Buorhann Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 (edited) Didn’t you know @Hodor, every member of the Horde is a FA delegate of the Horde. The community here decided so. (I also didn’t read that wall of text fully. Holy shit that’s bad.) Regarding that first paragraph quoted on Lordship, there’s a HUGE difference between plotting BETRAYAL “as a hypothetical” to what your reasonings are here. >Hit the first person who shit talked us You mean like I did with Polaris?? Edited June 10, 2018 by Buorhann Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ungawa Jones Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 The Golden Horde's OWF FA policy has been one that has generated much FA for the FA dept, as a member of the FA dept I approve of the Horde's efforts at FA work, it is greatly appreciated FA. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordship Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 47 minutes ago, Buorhann said: Didn’t you know @Hodor, every member of the Horde is a FA delegate of the Horde. The community here decided so. (I also didn’t read that wall of text fully. Holy shit that’s bad.) Regarding that first paragraph quoted on Lordship, there’s a HUGE difference between plotting BETRAYAL “as a hypothetical” to what your reasonings are here. >Hit the first person who shit talked us You mean like I did with Polaris?? Sure, betrayal is worse, we can agree on that. My point is that the "hypothetical" defense is not an acceptable one based on the fact that we fought a massive war over it already. >with Polaris Not saying that as a general rule we hit whoever shit talks us. I'm saying that you of all people know best what could happen if you spend your time shit-talking alliance since you hit Polar over it! Quote Life before Death. Strength before Weakness. Journey before Destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 "We know what Thalmor did!" *inserts logs from Horsecock* 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordship Posted June 10, 2018 Share Posted June 10, 2018 19 minutes ago, WISD0MTREE said: "We know what Thalmor did!" *inserts logs from Horsecock* I think the Thalmor thing was a joke lol 1 Quote Life before Death. Strength before Weakness. Journey before Destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Hodor Posted June 11, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 11, 2018 Can we just acknowledge that KT may get rolled but will win the war on the sole basis of forcing the word horsecock to be used so many times in serious conversation. 1 24 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 2 hours ago, Lordship said: I think the Thalmor thing was a joke lol Damn it, did Thalmor force you into saying that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felkey Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 36 minutes ago, Hodor said: Can we just acknowledge that KT may get rolled but will win the war on the sole basis of forcing the word horsecock to be used so many times in serious conversation. Culture Victory? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Micchan Posted June 11, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 11, 2018 3 hours ago, WISD0MTREE said: *inserts Horsecock* 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 Gonna restate what I've always maintained, there were no plans to roll TKR that KT participated in and that just because one gov member who doesn't control the FA direction of the alliance, doesn't like you, is a pretty weak justification for war. But hey, if that's all we need as a cb now, I'll take it. It means I have a lot of cbs now. 1 2 Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted June 11, 2018 Author Share Posted June 11, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Keegoz said: Gonna restate what I've always maintained, there were no plans to roll TKR that KT participated in and that just because one gov member who doesn't control the FA direction of the alliance, doesn't like you, is a pretty weak justification for war. But hey, if that's all we need as a cb now, I'll take it. It means I have a lot of cbs now. On 6/9/2018 at 4:16 PM, Nizam Adrienne said: As an additional note, Keegoz got the privilege of seeing a few of these logs a couple days again – a sneak preview if you will. His response? “So your logs show that one of our gov members doesn’t like you?” It’s heartwarming to see treaty partners learning from one another and growing but maybe pick a different lesson than the lack of accountability one, Keegoz? I know TGH is a pro at that but – bit of free advice here – it won’t make you any friends. Day late and a dollar short, love. Edited June 11, 2018 by Nizam Adrienne 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aksel Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 Im just gonna throw this out there... ..but when have CBs been technically needed for a war? I mean I understand people want a publicly stated reason, but in my history of simulation games, the only time there seems to be this insane push for a CB or a proper CB for that matter, is when one side is just legitimately upset over the fact they are being hit in war. This is also not a jab at anyone in the war, just actually trying to comprehend -when have CB's been actually needed. Why not just a - Just cuz - war? Cb? nahhh we doin this shit just cuz. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefonteen Posted June 11, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 11, 2018 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Mad Max said: Im just gonna throw this out there... ..but when have CBs been technically needed for a war? I mean I understand people want a publicly stated reason, but in my history of simulation games, the only time there seems to be this insane push for a CB or a proper CB for that matter, is when one side is just legitimately upset over the fact they are being hit in war. This is also not a jab at anyone in the war, just actually trying to comprehend -when have CB's been actually needed. Why not just a - Just cuz - war? Cb? nahhh we doin this shit just cuz. Not sure about others but while i technically agree with you that cb's are not needed, I believe the inclusion of them enriches gameplay. It provided favor and meaning to wars. Sim games like pw generally consists of bland, simplistic gameplay mechanics and rely on their respectieve communities to keep themselves engaged. CB related stuff is one tool to keep things interesting. I know i definitely would get bored of perpetual war (And peace) without purpose. Edited June 11, 2018 by Prefonteen 2 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aksel Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 2 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: Not sure about others but while i technically agree with you that cb's are not needed, I believe the inclusion of them enriches gameplay. It provided favor and meaning to wars. Sim games like pw generally consists of bland, simplistic gameplay mechanics and rely on their respectieve communities to keep themselves engaged. CB related stuff is one tool to keep things interesting. I know i definitely would get bored of perpetual war (And peace) without purpose. Alright pops, that makes sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Mad Max said: Im just gonna throw this out there... ..but when have CBs been technically needed for a war? I mean I understand people want a publicly stated reason, but in my history of simulation games, the only time there seems to be this insane push for a CB or a proper CB for that matter, is when one side is just legitimately upset over the fact they are being hit in war. This is also not a jab at anyone in the war, just actually trying to comprehend -when have CB's been actually needed. Why not just a - Just cuz - war? Cb? nahhh we doin this shit just cuz. Because no CB means a huge stability hit and aggressive expansion penalties, of course 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kriegskoenig Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 21 hours ago, Buorhann said: [...*snip*] Regarding that first paragraph quoted on Lordship, there’s a HUGE difference between plotting BETRAYAL “as a hypothetical” to what your reasonings are here. >Hit the first person who shit talked us You mean like I did with Polaris?? I agree that overtly plotting against your allies is pretty bad, but mate, for you to be the one saying that, REALLY? You pulled Kastor into your alliance, and let him have a role there, immediately after we dumped him for EXACTLY that kind of behavior...literally asking an alliance to, and I quote, "betray" their ally. We don't tolerate dishonorable, faithless, and reckless behavior, and we appreciate those who understand what it means to honor their word, regardless of personal cost. On the other hand, if you are overtly discussing who to attack next, and someone decides to hit you before you try to form a big coalition to hit them, well, I think they've made a smart move. I wouldn't consider it exactly a friendly gesture to be discussing, in-depth, not merely whether an alliance is a threat to you but whether and how to plan an attack on them. Hypothetical or not, those kind of logs don't arise from a momentary checkup on the status of your relationship to TKR. Now, as for your second attempt at moral equivalence, Polaris trashtalked TGH? Hmmmmmm. When would that be, and where was there any suggestion of hitting TGH, plotting to roll TGH, or hypothetically discussing hitting TGH? I'd be quite amused to see what you can come up with to justify that. Either TGH is way too credulous or deeply paranoid. I'm guessing paranoid; with the cast of derelicts that quickly assembled under TGH's roof, it'd make sense that you'd constantly be looking over your shoulder, but I think you had a lot more reason to be paranoid of other alliances that had a good CB on you. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Vanek26 Posted June 11, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 11, 2018 12 hours ago, Keegoz said: Gonna restate what I've always maintained, there were no plans to roll TKR that KT participated in and that just because one gov member who doesn't control the FA direction of the alliance, doesn't like you, is a pretty weak justification for war. But hey, if that's all we need as a cb now, I'll take it. It means I have a lot of cbs now. Important question: Your government has a guy whose name is horsecock in government? 7 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 29 minutes ago, Kriegskoenig said: I agree that overtly plotting against your allies is pretty bad, but mate, for you to be the one saying that, REALLY? You pulled Kastor into your alliance, and let him have a role there, immediately after we dumped him for EXACTLY that kind of behavior...literally asking an alliance to, and I quote, "betray" their ally. We don't tolerate dishonorable, faithless, and reckless behavior, and we appreciate those who understand what it means to honor their word, regardless of personal cost. On the other hand, if you are overtly discussing who to attack next, and someone decides to hit you before you try to form a big coalition to hit them, well, I think they've made a smart move. I wouldn't consider it exactly a friendly gesture to be discussing, in-depth, not merely whether an alliance is a threat to you but whether and how to plan an attack on them. Hypothetical or not, those kind of logs don't arise from a momentary checkup on the status of your relationship to TKR. Now, as for your second attempt at moral equivalence, Polaris trashtalked TGH? Hmmmmmm. When would that be, and where was there any suggestion of hitting TGH, plotting to roll TGH, or hypothetically discussing hitting TGH? I'd be quite amused to see what you can come up with to justify that. Either TGH is way too credulous or deeply paranoid. I'm guessing paranoid; with the cast of derelicts that quickly assembled under TGH's roof, it'd make sense that you'd constantly be looking over your shoulder, but I think you had a lot more reason to be paranoid of other alliances that had a good CB on you. Do you even know what we’re referencing or talking about to begin with? Or did you just type up a bunch of words for the sake of it? Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pubstomper Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 On 6/10/2018 at 12:24 AM, Micchan said: Pretty sure I forgot someone Completely ignoring you have the next largest alliance in score working with you as well. I commend the graphic but it ignores so many situational conditions for each of those wars. Also, it's true - people won't go to war anymore unless they are pretty convinced they will win. The last war I can think of that was really "could go either way" great VE war. Oktoberfest /should/ have been an easy win for UPN but uhh didn't work out. "You're too big" is an argument you'll see in every war you have so long as you guys keep on doing math before you hit. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felkey Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 18 minutes ago, Partisan said: Completely ignoring you have the next largest alliance in score working with you as well. I commend the graphic but it ignores so many situational conditions for each of those wars. Also, it's true - people won't go to war anymore unless they are pretty convinced they will win. The last war I can think of that was really "could go either way" great VE war. Oktoberfest /should/ have been an easy win for UPN but uhh didn't work out. "You're too big" is an argument you'll see in every war you have so long as you guys keep on doing math before you hit. So because we have been successful in war and in peace we should drop our longest standing allies and friends because you don't like it? It's not like we have the entire top 10 tied to us or anything like that, so when you have a real reason why we should cut our ties, come and talk to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japan77 Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 so, apparently militarizing is unfair (since TCW wouldn't be #2 if not militarized, and the score gap would be much smaller). Apparently growing well in peace is also unfair( TKR wouldn't be #1 without our great econ and IA programs, we literally built up from being a micro of 10 people, well not me since I joined with VI, but you get the point). Apparently being not !@#$ in FA is also unfair(We wouldn't have hit you without CB) So, in conclusion, the only way for a fight to be fair is to intentionally handicap yourself so everyone fights 1v1 with the same score. Seriously?? I think the term y'all are looking for is an "even" fight, not fair. Last I checked, in-game nor out-of-game stuff inherently favors TKR and co. Y'all made your decisions, now learn to live with them rather than trying to run away from them. That's like a 10 year old's response to a situation, I expected a level of maturity from y'all, but instead have been disappointed. 3 2 Quote I don't sleep enough Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian Lastly, Hello world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, Partisan said: Completely ignoring you have the next largest alliance in score working with you as well. I commend the graphic but it ignores so many situational conditions for each of those wars. Also, it's true - people won't go to war anymore unless they are pretty convinced they will win. The last war I can think of that was really "could go either way" great VE war. Oktoberfest /should/ have been an easy win for UPN but uhh didn't work out. "You're too big" is an argument you'll see in every war you have so long as you guys keep on doing math before you hit. Oktoberfest might have being a win if the alliances involved in it day 1 were the only ones involved in it and even that is somewhat questionable if the war dragged on. Edited June 11, 2018 by Lightning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pubstomper Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Felkey said: So because we have been successful in war and in peace we should drop our longest standing allies and friends because you don't like it? It's not like we have the entire top 10 tied to us or anything like that, so when you have a real reason why we should cut our ties, come and talk to me. Lol literally this could be about TKR pulling the trigger on EMC. I can’t take this reply seriously actually, get me out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, Clarke said: Oktoberfest might have being a win if the alliances involved in it day 1 were the only ones involved in it and even that is somewhat questionable if the war dragged on. Bollocks. That's spin. You had superior numbers, especially up top- even with the alliances that came in later included. Also hello Clarkness, my old friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felkey Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 The tkr gov that went a bit spazy with treaty cuts isn't the same gov as now. So we should just abandon our allies because they made some mistakes? If everyone held permanent grudges for mistakes, 90% of the players in the game would be forced to.delete because they would be all alone. Myself included. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.