The Big Bad Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 At this point I have no idea who is on what side so congrats white peace sounds good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igotsacane Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 All I can say is good show Immortals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Roadie' date='05 February 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1265425776' post='2162715'] Allies need allies even more when they get themselves in a hot mess. That's what allies are for. [/quote] This might be just me, but when I think of my friends/allies I think they should be there to talk sense into me if I'm planning something stupid, (like say a preemptive strike on a whole bloc because I think they might not like me) I don't expect them to blindly follow me off a cliff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon Sriv Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Lord Levistus' date='05 February 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1265423157' post='2162596'] I know what to make of it, Immortals get to enjoy sleep, unlike the rest of us. I'd almost go so far as to wonder if they're doing it better. edit: redundant phrase, no doubt brought on by lack of sleep. [/quote] Go to sleeeeeeep, Go to sleeeeeeeep, go to sleep, little Levistus... Go to sleeeeeeeeep, Go to sleeeeeep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Delta1212' date='05 February 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1265425758' post='2162713'] So your argument is that we should all back away and [b]let C&G get rolled[/b] for not wanting to give white peace to a group of alliances that, in their declaration of war, expressly stated that they were using the war as an opportunity to strike at C&G because they believe them to be a threat and would like do so again in any future wars that arise until C&G has been destroyed. You know, I've lost a couple thousand infrastructure already, so that logic [i]is[/i] mighty tempting... [/quote] I fail to see how hours after the DoW and polar peaced out, allowing TOP/IRON to peace out would result in C&G "getting rolled". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krack Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 (edited) I would like to direct the Immortals' attention to this thread: [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80118"]GGA offers surrender terms[/url]. What you will notice by working your way through the thread is an alliance that is about two to three times larger than yours' that is being mocked relentlessly by just about every other alliance on Planet Bob. My point is, I don't know anything about your alliance, but I know you don't want to acquire that type of reputation - it will stick with you for years. My alliance has two members (and one third the amount of WRCs of GGA) and even I have no problem justifiably pointing out that if any alliance ever needed a Viceroy from a non-suck alliance, it's GGA. Even if you're gonna surrender, or you don't really feel like participating in the war, fight for at least a week so you don't completely embarrass yourselves. It's too late for this war; what's done is done. But remember it for next time. Also, try not to sign MDPs if you have no intention of honoring them. Nobody likes a quitter. Edited February 6, 2010 by Krack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktavia Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 Start a battle, get your allies to come in, and then leave them on the field. Poor show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 Alright people, I honestly don't give two $%&@s who you are, I am addressing [b]you all[/b]. First and foremost, I am so glad that you all have come out en masse to attack an ally that you see as being dishonorable and cowardly. Did The Immortals do something stupid in declaring on FEAR in the first place? No, they were not. Perhaps it goes against strategic thinking and forethought, but when you have a MDP partner that is attacked, you have an obligation to come to their defense. The Immortals did just that, despite people clinging to the idea that "Oh no, you shouldn't hit FEAR" or "Oh no, we need you for TOP possibly". I don't care who you are, The Immortals jumped into the fray with the intent of defending their friends in FoB and that [b]is a fact[/b]. Strategically, this is a massacre because of who FEAR is allied to: TOOL, UCN, etc. That brought up a 10 million disadvantage. A good chunk of TI's nations sat at the brink of bill lock. [center][quote]<Sarmatian[Immortals]> i got a lot of guys facing bill lock <Sarmatian[Immortals]> im suppose to let half my alliance be deleted? [/quote][/center] And here we sit at a major schism: protect your alliance's membership, which as a leader you have an obligation to dutifully undertake, or keep at it for the sake of your allies. Both are important to the integral workings of all alliances. The fact of the matter exists in two manners: they entered the war in the defense of their allies, and they pulled out (as seen in this thread). So perhaps he (Sarmartian) wasn't explicitly told to hit FEAR, but as an ally, he had an obligation to. The fact that The Immortals lasted a week, in all honesty, dumbfounds me. The Immortals isn't known as a premier fighting force nor have the reputation attributed to say, TPF or MK. Their only true battle experience, from what I'm aware, was raiding TPF Protectorates during Karma (essentially garrison duty). Had he any ready experience, he would have realized that hitting FEAR would cause a dogpile. [center][quote]<Sarmatian[Immortals]> i didnt care <Sarmatian[Immortals]> i didnt expect them all to go tho <Sarmatian[Immortals]> dogpiles are largely frowned upon <Sarmatian[Immortals]> i figured tpf would stay out[/quote][/center] Many of our 'elite' alliances, or rather those who are ready to criticize, take for granted they we have come to understand an underlying wartime strategy. The Immortals made a mistake, and their nations bled for a week as a result (or perhaps a little less than a week, a few days on some fronts). Just because they made this mistake does not mean they are terrible friends. I have known Sarmatian for a long time now, and he clearly has a deep respect for his allies. But tactically, why should an alliance take a beating for some asinine reason? I do admit that it is rather shameful for TI to have pulled out before their friends in FoB, but what use would TI be if they are bill-locked and being beaten on by TOOL et. al? That serves no purpose at all except for wasteful destruction. What does this prove? They weren't prepared for war. They weren't prepared with warchests. They weren't prepared to take a gamble and be ready for a dogpile on them. Just because you all have something to prove by destroying your member's nations doesn't mean TI must do the same, and perhaps that is a negative thing in the air of the current atmosphere. But I must remind you that even in terms of strategy, taking an unnecessary beating proves nothing. So say what you must, pick apart what you must, but you must know that all alliances have made mistakes. Want to know something interesting though? CSN, in the 1V-GATO War, received peace three weeks before GATO did. This was under the impression that USN would be receiving peace as well, but notwithstanding we were pulling out well before GATO. Does this make us any less of reliable alliances? We fought for our allies in Karma and we fight for our allies now in both theaters (NpO v. \m/ and now TOP et. al. v SuperComplaints). The Immortals made a mistake; to condemn them in entirety is childish and hypocritical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 All of this TI bashing is rather unbecoming. The supercomplaints side of this war harbors some of the, if not the best military machines in the entirety of planet Bob. We'll make due. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='TypoNinja' date='05 February 2010 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1265427222' post='2162758'] This might be just me, but when I think of my friends/allies I think they should be there to talk sense into me if I'm planning something stupid, (like say a preemptive strike on a whole bloc because I think they might not like me) I don't expect them to blindly follow me off a cliff. [/quote] According to Samartian, there was no planning, though admittedly a MDP is a MDP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='NoFish' date='05 February 2010 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1265426018' post='2162727'] So does that mean you'd surrender early and leave your (direct, mind you) allies fighting after not even a week if you disagree with their motives? [/quote] If TPF was being asked to take an untold number of nukes because one of our allies refused to accept the other side surrendering to them under white peace and was in no danger. Well then we probably would have a word with our ally and if they ridiculed us in the manner you guys have for an alliance that lost 20% of its NS fighting a war that should on all accounts be over, yes we probably would. Note that is different than if our ally was [b]NOT ALLOWED[/b] to leave under acceptable terms. That is completely different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PakAttack Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 The Immortals, all of you were fine adversaries. Best of luck to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Hyperion321' date='05 February 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1265427641' post='2162783'] All of this TI bashing is rather unbecoming. The supercomplaints side of this war harbors some of the, if not the best military machines in the entirety of planet Bob. We'll make due. [/quote] Theres an ODN joke to be made in here somewhere.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='mhawk' date='05 February 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1265427389' post='2162768'] I fail to see how hours after the DoW and polar peaced out, allowing TOP/IRON to peace out would result in C&G "getting rolled". [/quote] Because going around and making pre-emptive strikes is not an approved practice here. We established that in Karma, you must remember that bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='mhawk' date='05 February 2010 - 10:36 PM' timestamp='1265427389' post='2162768'] I fail to see how hours after the DoW and polar peaced out, allowing TOP/IRON to peace out would result in C&G "getting rolled". [/quote] If somebody points a gun at you and says "I think you're a threat, now's a good time to take you out!" and then pulls the trigger and misses, do you let them reload? Anyways no respect lost for Immortals. You honored your treaty without being asked and unfortunately ended up outmatched. Do what you have to, learn from this, and I'll look forward to cracking skulls alongside you next war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacques Cousteau Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 SpacingOutMan covered everything that needed to be said on this subject. I would say that this chapter should be closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 btw, for those of us keeping score at home..who all does this remove from the war? just Immortals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hyperion321 Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='wickedj' date='06 February 2010 - 03:45 AM' timestamp='1265427913' post='2162796'] Theres an ODN joke to be made in here somewhere.. [/quote] Clearly good sir you have not seen what happens when ODN and Sparta work together [img]http://i47.tinypic.com/vzd4d1.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coven Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 Good show. The Immortals are a good bunch, best of luck in the future guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='05 February 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1265427613' post='2162782'] Alright people, I honestly don't give two $%&@s who you are, I am addressing [b]you all[/b]. First and foremost, I am so glad that you all have come out en masse to attack an ally that you see as being dishonorable and cowardly. Did The Immortals do something stupid in declaring on FEAR in the first place? No, they were not. Perhaps it goes against strategic thinking and forethought, but when you have a MDP partner that is attacked, you have an obligation to come to their defense. The Immortals did just that, despite people clinging to the idea that "Oh no, you shouldn't hit FEAR" or "Oh no, we need you for TOP possibly". I don't care who you are, The Immortals jumped into the fray with the intent of defending their friends in FoB and that [b]is a fact[/b]. Strategically, this is a massacre because of who FEAR is allied to: TOOL, UCN, etc. That brought up a 10 million disadvantage. A good chunk of TI's nations sat at the brink of bill lock. And here we sit at a major schism: protect your alliance's membership, which as a leader you have an obligation to dutifully undertake, or keep at it for the sake of your allies. Both are important to the integral workings of all alliances. The fact of the matter exists in two manners: they entered the war in the defense of their allies, and they pulled out (as seen in this thread). So perhaps he (Sarmartian) wasn't explicitly told to hit FEAR, but as an ally, he had an obligation to. The fact that The Immortals lasted a week, in all honesty, dumbfounds me. The Immortals isn't known as a premier fighting force nor have the reputation attributed to say, TPF or MK. Their only true battle experience, from what I'm aware, was raiding TPF Protectorates during Karma (essentially garrison duty). Had he any ready experience, he would have realized that hitting FEAR would cause a dogpile. Many of our 'elite' alliances, or rather those who are ready to criticize, take for granted they we have come to understand an underlying wartime strategy. The Immortals made a mistake, and their nations bled for a week as a result (or perhaps a little less than a week, a few days on some fronts). Just because they made this mistake does not mean they are terrible friends. I have known Sarmatian for a long time now, and he clearly has a deep respect for his allies. But tactically, why should an alliance take a beating for some asinine reason? I do admit that it is rather shameful for TI to have pulled out before their friends in FoB, but what use would TI be if they are bill-locked and being beaten on by TOOL et. al? That serves no purpose at all except for wasteful destruction. What does this prove? They weren't prepared for war. They weren't prepared with warchests. They weren't prepared to take a gamble and be ready for a dogpile on them. Just because you all have something to prove by destroying your member's nations doesn't mean TI must do the same, and perhaps that is a negative thing in the air of the current atmosphere. But I must remind you that even in terms of strategy, taking an unnecessary beating proves nothing. So say what you must, pick apart what you must, but you must know that all alliances have made mistakes. Want to know something interesting though? CSN, in the 1V-GATO War, received peace three weeks before GATO did. This was under the impression that USN would be receiving peace as well, but notwithstanding we were pulling out well before GATO. Does this make us any less of reliable alliances? We fought for our allies in Karma and we fight for our allies now in both theaters (NpO v. \m/ and now TOP et. al. v SuperComplaints). The Immortals made a mistake; to condemn them in entirety is childish and hypocritical. [/quote] If The Immortals were prepared neither for battle nor to be utilized in the most advantageous way, then they would have served everyone best to have sat it out and sent FoB aid post war. Sure, argue the virtue of their charge-of-the-light-brigade, but in the end they have not fulfilled their obligations to anyone or anything. And if they thought that any damage that was going to be taken was for "some asinine reason" then they really had no business getting involved, now, did they? Either they attacked because they put themselves behind the MDP they used, or they surrendered because FoB's involvement in asinine. They're mutually exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='TypoNinja' date='05 February 2010 - 07:45 PM' timestamp='1265427914' post='2162797'] Because going around and making pre-emptive strikes is not an approved practice here. We established that in Karma, you must remember that bit. [/quote] Then why did you allow Polar to peace? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Hyperion321' date='05 February 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1265428096' post='2162806'] Clearly good sir you have not seen what happens when ODN and Sparta work together [img]http://i47.tinypic.com/vzd4d1.jpg[/img] [/quote] haha thats awesome Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='mhawk' date='05 February 2010 - 10:54 PM' timestamp='1265428446' post='2162823'] Then why did you allow Polar to peace? [/quote] It was strategically sound. There's no reason to let neo-Citadel off the hook, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='SpacingOutMan' date='05 February 2010 - 09:40 PM' timestamp='1265427613' post='2162782'] Alright people, I honestly don't give two $%&@s who you are, I am addressing [b]you all[/b]. First and foremost, I am so glad that you all have come out en masse to attack an ally that you see as being dishonorable and cowardly. Did The Immortals do something stupid in declaring on FEAR in the first place? No, they were not. Perhaps it goes against strategic thinking and forethought, but when you have a MDP partner that is attacked, you have an obligation to come to their defense. The Immortals did just that, despite people clinging to the idea that "Oh no, you shouldn't hit FEAR" or "Oh no, we need you for TOP possibly". I don't care who you are, The Immortals jumped into the fray with the intent of defending their friends in FoB and that [b]is a fact[/b]. Strategically, this is a massacre because of who FEAR is allied to: TOOL, UCN, etc. That brought up a 10 million disadvantage. A good chunk of TI's nations sat at the brink of bill lock. [center][/center] And here we sit at a major schism: protect your alliance's membership, which as a leader you have an obligation to dutifully undertake, or keep at it for the sake of your allies. Both are important to the integral workings of all alliances. The fact of the matter exists in two manners: they entered the war in the defense of their allies, and they pulled out (as seen in this thread). So perhaps he (Sarmartian) wasn't explicitly told to hit FEAR, but as an ally, he had an obligation to. The fact that The Immortals lasted a week, in all honesty, dumbfounds me. The Immortals isn't known as a premier fighting force nor have the reputation attributed to say, TPF or MK. Their only true battle experience, from what I'm aware, was raiding TPF Protectorates during Karma (essentially garrison duty). Had he any ready experience, he would have realized that hitting FEAR would cause a dogpile. [center][/center] Many of our 'elite' alliances, or rather those who are ready to criticize, take for granted they we have come to understand an underlying wartime strategy. The Immortals made a mistake, and their nations bled for a week as a result (or perhaps a little less than a week, a few days on some fronts). Just because they made this mistake does not mean they are terrible friends. I have known Sarmatian for a long time now, and he clearly has a deep respect for his allies. But tactically, why should an alliance take a beating for some asinine reason? I do admit that it is rather shameful for TI to have pulled out before their friends in FoB, but what use would TI be if they are bill-locked and being beaten on by TOOL et. al? That serves no purpose at all except for wasteful destruction. What does this prove? They weren't prepared for war. They weren't prepared with warchests. They weren't prepared to take a gamble and be ready for a dogpile on them. Just because you all have something to prove by destroying your member's nations doesn't mean TI must do the same, and perhaps that is a negative thing in the air of the current atmosphere. But I must remind you that even in terms of strategy, taking an unnecessary beating proves nothing. So say what you must, pick apart what you must, but you must know that all alliances have made mistakes. Want to know something interesting though? CSN, in the 1V-GATO War, received peace three weeks before GATO did. This was under the impression that USN would be receiving peace as well, but notwithstanding we were pulling out well before GATO. Does this make us any less of reliable alliances? We fought for our allies in Karma and we fight for our allies now in both theaters (NpO v. \m/ and now TOP et. al. v SuperComplaints). The Immortals made a mistake; to condemn them in entirety is childish and hypocritical. [/quote] A very good post. The best in this thread and one of the best I've seen on these forums in a while. It's a shame on SC that until this post, the only people defending The Immortals actions were their former adversaries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Roadie' date='05 February 2010 - 10:57 PM' timestamp='1265428641' post='2162831'] A very good post. The best in this thread and one of the best I've seen on these forums in a while. It's a shame on SC that until this post, the only people defending The Immortals actions were their former adversaries [/quote] Oh, Of course. The alliances they surrendered to aren't defending tI, they're parading them around like hostages in a revolution. 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.