Nizzle Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Hey, lets take a CB from 5 months ago and use it around Christmas / New Years! Surely everybody will be sitting on their computers all day during the holidays! I mean, we can't just keep it to ourselves for another week until after the holidays, right? We haven't already waited like, what, 5 months already?Thankfully I don't have to be organizing any of this mess, I'm surprised so many people found the time for it TBH. It's like I described in another discussion. Apparently it's a shock to Athens&Co that people have other things to do during the holiday season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kzoppistan Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) A week to prepare plus a special guest appearance by LiquidMercury announcing your counter, and you get 24 wars off?Oh. my. God. Did you know you were going to war? lol For the record, I didn't know I was going to war. In fact, is there a war? Do I need to check in on people? brb, being a nation leader Edited January 2, 2010 by Kzoppistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerichoholic Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 The CoC (Coalition of Cowards) thing. The people saying that are saying it's cowardice.Hiding is a valid strategy. Going OOC, camouflage. So hiding isn't considered cowardice now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 So hiding isn't considered cowardice now? It was only cowardice in the days of overwhelming curb stomps...or don't you recall? Isn't this a ridiculous statement to make since your side is using "hiding" too? And at the more 'expensive' level? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renegade4box Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 It was only cowardice in the days of overwhelming curb stomps...or don't you recall?Isn't this a ridiculous statement to make since your side is using "hiding" too? And at the more 'expensive' level? One side has 80% in peace, the other has 10% in peace. Something tells me one side is going to have to give, can you guess which one it will be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hayzell Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 The in-game result of the initial blitz may not have been overwhelming, but that does not mean we are not exactly where we want to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) He's a nice guy but it defies all logic. And am I incorrect or didn't he open a come ot Jesus thread during the Karma War and tell everyone to lay the blame for something on him then? I made a post (on the 1st page that later turned into 30 pages+ or so? iirc) taking blame for misinformation that I spread (misinformation was given to me) in regards to RoK asking for reps of 9B/150k tech, when they had not. I took responsibility for that. It isn't a come to Jesus thing. I'm human, I screw up, when I do I take the blame. EDIT: clarification ROK did not ask for that. Edited January 2, 2010 by LiquidMercury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I made a post (on the 1st page that later turned into 30 pages+ or so? iirc) taking blame for misinformation that I spread (misinformation was given to me) in regards to RoK asking for reps of 9B/150k tech, when they had not. I took responsibility for that. It isn't a come to Jesus thing. I'm human, I screw up, when I do I take the blame.EDIT: clarification ROK did not ask for that. Did you even think about asking our leadership about that? You know, for logs or anything? Because I had never heard anything about reps from TPF... at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Did you even think about asking our leadership about that? You know, for logs or anything? Because I had never heard anything about reps from TPF... at all. This is in relation to Karma. This was taken care of 6 months ago. This is not about the current situation. I was telling Doitzal which post he was referring to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 This is in relation to Karma. This was taken care of 6 months ago. This is not about the current situation. I was telling Doitzal which post he was referring to. Ah, I'm sorry. My mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerichoholic Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) It was only cowardice in the days of overwhelming curb stomps...or don't you recall?Isn't this a ridiculous statement to make since your side is using "hiding" too? And at the more 'expensive' level? I would consider not defending your ally for 5 days (I know I know, only one man can lead a war on your side) cowardice. I would consider not attacking the largest alliance which is attacking your ally, when you would still outnumber them 3:1, because your scared of one of its allies, cowardice. I would consider 22 offensive wars from 617 nations in war mode to be either extremely poor planning (considering you had 5 days to rally your troops) or cowardice I would consider TPF having almost as many offensive wars (not including the 233 defensive ones) as your 2200 nation coalition to be pathetic (for you, not for them. Say what you will about their leadership, their members are at least putting up a fight) After this is over, I hope TPF can get some better allies (and leadership). To have your allies not defend you for 5 days because of one man's absence is unthinkable. Edit: I accidentally the wrong alliance Edited January 2, 2010 by Jerichoholic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiquidMercury Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Ah, I'm sorry. My mistake. It's all good. Things are crazy and we're all tired of reading Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Sorry, they're in peacemode. Cold War itg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I truly dislike agreeing with Schattenmann, and I've found myself doing just that like twice in the past week. Also I'm going to be bald before this is all over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
genius15 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 One side has 80% in peace, the other has 10% in peace. Something tells me one side is going to have to give, can you guess which one it will be? i think that those nations in peace mode are sending aid to the nations that are still in war mode. idk its just me and if i had a large allliance i think thats what id tell my people to do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krull Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 It's hard when they put all their top level nations in peace mode. It shows who the true infra huggers are. How can you be so stupid to continue to use the "peace mode is for cowards" line in a war where your side used this tactic first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canik Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) Posturing OP Kinda hard to declare wars on targets in peace mode. Edited January 2, 2010 by Canik Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baden-Württemberg Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) Yeah, nice try. At least the CC side isn't complaining that targets are in peace mode. How can you be so stupid to continue to use the "peace mode is for cowards" line in a war where your side used this tactic first. Yeah but then stop annoying them that they have only a few wars. They have only a few wars because your allies are in peace mode. Edited January 2, 2010 by Baden-Württemberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) I would consider not defending your ally for 5 days (I know I know, only one man can lead a war on your side) cowardice.I would consider not attacking the largest alliance which is attacking your ally, when you would still outnumber them 3:1, because your scared of one of its allies, cowardice. I would consider 22 offensive wars from 617 nations in war mode to be either extremely poor planning (considering you had 5 days to rally your troops) or cowardice I would consider TPF having almost as many offensive wars (not including the 233 defensive ones) as your 2200 nation coalition to be pathetic (for you, not for them. Say what you will about their leadership, their members are at least putting up a fight) After this is over, I hope TPF can get some better allies (and leadership). To have your allies not defend you for 5 days because of one man's absence is unthinkable. Edit: I accidentally the wrong alliance \m/ is wrong on that spreadsheet. We've got 58 in war mode, with 14 in anarchy and 16 in peace mode. Yeah, nice try. At least the CC side isn't complaining that targets are in peace mode. I don't think you've read the thread. Edited January 2, 2010 by Earogema Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krull Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Yeah, nice try. At least the CC side isn't complaining that targets are in peace mode. Kinda hard to declare wars on targets in peace mode. Yeah but then stop annoying them that they have only a few wars. They have only a few wars because your allies are in peace mode. Did you really just turn from saying your side doesn't complain about targets in peace mode to complaining that the reason your blitz sucked was because of targets in peace mode. In two lines? Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4SnwL Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 ROk have : 119/280 nations in PMGOD have : 61/78 nations in PM Athens have : 62/114 nations in PM \m/ have : 58/78 nations in PM A total of : 320/550 (58% are in war mode) CoC have 555 nations (from 2173, not counting TPF) in war mode a 1.73:1 ration. The next days should be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Land of True Israel Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 I am honestly hoping that those who are whining about peace mode are doing so just to get some kind of reaction, otherwise I shutter to think how simple minded some people can be. Unless I stepped into the twilight zone, the object of a war is to make strategic decisions in order to achieve the primary goal at hand, not to entertain the bystanders and comply with the enemy on how they would prefer the war be fought. Boring or not, if the conflict finds resolution through war, however dull one may think the war is, then the purpose has been served. The object of war is to win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerichoholic Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 (edited) \m/ is wrong on that spreadsheet. We've got 58 in war mode, with 14 in anarchy and 16 in peace mode.I don't think you've read the thread. Thanks, original post edited. So the four of us are at 49.92% war and 50.08% peace mode. 56.44% war and 43.56% peace mode if you don't count Ragnarok (which nobody has declared on yet) Meanwhile, 25.54% of the "attackers" are in peace mode. I am honestly hoping that those who are whining about peace mode are doing so just to get some kind of reaction, otherwise I shutter to think how simple minded some people can be.Unless I stepped into the twilight zone, the object of a war is to make strategic decisions in order to achieve the primary goal at hand, not to entertain the bystanders and comply with the enemy on how they would prefer the war be fought. Boring or not, if the conflict finds resolution through war, however dull one may think the war is, then the purpose has been served. The object of war is to win. I can only speak for myself, but I have no problem with a nation being in peace mode. I just think it's hilarious that people boasting and thumping their chest a) Do so while in peace mode b) Don't attack the main alliance putting the hurt on their ally Edited January 2, 2010 by Jerichoholic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cncruzore85 Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Peace mode used for strategic planning? I've never seen such a thing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted January 2, 2010 Report Share Posted January 2, 2010 Peace mode used for strategic planning? I've never seen such a thing! i will head to peace mode to scam aid from your side in an effort to ... scam aid. 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.