Daniel Storm
-
Posts
322 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Daniel Storm
-
-
13 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:
would rather lose 5 billion fighting against a hegemony of group of alliances who wish to force people out of the game than hand it over, so when you are ready come knocking.
Did you just google how to spell Hegemony and forget to paste as plain text?
-
6
-
-
20 hours ago, Cypher said:
While I wait for a reply, @Roquentin can I get a comment from you on NPO and GPWC demanding House Stark ban me from the alliance in exchange for peace? That’s certainly no way to treat the *only* gov member who was interested in reviving N$O from the get go and keeping the individual treaty post war.
You've been ghosting GPWC for months, which was let slide until you dropped the pretense and moved back to HS proper to continue your hostility. At which point GPWC declared open raiding season on all members of House Stark, essentially treating you and your alliance the same way you've been treating them. HS didn't like this and asked for GPWC to peace out, and you've since left the alliance. However, there's absolutely no reason to trust that you aren't still a de facto member given your extreme proclivity for ghosting, and if HS's Gov is continuing to wage a campaign against GPWC then GPWC will respond with reciprocal force. A ban is one way for them to prove that they aren't associated with your actions anymore if they don't like being rolled by GPWC. It has nothing to do with the overall global, it has to do with House Stark not being on the raidlist for GPWC until recently, and you're entirely to blame for that changing.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, japan77 said:
As such, please go educate yourself on what's actually happening instead of parroting random talking points like a broken speechbot.
The irony.
-
1
-
3
-
-
Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=177378
Name(s) in question: Goa Tse
Is the name(s) for leader, nation, or city?: Nation
Reason: It's literally just Goatse but with a space in it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goatse.cx
Quotegoatse.cx (/ˈɡoʊtsi dɒt ˌsiː ˈɛks/ GOHT-see-dot-see-EKS, /ˈɡoʊtˌsɛks/; "goat sex"), often referred to simply as "Goatse", was originally an Internet shock site. Its front page featured a picture, entitled hello.jpg, showing a naked man widely stretching his anus with both hands.
If you google Goa Tse the top results both web and image will be regarding Goatse.
-
4
-
1
-
1
-
-
Sounds like a hybrid between Vacation Mode and Peace Mode from CN. We already have vacation mode and Alex's decision not to include Peace Mode in his CN clone seems pretty deliberate to me.
Besides, you can't really pin anyone down without great cost and coordination. Anybody with the will to play can have a blast raiding people 1/3rd of their size with a single soldier buy. War is pretty much always on the table thanks to how cheap and fast soldier buys are. And if you don't feel like playing war anymore you can play Politics and join an alliance that isn't getting permarolled. And if you don't want to play Politics or War then find another game.
-
2
-
-
that's some ballsy shit lmao I love it.
I wonder if peace is being held up for all the reasons leaders on both sides are pontificating about, or if its being held up by KT literally not having that much money. ?
-
4
-
2
-
17
-
-
2 minutes ago, George (James T Kirk) said:
I do enjoy how you tried to point out the least important part of this whole thing, not how NPO / BK are trying to activly kill communities
I do enjoy how you're trying to disguise anger at losing gov, then being caught stealing and rolled for it as some sort of grand moral position against the ebil IQ man.
-
7
-
29
-
-
Didn't you steal 5bn from BK? I fail to see how them rolling you in retaliation is some sort of unprecedented toxic measure to force you from the game and not what one reasonably does to former high gov that robbed them and ran.
I'll take my downvotes now thx.
-
2
-
14
-
18
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Everyone who hits Pantheon pays the ultimate price.
-
5
-
2
-
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Azaghul said:
Well one of the reasons the TKR-NPO relations went bad is bad blood/mistrust between Roquentin and Infinite Citadel and I that largely began during a CN war where MK (IC/me) and Umbrella (Roq) were in a bloc with GOONS and how hard GOONS/MK were fighting compared to Umbrella was one of the points of contention. It was against NPO too.
As always thanks for putting the "tKr doEsN't HOlD GrUdgEs AgAInst NPO frOm cn" propaganda nobody buys to rest. ?
-
4
-
-
37 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:
in all wars the attacking side always bulk up with troops and generally out numbers the other side, never seen a even battle ever.
You've never seen someone with equal or lesser aircraft attack someone with a similar or greater aircraft count? No offense, but I don't know if you're qualified to suggest military balance then chief.
-
22 minutes ago, Thalmor said:
That's the point of the war though. Coalition B is committed to damaging and killing off Coalition A as much as possible. It's not a side-effect; it's intentional.
Would you say we're scorching the Earth?
-
6
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
How many times will Sphinx get log dumped before this war ends.
-
8
-
3 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:
numbers could do with reworking, I did not take in to account if both sides have maxed planes. was mostly thinking of when i had no planes vs GoB and CoS and simply could not do anything at all with a 11 city down declare
The more I think about this the less I like it ngl. A defensive only option like this basically kills any airstrike that isn't a downdec.
Say I have 2160 planes and I hit someone who also has 2160 planes, in the current system we take roughly similar casualties with a slight advantage to the attacker. Maybe 300 dead for me and 360 dead for them if I get a good roll. Your proposal would make that 500+ dead for me and 360 dead for them. It would become untenable to offensively airstrike anyone who wasn't significantly smaller than you.
In my opinion games where defensive is stronger than offense tend to be hella boring so idk if I'd even want to continue playing if this became reality.
I guess this suggestion could still be viable if it only operated when the defending nation was at 0 planes. It makes logical sense that you can't shoot AA fire indiscriminately while your own airmen are in the sky. And it would still nerf planes by causing a new point of loss when the enemy has 0 air and you're just bombing tanks/ships/infra/whatever.
-
I think it's a good general concept to nerf planes and give land more value, if all the above numbers are drastically slashed to something reasonable.
As is your proposal creates an insurmountable defensive advantage in the air unless you're fighting a major downdec. I already lose most of my rebuy fighting people with equal or greater plane counts, and this proposal would essentially double that damage. Air would become a unit you hold and never use if every offensive airstrike killed 2/3rds of your rebuy on top of the regular casualties.
The maximum possible loss should be closer to 25% of daily buy, and even then this is going to drastically nerf updeccing whales.
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Avakael said:
Incidentally, congratulations to Alpha for bringing down The Syndicate's last whale.
I'm pretty sure Wampus is there for the loot. Shakyr was already fricked when Sphinx killed 750 of his planes in one dogfight.
-
8 hours ago, Jordan said:
I wasn't aware that they let their non-gov members read any news that they didn't produce themselves.
I've been saying this for years now, we read the forums, most of us just don't care to comment on KERCHTOG$' circlejerking. Myself excepted.
What result are you hoping for? Us to agree with you and validate your self aggrandizement? Or one guy to show up with a dissenting opinion so you all can jump down his throat?
This thread full of KERCHTOG$ members pretending to ponder the question of why Coalition B members aren't bumbling into a hostile environment is hilarious though ngl.
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
And we were getting along so well ?
-
4
-
2
-
-
You can also see GPWC's individual net damage by going to the alliance ranking page and setting it to conflicts only, since this is the only conflict GPWC has ever fought.
14bn net last I checked.
-
Somebody wake up Greatkitteh.
-
3
-
1
-
-
Nation: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=186458
Nature of Violation: 11/26 08:59 am - The Greater German Reich declared war on Bobland for the reason of "Sieg Heil! I must take your bounty!".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieg_Heil
-
1
-
2
-
2
-
-
git gud. You have cranked steel units and high infra. If you're going to score inflate like that, you need to account for raiders coming after you. Especially as a member of a weak alliance that can't protect you.
-
19 minutes ago, Keegoz said:
It's almost like because we doubted that the NPO/t$ talks actually developed we only hit BK and tCW...
Yeah that's what I figured, but there have been a lot of comments like Cypher's asserting the certainty that there was some agreement reached between BK-TCW and NPO-T$ which confuses me since that seems like a huge smoking gun if they have proof.
Coalition A is trying to do something very obvious
in Orbis Central
Posted · Edited by Pop
That depends entirely on you and HS. If you continue your perpetual campaign of aggression against GPWC and HS continues to endorse that by taking no tangible steps against you then why wouldn't GPWC hold your alliance accountable for the actions of a member they refuse to disavow? GPWC raids virtually every member of Coalition A, House Stark was exempted out of respect for their treaty with NPO. Thanks to your actions that courtesy has been rescinded and HS now gets the same treatment from GPWC as any other Coalition A member. Obviously if the Global ended and a NAP was signed the raids would end, provided you actually respected the NAP yourselves of course, we can only control us not you.
I could have phrased my last sentence better, although you're clearly misinterpreting it deliberately, but let me try to be more clear for the class. Until your recent actions rendered it unconscionable, GPWC didn't consider House Stark to be a hostile alliance, and refrained from raiding them. HS being opened up as a target is a state of affairs that was created entirely by your actions, and when it stops is entirely up to you and HS. As I understand it Roq presented banning you to HS as an option for how they could disavow your actions because they came to him asking for the GPWC raids to stop, and GPWC didn't feel like stopping while you still had carte blanche.
In your original post that I was replying to you made it seem like Roq demanded that HS ban you to get peace in the Global, which is what this sentence was regarding; "It has nothing to do with the overall global, it has to do with House Stark not being on the raidlist for GPWC until recently, and you're entirely to blame for that changing." You are a member of House Stark, and no matter what AA you ghost to, unless HS takes a tangible action to make it clear that they no longer endorse your actions, or you cease your dogged aggression against GPWC, House Stark will continue to be held accountable for your actions. That's not unreasonable in the slightest.
It's also funny you'd mention the stats site, since I can clearly see on there that you barely earn jack shit from your raids on GPWC, you could be making 10x what you have hitting real raid targets, but you're not in it for the money are you? If I had to guess I'd say you're attacking GPWC out of pure, meaningless hostility, you're like ET but you take longer to get bored.