Merrie Melodies Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='RePePe' date='17 February 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1266366605' post='2186535'] As has been previously stated, I think neither Valhalla nor BAPS will produce any nations that surrender other than some ghosts perhaps. It is possible to defeat our numbers, yes. However, you can never [i]really[/i] defeat us. I also find it worth noting, the impression from talk is that we are being bombarded but will continue to fight no matter how low we go. I compiled these brief statistics: As you can see we are definitely not being bombarded to ZI or defeat, we are not even losing very badly at all, despite the fact that we have other alliances on us besides you. In fact, there's a phrase that "it's all about the trends." Based on the trends, \m/ is not even in the position to offer terms and actually believe anyone will accept. These terms are funny, because all \m/ is is that annoying kid who tries to hit you when all you have to do is put your hand on their forehead and hold back the flailin' child. I guess these terms are for your egos and imaginations. [/quote] If you keep your hand on our head long enough for our big brother to show up I am satisfied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infidel Israeli Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 We get it BAPS/Valhalla, you're good fighters. Really, I mean why did this post get 7 pages of comments? It's just individual surrender terms, It's not a big deal. If you don't want them, don't surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='RePePe' date='17 February 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1266366605' post='2186535'] we are not even losing very badly at all, [/quote] Hahahahahahahahaha. That's all that must be said. Purple as a whole is taking a massive beating this war, among the worst. Anyway, since we offered surrender terms and have been completely trashed and postured at by the party which we were being gracious to, I hope our leadership and allied leadership takes this into account when BAPS and Valhalla are attempting to surrender. They've clearly shown no desire to exit this war, and will spit in your face when you attempt to be lenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RePePe Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Starfox101' date='16 February 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1266371484' post='2186648'] Hahahahahahahahaha. That's all that must be said. Purple as a whole is taking a massive beating this war, among the worst. Anyway, since we offered surrender terms and have been completely trashed and postured at by the party which we were being gracious to, I hope our leadership and allied leadership takes this into account when BAPS and Valhalla are attempting to surrender. They've clearly shown no desire to exit this war, and will spit in your face when you attempt to be lenient. [/quote] I understand your attention deficit disorder may have kicked in, but you may want to read the whole post, since it was full of periodic ideas. That's kind of like a report saying: "The tragic event turned out to be nothing bad after all." and you writing "'tragic'<--- See I told you it was horrible!" Thank you for reaffirming my ideas in that post. The stats don't lie, no need for terms here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Starfox101' date='16 February 2010 - 08:51 PM' timestamp='1266371484' post='2186648'] Hahahahahahahahaha. That's all that must be said. Purple as a whole is taking a massive beating this war, among the worst. Anyway, since we offered surrender terms and have been completely trashed and postured at by the party which we were being gracious to, I hope our leadership and allied leadership takes this into account when BAPS and Valhalla are attempting to surrender. They've clearly shown no desire to exit this war, and will spit in your face when you attempt to be lenient. [/quote] This from the starfox who spit in numerous peoples faces this is rich. I guess when the shoe gets to the other foot a new attitude comes to town. The terms themselves are fine the condescending tone like your doing me and my allies a favor not so much. Post it in a manner that doesnt state so I heard you have people who want to surrender thats going to bring up the ire in most of us. Simply put you could have posted them with out trying to be an $@! hat about it. Otherwise I have no issue with it. \m/ is taking a pounding and has been pretty much for the last couple of months. I tipped my hat to you in your declaration it took guts to enter this meat grinder but I wont be insulted by an alliance that is nothing more than a slot filler at this point and acts like they are beating us to a pulp when that is far from the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Jackson Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Crymson' date='16 February 2010 - 05:18 PM' timestamp='1266358705' post='2186313'] Aww... is something wrong? Can I help you with the fear that is driving you to not respond to my argument? [/quote] Your argument has already been handled multiple times today. If you wish for me to repeat them to you, then please notify me. Maybe you'll get it on the third or fourth repeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesing Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Starfox101' date='17 February 2010 - 01:51 AM' timestamp='1266371484' post='2186648'] They've clearly shown no desire to exit this war, and will spit in your face when you attempt to be lenient. [/quote] No we have absolutely Zero desire in abandoning our Alliance, our friends (our Alliances have been around for years remember) and our allies. TBH it really amazes me what you equate our being a united and close-knit group to. you have some seriously whacked up ideas my friend. Although one good thing did came from this thread, your Gov now knows just how united the general membership is behind our Gov and thankfully that point has been emphatically made. You might be a fan of surrendering individually instead of taking damage for your Alliance, but as you can see it's not something we are into, had the implications in the OP (that there are nations looking to surrender) been left out, then this thread would have largely been ignored, but instead lies were posted and here we are. But as I say it all worked out in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Buds The Man' date='16 February 2010 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1266373368' post='2186708'] This from the starfox who spit in numerous peoples faces this is rich. I guess when the shoe gets to the other foot a new attitude comes to town. The terms themselves are fine the condescending tone like your doing me and my allies a favor not so much. Post it in a manner that doesnt state so I heard you have people who want to surrender thats going to bring up the ire in most of us. Simply put you could have posted them with out trying to be an $@! hat about it. Otherwise I have no issue with it. \m/ is taking a pounding and has been pretty much for the last couple of months. I tipped my hat to you in your declaration it took guts to enter this meat grinder but I wont be insulted by an alliance that is nothing more than a slot filler at this point and acts like they are beating us to a pulp when that is far from the truth. [/quote] You are correct in that \m/ has taken a beating the past few months, politically and militarily. We have just peaced out of one front and instead of staying out of the war for good, we enterred to help our allies. We know our role for this round of wars was to eat nukes and keep you guys in war mode. Bad mouth us all you want, because at this point we're used to a lot of people badmouthing us who have no concept of what we have been through. On top of everything that has happened to us, we joined this front willingly, we are eating nukes willingly. Really though, continue to bad mouth us for our "lackluster" performance this war, which is our 3rd major conflict since we reformed December 25th of the Year of Admin 2009. How many wars has BAPS and Valhalla been since then? Some of your members get it. Others, like you, are content with besmirching us while not taking into account what we've been through. You are only making a fool of yourself with comments like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Jonesing' date='16 February 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1266373868' post='2186722'] No we have absolutely Zero desire in abandoning our Alliance, our friends (our Alliances have been around for years remember) and our allies. TBH it really amazes me what you equate our being a united and close-knit group to. you have some seriously whacked up ideas my friend. Although one good thing did came from this thread, your Gov now knows just how united the general membership is behind our Gov and thankfully that point has been emphatically made. You might be a fan of surrendering individually instead of taking damage for your Alliance, but as you can see it's not something we are into, had the implications in the OP (that there are nations looking to surrender) been left out, then this thread would have largely been ignored, but instead lies were posted and here we are. But as I say it all worked out in the end. [/quote] If we took out every implication that nations were looking to surrender, there would be no terms, no text and no thread. And Starfox's track record of taking damage for his alliances cannot be called into question. I'm also glad we gave you a chance to parade around and toot your own horns but even if the terms catch a few ghosts and free up slots, then they've served their purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Caliph' date='16 February 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1266375549' post='2186775'] You are correct in that \m/ has taken a beating the past few months, politically and militarily. We have just peaced out of one front and instead of staying out of the war for good, we enterred to help our allies. We know our role for this round of wars was to eat nukes and keep you guys in war mode. Bad mouth us all you want, because at this point we're used to a lot of people badmouthing us who have no concept of what we have been through. On top of everything that has happened to us, we joined this front willingly, we are eating nukes willingly. Really though, continue to bad mouth us for our "lackluster" performance this war, which is our 3rd major conflict since we reformed December 25th of the Year of Admin 2009. How many wars has BAPS and Valhalla been since then? Some of your members get it. Others, like you, are content with besmirching us while not taking into account what we've been through. You are only making a fool of yourself with comments like this. [/quote] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80533&view=findpost&p=2174043 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80533&view=findpost&p=2174759 Untill you all started being dicks i pretty much just tipped my hat. I have yet to begin to bad mouth you other than call you out on a poorly worded op that many of us found insulting. Your right you have been in a lot of wars since xmas one was against a small aa that you figured it would be cool to tech raid the second was because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Buds The Man' date='16 February 2010 - 10:27 PM' timestamp='1266377276' post='2186890'] http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80533&view=findpost&p=2174043 http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80533&view=findpost&p=2174759 Untill you all started being dicks i pretty much just tipped my hat. I have yet to begin to bad mouth you other than call you out on a poorly worded op that many of us found insulting. Your right you have been in a lot of wars since xmas one was against a small aa that you figured it would be cool to tech raid the second was because of it. [/quote] Of the three he mentions, the first was against TPF, the second NpO, the third BAPS and Valhalla. We're not counting the FoA raid as a major conflict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 ooops my bad tempory lost of memory. IM old what can i say missed the TPF one in my thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Emperor Marx' date='15 February 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1266291083' post='2184231'] Well, 20-30% is usually acceptable. We decided to try something different and set the limit at 25%. I don't see any harm in that, you're just looking for any reason to demonize the fair terms we're offering to individuals. Even someone like you should be able to follow them without any serious difficulty. And ZI is pretty fair. Prisoners of War will be shot if they try to escape or aid the enemy. A common practice, really. But it's so bad when the other side does it, right? Of course. That said, I hope you enjoy the same level of benevolence from C&G that BAPS and Valhalla will get from us. [/quote] my question is, will you be warning your PoWs prior to initiating ZI or will you just hit them without warning? ie. if they have 30% soldiers, would you just ZI them first or will you warn them to let them know they are breaking a term? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 06:40 PM' timestamp='1266367204' post='2186554'] You do realize we've fought in like 3 different fronts since our inception on Christmas of last year, meaning we're not even 2 months old yet, right? Besides, these are individual terms, for nations who were not as prepared as you were. Yes, yes, "THEY ARE ALL MIGHTY VALHALLAN NATIONS WHO WHERE ALL PREPARED" blah blah. For example: I was fighting a nation with 92 million on hand - At 6k NS. Now at first, I was scared as hell. However, he has launched only 2 ground attacks, I have won every single ground attack, and I've taken little to no damage every single day. He's been doing nothing. I'm not sure why, but I think it would be in his own individual interest to surrender. Will he? Hell I don't know, I doubt it. Though we offered the terms because he might want to. [/quote] seriously. How can any arguments get passed this comment? give it up, brahs. We know you hate \m/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='16 February 2010 - 07:59 PM' timestamp='1266379149' post='2186968'] my question is, will you be warning your PoWs prior to initiating ZI or will you just hit them without warning? ie. if they have 30% soldiers, would you just ZI them first or will you warn them to let them know they are breaking a term? [/quote] To accept the terms you must read them, no? If someone complies, and then ceases to comply and refuses to return to a state of compliance, I would imagine they would be dealt with. If someone complies, then stays in compliance, I don't foresee any problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbrownso Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='16 February 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1266377479' post='2186904'] Of the three he mentions, the first was against TPF, the second NpO, the third BAPS and Valhalla. We're not counting the FoA raid as a major conflict. [/quote] oh come on. The TPF war was primarily a stomp fest and a poorly executed one at that. Don't act like you've had your backs against the wall 3 times since \m/ reformed. However, that's not to say \m/ hasn't pulled its weight, I'm not denying that. You took a pounding against NpO and you willing came into help allies. That's not something everyone would do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='16 February 2010 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1266379149' post='2186968'] my question is, will you be warning your PoWs prior to initiating ZI or will you just hit them without warning? ie. if they have 30% soldiers, would you just ZI them first or will you warn them to let them know they are breaking a term? [/quote] We would definitely warn them. Really I think we would only ZI somebody breaking that term if they replied to our warning telling us to do something horrible to our mothers or something like that. Also regarding the TPF war, it was still a nuclear alliance war. Even if the odds were in our favor, damage was still taken. It was especially interesting for us since we hadn't quite finished combining the Bel Air and Rage Co. banks yet (it was only two days after our merger/founding). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='16 February 2010 - 10:40 PM' timestamp='1266381610' post='2187058'] We would definitely warn them. Really I think we would only ZI somebody breaking that term if they replied to our warning telling us to do something horrible to our mothers or something like that. [/quote] fair enough then. thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President MET Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Buffalo Niagara' date='15 February 2010 - 07:42 PM' timestamp='1266284557' post='2183883'] Tell that to our members that have been zi and want aid to come back and play some more Purple isn't suffering we are having fun playing with the hamster in the ball.... [/quote] BUFF your my hero!!!! 0/BAPS 0/Olympus Purple! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Buds The Man' date='17 February 2010 - 02:22 AM' timestamp='1266373368' post='2186708'] This from the starfox who spit in numerous peoples faces this is rich. I guess when the shoe gets to the other foot a new attitude comes to town. The terms themselves are fine the condescending tone like your doing me and my allies a favor not so much. Post it in a manner that doesnt state so I heard you have people who want to surrender thats going to bring up the ire in most of us. Simply put you could have posted them with out trying to be an $@! hat about it. Otherwise I have no issue with it. \m/ is taking a pounding and has been pretty much for the last couple of months. I tipped my hat to you in your declaration it took guts to enter this meat grinder but I wont be insulted by an alliance that is nothing more than a slot filler at this point and acts like they are beating us to a pulp when that is far from the truth. [/quote] I really haven't seen \m/ gloating about wrecking anyone, anywhere. Really we've been completely modest and have openly admitted our performance is lackluster. It's your side creating some sort of image of \m/ that leads you to think we are gloating about single-handedly defeating you. It's been a unified effort among a group of our friends. Also, Valhalla telling \m/ that we are taking a pounding is firstly incorrect, and secondly ironic. We've lost what, a few hundred thousand Nation strength in this battle? All things considered, we've actually absorbed damage very well. We have a few very battered nations such as mine, but that's to be expected. You can't attempt to paint us as a dire, defeated alliance when we are under no threat of counter-attack and can control the situation. It's an easy position this time around, which is a nice change of pace. Finally, I spit in peoples faces when I was offered ridiculous, and degrading terms. In Vox Populi, I worked hard to get individual surrender terms for our alliance. There is simply no history of me berating someone for offering individual terms, because I know there are always a few people who just hate to lose their precious infrastructure. [quote name='Jonesing' date='17 February 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1266373868' post='2186722'] No we have absolutely Zero desire in abandoning our Alliance, our friends (our Alliances have been around for years remember) and our allies. TBH it really amazes me what you equate our being a united and close-knit group to. you have some seriously whacked up ideas my friend. Although one good thing did came from this thread, your Gov now knows just how united the general membership is behind our Gov and thankfully that point has been emphatically made. You might be a fan of surrendering individually instead of taking damage for your Alliance, but as you can see it's not something we are into, had the implications in the OP (that there are nations looking to surrender) been left out, then this thread would have largely been ignored, but instead lies were posted and here we are. But as I say it all worked out in the end. [/quote] Wait...what? I'm a fan of surrendering? I don't know why people keep trying this one on me. I've lost multiple wars and have yet to surrender. Put the pieces together in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesing Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Chief Savage Man' date='17 February 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1266375594' post='2186779'] If we took out every implication that nations were looking to surrender, there would be no terms, no text and no thread. And Starfox's track record of taking damage for his alliances cannot be called into question. I'm also glad we gave you a chance to parade around and toot your own horns but even if the terms catch a few ghosts and free up slots, then they've served their purpose. [/quote] You are still persisting with this line that there have been BAPS nations looking to surrender, if you really think you can't offer terms without saying this, then LOL. Why not try something like this: "If anyone wishes to surrender, they can do X, Y and Z", just leave out the propoganda lies and the thread serves the very same purpose. Or was the purpose of this thread simply to be a propoganda tool gone awry? Also, just to be crystal clear we're not trying to 'toot our own horns' here, we're making sure that your propoganda, lies and spin are shown up for what they are, you've already backed down a fair bit in this thread and the tone of you guys has improved dramatically, so kudos on the PR damage control, but that has resulted in the entertaining side effect of getting to watch you guys trying to play the victim card while simultaniously offering terms and turn 180 on how you guys are beating us down, to basically being mere slot fillers. As for Starfox and his record, meh, he's pretty much a non-entity really but his opinions on Individually surrendering wouldn't be the kind of thing I'd want associated with any Alliance I was involved with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Jonesing' date='17 February 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1266405322' post='2187412'] As for Starfox and his record, meh, he's pretty much a non-entity really but his opinions on Individually surrendering wouldn't be the kind of thing I'd want associated with any Alliance I was involved with. [/quote] So you're basically saying I'm irrelevant. Great, I like it that way. I like to let the big shots of CN, like you for example, jonesing, call the shots while I do nothing. It's alot more entertaining that way, really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesing Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 (edited) I never said I was a "big-shot" nor did I ever allude to that, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by saying you were a non-entity, it's just my view. Would you have an opinion on whether or not the OP is misleading in trying to allude that there have been BAPS nations actively seeking surrender terms, do you have any personal experience of this? Or can you understand why this is bothering us so much. Keeping in mind that i personally have absolutely no problem with you offering terms, it's standard, (and getting ghosts etc. to peace out is a very sound reasoning for them, you're not to know we try to actively rid ourselves of any ghosts once they come to light) personally I think you can set the terms as harshly as you want, send breaches of them to pZI for all I care, the issue for me and most BAPSters is not the offer but the accusation that there are BAPS nations seeking terms. Edited February 17, 2010 by Jonesing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Jonesing' date='17 February 2010 - 03:43 PM' timestamp='1266421436' post='2187569'] I never said I was a "big-shot" nor did I ever allude to that, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by saying you were a non-entity, it's just my view. Would you have an opinion on whether or not the OP is misleading in trying to allude that there have been BAPS nations actively seeking surrender terms, do you have any personal experience of this? Or can you understand why this is bothering us so much. Keeping in mind that i personally have absolutely no problem with you offering terms, it's standard, (and getting ghosts etc. to peace out is a very sound reasoning for them, you're not to know we try to actively rid ourselves of any ghosts once they come to light) personally I think you can set the terms as harshly as you want, send breaches of them to pZI for all I care, the issue for me and most BAPSters is not the offer but the accusation that there are BAPS nations seeking terms. [/quote] No, my feelings weren't hurt. That's just my generic response to anyone who calls me irrelevant. I wasn't offended, because it's true these days. I'm the old former athelete on ESPN working as an analyst and talking about the young guys. Pretty good analogy, I think. And, I have no problem with that. Pride is a good thing, and I can't rail you for disliking the way we came at you. I'm sure it was unintended, hence why we were caught off guard at the storm of angry comments. I want a good fun fight, there's too much venom between our alliances, when we've never even had any past problems and are only here to fight for our allies. I like Valhalla, and always thought BAPS was decent. This is no Polar-\m/ showdown, so I think both sides, including myself, should cool it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonesing Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 [quote name='Starfox101' date='17 February 2010 - 04:23 PM' timestamp='1266423790' post='2187614'] No, my feelings weren't hurt. That's just my generic response to anyone who calls me irrelevant. I wasn't offended, because it's true these days. I'm the old former athelete on ESPN working as an analyst and talking about the young guys. Pretty good analogy, I think. And, I have no problem with that. Pride is a good thing, and I can't rail you for disliking the way we came at you. I'm sure it was unintended, hence why we were caught off guard at the storm of angry comments. I want a good fun fight, there's too much venom between our alliances, when we've never even had any past problems and are only here to fight for our allies. I like Valhalla, and always thought BAPS was decent. This is no Polar-\m/ showdown, so I think both sides, including myself, should cool it. [/quote] Sounds like good reasoning to me and something I can certainly sign up to, thanks for seeing it from our POV too, we can but hope this was all just a problem with miscommunication... I like your analogy BTW. Although having said all that, the OP could still do with clarification from your Gov at some stage, I presume they're holding out for someone to actually surrender, and thankfully we've now made our point that, bar a ghost we might have missed, that's not gonna happen, for me to go on about it would be labouring the point too much at this stage. o/ to further fun fighting (I get outta peace tomorrow ) o/ BAPS o/ \m/ 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.