Rose's Surrender

[Aerys Targaryen]

Yes they were. Arrgh were decimated by VE -- and wanted to surrender at one point. We didn't let them as it was the only leverage we had. Issue was that the coalition we faced obviously didn't care about them. Which is understandable. When I am telling you VE would of been free to hit someone else, I am not discussing a maybe, it would of happened... Arrgh coming in took us by surprise. And there were other reasons on why we settled on them hitting Arrgh, but the fact remains if Arrgh did not enter, VE would of hit someone else.

 

Most of Arrgh nations at that time were in low score range, most of VE's top tier was simply standing there with full military. VE could've helped UPN if they wanted to, not sure what those "other reasons" are

[Saru]

Most of Arrgh nations at that time were in low score range, most of VE's top tier was simply standing there with full military. VE could've helped UPN if they wanted to, not sure what those "other reasons" are

 

They offered to. I am not going to disclose the specific reasons, but let's just say it was a mixture of us wanting to be a good ally, an influential VE official going missing and an overreaction at Arrgh because they had hit us.

[Saru]

"Alpha came in late and only hit a few UPN targets. I was apart of it. We didn't impact much that wasn't going to happen already. "

 

Sometimes I forget how truly stupid you are. "Alpha came in late.", "I was apart of it.", " We didn't impact much"... Because clearly that we references something besides Alpha (Note: Sarcasm, since I need to spell things out for you). Saru, please put me on ignore. I'm afraid I'm going to catch your mind boggling level of stupidity. Next time just admit you're wrong, or stay silent. Either or. Because honestly I'm almost embarrassed for your lack of reading skills.

 

It's coalition warfare with several variables involved... You quoted my point talking about the war at large, I assumed its a continuation of that discussion, and you can't just talk about Alpha in isolation in that case, it has effects throughout the entire war, other fronts, and other things that may or may not of materialised...

Edited October 3, 2016 by Saru

[Placentica]

Alpha came in late and only hit a few UPN targets. I was apart of it. We didn't impact much that wasn't going to happen already. 

Nice bullshitting, Steve Prefontaine.  We hit all of UPN's top tier not in beige which was about 15 targets.  UPN's upper tier was larger than Alpha's and we had to take 2-4 targets each to full cover them.  You were only apart of the targets you hit, not any of the planning.  It was really annoying that tS/TEst had beiged several UPN targets despite knowning we were prepping for war.  We entered at the earliest time we could do the job with Guardian, Alpha being the prime attacker on UPN.

 

But, if we hadn't taken out UPN's top tier, UPN would've countered Guardian easily on DEIC targets.  The only question would've been could they have fought in the lowers b/c the uppers would've been lost.

 

Memph and I did target lists and we originally thought we'd just have to go full nuclear, but as we did targetting on a nation by nation basis, penciling top nations vs. top nations - it became clear we might be able to beat them conventionally.  It was really iffy if we could even do it, but we made it work.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Placentica

[Prefonteen]

Well "few" because we were already involved in a coalition wide war, and the "few" targets you had found were the ones we were relying on. Sometimes its fine margins that decide things, as the elimination of those guys on our upper tier ment that we were losing out on dishing out a lot more damage (not from just their attacks, but all of the other people who could consequently then attack and so on). I don't know if I am recalling it correctly, but from memory I think we on a coalition level, were winning in the lower tiers, and the high tiers. On a coalition wide level, there is no way they would of been able to impose those kind of terms on us imo if Arrgh and Alpha did not enter, it would of been a stalemate -- which would of had very different consequences for the game. (as would us not of attacking in the first place, but that's another topic lol)

Your remembering somewhat correctly. Aright coming in was the relief you speak of. They were one of the first in on upn and provided a breather while we had others continue prep for a mass assault on upn at the time. That was also the reason why we contracted them.

 

Alpha as previously said came in late and on limited targets and were inconsequential to the final outcome of the war. The uppers would eventually have been picked off by up declares. Alpha mostly sped up that process.

[Prefonteen]

I know what happened.

 

They would of helped elsewhere had Arrgh not entered.

Interesting. We were told different things at the time.

 

Guess we were lied to for convenience.

[Placentica]

Your remembering somewhat correctly. Aright coming in was the relief you speak of. They were one of the first in on upn and provided a breather while we had others continue prep for a mass assault on upn at the time. That was also the reason why we contracted them.

 

Alpha as previously said came in late and on limited targets and were inconsequential to the final outcome of the war. The uppers would eventually have been picked off by up declares. Alpha mostly sped up that process.

Again, quit with the bullshit.  Memph, if he wants to be truthful, will back this up.  Alpha covered all of UPN's upper tier and Guardian focused on DEIC and a few UPN.  Alpha/Guardian originally weren't big enough, but because we blitzed hard and quickly, and took several targets as we zeroed people, got the job done.  Barely because DEIC/UPN's upper tier were bigger than Alpha/Guardian.  1st strike advantage was so huge in that war, and if UPN/DEIC hit us, they beat us easily by contrast.

 

"limited" lol - when is UPN's entire upper tier limited?  You couldn't have rebuilt enough to take out UPN's uppers, your guys were zeroed.  Because Alpha had more nations, we had a bigger impact than Guardian in that war, no bragging, just had more nations.  But to revise history because you now really hate Alpha, is really pathetic.  When NK does it...it's awesome, but Alpha does it we are shit, right?  LOL, keep on trucking bro.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Placentica

[Saru]

Your remembering somewhat correctly. Aright coming in was the relief you speak of. They were one of the first in on upn and provided a breather while we had others continue prep for a mass assault on upn at the time. That was also the reason why we contracted them.

 

Alpha as previously said came in late and on limited targets and were inconsequential to the final outcome of the war. The uppers would eventually have been picked off by up declares. Alpha mostly sped up that process.

 

Alpha entering wiped out our upper tier quickly. Part of the reason VE went for Arrgh was because Alpha had enterred (we didn't think either Arrgh/Alpha would initially), and we already thought we couldn't win the war -- and tried to do best by our ally, while still getting relief. So if Alpha did not enter, it's possible that VE would of took someone else more meaningful as then we would of had more to fight for. There were also some talks with Pubstomper/Rose over some things at the time, but with Alpha enterring, it cut that off. Again I feel like you and Pre are underestimting the impact, as 10 or so near max military nations a few days into the war are no joke when the other side don't have the same, and I feel like you are also not considering the knock off effects it may of had. e.g. perhaps with Alpha not entering, and VE hitting someone else/getting countered, CS would of entered? There are a lot of possibilities.

 

So the eventual downdeclares you and Pre are talking about weren't a guarantee, and you are undervaluing the job Alpha did. 

 

Arrgh & Alpha won you that war imo.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Saru

[Azaghul]

You're comparing apples and oranges here. You don't need a 3-1 or even 2-1 advantage to win definitively. The mechanics are substantially different in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways). You can essentially take an alliance out of a war within a night in this game and that has happened e.g. the coalition offensive on Rose in 168 day war.  The sides have been close on paper but not in activity(where it could really be 2:1), but as one keeps losing and alliances keep moving away from it and strengthen your side because they want to win, it is no longer a viable competitor.  The latest treaty signings should be illustrative of that. I expect more like that to happen. There wasn't even a Paracov before this war and there likely won't be one whenever it happens to end.

 

This whole dismissal of a realistic assessment of the situation as whining makes it like you almost seem to want the other side to keep going so you can keep winning against it. The general tone happens to be if you're upset with anything, it's just whining and has no basis. I get you guys like winning and you don't want people raining on your parade, but it's gotten to an irrational level.

I agree that winning definitely is different in this game.  In many cases while our side clearly won, things seesawed enough on individual fronts that we still took a lot of conventional damage.  We have not always decisively won every front quickly.  Add in nukes, and the high resource cost of destroying infra, and the overall cost of war + rebuilding for the victor vs the looser isn't always that different.

 

Since the sides started out relatively even statistically, the relatively even statistical loss has meant that the proportional loss to each side hasn't been too different and the long term relative balance of power hasn't always changed very much even though we won.  In a 2-1 or 3-1 scenario, one side would proportionally be taking way more damage and it would have a bigger impact on the longer term balance of power.

 

In many of the wars, the sides were close enough that it would not have taken a huge amount to swing it the other way.

 

In any case it's incredibly premature to assume that the next big war will contain the same rough sides.  I'd talk about it further but it's a waste of time because I don't believe any of the complaining about it to be sincere, it's just a form of stonewalling because you don't want to take the economic hit of paying reps.  I can't blame you for not wanting to pay reps, I personally don't like reps, and I could respect rejecting them on the principle that reps shouldn't be a thing in this world.  But the insincere whining is unbecoming and makes me not at all sympathetic.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Azaghul

[Who Me]

Yes they were. Arrgh were decimated by VE -- and wanted to surrender at one point. We didn't let them as it was the only leverage we had. Issue was that the coalition we faced obviously didn't care about them.

 

Hello UPN, have you met NPO?

[Placentica]

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.

[Prefonteen]

Again, quit with the bullshit. Memph, if he wants to be truthful, will back this up. Alpha covered all of UPN's upper tier and Guardian focused on DEIC and a few UPN. Alpha/Guardian originally weren't big enough, but because we blitzed hard and quickly, and took several targets as we zeroed people, got the job done. Barely because DEIC/UPN's upper tier were bigger than Alpha/Guardian. 1st strike advantage was so huge in that war, and if UPN/DEIC hit us, they beat us easily by contrast.

 

"limited" lol - when is UPN's entire upper tier limited? You couldn't have rebuilt enough to take out UPN's uppers, your guys were zeroed. Because Alpha had more nations, we had a bigger impact than Guardian in that war, no bragging, just had more nations. But to revise history because you now really hate Alpha, is really pathetic. When NK does it...it's awesome, but Alpha does it we are shit, right? LOL, keep on trucking bro.

Hold your horses:

 

1. I'm not commenting on how well you performed on what targets you took. I'm referring to your refusal at the time to hit deic. You limited yourself to upn and that in turn limited your impact on the war. (I understand why, as rose shielded you from description counters iirc)

 

2. I'm also referring to your time of entry (you took a very long time to build up and prepare). By the time you were ready, we had - thanks to arrgh early entry - already wiped everything under 2k score as good as clean. Why I remember this? Because you literally were surprised about it at the time and complained (jokingly) about a lack of targets.

 

3. The above does not mean that you didn't execute well (because you did). It means that we would have been able to do it without you too, and that your particular entry mostly sped up the process and made it less painful. The undeclared route would've been a grind fest.

[Prefonteen]

Alpha entering wiped out our upper tier quickly. Part of the reason VE went for Arrgh was because Alpha had enterred (we didn't think either Arrgh/Alpha would initially), and we already thought we couldn't win the war -- and tried to do best by our ally, while still getting relief. So if Alpha did not enter, it's possible that VE would of took someone else more meaningful as then we would of had more to fight for. There were also some talks with Pubstomper/Rose over some things at the time, but with Alpha enterring, it cut that off. Again I feel like you and Pre are underestimting the impact, as 10 or so near max military nations a few days into the war are no joke when the other side don't have the same, and I feel like you are also not considering the knock off effects it may of had. e.g. perhaps with Alpha not entering, and VE hitting someone else/getting countered, CS would of entered? There are a lot of possibilities.

 

So the eventual downdeclares you and Pre are talking about weren't a guarantee, and you are undervaluing the job Alpha did.

 

Arrgh & Alpha won you that war imo.

My reference was mechanically. Politically, the biggest impact alpha in particular had was probably it's influence on Rose not entering.

[Prefonteen]

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.

This bit is bs. I already trotted out the quotes where you began pushing for a war on upn Inot the lead up to proxy and where I dodged your probes.

 

You wanted covenant taken out.

 

As for using.... that too is bs and you know it. You pissed us in 168 by playing a two-faced game. And so we cancelled.

[Saru]

My reference was mechanically. Politically, the biggest impact alpha in particular had was probably it's influence on Rose not entering.

 

Right, but why are we discussing mechanics in an isolated case when it obviously has several significant knock off effects in the grander scheme of things -- which was my original point in regards to saying if Arrgh and Alpha did not enter, it would of been interesting to see how the war turned out, and whether your slight advantage in activity, and considerably more coordination would of overcame our advantage of first strike.

 

And even purely mechanically, 10 nations or so near max military nearly a round into the war is no joke to take out.

 

This bit is bs. I already trotted out the quotes where you began pushing for a war on upn Inot the lead up to proxy and where I dodged your probes.

 

You wanted covenant taken out.

 

As for using.... that too is bs and you know it. You pissed us in 168 by playing a two-faced game. And so we cancelled.

 

We're well aware of Placentica not liking us or DEIC. Not sure if it was paranoia or something else -- as we had heard from a few people they were concerned we would hit them at some point. Pubstomper had told me Alpha wouldn't enter, and that Rose were doing all they can to make sure of it (and same with Arrgh) -- so it squashed the little bit of doubts we had at first, causing the surprise later on when both did enter.

[Placentica]

This bit is bs. I already trotted out the quotes where you began pushing for a war on upn Inot the lead up to proxy and where I dodged your probes.

 

You wanted covenant taken out.

 

As for using.... that too is bs and you know it. You pissed us in 168 by playing a two-faced game. And so we cancelled.

I did want TC taken out, I thought UPN would prob. roll us later on.  I was wrong about that part and had I known how little you gave a shit about Alpha, and what little threat UPN was to us, I wouldn't have joined where I did.

 

As for 168-day....I told you 100% we were with Rose and I hated the way Mensa was mass raiding Vanguard, as a small alliance who got raided often, I will never take the side of the raiding party.  You were 100% briefed that we didn't support Mensa in 168-day war.  I was not two-faced.  You omit telling everyone that was made it 100% clear our stance in that war - we viewed your involvement as optional aggression.  Yet you still attacked our ally Rose.  Even if you view it as defense, and that is your right.  I made it 100% clear I viewed your attack on Rose as optional aggression.  The point being I was not two-faced but entirely upfront with you in hours and hours of logs arguing why I supported Rose and viewed Mensa as the aggressors.

 

You burned the bridge with Alpha by planned design to setup the next war, as we were an expendable ally and one you felt you couldn't manhandle like say a Pantheon.  168-Day War Part II/Alpha-tS/OOC War/NPO's First time/etc - was a war all knew was going to happen because of the relative stalemate of the 168-day War.

 

The Syndicate has a long history of burning ex-allies and attacking them in the future.  How you manage to keep people like Pantheon is beyond me, but the "we like to win" mentality is so strong that's usually how you keep winning.  Kudos, you play the game one way, I play it another, sticking by principals, even if it means joining the losing side of a war potentially.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Placentica

[Apeman]

Did someone say NK? My ape sense is tingling and it's not from the monkey masterbation.

[Prefonteen]

Right, but why are we discussing mechanics in an isolated case when it obviously has several significant knock off effects in the grander scheme of things -- which was my original point in regards to saying if Arrgh and Alpha did not enter, it would of been interesting to see how the war turned out, and whether your slight advantage in activity, and considerably more coordination would of overcame our advantage of first strike.

 

And even purely mechanically, 10 nations or so near max military nearly a round into the war is no joke to take out.

 

 

We're well aware of Placentica not liking us or DEIC. Not sure if it was paranoia or something else -- as we had heard from a few people they were concerned we would hit them at some point. Pubstomper had told me Alpha wouldn't enter, and that Rose were doing all they can to make sure of it (and same with Arrgh) -- so it squashed the little bit of doubts we had at first, causing the surprise later on when both did enter.

I think that without arrgh, tS wouldn't have been able to recover it's midtier and buildup of relief would've been too late. War would be lost.

 

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 very 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.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Partisan

[Placentica]

Did someone say NK? My ape sense is tingling and it's not from the monkey masterbation.

It was great how we bonded over your nuking of GPA, which was clearly the most epic nuking ever, and how everyone was saluting the Nuke gods and much worshiping was being had.

But when Alpha did it to tS just prior it was because we were shit, lol.

[Prefonteen]

I did want TC taken out, I thought UPN would prob. roll us later on. I was wrong about that part and had I known how little you gave a shit about Alpha, and what little threat UPN was to us, I wouldn't have joined where I did.

 

As for 168-day....I told you 100% we were with Rose and I hated the way Mensa was mass raiding Vanguard, as a small alliance who got raided often, I will never take the side of the raiding party. You were 100% briefed that we didn't support Mensa in 168-day war. I was not two-faced. You omit telling everyone that was made it 100% clear our stance in that war - we viewed your involvement as optional aggression. Yet you still attacked our ally Rose. Even if you view it as defense, and that is your right. I made it 100% clear I viewed your attack on Rose as optional aggression. The point being I was not two-faced but entirely upfront with you in hours and hours of logs arguing why I supported Rose and viewed Mensa as the aggressors.

 

You burned the bridge with Alpha by planned design to setup the next war, as we were an expendable ally and one you felt you couldn't manhandle like say a Pantheon. 168-Day War Part II/Alpha-tS/OOC War/NPO's First time/etc - was a war all knew was going to happen because of the relative stalemate of the 168-day War.

 

The Syndicate has a long history of burning ex-allies and attacking them in the future. How you manage to keep people like Pantheon is beyond me, but the "we like to win" mentality is so strong that's usually how you keep winning. Kudos, you play the game one way, I play it another, sticking by principals, even if it means joining the losing side of a war potentially.

But... you weren't up front about the degree of your involvement.

 

- you made it clear you didn't support mensa. Correct. We understood that. We notified you that we viewed rose hitting mensa for a paperless vanguard in questionable circumstances as a trigger of our treaty. You told us you understood (though you ofcourse tried to convince us not to defend mensa)).

 

For your sake, we pushed hard for a mutual solution. To the point of outright asking rose what they specifically wanted. We were told mensa had to burn and given no specific options.

 

Rose informed us they'd go in alone the night before they hit. We'd at that point made it clear that we'd defend.

 

Rose then entered along with a fark oA.

 

We entered along with allied oA's.

 

After a lot of discussion you agreed to limit your involvement to just hitting roz wei who went in paperless.

 

We agreed. At that point we were understanding.

 

Then you expanded your involvement to sk without notifying us while using a bunch of bogus reasons and began blaming us. You spun around and around in our query.

 

I can go into the specifics there but we've done that a thousand times by now. So I'll leave it at this:

 

You made us a promise. Then you broke that promise in a very deliberate way. You then refused to own up to that and instead blamed us.

 

That is not 'setting you up by design'. It's reacting to feeling wronged.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Partisan

[Saru]

I think that without aright, tS wouldn't have been able to recover it's midtier and buildup of relief would've been too late. War would be lost.

 

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 very 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.

 

Yeah, I would agree with that.

[Placentica]

But... you weren't up front about the degree of your involvement.

 

- you made it clear you didn't support mensa. Correct. We understood that. We notified you that we viewed rose hitting mensa for a paperless vanguard in questionable circumstances as a trigger of our treaty. You told us you understood (though you ofcourse tried to convince us not to defend mensa)).

 

Then you expanded your involvement to sk without notifying us while using a bunch of bogus reasons and began blaming us. You spun around and around in our query.

 

You made us a promise. Then you broke that promise in a very deliberate way. You then refused to own up to that and instead blamed us.

You knew we were on their side.  This upset you and you tried to convince me that Rose were the aggressors, but that is not how I viewed it, both our right and this is when I told you I understood your position, while disagreeing with it.  You tote out my being a reasonable ally.  I was trying to level with you.  I 100% thought it was bullshit to defend Mensa's aggression.

 

But I was totally upfront with all the information that was available (pre-Chola/SK entry).  I told you I supported Rose.  By the point of you trying to make me "promise" to not do something, I knew you were not our ally any longer, nor did you have our back.  Then you tried to pin me on just Roz Wei.  And when you had any sort of log you could cherry pick and show to everyone, you then sent in other alliances like Chola to try to convince others that we backstabbed you.  We never did.  You changed the situation.  Chola didn't need to enter after Rose was beaten, forcing Alpha's hand (MDP).  And that you created a situation where you could fake people out that we went back on our word with you - this never happened.

 

Roz Wei hit Rose, MDP trigger.  The Chola hit Rose (completely necessary btw) and that triggered our MDP.  And SK, which we will agree to disagree, but I will take all threats in the same light, I will not ever make excuses for doing that.

 

We never made any promise to you to stay on just Roz Wei, if more people entered or the war changed.  But at the time you were trying to get logs on me, RW was our only target and I can't obviously comment on things that haven't happened yet (SK/Chola).  SK declared war on our entire coalition so you were notified by their DoW, lol.

 

You guys have done a fine job running up the game and creating a pretty amazing hegemoney, no need to keep trying to lie about the past.  No one even cares at this point.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Placentica

[Roquentin]

I agree that winning definitely is different in this game.  In many cases while our side clearly won, things seesawed enough on individual fronts that we still took a lot of conventional damage.  We have not always decisively won every front quickly.  Add in nukes, and the high resource cost of destroying infra, and the overall cost of war + rebuilding for the victor vs the looser isn't always that different.

 

Since the sides started out relatively even statistically, the relatively even statistical loss has meant that the proportional loss to each side hasn't been too different and the long term relative balance of power hasn't always changed very much even though we won.  In a 2-1 or 3-1 scenario, one side would proportionally be taking way more damage and it would have a bigger impact on the longer term balance of power.

 

In many of the wars, the sides were close enough that it would not have taken a huge amount to swing it the other way.

 

In any case it's incredibly premature to assume that the next big war will contain the same rough sides.  I'd talk about it further but it's a waste of time because I don't believe any of the complaining about it to be sincere, it's just a form of stonewalling because you don't want to take the economic hit of paying reps.  I can't blame you for not wanting to pay reps, I personally don't like reps, and I could respect rejecting them on the principle that reps shouldn't be a thing in this world.  But the insincere whining is unbecoming and makes me not at all sympathetic.

 

In some of the wars, the cost was drastically different. You guys came out way ahead in damage in the previous war and looting. It isn't that even in terms of outcomes. This one would be more of an exception in terms of the damage, but it's skewed a bit, but it was still a lot more even damage-wise than the last war.  The losing side ends up taking more time to rebuild if they're able to and the winning side can recover fully or go. In many of the wars, participants with nukes avoided going full nuclear and wars would usually peace before they used up their stockpiles.

 

I'm not sure how you think this is the case. Some alliance on the losing side have been able to rebuild, but if you look at some of the major anchor alliances, they haven't recovered much.  The damage usually is substantially higher for the losing side. Multiple losses have resulted in less recovery, less growth, reduced membercounts and more inactivity as some people get tired of just going to war to get ZMed. The balance of power has been altered long term, especially with the departure of alliances who were once part of the losing side(CS, BoC, TLF, CF, Phoenix it's not a comprehensive list btw). We had help with Pantheon which helped not make it seem as lopsided from some non-aligned alliances, but they weren't invested in the overall war.

 

I mean, if you want to doubt the sincerity, I'm not really sure I'm going to convince you otherwise. It's just pretty simple to point out that our side had split before and reunited temporarily with the addition of some alliances. That appears to have been a one time thing.  I wouldn't say it's premature to say we'd see another war against some of the alliances  though I would contest the fact that it'd be considered a big war. In any peace deal, we  are essentially returning to the situation we had before this war became a possibility where the most likely prospect was a curbstomp on a  smaller cluster. I don't want to pay reps because of the economic burden  especially not the level that is being demanded, but we're disincentivized significantly from paying anything by the political situation since we would be in an extremely precarious position after peace.

 

To be frank, I wasn't just blowing smoke when I made it clear what the stakes were for this war because it was the last time there were going to be enough alliances to oppose Syndisphere on paper. Even then it required a significant mobilization advantage and the element of surprise for us to have a legitimate shot over the activity advantage your side had.  Despite those advantages, it wasn't enough since not enough people on our side were active enough to take full advantage of it. There isn't really much of a chance of a radical change and your side is continuing to consolidate. The  result is an endgame scenario with one side completely dominant.

Edited October 3, 2016 by Roquentin

[Prefontaine]

Alpha as previously said came in late and on limited targets and were inconsequential to the final outcome of the war. The uppers would eventually have been picked off by up declares. Alpha mostly sped up that process.

What I said at the start. We sped up an already given conclusion. 

 

We hit all of UPN's top tier not in beige which was about 15 targets. 

We should have hit DEIC, only hitting 15 targets with a force as efficent as ours was at that time was a joke that had no impact on the result of the war. We only sped up what was going to already happen by a few days.

 

when is UPN's entire upper tier limited?

Right now perhaps?

 

 

And when they were already one full round into the war, when we entered. You claim it was 15, that's still a very few for an alliance as top tier heavy (at the time) as Alpha was. Most of the people we hit weren't at max military and had already used their rebuys for the day. As someone well versed in the top tier tactics, that's a death sentence. Alpha hit soft targets while having overwhelming power against said soft targets. They were soft because we waited long enough to enter and they didn't have any backup to come hit us as a counter. It was an easy fight that had no impact on the grand scheme of the war.

 

Arrgh & Alpha won you that war imo.

 

Arrgh perhaps. But thinking Alpha had anything major to contribute to that war is probably while your side sucks so hard at warfare. You don't understand what's actually important. 

 

3. The above does not mean that you didn't execute well (because you did). It means that we would have been able to do it without you too, and that your particular entry mostly sped up the process and made it less painful. The undeclared route would've been a grind fest.

 

Exactly what I've been saying. We just sped up a foregone conclusion. 

 

Time for this thing to go another 10 pages with Partisan/Steve Buscemi posting. I don't get what's so hard to admit that Alpha didn't matter in that war. We didn't. I can say that without hesitation or regret. What we did we did brilliantly. It just didn't actually change anything meaningful in the war. 

[Prefonteen]

You knew we were on their side.  This upset you and you tried to convince me that Rose were the aggressors, but that is not how I viewed it, both our right and this is when I told you I understood your position, while disagreeing with it.  You tote out my being a reasonable ally.  I was trying to level with you.  I 100% thought it was bullshit to defend Mensa's aggression.

 

But I was totally upfront with all the information that was available (pre-Chola/SK entry).  I told you I supported Rose.  By the point of you trying to make me "promise" to not do something, I knew you were not our ally any longer, nor did you have our back.  Then you tried to pin me on just Roz Wei.  And when you had any sort of log you could cherry pick and show to everyone, you then sent in other alliances like Chola to try to convince others that we backstabbed you.  We never did.  You changed the situation.  Chola didn't need to enter after Rose was beaten, forcing Alpha's hand (MDP).  And that you created a situation where you could fake people out that we went back on our word with you - this never happened.

 

Roz Wei hit Rose, MDP trigger.  The Chola hit Rose (completely necessary btw) and that triggered our MDP.  And SK, which we will agree to disagree, but I will take all threats in the same light, I will not ever make excuses for doing that.

 

We never made any promise to you to stay on just Roz Wei, if more people entered or the war changed.  But at the time you were trying to get logs on me, RW was our only target and I can't obviously comment on things that haven't happened yet (SK/Chola).  SK declared war on our entire coalition so you were notified by their DoW, lol.

 

You guys have done a fine job running up the game and creating a pretty amazing hegemoney, no need to keep trying to lie about the past.  No one even cares at this point.

 

*you* are the one who brought up Roz Wei. That prompted me to move the conversation to a channel including Roy where that agreement was finalized.

 

You can't go a sentence without lieing can you?

 

As for triggers: Wasn't your treaty non-chaining?

Edited October 3, 2016 by Partisan