Jump to content

Britannian Three for One Special


Recommended Posts

We then got word that a possible preempt was going to happen on us, but that fell through since only BK showed up in force at the time.  So we beefed up and threw out feelers to see what was going on.  The VE talks fell through, Yoda got removed from power.  If it wasn't for the IQ preempt heads up, Mensa probably would've attacked VE for their plots of joining NPO then betraying Syndicate afterwards.

 

Again, there was no plans to attack IQ, but we knew that there was a high possibility of conflict with IQ if VE had gotten attacked - which, again, was a good possibility.

 

That didn't happen, instead, IQ preempted us.

 

For the first part, we were expecting a preempt at that point, and thats why were consistently on everyday of the week. The thing is, Mensa and t$ attacking VE is the same thing as indirectly attacking IQ, as due to the complicated nature of the treaty web there was no possibility it wouldn't escalate. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 165
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I put all that effort into making a post for you guys and you still went and wasted your time on a DoW.

You cannot lose if you fight on both sides

Declares on Cerebrus in Defense of TKR.   Declares on TKR's protectorate The Fed who is fighting VE to defend TKR.       Genius.

For the first part, we were expecting a preempt at that point, and thats why were consistently on everyday of the week. The thing is, Mensa and t$ attacking VE is the same thing as indirectly attacking IQ, as due to the complicated nature of the treaty web there was no possibility it wouldn't escalate.

If that is true, isnt Inq attacking tS, Mensa, and TKR the same as indirectly attacking Inq due to the complicated nature of the treaty web?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the first part, we were expecting a preempt at that point, and thats why were consistently on everyday of the week. The thing is, Mensa and t$ attacking VE is the same thing as indirectly attacking IQ, as due to the complicated nature of the treaty web there was no possibility it wouldn't escalate. 

Yes god forbid anyone dare attack our newly acquired meatshield.

 

Hey at least that might have been a marginally stronger CB.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is true, isnt Inq attacking tS, Mensa, and TKR the same as indirectly attacking Inq due to the complicated nature of the treaty web?

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Yes god forbid anyone dare attack our newly acquired meatshield.

 

Hey at least that might have been a marginally stronger CB.

 

What is Rose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rose is more than an alliance, Rose is a people and a purpose. It’s a brotherhood of common players who wish to not only have fun, but contribute value and meaning to the game around them. An alliance guided and held together with a meaning, with a philosophy and a value system. An alliance where those within will make sacrifices for one another, and who will stand together even in the most adverse of events. Rose is not a flower, it is an identity and a community that transcends circumstance.

 

If you join Rose and you're a pixel hugger, you're going to have a bad time.

 

Not gonna lie, I've been trying to get that changed for awhile. Shits cringy af.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, let me explain how it went down.

 

Mensa planned to hit VE after we got leaks.  Mensa was requested to wait for KT to withdraw, we agreed.  Mensa was then requested to let a member of CKD mediate the talks of tVE and VE, we agreed.  We then got a leak of NPO getting involved through the use of Lordaeron and HBE being tied to protecting tVE, so a couple of us looked at that.  It matched up to militarization at the time (Granted Rose and Mensa was already fully militarized just about, but that was due to VE issues).

 

What IQ gov probably got was us think tanking on who'd support who if a conflict occurred between IQ and Syndisphere, since it seems the information came from Spectrum as we had a couple of feelers out just in case.  There was absolutely nothing concrete in preempting or attacking IQ.

 

We then got word that a possible preempt was going to happen on us, but that fell through since only BK showed up in force at the time.  So we beefed up and threw out feelers to see what was going on.  The VE talks fell through, Yoda got removed from power.  If it wasn't for the IQ preempt heads up, Mensa probably would've attacked VE for their plots of joining NPO then betraying Syndicate afterwards.

 

Again, there was no plans to attack IQ, but we knew that there was a high possibility of conflict with IQ if VE had gotten attacked - which, again, was a good possibility.

 

That didn't happen, instead, IQ preempted us.

 

 

I'm not complaining about it, honestly, but their claims of logs is seriously wrong or misunderstood because there was absolutely no plans for IQ.  Like I stated before, planning a war when most of IQ was still tied to Syndisphere alliances plus their majority low score tiers would be a logistical nightmare for us.  The vast majority of their low scores could remain at 0 military and mostly be safe from us, that's how crazy the spread of power difference is.

 

The reason why I'm not complaining is that a world conflict was going to happen one way or another.  When most of the Orbis community is that militarized, not everybody is going to be kosher on being hyped up for war then suddenly be told "Hey, no war, you can't play the game now.  Go back to being a production whore for the alliance."  Like I said, I'm glad to have new rivals honestly.  I'm not even upset at our rivals either.  It's new, it's fresh.  I'm sure the next conflict that occurs in the future (If things don't change from the usual status quo) will be much more challenging.

 

People will learn a lot from this, especially with up declares and down declares being a strategic importance.

 

EDIT:

 

That's as best of a summary I can give.  There's a lot of details in this.

lol just stop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh, we planend it way ahead of knowing your cute little suicide attamept. Luckily you suicide saved you from us calling in others. And our cute and "coward" nations that went in without even militarozing are owning your scrubs without much trouble. Maybe next tiem choose 1 alliance that you can actually handle and then decalre war on them?

I'm a little late to the circle-jerk pardon me, but what "others" could you have called in? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, I take a weekend off and the thread goes wild. Lets wade into it.
 

SK sucked but I was feeling magnanimous.


I can respect that. Just sucks that we lost so much for SK. Finding out after the fact that if we hadn't signed SK, not only would we not have been a target, but others might have considered joining and we could have actually been a legit third sphere... just disappointing that one of the most dramatic and game changing FA moves ever seen was immediately squandered on a busted AA with no prospects. No offense mikey.
 

*angry parernt noises*


YOU CAN'T GROUND ME. YOU'RE NOT EVEN MY REAL SHOGUN! 
*slams door*
 

We heard you were going to hit us, so when you didn't, we hit you.


I just want to take a side bar to say I've enjoyed your presence in these threads. Fighting against someone who speaks openly about FA and with a bit of light-hearted detachment to the whole mess is really refreshing. The following vitriol has nothing do to with you.

...

HAS LITERALLY NO ONE LEARNED ANYTHING FROM SILENT WAR!!!! It's like I'm in a shitty, nerd centric remake of Groundhog Day.
 

We considered an attack on the alliance that was plotting to hit us as an attack on us.


I don't like to use the word cuck, as it's a terrible meme and a worse fetish, but...
 

"Durmij is a dick", but expanded into the length of a thesis.


Okay, lets get serious. I have not been "anti-npo" for quite some time. I believe you are referring to times I called out your econ and peace time defcon policies. Well guess what? Your peace time defcon was pure trash and your econ policy is the one of the worst things I've seen in this game. You've probably lost more in wasted income then your entire alliance is worth. You were so paranoid about being damaged that you shut out any advice on the grounds that syndisphere just wanted you rolled. But the people in this game who take econ seriously don't give a shit about what side you're on. The advice you were given was snarky, rude, and correct. And the net result of this paranoia and lost income? You're too low to help your allies in the tier that matters. Was it worth it?

And as for my very recent comments on your FA, I meant crystallized in intent, not action. Treaties are whatever, if your goal is still "Rawr Rawr hegemoney is evil", your still going to take the same moves over and over. Look where we are now. This is Silent War 2.0, what ever it may end up being called in the wiki. I was planning a long analysis piece of NPO's issues and challenges (still might do it, if only to settle the completionist in me), and my main FA take away for you was going to be "Stop doing FA against other people, start doing it for yourselves". Rose and NPO were at very similar points 7 months ago. We sucked it up, admitted to ourselves that we were the cause of our issues, made a plan, set to work and got Gud. So what are you going to do now?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to take a side bar to say I've enjoyed your presence in these threads. Fighting against someone who speaks openly about FA and with a bit of light-hearted detachment to the whole mess is really refreshing. The following vitriol has nothing do to with you.

 

That "light-hearted detachment" is probably because I have never been involved in the Silent War nor the political workings that happened after it, I'm just an old-time BKer who came back some weeks ago and is enjoying blowing stuff up, though I've learned a lot of what's been going on over the year I've been gone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, I take a weekend off and the thread goes wild. Lets wade into it.

But the people in this game who take econ seriously don't give a shit about what side you're on. The advice you were given was snarky, rude, and correct. And the net result of this paranoia and lost income? You're too low to help your allies in the tier that matters. Was it worth it?

 

We sucked it up, admitted to ourselves that we were the cause of our issues, made a plan, set to work and got Gud. So what are you going to do now?

So you are saying that that the advice that was given them "was snarky, rude" but correct.  Are the same people who were snarky and rude while they give correct advice to NPO also snarky and rude when they give correct advice to their fellow members?  How does that work out?  Clearly members of an alliance taught in such a fashion say "oh thank you, the advice was as snarky as hell, but it's worth the correct advice, we will tell everyone to join this alliance for your great wisdom."

 

(you see what I did there - I'm sure you all appreciate my advice here in spite of how snarky I'm being now)

 

If you want to be snarky and rude then do so.  However, at least give others enough respect to man up to what you were really doing instead of turning around and saying "I told you so" and pretending like you were being fair and not anti NPO (or whatever alliance you're being snarky to) knowing damn well that it was never really about somehow teaching what should be done or otherwise attempting to improving the situation.

Edited by Sylvia
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not gonna lie, I've been trying to get that changed for awhile. Shits cringy af.

Cringe is a pillar of Rose, right up there with gayness. Some things you'll never be able to change. >:(

Edited by Kurdanak
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying that that the advice that was given them "was snarky, rude" but correct.  Are the same people who were snarky and rude while they give correct advice to NPO also snarky and rude when they give correct advice to their fellow members?  How does that work out?  Clearly members of an alliance taught in such a fashion say "oh thank you, the advice was as snarky as hell, but it's worth the correct advice, we will tell everyone to join this alliance for your great wisdom."

 

(you see what I did there - I'm sure you all appreciate my advice here in spite of how snarky I'm being now)

 

If you want to be snarky and rude then do so.  However, at least give others enough respect to man up to what you were really doing instead of turning around and saying "I told you so" and pretending like you were being fair and not anti NPO (or whatever alliance you're being snarky to) knowing damn well that it was never really about somehow teaching what should be done or otherwise attempting to improving the situation.

I'd like to pretend that that line was bait and I'm some master effort-poster, but the truth is I was trying to undercut the "if it was advice why were you so mean" argument in the hopes of wrapping this thread up faster. But we're here now so...

 

Criticism is not nice. It can't be if it's going to be effective. But that's the thing about facts, it doesn't matter how you present them as long as they are sourced correctly. If you have accurate facts, then you have everything you need. Thus, calling me anti-npo for criticizing their econ is absurd. The math did not support their conclusions, the logic did not support their conclusions. They were wrong, it was proven then and it's being proven again now. But they've shut themselves off from criticism because it comes from the big bad evil hegemoney. If criticizing someone makes me anti them, then I'm anti every alliance in the game, especially Rose.

 

It's funny, your post actually proves my point. You're openly hostile and trying to antagonize me, but I can still get to the heart of your argument. Addressing the facts and not tone is essential to debate.

 

And for the record, I was not actually that rude in the thread, just blunt with numbers. I just wanted to diffuse the manners counter argument by lumping all of us posters into one group. The key word in that sentence was "correct".

 

And yes, allies are hard on us and we're hard on allies. That's how we got better.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Okay, lets get serious. I have not been "anti-npo" for quite some time. I believe you are referring to times I called out your econ and peace time defcon policies. Well guess what? Your peace time defcon was pure trash and your econ policy is the one of the worst things I've seen in this game. You've probably lost more in wasted income then your entire alliance is worth. You were so paranoid about being damaged that you shut out any advice on the grounds that syndisphere just wanted you rolled. But the people in this game who take econ seriously don't give a shit about what side you're on. The advice you were given was snarky, rude, and correct. And the net result of this paranoia and lost income? You're too low to help your allies in the tier that matters. Was it worth it?

 

And as for my very recent comments on your FA, I meant crystallized in intent, not action. Treaties are whatever, if your goal is still "Rawr Rawr hegemoney is evil", your still going to take the same moves over and over. Look where we are now. This is Silent War 2.0, what ever it may end up being called in the wiki. I was planning a long analysis piece of NPO's issues and challenges (still might do it, if only to settle the completionist in me), and my main FA take away for you was going to be "Stop doing FA against other people, start doing it for yourselves". Rose and NPO were at very similar points 7 months ago. We sucked it up, admitted to ourselves that we were the cause of our issues, made a plan, set to work and got Gud. So what are you going to do now?

We're not the only alliance that kept high military in peace time, ironically one of them is your ally.  Most alliances have raised their peace time reqs substantially so ours wouldn't be particularly high. Ours was actually lower than many for a long time. Your main criticism before the recent stuff was that we kept a lot of soldiers and you used a wrong food consumption statistic the first time. When we did have enough where we could get more people to higher infra, we did so.  It's not really about being paranoid. It's what we know to be the case. A target that is in range and has more expensive to break is a more attractive one. The infra destroyed from beiging after the mechanics change also meant becoming also meant that any raid would be a lot more expensive and there were several risks of conflict in the time we did have peace past the initial rebuild from the previous war. The entire premise of your argument was "it would pay itself off within a month," and when you have the level of uncertainty we did at the time, not having a guaranteed month due to the various brushfire conflicts would have been really risky. You didn't really care about your advice being received since it was just posted on the owf well after the fact. You did not ever really try to talk to us seriously on it at any point before that.  It was most definitely worth it since we are able to participate in this war. Had we gotten into range before Inquisition. we'd have gotten a curbstomp and essentially been the mid-tier TEst: an alliance that appears statistically formidable on its own and appears as a threat that way, but is piled on by many others. Like Sylvia said, any advice you gave wasn't really advice at all. It was after the fact criticism not intended to be constructive or heeded. Had you wanted to help at all, you would have come forward like you did with other alliances. 

 

I'm sorry I'm not particularly interested in going the full stockholm syndrome route and pretending people who actively wished us harm and carried some serious vendettas were in the right the entire time nor do I think it would be productive. It's really never that black and white and this idea that somehow they were always innocent in everything and everyone else was wrong is just completely bad faith Here is also a major difference: there was a new target of ire for them. To be honest, had we not been around, I have more doubts about Syndisphere being willing to embrace you. Basically all I see from this part is "we couldn't beat Syndisphere despite coming close to it, so since we can't win against them, let's adopt their narratives wholesale and join them since there's a seat waiting for us". You don't really know the extent of the issues involved and how personal it gets in some cases. The fact that you buried the grievances you had doesn't mean they were never seen as legitimate. It's always been a matter of who was wiling to move on and who wasn't. The fact that the people who had been in the Syndisphere who weren't frothing at the mouth about NPO(even people we hit directly and damaged like BK) could see we're not that bad and were willing to even ally us should speak volumes. I'm sorry that it's not that appealing to have the best case scenario of joining Syndisphere and helping them perpetuate grudges against whatever entities they decide to carry them against. 

Edited by Roquentin
Link to post
Share on other sites

We're not the only alliance that kept high military in peace time, ironically one of them is your ally. Most alliances have raised their peace time reqs substantially so ours wouldn't be particularly high. Ours was actually lower than many for a long time. Your main criticism before the recent stuff was that we kept a lot of soldiers and you used a wrong food consumption statistic the first time. When we did have enough where we could get more people to higher infra, we did so. It's not really about being paranoid. It's what we know to be the case. A target that is in range and has more expensive to break is a more attractive one. The infra destroyed from beiging after the mechanics change also meant becoming also meant that any raid would be a lot more expensive and there were several risks of conflict in the time we did have peace past the initial rebuild from the previous war. The entire premise of your argument was "it would pay itself off within a month," and when you have the level of uncertainty we did at the time, not having a guaranteed month due to the various brushfire conflicts would have been really risky. You didn't really care about your advice being received since it was just posted on the owf well after the fact. You did not ever really try to talk to us seriously on it at any point before that. It was most definitely worth it since we are able to participate in this war. Had we gotten into range before Inquisition. we'd have gotten a curbstomp and essentially been the mid-tier TEst: an alliance that appears statistically formidable on its own and appears as a threat that way, but is piled on by many others. Like Sylvia said, any advice you gave wasn't really advice at all. It was after the fact criticism not intended to be constructive or heeded. Had you wanted to help at all, you would have come forward like you did with other alliances.

 

I'm sorry I'm not particularly interested in going the full stockholm syndrome route and pretending people who actively wished us harm and carried some serious vendettas were in the right the entire time nor do I think it would be productive. It's really never that black and white and this idea that somehow they were always innocent in everything and everyone else was wrong is just completely bad faith Here is also a major difference: there was a new target of ire for them. To be honest, had we not been around, I have more doubts about Syndisphere being willing to embrace you. Basically all I see from this part is "we couldn't beat Syndisphere despite coming close to it, so since we can't win against them, let's adopt their narratives wholesale and join them since there's a seat waiting for us". You don't really know the extent of the issues involved and how personal it gets in some cases. The fact that you buried the grievances you had doesn't mean they were never seen as legitimate. It's always been a matter of who was wiling to move on and who wasn't. The fact that the people who had been in the Syndisphere who weren't frothing at the mouth about NPO(even people we hit directly and damaged like BK) could see we're not that bad and were willing to even ally us should speak volumes. I'm sorry that it's not that appealing to have the best case scenario of joining Syndisphere and helping them perpetuate grudges against whatever entities they decide to carry them against.

LOLNOU

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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