Hunterman1043 Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/PB-NpO_War:_CSN-LoSS_Front Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 Please, tell me more about how you lost respect for me as you support multiple CBless offensive declarations on alliances who were not going to enter any war. Lol, now we are concerned with CB's again? It took like what? Almost 6 years since Karma? Though we have already stated our reasons multiple times for attacking Avalanche. I see no reason for spelling it out to you again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 First off let me apologize to everyone for Tywin's posts on behalf of Polar, Let us remember that DBDC has been attacking alliances for over a year and not DT or DT probes. It says a lot about polar that you can't predicts possible consequences for your own actions. It should be a wake up call to those who are allied to you and how they may be a part of those consequences. What actions are you referring to? I keep hearing this from your side - Polar paying for their crimes. Are we still speaking about 2008 here? Or...? Just to clarify: A) Avalanche is upset with us for doing the same thing they did last war, randomly chaining in... if you want to call it that. Our attack on them was anything but random. They were at war with our ally. B) Polaris has been hitting our tech sellers for months asking what we were going to do about it. C) Here we are. Can't see what all the hub-bubb is about, other than crying for crying's sake. A) Avalanche never hit anyone without a CB. What ally were they at war with during this war? This...is a very poor political argument you are presenting. If you are going to present misrepresentations of what actually happened as fact, please try a little harder than this. B) So instead of hitting Polar, you hit an uninvolved alliance? Man, you really got us. Do your alliance a favor. Stop trying to make this war into some huge matyrdom. Take a break and let the people within NpO who are far more effective OWF representatives do their jobs. I want some actual competition in the public relations area please. I agree with you. Please take this advice, Tywin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 Lol, now we are concerned with CB's again? It took like what? Almost 6 years since Karma? Though we have already stated our reasons multiple times for attacking Avalanche. I see no reason for spelling it out to you again. Your reasons boil down to "they existed!", which generally is frowned upon. Of course you currently have the strength to do so, the question quickly turns to why do you feel you'll not be held accountable for your actions when trying to make the argument that Polar deserves this beat down due to their actions from last war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) No, Polar has been raiding our Probes for awhile now, for reasons of "DBDC Terrorism." Yet all I see are legitimate tech dealing transactions between allied alliances. Edited January 11, 2015 by Hunterman1043 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) We are aware. So you attacked Avalanche, an uninvolved alliance, along with 2 other alliances, to damage Polar? Not a single one of you attacked Polar, except AB who's engaged us on a limited basis. Just chalk it up to what it is - you were bored, and they had open slots. You're really just being a jerk for fun, and trying to play it off as a shrewed political move - staying a step ahead of Polar who was going to chain in Avalanche and win the war. Attempting to even paint this as some sort of defense of DBDC is an amazing stretch. Please stop or ask someone else for help. Edited January 11, 2015 by Starfox101 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex0827a Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 While I might would have gone about this in a different way myself, I do think this topic is being put to people's personal uses more than it ever should. Basically, it's like this: DT, UMB, and AB attacked Avalanche without a DoW. Fine, that seems to be the thing to do nowadays, and besides, collecting bills forever gets boring. Avalanche folks seem to be taking it with a smile and a bit of enthusiasm from what I'm able to tell, and good for them. And I do understand how Avalanche feels, to a degree - TSC got declared on without DoWs, probably just for being allied to SNX, since we were intending to enter the war anyway and NPO had said from the start that the incident with the raid was all fine and dandy. But the thing is, we all wanted some casualties, so while some would argue that "oh, hey, you guys are just jumping on an easy target" (and really, we were an easy target, with only 2 ODAPs at the time), we thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. Yeah, recovering's going to take a while, but it's whatever. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the alliances who are actually involved (the only ones who's opinions are relevant) will likely enjoy themselves while the rest of CN whines and argues semantics. Seriously, let them do their thing and stop crying about it. And it's not as if Avalanche is full of noobs, they're plenty capable of putting up a good fight and walking away from it when the time comes. We didn't complain and we ended up coming out better than we were before, and with a lot of new friends. Avalanche isn't complaining either, so let them do the same and keep all your personal drama/debates to yourself. We didn't want to hear it, even when it was in our defense, and I'd bet they don't either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) No, Polar has been raiding our Probes for awhile now, for reasons of "DBDC Terrorism." Yet all I see are legitimate tech dealing transactions between allied alliances. Looks like FARK has been hitting DT Probes far harder than Polaris. Looking forward to your attacks against FARK allies like IRON, Anarchy Inc, and R&R. Not to mention New Polar Order :smug: Edited January 11, 2015 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prodigal Moon Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 Dual membership is for evading consequences, not expanding them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) While I might would have gone about this in a different way myself, I do think this topic is being put to people's personal uses more than it ever should. Basically, it's like this: DT, UMB, and AB attacked Avalanche without a DoW. Fine, that seems to be the thing to do nowadays, and besides, collecting bills forever gets boring. Avalanche folks seem to be taking it with a smile and a bit of enthusiasm from what I'm able to tell, and good for them. And I do understand how Avalanche feels, to a degree - TSC got declared on without DoWs, probably just for being allied to SNX, since we were intending to enter the war anyway and NPO had said from the start that the incident with the raid was all fine and dandy. But the thing is, we all wanted some casualties, so while some would argue that "oh, hey, you guys are just jumping on an easy target" (and really, we were an easy target, with only 2 ODAPs at the time), we thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. Yeah, recovering's going to take a while, but it's whatever. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the alliances who are actually involved (the only ones who's opinions are relevant) will likely enjoy themselves while the rest of CN whines and argues semantics. Seriously, let them do their thing and stop crying about it. And it's not as if Avalanche is full of noobs, they're plenty capable of putting up a good fight and walking away from it when the time comes. We didn't complain and we ended up coming out better than we were before, and with a lot of new friends. Avalanche isn't complaining either, so let them do the same and keep all your personal drama/debates to yourself. We didn't want to hear it, even when it was in our defense, and I'd bet they don't either. My target has been very mature about his war. He did put up a pretty good fight for someone with 3 wars on him. For that, I have a lot of respect for Avalanche. Edited January 11, 2015 by Hunterman1043 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 The point is your alliance is bragging about being a "superior military alliance" while on the winning side, wait until you lose a war and then talk. They have. It is called losing to CSN and taking reps for it. That was a fun war though. DT has some rather experienced leaders and while I may not fully like the path they have taken recently, to claim that they would not damage the ever-loving fuck out of any alliance, even in a losing war, is delusional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 They have. It is called losing to CSN and taking reps for it. That was a fun war though. DT has some rather experienced leaders and while I may not fully like the path they have taken recently, to claim that they would not damage the ever-loving $%&@ out of any alliance, even in a losing war, is delusional. Completely different alliance that the one that currently exists, you know that. As for damage, yeah its easy to do when you've done nothing but collect tech for the past two years while everyone else is using their statistics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 Completely different alliance that the one that currently exists, you know that. As for damage, yeah its easy to do when you've done nothing but collect tech for the past two years while everyone else is using their statistics. Add "shifting the goalposts" to your knowledge-base; it may help you make a relevant point. You: "You've never had to face adversity." Us: "CSN-LoSS Front my friend." You: "Oh, well, that wasn't the [i]real[/i] DT, it was someone completely different!" It doesn't work like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Add "shifting the goalposts" to your knowledge-base; it may help you make a relevant point. You: "You've never had to face adversity." Us: "CSN-LoSS Front my friend." You: "Oh, well, that wasn't the real DT, it was someone completely different!" It doesn't work like that. Considering you were IN that CSN, MoFA at the time I believe even, and if I recall supported the terms, I think you prove my point excellently. Edited January 11, 2015 by Mogar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Considering you were IN that CSN, MoFA at the time I believe even, and if I recall supported the terms, I think you prove my point excellently. The first point you are correct; the latter is funny, but no, I did not. I was quite outspoken about it, which I know pissed both Goose and Liz off immensely. Edited January 11, 2015 by SpacingOutMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 Maybe you shoulda couped Liz then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Maybe you shoulda couped Liz then. Who do you think pushed for reps on CSN from our side during the Grudge War. :ehm: Hint: rep terms weren't imposed on us by DT. And Liz wasn't in charge at the time of CSN-LoSS... in fact she wasn't in charge until some time after because Goose went inactive. Could I have left CSN after the war and move on? Sure, but there was that sentimental feeling for the place at the pit of my stomach that kept me there (along with the musings of Xiphosis, Liz, and all of the other good folks in CSN/SF! up until SF's demise) until, well, I lost my bet with Bob and joined DT as a consequence. Edited January 11, 2015 by SpacingOutMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Who do you think pushed for reps on CSN from our side during the Grudge War. :ehm: Hint: rep terms weren't imposed on us by DT. And Liz wasn't in charge at the time of CSN-LoSS... in fact she wasn't in charge until some time after because Goose went inactive. Could I have left CSN after the war and move on? Sure, but there was that sentimental feeling for the place at the pit of my stomach that kept me there until, well, I lost my bet with Bob and joined DT as a consequence. I am a skilled manipulator indeed! Completely different alliance that the one that currently exists, you know that. As for damage, yeah its easy to do when you've done nothing but collect tech for the past two years while everyone else is using their statistics. Haha what? We have 2/3 of same triumvirs, with myself (who was in/joined DT during CSN-LoSS) being the only exception. So no, our government hasn't changed. In terms of damage, I feel like this is one of our worse performances :( Edited January 11, 2015 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarkin Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 [...] if AB and GLoF's preparedness is an indication of the rest of AZTEC, you will not survive a conflict like you are pushing on Polaris. First point: nobody would do well against the group facing NpO. The combination of NATO/ODN/R&R was always going to be lethal, and given that they had excellent upper-tier support from AB/Sengoku/Gre in the early weeks, well, they never had a chance. If you're saying that we would literally disband if we got rolled, well, only way to find out is to pull together the necessary coalition to do it. If you're the one in charge of doing so, I anticipate enjoying a long, leisurely life. Second point: RIA's preparedness was nothing to crow about. You're the damn econ minister and you would have been bill-locked a dozen times over this war if not for aid, which still just barely keeps you afloat. You're literally sitting at less than 1k NS after starting the war above 50k NS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Zeke+ Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 Maybe because you've avoided any major war for over 2 years and sat there collecting tech and cash for that time period, so yeah, you're able to do more damage than alliances that have had to actually fight difficult conflicts, fight a losing war for 4 months without collapsing and then talk. LOL! We miss one year of war (not two as you've mistakely assumed) and somehow it was an evil plot to dominate all of our enemies. Never mind the fact that DT was a 40 man alliance only a couple years ago and that just about all of our older nations have been in the annual slugfest since the early years. Underdog status was our specialty in the past. ProTip: Our evil plot to dominate wasn't based on missing a year of war. It was recruiting wisely, maintaining loyalty, being deft in our FA moves, and understanding how to build strong nations. Might want to jot those suggestions down. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) I'm saying your alliances would push for surrender very quickly, and based off how long you intend on making this war last, I predict that you may not be given that option if you ever end up on the losing side of a war, where everyone you're currently rolling has taken their licks. It's not as though RIA is really fully committing to this war, as we have allies on both sides and probably could have gone with our standard of ending up fighting on both sides if our allies had not elected to directly attack our other allies. I'm not the econ minister, and I have never pretended to be good at nation building, sitting out of wars for a year to build up a warchest is a waste of time that could be spent fighting. I have ended up at minimum nuclear statistics during every single war since this current nation's creation, it's far more enjoyable than doing nothing for two years and then circlejerking after two weeks of conflict because nobody's left in range. LOL! We miss one year of war (not two as you've mistakely assumed) and somehow it was an evil plot to dominate all of our enemies. Never mind the fact that DT was a 40 man alliance only a couple years ago and that just about all of our older nations have been in the annual slugfest since the early years. Underdog status was our specialty in the past. ProTip: Our evil plot to dominate wasn't based on missing a year of war. It was recruiting wisely, maintaining loyalty, being deft in our FA moves, and understanding how to build strong nations. Might want to jot those suggestions down. ;) Wars happen once a year generally, so yes, you went roughly two years(give or take maybe 3 months) without a war. It was an intentional decision to allow yourselves to be in a stronger position for this war. Those older nations have in fact by even your own admission sat out the previous slugfest and as such did not have to take the same damage(see, roughly 6 months MINIMUM of tech imports) that everyone else incurred. this afforded you a major advantage over those other nations, you're currently rolling and then for some reason bragging about curbstomping when you have a 5:1 ratio of nations in the upper tier. It really wasn't, but you keep holding onto losing to CSN as a great example of your underdog status. Plenty of others could make "deft" political moves, but at the cost of loyality to their allies, and those "deft" political moves involve allying an alliance that has proven repeatedly its allies are not of any value to it besides pawns. Edited January 11, 2015 by Mogar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) B) So instead of hitting Polar, you hit an uninvolved alliance? Man, you really got us. Actually, we do seem to have based off Polar's reaction here. If you want to attack our tech sellers and members, then there will be consequences. I'm saying your alliances would push for surrender very quickly, and based off how long you intend on making this war last, I predict that you may not be given that option if you ever end up on the losing side of a war, where everyone you're currently rolling has taken their licks. How long does DT intend on making this war last? If Fark would like peace, they can definitely come talk to those alliances involved and I'm sure we can hammer something out. In terms of fighting like Polaris seems to intend to, you are absolutely correct we would not. Who in their right mind would when the option on the table is most likely white peace? Edited January 11, 2015 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunterman1043 Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 So did I read that correctly or did Mogar just admit he made up the whole 2 years no war thing? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 (edited) Looks like FARK has been hitting DT Probes far harder than Polaris. Looking forward to your attacks against FARK allies like IRON, Anarchy Inc, and R&R. Not to mention New Polar Order :smug: Those seem like two different things for some reason, but golly I can't think of why! Plenty of others could make "deft" political moves, but at the cost of loyality to their allies, and those "deft" political moves involve allying an alliance that has proven repeatedly its allies are not of any value to it besides pawns. I don't think any of our allies question our loyalty, but please enlighten me! Edited January 11, 2015 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 11, 2015 Report Share Posted January 11, 2015 It really wasn't, but you keep holding onto losing to CSN as a great example of your underdog status. Because you were *shocker* incorrect about DT never losing a war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.