This has gone on long enough

[Vilien]

I think he meant to say "whine" as in there's people crying on the interwebs and he's fed up. I dunno.

I prefer my version.

[hizzy]

I prefer my version.

Your version is ugly like your face.

ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM!

[Caliph]

Your version is ugly like your face.

ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM!

Ha ha BURN!

he got ya there bro

[Bob Janova]

are you serious? which alliance is still around? that should tell you how well Polaris fared compared to \m/. nuff said on that subject.

Don't be silly. Polaris could have been the worst alliance in the history of military conflict in that war and you would still have been around. Citadel had no intention of disbanding you, and Citadel were the main force engaged with you.

Penguin pretty much has it right, it simply isn't possible to make a fair comparison because the circumstances were so different.

Polar made a strategic decision to drop as many nations as possible into peace mode, not declare many offensive wars (to reduce the damage) and to do the best they could under the cosh of an overwhelming enemy. They didn't just sit and take it, they launched over 100 aggressive wars, mostly on Valhalla – a strategic choice to drop their nukes on, as Citadel was well enough prepared they couldn't really make much of a dent on us at that time. And they mounted anti-aircraft guns all around their borders . (At least my SDI worked well though, eh Hizzy ?) \m/ made a non-strategic decision to go all out attack, with basically no warchest and vastly tech-inflated nations (in a time when tech did not affect your performance on the battlefield), and because of a lack of organised leadership due to the infamous prior issues, were not in a position to bargain for reasonable terms.

This doesn't really have much to do with Echelon, who saw a defensive war coming and ran to the other side of the field, ignoring a recently signed MADP in the process. At least Tela has the grace to admit that they (and she) basically got it wrong at that time, which Caffine still doesn't seem to grasp.

[Vilien]

Your version is ugly like your face.

ZOOM ZOOM ZOOM!

Thank you for that casus belli. Expect our declaration of war at update.

[Voytek]

I was being sarcastic, I fought with NpO during that war.

Phew. Sorry, I'm a little groggy today.

[Dochartaigh]

Haha, yes it does. I'm sure someone from \m/ has the slot usage, NS losses, etc. Polar was a lot more unprepared, fought hardly any offensive wars, and just sat back and 'took it'.

Are YOU serious? \m/ was given terrible untenable terms. Polar was given terms they could survive. But no that doesn't affect the survival of the alliance at all, clearly NpO were the superior warriors!

What the hell does any of what you just said have to do with how well you fought? Oh right, it doesn't!

Did you polar too stupid to read? Seriously, dude. I didn't say anything about length of war. I said \m/ fought more effectively than Polar did (though for \m/ they figured they be disbanded at the end and when ES said all that it confirmed their fears I'd imagine, while Polar always knew Citadel wouldn't disband them. Hence the whole 'sticking together' thing. Don't let facts get in the way of your judgment though!)

And even though \m/ would have a lot more to whine about I've seen equal amounts of it from them and Polar, who were allowed peace terms though they hadn't allowed that for others that they'd fought. Please, spare me. Polar never faced being fought unto perpetuity, and \m/ did. Even then, you can't compare the two's decisions on whether to fight or not - circumstances were completely different. The difference I'm pointing out is \m/ declaring war and fighting and hurting others while Polar just bent over and took it.

i point you to Earogema's post where he contradicts you on how well \m/ fought.... also, as he pointed out, \m/ had it about 2v1 at worse, could you remind me what the odds were against Polaris? i could have sworn i remember fighting alliances like TOP, Gremlins, Valhalla amongst many others. \m/ fought Polaris i know for sure but Polaris was also fighting against Genmay, TPF and MK hit us as i do recall fighting all three alliances.

also if you think you had it rough, ask MK how hard they had it once TPF and \m/ and Genmay abandoned them? for that matter, ask the rest of the alliances ya'll abandoned...

[Caliph]

i point you to Earogema's post where he contradicts you on how well \m/ fought.... also, as he pointed out, \m/ had it about 2v1 at worse, could you remind me what the odds were against Polaris? i could have sworn i remember fighting alliances like TOP, Gremlins, Valhalla amongst many others. \m/ fought Polaris i know for sure but Polaris was also fighting against Genmay, TPF and MK hit us as i do recall fighting all three alliances.

also if you think you had it rough, ask MK how hard they had it once TPF and \m/ and Genmay abandoned them? for that matter, ask the rest of the alliances ya'll abandoned...

2 on 1?

No bro, \m/ had ~ nations, and were engaged in over 1000 wars.

The people on us, just \m/, had about 10 mill NS (about 5 micro alliances of about 1 mill NS each + Legions 4 or 5 mill NS at the time with more members than we had) and we also were heavily engaged with NpO, IRON, and pretty much everyone else.

2 on 1, heh, we engaged everyone and get counterattacked and attacked by lots of people who wanted an excuse to roll us. Don't get me wrong, we loved it, but the OOC event, Black Friday, and leadership crisises put us in the grave, and when we were climbing out ES hit us with a shovel for the KO and nail in the coffin with refusing us surrender terms.

The situations were different, get that through your head.

[Lennox]

I still don't believe it. Try again.

[Caliph]

Meant to say \m/ had about 350 nations, and was engaged in over 1000 wars.

[Penkala]

Penkala you're being dumb. Polaris was attacked by a coalition that was what? 7 times as powerful? Never mind the TOP/Gremlins combo. Trust me, as Bob Janova can back me up on this; your infra disappears far too fast for you to even consider launching counter attacks. The only thing you can do is turtle, continue to lob nukes, and hope that they screw up their stagger.

That being said though, Gremlins' air force didn't stand a chance.

And about the coalition of cowards thing, someone was correcting someone else; ya, the CoC is a term given in the Karma War, but incidentally it's the same people who Echelon aligned with so... all the same.

Hizzy, you're being dumb. \m/ was attacked by half at war with over a dozen alliances. I believe they were in quite a bit wars per member than NpO. Sure, the UjW was less lopsided, but \m/ was facing a few thousand nations while numbering what, 300? Polar was facing the same if not easier odds but declared few offensive wars.

They didn't just sit and take it, they launched over 100 aggressive wars, mostly on Valhalla – a strategic choice to drop their nukes on, as Citadel was well enough prepared they couldn't really make much of a dent on us at that time.

Oh boy, 100! \m/, despite being 1/3 the size of Polar, declared more than 100 offensive wars. Many more.

i point you to Earogema's post where he contradicts you on how well \m/ fought.... also, as he pointed out, \m/ had it about 2v1 at worse

Welp that's a complete lie. UjW may have been 2v1, but there was what... Legion, CON, UPN, TAB, GR, Polar, NoV, IRON, GDA, FCO, ODN, CSE.... fighting \m/? \m/ had every defensive slot in their alliance and quite a few offensive slots filled. Polar instead dropped 200 nations into peace mode and declared a mere 100 offensive wars. \m/ fought harder for a shorter period of time, and did better compared to Polar in their war. Whether they disbanded or not really has no standing on how hard they fought while they did fight. They went all-out, Polar for the most part sat and watched others take chunks out of their nations.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Penkala

[Voytek]

MY ALLIANCE FACED WORSE ODDS THAN UR ALLIANCE

Seriously, who cares? Isn't this thread supposed to be about Echelon anyway?

[Earogema]

Needa work on that then man, cause they were really soft compared to virtually everyone else I've ever fought.

I was only three months old with no warchest. ;_;

[Caliph]

MY ALLIANCE FACED WORSE ODDS THAN UR ALLIANCE

Seriously, who cares? Isn't this thread supposed to be about Echelon anyway?

I'm just tryign to set the story strait and stop the history revisionism about \m/. Polar faced difficulties and I'm not trying to take anything away from your accomplishments, but the stuff regarding \m/ was on a different level, and for me to be more clear you'll have to talk to me on coldfront.

[hizzy]

Hizzy, you're being dumb. \m/ was attacked by half at war with over a dozen alliances. I believe they were in quite a bit wars per member than NpO. Sure, the UjW was less lopsided, but \m/ was facing a few thousand nations while numbering what, 300? Polar was facing the same if not easier odds but declared few offensive wars.

Oh boy, 100! \m/, despite being 1/3 the size of Polar, declared more than 100 offensive wars. Many more.

Dude, the Unjust side had a lot of alliances involved... \m/ may have been declared on by a huge coalition, but that same coalition was cross-declaring all over the place with other members of Unjust.

NpO's declaration came from a group of (iirc) 11 alliances who were FRESH, and there were relatively few cross-over declarations. MK did it's own thing with NPO, Nueva Vida was preemptively hit by IRON, and the rest of BLEU, for all the heart and balls, didn't really change the numbers enough.

If your entire theory that \m/ fought better is based on how many offensive wars were declared, then whatever, that's your own standard for judging a war, but it was a strategically retarded thing to do, which is why we didn't do it.

Edited December 18, 2009 by hizzy

[Caliph]

Dude, the Unjust side had a lot of alliances involved... \m/ may have been declared on by a huge coalition, but that same coalition was cross-declaring all over the place with other members of Unjust.

NpO's declaration came from a group of (iirc) 11 alliances who were FRESH, and there were relatively few cross-over declarations. MK did it's own thing with NPO, Nueva Vida was preemptively hit by IRON, and the rest of BLEU, for all the heart and balls, didn't really change the numbers enough.

If your entire theory that \m/ fought better is based on how many offensive wars were declared, then whatever, that's your own standard for judging a war, but it was a strategically retarded thing to do, which is why we didn't do it.

We did have a coalition, however due to lack of new alliances we had allianced who were engaged in only wars against \m/, and sizable ones at that, with comparable stats to \m/ with more members.

Due to the fact we were outnumbered and were a core alliance that had earned the wrath (and rightly so) of a lot of alliances, we are a pretty big target. However as Karma showed, any force falls when faced with a big enough coalition. 2 on 1 odds for the ~ side vs UjP side, but the odds against \m/ were 4:1. Most of our folks were in 4 wars, some 3 wars. I'm not trying to saw all of us fought well, but we fought harder in a shorter period of time than Polar did, partly because our tactics (\m/ was about hitting hard and fast, whereas Polar was about survival).

Those 2 wars had different end goals. The Unjust War was about 2 rival blocs attacking each other out of mutual hatred. The loser would have faced harsh terms, but part of it was personal when Sponge made it personal by his attacking and belittling the Initiative. It was mutual hatred, and he took things to a level where he decided he had to put down \m/ and made steps to make it happen. He gave us "joke terms for a joke alliance", and he stated in interviews since that he never intended to let \m/ live.

The Coalition war for Polar was about Polar surviving. Polar knew they were in trouble, and were on the losing side of the international opinion, and took steps to survive the global conflict.

The 2 wars had different goals, and the lead up was different was well.

So don't compare \m/'s performance and disbandment to Polar's performance in the Coalition war.

The driving forces behind each war had different goals in mind. Polar's destruction was not a goal in the Coalition war, however \m/, GOONS, and the Unjust Path's destruction, permanently, was a goal for ~.

[hizzy]

So don't compare \m/'s performance and disbandment to Polar's performance in the Coalition war.

The driving forces behind each war had different goals in mind. Polar's destruction was not a goal in the Coalition war, however \m/, GOONS, and the Unjust Path's destruction, permanently, was a goal for ~.

Far from it, I don't think they can be compared; like I said to Penk, how you look at it is subjective. What you wrote is a great summary.

[KinKiac]

Let me get this straight... you had something completely innocent in the works, but part of your strategy was to hide it until it looked like you betrayed BLEU for 1V? Great strategy, Napoleon.

I'll take "Lies, and why we rehash them 18 months later" for 400, Alex.

Yeah, normally friends are honest and upfront with each other, not hiding things.

@Caffiene or Echelon -

In the end, the result was that you turned your back on what was an MADP partner on the eve of war because of some bad info.

Who was it that gave you that bad info? Was it Polar's enemies? The same ones you were trying to get into bed with? Then you join said enemies? Come on now.

It seems to me that you are trying to make excuses and defend Echelons actions when what you should be doing, is apologizing for such actions.

Oh and surprise surprise, you've now sent a diplomat to NV, AFTER this thread called you out on the fact that you hadnt tried to make ammends with some former BLEU members.

Firstly, I would like to thank Caffine for bringing an issue that should be either sorted privately or forgotten to the forefront of public attention.

Secondly, I would like to thank the usual "OMG Echelon suk lol" crowd for their usual performance. Seriously, this happenned how long ago now? We have a completely different set of leaders, so why hold this against us? Yes Echelon made a mistake. Yes Echelon has paid for it (Karma war). We aren't asking for everybody to suddenly just be best friends with us again, just stop holding one single.. solitary mistake against us.

Thanks

Thats a pretty damn big mistake we're talking about here. If I were to murder your family, then 2 years down the road asked for forgiveness for my "one solitary mistake", would you be so quick to forget about it?

@ChairmalHal - I cant believe you are trying to relate what you did, which was give private info to your former alliance's enemies as you left, to what Doitzel did. Doitzel stood up for what he believed in. He left the alliance for the exact same reason he started VOX. Comparing what you apparently did, by your own admission I dont actually know anything about that, with what Doitzel did is laughable. The 2 situations say 2 totally different things with regards to character. Doitzel threw himself into the flames to defend what he believed in, you did nothing of the sort.

For what it's worth, we did consider at one point in bringing it up to expel NPO from 1V. It was pretty much immediately discarded as a futile gesture.<snip>

Also, I forget who asked, but no, at no point did Echelon try to get anyone else to leave BLEU. We did try to feel out a vote for expelling Polaris, but it was just as impossible as it would have been to expel Pacifica from 1V.

Wait wait wait, did you just say that you had considered trying to get NPO expelled from 1V and in the same breath that you had also considered trying to get NpO expelled from BLEU. WOW! You just did more to hurt my opinion of Echelon(and yourself for that matter) than this entire thread. Congrats!

[Chalaskan]

Make that a bunch of 40's on the desk, and it will look like mine .

[Penkala]

Dude, the Unjust side had a lot of alliances involved... \m/ may have been declared on by a huge coalition, but that same coalition was cross-declaring all over the place with other members of Unjust.

NpO's declaration came from a group of (iirc) 11 alliances who were FRESH, and there were relatively few cross-over declarations. MK did it's own thing with NPO, Nueva Vida was preemptively hit by IRON, and the rest of BLEU, for all the heart and balls, didn't really change the numbers enough.

If your entire theory that \m/ fought better is based on how many offensive wars were declared, then whatever, that's your own standard for judging a war, but it was a strategically retarded thing to do, which is why we didn't do it.

Almost every single slot of \m/'s was filled. And the strategy NpO used didn't pay off in the end - there's a reason Polar paid outrageous reps

[hizzy]

Almost every single slot of \m/'s was filled. And the strategy NpO used didn't pay off in the end - there's a reason Polar paid outrageous reps

1) As someone pointed out... \m/ is in the history books. NpO is now #3 in rankings. I'd say the strategy worked out fine.

2) Ya, there's a really good reason for their reps; they were given by a bunch of arrogant jackasses with a grudge.

[TheEraser]

Almost every single slot of \m/'s was filled. And the strategy NpO used didn't pay off in the end - there's a reason Polar paid outrageous reps

there is a reason polaris is still around to this day and the only memory of \m/ is in the tears of whiners like you

[Penkala]

there is a reason polaris is still around to this day and the only memory of \m/ is in the tears of whiners like you

Because the world had mercy on you when we could have easily ended your alliance's existence? Would have been pretty hilarious if the world had just gone "lol die, Polar" though, don't you think?

) As someone pointed out... \m/ is in the history books. NpO is now #3 in rankings.

Yes, because the Coalition had mercy on you where you have had none on others in the past. Count yourselves lucky for that; had it been yourselves dealing with everything the world dealt with for over a year you'd have pushed for disbandment. And once again, that has more to do with who you fought (Citadel and SF) than how well you fought.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Penkala

[hizzy]

Because the world had mercy on you when we could have easily ended your alliance's existence? Would have been pretty hilarious if the world had just gone "lol die, Polar" though, don't you think?

You're under the impression that we didn't think that was gonna happen? Come on dude, we had bets going on for who would drop AA last. It would have been an ArcticNam.

[KinKiac]

Because the world had mercy on you when we could have easily ended your alliance's existence? Would have been pretty hilarious if the world had just gone "lol die, Polar" though, don't you think?

Yes, because the Coalition had mercy on you where you have had none on others in the past. Count yourselves lucky for that; had it been yourselves dealing with everything the world dealt with for over a year you'd have pushed for disbandment. And once again, that has more to do with who you fought (Citadel and SF) than how well you fought.

You're under the impression that we didn't think that was gonna happen? Come on dude, we had bets going on for who would drop AA last. It would have been an ArcticNam.

I think Penkala is also neglecting the fact that Polar didnt seek terms after just one round of war. If Polar had asked for terms after the first round, Im pretty sure the response at that time would have actually been "lol die, Polar" dont you think?