Jump to content
Dajobo

Judas Iscariot, out yourself...

Recommended Posts

 

3 wars ago Dt wasn't in Aztec, but was joining the bloc and fought with the entire bloc on one of the hardest fronts possible.  

What war was that? If it's the war I'm think of it was one of easiest fronts but there was just lots of whining. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What war was that? If it's the war I'm think of it was one of easiest fronts but there was just lots of whining. 

 

Equilibrium War. DT hit TOP in accordance mutual defense portion of their treaty with AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Equilibrium War. DT hit TOP in accordance mutual defense portion of their treaty with AI.

 

Ah, so not just was it not yet in Aztec, it was a MD treaty.

 

Well, this storyline about Aztec is unravelling quickly when facts are involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What war was that? If it's the war I'm think of it was one of easiest fronts but there was just lots of whining.

I can't remember a war where, when a hard front was available, DT took a day off.

I blame Bob. Edited by Neo Uruk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least you're willing to admit treaty ties outside of the bloc mean shit, that's more than most in blocs do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AI was not a member of the AZTEC bloc at any point. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least you're willing to admit treaty ties outside of the bloc mean !@#$, that's more than most in blocs do.

 

I think there is some fundamental confusion with reality here.

 

For the last war Aztec entering for outside bloc partners with 0 allies on the opposing side.

For the war before that, Sengoku entered for an outside bloc partner, despite not being involved with any war or coalition planning one of those wars, with 0 allies on the opposite side for any aztec alliance

For the war before that, Aztec entered for an outside ally with zero allies on the opposite side.  DT entered for a MD ally that was the first alliance connected to them hit.

 

Your rhetoric doesn't match reality.

Edited by hartfw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AI was not a member of the AZTEC bloc at any point. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

 

Maybe not, but Sons of Anarchy was a pretty solid grouping for a (protectorate) bloc, and thats why Sengoku got involved.  And since Sengoku is in Aztec now, and was in that bloc with Ai, its not really a stretch by OWF standards to say AI and Aztec were in a bloc together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember a war where, when a hard front was available, DT took a day off.

I blame Bob.

By that logic any front is hard and everyone should get a clap for attending.

Although in this case taking a day off was more like taking a week off but still attending the first day of work and not showing up again afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic any front is hard and everyone should get a clap for attending.

Although in this case taking a day off was more like taking a week off but still attending the first day of work and not showing up again afterwards.

 

Join MI6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that logic any front is hard and everyone should get a clap for attending.
Although in this case taking a day off was more like taking a week off but still attending the first day of work and not showing up again afterwards.

...what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...what?

Yeah it doesn't make much sense, it was suppose to reference a whiny alliance that "stopped" fighting during a war on the "hardest" front.

Edited by Commander shepard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say GPA war is always going to be the most one sided, once the war decs start happening the statistical difference may be beyond even the NS gap from Woodstock though, depending on how many actually choose to defend their allies.

 

Because rolling MI6/Polar has to be done properly so they can steal away enough of your allies for the next war.

 

I'd have to disagree with you. When woodstock happened GPA was the largest alliance by about 10 score. There was a period between them passing NPO and NPO getting everyone on the same page to actually hit them iirc. Val, TOP, TPF, NPO, IRON NATO and Umb are the only ones who actually hit GPA. 

 

MI6, by comparison, is facing a similar sized coalition of alliances and is only 1/4th the size of the largest alliance. 

 

That would make this the most lopsided war that includes sanctioned alliances on both sides.. there were plenty of other micro curbstomps that I'm sure were more lopsided. The PB versus the 20 Mongols/Kaskus nations is my favorite example  :awesome:

 

 

Well, I won't defend DS's original declare, but there really is no reason to lump that on Aztec and not the rest of the over half of CN involved unless its just a case of premeditated bias.

 

 

Are you saying you did were not in the coalition skype channels and did not know (or have a good idea) of how it would chain out?  :popcorn:

 

By defending DK from their repercussions (i.e. allies of the alliance they attacked) you defend their original declare. 

Edited by Unknown Smurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coalition skype channels? What's that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying you did were not in the coalition skype channels and did not know (or have a good idea) of how it would chain out?  :popcorn:

 

By defending DK from their repercussions (i.e. allies of the alliance they attacked) you defend their original declare. 

 

I'm never in a skype channel, as if I was, I might have to talk to the people that are.  

 

(I'm also not dumb, and know how chains work.)

 

If someone wants to say all of that coalition was bad for following DS's war start,they should.  It is a totally legitimate argument, and I'm not going to say they shouldn't feel that way if they do.  To isolate Aztec and say that Aztec alone is, is a person trying to fit reality to their facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it's only Aztec Sengoku who is bad* for following DKs war start. But it is only Aztec Sengoku who is defining themselves as being honorable because while they didn't agree with DKs war start, they just followed treaties like they always do. (OOC: Combining what was said from both threads here) 

 

* = I would also like to point out that 'bad' is your word. I wouldn't use that terminology as I'm not moralist; the point is that by being on the coalitions side in a war (especially if you were part of the planning process) makes one equally responsible.  

 

And because I love a bit of drama I'd like to point out that it is Aztec Sengoku who once again has to call their allies in; even to defend themselves in a minor OWF skirmish. 

 

 

P.S. As for it not being skype; thats fair. Its been a long time and I don't remember where the logs were from, just the general gist of them and the fact that Aztec Sengoku was represented. (By Auctor iirc). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sengoku's argument had nothing to do with how last war started. It was merely pointing out that we've never left an ally to burn, so that's not a valid criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it's only Aztec Sengoku who is bad* for following DKs war start. But it is only Aztec Sengoku who is defining themselves as being honorable because while they didn't agree with DKs war start, they just followed treaties like they always do. (OOC: Combining what was said from both threads here) 
 
* = I would also like to point out that 'bad' is your word. I wouldn't use that terminology as I'm not moralist; the point is that by being on the coalitions side in a war (especially if you were part of the planning process) makes one equally responsible.  
 
And because I love a bit of drama I'd like to point out that it is Aztec Sengoku who once again has to call their allies in; even to defend themselves in a minor OWF skirmish. 
 
 
P.S. As for it not being skype; thats fair. Its been a long time and I don't remember where the logs were from, just the general gist of them and the fact that Aztec Sengoku was represented. (By Auctor iirc).

unknownsmurfposts.avi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying it's only Aztec Sengoku who is bad* for following DKs war start. But it is only Aztec Sengoku who is defining themselves as being honorable because while they didn't agree with DKs war start, they just followed treaties like they always do. (OOC: Combining what was said from both threads here) 

 

* = I would also like to point out that 'bad' is your word. I wouldn't use that terminology as I'm not moralist; the point is that by being on the coalitions side in a war (especially if you were part of the planning process) makes one equally responsible.  

 

And because I love a bit of drama I'd like to point out that it is Aztec Sengoku who once again has to call their allies in; even to defend themselves in a minor OWF skirmish. 

 

 

P.S. As for it not being skype; thats fair. Its been a long time and I don't remember where the logs were from, just the general gist of them and the fact that Aztec Sengoku was represented. (By Auctor iirc). 

 

Auctor summarized it more succinctly than I will, but thats not at all what happened.  Claims have been made about Sengoku/Aztec skipping wars and leaving allies to burn.  All those have been refuted based upon the actual facts.

 

I thought I was pretty blunt that that war CB could be picked on if one wanted to, but that applying that should be done equally as you also say. (For the record, I left my own personal opinion of it out of here, so assuming I disagreed or agreed is just an assumption).

 

As for "who once again has to call their allies in; even to defend themselves in a minor OWF skirmish"  I'm not sure what this means.  I'm unaware of any request to any ally regarding the owf.  If you have substance, it would be nice to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'll recall I called out R&R and IRON for also actively participating in plotting against their direct allies last war, and apparently ODN will be the ones doing it this war, if people still want to be allies with people who are so willing to burn their allies to the ground simply to be on the winning side, that's on them, but not something I'd choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you'll recall I called out R&R and IRON for also actively participating in plotting against their direct allies last war, and apparently ODN will be the ones doing it this war, if people still want to be allies with people who are so willing to burn their allies to the ground simply to be on the winning side, that's on them, but not something I'd choose.

 

 

I'm impressed, you managed to criticize alliances that were actually in that position at one point as opposed to merely alliances that weren't and didn't do what you described. Here's a cookie.

 

Choco_chip_cookie.jpg

 

Too often do we criticize others for being wrong and never for the one time a while back that they might have been right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9/10 reply Socrates, I had expected someone to post a Judas picture about 6 pages ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×