LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 So essentially what you're saying is that you guys have huge e-penises but no e-testicles to back them up? Just because I don't run around looking for wars don't mean I don't have the e-testicles to back them up. You're welcome to test your theory out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyt92 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi guys does anybody want to sign a treaty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcdt94 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Just because I don't run around looking for wars don't mean I don't have the e-testicles to back them up. You're welcome to test your theory out. But you do run around avoiding wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyt92 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Just because I don't run around looking for wars don't mean I don't have the e-testicles to back them up. You're welcome to test your theory out. Perhaps if I hadn't taken all these casualties while in war rather than running from it. I don't fight people as inexperienced as you. I like fair fights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 People are like this, Choose your friends carefully and pay attention to how many treaties that they have failed to honour, past behaviour is often an indicator of future behaviour. If you sign a treaty with a alliance that has broken treaties on repeated occasions then do not be at all surprised when they break their treaty with you when the first hint of danger appears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Just because I don't run around looking for wars don't mean I don't have the e-testicles to back them up. You're welcome to test your theory out. I'm sorry I have fought in a large amount of wars due to the fact that my allies have been attacked and my alliance/myself honored the treaty and defended them, and as a result I have a significantly lower NS than a statgobbler such as yourself, or I would gladly take you up on your offer. Love fighting inexperienced people who think they are awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) This would be interesting if it took in more than one war. As it is everyone knows what happened around the Karma War and I wouldn't say it's fair to judge on one event. You need at least two. Also, it's obvious that alliances who put themselves at the forefront of global politics are going to be exposed to more opportunities to fight/hide than those who hide in the corners of their colour spheres, surely a % or ratio of treaties upheld against the opportunities do do so would be a fairer way to judge the alliances being tarnished in this thread. A question - MHA refused to attack the GPA when they got beaten down; does that make them survivalist or principled? I thought the whole point of new CN was that you could decide what was right and wrong and base your actions on that, and now alliances are being mocked for not honouring treaties when apparently alliances shouldn't have to? Sometimes people just can't make their mind up. Edited October 13, 2009 by Kowalski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 "Excuses are like @#$holes; everyone's got one and they are all full of !@#$."ZI and back? Zero-One is a large sized, superbly developed, and ancient nation at 1001 days old Infrastructure: 14,229.99 Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 505,602 Attacking + 230,547 Defending = 736,149 Casualties Right............ Protip: you can't buy many soldiers when you don't have any infrastructure, and therefore can't lose as many in battle. Just because someone doesn't have an inane number of casualties doesn't mean they've never been ZI'd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Protip: you can't buy many soldiers when you don't have any infrastructure, and therefore can't lose as many in battle. Just because someone doesn't have an inane number of casualties doesn't mean they've never been ZI'd. Protip: Read the whole post before responding; he has over 14,000 infra bro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 This would be interesting if it took in more than one war. As it is everyone knows what happened around the Karma War and I wouldn't say it's fair to judge on one event. You need at least two. The next global war will give us the next stats, the last global war was the NoCB, and it was too difficult to get reliable stats for, so I left it out. best i could do Gov'ner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 The next global war will give us the next stats, the last global war was the NoCB, and it was too difficult to get reliable stats for, so I left it out.best i could do Gov'ner There have been other wars. Although if it's too difficult to do the job properly that would explain this half-arsed attempt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 This is only for global wars. Anything prior to the NoCB war is irrelevant by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Let's be done with this thread for now; our interactions with those accusing us of whatever manner of things are not producing anything constructive. I'm not sure if all your posts were actually serious. If they weren't, well done for giving me some laughs. If they were, thank you even more for letting me cry of laughter. I always love the taste of bittersweet teardrops. Thread was good, can do better. Thread plus responses of people like Crymson made it a great thread, would read again. Edited October 13, 2009 by kriekfreak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Protip: Read the whole post before responding; he has over 14,000 infra bro. You do realize that some people actually maintain warchests to levels where they can re-buy to their current pre-war levels of infra from ZI, right? Aren't you supposed to be good at war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You do realize that some people actually maintain warchests to levels where they can re-buy to their current pre-war levels of infra from ZI, right?Aren't you supposed to be good at war? That's not war, that's rebuilding and prep before war. The two may go hand in hand, but you don't need to be good at one to be good at the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 That's not war, that's rebuilding and prep before war.The two may go hand in hand, but you don't need to be good at one to be good at the other. Warchests: Not war, just for rebuilding and preparation. Thanks for the valuable insights. I can see those casualties are really doing you well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchh Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You guys are cute. It must be love. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willirica Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You do realize that some people actually maintain warchests to levels where they can re-buy to their current pre-war levels of infra from ZI, right?Aren't you supposed to be good at war? So wait; let me get this straight. You're suggesting he lost over 10,000 infra with just over 200,000 defending casualties? Aren't you supposed to be good at math? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Warchests: Not war, just for rebuilding and preparation. Thanks for the valuable insights. I can see those casualties are really doing you well. Clearly you are quite intelligent and can make the distinction between warchests and warchests at obscene levels. Warchests: for war, not for rebuilding and preparation (in the standard alliance setting this is correct). Obscene Warchests: for war and rebuilding. Does that make it clearer what I meant? I hope so, since you just completely ignored the whole point of what was said and went off on a small tangent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) You do realize that some people actually maintain warchests to levels where they can re-buy to their current pre-war levels of infra from ZI, right? I actually didn't have any warchest at all. I was ready to leave the game as soon as I have dealt out as much damage as I could. Milkmanrock of Umbrella gave me 3 Millions to pay off bills and asked me to stay. I rebuilt back from that 3 millions without any outside aid. I owe my nation's existence to that 3M from milkman Edited October 13, 2009 by Zero-One Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moridin Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Just ask Moridin. Him and STA's best took me on. You declared on me Anyway, Bob PMed me about this thread, I told him I couldn't really verify that you went to ZI; however, I went back through ye olde STA forum and did find such evidence (sorry STA, I hope you don't kill me for leaking this!). I know I was in the 5-6k range at the time, so you couldn't really have been much lower at all. I would call this story true! By the end you certainly didn't have any soldiers left, but I really wouldn't call it turtling, as we were all basically broke at one point or another in the war. The thread with battle reports has plenty of ground battles back and forth up until that point (I'm not sure exactly when it was). Edited October 13, 2009 by Moridin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I hope so, since you just completely ignored the whole point of what was said and went off on a small tangent. Mmm and how's that feel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogenes Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Protip: Read the whole post before responding; he has over 14,000 infra bro. He's also 1,000 days old. Did he ever state that he was ZI'd literally yesterday? Casualties indicate nothing about military experience or prowess, and it's stupid to brag about or criticize them. Edited October 13, 2009 by Quiziotle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mushi Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 You do realize that some people actually maintain warchests to levels where they can re-buy to their current pre-war levels of infra from ZI, right?Aren't you supposed to be good at war? I doubt anyone has enough money to buy back to 14k infra for 0 infra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOLtex Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 So wait; let me get this straight. You're suggesting he lost over 10,000 infra with just over 200,000 defending casualties? Aren't you supposed to be good at math? Someone already answered that: Protip: you can't buy many soldiers when you don't have any infrastructure, and therefore can't lose as many in battle. Just because someone doesn't have an inane number of casualties doesn't mean they've never been ZI'd. 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.