Warriors DoW

[KOwens06]

Thank you bunnet. TE is for war and you guys war no doubt.

[bongz4lyfe]

funny thing is wapa complains, yet based on their targets, their biggest nations were seeking out the lowest NS possible targets in the Warriors. WAPA lets be honest, you have nothing to complain about.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='bongz4lyfe' date='29 May 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1275170386' post='2315894']
funny thing is wapa complains, yet based on their targets, their biggest nations were seeking out the lowest NS possible targets in the Warriors. WAPA lets be honest, you have nothing to complain about.
[/quote]

If warriors like war why not pick a better target,... like Trollwitch Defense Force

[KOwens06]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' date='29 May 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1275173594' post='2315922']
If warriors like war why not pick a better target,... like Trollwitch Defense Force
[/quote]


Well if you want to look at our nation stats they have 11 nations at 5k plus. While we have 4. Hmh that makes alot of sense to but 4 v 11 we wanted an even war not a war where odds were oddly way off.

Plus I believe I will have my hands full at the end of the round anyway. Also kong a TDF'er and I are planning to fight a duel later in the round. So putting that all together... that choice makes absolutely no sense.

[Frostfirefox]

A war... that isn't oddly off... oh the irony

[Bionic redhead]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' date='29 May 2010 - 11:53 PM' timestamp='1275173594' post='2315922']
If warriors like war why not pick a better target,... like Trollwitch Defense Force
[/quote]

We're daft, not stupid. Why don't you pick them?

[Woref]

[quote name='bongz4lyfe' date='29 May 2010 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1275170386' post='2315894']
funny thing is wapa complains, yet based on their targets, their biggest nations were seeking out the lowest NS possible targets in the Warriors. WAPA lets be honest, you have nothing to complain about.
[/quote]

Only WAPA complaining I've seen has been about hangovers

[KOwens06]

[quote name='Woref' date='29 May 2010 - 04:15 PM' timestamp='1275178521' post='2315968']
Only WAPA complaining I've seen has been about hangovers
[/quote]

Exactly and I tip my hat to you guys for that!

But for other people butting in to our little war how about you let us blow each other up. Ok Thank You!

[bongz4lyfe]

my mistake i thought confusion was with u guyz

[Frostfirefox]

Butting in pardon me for doing so and asking questions of how you call yourself warriors, but I just find it funny how you pick a downhill fight (they did the same thing to PU), who just got out of war and you update blitz (you realize if you update blitzed TDF it would of been a closer fight, but oh noooo, you might actually have a real war if you did that, boohoo). I, myself, cannot engage TDF as I am knee deep in OP.

I do not have a problem with this war, just saying the warriors government.... could have chosen a better target. Fighting downhill only makes you look like a fool, and I understand you have no close close targets, but fighting uphill is always more honorable then downhill such as Pork Shrimp did last round (by quite a bit and fought honorably well)

And on the note of butting in, if I got several nations to declare on you, like confusion threatens to do so, that is butting in. I am just openly calling you cowards ^-^

[KOwens06]

Gosh I love critics.

Again. Please we don't want opinions.

And Like I said if you want to get nations to declare on me ill be happy. I haven't had a guy fight me back yet.

[kongland]

Frostfirefox, you keep mentioning TDF.
I'm confused, should we be flattered or concerned?

[ReadyFireAIm]

looks like a good fight. Good luck to both sides.

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='KOwens06' date='29 May 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1275189484' post='2316093']
Gosh I love critics.

Again. Please we don't want opinions.

And Like I said if you want to get nations to declare on me ill be happy. I haven't had a guy fight me back yet.
[/quote]

You get them, and you see what I mean

"I haven't had a guy fight me back yet"

Quite honestly, idk if your gloating or complaining, but either way, it makes no sense. If you want people to fight back follow my 'opinions' (facts) instead of doing whatever it is.... you are doing

[quote name='kong' date='29 May 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1275194026' post='2316223']
Frostfirefox, you keep mentioning TDF.
I'm confused, should we be flattered or concerned?
[/quote]

Lol no you shouldn't, I was just complimenting your alliance as strong and worthy opponent

[KOwens06]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' date='29 May 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1275196705' post='2316303']
You get them, and you see what I mean

"I haven't had a guy fight me back yet"

Quite honestly, idk if your gloating or complaining, but either way, it makes no sense. If you want people to fight back follow my 'opinions' (facts) instead of doing whatever it is.... you are doing
[/quote]

Im complaining and opinions can never be considered facts. We have to take in the other nations of the Warriors not just me.

Because honestly I wanted to hit MXCA (They have a 10 nation advantage on us). Another top gov wanted to hit SMUG (they have a 5 or 6). But we took in the concerns of our smaller nations before our rusty TriggerFingers.

[Frostfirefox]

So overall your saying you didn't want a challenge from the get go and now that you have your dream war you hate it?

[KOwens06]

MXCA or SMUG wouldn't be a challenge either....

A challenge for me is different from a challenge for the alliance.

Our stats are considered weird in my books. Because half our str is with our first 4 nations. So we can't contend what we want and whats best for all of us. We have to look at our lower members who will also be fighting. <---- That to me is what an AA is about

As for us bigger nations we have the end of the round party to fight!

So you see. We didn't want to attack someone that us bigger nations could handle yet gives them tech farms to feed off of. We wanted an all around war.

Edited May 30, 2010 by KOwens06

[dogbite]

Why all the crying? WAPA dont seem to mind. You should worry about your own war and let the Warriors do there thing.

[Clash]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' date='29 May 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1275186582' post='2316063']
Butting in pardon me for doing so and asking questions of how you call yourself warriors, but I just find it funny how you pick a downhill fight (they did the same thing to PU), who just got out of war and you update blitz (you realize if you update blitzed TDF it would of been a closer fight, but oh noooo, you might actually have a real war if you did that, boohoo). I, myself, cannot engage TDF as I am knee deep in OP.[/quote]
Pay closer attention, or learn to read.
Either way works.

If you actually look at all the stuff posted - or even do some homework and compare the alliances and their nation compositions - it is NOT a downhill fight. We each have around 20 nations. Our 10th nation is 700ns smaller than theirs. So what part is confusing you? How is that downhill for us? For over half our alliance it's uphill. They also had a higher average NS than we did when this war started. There was a lot more posted that apparently you didn't bother to read, and I'm not going to repeat it. Read better next time.

Let's compare us and TDF, stooge.
TDF: 26 nations, 24 active, average NS of 4641, 21 nations over 3000ns, 19 nukes.
TW (at the time the war started): 22 nations, 17 active, average NS of around 3000, 7 nations over 3000ns, 50 nukes.

Arguing that is a fair fight is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

The WAPA fight is a HELL of lot closer than that - it's actually fairly even, and overall, I suspect they might well win. What part is so confusing after looking at the facts? It seems to me that even making this claim means you have an ulterior motive in doing so - because it's hard pressed to say someone was naturally so ignorant. They have to be trying hard at it,

[quote name='Frostfirefox' date='29 May 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1275186582' post='2316063']I am just openly calling you cowards ^-^[/quote]
I'm openly calling you an absolute blithering idiot who apparently wants us and TDF to fight for his own personal reasons.

My posts have stats and facts. Yours has a stupid biased opinion.
Learn to tell the difference,

Edited May 30, 2010 by Clash

[KOwens06]

[quote name='dogbite' date='30 May 2010 - 05:48 AM' timestamp='1275227318' post='2316607']
Why all the crying? WAPA dont seem to mind. You should worry about your own war and let the Warriors do there thing.
[/quote]

dogbite I have no idea. Its annoying.

[quote name='Clash' date='30 May 2010 - 08:02 AM' timestamp='1275235345' post='2316678']
Pay closer attention, or learn to read.
Either way works.

I'm openly calling you an absolute blithering idiot who apparently wants us and TDF to fight for his own personal reasons.

My posts have stats and facts. Yours has a stupid biased opinion.
Learn to tell the difference,
[/quote]

Ah thank you

[Frostfirefox]

[quote name='Clash' date='30 May 2010 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1275235345' post='2316678']
Pay closer attention, or learn to read.
Either way works.

If you actually look at all the stuff posted - or even do some homework and compare the alliances and their nation compositions - it is NOT a downhill fight. We each have around 20 nations. Our 10th nation is 700ns smaller than theirs. So what part is confusing you? How is that downhill for us? For over half our alliance it's uphill. They also had a higher average NS than we did when this war started. There was a lot more posted that apparently you didn't bother to read, and I'm not going to repeat it. Read better next time.

Let's compare us and TDF, stooge.
TDF: 26 nations, 24 active, average NS of 4641, 21 nations over 3000ns, 19 nukes.
TW (at the time the war started): 22 nations, 17 active, average NS of around 3000, 7 nations over 3000ns, 50 nukes.

Arguing that is a fair fight is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen.

The WAPA fight is a HELL of lot closer than that - it's actually fairly even, and overall, I suspect they might well win. What part is so confusing after looking at the facts? It seems to me that even making this claim means you have an ulterior motive in doing so - because it's hard pressed to say someone was naturally so ignorant. They have to be trying hard at it,


I'm openly calling you an absolute blithering idiot who apparently wants us and TDF to fight for his own personal reasons.

My posts have stats and facts. Yours has a stupid biased opinion.
Learn to tell the difference,
[/quote]

This post is irrelevant as the statements have finished and I got my answer to my question. Thank you for you time

'I'm openly calling you an absolute blithering idiot'

Hey... I didn't make this personal you shouldn't either

Edited May 30, 2010 by Frostfirefox

[Clash]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' date='30 May 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1275239688' post='2316765']I didn't make this personal you shouldn't either[/quote]
[quote name='Frostfirefox' date='29 May 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1275186582' post='2316063']
I am just openly calling you cowards ^-^
[/quote]
You called me a coward, and you were provably stupid in your reasons for doing so.
At least have the sack to take credit for it.

In the end we chose not to commit alliance session suicide by attacking someone nearly twice our total NS - currently 129,000ns to 69,000ns - for your entertainment. We still have over a third of the round left. Perhaps we'll do something like that for our last war of the round - just not yet.

Nor are we trying to permanently kill WAPA for the session, as our posts in this thread also show. Ending the round with THIS war would be similarly stupid. War is a social exercise for us - just not a STUPID social exercise. Fighting anyone is the equivalent of saying "Hi there!" WAPA understands this, and they are not only good fighters but a good bunch of folk - even if they DO drink all the beer. It's our hope to find friendship from the battlefield. WAPA has always shown they are just as great of friends to have as they are battlefield opponents.

So can we just have fun and stuff the sniveling?

[Bionic redhead]

Frostfirefox, we pick who we fight not you. So kindly butt out of our business.

[Frostfirefox]

Lol sorry your so serious and have your panties in a bunch, I called you alliance cowards or cowardice

[Clash]

[quote name='Frostfirefox' date='30 May 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1275249193' post='2316933']
Lol sorry your so serious and have your panties in a bunch, I called you alliance cowards or cowardice
[/quote]
Yeah, I'm sure most people called cowards just smile about that
Instead of proving their criticizer wrong and a blithering idiot for it.

Shall we add in hypocrisy too?
Perhaps you should quit while you're (a) behind.