Mogar Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 You seem to be operating under a fundamental misconception here. The only alliance that we have limited damage to is yours. If by limited damage you mean allowed multiple ghosts to hit us, and attacked multiple nations not currently engaging AB, then yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 As much as I do like the mud slinging, and am quite happy for it to continue, you can take Olympus off that list, as we were not actually countered. Yes it was something they pre-arranged to avoid joining that coalition, but it was done with our blessing at the time. NoR wasn't countered either, yet there were still 7.5 allies vs. .5 (the .5 being NoR on the FAN front). It's still 8 MDP+ allies they could have theoretically supported but didn't. I think there might have even been an ODP in there too (TPF and/or Invicta? Forget when these were cancelled). Mud slinging is fun though - Val should just become neutral like GPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Actually, what I suggested was an attack by all SNX allies on Doom Squad and, pre-emptively, on those allied to DS; said attack to occur ASAP. I mentioned this to someone (I forget who) who is responsible for coordinating things among various alliances (EDIT: on the DS side) and got a response like, "That would have been a complete nightmare for us." Sometimes hitting a fly with a hammer is a good idea. Pre-emptive strikes? That would have ended even worse than this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Hakai Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 If your coalition would peace out with them, they might just be talked into doing so. I just want to see Valhalla attack two of its own allies while they are already fighting each other, let's get that going! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Actually, what I suggested was an attack by all SNX allies on Doom Squad and, pre-emptively, on those allied to DS; said attack to occur ASAP. I mentioned this to someone (I forget who) who is responsible for coordinating things among various alliances (EDIT: on the DS side) and got a response like, "That would have been a complete nightmare for us." Sometimes hitting a fly with a hammer is a good idea. Pre-emptive attacks on DS allies sounds a bit stupid in all honesty, but ultimately the whole "wait and see" approach was predicated on an enormous overestimation of the opposition coalition's capability of and desire for independent action and thought. I argued that regardless your coalition will just oA as many times as they need to in order to chain who they want where, and your coalition would go along with this without question, and that waiting was pointless and counterproductive. I have been vindicated once again as exactly what I said would happen is exactly what did in fact happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhizoctonia Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 You seem to think I hate you, I'd prefer this war to be burning TOP to the ground, but sadly that is not going to happen thanks to your political maneuvering in back channels, that's about as far as my dislike for your alliance goes. There have been quite a few people from your side essentially stating that Umbrella/AZTEC constantly changed up the target selections, which makes the case that you are already preparing for next war, since as I have said and you conceded, things are not rosy in your camp, and both sides are making overtures to the people they're currently rolling. I repeat my statement that preparing for the next war cost TOP this war we're currently fighting, and yet you're following the same path. Find me a coalition where everything has always been rainbows and butterflies? When you're dealing with two large coalitions, not everyone is going to be 100% happy with everything that happens. I would imagine that's a common theme on both the winning side and the losing side, it's hard to please everyone's wants or wishes. Just look at the last two wars for example. You can keep spitting out this narrative/propaganda all you'd like, your hope of trying to cause turmoil in our coalition is not going to work though. In regards to changing target selections...that also isn't uncommon. As war progresses and how things domino, there's always discussions about making sure the setup is the not only what alliances want, but that it's also the best way to cover alliances on the other side. And those discussions weren't solely done by Aztec and Umbrella, but by many alliances within the coalition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) I don't think Mogar is trying to cause "turmoil" in your coalition, nor can he, nor can I. Not even the wise can see all ends, but I think division in your side is fated to happen. There are massive differences between alliance values, long term goals, capabilities and tier groupings that will rend DBDC'S armies and these differences for the most part do not exist on our side aside from some nations in top tier peacemode. But they remain loyal to their alliance culture and sovereignty, elsewise they would have fled to abide alongside the infra-huggers on your side. You have depressed Polar's top tier to the mid tier, and have failed to shake the loyalty of the top tier among our allies. The burden of warfighting lies with warrior alliances like NPO not overly fond of some of the war dodging alliances in the other wing of the aggressor coalition. This strategic failure on DBDC's part will have long term consequences. Edited December 21, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 As much as I dislike acknowledging it, Tywin is somewhat accurate in his analysis. My goal isn't to sow dissent, the dissent is there and there's nothing I am going to do to change that. What you aren't grasping is by playing this war out the way that it has, your coalition is falling apart just like the one from last war did, the longer you hold the Polarsphere at war, the less likely they'll be helping either of you. To those who are in the aggressive coalition, how you treat your opponents this war are going to determine whether or not you are going to win the next one, and it appears that roughly half of the winning coalition would rather enjoy the chance to be arrogant and egotistical, and yet are also the main ones harping upon MI6, it's comical really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Considering Cubaquerida's hubris and dramatic proclamations publicly, I would love to be a fly on the wall in his coalition command tent palace ;). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Pre-emptive attacks on DS allies sounds a bit stupid in all honesty, but ultimately the whole "wait and see" approach was predicated on an enormous overestimation of the opposition coalition's capability of and desire for independent action and thought. I argued that regardless your coalition will just oA as many times as they need to in order to chain who they want where, and your coalition would go along with this without question, and that waiting was pointless and counterproductive. I have been vindicated once again as exactly what I said would happen is exactly what did in fact happen. Tell you what. When the next war rolls around you and I will plan it. We can work out the details later, but for now let's agree that counters will occur on the hour, instead of every 7-10 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berbers Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Except, they posted this to choose a side, even if you want to spin it otherwise, they did not wish to have FTW harmed, meanwhile Polar has a dozen alliances attacking them and that's somehow fine? Perhaps next war those currently burning on your side won't be so willing to fight AZTEC's war for a second time while AZTEC continues to sit on their asses. AZTEC have been scholars and gentlemen this whole war (except Auctor...hes awful) I'd fight alongside them any day :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deakin Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 With 'friends' like these, who needs enemies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 I've stayed out of this thread because I don't believe in discussing issue between allies in public. The fact is if you keep making incorrect statements like this one it will only make things more ugly later. If you want to support Val for not leaving your side, the best thing you could do for them would be say nothing. Dajobo hits the nail on the head once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 You're not really trying to make the argument that Valhalla, instead of simply staying out of this war, should have done what you have done and openly plotted against rolling their own allies, are you? Your alliance is currently using Pacifica, C&G, NATO, and R&R as mere chess peices while AZTEC(you know, your allies you need to keep strong in order to have any hope of being on the winning side of the next war), takes very little damage, the largest of whom has not entered the war yet. Or perhaps (just perhaps, mind) the slow pace at which Polar's coalition countered allowed for its own upper tier to be dismantled at ease with no sweat, making AZTEC's/Umbrella's contribution less necessary than expected. That, coupled with a lack of counters on them till now (apart for AB).I personally would have expected this war to much more centered on AZTEC than what it turned out to be this far, and I'd say that sentiment was widespread. Polaris & Co. chose otherwise (as other "strange" choices happened), so the prediction proved to be false, and those uppertiers are doing less work than expected. Too bad.Pre-emptive attacks on DS allies sounds a bit stupid in all honesty, but ultimately the whole "wait and see" approach was predicated on an enormous overestimation of the opposition coalition's capability of and desire for independent action and thought. I argued that regardless your coalition will just oA as many times as they need to in order to chain who they want where, and your coalition would go along with this without question, and that waiting was pointless and counterproductive. I have been vindicated once again as exactly what I said would happen is exactly what did in fact happen. Eh, Ogaden: nothing that hasn't happened already in the past couple wars: after managing last war exactly that way I'd have expected Polar to know what they would face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tongkzalot Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 I've stayed out of this thread because I don't believe in discussing issue between allies in public. The fact is if you keep making incorrect statements like this one it will only make things more ugly later. If you want to support Val for not leaving your side, the best thing you could do for them would be say nothing. well said.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhizoctonia Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 As much as I dislike acknowledging it, Tywin is somewhat accurate in his analysis. My goal isn't to sow dissent, the dissent is there and there's nothing I am going to do to change that. What you aren't grasping is by playing this war out the way that it has, your coalition is falling apart just like the one from last war did, the longer you hold the Polarsphere at war, the less likely they'll be helping either of you. To those who are in the aggressive coalition, how you treat your opponents this war are going to determine whether or not you are going to win the next one, and it appears that roughly half of the winning coalition would rather enjoy the chance to be arrogant and egotistical, and yet are also the main ones harping upon MI6, it's comical really. We fully grasp the plan of slow playing that your side has implemented in the hope the longer this drags out and the longer it took to get more alliances in, the more likely our coalition would start to fall apart. The difference is, you continue to spit propaganda about what Umbrella/Aztec are trying to do or plan for which is not the case, and just a load of crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 this might be the best (see: most hilarious) thread of the war so far i think NSO is more likely to defend MI6 at this point than Valhalla is also, the shit re: the NG treaty was absolutely hilarious(ly awful), and seeing Baltus and Goldie both hail this made me lol hard is there any way we can take all of the shitty alliances like val and ve and just sort of stomp them for 5 wars in a row? disclaimer: this post is absolutely and entirely 100% the opinion of the entirety of NSO government Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) this might be the best (see: most hilarious) thread of the war so far i think NSO is more likely to defend MI6 at this point than Valhalla is also, the !@#$ re: the NG treaty was absolutely hilarious(ly awful), and seeing Baltus and Goldie both hail this made me lol hard is there any way we can take all of the !@#$%* alliances like val and ve and just sort of stomp them for 5 wars in a row? disclaimer: this post is absolutely and entirely 100% the opinion of the entirety of NSO government I did not enjoy being in the same coalition as goldie last war... and we were winning. Then, quietly canceling the secret LoSS treaty after the war after it had cost LoSS so much was just the straw that broke the camels back. Edited December 21, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 Hey now we're supposed to be talking about how Valhalla's good/bad (circle one) decision affects the world, not how a seventy-man alliance somehow controls allied/non allied (circle as many as you'd like) alliances in coalition A/coalition B (circle one or more). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarquista Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 better never than late Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 You want to hear it? You sure will. I could force myself to respect and stomach this position if not for your silence last war as a BS treaty was drawn up and signed in 5 minutes to allow another alliance to shirk it's already existing obligations to one coalition, and enter on behalf of YOUR coalition, on YOUR FLIPPING ALLY... who was already more than well covered. THAT was not an "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" moment for Valhalla to make any public declarations. Not enough to stir the fires that ANY coalition would have the audacity to do that to a might Valhallan ally. You, your alliance, and this stance is an utter joke. NOW enough is enough? Give me a flipping brake. I hope (even though it wont happen because for some unknown reason IRON wants to protect you) that someone else runs headfirst into Polar or Mi6 so your crapstain of an alliance can by dismantled in the manner in which it deserves. Cowards. Sanctimonious, self-righteous, honorless-honor-soaking cowards. You utterly disgust me. I have no idea what's going on but this post entertained me. It almost makes me want to familiarize myself with global politics again. Almost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 I have no idea what's going on but this post entertained me. It almost makes me want to familiarize myself with global politics again. Almost. This "global politics" business seems to mostly center around protecting something called "infrastructure", but vehemently denying that this is the case at every opportunity, from what I can tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 This "global politics" business seems to mostly center around protecting something called "infrastructure", but vehemently denying that this is the case at every opportunity, from what I can tell. You are right Londo.Christ the current world of bob are pansies.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 I truly think that's one vice Polaris can't be accused of :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 I truly think that's one vice Polaris can't be accused of :D That's because Polaris likes explosions. Something we can agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts