Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/01/19 in all areas

  1. > Get caught planning another massive dogpile right after you finish your last one > After months and months of accusing others of using secret treaties you get caught being the paperless protectorate of NPO > Once the war begins and it's clear your overwhelming numbers aren't enough run to activate that agreement > Now that you have an even bigger number advantage you can start showing your face on the OWF > Cheat as much as possible, even your leaders should be slot filling > Throw some illegal bank hiding in there too. When people call you out on it smugly tell them they don't have any proof BKsphere:
    24 points
  2. Some actual propaganda. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=142352&display=bank Bank in question. Lets also take a look at Sphinx, one of the conspirators of having Chaos and KETOG hit. Oof. So not only are people getting wrecked for supporting those who plotted against Chaos/KETOG, it seems some of you are going the distance with this. @Aragorn, son of Arathorn, don’t worry. There’s more soon to come!
    17 points
  3. With numerous folks falling to inactivity and the remaining remembers wishing to peace out (going as far as conducting FA talks without me to surrender) Shifty has taken back his portion of the Hyperborea bank and noticed that there are no Hyperboreans left. So with this, there is no reason to continue as husk of an AA. Not all players can be me, even my followers. I will not surrender my alliance to anyone. My philosophy has always been to follow through fully with my allies and give nothing to the enemy. Thanks to BK for giving me a shot at an AA. No one else did. There will be no more Shifty alliance projects, I am not SeanAnthony nor Diomedes. Great time with the BK sphere folks and anyone who supported this 6 month alliance. TL:DR Hyperborea has disbanded. Also SNN is over. Also Shifty is done.
    16 points
  4. >Wanting to restore the military reputation of The Commonwealth >Hitting micros not involved in the war to farm beige
    15 points
  5. SNN as a news source is officially over. As in, even if I switch spheres, etc it wouldn't come back. No more leaks/press from Shifty. I don't care to keep an alliance that dies. It died, that's the bottomline. It's a failure in all regards and I accept that I could not keep it alive. So in my mind, it has lost it's right to exist as an entity in this game. I even did the proper thing of ending it so it does not remain a ghost/shell in this game. There should be no memory of it. Anywho, the SNN server still exists and will be renamed something else, but I'm out.
    13 points
  6. Wow. With allies like these who needs enemies.
    10 points
  7. SNN was already done for a long time ago. You could've very easily kept your AA without having to tie up with BK, or anyone really.
    10 points
  8. Except that the beige mechanic is already broken. Players just blockade cycle or just plain let the wars expire before throwing more planes at the target. The intent of the beige mechanic is to prevent players from entering situations where they're better off just going to VM because they aren't being allowed to play anymore. Offensive beige time allows capable players a workaround for this so they can continue to fight. Removing offensive beige requires fixing the brokenness of the beige system altogether.
    9 points
  9. Eh... yes of course that tactic is going to work. Doesn't mean that it's not a pathetic move on his part. Especially because two of the people he hit are in The Coal Mines which is an alliance protected by Electric Space with which The Commonwealth has an MDP. Is Sphinx going to hit his allies' protectorates to get himself some beige? That's pretty low, sorry.
    8 points
  10. For such a "bad" tactic, your own alliance seems awfully afraid of it working... ?
    8 points
  11. Upvoting TKR posts. This war has me so confused. I don’t even know who I am anymore.
    7 points
  12. BK analyzing their current relationship with TCW:
    7 points
  13. Are you saying FR should merge into Cornerstone?
    6 points
  14. It took me a couple seconds to realise that this is about MY alliance disbanding. you could've given us a heads up, man. a DM, an in game message, anything. was not nice finding out through nothing but a forum post. some of us actually cared about this "husk of an aa"
    6 points
  15. Ironically given their fixation with her being the mastermind, she was the first one to forcefully argue that N$O was not connected to BK and weren't our enemies. For some context, this is right after t$ declaration on Guardian and Grumpy. Most of us were caught by surprised and a bit shellshocked frankly,. Goldy is sharing some common concerns that it represents the first phase of N$O entering the war, taunting us to either let two coalition AAs die, or counter and get clapped by their sphere. Adrienne argued (correctly) that t$ was just using the timing to hit the whales unprotected and weren't working together. Clearly she was just playing 12D chess as part of her 32 point plan to convince the rest of us IQ was still alive and activate her 'plan' with thrax. Sphinx was an inside job people, wake up!
    6 points
  16. Hiding banks in VM, hiding banks in newly created accounts, and now this? People sure are getting desperate
    5 points
  17. It is only 11:10 AM and I haven't had enough tea for this.
    5 points
  18. Considering we had 0 beef with you at all until you started spinning bullshit about us this war the likelihood was low. Both the examples you provided were of people attacking at a disadvantage. We had a disadvantage against Chaos, it was ~450 vs ~250 nations. You keep trying to blame others for your inability to grow a pair and make a move. All its doing is creating tension that didn't exist before this war and increasing the likelihood of what you are whining about being the case. How about you actually take a risk? You guys are bigger than we were when we founded and went out on our own with no protector or allies and slowly built our grouping one alliance at a time. And there is four of you. TKR/TCW/TRF attacked us 2:1 in our infancy and we fought them for 2 months, rebuilt and recovered and continued to grow our group. It sounds to me like you just want to avoid war. All you've done since this one started is complain.
    5 points
  19. Greetings Soup Kitchen member! Nice attempt on your first OWF topic since leaving the IQ-sphere. There are a few things that you will come to realize since switching spheres/alliances, such as: your way of viewing war may change. The burning of pixels is not something to fear. The Kitchen has been at war for 3/4 of its time on Planet Orbis. War is something we celebrate. You’ll get ‘em next time. May your Soup be hot and your future posts be full of meaningful goodness and wonder. Cheers friend. Blessed be The Bayleaf.
    5 points
  20. The greatest casualty of the whole war
    5 points
  21. I've seen less armchair theory-crafting in the Grosser Generalstab as they drew war plans for The Great War, than the one being done in here. Seriously Inst, don't you have a better use for your time? Go out for a walk, take a nap, read a book. Infanterie Greift An if you're so into it. Anything would be better than taking abstract principles and laws that no one in this role has taken, takes, or will take into consideration. Any Milcom worth their salt is far more concerned with activity levels and coordination than they are to know the exact coefficient for how many tons of ordnance it takes to get the job done just right. For frick's sake. Usually I ignore your wall of text nonsense, but at this rate we will have you try to teach us the aerodynamic principles behind the fricking aircraft and the exact amount of propellant that goes into the tank's shells.
    5 points
  22. 5 points
  23. For the record, you can shit on each other's points, without directly shitting on each other. Be better, all of you.
    5 points
  24. Except Chaos weren't weaker than us and could have actually won. We couldn't even blanket most of their nations but they used their counters poorly. This was repeated again by your side in this war. Numbers are extremely potent and that's exactly why we've been concerned about them. However we've been quite lucky that most have repeated the same mistakes consistently. Another thing to note, who gives a frick if you get hit in a quick war every now and then? If your only goal is to hug pixels then you're not going to do anything but hide as is. KT/TGH took the risk ages ago to go solo and got hit by TKR and co. We didn't enjoy a quick war either and they attempted to put some extremely distasteful terms on us. We endured, got back up and put ourselves in a stronger position. Sometimes taking a hit isn't the end of the world and just a good way to reassess where you're at. Quite frankly, you seem to be trying to clutch at any reason for why you've put your alliance in this position. If that is the case, there is nothing to be embarrassed about. Plenty of people have made the wrong calls (myself included). Just need to learn and change. The ones who change generally do so for the better and the ones who complain do nothing and repeat the same mistakes. Lastly, if you're that worried that we may hit you. Maybe do some diplomacy? I'm sure we could hash something out, more so because you would have been supporting something that we've been trying to get going (minispheres). If you had done so prior to this war, likely defs could have had an agreement but it's still not too late.
    5 points
  25. Kicked and banned for leaking.
    5 points
  26. I think we need to focus on the key issue here. Several times earlier I know you've shared similar feelings, and you had framed this as being a matter of NPO sovereignty (a term not used in this post, but several times elsewhere) when it comes to deciding to join the war contrary to the terms t$ had laid out. But I don't think anyone here has denied NPO's sovereignty. It is a matter of trust. As I've said earlier, I'm retired so I'm not actively involved in these convos or decisions anymore, but I don't actually doubt that there was, as you put it, 'no assurance of zero retaliation ever' that came actively and verbally from NPO. But is that all an ally should expect? It was known within t$ that NPO had different views on this war (though the degree of how strong those differences were was clearly not known), but nonetheless the terms of this war were agreed upon, even if just 'tacitly', as you put it, if in this context 'tacitly' means you allowed t$ gov to believe you would follow the terms while never overtly promising 'no assurance of zero retaliation ever' ('ever', an absolute term, which certainly gives an absolute amount of flexibility). But I don't think t$ thought that such an overt assurance was needed to avoid NPO not following the previous agreement based out of an assertion of their sovereignty. No one is saying an alliance can't back out of earlier agreements if they so wish, but the repercussions are that it will impact your perceived trustworthiness amongst both your allies and the broader community. That is why this isn't a controversy or matter of sovereignty, but trust. Ultimately, I think the calculations come down to that NPO always wanted in the war, but knew if they were upfront with t$ as to their intent, they knew t$ would never join. But they believed that a t$ hit on GOB and Guardian would garner counters which would prove the whole disagreement moot and allow entry without needing to be honest of their intentions to t$. t$ on the other hand believed that those counters would not occur if the terms were clearly communicated. NPO then acted as they did because t$'s prediction proved correct, which meant they wouldn't be able to enter the war as they desired. So this is actually all based in a strategic miscalculation of NPO in incorrectly predicting the response of Guardian's and GOB's allies. Yes, Hilme's unexpected inactivity caused issues and dynamics to change, but that doesn't change the root of the issue of how NPO traversed this whole process. If t$'s intent was flattery of the likes of CoS and their friends, then it is clear they never would have entered. But you do make an interesting point on not being informed beforehand to the exit from the war. But that is something that should go both ways. Though you had told t$ gov that you were planning to enter, which you then received a strongly negative reaction to (based on what I've already shared above), the timing of your entry was something that came as a complete shock and surprise to t$ leadership. NPO never informed t$ that they would be entering as soon as they did, as t$ found out about it at the same time as everyone else in this game. NPO did this knowing that it would result in an escalation of the war, which meant mass counters from the broader coalition on t$ and a complete alteration to t$'s war strategy, yet you did not inform them so that all of this, which meant t$ going to war with many more alliance's unexpectedly, was once again a complete surprise. If you had informed t$ leadership of your specific plans, and the timing, I'm confident t$ leadership would have told you what the response would be. I still see the gov channels and know that immediately before your strike, t$ gov was unaware and still ideally hoped to dissuade you from the attack. So yes, informing an ally of major moves is quite important. And I'm sorry you were so displeased that t$ took such a hard stance on following the criteria they had told the entire game of (truly a matter of t$ sovereignty) and of which NPO, as you acknowledged, had given its 'tacit' approval. But on the matter of being informed before hand, is it reasonable to expect such courtesies from others when you deny it to them?
    5 points
  27. Anti-Memesphere: How dare sphinx use our tactics and attack nations to bait beige, let's report this to sheepy! Sheepy: Okay, well I think I have just the change to solve this issue permanently Anti-Memesphere: Wait no
    4 points
  28. It’s only illegal if you get caught, amirite?
    4 points
  29. You forgot about Smith.
    4 points
  30. Compared to your leader who wont be contributing to the greater fight for the rest of the war? Luckily Sphinx will be contributing again before you will.
    4 points
  31. Hail Hamster. I imagine there's cities about to be deleted and double strikes about to be handed out to the perpetrators?
    4 points
  32. This is how we at Soup feel, take it as an official statement:
    4 points
  33. Both should be in size limits of signatures for these forums.
    4 points
  34. It’s a shame you can proudly be friends with BK after they've basically been the reason for your fall, best of wishes Shifty. Gatorcock.
    4 points
  35. NPO aren't sending us their best, folks. ...or are they? Now that's a terrifying thought.
    4 points
  36. Hi, I'm TGH's FA head, you may not know me because Buorhann is a fricking tank of a man, but jesus fricking christ diplomacy is literally what moves this game. It's literally my job to seek out those we are antagonistic towards and see if there is legitimate reason and play devils advocate to our cause. I don't get fired up too easily, so if you're on my shit list you're there for a reason. If you haven't been in our DMs, you haven't tried.
    4 points
  37. Everyone will merge into Rose and declare war on Alex.
    4 points
  38. Remember: They have to do all this just to have a chance at challenging KETOG, Rose, and Chaos because we're that much better than them. C O M P L I M E N T
    3 points
  39. Why not just saying "If there was a plan it would have been leaked by SK"?
    3 points
  40. So, everybody has intent to hit everybody else? I mean, the extent of that discussion was "Is N$O our enemy and secretly working with BK? No? Great, guess we have no beef with them and can focus on the people trying to screw us over." If that's your idea of intent, then you have set the bar so low it tunneled out of the earth and shot into space. There is also no reason to believe BK would have called off the plan, because they absolutely still had the numbers to fight us. We were only just edging them out between the two of us working together, plus the addition of rose, with the first strike advantage, with their allies trickling in one by one. They've always had the numbers, they just preferred bringing in even more over having to actually use theirs properly.
    3 points
  41. Hey guys, I have Adrienne logs too! That plotting woman!
    3 points
  42. I mean, you're going to be attacked, large pile of treaties or no. If you stick to giant blocs, you can likely expect fewer wars in a given year, but those wars to be longer and more damaging. If you want to just never be attacked or attack, well, that isn't going to happen and I really don't see the point. Suggesting we were preventing more multipolarity because we engaged in localized conflicts isn't really accurate. Had all of chaos hit Fark/WTF and dog piled them for being alone, sure, that would absolutely justify a need to find more allies. But as it is, you are just trading off frequency for intensity. Do you want potentially more wars, but shorter and with fewer combatants, leading to generally reduced damages. Or do you want fewer but longer and more damaging conflicts? There isn't a right or wrong answer there, its a matter of preference. And if certain blocs would prefer to fight a few giant slogfests like this every year than risk more localized conflict, fair enough. But there is no escaping war no matter what you do in this game.
    3 points
  43. Have you recently had the chance to check who's running your alliance?
    3 points
  44. On the first day of Dial Up the enemy countered me, with one nation on-ly. On the second day of Dial Up the enemy countered me, with two micro alliances and one nation only. On the third day of Dial Up the enemy countered me, with three protectorates, two micro alliances, and one nation only On the fourth day of Dial Up the enemy countered me, with four groundless nations, three protectorates, two micro alliances, and one nation only On the fifth day of Dial Up the enemy countered me, with five dozen meatshields, four groundless nations, three protectorates, two micro alliances, and one nation only On the sixth day of Dial Up the enemy countered me, with six chaining treaties, five dozen meatshields, four groundless nations, three protectorates, two micro alliances, and one nation only On the seventh day of Dial Up the enemy countered me, with seven "former" allies, six chaining treaties, five dozen meatshields, four groundless nations, three protectorates, two micro alliances, and one nation only On the eighth day of Dial Up the enemy countered me, with eight NPO Roq-bots, seven "former" allies, six chaining treaties, five dozen meatshields, four groundless nations, three protectorates, two micro alliances, and one nation only ~fin~
    3 points
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.