Jump to content

Resumption of Hostilies


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

[ooc] The definition of an alliance is different in IC and in OOC? Can you please refer me to the rules that assert this distinction? [/ooc]

OOC: I am generally stating that OOC and IC are different, otherwise they would not exist. Their differences are quite universal and do not stop at alliance level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four incoming ground attacks, four glorious victories.

To: Sileath From: Jackthelad Date: 8/10/2009 3:22:32 AM

Subject: Battle Report

Message: You have been attacked by Jackthelad. You lost 1,290 soldiers and 396 tanks. You killed 3,213 soldiers and 465 tanks. Their forces razed 0.000 miles of your land, stole 0.000 technology, and destroyed 0.000 infrastructure. Their forces looted $0.00 from you and you gained $141,101.33 in your enemy's abandoned equipment. In the end the battle was a Victory. Any existing peace offers that were on the table have been automatically canceled.

To: Sileath From: Kiida Date: 8/10/2009 3:22:38 AM

Subject: Battle Report

Message: You have been attacked by Kiida. You lost 359 soldiers and 159 tanks. You killed 1,255 soldiers and 1,000 tanks. Their forces razed 0.000 miles of your land, stole 0.000 technology, and destroyed 0.000 infrastructure. Their forces looted $0.00 from you and you gained $109,394.94 in your enemy's abandoned equipment. In the end the battle was a Victory. Any existing peace offers that were on the table have been automatically canceled.

To: Sileath From: Jackthelad Date: 8/10/2009 3:22:43 AM

Subject: Battle Report

Message: You have been attacked by Jackthelad. You lost 1,629 soldiers and 3 tanks. You killed 1,177 soldiers and 120 tanks. Their forces razed 0.000 miles of your land, stole 0.000 technology, and destroyed 0.000 infrastructure. Their forces looted $0.00 from you and you gained $20,765.47 in your enemy's abandoned equipment. In the end the battle was a Victory. Any existing peace offers that were on the table have been automatically canceled.

To: Sileath From: Kiida Date: 8/10/2009 3:22:54 AM

Subject: Battle Report

Message: You have been attacked by Kiida. You lost 1,376 soldiers and 42 tanks. You killed 2,946 soldiers and 0 tanks. Their forces razed 0.000 miles of your land, stole 0.000 technology, and destroyed 0.000 infrastructure. Their forces looted $0.00 from you and you gained $147,508.79 in your enemy's abandoned equipment. In the end the battle was a Victory. Any existing peace offers that were on the table have been automatically canceled.

I guess you should have thought twice before you declared war on the former squad leader of the Beta Bashers, best !@#$@#$ NPO squad south of Epsilon!

o/ Beta Bashers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Four incoming ground attacks, four glorious victories.

I guess you should have thought twice before you declared war on the former squad leader of the Beta Bashers, best !@#$@#$ NPO squad south of Epsilon!

o/ Beta Bashers

No one really cares what a proven liar and attention whore thinks, Sileath.

Face it, you're done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one really cares what a proven liar and attention whore thinks, Sileath.

Face it, you're done.

I know, I suck right?

I break a sled to defend a comrade, then I resign from my alliance so it can achieve peace!

Now I'm in 5 wars and kicking everyone's $@!.

lolSileath

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOC: I am generally stating that OOC and IC are different, otherwise they would not exist. Their differences are quite universal and do not stop at alliance level.

[ooc] Again, I don't see why the distinction between OOC and IC should apply to alliances. A alliances has a set definition that does not change. You may have your own definition but as long as you are playing CN you're still bound by the rules of the game. So you cannot claim that FAIL is not a legitimate alliance when the rules contradict you.

If you believe that I am wrong, then I would like to see where you got your definition. [/ooc]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironic considering you're supporting RV.

Rebel Virginia's many things (all of them :awesome: ) but he's no liar.

And besides, considering how you were parroting Sileath's !@#$%^&*, you trying to defend him is also :awesome:

I break a sled to defend a comrade, then I resign from my alliance so it can achieve peace!
That analogy doesnt make any sense. Id tell you to act with some dignity, but I wouldnt want to waste [ooc]The bandwidth[/ooc]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one really cares what a proven liar and attention whore thinks, Sileath.

Wait what - why are you supporting RV then?

[ooc] Again, I don't see why the distinction between OOC and IC should apply to alliances. A alliances has a set definition that does not change. You may have your own definition but as long as you are playing CN you're still bound by the rules of the game. So you cannot claim that FAIL is not a legitimate alliance when the rules contradict you.

OOC: I am not familiar with any rules which force players to recognise alliances of 1 or 2 players. If such rules exist, I expect that many people have broken them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rebel Virginia's many things (all of them :awesome: ) but he's no liar.

And besides, considering how you were parroting Sileath's !@#$%^&*, you trying to defend him is also :awesome:

That analogy doesnt make any sense. Id tell you to act with some dignity, but I wouldnt want to waste [ooc]The bandwidth[/ooc]

It's mainly because I despise RV and thus all who support him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rebel Virginia's many things (all of them :awesome: ) but he's no liar.

And besides, considering how you were parroting Sileath's !@#$%^&*, you trying to defend him is also :awesome:

That analogy doesnt make any sense. Id tell you to act with some dignity, but I wouldnt want to waste [ooc]The bandwidth[/ooc]

It's not an analogy. Read an economic guide, then you will know what a sled is, and what it means to break it. (Breaking it was necessary, once cannot leave peace mode without first collecting taxes.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not an analogy. Read an economic guide, then you will know what a sled is, and what it means to break it. (Breaking it was necessary, once cannot leave peace mode without first collecting taxes.)

Why should I bother?

You're a proven liar, who'd say anything to make yourself look good so long as no one bothers to look into it. :awesome:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait what - why are you supporting RV then?

OOC: I am not familiar with any rules which force players to recognise alliances of 1 or 2 players. If such rules exist, I expect that many people have broken them.

[ooc] Of course, the rules don't force players to recognize alliances. However, you cannot claim that a certain alliance is not legitimate if that alliance has at least one peron flying the AA... actually you can, but you'd be wrong. Personally, I find the concept of "recognition" to be somewhat absurd since you are denying the existence of an alliance that technically exists. [/ooc].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...