Ragnarok Announcement

[CptGodzilla]

No, it was a statement of opinion. Some may consider it !@#$%^&*. Others may consider it fact. If you are taking up the banner for that one statement, I direct you to the Valhalla and IRON surrender threads amongst many others. You will have a multitude of causes to fight then.

KingSrqt is speaking of opinion. It was his opinion that stukov was flinging mud, someone told him to do it, he does it.

[LOLtex]

Our opponents were told that if they didn't nuke TOP, TOP wouldn't nuke back. Guess who didn't get nuked.

Pro tip: (er wait that'd be considered arrogance)

Friendly advice: (wait that'd be considered sarcastic)

Oh what the hell: You can only get nuked once per day. Guess how many times a day you'd be nuked if TOP was getting nuked beside you? Once. Guess how many times a day you'd be nuked if TOP wasn't getting nuked? Once.

Not all of us have axes to grind into our enemies. God forbid TOP thinks about it's own well-being instead of an alliance who we're not treatied with who publicly trolls us at every turn. We must be monsters.

Edited May 30, 2009 by LOLtex

[Nananana]

So it's a "game" to hold Citadel to the standard it uses for other alliances? Holding Polar responsible for the actions of ES after he was removed is OK, but holding Gre responsible for the actions of government members that resigned is not?

reaching awfully hard to draw a comparison there. You're comparing 1. a reoccurring pattern of abuse and malfeasance that resulted in a mere removal of title(sponge wasn't kicked out, merely demoted) and this removal only being in the face of impending destruction. with 2. a government member doing something wrong, resigning, the rest of the alliance apologizing for it, and moving on.

If you seriously are trying to argue that the two are really that similar, you might want to make like Aaliyah and dust yourself off and try again.

Guess how many times a day you'd be nuked if TOP was getting nuked beside you? Once. Guess how many times a day you'd be nuked if TOP wasn't getting nuked?

Is it 7?

Edited May 30, 2009 by Nananana

[Nizzle]

So it's a "game" to hold Citadel to the standard it uses for other alliances? Holding Polar responsible for the actions of ES after he was removed is OK, but holding Gre responsible for the actions of government members that resigned is not?

Again, I am not going to play a game of conspiracy. I used a solid, well documented example. He reverted to a controversial war for some, where the cause has and will never be agreed on. There was a reason I did that, and it's not because I'm trying to save someone from blame. If you only knew the voracity of my opinion on the war you are referring too...

You do not need to point me to terms that have my signature on them. I am well aware of them.

Again, you missed what I was saying.

You made the point that Chill resigned so Grämlins should not be held accountable for what he did I made the point that Citadel has held alliances accountable for resigned gov in the past. It is perfectly valid to the line of discussion.

I used a solid example. Everyone can agree on it. Your example cannot be agreed on, and ironically enough Citadel was not the sole entity to partake in that war. Please stop using shaky accusations to prove a point.

[Delta1212]

Oh my. That is a huge loss. Considering the set up of your alliance versus TOP, and the duration you both were in war, this is definitely proof of a travesty committed against you.

You told me to look at NS charts, so I did. TOP, an alliance with 13 mil NS, lost 500k. RIA, an alliance with 4 mil NS, lost 1 mil. We were fighting the same opponents. What was it you wanted me to find?

You have no idea what I was talking about, do you?

That makes two of you.

[Delta1212]

Pro tip: (er wait that'd be considered arrogance)

Friendly advice: (wait that'd be considered sarcastic)

Oh what the hell: You can only get nuked once per day. Guess how many times a day you'd be nuked if TOP was getting nuked beside you? Once. Guess how many times a day you'd be nuked if TOP wasn't getting nuked? Once.

Not all of us have axes to grind into our enemies. God forbid TOP thinks about it's own well-being instead of an alliance who we're not treatied with who publicly trolls us at every turn. We must be monsters.

Do you understand how nuclear stockpiles work at all?

[Nananana]

Do you understand how nuclear stockpiles work at all?

I think you're ignoring the fact that TOP knows the least of all major alliances about the game and it's mechanics.

[Blue Lightning]

Where did I ever say TOP did that?

I figured when you threatened to sling mud at a member of TOP you wouldn't then sling mud at an ally of ours instead. As if something one of our allies may have done is an accurate reflection of what we have or would do.

[edit]Sorry, I like to take some time to think about my posts so I'm not keeping up with the rate at which others here are posting. I might catch up eventually.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Blue Lightning

[WarriorConcept]

No, I don't think it is standard practice. I certainly haven't done it personally and I've been involved with several peace-agreements in my time. Regardless, the fact that something has been done in the past bears no relation to whether it is a good or effective thing to do. If the precedent was set that in peace negotiations the common procedure was to sell all your infrastructure, would that make it the best available option?

I apply my own standards to others, yes. Impose? No. RoK (or anyone, for that matter) can do what they like but that doesn't mean I wont criticise them for actions that I deem worthy of criticism. Sorry for sharing my opinion?

The bold part is the only real assertion I was making. The rest was just a side order of my opinion.

Actually because it has been done in the past one can tell whether a tactic is effective or not, as evidenced by how well it has worked in the past. Your bad reference at a precedent in selling infrastructure would obviously fail when applied to the logic test, as you're now really gasping for a straw that you don't really need to.

Regardless arguing over negotiation tactics seems pretty meaningless at this stage, but the results should speak for itself.

[Delta1212]

I think you're ignoring the fact that TOP knows the least of all major alliances about the game and it's mechanics.

See, that's why I'm wondering why someone would say something stupid like "You can only get nuked once a day, so if other people fighting the same guy aren't getting nuked, it doesn't affect you."

[LOLtex]

Do you understand how nuclear stockpiles work at all?

Yep. Understand how much damage nukes do to one's NS level, and correspondingly the redeclare range? You'd have taken seven nukes, the other members would have taken seven nukes each as well, providing an SDI didn't make a nation nuke proof (which admittedly does happen). Now we can combine that with the repurchasing power of the WRC and it's very easy to nuke three opponents once a day every day until the war ends, in which you'd all likely find yourselves out of range.

[Delta1212]

Yep. Understand how much damage nukes do to one's NS level, and correspondingly the redeclare range? You'd have taken seven nukes, the other members would have taken seven nukes each as well, providing an SDI didn't make a nation nuke proof (which admittedly does happen). Now we can combine that with the repurchasing power of the WRC and it's very easy to nuke three opponents once a day every day until the war ends, in which you'd all likely find yourselves out of range.

It's my members who then got to eat all the extra nukes that were suddenly in their range because they didn't get absorbed in the upper tier where they started.

[CptGodzilla]

I think you're ignoring the fact that TOP knows the least of all major alliances about the game and it's mechanics.

Oh, so I wasn't the only one thinking that? *phew

I figured when you threatened to sling mud at a member of TOP you wouldn't then sling mud at an ally of ours instead. As if something one of our allies may have done is an accurate reflection of what we have or would do.

[LOLtex]

You told me to look at NS charts, so I did. TOP, an alliance with 13 mil NS, lost 500k. RIA, an alliance with 4 mil NS, lost 1 mil. We were fighting the same opponents. What was it you wanted me to find?

This quite possibly means there were more available targets for your alliance compared to ours, and an abundance of nations able to declare on your own alliance compared to ours. It might mean you were nuked ten trillion times. It could be both. There's many factors at play here instead of sheer NS lossage value.

[WarriorConcept]

I think you're ignoring the fact that TOP knows the least of all major alliances about the game and it's mechanics.

You know I didn't consider that to be considered sarcasm at all until I read your AA given how you've responded before to this point.

I'll give you an example.

One nation is at war with 4 nations

They all have SDIs

On average it takes 3 nukes to get through on each nation.

The nation has 20 nukes to start with.

He's out of nukes in 10 days, less if they're spied away which they should be.

Now imagine a war lasting several rounds, and a few of those nations not having to be nuked.

Where can this nation focus its nukes on? I'll give you 3 chances to figure it out.

Edited May 30, 2009 by WarriorConcept

[Roadie]

Yep. Understand how much damage nukes do to one's NS level, and correspondingly the redeclare range? You'd have taken seven nukes, the other members would have taken seven nukes each as well, providing an SDI didn't make a nation nuke proof (which admittedly does happen). Now we can combine that with the repurchasing power of the WRC and it's very easy to nuke three opponents once a day every day until the war ends, in which you'd all likely find yourselves out of range.

Actually, you can't nuke someone 7 times in the same war.

And you can only buy two nukes a day with a WRC.

[Scorbolt]

I used a solid example... Please stop using shaky accusations to prove a point.

You can't really be serious when you say this, can you? Talk about 'No U' fodder.

[King Srqt]

Yep. Understand how much damage nukes do to one's NS level, and correspondingly the redeclare range? You'd have taken seven nukes, the other members would have taken seven nukes each as well, providing an SDI didn't make a nation nuke proof (which admittedly does happen). Now we can combine that with the repurchasing power of the WRC and it's very easy to nuke three opponents once a day every day until the war ends, in which you'd all likely find yourselves out of range.

assuming 1 nuke gets spied away a day and the nation has a WRC and 25 starting nukes. Also assuming that everyone's SDIs perform at an average level.

That means it would take 9 nukes a day to nuke 3 nations a day while still only netting 1 nuke a day from purchase. The nuking nation will then be down to 18 nukes after day one of nuking 10 after day 2 and as of day 3 he can not nuke 3 nations a day anymore.

[LOLtex]

It's my members who then got to eat all the extra nukes that were suddenly in their range because they didn't get absorbed in the upper tier where they started.

So then nuke back? Don't whine to me because nukes were used in a nuke fight.

[Nananana]

See, that's why I'm wondering why someone would say something stupid like "You can only get nuked once a day, so if other people fighting the same guy aren't getting nuked, it doesn't affect you."

it's equally stupid to imply that it automatically does affect you, I'd tend to see most things as situational but maybe that's just me.

Some people aren't a big fan of nukes, others see it as a part of one's daily balanced wartime diet. Some people see engaging in elaborate and pervasive spy networks as a part of life, some people see it as normal enough to work hard to see spying alliances given fair and equitable treatment despite their (percieved) devious nature, other people tend to abhor that activity. Some people think it's wrong to smear others. I don't see how accepting a screenshot and then sharing it with others(how DID everyone find out about that screenshot, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm) isn't ALSO smearing.

But hey, you're right, I do need another beer.

[LOLtex]

Actually, you can't nuke someone 7 times in the same war.

And you can only buy two nukes a day with a WRC.

I know about the two nukes, but you're right about the 7 times in the same war, my apologies. It's 1.30 am and I've had a few beers.

[Chickenzilla]

Because your friends aren't doing it, and that isn't even a valid point for this discussion to begin with.

So if your friends don't do something, you arn't allowed to? What kind of alliance loses its soveignty to its allies decisions?

[Nizzle]

You told me to look at NS charts, so I did. TOP, an alliance with 13 mil NS, lost 500k. RIA, an alliance with 4 mil NS, lost 1 mil. We were fighting the same opponents. What was it you wanted me to find?

*sigh* I do believe I already explained this bit in a previous response to you, good sir.

That makes two of you.

Now I have no idea what you are talking about.

You can't really be serious when you say this, can you? Talk about 'No U' fodder.

How is that even comparable to a "No U" statement? How can you even say something like that without saying "You know what, the example you used isn't that stable either!"

[Nananana]

It's my members who then got to eat all the extra nukes that were suddenly in their range because they didn't get absorbed in the upper tier where they started.

oh I get it, we're supposed to be your nuclear tampon

that makes sense

[Delta1212]

So then nuke back? Don't whine to me because nukes were used in a nuke fight.

I'm "whining" because you didn't use nukes in a nuke fight.