kingzog Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 I really am confused why you are so adamantly against Polar. You were away for a good while, came back and now you're becoming a coalition cheerleader for the Doomsphere. I don't get it, especially when you've been on the sideline the entire time. I have nothing against Polar. When Nordreich re-founded in 2009, we did so largely on the verbal promise of protection from Polar's Emperor. I am forever in Polar's debt for that reason. This policy, however, is stupid. It is unenforceable. It is an embarrassment. And that's all I have railed against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coloradia Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 So one strike and you're out. Valhalla oAed into NPO for you burning bridges that remain to this day. They chose to help you and your cause but now that they are considering allies other than you it is time to kick them out and slam the door in their face. Spare me any incredibly childish, biased banter on your part. Are you referring to the time Failhalla orchestrated a no-nuke deal that left more nukes to be targeted at their coalition mates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) So one strike and you're out. Valhalla oAed into NPO for you burning bridges that remain to this day. They chose to help you and your cause but now that they are considering allies other than you it is time to kick them out and slam the door in their face. Spare me any incredibly childish, biased banter on your part. Pretty wide spread, so you're not sure whether they knew and are choosing to assume they did. Convient that suits your narrative right? Sounds like an excuse to flame an ally in public. Who's fault is it that there were alliances that needed to be covered over a month into the war? How about you blame that on Valhalla too while you're at it. If you or your government had done their due diligence there would be nothing to cry about, but you didn't. Poor decisions, following a poor stragetgy, yielded poor results. Perhaps I would be heated if I was in your position, then again, I'd have taken steps to make sure I wouldn't be. Let's be real: Valhalla's support was mediocre at best. They never put their necks out for our cause and have a history of half-heartedly supporting everything. Also, when you accuse someone with a legitimate political grievance of simply "crying", your point loses validity. You're just another FTW member talking about how they would never be in Polar's position. I swear, your alliance might be the most conceited around. Based off the large numbers of alliances decrying Valhalla's actions, past and present, we might be on to something here, don't you think? Edited December 21, 2014 by Starfox101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Let's be real: Valhalla's support was mediocre at best. They never put their necks out for our cause and have a history of half-heartedly supporting everything. Also, when you accuse someone with a legitimate political grievance of simply "crying", your point loses validity. You're just another FTW member talking about how they would never be in Polar's position. I swear, your alliance might be the most conceited around. Based off the large numbers of alliances decrying Valhalla's actions, past and present, we might be on to something here, don't you think? The war was only possible because of Val and IRON's decision to pick a side. That was the only reason the war Polar launched achieved success. Valhalla made a mistake by not first striking, but their support was crucial even if they weren't able to contribute much militarily on the front. Polar in this instance wanted Valhalla to commit ahead of its blocmates despite having more ties to people on FTW's side and it being a non-chaining treaty. MI6 and Polar have continually tried to use Valhalla as a mere chess piece in spite of their ties to our side and are upset it didn't work out. It would have been easier for Valhalla to just hit someone who hit IRON instead of taking this stance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 The war was only possible because of Val and IRON's decision to pick a side. That was the only reason the war Polar launched achieved success. Valhalla made a mistake by not first striking, but their support was crucial even if they weren't able to contribute much militarily on the front. Polar in this instance wanted Valhalla to commit ahead of its blocmates despite having more ties to people on FTW's side and it being a non-chaining treaty. MI6 and Polar have continually tried to use Valhalla as a mere chess piece in spite of their ties to our side and are upset it didn't work out. It would have been easier for Valhalla to just hit someone who hit IRON instead of taking this stance. Honestly I was fine with them sitting it out. However, the fact that they posted this a day before MHA was to enter and hit FTW is what makes me (and most) angry. All they had to do was post a DoN much sooner, and they would have taken no crap from anyone, as we all fully understand they hold conflicting treaties. I also never stated we didn't need them. I just simply stated their support was mediocre at best, as elaborated on above. And yes, that would have been easier for everyone. This was just a bad choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Honestly I was fine with them sitting it out. However, the fact that they posted this a day before MHA was to enter and hit FTW is what makes me (and most) angry. All they had to do was post a DoN much sooner, and they would have taken no crap from anyone, as we all fully understand they hold conflicting treaties. I also never stated we didn't need them. I just simply stated their support was mediocre at best, as elaborated on above. And yes, that would have been easier for everyone. This was just a bad choice. That's your personal stance. I think a pure DoN early on would not have been well-received by your side. It would have been better, yeah, but that doesn't make this the worst thing since they didn't know most likely about the counters. If escalation hadn't been stalled by your side on the basis of trying to acquire Valhalla's support, then this wouldn't have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Polar in this instance wanted Valhalla to commit ahead of its blocmates despite having more ties to people on FTW's side and it being a non-chaining treaty. MI6 and Polar have continually tried to use Valhalla as a mere chess piece in spite of their ties to our side and are upset it didn't work out. It would have been easier for Valhalla to just hit someone who hit IRON instead of taking this stance. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 That's your personal stance. I think a pure DoN early on would not have been well-received by your side. It would have been better, yeah, but that doesn't make this the worst thing since they didn't know most likely about the counters. If escalation hadn't been stalled by your side on the basis of trying to acquire Valhalla's support, then this wouldn't have happened. I guess it all depends. There are always those who would oppose anything that isn't favorable. Looking at their treaty set, they will always be a swing alliance unless something changes. Again, I find it hard to believe they didn't know. It was pretty well leaked by many that they were entering. Are you going to say you didn't know, as well? Their entrance was also not hinging on Valhalla support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh 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. Probably the most accurate thing said so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Polar in this instance wanted Valhalla to commit ahead of its blocmates despite having more ties to people on FTW's side and it being a non-chaining treaty. MI6 and Polar have continually tried to use Valhalla as a mere chess piece in spite of their ties to our side and are upset it didn't work out. It would have been easier for Valhalla to just hit someone who hit IRON instead of taking this stance. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) I guess it all depends. There are always those who would oppose anything that isn't favorable. Looking at their treaty set, they will always be a swing alliance unless something changes. Again, I find it hard to believe they didn't know. It was pretty well leaked by many that they were entering. Are you going to say you didn't know, as well? Their entrance was also not hinging on Valhalla support. I don't think their entrance in itself was contingent on Val's support but rather the when was on whether they could get it or not. I'm not really going to get into it further because people seem to have contradictory accounts of this. I won't make any assumptions about the implications of Dajobo's post having no basis, but I will say anything I have said isn't without basis either. Edited December 21, 2014 by Monster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhizoctonia Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Honestly I was fine with them sitting it out. However, the fact that they posted this a day before MHA was to enter and hit FTW is what makes me (and most) angry. All they had to do was post a DoN much sooner, and they would have taken no crap from anyone, as we all fully understand they hold conflicting treaties. I also never stated we didn't need them. I just simply stated their support was mediocre at best, as elaborated on above. And yes, that would have been easier for everyone. This was just a bad choice. You have openly said you will/already pushed for cancellation from Valhalla following this war because they didn't come to your aid, and then you come out and say that you fully agree with their current stance because they have conflicting treaties. So what one is it? Either you can understand where they're coming from and why they don't want to commit to one side or the other and thus you calling them out and wanting to cancel makes zero sense, or you don't understand or respect the position they're in, and thus your last post would make zero sense. I could understand if the reason you would want to cancel on them is different FA paths, but that's not the reason you've openly said/portrayed for pushing for a cancellation. I would agree that this type of post would of been a lot better if it was posted earlier on. How far along the war is already, I believe they would of been better off not posting anything and just remaining neutral, as they've now opened themselves up to being bashed by some publicly, but nonetheless you either understand their situation and why they want to stay neutral, or you don't. You've basically have called them out for not coming to your side, along with saying you understand their reasoning for wanting to stay out of it. They could of entered on either side of this war in defense of an ally, and we all know had they picked to come in for defense of someone like IRON who is on the "winning side," they would of been treated as they're now and worse for choosing the winning side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) You have openly said you will/already pushed for cancellation from Valhalla following this war because they didn't come to your aid, and then you come out and say that you fully agree with their current stance because they have conflicting treaties. So what one is it? Either you can understand where they're coming from and why they don't want to commit to one side or the other and thus you calling them out and wanting to cancel makes zero sense, or you don't understand or respect the position they're in, and thus your last post would make zero sense. I could understand if the reason you would want to cancel on them is different FA paths, but that's not the reason you've openly said/portrayed for pushing for a cancellation. Again - I am fairly certain this has already been stated - I am against their stance because it was posted a day before MHA was to enter and hit FTW in support of Polar. Because this was posted, that didn't happen, allowing FTW more free reign to hit us. If you can't see the problem with that, you are blinded by allegiance and not worth the time of day. I also said I would have supported an outright DoN at the onset of war, instead of this. Does that clear it up? Coming to our aid was never itself the issue. I don't imagine many expected it at any point. Edited December 21, 2014 by Starfox101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor 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. It's not his fault that your side has chosen to only lightly counter AZTEC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 They could of entered on either side of this war in defense of an ally, and we all know had they picked to come in for defense of someone like IRON who is on the "winning side," they would of been treated as they're now and worse for choosing the winning side. 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? It's not his fault that your side has chosen to only lightly counter AZTEC. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) Yeah, I find it funny Mogar somehow "knows" a lot of things and still tries to say stuff like that. Either you're aware of what's actually going on or you believe the D Grade propaganda you're trying to sell. Can't be both ways. Edited December 21, 2014 by Monster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Coulson Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 So instead of actually doing anything you passed meaningless internal legislation. Reminds me of when my nation's congress repealed an affordable healthcare bill 30 times instead of passing legislation to keep the government going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhizoctonia Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Again - I am fairly certain this has already been stated - I am against their stance because it was posted a day before MHA was to enter and hit FTW in support of Polar. Because this was posted, that didn't happen, allowing FTW more free reign to hit us. If you can't see the problem with that, you are blinded by allegiance and not worth the time of day. I also said I would have supported an outright DoN at the onset of war, instead of this. Does that clear it up? Coming to our aid was never itself the issue. I don't imagine many expected it at any point. To be perfectly honest, at the current moment, FTW has 1 aggressive war against Polar and 1 defensive war against Polar. Sure, Val may have stopped another alliance from declaring on FTW, but MHA hitting them would be helping out Sparta/TOP a lot more then you. If MHA was looking to support you, then there are a lot better alliance options out there that are attacking you then an alliance who have 1 active war aggressively engaged with you'll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pd73bassman Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 I guess it's better than that no nuking deal you had last time around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Yeah, I find it funny Mogar somehow "knows" a lot of things and still tries to say stuff like that. Either you're aware of what's actually going on or you believe the D Grade propaganda you're trying to sell. Can't be both ways. Things are all roses in your camp Roq, nobody's a bit annoyed about how the fronts were arrayed thanks to your maneuvering at all. We both know what mistakes you make this war will come back to haunt you next round, it happened to TOP last war, and apparently you didn't learn from their mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. What I suggested was that an overwhelming response would have raised the cost of war considerably, quite possibly shortening it. Yeah it's too bad noone proposed a massive and all out attack on Doom Squad as a night one action. :v Edited December 21, 2014 by Ogaden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 Things are all roses in your camp Roq, nobody's a bit annoyed about how the fronts were arrayed thanks to your maneuvering at all. We both know what mistakes you make this war will come back to haunt you next round, it happened to TOP last war, and apparently you didn't learn from their mistakes. You're really giving me too much credit here and I didn't say that things are all roses and no one's getting their ideal thing, but rather that the picture you paint of this being some sort of half-assed effort by AZTEC/Umb is propagandistic and no self-preservation of the kind is taking place. We expected more counters on AZTEC than you have put out. The only reason one AZTEC alliance isn't engaging heavier is because of a concession, so it seems really inappropriate to make this sort of claim knowing what you do. I get that you hate Umbrella, but you're really trying too hard here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 (edited) Yeah it's too bad noone proposed a massive and all out attack on Doom Squad as a night one action. :v 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. Edited December 21, 2014 by kingzog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 21, 2014 Report Share Posted December 21, 2014 You're really giving me too much credit here and I didn't say that things are all roses and no one's getting their ideal thing, but rather that the picture you paint of this being some sort of half-assed effort by AZTEC/Umb is propagandistic and no self-preservation of the kind is taking place. We expected more counters on AZTEC than you have put out. The only reason one AZTEC alliance isn't engaging heavier is because of a concession, so it seems really inappropriate to make this sort of claim knowing what you do. I get that you hate Umbrella, but you're really trying too hard here. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster 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. You seem to be operating under a fundamental misconception here. The only alliance that we have limited damage to is yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts