Superfriends DoW

[Demonic]

lets enjoy the fight while it's hot guys.

Secretary of War for Swat.

[Cellardoor]

Man...SF is certainly becoming the AA legends are made of.

[Lurunin]

wait you do know that TCU and Treadstone are in a war/just got out of a war themselves right? and you alrdy declaring on them again?

good show

[Cellardoor]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1284388375' post='2452266']
wait you do know that TCU and Treadstone are in a war/just got out of a war themselves right? and you alrdy declaring on them again?

good show
[/quote]

This is what everyone is driving at. Their "logic" for avoiding PS, Duckroll, OP, et al is that we've been in AA wars recently...PS has been clear for what, 10 days now? I've built myself back up and PS as a whole is right in line with them. Go look at our alliance page and tell me what looks like we need the charity of not being declared on. Beyond that, Kodiak is still currently at war and from what I've been told, Treadstone recently peaced out an AA war as well.

To each their own, but this comes off as a tech raid and a way to avoid nuclear war.

[Lurunin]

yea Treadstone just got out of a conflict with not only my alliance but also with TCU from the look of it :/

[commander thrawn]

Correct me if I am wrong, but Treadstone are a 5 man AA, and thus you guys just declared war on a 5 man AA.

[Clash]

Everyone stop posting so I can catch up.
Thanks.

If it were a fair war - along the lines of our own wars, where the attacking alliance has less NS than the target alliance - why would tW ever bother to bring in help? We'd just kill on the attackers ourselves and both alliances would have fun times. I, myself, would spread nuclear love across every battlefield I saw. Fun times, indeed.

[quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1284355695' post='2452026']edit: if your referring to the last war, it wasn't really fighting with, it was along-side, it was less of allies and more of mutual interest in seeing things get off to a war-tastic beginning.

As for allies, we don't have allies, we have friends, most of which we have previously warred with. We wish you the best of luck with your war, although we are disappointed you didn't choose us, war is alot different when your defending then when your being the aggressor, and we've moved fast enough that we've rarely experienced the defensive aspect of a war.[/quote]
Words of wisdom. Since no wars were shared against common targets, I think calling any combination of LE, PS or tW "allies" is speaking a bit strongly. Each battlefront was completely separate from the others. tW fought a 1-1 war with OB - who we also consider friends now, btw, just not treatied of course. All of the aforementioned attacking alliances all fought uphill wars at least, and against alliances with empty war slots except raids. It's a big difference.

SF as of now has 20 nations over 3000ns.
I doubt the defending alliances have half that many, combined.

I think most of the points here by critics are valid. By the numbers and stats alone, this was a down-declare. Full offensive war slots for many of SF's targets means they can't even attack you back - they were therefore "safe" targets. They are guaranteed not to have a counter attack - you need offensive war slots for that. This means the attackers dictate the ns advantage for nearly all wars between the alliances - and considering the upper tiers of the alliances involved, the attacks have a big advantage there as well.

Perhaps if someone declared war on SF right now, putting them in the same position they put some of the alliances they attacked, the members of SF might see these arguments a bit clearer. Not the Warriors of course, we're peacing-hugging hippies. That would also be a violation of our 373 treaties with SF.

[Old Major]

Pick on somebody your own size.

[Bionic redhead]

[quote name='JudgeX' timestamp='1284356707' post='2452048']
Excuse me lazarus45. Can you send GATO messages to accept peace? I'd like to see if Kodiak can stomp a mudhole in you guys. Well not see "IF", I just wanna know how big.
[/quote]

I've never seen much of the Kodiak Corps, but I now officially love you guys.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Bionic redhead

[Judge X]

GAWD!! Can somebody wake up GATO?!?! I mean I heven't even been attacked by my second attack and my first didn't even send his 3rd and 4th attacks of his quad because he woulda lost them anyways! I can't wait till update or GATO to drop off. Your on the verge of me dedicating the remaining 35 days of this round to burning through your AA! LOL. I've never been on a 67 nation tech raid before! How the heck do we have only 3 nations in anarchy and have anarchied 1-2 of your nations and you apparently have numbers on us.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

[quote name='JudgeX' timestamp='1284360903' post='2452083']
Actually as far as I can see, Treadstone still has a bunch of Offensive slots full. Cowards. You got 67 nations! Why aren't my defensive slots full? Good GOD your weak! I guess when your roster is full of this. There's only so much you can do huh? Our attack of GATO was at least beautifully executed. GATO also coordinated much better than this.

[img]http://www.inewscatcher.com/timages/b321c12e7d44fd11ff1729964c996313.jpg[/img]
[/quote]


You know, some people have lives unlike yourself and can't get on at 1 in the morning. I said this eariler, and I will state it once again, someone needs to get off the high horse.

Anyways, I told GATO to peace out, good war. Now go kick some arse SF! We are rootin for ya!!

Also to Lazaraus45, no offense taken, we didn't do exactly a good job and most of us lost interest in fighting the war anyways.

[igotsacane]

[quote name='SoADarthCyfe6' timestamp='1284412465' post='2452666']
You know, some people have lives unlike yourself and can't get on at 1 in the morning. I said this eariler, and I will state it once again, [b]someone needs to get off the high horse[/b].
[/quote]

Yes, that someone is you. We get it, you have a life and we have none.

SF, I have one more open defensive slot lets at least make this a good war.

Edited September 13, 2010 by igotsacane

[HisK Owns You]

[quote name='JudgeX' timestamp='1284409768' post='2452609']
GAWD!! Can somebody wake up GATO?!?! I mean I heven't even been attacked by my second attack and my first didn't even send his 3rd and 4th attacks of his quad because he woulda lost them anyways! I can't wait till update or GATO to drop off. Your on the verge of me dedicating the remaining 35 days of this round to burning through your AA! LOL. I've never been on a 67 nation tech raid before! How the heck do we have only 3 nations in anarchy and have anarchied 1-2 of your nations and you apparently have numbers on us.
[/quote]

Who are you talking to?

lol SF

[lazaraus45]

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1284359552' post='2452073']
I thought I said Treadstone was under my protection...They just got out of a war...





Good Luck, I suppose.


Confusion.
[/quote]

i don't recall that conversation.......



I find it ironic that most of the people objecting seem to be from elitist AA's, i figured you of all people would know that wars are fought as much by the quality, activity and skill of the rulers as they are by the NS held by them,

having said that it really makes no sense to charge in head first against PS or tW when most of our membership can't make a check in and half of the SF council haven't even read the target list, i don't expect that SF's IA problems will you make you all go a rubbery one, they are just that, OUR problem, i'm simply saying that if you want to call this some kind of curbstomp at least wait until the stats reflect that accusation, right now, while we are winning it's hardly by a huge amount, when the target list was drawn up i tried to make sure that the NS's of our attackers matched up with the defenders as much as possible, i'm pretty sure that i was the only nation listed to attack nations more than about 250 NS below me, and i made sure that i was the only one attacking both of them targets to try keep it fair

[Schad]

[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1284413103' post='2452685']
i'm pretty sure that i was the only nation listed to attack nations more than about 250 NS below me, and i made sure that i was the only one attacking both of them targets to try keep it fair
[/quote]

A quick look at the nations attacked puts the lie to this, I'm afraid. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000162]This nation[/url] started at perhaps 3400 NS (and with three active wars)...he was triple-teamed by three nations of higher NS. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display_charts.asp?Nation_ID=1001900]This nation[/url] was around 2000 NS; he got hit by a nation of close to 4000 (the latter has a second target, who is 10 days' inactive). I can keep going if you'd like, but there's no need to belabour the point.

IA problems suck, but if your only excuse is that you have too many internal problems and inactivity to hit an alliance your own size, that's fairly sad.

[Logos]

Well he is clearly saying that we are better. LOL

[The Crimson King]

[quote name='lazaraus45' timestamp='1284413103' post='2452685']



I find it ironic that most of the people objecting seem to be from elitist AA's, i figured you of all people would know that[b] wars are fought as much by the quality, activity and skill of the rulers as they are by the NS held by them,[/b]

having said that it really makes no sense to charge in head first against PS or tW when most of our membership can't make a check in and half of the SF council haven't even read the target list, i don't expect that SF's IA problems will you make you all go a rubbery one, they are just that, OUR problem, i'm simply saying that if you want to call this some kind of curbstomp at least wait until the stats reflect that accusation, right now, while we are winning it's hardly by a huge amount, when the target list was drawn up i tried to make sure that the NS's of our attackers matched up with the defenders as much as possible, i'm pretty sure that i was the only nation listed to attack nations more than about 250 NS below me, and i made sure that i was the only one attacking both of them targets to try keep it fair
[/quote]


So if I am reading this correctly what you are basically saying is that because you lack skill, quality and activity it somehow makes using your giant NS and member advantage to declare on 4 aa's (all of whom are either currently involved in other wars and therefore do not have the slot availability to hit you back or just peaced out conflicts) an honorable move in your opinion.

Gotcha

[dy Cazaril]

[b]Brilliant[/b] political move, SF. You have my admiration.

[Daeryon]

Oh, this is interesting.

Well, you cannot declare war on me BECAUSE I DECLARE WAR ON YOU!

So there.

And I demand reparations.


And I'll figure out how you are supposed to pay me later.

[Daeryon]

[quote name='JudgeX' timestamp='1284409768' post='2452609']
GAWD!! Can somebody wake up GATO?!?! I mean I heven't even been attacked by my second attack and my first didn't even send his 3rd and 4th attacks of his quad because he woulda lost them anyways! I can't wait till update or GATO to drop off. Your on the verge of me dedicating the remaining 35 days of this round to burning through your AA! LOL. I've never been on a 67 nation tech raid before! How the heck do we have only 3 nations in anarchy and have anarchied 1-2 of your nations and you apparently have numbers on us.
[/quote]

Make that 3 nations we anarchied.


God I love the smell of roasting superfriends in the morning.

[Link Gaetz]

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1284414583' post='2452732']
A quick look at the nations attacked puts the lie to this, I'm afraid. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=1000162]This nation[/url] started at perhaps 3400 NS (and with three active wars)...he was triple-teamed by three nations of higher NS. [url=http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display_charts.asp?Nation_ID=1001900]This nation[/url] was around 2000 NS; he got hit by a nation of close to 4000 (the latter has a second target, who is 10 days' inactive). I can keep going if you'd like, but there's no need to belabour the point.

IA problems suck, but if your only excuse is that you have too many internal problems and inactivity to hit an alliance your own size, that's fairly sad.
[/quote]
Agreed. Both the Superfriends that hit me were a lot more than 250 NS larger than me when things started out.

[Judge X]

BTW. The ANARCHY score is:

Kodiak Corps in anarchy: 4

Super Friends in anarchy: 3

It would be a sad thing if I we're to post us with a larger number you know. You'll see once we can get free of GATO. Apparently they are taking a cat nap on that order their "Leader" gave.

[Judge X]

BTW. The ANARCHY score is:

Kodiak Corps in anarchy: 4

Super Friends in anarchy: 4

It would be a sad thing if I we're to post us with a larger number you know. You'll see once we can get free of GATO. Apparently they are taking a cat nap on that order their "Leader" gave.

I will update tomorrow when my teammates send the results. That 4th DA was from me and whoever was nice enough to help me out.

[mirkusmc]

I don't have much but SF can't seem to Anarchy me. Judge in one day I'll have some for your The ANARCHY score.

[Judge X]

BTW. The ANARCHY score is:

Kodiak Corps in anarchy: 4

Super Friends in anarchy: 5

It would be a sad thing if I we're to post us with a larger number you know. You'll see once we can get free of GATO. Apparently they are taking a cat nap on that order their "Leader" gave.

I will update tomorrow when my teammates send the results. That 4th DA was from me and whoever was nice enough to help me out.

We have a 5th anarchy coming from Igotsacane! The race is almost done folks. This is why you should make sure that you don't start a war with 20+ nations in Defcon 5. Better luck next time.