Jump to content

Vladamir Putin

Members
  • Content Count

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Vladamir Putin last won the day on August 26

Vladamir Putin had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

414 Excellent

About Vladamir Putin

  • Rank
    Cancer

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Incest, autism, suicide
  • Alliance Pip
    Knights Templar
  • Leader Name
    Vladamir Putin
  • Nation Name
    Soviet Russia
  • Nation ID
    61815
  • Alliance Name
    Knights Templar

Recent Profile Visitors

1992 profile views
  1. No, we're planning a fake forum war with each other so we can shed off excess upvotes, so then with the advantage of deflated forum accounts, we'll suddenly mass down-declare onto you.
  2. Alright, so you are trolling and only eating up propaganda. First major war: Someone in SK leaked to someone in an IQ micro that KT/SK/AIM gonna be hitting, IQ pre-empts only KT, coalition moves in, evenish war, KT gets good stats despite having a dead lower half from day 1. Second major war: Ofc, 3:1 advantage, in every tier. Managed to even the stats by the end of it however, something no one else has done with those odds. (well, except TKR and GoB as individuals in Knightfall, but sphere-wise, their allies let them down stat-wise). These were actual wars where actual strategies beyond declaring and airstriking and relying on pure numbers. I'm not sure if you understand that as you've had no context to that, moving from protector to protector, then joining the 3v1 Knightfall dogpile, then a 2v1 Super IQ vs 2 big bad mean blocs who don't know how to delete infra but know how to attack each other as a super secret operation. Although your ignorance and stupidity is tiring at best and headache inducing at the worst, i must say thanks. You've given me the insight as to how the information that your owners give is conveyed like. Also, took me a while to realize what you were referring to as tC, and then i realized that you're still in that we're-our-own-bloc and we-totally-have-autonomy phase. Anyways, if your goal is to one day be a non-puppet that enters into a war where there isn't only 1 inevitable result, i wish you luck. But until then, being in a not-sphere sphere with 1300+ nations while claiming that everyone who doesn't join you isn't dynamic will work just fine i guess. Always easy to talk shit, lie to yourself and others when you know people can't retaliate.
  3. Your meme game is weaker than NPO's CB.
  4. So you're saying that instead of deleting infra to lower our score to go attack someone, we opted to start a super secret fake war, wipe each other's spies, knock down planes, eat up tanks, sink ships, toss nukes and missiles, and drain our warchests, all to lower our infra? (at the cost of starting the "actual" war with unmaxed plane nations) Ahhhhhhhh, you're going off the fake war meme narrative, now you're making sense. Imagine that, being in the largest not-sphere sphere, planning to hit two smaller blocs after they've finished fighting together, and when you get pre-empted, that you're so ashamed of your stats, even after hitting neutrals and deleting infra, that for the first time in history, a new super meta strategy known as the "fake war" emerges. How inconvenient. Literally unplayable. I mean, it's not like the idea is so illogical. Either finish the war and get hit first in a massive dogpile, or bring the fight to them and hope they don't chain in people they claimed to cancel. As to the speed of the whole thing, um, thanks for the compliment i guess. I'll have you know, it takes a very large big huge brain to get everyone on discord or a forum, and like, notify them. Helps a lot if you filter out people inactive people who don't check these things often rather than accepting everyone and having no standards. If we're arguing whether or not you had enough nations with the right amount of cities to accomplish what i claimed, simply with most people declaring on a specific target and airstrike, you had plenty of nations. Whether or not you had the people active enough and willing enough to do so, who knows. Consolidating the top tier? Huh? Did a whale alliance recently move from IQ and align themselves to a non-IQ bloc/sphere? No. Did alliances with a reasonable top-tier join IQ side over time? Yes. (remnants of Nuke Bloc, FR, TCW, t$, HS) If your sphere averages at 18 cities, and then get several alliances to join you with nations that have 18-27 cities, to someone who knows absolutely none of the historical context of the game, ofc it gives an illusion of consolidating that those 28-35 cities are "consolidating". So what? They're undynamic because they refuse to join the largest not-sphere sphere in the game? And then when alliances that are so internally garbage that they can't seem to grasp the concept of sending out a message in 1 day fail to simply throw their 15-20s on their opponents 20-25s, their 20-25s on 30+, and their handful of 25+ to stall the 35+, they gotta claim consolidation when their opponents have gained no new allies, only lost some, claim fake wars when they manage to not win instantly, and call in ties they claim they canceled when they realize that they're going to have to coordinate properly if they want to win? Because entering against CHAOS, at a 1:1.5 disadvantage, while having the aggressor's advantage actually made one of the most even wars the game has seen in a long time. A war that wasn't a complete damn dogpile. Short-sighted? Not the best word to describe it actually. Gullible would probably work better. Gullible to believe that IQ disbanded. BUT HEY HEY HEY, YOU KNOW LIKE, WE HAD TO START THAT FAKE WAR FOR AN ADVANTAGE OR SOMETHING, MASTA PLAN. I think i'm back to thinking that you're trolling, no one could possible deep-throat every piece of propaganda their sphere has given them this seriously.
  5. I mean yeah, the best economic war move is to never war in the first place, i get it. Don't see how KETOG and CHAOS economically hurting each other moments before this war starting has any relevance to the war performance of your side. Then it's also logical to include all losses from all previous wars from the dawn of time... as each war impacted the rest... wtf are you even on about... And ofc NPO and BK argues stupid shit, they have the numbers to get away with saying anything. As to taking 1 single day... wtf. Wtf does your alliance use to communicate that you can't have everyone notified of something within 1 day? Y'all be faxing each other announcements? I did look at the odds in the upper tier, the huge mass of 20 city nations and the top tier from several alliances on your side made it possible to wipe everyone under 35 cities in one round, and everyone else in the rest. Although, it would have needed some people to temporarily buy ground/navy, declare, then decom to get out of range again, which i mean, doing anything but declaring and airstriking is way too much for some people it seems. Combined with some people declaring and then spaming nukes instead of attacking normally filled slots and allowed them to recover, down-declare, save the tier under them, so they could do the same for the tier under them, until more alliances and more alliances showed up. It was not a matter of if every nation was going to be brought down, it was a matter of when. As to the pixel hugger comment, you are actually slightly right about that part. Shifting from one sphere that never attacked unless it was a massive dogpile to a bloc that actively engages in tough wars isn't the easiest thing(and most don't have the guts to do so), and would bound to have drawbacks. Everyone not knowing how to do decom-down-declare double-buys is one of them. As to the rest of your comments, you are incorrect. In order to use your top tier to sustain itself, you need to be able to decom down-declare on targets constantly, and faster than they can recover their mid-high tier so they aren't able to push upwards. And even with that, you need to get an occasional high-tier member to get 3+ beiges on himself so he can recover and continue the process. It worked in a world war of 870vs560, it worked in a world war of 880vs530, but not a ~1500vs500, so it's very likely to not work in a war that shifted around around 600-750vs800-1500 (depending at which moment you looked at, how you look at neutrals getting hit, how you look at alliances who fought on both sides, or if you looked at the end-total etc) Ahhhhh. You know, with that stupid comment insinuating that KETOG and CHAOS had a fake war, i was beginning to assume you were just trolling, but this comment about TEst just proves your FA knowledge is just 3 years behind. TEst was an opportunistic alliance that only entered easy gangbangs, and the one time they messed up and hit a target that had protection, they ended up disbanding after one losing war. Hardly dynamic nor something one should praise or wish to revive. (unless you're referring to the new TEst that showed up to help you gangbang TKR, which i mean, was inevitable anyways) As to your comment about KT, what. Not being afraid of even or hard wars while being willing to swap around allies is dynamic. Sitting around, only warring when dogpiling is possible and keeping the same allies for years is undynamic. KT has fought against IQ, then EMC, then didn't join the gangbang on EMC, then fought CHAOS, and is now fighting "not IQ" IQ again. There is very likely no alliance KT wouldn't be willing to work with or to roll, as long as it isn't a massive dogpile, or helps someone obtain a hegemony. As to your upper-tier consolidation that you speak about, it's the same tired excuse IQ, woops sorry, i mean not IQ IQ, has been using as an excuse to consistently consolidate more and more. Had NPO/BK actually acted on no longer having a treaty, the game could have had a war that isn't so bipolar tier-wise. If one of them got CHAOS on their side while the other got KETOG, we could have finally moved the game in the right direction. But of course not, that wouldn't give them an easy dogpile war. The sooner people realize that they have to be willing to ally old enemies, that it's okay to enter a difficult war and more opportunities exist in the game when there are more separate blocs, the better. As for you specifically, the sooner you realize you're in a micro that's never seen a tough war and half your FA knowledge is propaganda and the other is folktale, the better. It's hard to judge the actions of others when you've done none yourself. (not even going to reply to your comment about how if you remove a ton of alliances that were temporary in the war and allowed you to push past the mid-high tier shouldn't be counted as people on your side, almost as dumb as "well besides the -250b, how are we losing")
  6. The lack of repercussions of a dominant sphere using bullshit CBs would create little to no incentive for them to not do so, hence the current carelessness with saying whatever's needed to enter the war. I mean, refusing to ever do anything that would involve hurting each other, and then entering to once again fight the same exact people you've always have post-split. If you don't want to call it a sphere, then, cool, paperless treaty it is. Don't see how those forum posts would realistically present any real threat, ofc people get salty when major alliances sit around for several years doing the same exact thing, then giving everyone hope that they've changed course slightly only to crush that hope the first chance they got. Although the validity of the reasons are subjective, the repercussions of the lack of validity being non-existent makes the disapproval of the validity, in itself, worthless.
  7. 1. Although it's not outright stated, it's definitely a factor and a strong correlation, and there's been numerous situations where if a large party attacks a small party, the larger party ends up getting pounced on by a larger group right after, except when the large group intitiating is the biggest in the game, then nothing happens. 2. The not-IQ NPO and their treaties combined with the not-IQ BK sphere combined with opportunistic micros, yeah, makes the "entire world" description fit. Although NPO is not the entire world, knowing they had the opportunity to completely avoid the war and prove they were no longer part of IQ, and joined in regardless, they made the description of "the world" quite accurate. 3. What backlash? Sitting around, doing anything interesting, waiting until people fight each other out of sheer boredome and then massively dogpile them afterwards for years straight? People getting rightfully angry over doing so and calling it out on the forums? 4. Or some alliances just want to win be safe in the largest sphere the game has ever seen. And they know that if they leave, they will instantly be hit and some random bs CB will be used, or none at all. As has happened multiple times now.
  8. Oh yes, not IQ, just all-the-members-of-that-used-to-make-up-IQ-and-more. Big difference. IQ 2 Electric Boogaloo?
  9. Oh yes yes, according to the NPO rules of court, paragraph -250b section (N)(O) subsection (C)(B), it clearly states that any argument is irrelevant the majority of the game is in your sphere, and any possible argument will be subjugated to mass walls of text of irrelevant gibber gabber via the Guinea judge himself. Although the argument of that one's expectation of the validity of a CB should be proportional with the numeric advantage that they posses is always opportunistically dismissed by the dogpiler, it's been clear that the use of superior numbers has been used to compensate for the lack of a CB. If an alliance that's not NPO used the same bullshit level of CB as NPO, the whole world would likely get pissed at them and subsequently roll them. In fact, it recently happened. However, when one is the world, one's CBs are irrelevant. So I guess you are partly right, where at least the extremes in size of a small force and one that completely dominates the game have the same political immunity and can get away with whatever they want without much backlash, as has happened for the last several years. My argument is fully reliant on assuming that there isn't a completely rigid and unmoving dominant force in the game that's so deeply consolidated that the validity of CBs are still relevant and lying through your teeth would have a backlash of some kind. Which would either mean my statement is correct, or the game is close to dying from the lack of it. Although if it's the latter, then there's no point in discussion besides entertainment while waiting for the inevitable.
  10. The terms of peace clearly stated that you must send your forum profile's pic to each member of your family, screenshot the responses and post them here. You have 72 hours, otherwise I will be forced to make empty threats. @Spinelli/ragdoll
  11. So you're planning on never engaging in a non-dogpile or giving a valid reason for dogpiling? gOt iT
  12. The smaller the opponent is compared to you, the more valid the reason should be. If someone wants to hit an opponent considerably larger than themselves for shits and giggles, they don't need a reason. But if you're hitting two small blocs with 2/3rds of the game, lying through your teeth shows everyone you're a condecending bully who's only goal is to dominate the game, rather than play it.
  13. 1. What in chromosome hell are you on about? Raiding, war, whatever you call it, same thing different semantics. This game is literally just waiting to make numbers and then strategizing on how to use your numbers to give yourself more numbers compared to other people. Regardless if it's ground attacking and naval attacking to stash loot or airstriking to destroy infra, the difference in the numbers of the two sides is the only thing that's statistically relevant. 2. So.... you're "winning" because... before you guys entered a dogpiling war, we damaged each other? Congrats, your 500IQ self has realized that we were gladly killing each other before Roq Harrison and his pawn shop came through the door selling a bullshit CB and a paperless treaty that put 2/3rds of the game into one sphere. None of which disproves the incompetent performance of your side considering the odds. Discussing the relevance of economic detriments of past wars could literally go all the way back to day 1 of the game. If anything, the fact that we crippled each other that much and you guys still couldn't clean it up fast enough to net positive is a major disappointment. Shoulda hit more neutrals and deleted more infra I guess. 3. Don't know if you know your history or have any war knowledge, as being in a micro in a large sphere that has only entered wars when they had an immense numerical advantage tends to make cocky uninformed biased shit posters, but historically, IQ would enter with superior numbers and not be able to push past the mid-high tier due to decom-down-declares, allowing the biggest whales to survive untouched and create an economic disparity over time, which would later balance itself out as non-IQ alliances would quite frequently fight other non-IQ alliances, and IQ would never make any move that wouldn't directly support them obtaining a hegemony. Had NPO been actually faithful to splitting from IQ, the war would have resulted the same historical way. However, getting even more numbers, especially in the top tier (although most were completely uncoordinated) even temporarily assistance allowed them to stall them out and push up. Anyways, if you're done shilling to the guinea overlord, the relevant debate from this point forward is basically what's worse, having things to blow up and not being able to, or having things to use to blow up, but having nothing to target. Either way, not much gets done, so the stats that preceded it would logically take precedence.
  14. Although i would say that IQ has slightly better beige discipline in this war than past wars, nah, the biggest single contributing factor of winning 0ing planes was simply superior numbers.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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