Jump to content

Serious Question to Surrendered Hegemony Alliances...


Rush Sykes

Recommended Posts

Let me preface this by saying that I do not intend this thread to troll any alliances that have surrendered. This is a serious question that I would like to hear some answers to. Feel free to answer or not to answer.

The common thing with surrenders in this war, and with all wars in the past, is that the surrendering alliances always claim to have "learned from their past mistakes." My question is a simple one, what exactly is it that you feel your alliance has learned?

Edited by Rush Sykes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Having powerful allies is not a viable alternative to building your alliances economy and military. Military wonders and economic management are important.

Atleast that what they should have learnt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can fight a war and have absolutely no hard feelings - Cheers GR

Truth, to be quite honoust this war have made me far more active then i've been before and so has our alliance as a whole.

I do believe this war has been benificial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Truth, to be quite honoust this war have made me far more active then i've been before and so has our alliance as a whole.

I do believe this war has been benificial.

For the four days you were at war atleast. Was that how long your fight lasted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the four days you were at war atleast. Was that how long your fight lasted?

My war has lasted from 27/04/2009 till 03/05/2009, and I've lost around 45% of my total NS. Truth to be told I haven't rebuilt my military because I prefer to rebuild my infra and tech first.

I fought against menwearpink135 from GR who lost around 44% and against Quercus of OBR who entered the next day and lost around 33% of his total NS. Both were great opponents.

The white peace was basicly gained from the start, even without Citadel allies which obviously won't lend military aid when one of their members gets beaten but also from OBR and GR which said from the start they didn't had any "beef" with us.

Both learned us quite some things, especially from OBR who is around our the size of OG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learned that if you don't like someone, you should plan against them privately, so you have a nice coalition to wipe them out. All you need is a nice rallying cry. :lol1:

But seriously, don't think you're secure. Build and plan for the day when war happens. Don't become apathetic about preparation for war against your enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The common thing with surrenders in this war, and with all wars in the past, is that the surrendering alliances always claim to have "learned from their past mistakes." My question is a simple one, what exactly is it that you feel your alliance has learned?

That NPO likes its meatshields too much :v:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i learned that bandwagoning is just a staple in CN now, I just wanted to fight one more even war for the thrill of it.....

I don't ever see it happening. I never even joined the wars that were way lopsided in our favour.... boring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We haven't surrendered yet but still I have learned many things...I dont think that 'surrender' suddenly will make me learn new things, thats rather crude and imply that what you have learned is under duress...which is all drama IMO...ask some of Karma alliances for the proof.

I have gained most respect for those alliances that are acting to bring the new change, they have literally done what they said they would e.g. RIA. You guys are awesome.

Also some alliances I respected before, I don't anymore, they all chanted ethics, morals, bla bla, but when all was said and done, they simply wanted revenge, they also claimed to have 'changed' with respect to Hegemony when it was on top of them. So another thing I have learned is, you cannot make other party realize anything with reps, coercion or power politics. What I learned is this only ensures the other side gets more bitter and more smarter in their schemes. You create a long-term enemy out of short-term conflict. It is simply natural for me to like those who offer lenient or peace terms than those running around with blood lust. I absolutely don't mind any damages done during active war, it aint a cuddling contest.

Than there are others, absolutely amazing people, while 90% of the time I wont agree with what Bob Janova will post, but Gramlins have carried themselves like true ladies and gentlemen. Brilliant and very smart in Geopolitics. Its good to have them as enemies or friends. Then we have TOP, really, I dont think there are many words here that would describe how much I respect them, I do strongly disagree with them for using ODP as entry clause in the war, however friends have disagreements and if they are overcome with mutual respect and open communications, than these things are non-issues.

I don't know FOK much but I monitored their military build up since late Jan/Feb, I'd love to know more about them.

Another important thing that as a member of IRON I have learned is which alliances I'm willing to go perma-ZI for.

When all is said and done, My idealism trait has increased against the Realist trait by seeing how some alliances have stood on their claimed principles, that is THE REAL change in me. You know who you are and you know you got a voice in IRON.

As for the controversial topics about harsh reps and all, If It was under my control, I would offer lenient terms but I would take 3m/50 tech/2k soldiers total reps as a token and use that to renovate their embassy and ensure they send over a diplomat for a game of poker @ #irongames

and like Ceremony said, we have no hard feelings against the people whome we're at war with directly, its rather surprising, I don't know where is the hate. The only topics we have regarding our attackers are when they screw up staggers so bad that well, no comments or when they send some funny messages. Many people in IRON think that if your enemy sends you terms of surrenders, its funny -.-, then they all discuss how best to reply to it...and conclusion usually is to throw a nuke back.

Thats for our feelings towards our attackers, but the golden saying, its not the words or actions of our enemies that we will remember, but rather the deeds of those who we thought were our friends.

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I learned that if you don't like someone, you should plan against them privately, so you have a nice coalition to wipe them out. All you need is a nice rallying cry. :lol1:

I'm pretty sure the Hegemony is the one that taught that particular course. :v:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me preface this by saying that I do not intend this thread to troll any alliances that have surrendered. This is a serious question that I would like to hear some answers to. Feel free to answer or not to answer.

The common thing with surrenders in this war, and with all wars in the past, is that the surrendering alliances always claim to have "learned from their past mistakes." My question is a simple one, what exactly is it that you feel your alliance has learned?

you can't get casualties at 1k infra

oh and whole your true friends are/who the treaty e-lawyering scumbags are :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...