Royal Decree

[Sarkin]

 

No.  You don't get to decide you dislike what DBDC did and therefore Aztec is at fault.

 

Particularly given that DBDC was rolling AZTEC's upper-tier in the first of the two wars mentioned.

[hartfw]

I can decide that AZTEC should be held accountable for DBDC's actions, as you were the only reason nobody actually attacked DBDC last war.

 

Last war Sengoku was actually on the opposite side of DBDC.

 

The war before that, Aztec was fighting them.

 

When DBDC hit Ria, aztec didn't have anything to do with it.  And when RIA hit DBDC, Aztec didn't.

 

The fact that you cannot tell the distinction is a poor reflection on your alliance.

[Mogar]

 

Particularly given that DBDC was rolling AZTEC's upper-tier in the first of the two wars mentioned.

If the rest of AZTEC is as active as AB is, I'm surprised you even noticed.

 

 

Last war Sengoku was actually on the opposite side of DBDC.

 

The war before that, Aztec was fighting them.

 

When DBDC hit Ria, aztec didn't have anything to do with it.  And when RIA hit DBDC, Aztec didn't.

 

The fact that you cannot tell the distinction is a poor reflection on your alliance.

But Sengoku would not have done a thing to help against DBDC, which directly contradicts the line of thought coming from your side that "WELL YOU SHOULDA DONE SOMETHING ABOUT DBDC LAST WAR!", since the only alliances that had the willpower to do so are the ones currently getting rolled by your coalition. I can make distinctions easily, but you get thrown in with the rest of the side you choose, just as everyone else does during every other coalition conflict, if you did not wish to then you would not participate in a coalition war.

[Schad]

If the rest of AZTEC is as active as AB is, I'm surprised you even noticed.

 

But Sengoku would not have done a thing to help against DBDC, which directly contradicts the line of thought coming from your side that "WELL YOU SHOULDA DONE SOMETHING ABOUT DBDC LAST WAR!", since the only alliances that had the willpower to do so are the ones currently getting rolled by your coalition. I can make distinctions easily, but you get thrown in with the rest of the side you choose, just as everyone else does during every other coalition conflict, if you did not wish to then you would not participate in a coalition war.

 

We had absolutely no relationship with DBDC at that time. Just. Stop. Digging. 

[Mogar]

 

We had absolutely no relationship with DBDC at that time. Just. Stop. Digging. 

You. would. not. fight. them. last. war.

[Auctor]

You. would. not. fight. them. last. war.

No one would. You're ridiculous.

[Schad]

You. would. not. fight. them. last. war.

 

IIRC, our biggest nation at the time wouldn't even have been in range of all but one or two of their members, if that. If the world's defense against DBDC hinged on Sengoku's nonexistent supertier avenging alliances to which we had no connection, I'm sorry that we so thoroughly failed you all.

[Sarkin]

If the rest of AZTEC is as active as AB is, I'm surprised you even noticed.

 

It's worth noting that Aurora Borealis had 14 nations declare a total of 27 wars on Polar within our first day of entering this war. For comparison's sake, RIA managed six nations and 11 wars. This is your third day at war with us and you've raised that to nine nations and 17 wars.

 

Let's not forget that AB's four largest nations literally could not hit NpO because they had no targets. Literally every member of RIA was in range of an AB nation, you faced no such limitations.

 

Let's also not forget that RIA has nearly 20 more members than Aurora Borealis' 40. That's a big difference. To be fair, your large numerical advantage is shrinking since a couple of your nations (Foxingland and Holy Russian Empire) have been deactivated because of (guess what) inactivity.

 

I'm not saying that Aurora Borealis is the most active alliance in the world, far from it. We're probably a little below-average. But what exactly does that make RIA?

[Mogar]

No one would. You're ridiculous.

Just like EQ.

 

 

IIRC, our biggest nation at the time wouldn't even have been in range of all but one or two of their members, if that. If the world's defense against DBDC hinged on Sengoku's nonexistent supertier avenging alliances to which we had no connection, I'm sorry that we so thoroughly failed you all.

Our largest are barely in range of the lowest guy in DBDC and through a team effort managed to drag him down.

 

 

It's worth noting that Aurora Borealis had 14 nations declare a total of 27 wars on Polar within our first day of entering this war. For comparison's sake, RIA managed six nations and 11 wars. This is your third day at war with us and you've raised that to nine nations and 17 wars.

 

Let's not forget that AB's four largest nations literally could not hit NpO because they had no targets. Literally every member of RIA was in range of an AB nation, you faced no such limitations.

 

Let's also not forget that RIA has nearly 20 more members than Aurora Borealis' 40. That's a big difference. To be fair, your large numerical advantage is shrinking since a couple of your nations (Foxingland and Holy Russian Empire) have been deactivated because of (guess what) inactivity.

 

I'm not saying that Aurora Borealis is the most active alliance in the world, far from it. We're probably a little below-average. But what exactly does that make RIA?

I'd have declared more wars but everyone in range of me already had their slots full from Polar or is in peace mode, as is the case with most of our alliance, we're also expected to be countered heavily, so hurling ourselves neckdeep into a war before being countered probably isn't the most logical choice.

 

It must have been difficult to sit out the past three global wars while buying tech. Still faced the whole getting countered thing, which I am assume is happening tomorrow for us and IRON is going to be nice enough to post a DoW against Sparta within an hour.

 

We also have far more in the lower tiers and mid tier who face the same problem as those top 4 nations you have, there's simply nobody in range. and the difference is not so significant in the upper tiers where you have a massive advantage due to RIA being attacked repeatedly by DBDC.

 

I never claimed RIA was a highly active alliance either, but when nations with over a billion dollars are only at war with one person, log in, and then simply refuse to fight, it says something about your ability to last in a drawn out conflict.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Mogar

[Schad]

Our largest are barely in range of the lowest guy in DBDC and through a team effort managed to drag him down.

 

Good for you, sport! Our largest (around 140k NS, IIRC) was someone who was leaving the alliance imminently, and the whole team effort thing was a bit tricky what with there not being a team in range. Most of what could gently be called our top tier was in the 80-110k range (and that top end might be generous). 

 

Also: there were many, many alliances in that war who actually i) had nations in range, ii) had allies who were getting smoked by DBDC. I'm curious why our failure to stop them weighs particularly heavy on your mind?

[hartfw]

 

It must have been difficult to sit out the past three global wars while buying tech. 

 

In Eq, the current Aztec alliances lost a combined 5m ns, with loses more than the average loss on the side they fought for, despite not being central to the conflict.  In contrast, NpO and NPO combined lost less than 4.5m NS and had almost 4.5m more NS than (the current) aztec.

 

Anyone saying Aztec sat out Eq is just stupid.

Edited December 4, 2014 by hartfw

[Opaque]

In Eq, the current Aztec alliances lost a combined 5m ns, with loses more than the average loss on the side they fought for, despite not being central to the conflict.
 
In contrast, NpO and NPO lost less than 4.5m NS and had almost 4.5m more NS than (the current) aztec.
 
Anyone saying Aztec sat out Eq is just stupid.

Why'd you guys sit out EQ?

[Schattenmann]

Whatever it takes to destroy Sarkin.

A bottle of Remy Martin 1738 and my silver tongue on his ear lobe.

 

Edited December 4, 2014 by Schattenmann

[Starfox101]

 

IIRC, our biggest nation at the time wouldn't even have been in range of all but one or two of their members, if that. If the world's defense against DBDC hinged on Sengoku's nonexistent supertier avenging alliances to which we had no connection, I'm sorry that we so thoroughly failed you all.

I'll never forgive you

[Auctor]

All of you pussied out on DBDC last war and dared IRON to do it instead.

[Schad]

I'll never forgive you

 

Likewise, I shall one day have my revenge for your failure to anticipate the deleterious effects of some pesticides on migratory birds, and it will be sweet. 

[Mogar]

Good for you, sport! Our largest (around 140k NS, IIRC) was someone who was leaving the alliance imminently, and the whole team effort thing was a bit tricky what with there not being a team in range. Most of what could gently be called our top tier was in the 80-110k range (and that top end might be generous). 
 
Also: there were many, many alliances in that war who actually i) had nations in range, ii) had allies who were getting smoked by DBDC. I'm curious why our failure to stop them weighs particularly heavy on your mind?

You could have contributed to the shark tank, which would be quite useful.

 I blame every single one of them, not simply you. I'm curious to know why you cannot acknowlege that AZTEC propped up DBDC and ensured that any attack against them would mean AZTEC entering in to help DBDC and ensuring that the Polar coalition from last war could not actually do anything to DBDC during the last war or afterwards.

 

In Eq, the current Aztec alliances lost a combined 5m ns, with loses more than the average loss on the side they fought for, despite not being central to the conflict.  In contrast, NpO and NPO combined lost less than 4.5m NS and had almost 4.5m more NS than (the current) aztec.
 
Anyone saying Aztec sat out Eq is just stupid.

I was more pointing out most of AZTEC sat out last war and was protecting DBDC, but sure go off on a tangent about EQ.

 

 

All of you pussied out on DBDC last war and dared IRON to do it instead.

 

At least they'll lose their upper tiers after this war and IRON can deal with them solo next war.

Edited December 4, 2014 by Mogar

[Starfox101]

 

Likewise, I shall one day have my revenge for your failure to anticipate the deleterious effects of some pesticides on migratory birds, and it will be sweet. 

You'll never get away with it

 

All of you pussied out on DBDC last war and dared IRON to do it instead.

Relying on IRON to do anything is an act of futility lol

[Sarkin]

I'd have declared more wars but everyone in range of me already had their slots full from Polar or is in peace mode, as is the case with most of our alliance, 

 

Inaccurate, Er the Fallen was also in range and had open defensive slots

 

I'll grant that RIA has a large enough mid-tier that you could not have maxed out slots with all of them on AB nations or anything like that, but it's absurd to say that the best you could muster was 11 wars in 24 hours.

 

We had five nations in peace mode and Polar only counter-declared five wars by the time of your declaration. Excluding the five nations out of your range, this means that you had 30 nations in range with a total of 85 open defensive slots. You managed 11 wars with a 59 member alliance. That is terrible. But, you do have an excuse...

 

we're also expected to be countered heavily, so hurling ourselves neckdeep into a war before being countered probably isn't the most logical choice.

 

What's funny is, AB knew that we would be countered as well when we hit Polar, because we weren't as well-connected as most of the other alliances involved in terms of conflicting treaties with the opposing coalition. Nevertheless, we still made an actual effort. I won't debate tactics with you, but it really does feel as though you could have tried a little harder, especially when only four of those eleven wars were actually on nations fighting Polar. 

 

It must have been difficult to sit out the past three global wars while buying tech.

 

It must be difficult to read the CN wiki, since you clearly haven't bothered. If you had, you'd see that we fought in Equilibrium. And yes, we were one of the alliances that did actually fight proto-DBDC. 

 

If you were referring specifically to Disorder, then yes, that's exactly what Aurora Borealis did because we had absolutely zero stakes in that particular conflict.

 

We also have far more in the lower tiers and mid tier who face the same problem as those top 4 nations you have, there's simply nobody in range

 

Well, there are admittedly fewer open defensive slots since Sparta came in, but it's still the case that only seven of our 40 members actually have all of their defensive slots occupied.

 

I would suggest building your arguments with data instead of conjecture and old assumptions.

[Schad]

 I blame every single one of them, not simply you. I'm curious to know why you cannot acknowlege that AZTEC propped up DBDC and ensured that any attack against them would mean AZTEC entering in to help DBDC and ensuring that the Polar coalition from last war could not actually do anything to DBDC during the last war or afterwards.

 

 

Because you're operating from a timeline that you've cobbled together from vague recollections that bear scant resemblance to the events of past years?

 

I don't blame you for not being overly familiar with the alliance histories of Sengoku, or AB, or the other members of AZTEC; Sengoku in particular is pretty young in the grand scheme, barely out of nappies in EQ and fighting in a pretty inconsequential corner of Disorder (and before you go off on a tangent: it was the only front that involved one of our allies being hit). But it does somewhat undermine one's ability to throw about accusations when all of your premises are so flimsy. 

[jutopia la]

Just like EQ.

 

Our largest are barely in range of the lowest guy in DBDC and through a team effort managed to drag him down.

 

I'd have declared more wars but everyone in range of me already had their slots full from Polar or is in peace mode, as is the case with most of our alliance, we're also expected to be countered heavily, so hurling ourselves neckdeep into a war before being countered probably isn't the most logical choice.

 

It must have been difficult to sit out the past three global wars while buying tech. Still faced the whole getting countered thing, which I am assume is happening tomorrow for us and IRON is going to be nice enough to post a DoW against Sparta within an hour.

 

 

 

 

 

I was more pointing out most of AZTEC sat out last war and was protecting DBDC, but sure go off on a tangent about EQ.

 

Gotcha.

[TBRaiders]

Thank you AZTEC for protecting us.  We will gladly kill as many of your enemies as we can for time eternal in repayment.

[Mogar]

 

Inaccurate, Er the Fallen was also in range and had open defensive slots

 

I'll grant that RIA has a large enough mid-tier that you could not have maxed out slots with all of them on AB nations or anything like that, but it's absurd to say that the best you could muster was 11 wars in 24 hours.

 

We had five nations in peace mode and Polar only counter-declared five wars by the time of your declaration. Excluding the five nations out of your range, this means that you had 30 nations in range with a total of 85 open defensive slots. You managed 11 wars with a 59 member alliance. That is terrible. But, you do have an excuse...

 

 

What's funny is, AB knew that we would be countered as well when we hit Polar, because we weren't as well-connected as most of the other alliances involved in terms of conflicting treaties with the opposing coalition. Nevertheless, we still made an actual effort. I won't debate tactics with you, but it really does feel as though you could have tried a little harder, especially when only four of those eleven wars were actually on nations fighting Polar. 

 

 

It must be difficult to read the CN wiki, since you clearly haven't bothered. If you had, you'd see that we fought in Equilibrium. And yes, we were one of the alliances that did actually fight proto-DBDC. 

 

If you were referring specifically to Disorder, then yes, that's exactly what Aurora Borealis did because we had absolutely zero stakes in that particular conflict.

 

 

Well, there are admittedly fewer open defensive slots since Sparta came in, but it's still the case that only seven of our 40 members actually have all of their defensive slots occupied.

 

I would suggest building your arguments with data instead of conjecture and old assumptions.

Area of Influence: 795.593 mile diameter. 

129.547 in purchases, 76.044 in modifiers, 590.002 in growth

 

Makes me far less useful against him, and since my own target is not actually going to fight, I figure I'll wait until tomorrow for the counter, I'm going to guess GLoF based upon treaties.

 

10 out of 40 are out of range for RIA, considering our highest nations have more important priorities than AB, so a total of 25 nations potentially to be hit by RIA members, and of the 25 nations, 7 have full slots, and nearly everyone else has at least two slots filled.

 

The difference being you will be on the winning side, so you can commit more heavily and you KNOW you will be getting help to take rounds off to recover and collect not in anarchy, had your alliance ever fought a losing war, you'd know you have to fight differently.

 

EQ was two years ago, simple slot mechanics mean the Polar coalition of Disorder has had far less time to recover in the high tier than AZTEC. You did not fight DBDC in disorder, and you would not have if asked.

 

I used data, you merely attempted to twist it to disprove me, when anyone can look at the stats and see that anyone in your alliance in our range has most of their defensive slots filled.

 

 

Thank you AZTEC for protecting us.  We will gladly kill as many of your enemies as we can for time eternal in repayment.

What's funny is you'll eventually have to turn on one of your allies or roll GPA, otherwise you'll have nobody else left to raid.

[Auctor]

DBDC wasn't attacking any of AZTEC's allies in Disorder. Why would they have been asked?

[TBRaiders]

What's funny is you'll eventually have to turn on one of your allies or roll GPA, otherwise you'll have nobody else left to raid.

Who says our plan isn't solely to secure our safety inside the top 250 of friends, allies, and neutrals?

 

I want to live in peace and harmony knowing my citizens are safe.