BAPS response to UPN

[Andre27]

[quote name='Farrin Xies' date='11 June 2010 - 12:01 AM' timestamp='1276207250' post='2332157']
Why are people even considering this, much less with the nuclear option?
[/quote]

That's my thoughts exactly.

[jimbacher]

[quote name='Banksy' date='10 June 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1276207433' post='2332167']
This will end well

But who will we all ghost? :iiam:
[/quote]

I assume the winning side?

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Xiphosis' date='11 June 2010 - 03:03 AM' timestamp='1276207390' post='2332165']
I rarely say this, but I agree with shahahanahana. If not to back up your own yapping, do it to prove your spine isn't made of Jell-O.
[/quote]

Now I hate BAPS >:|

[White Chocolate]

Interesting.

I'm totally guessing here, so keep that in mind. UPN is currently the fifteenth largest alliance on Planet Bob. BAPS is much lower. However an all out "duel" attack, with nukes etc, from an alliance BAPS size could do a great deal of damage and set UPN back a fair distance. Certainly a great deal more than an equal duel would - especially if smaller nations are used in a duel between an equal number of nations.



Except for one on one duels between nations outside of alliance politics, I personally don't think Planet Bob is the place for such arrangements. Too much chance of expansion and something going wrong. However, nice political move.

Edited June 10, 2010 by White Chocolate

[joracy]

[quote name='jimbacher' date='10 June 2010 - 06:08 PM' timestamp='1276207684' post='2332176']
I assume the winning side?
[/quote]

Oh ho ho, funny man. Somehow I doubt any ODN nations would be interested in getting near BAPS, or BAPS would be interested in welcoming ODN nations.

[SonOfHoward]

I smell war!!

[Alterego]

[quote name='joracy' date='10 June 2010 - 11:05 PM' timestamp='1276207519' post='2332172']
Uhh, UPN invited you over for a little game. They'd already mentioned a number of times before this thread(and before any BAPS members posted in the earlier thread) what the ground rules would turn out to be. If BAPS isn't interested in UPN's offer, then hey, shut the hell up and go on your merry way. The idea that UPN is backing out of this is quite amusing. Nice grandstanding though!
[/quote]
This was a counter offer 3 to 1 in their favour whats the problem?

[jimbacher]

[quote name='joracy' date='10 June 2010 - 06:09 PM' timestamp='1276207770' post='2332181']
Oh ho ho, funny man. Somehow I doubt any ODN nations would be interested in getting near BAPS, or BAPS would be interested in welcoming ODN nations.
[/quote]




UPN & ODN| The Treaty of Valencia |Mutual Defense and Optional Aggression Pact | Active

[Mathias]

[quote name='Alterego' date='10 June 2010 - 06:12 PM' timestamp='1276207927' post='2332185']
This was a counter offer 3 to 1 in their favour whats the problem?
[/quote]

I agree, UPN should take the deal.

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

[Haflinger]

Xiph supporting BAPS in this affair is pretty much the most priceless part of it

[atlashill]

[quote name='Alterego' date='10 June 2010 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1276207927' post='2332185']
This was a counter offer 3 to 1 in their favour whats the problem?
[/quote]
BAPS sent more nations into anarchy in the last war than UPN did.

[Alterego]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='10 June 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1276208060' post='2332190']
Xiph supporting BAPS in this affair is pretty much the most priceless part of it
[/quote]
I think its more a case of wanting to see us both burn.

[Banksy]

[quote name='jimbacher' date='11 June 2010 - 11:13 AM' timestamp='1276208021' post='2332188']
UPN & ODN| The Treaty of Valencia |Mutual Defense and Optional Aggression Pact | Active[/quote]
Shot bro. He was brining up the point that there is no way an ODNer would back BAPS

~

[jimbacher]

[quote name='Banksy' date='10 June 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1276208180' post='2332193']
Shot bro. He was brining up the point that there is no way an ODNer would back BAPS

~
[/quote]


and my original statement was that ODN would back the winning side...so apparently ODN thinks BAPS would win. Hence I lulz at you for thinking your ally will lose.

[Goldie]

I can empathize with UPN to a point. BAPS clearly will 'win' the duel 100 times out of 100 if the goal is damage inflicted, not by virtue of their skill or coordination (although I don't think anyone would doubt BAPS is probably more skilled and coordinated than UPN), but solely by virtue of the fact that if 3 UPN people declare on each BAPS person, that BAPS nation can send out 3 nukes whereas the UPN nations can only send out one or zero nukes. It would be practically impossible for a) UPN not to take more raw damage and for b) both alliances not demolishing each other in the process. Let's face it, purple unity isn't exactly built on a backbone of high warchests and strong fighting ability.

[Lord Curzon]

[quote name='Peggy_Sue' date='10 June 2010 - 05:00 PM' timestamp='1276203636' post='2332047']
Interesting, and thank you for the response, Lukemos.

1. 100% of both alliances member nations must be in war mode for the entire duration of the exercise. [color="#ff0000"]This will never happen for UPN. But it could happen for a given number of UPN nations.[/color]
2. All of BAPS v All of UPN [color="#ff0000"]No. I have no desire to smash all of BAPS. I do, however want to set a specific number of nations. UPN will not engage in a duel with an alliance with about 1/8 the members.[/color] [color="#ff0000"]How about 20 vs 20?[/color]
3. Full Nuclear Apocalypse
4. No outside aid or intervention
5. No treaties triggered
6. No Ghosts
7. War to last 30 days or can be curtailed with mutual agreement prior to the 30 days being up. [color="#ff0000"]A war cycle is plenty.[/color]
8. Commence 1st July
9. The terms of this are fair and not up for negotiation, take it or leave it.


UPN has a policy of protecting caspers (friendly ghosts) ... while we protect them we do not give them orders that they must be in war or peace mode. It is not possible for 100% of UPN to be in war mode and I think you knew that when you proposed that term.

It is not my desire to send even 1/4th of UPN into a duel with BAPS. The entire alliance participating does not equal a duel.

A duel is typically a gentlemen's agreement wherein both parties use the same weapon(s). A duel would also have the same numbers on each side.
[/quote]

Alright, so you say you protect "caspers" and that these Caspers can't be forced to switch to PM, thus you cannot comply. If I am reading this correctly ghosts fall under term 6 and thus term 1 does not apply to them. Further, I believer term 6 refers to ghosts fighting, so provided you guys don't send your "caspers" to fight, I think both terms can be satisfied. So all you have to do is list those "caspers" and refrain from sending them battle orders and you're golden.

Plus, I think we should establish how many "Caspers" you have before you start talking about how much bigger UPN is. Who knows, you guys could be down to about their size after we figure out what percentage of UPN's NS and membership stats is completely inflated by your stat-serving "Casper" policy.

With respect to edit 2 and 3 I believe the best response is "u scared?"

[quote name='Peggy_Sue' date='10 June 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1276205800' post='2332121']
A duel is not a rash challenge.
Your terms, however, are. Your terms are for a war. Nowhere, in anything I said yesterday or today, will you find any mention of war. DUEL.
Your response is over the top and likely written that way knowing it would not be accepted because it wasn't even close to the original proposal's terms.
[/quote]

You're right, duels are never rash. They are always even and are completely fair.

[img]http://www.sonofthesouth.net/revolutionary-war/patriots/pictures/burr-hamilton-duel.jpg[/img]

OOC: I think Hamilton may disagree with you. I'd bet he'd say his decision to accept the duel and his decision to purposely fire over Burr's head were both rash choices.

[Hakim]

[quote name='Atlashill' date='10 June 2010 - 03:15 PM' timestamp='1276208085' post='2332191']
BAPS sent more nations into anarchy in the last war than UPN did.
[/quote]

UPN would have actually had to fight in order to put 1 nation into anarchy in the last war...which is, I believe, your subtle point.

o/ BAPS you guys rock...[img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/wub.gif[/img]

[Ashoka the Great]

I support this proposal.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Altheus' date='10 June 2010 - 02:47 PM' timestamp='1276206425' post='2332136']
You're invited too. Attack me
[/quote]

Really? you and I 1v1? Per your request? no outside hassles?

I just want to understand your offer here

[jimbacher]

[quote name='Hakim' date='10 June 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1276208436' post='2332200']
UPN would have actually had to fight in order to put 1 nation into anarchy in the last war...which is, I believe, your subtle point.

o/ BAPS you guys rock...[img]http://forums.cybernations.net/public/style_emoticons/default/wub.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Not true, you can put your own nation into anarchy...

[silentkiller]

This is just brilliant. How about I challenge both of you to grow up?

[Sandwich Controversy]

Why are people all in a huff about GRL when BAPS has only like 200 nukes?

[darkfox]

Boredom is really getting to you guys eh?

[Banksy]

[quote name='jimbacher' date='11 June 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1276208326' post='2332195']
and my original statement was that ODN would back the winning side...so apparently ODN thinks BAPS would win. Hence I lulz at you for thinking your ally will lose.[/quote]
You're not great with the whole "reading comprehension" thing, are you? If an ODNer would refuse to back BAPS, and would only back UPN then, regardless of who wins the war, we could not 'pick' the winning side as we would always pick UPN, [b]win or lose[/b].

Edited June 10, 2010 by Banksy

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='11 June 2010 - 03:20 AM' timestamp='1276208435' post='2332199']
Alright, so you say you protect "caspers" and that these Caspers can't be forced to switch to PM, thus you cannot comply. If I am reading this correctly ghosts fall under term 6 and thus term 1 does not apply to them. Further, I believer term 6 refers to ghosts fighting, so provided you guys don't send your "caspers" to fight, I think both terms can be satisfied. So all you have to do is list those "caspers" and refrain from sending them battle orders and you're golden.

Plus, I think we should establish how many "Caspers" you have before you start talking about how much bigger UPN is. Who knows, you guys could be down to about their size after we figure out what percentage of UPN's NS and membership stats is completely inflated by your stat-serving "Casper" policy.

With respect to edit 2 and 3 I believe the best response is "u scared?"



You're right, duels are never rash. They are always even and are completely fair.

[img]http://www.sonofthesouth.net/revolutionary-war/patriots/pictures/burr-hamilton-duel.jpg[/img]

OOC: I think Hamilton may disagree with you. I'd bet he'd say his decision to accept the duel and his decision to purposely fire over Burr's head were both rash choices.
[/quote]

The Casper list..the tech raids..the tragedy... :/ heh.

Edited June 10, 2010 by shahenshah