Prodigal Moon Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Most of what Rush has said it right, but I know what l0c0 is referring to; our relationship with UMB (which is somewhat extended to some of their treaty partners) and to several of the nations you refer to being part of their coalition who are indeed recognized as doombirds for life (umar, colin, bean...to name a few). We have a couple treaties, several more friendships, and a lot of individual relationships with nations wearing assorted AA's. And yes, we are doing our part to support NG this war which means not hitting any alliances fighting alongside them or alliances treatied/protected by the same. Every alliance we have targetted is actively fighting for the other side, solely treatied to alliances of the other side, or completely unrelated to either side and just raids. We raided one nation by mistake who is protected by GATO and that was peaced quickly. The RnR hit was after we were told they weren't going to enter for sure and was a little payback for the MQ thing. If we knew then that they would be entering on the NG side they would not have been hit. We have one dog in this fight and it is NG. The longer you guys continue to keep them at war when the outcome of this war has been long decided, the more we dislike all of you. That's disappointing to hear. I thought maybe you guys intended to thumb your nose at the entire treaty web, not get wrapped up in political wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 Sure they have. But in peace time , there are no pot shots and coalitions. The reality is... DBDC is actively poking at alliances in the Polar coalition, doing what they can to aid the NG cause This thread is about the war. The posts are about the war. What happened prior to the war, is not relevant. They raided freely, and those who fought back are to be commended, those who ignored it are to be shamed. It is really no different than now. But the truth is... they could not have hit anyone in our coalition prior to the war, because no coalition existed. They could not have hit anyone in the other coalition, prior to the war, because that coalition did not exist. It has nothing to do with the now. In the land of spin no one existed prior to this war, so the problem being left by alliances that ended up on whatever side aren't relevant even though ignoring them exacerbated the problem to what it has become. Stick to what you do best Rush Sykes which is vague pink elephants, because spin isn't your forte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 In the land of spin no one existed prior to this war, so the problem being left by alliances that ended up on whatever side aren't relevant even though ignoring them exacerbated the problem to what it has become. Stick to what you do best Rush Sykes which is vague pink elephants, because spin isn't your forte. That I lack your approval is affirmation, not condemnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 That I lack your approval is affirmation, not condemnation. Stick to what you do best Rush Sykes which is vague pink elephants, because spin isn't your forte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artigo Posted December 21, 2013 Report Share Posted December 21, 2013 That's disappointing to hear. I thought maybe you guys intended to thumb your nose at the entire treaty web, not get wrapped up in political wars. You're partially right. We don't really care who thinks they are in charge. We just care for a few friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gatorback05 Posted December 22, 2013 Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 You're partially right. We don't really care who thinks they are in charge. We just care for a few friends. Just want to let planet BOB know that if you are looking to lose some weight for that big new years resolution than Artigo (Minister of Aesthetics) is your man. Might want to schedule dates now because he will be booked in the next week. ;) Oh and something about politics (makes post relevant)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted December 22, 2013 Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 *spots DBDC resident hippy gatorback05* Always odd to see one of them in that kind of alliance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted December 22, 2013 Report Share Posted December 22, 2013 Anytime you have a collection of update active, competent people you basically have the formula for coordinating and demolishing opponents. Hyper coordinating attacks, update activity, massive warchests, knowing how to maximize damage, and being super active basically gives any collection of nations with similar NS a huge damage advantage over their opponents (especially when many of them are MIA for days at a time). That there is no ability to down-declare on DBDC is basically icing on that cake. The reason why no one will be able to touch DBDC indefinitely is there aren't enough competent and active nations in that nation range to collectively counter them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted December 23, 2013 Report Share Posted December 23, 2013 Not to mention that a 150K Nation trying to take on a 300K nation will be out of range after a round, while that 300K nation won't be dragged down much at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Humphrey Posted December 24, 2013 Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 (edited) Damn, didn't know WAPA, Ni, FoB, CPAC, Prussian Confed were on our side. Even Int is hardly a coalition member of ours given that they are a member of your side who left you to burn. I guess that spat with NATO is ignored too. I realise the confusion has been cleared up, but I thought it was rather poignant that you have only just this war fully appreciated DBDC's upper tier superiority, and that you linked it to NATO's conflict with DBDC. Our conflict reflected that NATO and TPF were the only ones prepared to sacrifice our nations against DBDC to counter a war against Fark, with no support from Fark's allies (because "the numbers don't stack up"), and while Fark's blocmate in Polar was preoccupied with planning its war to target our ally in NPO. Edited December 24, 2013 by Sir Humphrey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted December 24, 2013 Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 I realise the confusion has been cleared up, but I thought it was rather poignant that you have only just this war fully appreciated DBDC's upper tier superiority, and that you linked it to NATO's conflict with DBDC. Our conflict reflected that NATO and TPF were the only ones prepared to sacrifice our nations against DBDC to counter a war against Fark, with no support from Fark's allies (because "the numbers don't stack up"), and while Fark's blocmate in Polar was preoccupied with planning its war to target our ally in NPO. Yeah this makes me all warm and fuzzy inside :| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 24, 2013 Report Share Posted December 24, 2013 I realise the confusion has been cleared up, but I thought it was rather poignant that you have only just this war fully appreciated DBDC's upper tier superiority, and that you linked it to NATO's conflict with DBDC. Our conflict reflected that NATO and TPF were the only ones prepared to sacrifice our nations against DBDC to counter a war against Fark, with no support from Fark's allies (because "the numbers don't stack up"), and while Fark's blocmate in Polar was preoccupied with planning its war to target our ally in NPO. Usually when you throw quote marks around something it's actually a quote. Somehow I don't think that is the case. It's also a bit of an assumption to claim I've only just "appreciated" (That's how you do it) something. And yes, you got us once again. We've all been after the NPO our entire lives and spent countless days just sitting and thinking of ways to pull it off. It must be difficult living such a paranoid life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted December 25, 2013 Report Share Posted December 25, 2013 Usually when you throw quote marks around something it's actually a quote. Somehow I don't think that is the case. It's also a bit of an assumption to claim I've only just "appreciated" (That's how you do it) something. And yes, you got us once again. We've all been after the NPO our entire lives and spent countless days just sitting and thinking of ways to pull it off. It must be difficult living such a paranoid life. Is that your opinion or are you speaking everyone? Honestly I'd choose another representative, but that's just my opinion anyhow. -_- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted December 25, 2013 Report Share Posted December 25, 2013 (edited) That's disappointing to hear. I thought maybe you guys intended to thumb your nose at the entire treaty web, not get wrapped up in political wars. Ho ho my naive friend. Maybe 6 months ago, but that's all out the window when it becomes a mixed up mess of people who have dual memberships and therefore allegiance to allies rather than to any ideals or lack-of-ideals. Just as all Kindergarteners grow up and break their best friends hearts in middle school, DBDC can't "just care for a few friends" for any great length of time since all their friends are only their friends because of political allegiance, and political allegiances end in backstabbing. Or maybe DBDC has figured out how to make "durrrr friends" work as longterm foreign policy where everyone else on the planet has failed for a century. In war, they are stooges of the Lie of political friendship. In peace they are raiders like any other: Cowards who don't dare take on anyone in their range from their home AAs which cannot or will not cover the cost of their rutting. Edited December 25, 2013 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 25, 2013 Report Share Posted December 25, 2013 Is that your opinion or are you speaking everyone? Honestly I'd choose another representative, but that's just my opinion anyhow. -_- Every time you post, Vladimir cries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted December 25, 2013 Report Share Posted December 25, 2013 (edited) Ho ho my naive friend. Maybe 6 months ago, but that's all out the window when it becomes a mixed up mess of people who have dual memberships and therefore allegiance to allies rather than to any ideals or lack-of-ideals. Just as all Kindergarteners grow up and break their best friends hearts in middle school, DBDC can't "just care for a few friends" for any great length of time since all their friends are only their friends because of political allegiance, and political allegiances end in backstabbing. Or maybe DBDC has figured out how to make "durrrr friends" work as longterm foreign policy where everyone else on the planet has failed for a century. In war, they are stooges of the Lie of political friendship. In peace they are raiders like any other: Cowards who don't dare take on anyone in their range from their home AAs which cannot or will not cover the cost of their rutting. Considering it'd cost CubaQuerida ~$346,443,438.67 to purchase 100 technology by himself I'd say it covers the cost of his rutting. If I remember correctly he was raking in 55+ technology per ground battle won or something along those lines. You do the math and tell me it isn't worth every penny considering he brings in an aid cycle worth of tech every raid. Not to mention that a 150K Nation trying to take on a 300K nation will be out of range after a round, while that 300K nation won't be dragged down much at all. That strategy worked wonders last war. Edited December 25, 2013 by Tick1 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.