Jump to content

Roquentin

VIP
  • Content Count

    1451
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Roquentin last won the day on October 25 2019

Roquentin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1400 Upvote King

About Roquentin

  • Rank
    Exalted Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    New Pacific Order
  • Leader Name
    Roquentin
  • Nation Name
    Dreamcatcher(formerly T-ara)
  • Nation ID
    11527
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Recent Profile Visitors

3508 profile views
  1. When did we blitz our allies? tS cancelled and there were no wars on them before. On the slotting thing in your other post. Your coalition is entirely reliant on slotfilling and beiging. Our side had a few people do it as a protest and it was punished relatively quickly for a small scale action. At this the A in Coalition A stands for Akuryo. Just don't forget that any resurgence for tS or anyone beiged here is just due to blindness and illegitimate. The issue is being addressed too late but that is the case. If people will cheat while the ref is snoozing how can they be trustworthy?
  2. Coalition B: "Our side has less liquidity." Charles: "Should have blown it on more cities in NPO. Coalition B: "it's not for NPO". Charles: "This is a referendum on NPO tiering." Coalition B: "The other side has had the ability to keep individuals out of wars whereas isolated upper tier wouldn't be getting big returns on 3000 infra+" Charles: "Should have spent more." Coalition B: Most alliances on our side do not tier like that or have 100/100 nor have they had as much time with income levels. The highest liquid alliances barely fight or hadn't fought losing wars before. Charles: "This is an admission of incompetence." Best of luck tFed/Reg.
  3. lol. Please dude. You've done so many bad things this war that we smell like roses in comparison at this point. There is no such thing as an illegitimate CB. If we saw you as a threat to competitiveness by having an easy curbstomp then it was valid to not let you decisively crush one side. You've focused on the proximal reason and we had enough reasons to believe TKR's tension with us would escalate. . We didn't break the NAP Kitschie and Immortals decided the NAP was dead because of TMC. This was a thin pretext for them to justify breaking it and entering to help you or TCW. They acted in bad faith with regards to the NAP. You complain so much about game health but an upwards transfer of wealth of that scale from a larger amount of people to one person is terrible for it. Given the viciousness and sanctioning of actual bank theft, tricking people to help you, rigging wars, and so on, it's hard to make this case at this point. Anyone who did anything wrong becomes a saint in your eyes as long as they screw us. You embraced EM when he broke his own deal. You canonized Gorge. This pattern just increases the need for these terms. You've justified everything on the basis of being hunted to extinction when your own aspirations for dominance are the true motive. -----
  4. Except I've never said we demanded reps or anything for ourselves as we are not an aggrieved party and the bond is a different story due to the liability. Now 160b would be crippling as opposed to the much lower sums included. We don't really have a reason however to just peace without the terms as it's a bad deal. It's not as if I controlled every alliance that was on our side in terms of whatever systems they had in place and not as if any of the extraneous circumstances that have nothing to do with their economic orientation somehow don't exist.
  5. "Healthy competition" lmao This is healthy competition? A whole slew of people who see it as optimal to curbstomp less well off alliances? People who choreograph wars to help people recover military? Everyone would have loved get out of jail free cards when you always won. Our advantage wasn't really that great. lol if you think gorge/sphinx/akuryo's actions recently were based "on health of the game" and not just individual self-interest/avarice. "it's harder to fight these guys, so I will literally backstab my side and try to rig the war in their favor." seriously?
  6. Substitute Akuryo/Sphinx and then it'll be accurate.
  7. It's plain as day. Someone helps tS and tS springs into action. Is this the action of an alliance that is on the verge of extinction or somehow super crippled especially when taking into account its relative wealth? No.
  8. People are saying they can't cope so we're willing to let the ones out that can't realistically and it isn't that big of a deal given the overall size of your coalition. I don't know how letting some alliances out after the side switch, big interventions that were confused in motivation and further consolidation is a big deal. We didn't collaborate with anyone on Coal A's side to engineer some sort of rigged outcome. It wouldn't reduce the numbers to an insanely lopsided level by letting struggling alliances leave. I'm just not going to be responsible for people having issues with extended war if they won't take the individual outs offered now and in the past. We know you're in good shape, so it's not a killer. This is a lot different compared to the start of "oh it's x's fault you're in this war. ditch them."
  9. I wasn't. I was contacted by at least one person who mentioned that CoS was going under changes and that a decent amount of people would look to leave. SK having some shuffling was also known too. Soup had Medellin splintering off as well. It was known some bigger members would split off at some point.
  10. A lot of people were planning to leave CoS and some other alliances or they'd just disband or restructure. The issue you guys have had were evident during surf's up and people were looking to make deals and get new locations. It's not really tasty or ironic. Basically the premise you now operate on is if it hurts alliance x or y, virtually anything is permitted as in Black Sox/montreal Screwjobesque moves and everyone is a hero even if they wanted to cripple you as long as they sell those alliances out. That's always been sort of the premise for the overall old school milieu.
  11. The logs show you being critical of Leo wanting to charge in, so if the plan was adjusted for the rebuild thing then that's something else . We can talk about the hypothetical yeah but there was also considerable changes happening within Chaos which would have likely occurred before the rebuild phases were complete. Had they happened Chaos may have not been on the radar that quickly. But yeah if the argument goes back to the CB being valid and TCW/COV/BK etc. deserving to get their get kicked in, then it's still inconsistent to have an about face about almost everyone except Leo and his reactions to people hating BK(killing the game etc.) even more for it. If it wasn't about the CB and it's just a huge vendetta against BK and everyone else is an angel even if they were going to do it, then that justifies my point that the war wasn't about the cb. I'm not a fan of the paradigm where everything can be isolated to a few hated alliances for a big curbstomp and that's always seemingly been the goal around here.
  12. 1.It's relevant because you're attributing overall economic disparity to us when it existed before the war and a lot of the alliances that dropped out weren't particularly well off regardless of this stuff. We don't have whales because we don't want to spend a disproportionate amount on one person. We're not talking about NPO at all. We're talking about overall sides. If we had a whale tier it wouldn't outnumber the other side's. The biggest nations on the other side have other sources of revenue like bank loots and other stuff that are disproportionate. Again, we could turtle and nuke but that wouldn't be productive to our aims. It's not because the money isn't for us. We're not asking you to fund us. The money is partially due to concern of roguing with the bond and foul play and other reps for actual misdeeds. It would never go to us because we weren't the offended parties. We're just reiterating the coalition's case. I would never ask for money directly for NPO. It won't bankrupt our coalition at all. It's about comparative advantage. it might if we got hit right after yeah, so that's a valid fear for some alliances. We don't want to end it before some goals are accomplished. They can either be accomplished via the terms or extended duration.
  13. Several other alliances have had tiering without it. 100% taxes were at the start and it wasn't tiered well(it was a different orientation) so we got killed by BK. We re-designed to fight BK as BK was going to always hit us in wars if we were on opposite sides. It worked with BK too as we had to work together to fight bigger nations. Plenty of alliances on our side don't have tiering and aren't super rich. Most alliances with really high amounts of cash relative to size are ones that don't fight much or had years or relatively minimal fighting. Your case is if we had outliers who'd get beat up and just nuke in wars that we'd be super rich, but they wouldn't have the luxury of the high infra needed or no war. You'd have a better argument if you said we should have just raided everyone the entire time. Anyway, I hope it helps to note that when individual members get overly invested in their nation size you end up with people like Gorge getting into trouble because he got too high on his growth or people who bail if their alliance takes too many hits, so I'm glad I never indulged in that.
  14. So much for your talk about hegemonies and killing the game and such man. Time to look in the mirror buddy.
  15. Not sure why people are talking about pre-war Chaos or N$O. Chaos was shaky evidently and N$O was just a joke tbh as entirely dysfunctional and reliant on one person. Hardly a sphere.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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