KenMorningstar Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) 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. The Sparta front was offered white peace. White peace no reentry, nothing else asked. The problem was Berbers refused it because he wanted a no reentry clause on Sparta as well. The losing coalition does not get to determine where the winners are redeployed at. Hell the US front can get white peace tomorrow if they ask for it. Done and done, admit you lost, go your own way. But we will not accept that we can't redeploy our forces elsewhere afterwards. Edited January 10, 2014 by KenMorningstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 No, we Bi-Polar Umbrella at the last minute and wreck them too. Then we recruit everyone into the Platysphere. Strangely plausible. Only I don't think you could take Umbrella. Would make for fascinating viewing, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 The Sparta front was offered white peace. White peace no reentry, nothing else asked. The problem was Berbers refused it because he wanted a no reentry clause on Sparta as well. The losing coalition does not get to determine where the winners are redeployed at.Hell the US front can get white peace tomorrow if they ask for it. Done and done, admit you lost, go your own way. But we will not accept that we can't redeploy our forces elsewhere afterwards.Sparta was losing their front, actually. Until you lot decided to draw the ampersand in :> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenMorningstar Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Sparta was losing their front, actually. Until you lot decided to draw the ampersand in :> Sparta did just fine. They were far from losing, if anything it was pretty even. But the front was offered an out without escalation. They chose to stay in, they are getting what they asked for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 The Sparta front was offered white peace. White peace no reentry, nothing else asked. The problem was Berbers refused it because he wanted a no reentry clause on Sparta as well. The losing coalition does not get to determine where the winners are redeployed at. Hell the US front can get white peace tomorrow if they ask for it. Done and done, admit you lost, go your own way. But we will not accept that we can't redeploy our forces elsewhere afterwards. Â Â Sparta was losing their front, actually. Until you lot decided to draw the ampersand in :> Â Yeah. The quagmire that is this front over Sparta not packing it up and taking the no re-entry seems much more like the waste of time/pixels that NPO is being accused of over not wanting to accept 5 months of peace mode (lmao) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Sparta did just fine. They were far from losing, if anything it was pretty even. But the front was offered an out without escalation. They chose to stay in, they are getting what they asked for.Not really, they asked for white peace~e: and for the record, I know not escalating doesn't make sense from your coalition's perspective. You wanted to punish NATO and TIO for not accepting peace, and that's fine. The only thing is it wasn't their fault for not taking a deal that wasn't favorable to them given the circumstances. Edited January 10, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Â Sparta was losing their front, actually. Until you lot decided to draw the ampersand in :> Â They were only enabled to be in such a favorable position on the front by some alliances in our coalition. The arrogance to suggest that it was down to them was hilarious, because had we wanted to, Plan B could of gotten wrecked pretty early on. This is a consequence of their decisions. Â We have no issue with that -- and personally I fully understand why the offer was rejected. They did whatever they had to do. And so did we. But let's stop with the conspiracies that targeting Plan B is some sort of ulterior motive. If that was the case, we wouldn't of allowed the TIO/NATO front to go well for them for as long as it did out of our own discretion, and certainly wouldn't of offered them a fair exit point. Edited January 10, 2014 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) They were only enabled to be in such a favorable position on the front by some alliances in our coalition. The arrogance to suggest that it was down to them was hilarious, because had we wanted to, Plan B could of gotten wrecked pretty early on. This is a consequence of their decisions. We have no issue with that -- and personally I fully understand why the offer was rejected. They did whatever they had to do. And so did we."Arrogance" implies I don't know damn well that it was a concession you were making at first. That does not change the facts. Edited January 10, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) "Arrogance" implies I don't know damn well that it was a concession you were making at first. That does not change the facts. Â I didn't mean arrogance on your part. I ment TIO/NATO. Not sure why they kept citing that they were winning on that front, when as you say that concession was made by us from the start. Â Either way, we let it all unfold, and I don't think anyone on our side of this front has an issue with how they acted and the decisions they made. Just pointing out that we were reactive to those decisions, as opposed to proactively having an agenda against them. Some of these theories that Plan B have become the new center of the war are stupid. Edited January 10, 2014 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 I didn't mean arrogance on your part. I ment TIO/NATO. Not sure why they kept citing that they were winning on that front, when as you say that concession was made by us from the start. Either way, we let it all unfold, and I don't think anyone on our side of this front has an issue with how they acted and the decisions they made. Just pointing out that we were reactive to those decisions, as opposed to proactively having an agenda against them. Some of these theories that Plan B have become the new center of the war are stupid.Well, you're dogpiling them pretty well. I can see how that perception has spread -- and it does seem to be about the second main objective at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Well, you're dogpiling them pretty well. I can see how that perception has spread -- and it does seem to be about the second main objective at this point.  Not really any more than all of the others. In fact I would still say that the current forces facing R&R are hardly overwhelming. If you considered tier breakdowns, and essentially removed the Umb/TOP/other nations that are no longer relevant in this war, then you would see that STA faced a much more difficult task, against IRON/NADC/TTK/GOD -- with a view to adding more resources on that front. You really think there was an agenda to hurt STA?  If our main objective was to focus on them, the vast majority of their defensive slots would be filled to the max. Which isn't the case. Edited January 10, 2014 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlogYou Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Hail Goons; GonoS; Pink Elephants; Plan B; Britney Spears? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014  Not really any more than all of the others. In fact I would still say that the current forces facing R&R are hardly overwhelming. If you considered tier breakdowns, and essentially removed the Umb/TOP/other nations that are no longer relevant in this war, then you would see that STA faced a much more difficult task, against IRON/NADC/TTK/GOD -- with a view to adding more resources on that front. You really think there was an agenda to hurt STA?  If our main objective was to focus on them, the vast majority of their defensive slots would be filled to the max. Which isn't the case.  Again, what does STA have to do with this? Yes they faced a difficult task, they're much smaller than we are, what is the relevance? The point still stands that if this is a war on NPO, then why are there 195 wars for 220 nations on an escalating R&R front while there are 181 for 290 nations on NPO? Obviously the "they've taken enough damage" justification is BS, because there still has not been a white peace offer given to NPO. So if there are those in the enemy coalition that want NPO to take more damage.... why is our front the one that they are expending resources on? If you do the damage directly to the supposed source, you don't need to demand peace terms that people will disagree on. You can either downgrade the demands or just offer white peace at that point.  This has shifted from being against NSO to being against NG to being against NPO to... apparently being against US? I don't get the complicity in having such a thing happen, again I say it's a shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenMorningstar Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Except NPO has their entire top range in PM so we can't damage them. So... You have fresh nations and you have offered them up to us. WHHHEEEEEEEE!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Except NPO has their entire top range in PM so we can't damage them. So... You have fresh nations and you have offered them up to us. WHHHEEEEEEEE!!!! Â .....which explains why the alliances declaring war on us are all in the lower tier where they can fight both us and NPO? Our avg NS is 24k while NPO's in 21k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014  why is our front the one that they are expending resources on? Your tears sustain us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Â Again, what does STA have to do with this? Yes they faced a difficult task, they're much smaller than we are, what is the relevance? The point still stands that if this is a war on NPO, then why are there 195 wars for 220 nations on an escalating R&R front while there are 181 for 290 nations on NPO? Obviously the "they've taken enough damage" justification is BS, because there still has not been a white peace offer given to NPO. So if there are those in the enemy coalition that want NPO to take more damage.... why is our front the one that they are expending resources on? If you do the damage directly to the supposed source, you don't need to demand peace terms that people will disagree on. You can either downgrade the demands or just offer white peace at that point. Â This has shifted from being against NSO to being against NG to being against NPO to... apparently being against US? I don't get the complicity in having such a thing happen, again I say it's a shame. Â The relevance is that STA's was just like R&R in terms of how they entered the war. The odds they faced were far greater than R&R. By your logic, you would say that the new motive of the war was to wreck STA -- even though that's nonsensical. For the record STA did not complain and whine about the fact they were covered, nor did they make up conspiracies that the war is now about them. Â You have such an over inflated opinion of yourself to think that this war has now become about you. Edited January 10, 2014 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Your tears sustain us. Â Lol, it's not a lamentation, it's pointing out the bullshit propaganda that has been continuous. If you're going to attack us, then say you are and own it. This "we're just attacking them to peace out and end the front" shtick is a lie. Admit the opportunism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorSoul Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Â The relevance is that STA's was just like R&R in terms of how they entered the war. The odds they faced were far greater than R&R. By your logic, you would say that the new motive of the war was to wreck STA -- even though that's nonsensical. For the record STA did not complain and whine about the fact they were covered, nor did they make up conspiracies that the war is now about them. Â You have such an over inflated opinion of yourself to think that this war has now become about you. Â Speaking of over-inflated opinions of themselves... Edited January 10, 2014 by WarriorSoul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Â Lol, it's not a lamentation, it's pointing out the !@#$%^&* propaganda that has been continuous. If you're going to attack us, then say you are and own it. This "we're just attacking them to peace out and end the front" shtick is a lie. Admit the opportunism. Â If there was an agenda to focus our efforts on Plan B, we would never of offered you a fair exit out of the war, and certainly would not of made certain concessions out of our discretion at the start of the war, where TIO/NATO were allowed to have an advantage over Sparta. We have been way more than understanding of your position and several alliances went out of their way to help you. Yet now that you are adequately covered, many rounds after the war started, you whine and accuse others of opportunism. Pathetic. Â Â Speaking of over-inflated opinions of themselves... Â Strong ad hominem bro. Edited January 10, 2014 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 TL;DR: robster is upset because his "enemy" wasn't honest with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Â The relevance is that STA's was just like R&R in terms of how they entered the war. The odds they faced were far greater than R&R. By your logic, you would say that the new motive of the war was to wreck STA -- even though that's nonsensical. For the record STA did not complain and whine about the fact they were covered, nor did they make up conspiracies that the war is now about them. Â You have such an over inflated opinion of yourself to think that this war has now become about you. Â Like I said, I haven't followed the war in regards to STA, but my understanding is that they were attacked because them peacing out separately was actually feasible, but I think we've made it abundantly clear that we're not doing the same. Â Â If there was an agenda to focus our efforts on Plan B, we would never of offered you a fair exit out of the war, and certainly would not of made certain concessions out of our discretion at the start of the war, where TIO/NATO were allowed to have an advantage over Sparta. We have been way more than understanding of your position and several alliances went out of their way to help you. Yet now that you are adequately covered, many rounds after the war started, you whine. Pathetic. Â Lol, Rob, cut the thug lyfe crap. Â And the "fair exit" of before is still the same "fair exit" of now, which is leaving our allies out to dry. We wouldn't have done it if we defended NpO, and we're not going to do it now that we're defending NPO, so you can get your kicks in. Just be honest about it without the quasi-moralist tippytoeing. I know that we have friends in your coalition that you're trying to appease with the "we're just doing it to finish the war justification" though, which is why that story is being clung to so tightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Speaking of over-inflated opinions of themselves... Nothing is a greater constant in this world than the myopic desire of some people to default whenever possible to attacking the man and not the message. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) TL;DR: robster is upset because his "enemy" wasn't honest with him.  What do I have to be upset about? :laugh:  I don't think it's just being dis honest in public. I genuinely think they are deluded enough to think that this war has now become about them. Edited January 10, 2014 by Robster83 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Lol, Rob, cut the thug lyfe crap.Yeah, that's my schtick :| 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.