Romans Declare On..

[kongland]

End of round in a 30 day round. Just another tricky day. Suck it up. We been at war all round and we are still taking heads. This is TE when it was new. Kill on.

Yours is a continuation of previous grudges. Here is a start of new grudges for no apparent reason.

When TE was new? It's changed. The same, like TPC you are in now is not the TPC I was in. 

We will fight the staggering attacks of RE, of course -despite them being fresh. Helps to plan things for the future.

[DevilDog]

 

Just because there is a war between your two alliances doesn't mean that their intent was to destroy you at all. They probably just wanted to have fun towards the end of the round HD. 

Considering the # of alliances out there that had not been at war yet I am just not seeing the "fun" in not attacking one or more of them but instead attacking an alliance already at war.

Then add in the chance of damaging a "long standing friendship" by attacking them and I really can't see the "fun" in this war.

 

Are you seeing it HD?

 

Thus I will have to say about your post above bomb "that dog wont hunt".  ;)

[King William]

Yours is a continuation of previous grudges. Here is a start of new grudges for no apparent reason.
When TE was new? It's changed. The same, like TPC you are in now is not the TPC I was in.
We will fight the staggering attacks of RE, of course -despite them being fresh. Helps to plan things for the future.

Unless you want this to be the start of "new grudges", I know I don't hold any. We just found this to be the war we wanted to make.

If it helps you to know what we (I really) was thinking, is we wanted to gun for Skaro because they're number one and have numbers (complete with a second wave as we'd drop into range of more of their targets). However they're not the most renowned fighters, and were having their own "wars" as well. It would've been looked badly upon.

Then we looked at Citadel. They (you) were doing your own "wars". Attacking you would surely be looked badly upon (poor form if you're already engaged).

However, it was pointed out to me (and I quickly agreed and still think this way), that many of your nations were avoiding war. Either they were under engaged or in easy wars (actually a large number with zero damage). I actually wanted to record the damage (taken and dealt) and make a big nice post. But you can imagine the difficultues in that.

I didn't just ram on Citadel members though. Here's my notes on your top 20 nations:
[spoiler]
Some notes on your top nations at the time of declaration:

(Note: Damage summerized like so "Dmg [40,13] [0,0] [300,85]" for three different wars with example damages of 40 infra & 13 tech, zero infra & zero tech, and 300 infra & 85 tech. Also stats are taken as of ~7:00 AM CN time Jan 24th)

ddgr8 - Only war at the time with dmg of [70,2]. Hit by us.

Predrag Glavash - Skipped for initial attack. Two wars at the time (now expired) [75,3] & [236,61]. Hit once.

Dark Zone Elite - In three wars, the one with Andy [769,161]. Not hit.

mr pink - Three wars, one reaching dmg's of [534,169]. Not hit, but out of anarchy, ready to counter.

Pax Animi - Three wars, one totalling [620,183]. Currently untouched.

Manx5 - In two wars (still on going) with literally zero damage taken (and plenty dealt). One of the very first targets I assigned. Wanted to double cover.

kongland (yourself) - Three wars, one with Andy at [632,154]. Skipped in the targetted strike, but ol' Stelios got ya.

kulomascovia - Three wars. Andy war dmg [739,102]. Not hit, but out of anarchy.

Fire Ants - Attacked by Andy and made wars himself. Not declared on by us.

Aditya - Zero wars. Peak infra 2.8k. Took him personally.

Castros - One war zero damage, the other totalling [344,81]... I actually feel a little bad since my mental mark to avoid was 100 infra in a war. Must've slipped my mind. Talked to him in passing though and he doesn't seem upset (thanks Castros!).

King Solvay - Three wars. [79,10] [0,0] [49,3] Hit once.

World Coalition - One war peaked at #1 in destruction. Not touched by us in this war.

Repulsor - Four wars total; [89,8] [0,0] [0,0] [0,0]. Hit by us.

This guy. He was attacked, and does 3 times the damage output. Then declares three more wars and none of them fight back. A lot of it is luck of who you get, but man.

Eumirbago - Paid me to not attack him. Also was in three wars at the time totaling [981,315] [122,77] [104,7]

mg114 - Three wars at the time [620,178] [6,1] [0,0]

Stonybeast - Three wars at the time [111,15] [10,2] [0,0], hit by us once.

However this was another with over 100 infra dmg in a war. Won't say I had a hard and fast rule, but I don't consider it crazy damage, and just look at his damage output for a second. I mean, just for my own laziness I don't have their damage output recorded as well, but these really are raids. It's murder your guys get/got away with.

I mean, good on you for doing it, if I could do that I'd do it too. A lot of the reason why I wanted to hit, and didn't change course from hitting Citadel.

I'm going to do a few more of these, but really, how much more proof can I really provide? If this is what is upsetting, I sincerially apolize. But how can you get upset about "friendly" Romans starting a grudge with you. If you don't expect people to hit you because of some silly status quo "we're in a declared war, so we're off limits!" then I don't think we can play in the same sandbox. Everyone talks about up/down declares, or how the game isn't fair, the difference between upper tier alliances and the cruddy ones, or even talks about secret treaties, how wars are preplanned and orchestrated.

If our war is a sticking point I don't know what to say. If there are cases where we're ganging up unfairly, or are turds about something [perhaps where I let the members open range/where counter wars come into play] that's another issue.

You can give the arguement about us being fresh, just waiting to pounch; and I'd give you credit on the fresh part.

But honestly, in my opinion, Romans hasn't exactly been doing too hot. We're not chomping at the bit, waiting to get one over on anyone. We want some war. We want some fun.

Who are we to look at these stats and decided that we're allowed to determine that your wars are "inadequate" and attack you for it. I mean, perhaps you have a point there. But when planning the war, [before even more jump'd on Skaro], hitting Skaro wouldn't have been 'fair' either, and grouping up on too many, without just declaring open season, might've opened us up to, one a lot of enemies to fight, but also made a lack luster war that's too spread out.

Even with your war going on, when I think Citadel, I will admit I do think quality, and with Skaro as well, I thought it was a fairly good match up. We could've also hit Hellas, or NDO, or a bunch of smaller alliances, but meh. We just didn't.

We can hit Hellas and NDO next round, if you'd like. I'll consider it.

<Sorry for flood of concisousness>

Alexio15 - three wars at the time [138,13] [134,9] [417,81]. Not hit by us.

unseen - three wars at the time [364,105] [66,2] [257,54]. Not hit.

Donada - Four wars, all current, all on the same day, one is Andy. Was enough for me to ignore. Also not currently hit by us.
[/spoiler]

To top that off, my first wave were all assigned (and I don't go through and check meticulously, but they should've also all followed through as assigned) three targets. Three targets, spreading themselves open to take damage and more than willing to get countered.

(A little aside to any Skaro reading through; I'm speaking to/of Cit only about our war and such. If you have questions or concerns please ask. I might be a little passive aggressive, but I really do mean no harm!)

Considering the # of alliances out there that had not been at war yet I am just not seeing the "fun" in not attacking one or more of them but instead attacking an alliance already at war.
Then add in the chance of damaging a "long standing friendship" by attacking them and I really can't see the "fun" in this war.

Are you seeing it HD?

Thus I will have to say about your post above bomb "that dog wont hunt". ;)

It's nice that fun is subjective.

This war was largely thought up and carried out by myself (I'm taking blame here, where I boast about how proud and happy I am, I'll include others who were there too). I like to go for the number one alliance. Skaro and Cit, both, in many accounts were number one, and both ahead of us.

As well, perhaps you should consider how nice it is to have someone want to come out and have their first dance with you (well Citadel, but pretend you're them).

And to "long lasting friendship", I'm not getting it. Perhaps I'm showing my greenness, perhaps I'm just a different person than the guy Citadel knew in Romans. You can still talk to me (to make friends, or know what's going on). But you can't expect that knowing some other guy in Romans, however long ago, makes this a backstab. And we can account for the poor form in attacking someone at war in other posts (I've posted a bit on it. I'd be willing to have legitimate conversation on the matter).

[hr]

Well I've written enough.
To those interested the gov of Romans sit as Raggy, Stelios, myself, Staccs (well, I kinda demoted him, he likes being retired but still quite in the thick of it), and ADude.

For getting things done, raggy is our pretty face, Stelios is our old man, Staccs just yells in our talks, so you should talk to me or ADude. Try and convince him to stab me. Roman governments aren't always the most stable. You could change the flavour.

Cheers.
And congrats if you actually read half of this.

[kongland]

We've had a few members who couldn't participate in our wars from the day one due to RL. We didn't have more members than the other 3 AAs, we've had less. Many active members were stretching themselves out and sometimes one would attack 3 or 2 would attack 3 opponents. So, we 've saved a few and left them as reserve, because they were coming too late. WE were going to have a short break and have one more end-of-the -round war.

 

So, once those members were coming up, they took up a few "leftovers", when the result of the war was clear.

 

What right do you have to decide that we need more wars, when these ones we've had were statistically  fair when we've started. As I remind you again and again - you've had other alliances to fight, who didn't fight AT ALL.

 

Your long posts have no meaning at all. You bet I have grudges. Any alliance would. Nothing to do with us having "friends" in RE. WE have none. Rest assured, there is no chance we'll become friends after that.

 

Avoiding your own regular wars by attacking someone who is already been engaged and was prepared better and fought better than their opponents? By being lazy and finding soft targets instead of really doing something meaningful?

 

When someone has a war, mind your own @#$%^&* business and find your own! Would be RE happy if other AAs would stagger you one day before your wars expire? Go to HELL!

Edited January 24, 2014 by kongland

[kongland]

As an afterthought..

I'll follow my own advice to Citadel members and stop posting here.

 

No point - RE was definitely avoiding real wars for itself and has chosen a lame excuse to have an easy stroll instead of a regular war.

 

Well, once I was upset with the warriors attacking us 5 days after our war when they had none -under the old management, a few rounds ago. Well, RE  - you beat them. That is much, much lower.

Have any doubts you'll pay for that? I don't.

 

The end.

[ddgr8]

Sorry Kong, this was too tempting..

 

 

However, it was pointed out to me (and I quickly agreed and still think this way), that many of your nations were avoiding war. Either they were under engaged or in easy wars (actually a large number with zero damage). I actually wanted to record the damage (taken and dealt) and make a big nice post. But you can imagine the difficultues in that.

I didn't just ram on Citadel members though. Here's my notes on your top 20 nations

 

 

Many of our nations were avoiding war: No, only those engaged in RL (3-4 nations), who missed war and didnt have much to pick from when they came on.

 

Either they were under engaged or in easy wars (actually a large number with zero damage). Yes, we were doing well. At start of war, we were behind in NS and stuff from the 3 targeted alliances combined; many of whom did put up excellent fights. And hope you realize that your alliance is under engaged and in easy wars right now. Well, not for long

 

Here's my notes on your top 20 nations: You should have made those notes on Hellas and NDO, you simply had to put [0,0] everywhere. It would have saved time for you, and given you an interesting regular war. 

 

As Kongland says, you were avoiding real wars and have now chosen a lame excuse to have easy ones. Point in case: Your own wars. Pick some real targets for your nation dude! I am sure you must be getting bored with these 3 easy lopsided wars of yours. Pick equals next time round. Not a good thing to hit on an alliance with 15 in anarchy and 1 day before their war ends. Had you even let us rebuild (delayed attacking by one day), this would have been cool. What you have done is not.

 

PS: Personally, i welcome your wars on me. I was getting bored too. Yes, i picked on one unprepared guy in RE, but i am not the one who started the trend of going after easy pickings.

[King William]

I got ddgr8 to post :)

And you're right on quite a few points. I will again go with, I didn't like Citadel's wars when I saw them (again, it is fair to then call into question "who do I think I am to decide what is fair"). And about RL, or engagement rates, I can surely understand. But, and this is my opinion, if someone isn't involved in the war, I'd strive to bring them in.

Not to overwhelm my enemy (unfairly..) but it was one of your men that made the very real observation that it is economical to hit nations not at war and generally less active, who may (very likely), not attack back.

Kinda sad that it's the case.

And again in trying to be honest, Romans have kinda sucked for a while, and it wasn't to build up infra or flag run, but simply that we didn't have the focus to organize and make wars happen, this round and a little before. For my wars I choose two (one fresh, the other I'd consider fresh) with decent to high (ignoring those infra hugging nation) infra, as well as a Skaro with 6 nukes at the time.

Considering most people don't stretch themselves on 3 wars (and that I went in without backup), I don't see how it's unfair. Perhaps you could educate me as to how to evaluate war ability and the fairness of wars.

If there is ever a Roman who is getting away with crud wars and not at least maxing their offensive slots, you have my blessing to hit them. Triple them. Quad them an hour before update and rain nukes 5 days in a row. But then again, I may be a sadist.

About the war you picked, again, I see nothing wrong with it. Unless you guys really are upset and come and destroy us next round, all round,, my goal will be to hit people who this round (and often in rounds prior too), go almost (if not the full round) without any casualties. I like when people are involved in the game.

Hypocritical when I didn't attack NDO or Hellas? Perhaps. But I didn't want to engage them. The prospect of fighting them doesn't really seem fun. We talked about putting them in with Skaro/Cit, but thought it might be too much for us/if we were already on other alliances, and NDO is our size we couldn't properly keep them engaged. We could've 1v1, but I wasn't interested. Not to bad mouth them, just my opinion.

[KingNeptune]

Stop crying all of you damnit. Washing a cat causes less complaining than this thread.

Its a war game, now go war.

I have 3 defensive slots. Come get me.

[commanderragnar]

For getting things done, raggy is our pretty face, Stelios is our old man,

 

:D I'm pretty!

[Kurdanak]

On a side note - I missed ADude. ^_^