from 4 or 5 nations at 100k+ NS, the rest of those "upper tier peace mode" nations he's refering to are nations who were: 1)Less than 80k NS. 2)Had activity problems and would prove unreliable in combat. Our front was fought down to the last nation. From a 2.3 to 1 advantage in nations in the upper tier for our enemies, we fought it down to parity or very close. Releasing more nations (who were either less prepared or unreliable at the moment) at 80k NS wouldn't have helped our front or war. DT, among others, was able to cycle nations in and out of peace mode. Heavy tech nations that had the potential to declare in the 80-92k NS range. Given what we faced on our front, with the help we received, we did a very good job. If people want to criticize peace mode as a tactic, they should do it as part of a global strategy, looking at global (or at the very least, front-based) results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 I am a professional son, and if you didn't want this to be about NPO you should have let a few more TOP allies defend her instead of calling all yours in. I doubt you are old enough for me to be your son you pompous dill, I doubt you have any concept of anything outside your own little bubble and let's be honest, it is day 3 of this war at best. Apparently our bloc mates wanted to help us out, who would have thought? (forget for the moment that I completely forget we are in a bloc too) TOP are actual treaty partners of ours now, I know it is difficult to comprehend and all, but we asked for their assistance with NSO's top tier for which we did not have adequate coverage and they said ''of course, you are our treaty partner now, it is what we do for friends'' Of course every update that passes sees a few more NSO allies declare a war or two and so this war expands along the exact lines that blind freddy could see developing but it still does not change the goal of Polaris when declaring this war. The NSO are toast, burned to a crisp, and that is to be our goal. We don't need to play games with your mind, if Polar or TOP wanted the NPO we would have just declared on them instead. Stop being deliberately dense and accept the facts as presented or don't. Find magicninja and talk through your stupid theories based on your own assumptions and bias and post them on your forum where someone might agree with you. Posting your nonsense here will only further embarrass your alliance mates, if they even know who you are I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 I doubt you are old enough for me to be your son you pompous dill, I doubt you have any concept of anything outside your own little bubble and let's be honest, it is day 3 of this war at best. Apparently our bloc mates wanted to help us out, who would have thought? (forget for the moment that I completely forget we are in a bloc too) Probably not old enough for you to be my son, but definitely old (and wise) enough to call you son. Also, one of your bloc mates is currently helping out TOP, not you, which is my point. TOP are actual treaty partners of ours now, I know it is difficult to comprehend and all, but we asked for their assistance with NSO's top tier for which we did not have adequate coverage and they said ''of course, you are our treaty partner now, it is what we do for friends'' Of course every update that passes sees a few more NSO allies declare a war or two and so this war expands along the exact lines that blind freddy could see developing but it still does not change the goal of Polaris when declaring this war. The NSO are toast, burned to a crisp, and that is to be our goal. We don't need to play games with your mind, if Polar or TOP wanted the NPO we would have just declared on them instead. Hey, I remember when TOP wanted NpO's arse badly. They got their friends to do all the heavy lifting then too (see multiple comments made by Polars at the time agreeing with me). Oh wait, what happened when those heavy lifting friends asked TOP to side with them during the next big war, oh right, they got flipped off and TOP jumped ship. You think they suddenly changed the stripes you've been accusing them of having for years? Stop being deliberately dense and accept the facts as presented or don't. Find magicninja and talk through your stupid theories based on your own assumptions and bias and post them on your forum where someone might agree with you. Posting your nonsense here will only further embarrass your alliance mates, if they even know who you are I guess. I'm naturally this dense, nothing deliberate about it. The only facts I accept are the ones that already happened, over and over again. 3 days into a new world where apparently everything that I know from years of experience is suddenly wrong and I'm just a little dizzy from the speed of the change. Also don't compare me to Magicninja, that's just not nice :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 o/ War Let the streets be stained red with blood. Not sure what this war is about yet, but this is the only thing for a while now to catch my interest. Good to see all is not dead yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 (edited) Oh wait, what happened when those heavy lifting friends asked TOP to side with them during the next big war, oh right, they got flipped off and TOP jumped ship Interesting theory. We should have done what we'd been told and cancelled on MK. Bad TOP. Edited November 4, 2013 by Feanor Noldorin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supa_Troop3r Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 We bleed 70% of our NS for our allies and it's somehow "not enough". We somehow "saved more". We fought on a front where we were massively outnumbered, yet "we could have brought more out". Bcortell's stats of our "upper nations" being in PM don't reflect this fact: it wasn't an upper tier anymore but a larger higher mid tier. As our warring nations fell down the ranks, they passed by those nations that we had ordered to peace mode. Aside from 4 or 5 nations at 100k+ NS, the rest of those "upper tier peace mode" nations he's refering to are nations who were: 1)Less than 80k NS. 2)Had activity problems and would prove unreliable in combat. Our front was fought down to the last nation. From a 2.3 to 1 advantage in nations in the upper tier for our enemies, we fought it down to parity or very close. Releasing more nations (who were either less prepared or unreliable at the moment) at 80k NS wouldn't have helped our front or war. DT, among others, was able to cycle nations in and out of peace mode. Heavy tech nations that had the potential to declare in the 80-92k NS range. Given what we faced on our front, with the help we received, we did a very good job. If people want to criticize peace mode as a tactic, they should do it as part of a global strategy, looking at global (or at the very least, front-based) results. Everyone's a critic, until it happens to them. You guys fought very strategic last war, don't let anyone try and tell you differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 Everyone's a critic, until it happens to them. You guys fought very strategic last war, don't let anyone try and tell you differently. Thanks Supa, it was an honor to fight you and you guys did a very effective job of rotation and containment. And you didn't blow staggers right out of the gate either :P (or at all, that I recall). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 Yea, he's totally wrong. Now it's up to 60% in peace mode so you'll take even less damage than your allies. Way to emerge post-war in a very powerful position, while your allies glow green. Masterful planning. Believe it or not, Steve, reality does not follow along with your incessant changes in opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted November 4, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 Thanks Supa, it was an honor to fight you and you guys did a very effective job of rotation and containment. And you didn't blow staggers right out of the gate either :P (or at all, that I recall). Doing better than NG isn't a particularly high standard :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 Interesting theory. We should have done what we'd been told and cancelled on MK. Bad TOP. Considering what IRON did for you vs what MK did for you, yeah :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcortell Posted November 4, 2013 Report Share Posted November 4, 2013 We bleed 70% of our NS for our allies and it's somehow "not enough". We somehow "saved more". We fought on a front where we were massively outnumbered, yet "we could have brought more out". I believe you are mixing up different points here. If you're 70% is talking about last war, no one is disputing that. Berber said two out of the last three wars, which I think everyone assumed meant last war was the one left off. Bcortell's stats of our "upper nations" being in PM don't reflect this fact: it wasn't an upper tier anymore but a larger higher mid tier. As our warring nations fell down the ranks, they passed by those nations that we had ordered to peace mode. Aside from 4 or 5 nations at 100k+ NS, the rest of those "upper tier peace mode" nations he's refering to are nations who were: 1)Less than 80k NS. 2)Had activity problems and would prove unreliable in combat. While you are correct about the them not being over 100K, it's a stretch to say that where they were wasn't in the upper tier at that point in the war. The tiers slide, especially as nearly everyone in the war was getting knocked down. Right now, sure they're mid to upper mid tier guys. Maybe activity was the problem. Of course, that doesn't really matter if it was or not, nor does it change the facts. That's just like any other AA saying, "Hey, we have a lot of useless NS, don't use it against us." 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.