Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If we cared about our statistics more than our allies, we wouldn't have joined the war in the first place. We're losing; so be it. We were always going to lose this war if we joined this side, and frankly, it's been a much softer blow than what it could have been. We've lost plenty of NS, but most of it infra; we've lost roughly 20% of our tech thus far and that's nothing compared to what other alliances have lost in this and other recent wars. There's only 5 people with 3 filled defensive slots when I looked half an hour ago. GOONS will increase the damage we take, but not to the extent that we would want to abandon our allies on the field.

In short, "more weight".

 

I wasn't making a point about loyalty. I was more so referring to the fact that R&R likes to talk tough, but when it comes down to it, you don't perform. Up until now, R&R has had a significant advantage in fighting UPN in the tiers the vast majority of the fighting has been done between us. As TOP/Umb are top heavy and can't help much in the below 50k NS range, we relied on some of MI6's nations to help, and let's be frank HB's effort in the first round was pretty poor -- with their 7 or so offensive wars in the first round, where they got heavily outdamaged.

 

All that combined with the fact that you had plenty of nations with maxed out nukes, were fresh for the war, and had a long time to prepare for it. As opposed to us, where quite a few of our guys were already running out of nukes, or took significant damage in the 2months leading upto this particular engagement. 

 

R&R wasn't being adequately covered for a fairly long time. Yet you still performed badly. Many of your members referred to us as cannon fodder and such, be it in jest or seriously, and yet we still outdamaged you, while you held a significant advantage, whilst not performing to the best of our abilities.

 

As for your point about not losing as much tech/NS as the others. No !@#$, you haven't been involved in this war for all that long. Which makes the damage output disparity even more laughable.

Edited by Robster83
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 385
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

To be fair you were more effective than HB was in the first round.

Currently more effective than Echelon as well, and will pass LSF before this war's over! in seriousness though you can't blame R&R for not giving their all in this war, they were originally supposed to be on our side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't making a point about loyalty. I was more so referring to the fact that R&R likes to talk tough, but when it comes down to it, you don't perform. Up until now, R&R has had a significant advantage in fighting UPN in the tiers the vast majority of the fighting has been done between us. As TOP/Umb are top heavy and can't help much in the below 50k NS range, we relied on some of MI6's nations to help, and let's be frank HB's effort in the first round was pretty poor -- with their 7 or so offensive wars in the first round, where they got heavily outdamaged.
 
All that combined with the fact that you had plenty of nations with maxed out nukes, were fresh for the war, and had a long time to prepare for it. As opposed to us, where quite a few of our guys were already running out of nukes, or took significant damage in the 2months leading upto this particular engagement. 
 
R&R wasn't being adequately covered for a fairly long time. Yet you still performed badly. Many of your members referred to us as cannon fodder and such, be it in jest or seriously, and yet we still outdamaged you, while you held a significant advantage, whilst not performing to the best of our abilities.
 
As for your point about not losing as much tech/NS as the others. No !@#$, you haven't been involved in this war for all that long. Which makes the damage output disparity even more laughable.

I won't reject that- we've done poorly on our end. Someone will probably enter the topic and point at something about WRCs in lower than normal tiers on your side, but that won't be me.

UPN is a heck of a lot better than when we last fought you back in PB/NpO and I can only give the UPN credit for it- most alliances have gone backwards since then, not forwards, and yet here you are. MI6 had already impressed me in the NPO front. TOP and Umbrella don't need introducing. I'm afraid I'm biased in regards to HB and thus won't give word there. Edited by Avakael
Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't asked, either.  It's been said you're in until NATO and the other one are out.  You're not going to enjoy that stance.

It says a lot about the principles of your coalition when you and your fellow leaders in it continue to insist they are outraged because our alliances won't even consider leaving allies behind on the battlefield in return for comfortable white peace terms, especially considering that I) we are the ones defending ourselves from external aggression based on a flimsy CB and II) the CB wasn't even against NPO yet NPO is being threatened with indefinite war and the harshest surrender terms since Karma. Our people don't backstab allies  and if you think that what you people are asking of us is even close to reasonable and you aren't just being a shameless hypocrites, well, it's rather disappointing. 

 

Friends > Infra, remember? I know that doesn't mean much to the likes of TOP, but GOONS, Polar, etc, have a different reputation.

Edited by Nikolay
Link to post
Share on other sites

It says a lot about the principles of your coalition when you and your fellow leaders in it continue to insist they are outraged because our alliances won't even consider leaving allies behind on the battlefield in return for comfortable white peace terms, especially considering that I) we are the ones defending ourselves from external aggression based on a flimsy CB and II) the CB wasn't even against NPO yet NPO is being threatened with indefinite war and the harshest surrender terms since Karma. Our people don't backstab allies  and if you think that what you people are asking of us is even close to reasonable and you aren't just being a shameless hypocrites, well, it's rather disappointing. 

 

Friends > Infra, remember? I know that doesn't mean much to the likes of TOP, but GOONS, Polar, etc, have a different reputation.

Don't look at me, It's certainly not us pushing for terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says a lot about the principles of your coalition when you and your fellow leaders in it continue to insist they are outraged because our alliances won't even consider leaving allies behind on the battlefield in return for comfortable white peace terms, especially considering that I) we are the ones defending ourselves from external aggression based on a flimsy CB and II) the CB wasn't even against NPO yet NPO is being threatened with indefinite war and the harshest surrender terms since Karma. Our people don't backstab allies  and if you think that what you people are asking of us is even close to reasonable and you aren't just being a shameless hypocrites, well, it's rather disappointing. 

 

Friends > Infra, remember? I know that doesn't mean much to the likes of TOP, but GOONS, Polar, etc, have a different reputation.

As far as CB's go, this is one of the most solid to come up in years. Yet, people will always claim a war is unjust when they aren't the beneficiary of it. Unfortunately you're not going to find much support while playing the victim here. You reap what you sow. 

 

Lastly, the surrender terms are hardly harsh based on the context. You are incredibly reactionary and it seems your only debate tactic is to curl up in a ball and pretend the entire world is out to destroy you and your friends for merely existing. I don't fault you for staying in, as we are all enjoying ourselves here, and the period of peace that follows this will be boring (regardless of length). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh noooo... Goons wants us to get out of the war, let's run for the hills.

 

If you guys really want to push us out of the war, you'll have to do better than UPN HB and GOONS.

 

@Robster: 

That was a nice post you made..

Now these numbers are a few days old so they might have changed a bit:

 

HB 4 wars against none R&R nations.
UPN 0 wars against none R&R nations.

TOP 19 wars against none R&R nations.

MI6 5 wars against none R&R nations.

Umbrella 11 wars against none R&R nations.

 

And yet you were still begging for goons help..

 

And you call us underachieving? 

 

Also really? Telling people that to get peace they should join UPN.. you sure Peggy Sue isn't back in charge?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't look at me, It's certainly not us pushing for terms.


You should go talk to UPN (Robster) about that - according to them, everyone in your coalition is responsible for the terms offered to us... as is every one of the eight.

Give 'em hell, R&R. Edited by Krzyzewskiville
Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as CB's go, this is one of the most solid to come up in years. Yet, people will always claim a war is unjust when they aren't the beneficiary of it. Unfortunately you're not going to find much support while playing the victim here. You reap what you sow. 

 

Lastly, the surrender terms are hardly harsh based on the context. You are incredibly reactionary and it seems your only debate tactic is to curl up in a ball and pretend the entire world is out to destroy you and your friends for merely existing. I don't fault you for staying in, as we are all enjoying ourselves here, and the period of peace that follows this will be boring (regardless of length). 

 

Nikolay is no reactionary: he's quite progressive, possibly even a commie.

 

I don't see him claiming victimhood. I see him calling your coalition on its bullcrap. Own your perfidy.

 

Don't look at me, It's certainly not us pushing for terms.

 

Enabling is not pushing, true. But you are complicit, so anyone so inclined is free to look at you funny. One of GOONS' major virtues has been owning that you are amoral. Don't turn your back on that glorious legacy.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should go talk to UPN (Robster) about that - according to them, everyone in your coalition is responsible for the terms offered to us... as is every one of the eight.

Give 'em hell, R&R.

 

You really expect the peope in that coalition to talk to each other?  IF the was the case this was would not be the most poorly lead, poory planned cluster that Planet Bob had ever seen.  If they talked they might have to find out some of them want to DoW the others.  The fall out from this war among that side is going to be epic.    

Edited by The Big Bad
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your bark is bigger than your bite.

 

The bravado isn't going to change the statisatisticstics.

 

You have it backwards. Statistics won't change Bravado.

 

It's not everyday we get a pick of three of the world's most useless and ineffectual alliances to attack, but I'm glad we chose RnR.

 

Oh god the irony

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nikolay is no reactionary: he's quite progressive, possibly even a commie.

 

I don't see him claiming victimhood. I see him calling your coalition on its bullcrap. Own your perfidy.

I don't know. I think saying you've been wronged by a "flimsy CB", and kept at war by a coalition pushing the "harshest terms since Karma" tends to qualify as playing the victim card and lobbying for sympathy. Not only is this not the place - nobody buys it. It's that simple. Argue until you are blue in the face that we're out to get you - reality will continue to state otherwise.

 

 

 

 

You really expect the peope in that coalition to talk to each other?  IF the was the case this was would not be the most poorly lead, poory planned cluster that Planet Bob had ever seen.  If they talked they might have to find out some of them want to DoW the others.  The fall out from this war among that side is going to be epic.    

 

So who is going to DoW on who? Because we already have a claim on TOP, and if you have any intel on someone stealing our slots, we need to know. With your sources, you could become a very rich man indeed.

Edited by Starfox101
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not everyday we get a pick of three of the world's most useless and ineffectual alliances to attack, but I'm glad we chose RnR.

 

 

Hey come on, useless and ineffectual alliances are people too, you know

 

Also hello

Edited by Lex Quintus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh noooo... Goons wants us to get out of the war, let's run for the hills.

 

If you guys really want to push us out of the war, you'll have to do better than UPN HB and GOONS.

 

@Robster: 

That was a nice post you made..

Now these numbers are a few days old so they might have changed a bit:

 

HB 4 wars against none R&R nations.
UPN 0 wars against none R&R nations.

TOP 19 wars against none R&R nations.

MI6 5 wars against none R&R nations.

Umbrella 11 wars against none R&R nations.

 

And yet you were still begging for goons help..

 

And you call us underachieving? 

 

No one on this front cares if you get out of the war or not. 

 

Also not sure where you got those statistics from -- no surprise that your military is inept. We currently have 18 offensive wars declared, that are going on right now. 53 wars over the last 2 weeks. In two rounds of war, you dished out 241k damage to us, and we dished out 311k to you. Whilst YOU had a great advantage over us, in the tiers that we fought. You got significantly out damaged, whilst you had the numbers on your side, facing an alliance that has already been in a lengthy war. That's pathetic.

 

As for the comment about us begging GOONS, that was far from the case. You were not adequately covered, and yes, as part of the 'winning' coalition we requested adequate coverage, that considered the tier breakdowns. If we wanted to make you burn, we would of made that happen. It was good discretion on our part, due to some of your allies being on this side of the coalition.

 

You have a 1.1million negative damage output disparity. The worst out of everyone in the war -- even though you entered fairly late. How is that not underperforming?

 

Edit: Just realised what you ment by those statistics. And that's an awful metric to measure it by, and you know it.  :laugh:

 

Telling people that to get peace they should join UPN.. you sure Peggy Sue isn't back in charge? 

 

 

What the $%&@ are you talking about? I see nothing has changed since our last war, trying to hold something against me when I have no clue what you are on about.

 

Reminds me of that conversation with you in the PB/NpO peace discussions, where you requested a forced apology, for things that we did not do, and then threatened to disband us if we ever attack you again :v

Edited by Robster83
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Enabling is not pushing, true. But you are complicit, so anyone so inclined is free to look at you funny. One of GOONS' major virtues has been owning that you are amoral. Don't turn your back on that glorious legacy.
 

We may be immoral, but we do have values.

 

We have put our money where our mouth is.  One of the reasons we drew down on NPO to defensive conflicts is our objection to the terms as presented.

 

But we didn't want to be bored either, and our presence was requested so here we are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...