Jump to content

Roman Empire Announcement


Varianz

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Clash' date='07 June 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1275941299' post='2328041']
By [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lead"]"lead"[/url] I don't mean "does everything."
I like being anal specific, so this. Most of the definitions fit pretty well.
1. to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort: to lead a group on a cross-country hike.
2. to conduct by holding and guiding: to lead a horse by a rope.
4. to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, etc.; bring: You can lead her around to your point of view if you are persistent.
5. to conduct or bring (water, wire, etc.) in a particular course.
Blah blah more like that.

[/quote]

Fair enough, though the fact that the quote I was refuting was posted in reply to Tibs saying that we are a sovereign alliance made it seems as though you were implying that Confusion was controlling Roman Empire.

[quote]
I miss the 1-1 wars in TE. Too many AAs don't have the guts to do it by themselves.
Y'all know who you are. [/quote]

Personally, I do not see the problem with multi-war alliances. I agree that multi AAs VS 1 AA is ridiculous, however I see nothing wrong with many AAs VS many AAs. Hell, I think it would be interesting if everyone just declared on everyone to spice things up at the end of the round, or if a few big coalitions were formed at the end of the round to have some massive maga war - but maybe thats just me. If you think we should have attacked even more alliances because of our size, I can respect that position, but I still see nothing wrong with the concept of more than one AA declaring on more than one AA (at least near the end of the round anyway)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mikeyrox' date='07 June 2010 - 02:43 PM' timestamp='1275943409' post='2328094']
Fair enough, though the fact that the quote I was refuting was posted in reply to Tibs saying that we are a sovereign alliance made it seems as though you were implying that Confusion was controlling Roman Empire.

Personally, I do not see the problem with multi-war alliances. I agree that multi AAs VS 1 AA is ridiculous, however I see nothing wrong with many AAs VS many AAs. Hell, I think it would be interesting if everyone just declared on everyone to spice things up at the end of the round[...]
[/quote]
No, not controlling. But leading, yeah he kind of is, and others as well.
Here's his log dump he added for his 4th edit or whatever in the other thread:
[quote]Jun 05 01:07:04 <Confusion> guys
Jun 05 01:07:05 <NationRuler[CSN]> cool
Jun 05 01:07:06 <NationRuler[CSN]> going to bed
Jun 05 01:07:10 <Confusion> not sure is DoWing is smart.
Jun 05 01:07:17 <Confusion> we should keep it confusing imo
Jun 05 01:07:21 <NationRuler[CSN]> cool.
Jun 05 01:07:27 <Z3000> alright
Jun 05 01:07:27 <Ed[bededgoes]> i'm not gonna post anything
Jun 05 01:07:42 <Ed[bededgoes]> I got counter attacked pretty hard
Jun 05 01:07:49 <Confusion> okay no one posts anything.[/quote]
This is just the DoW decision. I think "lead" is the right phrase here.

Actually, one alliance declaring on everyone else does happen sometimes. It happened last round when TPF declared on everyone, and LE's done it at least once that I remember. It's end of the round, so no worries, no reasons to hug infra either. A bunch of smaller alliances taking on one big alliance is cool too IF they make it a fair fight.

However some alliances seem unable to fight any other kind of war. They have to have all the numbers, and have plenty of back-up. In every war we've done this round, we chose the alliance we thought was most even and fought without anyone backing us up. It was us vs. them - even when others bandwagoned on top, like in the first wars of the round.

Everyone's on their own of course and will do what they want. I just want it called the way it is. I'm proud of the way we're been here in our first round ever, and we've done some very legit and planned groundwork for upcoming sessions. 1-on-1, I'll match our courage, and disdain for our infra over pretty much everyone except maybe LE. Maybe Catharsis and WAPA too - we had multiple reasons for picking them to fight, make no mistake about it.

I'd rather stand on my own and lose - which we aren't and haven't - then stand behind others and win.
The rest are all on your own - or could be, at least, if you had the balls to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' date='07 June 2010 - 05:08 PM' timestamp='1275944874' post='2328125']
No, not controlling. But leading, yeah he kind of is, and others as well.
Here's his log dump he added for his 4th edit or whatever in the other thread:

This is just the DoW decision. I think "lead" is the right phrase here.

Actually, one alliance declaring on everyone else does happen sometimes. It happened last round when TPF declared on everyone, and LE's done it at least once that I remember. It's end of the round, so no worries, no reasons to hug infra either. A bunch of smaller alliances taking on one big alliance is cool too IF they make it a fair fight.

However some alliances seem unable to fight any other kind of war. They have to have all the numbers, and have plenty of back-up. In every war we've done this round, we chose the alliance we thought was most even and fought without anyone backing us up. It was us vs. them - even when others bandwagoned on top, like in the first wars of the round.

Everyone's on their own of course and will do what they want. I just want it called the way it is. I'm proud of the way we're been here in our first round ever, and we've done some very legit and planned groundwork for upcoming sessions. 1-on-1, I'll match our courage, and disdain for our infra over pretty much everyone except maybe LE. Maybe Catharsis and WAPA too - we had multiple reasons for picking them to fight, make no mistake about it.

I'd rather stand on my own and lose - which we aren't and haven't - then stand behind others and win.
The rest are all on your own - or could be, at least, if you had the balls to do it.
[/quote]

You still don't get it do ya? I suggested it, everyone agreed, did they have to? No, they didn't. Nice try though, try again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I always thought a top-x-alliances-verse-all would be pretty epic.

Anyway, the bloc seems to have been Confusion's idea, which he had for self-serving purposes, but it is not his property, nor is it his lap-bloc. For that reason I think the point of whether it is controlled by him is subjective, and obviously not really a point worth arguing as it's obviously going nowhere. The best thing for the "other side" to do is just beat all of them again, and move on next round. Even though Confusion may not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two cents...

If Confusion was trying to lead or take charge of this war, I can say people would have jumped ship before it began. If you read between the lines in the events that lead up to this war, he was merely excited about some fun and like an eager person, trying to help out with everything. He is still growing into his own and learning what leadership and politics are all about in TE. I believe that if one is willing to admit mistake and is ready to learn from it, there is nothing but up side growth. Confusion (Marcus) had it much tougher. Picked on since the beginning because he wasn't ready to lead. Trying to make the right choices. Many mistakes he did make, but he also grew with each step.

I can't ask much more from him. Mistake and all. I would rather have someone who is really trying and making mistakes than someone who doesn't care. This is why I have no problems with him returning under me next round.

All alliances on this side are attacking on their own accord but have one underlying thing in common, have fun in TE and blowing things up. We are having fun and I hope you are too!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Richard VII' date='10 June 2010 - 04:17 PM' timestamp='1276201058' post='2331982']
As you can see, Demona is thoroughly infuriated by your oppressive actions.

I advise everyone to commence handing over their cereal products now, before we let her start quoting people. :mad:
[/quote]

Dear god! What have we done, that we could wrong someone so! But to hand over our cereals in restitution? :huh: I don't know if we can afford to pay that price.

And stealthy, I will get you eventually ;)

Edited by Mikeyrox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...