Jump to content

The war so far - v3


Avruch
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm one of NPO's many moles tasked with getting alliances to switch to their side so they can create their hegemoney, so it isn't really that surprising.

 

I wasn't even going with that, but hey, we can pin that on you too if you want, I guess.  Not that it matters at this point. :)

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of your bs you snek.

 

If Vanguard wasn't a major hitter THEN WHY WERE WE HIT FIRST. We were a threat, plan and simple and they had to take us out first or Mensa would have fallen.

 

Trust me on this I am no snek.

You were hit because you were weak. Eat the weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of your bs you snek. 

 

If Vanguard wasn't a major hitter THEN WHY WERE WE HIT FIRST.  We were a threat, plan and simple and they had to take us out first or Mensa would have fallen.

 

Trust me on this I am no snek.

 

You can't be serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of your bs you snek. 

 

If Vanguard wasn't a major hitter THEN WHY WERE WE HIT FIRST.  We were a threat, plan and simple and they had to take us out first or Mensa would have fallen.

 

Trust me on this I am no snek.

 

Haha. A few random nations in Mensa rolled Vanguard by accident. Threat? Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't even going with that, but hey, we can pin that on you too if you want, I guess. Not that it matters at this point. :)

Careful, npo moles in mensa are watching

:sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:  :sheepy:               :sheepy:              :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy: :sheepy:


Greatkitteh was here.-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If BK, Zodiac, and CS wanted to be in a hegemoney why would they leave Syndisphere in the first place? I don't want to put words in their mouth, but it seems like they opted for the route of making things more interesting. 

 

If two spheres existed and the fighting parts are equal or close to it, then no hegemoney exists. There doesn't has to be a hegemoney in place at all times. 

To be frank no one in CS wants to establish a hegemoney (no CS veteran anyway), and the vote to join the Inquisition would have failed if we felt that way (the vote was already a close one). However, while I may not have much love of this game itself and the stagnancy the game has been in since Silent, I personally favor change to the game. Change but not hegemoney. My ideal would be two or three or even four factions competing for the top and it being exchanged without a hegemoney established. hegemoney is boring but competing to take, and hold onto, the top is fun in my mind if you don't mind the constant burning of pixels.

 

Despite all the destruction my nation is having I am having fun fighting a war again. And to me that is what matters (wish it didn't come during final week but still), I don't give a dime about pixels nor should anyone really in the face of having fun. This is a game, not life and death, something I feel some people have forgotten.

 

You would have a point...but I believe it is rather telling that they only left Syndisphere after BK had already requested for a supremacy clause from TKR. That points to a whole other motive entirely.

Just to make clear you are talking about BK in the part I italicized right? :P Because I didn't hear about BK asking for a supremacy clause from TKR. But since the CS-BK treaty doesn't have an info sharing clause I am fine with that, and even if it did I would still be fine with that. It is not our place to tell our allies what to do and generally we have had a history of being mellow and fair allies, even if people in this war may accuse us of treason we pushed for TKR and the Coalition to not be hit during the planning out of honoring our allies, even if we would be on opposite sides. The Inquisition is pretty much the most active we have been on the political landscape since our foundation.

Edited by Rache Olderen
  • Upvote 2

UQllJcz.png?2

2nd, 4th, and 6th Adelphotes Princeps of Cornerstone, Ambassador to Black Knights, 4th Grand Pilus of Cornerstone, 2nd Chaplain of Cornerstone, 5th Questor Princeps of Cornerstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He just can't publicly admit it in this case, or else Bezzers will have some choice words.

I've been found. You all thought roq was the puppet master, but all along it was me. You win, I surrender to your superior intellect. Roq doesn't have the gun... I do.

Roll Squeegee pact with Redarmy and Ameyuri

Blues Brothers pact with Redarmy

Leader of the Elyion Resistance. If it's backed by NPO, you know it's evil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You were hit because you were weak. Eat the weak.

 

You can't be serious.

 

Haha. A few random nations in Mensa rolled Vanguard by accident. Threat? Lol

 

You were also just really terrifying and stronk.

 
 
Thank you Partisan for understanding sarcasm. +1 to the snek. 
Edited by MrHat
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be frank no one in CS wants to establish a hegemoney (no CS veteran anyway), and the vote to join the Inquisition would have failed if we felt that way (the vote was already a close one). However, while I may not have much love of this game itself and the stagnancy the game has been in since Silent, I personally favor change to the game. Change but not hegemoney. My ideal would be two or three or even four factions competing for the top and it being exchanged without a hegemoney established. hegemoney is boring but competing to take, and hold onto, the top is fun in my mind if you don't mind the constant burning of pixels.

 

Despite all the destruction my nation is having I am having fun fighting a war again. And to me that is what matters (wish it didn't come during final week but still), I don't give a dime about pixels nor should anyone really in the face of having fun. This is a game, not life and death, something I feel some people have forgotten.

 

Just to make clear you are talking about BK in the part I italicized right? :P Because I didn't hear about BK asking for a supremacy clause from TKR. But since the CS-BK treaty doesn't have an info sharing clause I am fine with that, and even if it did I would still be fine with that. It is not our place to tell our allies what to do and generally we have had a history of being mellow and fair allies, even if people in this war may accuse us of treason we pushed for TKR and the Coalition to not be hit during the planning out of honoring our allies, even if we would be on opposite sides. The Inquisition is pretty much the most active we have been on the political landscape since our foundation.

Your new ally Acadia couldn't get help against the Coalition counterattack because you were protecting the Coalition.  Acadia is so lucky to have you, lol.

 

You also tried to prevent a central player in the opposing coalition, TKR, from getting hit.  It could've potentially caused your coalition to lose the war, which makes you an extremely shitty coalition ally.  Best of luck trying to get alliances to support any coalition war that you or your bloc may want to start in the future.  Makes me almost feel bad for the alliances that got attacked, like UPN, from a CS-freed up TKR/tC.

 

You talk about not wanting a hegemoney, but CS actions actually support one.  You want to have your fingers in multiple spheres preventing smaller factions from warring, independently.  The prerequisite for smaller sphere wars is to have treaties with only sphere allies (or people not chaining in, which will never happen).

 

CS typically has always tried to increase it's security by tying into multiple spheres.  I have no issues with a hegemoney.  And the winners of big wars will always get accused of it.  I do have issues with you act like you want faction diversity when your treaty actions show you to be a big supporter of a hegemoney.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wat. I'm not sure how that nullifies the point at all. We originally wanted to switch things up with OO as a unit, and we made that quite clear. Once that failed we tried something else and formed INQ.

As one of the first few people in BK gov that was vocally pro-NPO treaty, I can assure you that the intention was purely to make the political landscape more interesting. Sure...if we do that right, BK ends up in a more powerful position. That's what pretty much any government wants for its alliance. However...no one wanted a Syndisphere-like "hegemoney." Something like that would just put us back in the same position of trying to switch things up to make it interesting...

You are either naive or outright lying.

 

What outcome other than war can result " from changing things up" or seeking a " more powerful position" ?

 

War is the continuation of politics by other means. Your political machinations didn't provide the higher position of influence you sought and so here we are.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh damn, hippo. You got grand damme slam OWNED

It's my birthday today, and I'm 33!

That means only one thing...BRING IT IN, GUYS!

*every character from every game, comic, cartoon, TV show, movie, and book reality come in with everything for a HUGE party*

4nVL9WJ.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2-40.jpg

Never said I agreed with it. But the Senate is the Senate and each have their own views. My position is more akin to a constitutional monarch so it isn't like I can decide things like that. But Cornerstone has a history of treasuring friends, not keeping fingers in as many spheres as possible for our own benefits but because of our own feelings about allies. If you want to cast us as a demon feel free to keep doing so, it won't change us any.

 

As for Acadia as the Acadian Corner Treaty was not official yet it does not apply. And even then we do not declare war on allies. Otherwise the Stone Coal Treaty wouldn't be worth the forum space it was written on.

Edited by Rache Olderen

UQllJcz.png?2

2nd, 4th, and 6th Adelphotes Princeps of Cornerstone, Ambassador to Black Knights, 4th Grand Pilus of Cornerstone, 2nd Chaplain of Cornerstone, 5th Questor Princeps of Cornerstone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't make any claims to lack of bias. The data is reliable and can be checked by anyone, since its all just drawn from in-game pages available to anyone. My limited commentary is obviously biased, since I'm a participant in the war. 

didnt say you were bias...in fact I didnt know where you got your data from so I didnt say your data was bias. Neither is it not bias, Im leaving your data at a neutral stand point.

discussion before violence

What I post do not represent the views of the alliance unless otherwise stated.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

  • 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.