Drai Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 And so it begins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perconte Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 o/ Bandwagoning! Why didn't you guys come fight us 1 - v - 1 if we were such a threat to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morey 2k7 Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 o/ Bandwagoning!Why didn't you guys come fight us 1 - v - 1 if we were such a threat to you? Quit whining and play the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perconte Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I am playing the game. It's called politics, propaganda, call it what you want. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm "not playing the game". If all of your side of the coalition thinks so then we may as well call you the Coalition of the Stupid. Also, if you want to talk about playing this game "right" we can. What the hell is with 6 vs. 1 attacks on alliances? That's CN:S stuff right there. THAT is what will make this game boring and more like CN:S - wars where the outcome is apparent and one - sided, 5 v. 1 wars. I thought the idea was to do 1 on 1s, maybe 2 on 1s at worst, and let the best alliance win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morey 2k7 Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I am playing the game. It's called politics, propaganda, call it what you want. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm "not playing the game". If all of your side of the coalition thinks so then we may as well call you the Coalition of the Stupid.Also, if you want to talk about playing this game "right" we can. What the hell is with 6 vs. 1 attacks on alliances? That's CN:S stuff right there. THAT is what will make this game boring and more like CN:S - wars where the outcome is apparent and one - sided, 5 v. 1 wars. I thought the idea was to do 1 on 1s, maybe 2 on 1s at worst, and let the best alliance win? Here's a tissue. Maybe you should take the full box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spetton Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 Also, if you want to talk about playing this game "right" we can. What the hell is with 6 vs. 1 attacks on alliances? That's CN:S stuff right there. THAT is what will make this game boring and more like CN:S - wars where the outcome is apparent and one - sided, 5 v. 1 wars. I thought the idea was to do 1 on 1s, maybe 2 on 1s at worst, and let the best alliance win? This war is about keeping this game fair you guys were getting ahead so the rest of us pull you back to make it fun again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) o/ Bandwagoning! Your tears are delicious. Why so serious? Read the OP. We're preforming a humanitarian service, for heaven's sake. Edited October 4, 2008 by Aurion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perconte Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I hear Citadel can use that humanitarian service as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learz Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I will say it will be fun to take some people down with me in a nuclear fireball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 Would have been nice if SF had made this close and anti-bandwagoned, didn't expect it and it'd have been a stupid move but man would it have been fun Welcome to the fight SF, shame it's the bad fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I see Delta's word is worth nothing as well. Glad to see CN:TE has turned into CN:S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arctic Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I see Delta's word is worth nothing as well. Glad to see CN:TE has turned into CN:S. In a week, this round will still be up for grabs. None of Genius are treatied with one another, we are not a power bloc and in some cases have done far more damage to one another than we will ever inflict on IDIOT. If all goes according to plan, CN:TE will be nothing like CN:S. I see no WUT, no Initiative, no 1 Vision. There are treaties out there but the game is still wide open. In fact, if the world looks safe when we are done with this fight, I was thinking about taking a week off and trying to set up a WAPA-NAAC vs Citadel and TPA war, just to have a nice old school red vs blue week long contest. Think of the nostalgia associated with a TPA and NAAC war? We grew up in this game fighting those guys and they are riot to play against. Check out this logic: If FUN>POLITICS, then CN:TE≠CN:S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I am playing the game. It's called politics, propaganda, call it what you want. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm "not playing the game". If all of your side of the coalition thinks so then we may as well call you the Coalition of the Stupid.Also, if you want to talk about playing this game "right" we can. What the hell is with 6 vs. 1 attacks on alliances? That's CN:S stuff right there. THAT is what will make this game boring and more like CN:S - wars where the outcome is apparent and one - sided, 5 v. 1 wars. I thought the idea was to do 1 on 1s, maybe 2 on 1s at worst, and let the best alliance win? IDIOT was getting too big, I man big enough to take down anyone 1v1 easily. Factor in Murder Inc. + IDIOT, and they could take on maybe 4 or 5 of the sanctioned alliances. Excuse us for saving the game by banded together and making the game a little fairer. We would've done this no matter who was at the top, IDIOT just happened to be there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perconte Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) Definitely. We were planning to attack every sanctioned alliance one by one and win the game. We weren't content to just do our own thing and help our friends when they needed it at all. And, you are aware Superfriends are large enough to take anyone one - on - one too, right? Do you guys plan to jump on them next? Edited October 4, 2008 by Perconte Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEraser Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) I SEE WUT U DID THAR tricky tricky Edited October 4, 2008 by elborrador Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) In a week, this round will still be up for grabs. None of Genius are treatied with one another, we are not a power bloc and in some cases have done far more damage to one another than we will ever inflict on IDIOT. If all goes according to plan, CN:TE will be nothing like CN:S. I see no WUT, no Initiative, no 1 Vision. There are treaties out there but the game is still wide open.In fact, if the world looks safe when we are done with this fight, I was thinking about taking a week off and trying to set up a WAPA-NAAC vs Citadel and TPA war, just to have a nice old school red vs blue week long contest. Think of the nostalgia associated with a TPA and NAAC war? We grew up in this game fighting those guys and they are riot to play against. Check out this logic: If FUN>POLITICS, then CN:TE≠CN:S You do realize that SF and Citadel are MADP'd to each other and that Citadel formed the first bloc in this round? Another flaw in your argument is if we were destroying the balance in the game, we'd be attacking sanctioned alliances....which we are not. Also your government has also told me this will not be a 1 week war and that you want 30% of IDIOT's numbers gone before you even think about giving us peace. Good luck with your future plans. It should also be noted that I mentioned the possibility of a Black on Red war when Murder Inc came to me about it and you were enthusiastically for it, then I can only assume because I have been pretty busy in the last week that you assumed plans changed and I didn't get back to you about it. People come to us asking for assistance on things and we decided on a case by case basis. Yep. We are certainly ruining the game. Edited October 4, 2008 by AirMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 And another thing...if you wanted to have a major war, we could have done that with out all the stupid politicking. Say hey lets have a major war. Alliances A through F declare on alliances G through M. Probably would have been better than having some of us feel betrayed because of some bs excuse on how we were ruining the balance of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morey 2k7 Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 Definitely. We were planning to attack every sanctioned alliance one by one and win the game. We weren't content to just do our own thing and help our friends when they needed it at all.And, you are aware Superfriends are large enough to take anyone one - on - one too, right? Do you guys plan to jump on them next? You like your pixels too much, do you need another box of tissues already? Someone probablly will jump on SF next, but I don't think you will find any of us whining and will instead just get on with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morey 2k7 Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 And another thing...if you wanted to have a major war, we could have done that with out all the stupid politicking. Say hey lets have a major war. Alliances A through F declare on alliances G through M. Probably would have been better than having some of us feel betrayed because of some bs excuse on how we were ruining the balance of the game. Airme I wouldn't exactly say this war was about politics at all. Just see it that you guys outgrew the rest of us and now we want to bring you back down to earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 I see Delta's word is worth nothing as well. Glad to see CN:TE has turned into CN:S. I see AirMe is taking Tournament Edition too seriously. Also, are you implying that Delta's word is worthless in SE? If so... Definitely. We were planning to attack every sanctioned alliance one by one and win the game. We weren't content to just do our own thing and help our friends when they needed it at all.And, you are aware Superfriends are large enough to take anyone one - on - one too, right? Do you guys plan to jump on them next? what is this I don't even Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedomvilleAT Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 (edited) Probably would have been better than having some of us feel betrayed because of some bs excuse on how we were ruining the balance of the game. This is getting annoying... You see, NAAC had intentions of playing this game and nothing else. We went into this looking for fun. It was going to be a big war full of higher alliances instead of all the mini tech raids that really don't count. We saw IDIOT was at the top and we knew if we left you there it wouldn't be long until you were so high up, no one could bring you down. We're stopping this from happening because it'd be pretty stupid to just sit back and do nothing for the rest of the game. If IDIOT or Murder were in our situation I can almost guarantee they'd be doing the same, if not worse. And if some of you deny this, then thats pretty sad that you would let the game slip through your fingers like that. You say its all about friendship and holding hands and keeping words that were never said but its not. We promised nothing. War is what makes this game fun and the fact that I see people taking it so seriously kind of annoys me. NAAC has always been a respected and honorable alliance and we plan to keep it that way. If you want to call us back stabbers, troll or anything else you have private forums for all your "LOL NAAC SuXORZ" and "BACK STABBERS...LETS ANARCHY THOSE WHO PLAY THE GAME" posts. And this not aimed directly at AirMe either. If we had made a treaty we would not be at war but I see no treaty and no promise so stop whining, trolling, and continuing this nonsense about liars. This is to be for fun and if you're not having fun then your more than welcome to leave the game. I know I won't be the one to stop you. If you want to be friends, get in the time machine and go back to the SF and Cit war to help us out pal. I can see that the reason your hurt AirMe is because you and arctic go way back. But if he went way back with you, you'd realize he's not trying to back stab you but simply strategize like he has since he left his mother's womb. Taking war from arctic is like taking candy from a crying baby. Its just so wrong. Edited October 4, 2008 by FreedomvilleAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Holyone Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 Taking war from arctic is like taking candy from a crying baby. Its just so wrong. You wouldn't steal candy from a baby, would you?? But seriously FV has a valid point. We hold no treaties with you, we have never promised you would stay unharmed, so i don't see how we have backstabbed and betrayed you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreedomvilleAT Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 You wouldn't steal candy from a baby, would you?? No I wouldn't lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted October 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 You wouldn't steal candy from a baby, would you?? What kind of candy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 This war is about keeping this game fair you guys were getting ahead so the rest of us pull you back to make it fun again. You were afraid that you wouldn't get the #1 spot if there were only 5 alliances attacking us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts