Jump to content

Lord Tyrion

Members
  • Posts

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Posts posted by Lord Tyrion

  1. I will stick up for Quack some here.  I understand why they proceeded how they did given what they were facing, so whether Boyce had anything of actual value or not is somewhat irrelevant to me.  They felt they were going to be targeted either way and they acted upon it - plain and simple.  I don't fault them for that at all for making the best play from that position that they saw at the time.  I think people focus too much on actual CBs that in some way we need some hard evidence to be justified for a war.  It should be as simple as "we felt threatened and that's why we acted".  

    As one that would like to avoid a repeat war, we need to accept some of what happened for what it is and be willing to move on.  While I still stand by our assessment of the threat before the war started, this war did show that they weren't in as much of a dominant position as much of the game feared perhaps, and so I appreciate their feelings on the defensiveness about being viewed as a hegemony.  I think everyone can reset some of their expectations and perceptions perhaps, as we all move forward.

    • Upvote 6
  2. 9 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

     

    I'm sorry, but I'm not going to rely on your word for this one.

    Will you take my word for it?  Sorry, but it literally had zero impact on the peace talks themselves.  Not trying to be mean, just want to level your expectations for the future.  At the end of the day, in terms of peace itself, who was right or wrong or any fault, etc doesn't ultimately matter - a war is what it is and people will proceed as needed for peace regardless of any facts or unknowns still out there.  There was pretty much no debate in peace talks about why the war happened or CBs or anything else, because at that point it didn't really matter for what was needed to happen.

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 2
  3. 33 minutes ago, HeroofTime55 said:

    Not that you're worth having a serious discussion with at this point, but yeah, they said "we're tighter and you can't just decide to cut one of us, you're gone instead."  They decided that they don't exist to serve your butt-buddy Tyrion.  Good on them.  Your boy overplayed his hand and got called.

    Also, lol @ editing out the word "delusional" in my quote.

    I love how people with zero knowledge of the situation act like they do.  We'd informed Swamp weeks ago we would be leaving, but nice try.

    • Upvote 6
  4. I've had the same concern during all wars regarding how much resistance the nukes/missiles take off.  It doesn't seem you should be able to win a war solely on nukes.  Because the game mechanics don't encourage people to win wars, rather, sit on an opponent for five days - the cost to do that may be eating 4 nukes, even though you have an opponent completely zeroed - and then you could lose a war that you're trying to have expire.  That seems wrong - so if we're going to have to eat nukes to sit on somebody, at least don't let them win the war. 

    Separately though, I think if you have an opponent on GC, AS and Blockade your opponent should be considered occupied and not be able to build/launch nukes or missiles against you (and maybe the trade off would be a smaller percentage of success if they do build them and launch them).  Understandably the risk of not allowing nukes/missiles to be built if occupied is that there wouldn't be much cost for people winning wars to just sit indefinitely on an opponent, so that would need to be factored in somehow.

    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 3
    • Downvote 29
  5. 2 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

     

    I agree, I am honing in on the same questions and issues again and again because I think that the answers to these questions and the resolution of these issues would resolve this war.

     

    Anyway, I hadn't previously known that Tyrion, as the leader of the Immortals Alliance, was also in the Swamp- and given the fact that his Alliance is the largest one in Swamp (also the second largest in the game period points wise), as Partisan pointed out, it stands to reason that he would be one of the strongest voices in Swamp, if not the strongest.  

    Here is the last thing he said in the forums, back on Tuesday:

     

    In a private conversation with him that I had more recently, Tyrion seems amicable to the idea of peace, but he doesn't seem to think that the parties are ready for that yet.

     

    Don't frame it like we've been talking a lot.  You wrote to me for the very first time yesterday trying to get info and literally all I responded with was:
    "Peace talks will only occur when all blocs are ready to come to the table, it won't be brokered separately or by one party.  I think we're still a little bit away from those talks occurring based on what I'm seeing, but we'll get there at some point." 

    I didn't write you any further than that, so don't suggest otherwise.  You also minutes after my response to you going and posting to the forums about it, so not really somebody people will want to share info with when you do that.  I don't know why you're trying to play mediator for the parties.  I've stated our position on what happened here and privately in DMs to the Quack leadership.  Peace will happen when all parties (beyond Swamp/Quack) are ready to work on it.  

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 5
  6. Just now, Cooper_ said:

    A) The Rose-Swamp secret treaty

    B) The non-subtle play to force Rose's hand (Don't take this as making Rose innocent bc they're not)

    I thought we established over a week ago we had a defensive agreement in place with Rose for Quack aggression?  And for your second point, not sure what you're referring to there either.  They assessed a similar risk as we did and determined it was in their best interest to do what they did.  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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