Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Why is this disgusting to you? R&R declared war on an alliance in our coalition, so GOONS is picking up R&R. It makes sense to deploy forces as needed to pick up enemy fighters, especially given the extremely direct treaty chain (GOONS has a MD treaty with TOP, who R&R declared on, direct treaty tie). I can understand why you might not like this, but why is this "disgusting" to you? Uh, TOP hit R&R.e: wait no. I thought R&R hit NpO for a second. Edited January 10, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenMorningstar Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Probably because R&R, a peripheral alliance somehow had a bunch of forces deployed on them from the NPO front. R&R has 195 wars to NPO's 181, that's retarded considering the situation. Considering the huge dump GOONS just took on some of their coalition partners, I suspect that might be causing some disgust. Of course this war is about R&R NPO NG NSO, right? Our coalition partners requested we go in. While some people were not excited they understood that we had the closest direct treaty chain and had the nations and numbers to fill a gap. We aren't excited that our direct allies are being attacked by other coalition members, but we never made a fuss about what the coalition needed to do. Edited January 10, 2014 by KenMorningstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Our coalition partners requested we go in. While some people were not excited they understood that we had the closest direct treaty chain and had the nations and numbers to fill a gap. We aren't excited that our direct allies are being attacked by other coalition members, but we never made a fuss ago what the coalition needed to dol You remember that first alliance you declared on, you know, the one that apparently needs to get terms for this war to end? They are declaring 2 offensive wars for every 1 defensive war they have, maybe your coalition could use some help there? Oh no, that's right, you guys throttled down on NPO because you disagree with the terms right? So on the one hand, you are a team player and help the coalition, and on the other hand you disagree with the coalition and take your ball and go home on the NPO front? Pathetic. Edit: Actually, it's so transparent it's laughable. You guys used XX-SF alliances to beat NPO down and force terms in the DH-NPO war, and then turned around and beat XX-SF down twice in a row. This whole re-deployment thing is a thinly veiled attempt to beat up an alliance that is a guaranteed enemy of yours when you go for the repeat. Edited January 10, 2014 by berbers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 You remember that first alliance you declared on, you know, the one that apparently needs to get terms for this war to end? They are declaring 2 offensive wars for every 1 defensive war they have, maybe your coalition could use some help there? Oh no, that's right, you guys throttled down on NPO because you disagree with the terms right? So on the one hand, you are a team player and help the coalition, and on the other hand you disagree with the coalition and take your ball and go home on the NPO front? Pathetic. Edit: Actually, it's so transparent it's laughable. You guys used XX-SF alliances to beat NPO down and force terms in the DH-NPO war, and then turned around and beat XX-SF down twice in a row. This whole re-deployment thing is a thinly veiled attempt to beat up an alliance that is a guaranteed enemy of yours when you go for the repeat. What have you done GOONS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenMorningstar Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Shut up Berbers. You haven't been helpful to your side at all. So don't cry about our decisions because your ego got in the way of you getting out of this mess a month ago. Sardonic runs GOONS, he doesn't like the terms for NPO. I on the other hand think they are fantastic. We outvoted Sardonic to move on R&R. I have reasons of my own for calling for that vote. As it is NPO has lost. They just won't admit it, much like you. NPO wanted terms, they got our first offer. Your front wanted us to give NPO terms, you got them as well. Nothing but your pride and ego are keeping you in the war at this point, we are here to apply the pressure to your main ally to move it along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 What have you done GOONS.enabled your posting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Probably because R&R, a peripheral alliance somehow had a bunch of forces deployed on them from the NPO front. R&R has 195 wars to NPO's 181, that's retarded considering the situation. Considering the huge dump GOONS just took on some of their coalition partners, I suspect that might be causing some disgust. Of course this war is about R&R NPO NG NSO, right? I thought you morons formed US to become more politically relevant, and move away from the periphery? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen and go back to being vassals- we all know you're far better at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I thought you morons formed US to become more politically relevant, and move away from the periphery? If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen and go back to being vassals- we all know you're far better at it. Last I checked the CB of this global war had nothing to do with us or US, so the shifting focus shows the disparity between the underlying motives and the stated reasons. Especially considering how uncompromising we were in the months prior to war on defending NpO from any aggression by NG/NSO, it's a real shame... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Probably because R&R, a peripheral alliance somehow had a bunch of forces deployed on them from the NPO front. R&R has 195 wars to NPO's 181, that's retarded considering the situation. Considering the huge dump GOONS just took on some of their coalition partners, I suspect that might be causing some disgust. Of course this war is about R&R NPO NG NSO, right? R&R made the choice to get involved in this war. Additional forces were deployed against US when it became clear they were entering on your side. You don't have room to complain about any sort of dogpile since your alliance was part of the biggest dogpile in CN history on ODN iirc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Last I checked the CB of this global war had nothing to do with us or US, so the shifting focus shows the disparity between the underlying motives and the stated reasons. Especially considering how uncompromising we were in the months prior to war on defending NpO from any aggression by NG/NSO, it's a real shame... The CB has nothing to do with US, however US decided to enter on the NSO side and therefor it makes perfect sense for the coalition to array forces against the entirety of US as needed to inflict as much damage as possible on them. I don't see what is so hard to understand that in war you try your best to defeat the enemy coalition by smashing their forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 You remember that first alliance you declared on, you know, the one that apparently needs to get terms for this war to end? They are declaring 2 offensive wars for every 1 defensive war they have, maybe your coalition could use some help there? Oh no, that's right, you guys throttled down on NPO because you disagree with the terms right? So on the one hand, you are a team player and help the coalition, and on the other hand you disagree with the coalition and take your ball and go home on the NPO front? Pathetic. Edit: Actually, it's so transparent it's laughable. You guys used XX-SF alliances to beat NPO down and force terms in the DH-NPO war, and then turned around and beat XX-SF down twice in a row. This whole re-deployment thing is a thinly veiled attempt to beat up an alliance that is a guaranteed enemy of yours when you go for the repeat. R&R is a fresh alliance in an ongoing global war. Did they expect nothing more than a wrist slap for entering at such a late date? So they got hit and are getting hit hard regardless of the bravado put on by some. As for NPO, the goal is to punish them. Sure, they are currently taking in a bit less wars than R&R but not by much. The sooner we crush US and get US, and others, out of this war; then the sooner we can punish NPO. It does not take a friggin genius to see that your coalition wishes to take as much damage to shield NPO and therefore we will gladly oblige you. BTW, it is 1.7 to 1 wars for NPO. Also, last I knew all of XX is on our side and GOD/NPL are also on our side. So, I have no idea what you are talking about with XX-SF (particularly since last I knew SF no longer exists). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 And what about the terms NPO leveled after the EQ war? You did not mention those. Yes because that happened due to you being such amazing people rather than it being based on a simple political calculation you got wrong in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 The CB has nothing to do with US, however US decided to enter on the NSO side and therefor it makes perfect sense for the coalition to array forces against the entirety of US as needed to inflict as much damage as possible on them. I don't see what is so hard to understand that in war you try your best to defeat the enemy coalition by smashing their forces. I wasn't responding to the general tone of the war, I was responding to his propaganda. We've supported Polar for longer than TOP have been allies with them, so the comment: "isn't this why you guys formed US?" was particularly amusing, considering US was crystal clear in defending NpO for months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Yes because that happened due to you being such amazing people rather than it being based on a simple political calculation you got wrong in the end. I fully agree with this. eQ was never in a position to demand shit from Competence. So to take that fact as NPO being gracious is quite amusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I wasn't responding to the general tone of the war, I was responding to his propaganda. We've supported Polar for longer than TOP have been allies with them, so the comment: "isn't this why you guys formed US?" was particularly amusing, considering US was crystal clear in defending NpO for months. The fact that you defended NpO for months means literally nothing to the current political situation, nor to the development of this war. But please, feel free to continue acting like you were Polaris' white knights or something. It's amusing. I enjoy the flip flopping. Are you complaining about our coalition using PM too much, or about putting too much pressure on you guys? Baby, this is why we set out a safe word before we got down to business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 A new low, even for GOONS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Probably because R&R, a peripheral alliance somehow had a bunch of forces deployed on them from the NPO front. R&R has 195 wars to NPO's 181, that's retarded considering the situation. Considering the huge dump GOONS just took on some of their coalition partners, I suspect that might be causing some disgust. Of course this war is about R&R NPO NG NSO, right? I realize military skill is beyond NATO but usually in a war when a front is mostly handled you shift to one that needs more attention. All of those alliances have been at war for months and two of them are in no fighting condition, R&R despite being horrible is still fresh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 As for NPO, the goal is to punish them. Sure, they are currently taking in a bit less wars than R&R but not by much. The sooner we crush US and get US, and others, out of this war; then the sooner we can punish NPO. It does not take a friggin genius to see that your coalition wishes to take as much damage to shield NPO and therefore we will gladly oblige you. Isn't the best way to conduct a war fighting the main target and inflicting the damage on those you state actually deserve it? That way you get your damage in, and you don't have to include reps/punishment after the war to get the same amount of destruction. It shows that there are ulterior motives when this is not the course of action, and the stated reasons don't match the actions. The Schlieffen Plan justification you're giving is disingenuous because you can accomplish your stated goal by actually fighting the people you say you started the war to fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Isn't the best way to conduct a war fighting the main target and inflicting the damage on those you state actually deserve it? That way you get your damage in, and you don't have to include reps/punishment after the war to get the same amount of destruction. It shows that there are ulterior motives when this is not the course of action, and the stated reasons don't match the actions. The Schlieffen Plan justification you're giving is disingenuous because you can accomplish your stated goal by actually fighting the people you say you started the war to fight. You are acting as if you have been facing overwhelming forces for many rounds. The quicker you realise that you had an advantage up to the point GOONS entered the better. RnR only received adequate coverage upon their entrance. It doesn't even compare to the odds that STA/TLR faced from the get go. If the intention was to wreck RnR, believe me, it could be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I understood the point of the war to be to wreck everything apart from TOP & Umbrella. Did I get the wrong memo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I understood the point of the war to be to wreck everything apart from TOP & Umbrella. Did I get the wrong memo? No, we Bi-Polar Umbrella at the last minute and wreck them too. Then we recruit everyone into the Platysphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 You are acting as if you have been facing overwhelming forces for many rounds. The quicker you realise that you had an advantage up to the point GOONS entered the better. RnR only received adequate coverage upon their entrance. It doesn't even compare to the odds that STA/TLR faced from the get go. If the intention was to wreck RnR, believe me, it could be done. I'm sorry, what? R&R has had an advantage in this war up until GOONS entered, and that tipped the scales? Well butter my biscuit and call me Susan. I also don't see what this has to do with STA either. I'm not well versed in their situation, but if the coalition deliberately passed up attacking NPO in favor of dogpiling STA, then that would also be disingenuous since the war is not supposed to be about STA. If anybody besides the main targets are getting hit harder than the main targets, you can't honestly expect anybody to believe it's just to end the war the fastest way possible, because the fastest way possible to end the war would be to get the damage done on the proper targets during the war, so that nobody needs to include reps or punishments in the peace deal. Like I said, it shows that there are ulterior motives behind the positioning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Like I said, it shows that there are ulterior motives behind the positioning. The motive was that you entered on the other side, and were not adequately covered, and now you are. Not sure what you don't understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 The motive was that you entered on the other side, and were not adequately covered, and now you are. Not sure what you don't understand.The unwillingness to give up Sparta's front with white peace has led your side to give itself a lot more damage taken. It was not necessary to drag this front out, nor was it necessary to draw RnR in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 The fact that you defended NpO for months means literally nothing to the current political situation, nor to the development of this war. But please, feel free to continue acting like you were Polaris' white knights or something. It's amusing. I enjoy the flip flopping. Are you complaining about our coalition using PM too much, or about putting too much pressure on you guys? Baby, this is why we set out a safe word before we got down to business. He wasn't saying they were actively defending, as in were engaged in some fashion against someone - he's saying they were abundantly clear that they were slated in and dedicated to Polar Coalition for this war IF NSO COALITION made the first attacks; the not-yet-dubbed Polar Coalition (that says not-yet-dubbed coalition it's not pointing at any single individual) started changing things around in such manners as the one which saw IRON fucked over in that the targets were changed last minute and they couldn't do anything about it while trying to arrange the TOP-NG brawl (their own words). 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.