reroll Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) To: CANADian From: eyerack Date: 7/21/2009 1:14:09 PMSubject: Peace Terms Message: Hello, I am the leader of Orbit Black. Since you don't seem to have a leader, forums, or IRC, I will simply contact you. If you would like to end this war now, there will be certain terms you must meet. However, you may also just continue battles until our initial strike wars expire, then the war will end without terms. If you refuse to comply, there will be harsh consequences. Reply with your decision. -eyerack, OB Leader LMFAO....I will accept surrender terms when I see a big fat 0 next to "Infrastructure" of any and all OB nations...then...and only then will I be willing to discuss peace terms...until that time....as a good old newfie boy I'll say this....."yer stun as a bucket of ski-doo parts and twice as ugly OB!" :lol: Edited July 22, 2009 by reroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asa Phillips Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) "Harsh consequences"? on TE?! Edited July 22, 2009 by Asa Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhannaway Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 LMFAO....I will accept surrender terms when I see a big fat 0 next to "Infrastructure" of any and all OB nations...then...and only then will I be willing to discuss peace terms...until that time....as a good old newfie boy I'll say this....."yer stun as a bucket of ski-doo parts and twice as ugly OB!":lol: Hey fair enough... you do realize that there are nations on both sides that are severely hurting, if you want to make this a never ending war I don't see how it will benefit either side. Holding grudges on TE makes 0 sense come Aug 25th we will all have big 0s next to infra. That being said everyone I have fought have been classy individuals, but just wanted to let you know that I can still fight very effectively for at least 2 more cycles, and if I need to drop even more nukes I will. We can end this in a couple of days and say congrats to good hard fighting on both sides, or we can keep the music playing and keep dancing. Your call, but if you want to continue the war just for your own personal grudges I don't think you are doing any members of your alliances favors. Good luck and good hunting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Stranger Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 LMFAO....I will accept surrender terms when I see a big fat 0 next to "Infrastructure" of any and all OB nations...then...and only then will I be willing to discuss peace terms...until that time....as a good old newfie boy I'll say this....."yer stun as a bucket of ski-doo parts and twice as ugly OB!":lol: I doubt OB will get that low. We do have friends in high places, still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning Glory Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 I doubt OB will get that low. We do have friends in high places, still. Yes you do BG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manslayer Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 "Harsh consequences"? on TE?! lol so true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Paul Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 I doubt OB will get that low. We do have friends in high places, still. LOL Now you want to call in your friends? That's just sad. It's your prerogative, but it's still sad and laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reroll Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 We at Priapism are discussing what surrender terms we will offer to OB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Stranger Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 LOL Now you want to call in your friends? That's just sad. It's your prerogative, but it's still sad and laughable. It's not sad to call in back up when you need it. It's actually tactically smarter to call in reinforcements. Not sure what planet you are on. We at Priapism are discussing what surrender terms we will offer to OB. Don't bother, we more than likely won't accept them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asa Phillips Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Make that: OB- 26 Nations/ 14 in Anarchy 54% Pri- 20 Nations/ 6 in Anarchy 30% I think we've earned some respect here. I also think if you guys would be willing to admit you picked a fight with an opponent you vastly underestimated, instead of talking about calling in your friends in a fight you started against an group you had every advantage against... would go a long way towards solving this amicably and could even end up being a friendly future relationship. @jhannaway: I agree with what you're saying, this will benefit neither side if its prolonged. BUT, please look at it from both sides... only once the wounded animal became the hunter in this situation was there any talks of ending this, while OB still held the advantage there was nothing but silence in a war it began over one of its nations going rogue and attacking a member of Priapism. How would you feel if one of our members did something disrespectful to your group and we used your alliances defense against it as a reason to jump you guys? I imagine you would feel the very same way we do. While this is CN:TE and the rules are different and the play is more aggressive, respect is still respect. Thank you for your time, Bob White of Hoojib PS. Since there has been nothing but OB sack riding in this topic anyway? Go OB go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhannaway Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Make that:OB- 26 Nations/ 14 in Anarchy 54% Pri- 20 Nations/ 6 in Anarchy 30% I think we've earned some respect here. I also think if you guys would be willing to admit you picked a fight with an opponent you vastly underestimated, instead of talking about calling in your friends in a fight you started against an group you had every advantage against... would go a long way towards solving this amicably and could even end up being a friendly future relationship. @jhannaway: I agree with what you're saying, this will benefit neither side if its prolonged. BUT, please look at it from both sides... only once the wounded animal became the hunter in this situation was there any talks of ending this, while OB still held the advantage there was nothing but silence in a war it began over one of its nations going rogue and attacking a member of Priapism. How would you feel if one of our members did something disrespectful to your group and we used your alliances defense against it as a reason to jump you guys? I imagine you would feel the very same way we do. While this is CN:TE and the rules are different and the play is more aggressive, respect is still respect. Thank you for your time, Bob White of Hoojib PS. Since there has been nothing but OB sack riding in this topic anyway? Go OB go! I don't really follow your post, but I personally am glad you guys have fought so hard and so well. Makes the game very fun. I am not in gov so I have no idea about peace/etc. I do know that in TE that peace is just usually peace without stipulations. I would be perfectly happy to finish out the round of wars (or end them earlier if everyone wants) and just have both alliances go our seperate ways with no hard feelings, but I will understand if people want to continue. Good luck to you guys in the future and future rounds and as far as respect goes I have never had any disrespect for Priapism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asa Phillips Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 It's not sad to call in back up when you need it. It's actually tactically smarter to call in reinforcements. Not sure what planet you are on. So, you're saying that if I see you on the street and pick a random fight with you, that its more than acceptable for me to have my friends jump you when I start to lose? And not only is it acceptable, its also "tactically smarter"? I'm not sure what planet YOUR from, but on mine? We take our beating if we deserve it and admit when we're wrong. We don't go the "tactically smarter" route and look like !@#$%*^ on top of being sore losers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Stranger Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 I think we've earned some respect here. I also think if you guys would be willing to admit you picked a fight with an opponent you vastly underestimated, instead of talking about calling in your friends in a fight you started against an group you had every advantage against... would go a long way towards solving this amicably and could even end up being a friendly future relationship. Yes, you did earn some respect. Please note that PRI was not my first choice. It actually ended up being our only choice. But we did want a good fight, not just a curb stomp, so I am glad that you guys ended up being good fighters rather than just going down after the blitz. So, you're saying that if I see you on the street and pick a random fight with you, that its more than acceptable for me to have my friends jump you when I start to lose? And not only is it acceptable, its also "tactically smarter"? Just because it is not socially accepted doesn't mean it isn't the smarter route. Why bother having protectors and allies if you can't even call on them when overwhelmed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asa Phillips Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) Yes, but when you have protectors and allies, you're obligated to act on their behalf as well when you act... as your binding agreement with them is a reflection on them as well. So if you act like !@#$%*^, then they are the ones who have to come in and defend their !@#$% friends. Smart or not... on the planet on which I reside? That is poor form at best. We took our lumps, and said nothing about it, not choosing to run off and get help... ultimately, the question has to be asked, can the aggressor who had all the advantages not be as honorable to take their lumps as well? Also, I just got a big grin when you admitted to being overwhelmed. I thank you for that. Edited July 22, 2009 by Asa Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tapley Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 in my opinion, protectors and allies are more for if you get blind sided. personally, i think its been a good fight but that both alliances should go their seperate ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Stranger Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) We took our lumps, and said nothing about it, not choosing to run off and get help... ultimately, the question has to be asked, can the aggressor who had all the advantages not be as honorable to take their lumps as well? All the advantages? PRI still has the average NS. I had to blitz two nations much larger than myself. It probably wasn't the best decision to attack this alliance (once again, not my first choice), but we will win ultimately. What allies does PRI have anyways? in my opinion, protectors and allies are more for if you get blind sided. Unless they sign an aggression treaty, which is becoming more common in SE. Edited July 22, 2009 by Emperor Stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhannaway Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) All the advantages? PRI still has the average NS. I had to blitz two nations much larger than myself. It probably wasn't the best decision to attack this alliance (once again, not my first choice), but we will win ultimately.What allies does PRI have anyways? Unless they sign an aggression treaty, which is becoming more common in SE. nvm I will take this to the private boards. Edited July 22, 2009 by jhannaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Stranger Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 nvm I will take this to the private boards. http://orbitblack.ifu1.com/index.php?showt...t&p=1047683 Read my suggestion there. It quite possibly will be the next move we make. It all depends on what the other government officials think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon1 Posted July 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 There will be no terms, Priapism has put up a good fight. We will allow this war to expire, and that is that. IMO, its a dead tie. We have both lost roughly 20k strength. Both average NS have dropped equally. Their whole alliaince is under 4k NS. Yes, we have a higher anarchy count, but we also have a high inactivity count. You have to remember, OB joined this war with a MUCH lower average NS than priapism. The war will expire, and end. If ANYONE declares a war on either alliance after the expiration, we have some options available to us. Good fight Priapism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Stranger Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 There will be no terms, Priapism has put up a good fight. We will allow this war to expire, and that is that. IMO, its a dead tie. We have both lost roughly 20k strength. Both average NS have dropped equally. Their whole alliaince is under 4k NS. Yes, we have a higher anarchy count, but we also have a high inactivity count. You have to remember, OB joined this war with a MUCH lower average NS than priapism. The war will expire, and end. If ANYONE declares a war on either alliance after the expiration, we have some options available to us. Good fight Priapism. Hail eyerack and his glory. :war: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asa Phillips Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 All the advantages? PRI still has the average NS. I had to blitz two nations much larger than myself. It probably wasn't the best decision to attack this alliance (once again, not my first choice), but we will win ultimately. Are you really not reading the rest of the thread? Or are you just trying to spin the scenario in a direction that reflects best on your side with your statements? Total member count (and its associated available war slots) is, and always will be, the deciding advantage in an aggressive war as long as its members are not inactive. And if its member ARE inactive? It has zero business going to war in the first place, which is poor leadership when it comes to assessing your own alliance, let alone your opponents. Think about it in simple terms, you have an unaligned rogue attack an alliance mate, you fill their war slots because it is not only fun to smash them, but its the smart thing to do that deals the most damage. Having 18 more available offensive slots AND the ability to prepare for war because YOU knew when it was going to begin, is more than enough advantage against an opponent you hold a statistic advantage against. You see, AvgNS means very little... and what I mean by AvgNS is both OB's and ours. Flexibility, preparedness and the element of surprise is everything. TE is not CN:R Where the bigger nations over 100kNS are tough to bring down because its harder to find capable and available fighters in their range of attack. The is very little different between a 4kNS and a 3kNS nation, nothing that cant be easily made up for... as you did correctly when you blitzed us with larger numbers and had half of us in anarchy within 2 or 3 days. If you're just spinning the whole thing as previously mentioned and slightly suspected? I hope you get genital warts from a dirty toilet seat. If you're not? and didn't fully understand? Then you're welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchboy00 Posted July 22, 2009 Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 (edited) Yes, you did earn some respect. Please note that PRI was not my first choice. It actually ended up being our only choice. But we did want a good fight, not just a curb stomp, so I am glad that you guys ended up being good fighters rather than just going down after the blitz.Just because it is not socially accepted doesn't mean it isn't the smarter route. Why bother having protectors and allies if you can't even call on them when overwhelmed? why bother having them in TE in the first place? Edited July 22, 2009 by ditchboy00 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon1 Posted July 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2009 Total member count (and its associated available war slots) is, and always will be, the deciding advantage in an aggressive war as long as its members are not inactive. And if its member ARE inactive? It has zero business going to war in the first place, which is poor leadership when it comes to assessing your own alliance, let alone your opponents. Who is to say that this is the truth? I am pretty sure an alliance with 25 members and an average NS of 1500 could not take on an alliance of 20 members with an average NS of 2500. Now it seems like you are trying to spin things around. As for poor leadership - this is quite a thing to say, coming from an anarchy alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ditchboy00 Posted July 23, 2009 Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 Who is to say that this is the truth? I am pretty sure an alliance with 25 members and an average NS of 1500 could not take on an alliance of 20 members with an average NS of 2500. Now it seems like you are trying to spin things around. As for poor leadership - this is quite a thing to say, coming from an anarchy alliance. how Priapism is run reflects upon how you run OB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon1 Posted July 23, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2009 how Priapism is run reflects upon how you run OB? Priapism shouldn't be saying what is good leadership, when they don't even have any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts