Rose's Surrender

[Sketchy]

Pretty much.

OOC ATTACK!

[Auctor]

If you wish to remain a babbling fool, you are free to do so.

You're so busy trying to spin plain english you're missing the point. Here, I'll try again.

 

If the entire point of our existence was to acquire profit at the expense of our own security, does anything we've done in the last ten months make any sense? Why should we place good faith in the hands of those who've shown only bad faith? What value is a temporary peace if the best we can hope for us that people we already know we can't trust and who have betrayed us in the past might let us be on their side? What good is growth if it only leaves us vulnerable to being picked off later? Why shouldn't we fight this out, knowing this is internally consistent with the wishes of our membership and that the political structure of this game has nothing to appeal to us outside of it?

[Aisha Greyjoy]

You're so busy trying to spin plain english you're missing the point. Here, I'll try again.

 

If the entire point of our existence was to acquire profit at the expense of our own security, does anything we've done in the last ten months make any sense? Why should we place good faith in the hands of those who've shown only bad faith? What value is a temporary peace if the best we can hope for us that people we already know we can't trust and who have betrayed us in the past might let us be on their side? What good is growth if it only leaves us vulnerable to being picked off later? Why shouldn't we fight this out, knowing this is internally consistent with the wishes of our membership and that the political structure of this game has nothing to appeal to us outside of it?

That's a reasonable argument.  The real issue is "Why have so many of your 'so-called allies' left you in the field to fight and die without them?"

[Eumirbago]

Bahahaha I remember when Partisan told me that we were gonna post the same way these !@#$ers are posting rn if we lose. Much love to Vanguard 2.0 for showing how it might have looked like lmfao

 

Now we can continue to destroy the same alliances to make sure they deliver longer topics. Maybe hit 50 pages next time hahaha

[Memph]

Regarding Octoberfest...

 

UPN had about 15-20 top tier nations, Alpha had about 15, Guardian had 6-8, DEIC had about 20, the rest of our coalition didn't really have any (a couple in Arrgh and Mensa).

 

Guardian didn't expect the war to happen since it was I think less than two months since Proxy war and we were mostly trying to rebuild our econ and avoid falling too far behind in city count so we didn't have enough of a warchest to build max tanks. DEIC hadn't fought a war for almost a year and had both max military (including tanks) and a city advantage over Guardian.

 

BUT

 

This was at a time when infra counted a lot more towards score and military counted less. Arrgh took out UPN's mid tier and DEIC and BoC already lost their mid tier by the time Guardian and Alpha entered. VE's mid tier was pretty mediocre and VE in general was pretty under-militarized even by the time Guardian and Alpha entered when they already had 4 days+ to prepare. VE lost a lot more mid tier nations to Arrgh than they should have which was mostly because they were under militarized.

 

At the time Guardian and Alpha entered, the larger nations of SK, TEst and Syndicate were having their wars just about ready to expire which would have allowed them to rebuild under the cover of our coalition's mid tier.

 

DEIC's top tier remained standing for a long time but they were already out of downdeclare range of our coalitions mid tier and unable to do much. Guardian and Alpha had pretty much the only targets in range and despite the fact that they outnumbered Guardian 3 to 1 they did a rather half assed job at trying to take us out, they succeeded to take out a few of our nations but not all. Much of the DEIC nations seemed content with just keeping their existing opponents pinned down, even though that required little effort and wasted their potential. So eventually our side took out the DEIC nations that were in range of Guardian (about 10-15?) and finally the last 5-10 or so that were not in range.

 

I still have the target lists comparing VE, UPN and DEIC's top tiers to Guardian and Alpha's btw.

[Eumirbago]

Vanguard used to be Mensa's punching bag, but now the new and improved Vanguard 2.0 gets to be the punching bag of an entire sphere lel

[WarriorSoul]

NPO: Proving you can get absolutely curbstomped and still be pompous and stuck up about it since 2016!

[Pangui]

That's a reasonable argument.  The real issue is "Why have so many of your 'so-called allies' left you in the field to fight and die without them?"

That's a reasonable argument.  The real issue is "Why have so many of your 'so-called allies' left you in the field to fight and die without them?"

All of Pacificas allies are still at war. The only ones who have gotten peace are smaller AAs within NPO and TCs sphere and the Paragon alliances. I guess you can say we tried leaving Pacifica when we sought peace for The Covenant, but I believe that any AA in our position would of sought it. I would say it's more of a performance issue than the nature of the relationships between the AAs.

[Jodo]

OOC ATTACK!

Drink

[Auctor]

Like Pangui says, all of our current allies are still in the war. We don't have any issues with them seeking peace if that's an outcome that will benefit them. As things stand, it's not so clear that peace would benefit us.

[Eumirbago]

Like Pangui says, all of our current allies are still in the war. We don't have any issues with them seeking peace if that's an outcome that will benefit them. As things stand, it's not so clear that peace would benefit us.

It won't. Stay at war lmao

[Infice]

Like Pangui says, all of our current allies are still in the war. We don't have any issues with them seeking peace if that's an outcome that will benefit them. As things stand, it's not so clear that peace would benefit us.

 

It's not clear whether peace will benefit you, but it is clear that staying in war might benefit you?

[The Mad Titan]

Like Pangui says, all of our current allies are still in the war. We don't have any issues with them seeking peace if that's an outcome that will benefit them. As things stand, it's not so clear that peace would benefit us.

 

The thing is they don't get peace without you, so you can explain why they burn for NPO while you refuse to surrender. 

Edited October 3, 2016 by LeotheGreat

[Auctor]

The thing is they don't get peace without you, so you can explain why they burn for NPO while you refuse to surrender. 

Ah yes, when someone takes hostages it's always the people being asked for ransom at fault. I imagine our allies will be able to figure that logical fallacy out.

[The Mad Titan]

Ah yes, when someone takes hostages it's always the people being asked for ransom at fault. I imagine our allies will be able to figure that logical fallacy out.

 

It doesn't matter if it is "right" to take hostages or not. The reality is BK and friends has everyone down and NPO is the only one who can end it whether you think that is fair or not.

[Infice]

Ah yes, when someone takes hostages it's always the people being asked for ransom at fault. I imagine our allies will be able to figure that logical fallacy out.

 

Maybe if the hostages were minding their own business and got plucked off the street and ransomed. What is happening here is you bringing your allies on a ride in your car, speeding and crashing into another car, and expecting the other car owner to let you go or even pay you for damage and injuries to your car and friends.

[Kastor]

Against rose I think we (tS) at the time had 40 or 50 members, I think it was a high 40 (48 is coming to mind for some reason).

 

After the TEL merger we only had I think a membership in the mid 30s. Both tS and TEL before the merger had membership accounts around 20 and not all of the TEL members merged into us.

Well you're wrong so think again.

[Auctor]

It doesn't matter if it is "right" to take hostages or not. The reality is BK and friends has everyone down and NPO is the only one who can end it whether you think that is fair or not.

 

I wasn't arguing as to whether it was legitimate to or not. It's just silly to hold NPO accountable for BK's actions and we probably wouldn't be allied to an alliance that didn't understand that basic principle of how accountability works.

[The Mad Titan]

I wasn't arguing as to whether it was legitimate to or not. It's just silly to hold NPO accountable for BK's actions and we probably wouldn't be allied to an alliance that didn't understand that basic principle of how accountability works.

 

wut m8

 

We are holding NPO accounting for attacking us. You hit us, we  hit you back, now you pay for the broken nose you gave us in the first punch.

[Jodo]

I keep seeing the hostage analogy. It's pretty funny. Here's a different one.

 

Group of armed thugs broke into the wrong house, broke shit, then the owner subdued them. Now they all have to pay for damages.

[Eumirbago]

Vanguard 2.0 are just hostages of their incompetence lmao

[Prefonteen]

I wasn't arguing as to whether it was legitimate to or not. It's just silly to hold NPO accountable for BK's actions and we probably wouldn't be allied to an alliance that didn't understand that basic principle of how accountability works.

 

Is this not a case of BK holding NPO accountable for NPO's actions?

[Sketchy]

I feel someone should be held accountable for not renaming this thread yet.

[Saru]

Sad clown is sad. Be a happy clown instead! The winning side tells you "yeah Alpha didn't matter, they just sped up what was already happening", and you don't listen. I was only involved in the war effort, had the top amount of wars declared (perhaps tied) offensively for my alliance, and saw how blistering irrelevant our strike was in the grand scheme of things. 

 

Still wrong, and anyone with eyes and basic reading comprehension will be able to see that. How about we go with the leader of the winning coalition -- Partisan, the leader of your own alliance at the time -- Placentica, as well as the alliance in question UPN/me. Reading must be hard when you are in love with only your own words, so I guess I will extend a hand to you:

 

 

Re: alpha- I suppose that would depend on exactly how much influence alpha had on rose's not entering. If rose had come in, we'd have lost fair and square. If rose had stayed out while alpha stayed out and VE moved fronts: well, we had actually anticipated ve to move to a different front. It would been much closer to a stalemate.

 

I think we'd have won in the end but without the margins or leverage to extract reps.

 

 

It should be noted I normally don't agree with Saru, but he's dead right when it comes to Oktoberfest.  I honestly, don't really care because people are going to believe what they will believe.  And I've given up trying to have an honest discourse in these forums.

 

But UPN/DEIC had the upper tiers completely handled and given game mechanics, there would've been no way to take them down.  In fact, UPN/DEIC should've pre-empted Alpha/Guardian, but Saru thought Alpha wasn't going to enter.  He had asked me about it and I gave a vague answer.

 

Had I known that TEst wasn't any friend to Alpha and tS was just using us to win that war - I wouldn't have entered.  In fact, I might have pushed to enter on UPN's side with Rose.

 

Mea Culpa x 1 million.

 

 

So what I had said and repeated, multiple times. It's funnier seeing you get salty when you are proven to be outright and flat out wrong. Please do continue showing your psychological complexes to everyone though. It really says a lot about you that you can't concede something as inconsequential as this.

 

I do have something that will make your ego feel better again:

 

 

 Clearly I'm wrong. 

 

BINGO! You are certainly right there.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Saru

[Buorhann]

I like how you're quoting Steve as if his word really means something, Saru.  Of course Steve is going to want to take credit for Alpha's contribution to the war and claim they done well.  Sure, they did do some damage, but it wouldn't have changed the overall situation.  If Alpha wanted to really hold an impactful contribution, they would've hit earlier and they would've hit DEIC.  They didn't on both accounts.

 

Also, the statement "UPN/DEIC had the upper tiers completely handled and given game mechanics, there would've been no way to take them down."  This is completely false, as both Mensa and Arrgh have shown how to updeclare and drag people down.  In fact, back then, you benefited more being lower score and just up declaring.  Considering the basis of Steve's argument is centered around this information goes to show you how wrong he is and how wrong you are for following his words as if they held any meaning.  It also goes to show you why Alpha isn't as good as people thought they were back then with this false perception to how war works (Or worked in this case).

 

You're also backing your claim due to Partisan.  Partisan isn't a military strategist.  He's a foreign affairs guru.  He draws up support, not plan out who strikes who, and what scores go against other scores.

 

With this in mind, you are arguing against someone who is very familiar with how the mechanics of war works.  Do you honestly think both Steve and Partisan are better at understanding war than Prefontaine?  Someone who literally had a radio show talking about the mechanics of war for awhile, mind you.