Jump to content

A Message from the Emperor of the New Pacific Order


Recommended Posts

You probably belong in MI6 more than Polar.

 

Alliance seniority: 2,578 Days...
Old enough to recognize the crocodile tears of Pacifica.

(And I'm not very familiar with MI6... so I don't really get the reference or joke. My only contact with them has been a brief talk with his leader during this war, I found him cool... but I don't know much about MI6 actually).

 

We have counter-offered terms that only "touch" the nations in peacemode (i.e, no tech received). The other side insists on trying to push terms that damage the 250 other nations in the NPO instead, so that rather invalidates the point that it is about "peacemode".

 

pacifica.jpg

 

Click on the thumb to see the top 80 Nations of Pacifica. Do you notice some sort of mysterious pattern there?

Hint: look at the doves on the right.

Another image... the top 80 nations of Polar. Do you notice the red stars on the right?

polar.jpg

 

... It's as simply as that.

And the crocodile tears of Pacifica won't change the simple facts....
And the passionate speech of the Emperor of Pacifica isn't making those doves go away.

The terms... they will.

Edited by zoskia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And the passionate speech of the Emperor of Pacifica isn't making those doves go away.

The terms... they will.


So why are the terms targeting hardest the non-dove nations that will suffer from no aid?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, TOP's coalition first offers for NPO was 134 days of PM for NPO's top nations and now it's 107 days, not much movement there.  I get that you feel you are winning and can make demands, but when NPO goes from 0 days to being willing to take 94 days and you still reject that, that's just ridiculous.  So many alliances in this war were just honoring treaties on both side and now they are all being held captive to just a select few alliances that have grudges to settle to NPO. 

 

Now there is winning and then there is rubbing it in and getting cocky.  Good luck in the future with that kind of attitude.  Is 13 extra days really worth that much to you TOP?  You would hold everyone at war for an extra 13 days?  Seriously I think the joke of it is that you believe the way to "win" is to be the one that gives the final counter.

 

NPO is being more than fair for an alliance just honoring a treaty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I long for the days when there truly were villains. Now all we have is a group of people wanting 30-40 nations in peace mode for 4 months to rail against. We deserve a better class of villain.


.....

Maybe I'm misreading this.. but is this some kind of primordial cry for a return of the old NPO which actually did have some serious fangs to it?

I hope I'm misunderstanding because .. that would make this community the most bipolar and impossible to satisfy group of people I have ever met. Be evil.. Don't be evil.. be evil.. don't be evil! Why aren't you evil?

I suppose that would explain the terms in a warped way? And yet not.. Paradox is clearly behind this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yea, the only people doing any selling out from the Competence side of the EQ war were NG, TLR, and GATO, alliances who desperately wished they were on the EQ side and who made sure they would be there in the next war by burning bridges with Competence. If you think about it, the only people who were in Competence alongside Umb who are fighting this war on the successful side are VE, GOONS, TOP, and MW, the alliances who didn't jump at chances to run away from Umb and instead went to work figuring out how to win a war alongside each other, rather than try to jump to what they thought would be the winning side.

Wow Goldie I knew you were delirious but this is something @#$%ing ridiculous. We didn't want to be in EQ, and to think so is a ludicrous concept. Sure we really didnt want to defend Umbrella from getting what they deserved, but being in a coalition with NpO while leaving our allies to burn is something you could viably see us doing? You're absolutely mad, (but I'm sure someone in Umb will give you a biccy and a pat on the head for saying nasty things about us). Also we havent been burning bridges but if GOONS want 100 reasons why I'm sorry we didnt bandwagon on Pacifica with them all they have to  do is ask.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, TOP's coalition first offers for NPO was 134 days of PM for NPO's top nations and now it's 107 days, not much movement there.  I get that you feel you are winning and can make demands, but when NPO goes from 0 days to being willing to take 94 days and you still reject that, that's just ridiculous.  So many alliances in this war were just honoring treaties on both side and now they are all being held captive to just a select few alliances that have grudges to settle to NPO. 

 

Now there is winning and then there is rubbing it in and getting cocky.  Good luck in the future with that kind of attitude.  Is 13 extra days really worth that much to you TOP?  You would hold everyone at war for an extra 13 days?  Seriously I think the joke of it is that you believe the way to "win" is to be the one that gives the final counter.

 

NPO is being more than fair for an alliance just honoring a treaty.

 

Come off it mate, these terms are light and just because an alliance enters a war on an MD treaty does not make them exempt from surrender terms.   That is the way its always been here, you know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Come off it mate, these terms are light and just because an alliance enters a war on an MD treaty does not make them exempt from surrender terms.   That is the way its always been here, you know that.

So you agree everyone should get white peace then? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Good idea.
 


Well if NPO can rebuild without the nations in PM then I imagine they will be able to burn their enemies for a long time to come.
 

 
And since that period it was almost 2 years since NpO were a major part of a global war.
And it's not like they grew a lot in that period of minimal war. 
 

 
Sounds like a good plan, who will be fighting them?
 

 

Umbrella didn't really have much of a low tier so there was little need for aid in rebuilding.

But hey I remember there was a lot of jumping AA's and DBDC who didn't give a crap about anything so they could have aided the Umbrella low tier nations who needed rebuilding. 

 

 

Given the amount of damage done to NSO's side, I am gathering those currently fighting on TOP/Polar's side mate. 

 

If we had a top tier advantage we could probably brag about our inflated damage per war too!

e: To be fair this probably goes a lot less for GOONS, NPL, and Polar (iirc?) than for the others.

 

What? Look mate, I like you but wtf you on about?

 

 

Where are you guys getting yoru warstats from? 

 

Kaskus was #1 by far. 

 

:smug:

 

EDIT: Oh wait TOP surpassed us. :(

 

https://docs.google.com/a/terpmail.umd.edu/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqaCrij7SLiidG1fLTNRUWJqaW5WdTRqbTVQS0JPd0E&usp=sharing

 

Bottom 10 from worst to better: RnR, TIO, NSO, Valhalla, MHA, TLR, UCR, CCC, SL, The Int. Note bottom 3 are all NPO side. 

 

This is awesome. Should put it in the Sugar Rush tally so we can all take a look at it. Here's to working on getting MI6 over 400k damage difference.

 

 

Since we are talking about the upper tier, I have trouble with that 50% figure that you are citing.

 

 

That side drops this like it is hot and despite having been proven wrong many times, refuse to let it go.

 

 

I hope he told them to $%&@ off too.  The fact that there is a counter offer in the table is more than you deserve.

 

With statements like that, does NPO deserve no counter offers as well? Should we simply go back to original terms until NPO is taking more damage than it is dealing?

 

 

Why do you think that it has in anyway broken their resolve? Taking damage is part of the war and fortunately it seems that our coalition is a lot more united than TOP/NpO.

 

I love how y'all keep saying your side is more united... I would love for people to actually provide examples, instead of acting like this shit is true.

 

One thing I've come to admire is that TOP and Umbrella are excellent at getting alliances they hate to fight for them not realizing that they will target them next war.  They did it last war (moreso Umb) and they are doing it again this war; and people are again falling for it in the oA Coalition. I guess I can't knock them as I was lied too as well last war and believed it, but I hope people start realizing that now.

 

Please TOP/Umb don't betray Polaris/MI6/VE/et al!!!

 

lol, TOP's coalition first offers for NPO was 134 days of PM for NPO's top nations and now it's 107 days, not much movement there.  I get that you feel you are winning and can make demands, but when NPO goes from 0 days to being willing to take 94 days and you still reject that, that's just ridiculous.  So many alliances in this war were just honoring treaties on both side and now they are all being held captive to just a select few alliances that have grudges to settle to NPO. 

 

Now there is winning and then there is rubbing it in and getting cocky.  Good luck in the future with that kind of attitude.  Is 13 extra days really worth that much to you TOP?  You would hold everyone at war for an extra 13 days?  Seriously I think the joke of it is that you believe the way to "win" is to be the one that gives the final counter.

 

NPO is being more than fair for an alliance just honoring a treaty.

 

I am down. More casualties for me. I would ask your side if it is truly worth the 13 less days, Most alliances on your side is taking far more damage than they are dishing out mate. So do they really want to burn so NPO can get 13 less days? That should be the real question you ask. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

words

 

With that much seniority you should probably remember Polars PM use in wars past like Dave War.

 

Or maybe we should all remember those hilarious times where a simple rumor on CNtel caused 90% of Polar to hit PM.

 

Good times :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also most of us consider any terms to be nuts, and have fought hard to get rid of them up to and including the wars we were victorious in.  We effectively broke the cycle of terms over the last 3 wars and now a couple asshats want to bring them back.

 

So it's not 13 days or whatever we are fighting for, we are fighting to make sure it's not easy to impose reps, that if you decide as a winning coalition you want to impose reps you are going to realize it's not going to be a short war with an easy out, it's going to be long and grueling, regardless of the cost to our pixels.

 

NPO is being a good ally by even offering up the terms they are, most of our coalition would fight for a long time if all they offered was a surrender :/

 

The worse thing is seeing alliances i fought beside to end reps now fighting to enfore them :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
With that much seniority you should probably remember Polars PM use in wars past like Dave War.
 
Or maybe we should all remember those hilarious times where a simple rumor on CNtel caused 90% of Polar to hit PM.
 
Good times :/


Oops, my bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? Look mate, I like you but wtf you on about?

The massive damage differentials from your side occur because - to put it simply - you're fucking up the upper tiers. We have to fight harder to get every stat we do because we don't have such a great advantage in a tier which supplies massive damage stats.

It isn't your fault, it isn't our fault, but getting gangbanged in the top tier guarantees that you bleed NS as soon as you run out of nukes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, TOP's coalition first offers for NPO was 134 days of PM for NPO's top nations and now it's 107 days, not much movement there.  I get that you feel you are winning and can make demands, but when NPO goes from 0 days to being willing to take 94 days and you still reject that, that's just ridiculous.  So many alliances in this war were just honoring treaties on both side and now they are all being held captive to just a select few alliances that have grudges to settle to NPO. 
 
Now there is winning and then there is rubbing it in and getting cocky.  Good luck in the future with that kind of attitude.  Is 13 extra days really worth that much to you TOP?  You would hold everyone at war for an extra 13 days?  Seriously I think the joke of it is that you believe the way to "win" is to be the one that gives the final counter.
 
NPO is being more than fair for an alliance just honoring a treaty.


I think you mean nine days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, TOP's coalition first offers for NPO was 134 days of PM for NPO's top nations and now it's 107 days, not much movement there.  I get that you feel you are winning and can make demands, but when NPO goes from 0 days to being willing to take 94 days and you still reject that, that's just ridiculous.  So many alliances in this war were just honoring treaties on both side and now they are all being held captive to just a select few alliances that have grudges to settle to NPO. 

 

Now there is winning and then there is rubbing it in and getting cocky.  Good luck in the future with that kind of attitude.  Is 13 extra days really worth that much to you TOP?  You would hold everyone at war for an extra 13 days?  Seriously I think the joke of it is that you believe the way to "win" is to be the one that gives the final counter.

 

NPO is being more than fair for an alliance just honoring a treaty.

Your obsession with us is really cute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I'm going to say is NPO really needs to get the newest version of negotiating CN peace terms for dummies, because the version they've been playing with that stating you have to run to the OWF and cry every time negotiations aren't going the way you want them to is outdated.

Negotiations aren't "fair" they aren't even required. Some of you should really spend some time understanding how contract discussions work, because that's all peace term discussions are really. There's never a requirement that one party offers the other party anything. At some point, one will offer the other something which both are willing to accept to sign the contract or there will be no contract. In war, there's generally a tipping point where one side will realize that what they're being asked to accept is worth more than continuing to war. We clearly haven't quite reached that point, so keep fighting or be willing to offer something more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And yea, the only people doing any selling out from the Competence side of the EQ war were NG, TLR, and GATO, alliances who desperately wished they were on the EQ side and who made sure they would be there in the next war by burning bridges with Competence. If you think about it, the only people who were in Competence alongside Umb who are fighting this war on the successful side are VE, GOONS, TOP, and MW, the alliances who didn't jump at chances to run away from Umb and instead went to work figuring out how to win a war alongside each other, rather than try to jump to what they thought would be the winning side.

 

GATO never had treaty ties to Umbrella. We honestly have no problem with what side of the war they are on, who they are fighting (us included,) etc. To say that we sold out is pretty ridiculous Goldie. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

GATO never had treaty ties to Umbrella. We honestly have no problem with what side of the war they are on, who they are fighting (us included,) etc. To say that we sold out is pretty ridiculous Goldie. 

 

I don't think he is referring to treaties in the term of selling out seeing as we also weren't directly tied to TLR and MW. (We also haven't been tied to NG since PB) He is rather saying those three alliances were getting as far away from Umbrella after Anti-BIBO by moving closer to NPO's sphere of influence (ODN dropping Umbrella) rather than those who were at the time tied to Umbrella. (Although the same can be said about us moving away from the current remnants of C&G since we did drop MK)

 

but as far as I know TLR has always had good ties with NPO since formation.

Edited by Tick1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The massive damage differentials from your side occur because - to put it simply - you're !@#$@#$ up the upper tiers. We have to fight harder to get every stat we do because we don't have such a great advantage in a tier which supplies massive damage stats.

It isn't your fault, it isn't our fault, but getting gangbanged in the top tier guarantees that you bleed NS as soon as you run out of nukes.

 

What upper tier do you speak of? All of your sides upper tier is in PM mate. For the most part, since like the 3rd week or so of the war, the upper tier has not mattered in the slightest. The damage differentials are coming from the mid and lower tiers and what remains of the upper tier y'all actually had in war mode. So, can you please account for the past 8 weeks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also most of us consider any terms to be nuts, and have fought hard to get rid of them up to and including the wars we were victorious in.  We effectively broke the cycle of terms over the last 3 wars and now a couple asshats want to bring them back.

 

So it's not 13 days or whatever we are fighting for, we are fighting to make sure it's not easy to impose reps, that if you decide as a winning coalition you want to impose reps you are going to realize it's not going to be a short war with an easy out, it's going to be long and grueling, regardless of the cost to our pixels.

 

NPO is being a good ally by even offering up the terms they are, most of our coalition would fight for a long time if all they offered was a surrender :/

 

The worse thing is seeing alliances i fought beside to end reps now fighting to enfore them :(

That's a laudible goal to continue fighting for.

Link to comment
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...