Drostan Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I'm honestly surprised at these results. I think FB had a real shot at the title had cit not voted for themslves. Well partially because all those Cit self-votes almost certainly would have gone to FB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Note to self: We need more people mad at us. Nulled because there wasn't some random irrelevant NAP bloc or something I couldn't pick for the amusement value. Edit: Spelling is hard when you are sneezing. Edited December 1, 2009 by Aurion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergerberger II Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I bet C&G/Frostbite and Citadel voted for each other Hopefully. That is the war I would be most interested in seeing.... and being in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mathias Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I don't want to see any of them rolled, but a good war couldn't hurt. I assumed rolled meant absolutely destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khyber Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I'm love Citadel and would go to war for them. I honestly prefer to be curb stomped then to curb stomp. You get more days of war and with Citadel's strength up top it would be more 2vs1 rather then 3vs1 and those warchests and wonders would come into play and could help them have a fighting chance. All they would need is LEO to side with them to have a real chance at victory, those FOKers can fight, and so can RnR. I don't know the rest that well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Well partially because all those Cit self-votes almost certainly would have gone to FB ya...that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KosmoKenny Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I voted for SF because I hate Fark and their fascist radio silence rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) 2. Frostbite - NpO think they are so morally righteous.I've got news for you Starfox, we areso morally righteous, and boy is the view nice from up here on my horse. Edited December 1, 2009 by cookavich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted December 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Hopefully. That is the war I would be most interested in seeing.... and being in. Unfortunately both Citadel and FB gov seem to not be interested in it. They've had their chances and backed off. All they would need is LEO to side with them to have a real chance at victory, those FOKers can fight, and so can RnR. I don't know the rest that well. Well yeah, anything that pulled in RnR would automatically give Citadel a victory because it'd pull in all of SF.... SF and Citadel vs. anybody would result in a pretty bad curbstomp of that 'anybody', though... they're the two largest/most powerful blocs in the game... Edited December 1, 2009 by Penkala Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cookavich Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 (edited) Unfortunately both Citadel and FB gov seem to not be interested in it. They've had their chances and backed off.Mmm, perhaps if SF wasn't rubbing their hands in the corner waiting for someone else to pull the trigger on Citadel for them they could get this party started, on their own. Edited December 1, 2009 by cookavich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I've got news for you Starfox, we areso morally righteous, and boy is the view nice from up here on my horse. Was that like...pun or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasin Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Yeah, we get it, Hulk Smash... Citadel fears no one. You claim you want war so bad and yet I see nothing concrete to support that just a lot of chest beating. I don't really care honestly as my allegiances pledge me to the Citadel side more than any, but I do find pointless chest beating rather annoying. If you really wanted war you'd have no trouble finding one as this poll told you even before you started spamming it for your own reasons. I have little sympathy for the boredom of Citadel and TOP in particular... I don't think you get it. This really isn't chest beating or anything, a lot of us just think fighting the odds would be more fun than rolling a bloc. In the strategic sense, sure us getting rolled sucks, but there'd be a lot of upsides too. Everyone wants to win, but there's no point denying losing would be fun too. And in the current situation Citadel getting rolled would probably be the most fun. Also I'm not bored, I don't get how anyone's bored in this political climate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Well yeah, anything that pulled in RnR would automatically give Citadel a victory because it'd pull in all of SF.... SF and Citadel vs. anybody would result in a pretty bad curbstomp of that 'anybody', though... they're the two largest/most powerful blocs in the game... In my opinion, any two blocs could take out any other force in the game. Cit + FB on one side = victory Cit + SF on one side = victory SF + C&G on one side = victory FB + C&G on one side = victory you could probably take any two power centers on bob, tie them together with a few treaties and a pretty bow, and they would win any war in front of them (granted the other two power centers weren't together on the other side). That's just how evenly distributed the power is these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Citadel because of Dr.Dan aka. Goatman Halloween is over. Â Change your damned avatar. Also, voted Citadel because it obviously bothers people and I want to have a crappy PR image. Â That and Buller sucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 It's not so much beating the chest, just pointing out the reality of the situation. Since there is no possible way to hit TOP without going through the rest of Citadel, it's unavoidable, that when the coalition that will supposedly ensure victory can be assembled, it will be Citadel up against the wall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponken Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I've got news for you Starfox, we areso morally righteous, and boy is the view nice from up here on my horse. Dude, you should get an ivory tower. The view is even better up here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 In my opinion, any two blocs could take out any other force in the game.Cit + FB on one side = victory Cit + SF on one side = victory SF + C&G on one side = victory FB + C&G on one side = victory you could probably take any two power centers on bob, tie them together with a few treaties and a pretty bow, and they would win any war in front of them (granted the other two power centers weren't together on the other side). That's just how evenly distributed the power is these days. So FB and CnG have already won the game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Of course not. I'm not talking about physical game mechanics that people complain about because they aren't as beefy. If you're strong, you're strong. That's kind of hard to make fun of somebody for. I'm referring to...say...social and PR reform? What would you have us do different? What atrocities have we done to deserve this reputation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iotupa Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I voted for Frostbite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drostan Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I voted for Frostbite. At least one person is kickin' it oldschool! I do agree that for me the worst outcome is any war that isn't Cit vs SF + CnG + FB or some close variation because it would be a pointless curbstomp and not even close to even. I still think even TOP ultimately under-estimates how difficult it would be to bring them down a few pegs. It will indeed take quite a coalition. Though that coalition would probably form quicker if you'd start kicking some puppies around. There are still a few pesky treaties preventing the world from being at each other's throats. Everyday I wake up and check to see if one of them has been cancelled. A mass cancellation would be quite a Christmas present... think about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 In my opinion, any two blocs could take out any other force in the game.Cit + FB on one side = victory Cit + SF on one side = victory SF + C&G on one side = victory FB + C&G on one side = victory you could probably take any two power centers on bob, tie them together with a few treaties and a pretty bow, and they would win any war in front of them (granted the other two power centers weren't together on the other side). That's just how evenly distributed the power is these days. I'd like to refine that concept and say that Citadel + either of SF/C&G/FB would result in a victory, however I don't think it's possible to defeat Citadel unless the other three team up against it, even in a 2v1 bloc scenario (which won't happen anyway). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tushar Dhoot Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I do agree that for me the worst outcome is any war that isn't Cit vs SF + CnG + FB or some close variation because it would be a pointless curbstomp and not even close to even. I still think even TOP ultimately under-estimates how difficult it would be to bring them down a few pegs. It will indeed take quite a coalition. Though that coalition would probably form quicker if you'd start kicking some puppies around. There are still a few pesky treaties preventing the world from being at each other's throats. Everyday I wake up and check to see if one of them has been cancelled. A mass cancellation would be quite a Christmas present... think about it. Yes, blame us for not bullying other alliances. That makes complete sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyphon88 Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 I'd like to refine that concept and say that Citadel + either of SF/C&G/FB would result in a victory, however I don't think it's possible to defeat Citadel unless the other three team up against it, even in a 2v1 bloc scenario (which won't happen anyway). Shrug, wars only happen when one side thinks there will be definete victory. Only bad information leads to a war, as one side over/underestimates the situational strength. Citadel will remain to sit pretty for a long while I think, unless some heavy internal division or oppressive (and thus uniting) factors emerge. I would hope that they have learnt to avoid the latter. To be honest, i'm expecting SF to be the next target for being rolled (and thus TTK). I couldn't tell you why, when, or how, (because I honestly don't know) but I feel it in my waters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Actually, he's not joking and it's pretty much in line with his alliance's guidelines for warchest building from what I've gathered. I don't mind if you underestimate our warchests, but one nation's warchest size isn't enough to get a realistic estimate of an alliance's guidelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted December 1, 2009 Report Share Posted December 1, 2009 Saving money for a warchest is immoral. That money should be used to increase the amount of infra, CMs and tanks you carry. THINK OF THE CHILDREN 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.