Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 That doesn't count. Tywin is a dumbass...He was saying Tywin is a bad propagandist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Which is entirely true. :| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) NSO coalition thinks that it can put the pressure on us because they refuse to cooperate and surrender individually. But the reality is that the ringleader under the peacemode bed needs to tell his henchmen to back down and surrender. But if you want to stay in the house and hide under your beds, do so. We're patient, we can wait. PS We're cutting the water so you can enjoy each others smelly company. Edited January 8, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Holy shit I think to call you bad is an understatement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Wow. Crawl back under your rock kid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefano Palmieri Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Rey The Great makes better propaganda than you Tywin, and that's saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Rey The Great makes better propaganda than you Tywin, and that's saying something. At least he finally made something not GoT ... That's improvement, in a way ......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefano Palmieri Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 At least he finally made something not GoT ... That's improvement, in a way ......... True, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Rey The Great makes better propaganda than you Tywin, and that's saying something.Excuse you, but that is beautiful work by a beautiful soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 you are a bad person and I will hunt you to the ends of the earth if you don't cut that... I will enjoy... If you want permawar on NPO, just say it. It'll make this process go a lot easier. I don't understand why you guys are so scared of saying you don't want to offer NPO terms yet. What are you afraid of? I don't think anyone wants permawar. Right now, I think a longer war is possible and probable but it would be extremely difficult to pull an actual permawar. That being said, I don't think anyone is afraid of permawar. As it stands, many on your side of the war are taking more damage than they are inflicting and the damage ratio between the coalitions as a whole, is increasing. It is damn close to 3 million difference and growing every day. While this may not be a lot, this is with the inclusion of R&R at a rather late stage in the war*. So, the longer this war keeps going, the more damage y'all take and the more economic harm done to those nations in PM. *yes, we have gone over why R&R are taking so much damage, just stating that the addition of a fresh alliance should have helped some, at least with absorbing damage from other alliances but that appears to not have happened as well as hoped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysergide Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Rey The Great makes better propaganda than you Tywin, and that's saying something. There is nothing "Great" about Rey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) If you want permawar on NPO, just say it. It'll make this process go a lot easier. I don't understand why you guys are so scared of saying you don't want to offer NPO terms yet. What are you afraid of? Two months isn't a permawar- it isn't even a terribly long war. The eagerness to play the martyr and roll out old and tired lines is both campy and out of place. This isn't a fight for anyone's survival, this isn't an epic anticipated war of life and death- it's as by the book as any war has ever been. I know you're better than this. Edited January 8, 2014 by iamthey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) it's as by the book as any war has ever been.Um, no. Such a massive amount of treaties activated by optional aggression - and in many cases, unnecessarily - as well as the blatant ignorance of a treaty or two is pretty unconventional.E: I'm not complaining, it's just a bit unordinary. Edited January 8, 2014 by Neo Uruk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Um, no. Such a massive amount of treaties activated by optional aggression - and in many cases, unnecessarily - as well as the blatant ignorance of a treaty or two is pretty unconventional.E: I'm not complaining, it's just a bit unordinary. Did you miss WotC, Karma, and Bipolar War? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Let's not forget the Unjust War! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Gabriel Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Aggression is always optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Did you miss WotC, Karma, and Bipolar War?BiPolar wasn't exactly a good "by-the-book" example. Naming only two other wars out of the plethora also doesn't help your case.Coincidentally, WotC was the first war I witnessed so you'd think it would have set my standards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Bi-Polar was very by the book, you just are not widely read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 BiPolar wasn't exactly a good "by-the-book" example. Naming only two other wars out of the plethora also doesn't help your case. Coincidentally, WotC was the first war I witnessed so you'd think it would have set my standards! You could name literally any war since aggression clauses became the norm (rather than just reading them in to MDPs) and find a pile of oA entries. There's nothing the least bit remarkable about their use here, and ignoring treaties, while hardly a positive, has also been a feature for as long as there have been treaties to ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 You could name literally any war since aggression clauses became the norm (rather than just reading them in to MDPs) and find a pile of oA entries. There's nothing the least bit remarkable about their use here, and ignoring treaties, while hardly a positive, has also been a feature for as long as there have been treaties to ignore."a pile" doesn't equate to what we've seen on each front in this war. Hell, Nordreich is eating what would be considered a major front's task in several other wars. EQ is the only recent war to feature such a staggering amount of oAs involved and that was lawyered to be "an attack on one is an attack on all". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) This isn't a fight for anyone's survival, this isn't an epic anticipated war of life and death- it's as by the book as any war has ever been. I know you're better than this. By the book written by Ramirus. Introduction by Tywin. Edited January 8, 2014 by Steve Buscemi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 "a pile" doesn't equate to what we've seen on each front in this war. Hell, Nordreich is eating what would be considered a major front's task in several other wars. EQ is the only recent war to feature such a staggering amount of oAs involved and that was lawyered to be "an attack on one is an attack on all". This is partially because, at its peak, the sides for this war were closer to parity than in most if not all world wars. That necessitates moving alliances around to ensure coverage, which means that you often cannot rely upon invoking MD-level treaties alone. And you're still off the mark. Check out the oA chains that were used in Grudge, as an example...a tonne of alliances oA'd in on Fark. Sparta then declared on a couple of those, which resulted in a large oA chain to bring in the alliances that had been earmarked for coverage. GOD hit Valhalla; because the alliances earmarked were a couple chains away, four oAs were invoked in covering them. There are a dozen more examples from that war alone. That's coalition warfare. I mean, shit. There's plenty to complain about in this and every war. But "you're using your treaties to maximize the strategic advantage of your coalition" really shouldn't be one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 This is partially because, at its peak, the sides for this war were closer to parity than in most if not all world wars. That necessitates moving alliances around to ensure coverage, which means that you often cannot rely upon invoking MD-level treaties alone.Well, yes, but that doesn't mean it's common. GrudgeThat entire war was one giant fucking pre-empt, lol. That is not an example of by-the-book warfare. I mean, !@#$. There's plenty to complain about in this and every war. But "you're using your treaties to maximize the strategic advantage of your coalition" really shouldn't be one of them.I even stated I am not complaining, but rather disagreeing that this is "as by the book as any war has ever been." A much better example of that would be PB-NpO (I like to think of DH-NPO as separate but obviously related). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schad Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Well, yes, but that doesn't mean it's common. It's common in every war that necessitates their use. It'll become even more common now that fewer major alliances are in blocs. Using oAs to effectively cover fronts isn't just by-the-book, it's probably an entire chapter of the book. That entire war was one giant !@#$@#$ pre-empt, lol. That is not an example of by-the-book warfare. I even stated I am not complaining, but rather disagreeing that this is "as by the book as any war has ever been." A much better example of that would be PB-NpO (I like to think of DH-NPO as separate but obviously related). That war featured the invocation of a number of optional aggression clauses, as well, and the use of optional clauses in NOIR. The biggest difference is that all but a handful of the biggest alliances on the winning side were in blocs, and consequently many of the declarations happened via the aggression clauses in the bloc treaties themselves. Edit: one of these days I will actually use the multiquote function, rather than fucking up the tags doing it manually. One day. Edited January 8, 2014 by Schad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Did you miss WotC, Karma, and Bipolar War? Apparently a lot of people have. Well, yes, but that doesn't mean it's common. That entire war was one giant !@#$@#$ pre-empt, lol. That is not an example of by-the-book warfare. I even stated I am not complaining, but rather disagreeing that this is "as by the book as any war has ever been." A much better example of that would be PB-NpO (I like to think of DH-NPO as separate but obviously related). Please explain "by-the-book" warfare? You realize the first major war this world has ever seen (GW1/GPW) involved such a massive pile of nations hitting 3 alliances... I mean, there appears to be like 2 wars where there was not huge piles against alliances... (GWII/GWIII). Unless you go back to prior to GWI in which it was like 1v1. So, someone please explain this "by-the-book" bullshit that NSO's side keeps pulling out their asses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts