hizzy Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 only if i get a cool hat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiCkO Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Maybe he doesn't ( I know he does) but I certainly do. I just find it amusing that there is no war, apparently just chest thumping from a blowhard who is bluffing like always. Hardly seems to be a reason to run to PM. Maybe it is a new tactic to go with all the other pioneering moves they have made in recent times? agreed, too much posing, not enough actually done \m/ tech raid someone that has friends, like us or any member of Poseidon and see what happens Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Hmm. CoC runs to peace mode and its hearlded and a new and awesome strategy. \m/ does it its theyre cowards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Hmm. CoC runs to peace mode and its hearlded and a new and awesome strategy. \m/ does it its theyre cowards well depends. CC were the ones who mainly heralded it that way. most on SG side called them cowards. PM is always a strategy though. the issue i see with \m/ is all their talk about how tough they are and how they want to war, but the moment one is close to being upon them they run to PM instead of warring as they claim to love to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 well depends. CC were the ones who mainly heralded it that way. most on SG side called them cowards. PM is always a strategy though. the issue i see with \m/ is all their talk about how tough they are and how they want to war, but the moment one is close to being upon them they run to PM instead of warring as they claim to love to do. Considering the numbers involved on both sides for this conflict, peace mode is the best tactic available for them in the overall strategy of the whole war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Considering the numbers involved on both sides for this conflict, peace mode is the best tactic available for them in the overall strategy of the whole war. Will they change their alliance name to \FAN/? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Will they change their alliance name to \FAN/? If the war pans out the way that I've been notified it will, I don't think there's a need. Regardless I don't think there would be a need for that anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Considering the numbers involved on both sides for this conflict, peace mode is the best tactic available for them in the overall strategy of the whole war. oh i understand the strategy, it just contradicts all the talking that \m/ has done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Indeed. No-one (or no-one serious anyway) denies that the peace mode shield has its uses in a war, particularly a losing war. But when you've been rattling sabres for two days, demanding that people 'do something about it' and generally posing as tough guys, it makes you look rather ridiculous. The issue is not that they have run to peace mode when war appears to be possible, but that they have done so after claiming that they 'love war' and other such things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 \m/: oooo whatcha gonna do Grub? you're just bluffing, you don't scare us! Grub: who's got the keys to my tank? \m/: MK: MK really has nothing to do with this but I thought I'd give them a proper shout out. They basically maintain that pose 24/7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 I think its official that either A. who the $%&@ ever is planning your "counter" needs their head examined because your ally is burning and its now been FIVE days, noobs could plan better than this or B. you are quite possibly worse than CoC 1.0 atleast they put their shame out in public for others to mock Hmm. CoC runs to peace mode and its hearlded and a new and awesome strategy. \m/ does it its theyre cowards You both make such good points Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Curzon Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) Ouch I dont know who to side with, wicked 3 weeks ago, or wicked now... Edited January 21, 2010 by Lord Curzon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) Ouch I dont know who to side with wicked 3 weeks ago, or wicked now... Siding with Wicked from any time period is immoral. Edited January 21, 2010 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Siding with Wicked from any time period is immoral. can we put it in our sig if we're down? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 can we put it in our sig if we're down? Yes, but be warned you will be siding with starcraftmazter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tick1 Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 i am unsure how you can weight your argument about raiding a raider alliance versus a non-raider alliance and not see how it is hypocritical to your stance that an individual nation holds the same weight as an alliance does? Like I've said to be honest I don't believe raiding is immoral what so ever. I believe it is an action that I'm allowed to do, but without gaining the approval of moralist I'll have to listen to your QQ every time something happens that you guys disagree with. So instead of standing in my true nature I'm attempting to reason with you on a mutual level and find somewhere in-between that we can agree upon. Although from what I've seen very few moralist are open minded and only believe that they know a true path of divine faith. Even though you yourself pillage the weak in their time of need. Doing it on a larger scale should hold no play in deciding whether or not something is immoral. Seeing as our alliance could raid one alliance a month. Lets say only 15 of our members partake in this event. That means we can force up to a total of 45 wars. On the other hand, Your alliance only allows unaffiliated tech raids. So 15 of your members partake in this whenever their war slots are available. Therefore you will partake in 60 tech raids a month. Whom is the greater of both evils? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 Like I've said to be honest I don't believe raiding is immoral what so ever. I believe it is an action that I'm allowed to do, but without gaining the approval of moralist I'll have to listen to your QQ every time something happens that you guys disagree with. So instead of standing in my true nature I'm attempting to reason with you on a mutual level and find somewhere in-between that we can agree upon. Although from what I've seen very few moralist are open minded and only believe that they know a true path of divine faith. Even though you yourself pillage the weak in their time of need. Doing it on a larger scale should hold no play in deciding whether or not something is immoral. Seeing as our alliance could raid one alliance a month. Lets say only 15 of our members partake in this event. That means we can force up to a total of 45 wars. On the other hand, Your alliance only allows unaffiliated tech raids. So 15 of your members partake in this whenever their war slots are available. Therefore you will partake in 60 tech raids a month. Whom is the greater of both evils? you forgot to add in the unaffiliated tech raids that your members would partake in as well as the alliance raid. fairly certain that that would put yours at more wars/raids per month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted January 21, 2010 Report Share Posted January 21, 2010 MK: All that was needed to be said imo 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.