Earogema Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 It's more like he has an uzi and is fighting a bunch of guys with knives and then bragging about how awesome he is cause the guys with knives didn't beat him. He may be a very good fighter but the fact that he is taking nominal damage from the nations he is currently fighting is not a reflection of his skill. NO! No more bad metaphors and similes! It's like a guy who is outnumbered but made sure to build his nation so that he wouldn't be defeated too badly on the lower ranks. That's exactly what this is, and I will not have you compare it with anything else, using like or as! Oh, also, did nobody note earlier in the thread where it was said we was KNOCKED down to that range, not selling infra and land? It means the NPO didn't do significant enough damage to keep him from being a threat to those nations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MudBug Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Thank you for providing such a skilled opponent for our young nations to learn against. Interesting and well-planned strategy you have. They will be much stronger thanks to your sacrifice. Well done, Sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Caesar has clearly spent a decent amount of time building his nation up to be a military force at any level and now he's reaping the rewards of that preparation and forethought. Is that something to brag about? Of course it is. The whole point of military wonders is so you can kick $@! in wars. It's amazing that Caesar's own carefully cultivated brute force advantage (his military wonders) is suddenly unethical when he uses it to damage nations who are only in range in the first place because their alliance has beaten him down using their own brute force advantage (weight of numbers). NPO should be congratulated for winning unfair wars but Caesar should be criticised, is that correct? This pretty much. I mean, look at the Gramlins "military machine." Most of them have no casualties (I probably have more than most Gramlins do), but nobody would want to fight them, and everybody brags about them. It's because they are prepared for any and all war situations. They have MPs, and other military wonders that would keep them fighting at both top and bottom ranks. Why is this any different? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
American Clam Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 Apparently The Big Bad Wolf (NPO) and can't blow down a house of bricks (Republic of Roma) after all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 1, 2009 Report Share Posted February 1, 2009 I'm still waiting to see any NPrOpaganda that explains why he has not lost a single NS in the last 25 days. Seriously. How can you be at constant war with someone, and do no damage?How hard is it even to get the people fighting him on IRC to coordinate attacks, and hence execute a coup de grace, anarching him? And to think your alliance has a military pact with these schlubs. Here I am. Too bad you're too small, otherwise I'd show you what the NPO warmachine is all about. (and it ain't hugs and kisses, homeboy) Perhaps if you didnt' cut and run every time it looks like you might be in for the mouth-shutting you'r up for, you'd bee small enough to prove your point. He may be a very good fighter but the fact that he is taking nominal damage from the nations he is currently fighting is not a reflection of his skill. I think that you've both missed the point and hit the nail on the head: This is not about his skill, it's about his opponents' lack thereof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 To everyone saying you shouldn't be able to brag about this: when can you brag? Pretty much every military accomplishment in this game is achieved either because you were prepared for it, therefore having an 'unfair' advantage (such as Caesar's situation) or out of sheer luck (very good ground attacks, etc). I'd say this as good an opportunity to brag as any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeVentNoir Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 And to think your alliance has a military pact with these schlubs. Like I can change that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Whimsical Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 And to think your alliance has a military pact with these schlubs. I've been watching this thread with interest but this comment struck me. Isn't Vox supporting people who don't tow the party line? Just because you're allies doesn't mean you have to agree. Not everyone who allies to NPO sells their soul. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 They will be much stronger thanks to your sacrifice. Not before they get weaker. No disrespect, all due respect, fagetabout it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kronuso Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Actually Mudbug makes a good point and it is one that does bug me. Why should we be giving NPO's lower ranks war training? I am thinking of retiring my NPO raids after this ZI ride to move my fight to the forums. A nation that has been battered by war at an early age will be much stronger over the long run, making 30 day strength graphs much too short-sighted, especially when rebuilding from ZI or near ZI is so simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President ShinRa Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I've been watching this thread with interest but this comment struck me. Isn't Vox supporting people who don't tow the party line? Just because you're allies doesn't mean you have to agree. Not everyone who allies to NPO sells their soul. There are others, such as those who the NPO have wrongfully attempted to drive out of the game (FAN), those who are just as irritated with the state of the game (as you've mentioned), and lastly people who just want Cybernations' major alliances to change in one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Never said they did, but there have been times where the NPO has proven itself when a war is evenly matched. When? As far as I know they haven't been in a war of remotely even sides since the GWs and those were almost two years ago, when most of NPO's current members weren't even around. Thank you for providing such a skilled opponent for our young nations to learn against. Interesting and well-planned strategy you have. They will be much stronger thanks to your sacrifice. Well done, Sir. I'm sure they'll learn a lot losing hundreds of infra to nukes and CMs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 When? As far as I know they haven't been in a war of remotely even sides since the GWs and those were almost two years ago, when most of NPO's current members weren't even around. A large portion is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) A large portion is. Global War 3 ended about 690 days ago, 160 out of 911 NPO nations have seniority of 690 days or more for GW 3, and 140 have been around since GW 2 (about 750 days ago), and 85 for GW 1 (about 885 days ago). Now those figures are gonna be somewhat off, when alliance seniority was created in fall of 07 it defaulted to when the nation was created, and it doesn't include people who were re-rolls or fought in it under a different banner or were in NPO and came back. But still the vast majority of the alliance was not around at that time. Edited February 2, 2009 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandellav Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 As for those saying "ZOMG you have to be way bigger to have nukes! No fair!" I present you with subject A:http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=263067 And I present you with subject B, my nation: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=200069 My nation may be slightly bigger in infra and tech, but I also funded a SM and SSS before I bought it. I also funded all these things myself while paying out tons of cash in tech deals lately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KagetheSecond Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 And I present you with subject B, my nation:http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=200069 My nation may be slightly bigger in infra and tech, but I also funded a SM and SSS before I bought it. I also funded all these things myself while paying out tons of cash in tech deals lately. I wish I had an MP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 I wish I had an MP Save for one, it's the best wonder you can buy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpreb Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Save for one, it's the best wonder you can buy. /me pats WRC I disagree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 /me pats WRCI disagree your WRC wont be anywhere near as entertaining without the ability to continue to buy nukes forever, that way if you ever get gangbanged your opponents will be having a bad next few months instead of a bad few weeks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youwish959 Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 /me pats WRCI disagree Your not always going to be in the top 5%, or at least theres a chance you won't always be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpreb Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 My love for the WRC is more a subjective observation rather than an objective one. WRC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Your not always going to be in the top 5%, or at least theres a chance you won't always be. Pft, Alpreb is invincible. /Also pats WRC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 your WRC wont be anywhere near as entertaining without the ability to continue to buy nukes forever, that way if you ever get gangbanged your opponents will be having a bad next few months instead of a bad few weeks. Anyone with a WRC really needs that MP to back it up. It makes it go from being an awesome wonder to a "you really don't want to mess with me" wonder. NO one wants to fight someone in the OPs position with a WRC and a MP. Nuking 2 nations a day in that nation range would be rather brutal for the defenders... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTTofAK Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 (edited) /pats his WRC and MP To the OP thanks for providing our young nations with much needed experience. The rogues I fought post GPW provided me with the most valuable experience I ever had in this game. Now rather than having to fight random rogues we have FAN, and Vox doing the full time scout team work for the NPO. FAN and Vox the Brooklyn Brawlers of CN. Edited February 2, 2009 by GTTofAK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 2, 2009 Report Share Posted February 2, 2009 Like I can change that.... MHA does still have democratic elements, doesn't it? I've been watching this thread with interest but this comment struck me. Isn't Vox supporting people who don't tow the party line? Just because you're allies doesn't mean you have to agree. Not everyone who allies to NPO sells their soul. I don't see what about my comment piqued your interest; I ointed out that as a member of MHA he has pledged to put his nation on the line in defense of NPO, and he should think about that. If anyone misconstrued that as an insult or jab at him personally, it's their misunderstanding of my wording. 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.