Jump to content

Solar powered, german-made robotic elephants built with Yakuza money


Khai Jäger
 Share

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, The Royalist said:

I seem to recall that a few weeks ago when you came up with reasons to counter us for some protectorate bullshit of yours, I had BK knock on my door a few days later, so you might want to re consider about who runs.

Reasons to counter? The reasons were already there. About 5 Empy members attacked our prot who then attacked us directly. We slotted all of them after talking to you. So I'm not sure what you may be alluding to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Epi said:

On the other hand, T$ built the game's dominant sphere out of protectorates sooo, not sure why people are pretending like they aren't expected to upgrade their protector. If that isn't the case there really is no reason to sign a protectorate agreement unless you're like NPO with an altruistic sense of 'creating more political actors'.

T$ the Protectorates are almost an extension of themselves, so interesting strategy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Keegoz said:

 Heck most pros don't ally their protector and actively take an independent start once they get on their feet.

KT was a Pantheon protectorate,

I'd say were more successful because of it. 

And you guys signed a treaty with Pantheon that they canceled after Thalmor told shifty to go nuke rouge them lmfao. Maybe Citadel is just following your lead and the treaty will end in six months with a shifty leak

Edited by Malal
  • Haha 3

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Keegoz said:

If you're not gonna rely on BK for support, then why not drop them?

You're trying to have the best of both worlds but at the end of the day, you're connected to a much larger web with more pulling power. To think that you can somehow overcome this is just naive to say the least.

You either don't rely on BK (and therefore you should cut them to prove it) or you do. Actions speak louder than words and currently as it stands, your ally has a commitment to defend BK and vice versa.

>Trying to change the game is futile and naive.

>The only way to prove yourself is to drop out of the web. 

You finish by saying we defend eachother. So no, it's not a one sided deal or treaty. Even you admit it with your closing comment. All AK, Carthago, Yakuza, Solar and BK benefit from being tied together just as KETOG benefits from having eachother. 

You know, it's a fine mentality that dropping out of the web solves all our problems. However on a realistic perspective it doesn't. There will always be a set of drifting alliances hanging in-between spheres and blocs that individuals lean towards having friendship with via paper. I'm not saying KETOG or Chaos hasn't set a good example. I'm saying it can't apply to the entire game. Whether you disagree or not is up to debate, but it's obviously true if you look at the web as it is now.

2 hours ago, Keegoz said:

This new bloc is going to live in your shadow and ultimately not much has changed, despite their attempts to convince us otherwise.

A matter of perspective. I don't need to convince you otherwise, cause frankly I don't intend to live in anyone's shadow. It is said that one who is quick to judge is not a good leader. However I'm certain less than 24 hours was enough for a conclusion. At the least I'm happy to recognize some form of change has occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Khai Jäger said:

A matter of perspective. I don't need to convince you otherwise, cause frankly I don't intend to live in anyone's shadow. It is said that one who is quick to judge is not a good leader. However I'm certain less than 24 hours was enough for a conclusion. At the least I'm happy to recognize some form of change has occurred.

If you don't intend to live in anyone's shadow, then what do you call your bloc's relationship with BK? There's a huge power imbalance there that you're on the small side of, which is the very definition of living in their shadow. If you're willing to live with that dissonance then that's entirely on you, but we're still going to call you out on it for the simple reason that us on the outside of the treaty clusterfrick have an interest in seeing your bloc be genuinely independent, rather than whatever you seem to think independence is.

What has BK done for you lately, anyway?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

...No, you don't have "more options"; you're still under BK's influence at best, and under their thrall at worst. Tying more alliances indirectly towards BK is less "steps towards independence" so much as "adding to BK's satellite alliance bulk", unless there's actual steps towards... y'know, independence. It doesn't add options, since your options remain "be BK satellite" or "start breaking off of BK".

Feel free to continue to sit in BK's sphere all day long, it's no particular skin off my nose; but unless and until you can show that you're willing to say "no" to them on any substantive matter then you haven't really taken any steps towards anything but adding to BKsphere's already excessive bulk of satellites.

Now, would cutting ties to BK be something negative? If done in a vacuum, perhaps, and if done with some naive expectation of safety and security certainly, but challenge is how we grow as alliances, as blocs, and as individuals. Break ties with BK, declare support of Chaos bloc against the evil menace of KETOG, or bandwagon against Chaos if you want (though I sincerely don't recommend that), maybe hit Rosesphere just because they're harboring Akuryo. All of these will be challenging (well, not the bandwagon against chaos option), which will tighten your coordination, prove your agency as an independent bloc, shake out anyone uncommitted to advancing your political causes as opposed to BK's or their own pixelhugging, and generally earn respect. Respect which can be achieved in no other way.

Your growth and prosperity cannot be measured in cities and nations alone, but in how well they are used, how efficient and how dedicated each of them is and how independent they are of influence from anyone else, be that KETOG or Chaos or Rose or BK or SyndisPO or anybody. And until you've shown SOME of that, what growth have you actually accomplished? And why should anyone offer you respect?

You seem really angry, perhaps we should do private counseling? 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations to my friends in AK, for this movement, very happy to where the alliance and it's pals, are now. I do have some issues I keep seeing though...

My opinions are sided toward most of the criticism that has been dished out, explaining that an bloc such as yourself, military and economically powerful and capable of handling itself is 'hiding' behind BK, although I would argue that it wouldn't be a problem if someone declared war, but I feel that if you guys were losing, BK would most likely step in, and currently I can agree a lot with the resemblance of the Vanguard Bloc, much to my dismay.

Another point, I see thrown a lot is "We will do this after! Or "Change doesn't happen overnight" is a bit loose, I can believe that you've thought about this for a long time, but Foreign Affairs really needs to be thought out before doing a huge step, not that I am experienced in it, but as an observer, it seems very much so, to be a huge point which should have been addressed but seems to have either been ignored, which is pretty silly seeing how Vanguard did and the lessons from that, or you otherwise have plans to have BK as a protectorate which doesn't seem to be the case, seeing as how you guys keep commenting about how it will change. I don't want to believe that it is sheer incompetence, knowing a few of you  and I'm too inexperienced to think beyond common-sense in the field, but that's just my viewpoint on the subject.

My silly analogy was, that this is like a half-made game, and the rest of the content is in the DLC, where can I get "Citadel vol 2" ?

Well congratulations again, and great flag! 

- Just 'Jim'  or other forgotten names... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

You lot seem to make up a new name each time I check the forums...

I still like N$O the most.

  • Upvote 1

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Avakael said:

I still like N$O the most.

Right? N$O rolls off the tongue so smoothly. Also, I'm sure it pisses some people off and that makes it even better.

Edited by Dio Brando
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

Right? N$O rolls off the tongue so smoothly. Also, I'm sure it pisses some people off and that makes it even better.

I'll give you some points for having the idea sir

GREG HOBBS HONDA, DEALER FOR THE PEOPLE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
10 hours ago, Keegoz said:

You sign about 15 protectorates, I'm sure you can live without 5 of them allying you. Heck most pros don't ally their protector and actively take an independent start once they get on their feet.

KT was a Pantheon protectorate, t$ was a Rose protectorate etc.

I'd say were more successful because of it. This new bloc is going to live in your shadow and ultimately not much has changed, despite their attempts to convince us otherwise.

Didn't tS join Paragon with Rose and VE as an MDP partner?  I'm pretty sure that would qualify as an upgrade.  Also, TKR and BK both started off as tS prots that were upgraded, TCW began its existence as a TKR prot, GOB was a de facto TKR prot that became a full fledged member of their sphere until after Knightfall, KT signed Pantheon (as Under noted) until you guys decided to encourage people to nuke rogue your former protector (which was funny by the way - I had forgotten you guys did that), OWR and CKD were BK prots that were upgraded, as were tS aligned prots like TC (the AA, not the bloc) and Charming Friends.  I'm sure I could find some others, since AAs like Rose also invest heavily in their protectorates, but prots upgrading into full allies once they reach a certain point is actually the most common outcome of the protector-protectee relationship, rather than the exception.

Also, I think you're missing the point that protector-protectee relationships are meant to be an investment that is mutually beneficial to both sides.  The protector gets a possible future ally if the prot proves to be successful and the protectee gets guidance and military help from a more established AA to ensure that it's not rolled to death while it's trying to get itself together.   If the prot is just going to cut all ties as soon as it is able to do so, what's the incentive for larger AAs to protect a developing alliance?  And, assuming that they have been treated well by their protector, why would the prot want to?  Doubtless the BK/Citadel relationship will evolve over time,  but the idea that the only 'real' FA move is one that completely separates you and your immediate allies from absolutely everyone else in the game (hey, TKR, how're things going with that by the way?) is a pretty limited yardstick to measure politics by.

Edited by Curufinwe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Epi said:

On the other hand, T$ built the game's dominant sphere out of protectorates sooo, not sure why people are pretending like they aren't expected to upgrade their protector. If that isn't the case there really is no reason to sign a protectorate agreement unless you're like NPO with an altruistic sense of 'creating more political actors'.

And yet still were outnumbered or on par with the wars they fought in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

but the idea that the only 'real' FA move is one that completely separates you and your immediate allies from absolutely everyone else in the game (hey, TKR, how're things going with that by the way?) is a pretty limited yardstick to measure politics by.

I guess you would speak from experience with this, in regards to the drama surrounding OO and the less than 24 hour notice before forming IQ from BK's previous allies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
40 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I guess you would speak from experience with this, in regards to the drama surrounding OO and the less than 24 hour notice before forming IQ from BK's previous allies?

Well when you consider that we didn't drop any of our existing ties in the immediate aftermath of IQ's formation (except for TKR, since we didn't have a separate non-OO tie with them and they weren't interested in a new agreement) then that is relevant to my point, sure.  After all, if you're looking for an example of a move that eventually triggered a significant change in Orbis politics without the AA in question cutting itself off completely from the rest of the treaty web, then that's actually a pretty good one to cite.  Thanks for bringing that up :)  

Edited by Curufinwe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhh, pretty sure you did more than just TKR.

Can you (or anyone in BK) list off the “significant” changes BK contributed since IQ?

Pretty sure, other than signing a bunch of Protectorates, you contributed more to the stagnation of the game than anything else.  I guess you could count that as a significant change considering how the game went a complete 180.  From activity to stagnation.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

Uhh, pretty sure you did more than just TKR.

Nope.  The only treaty that ended in the immediate wake of IQ's formation was the OO treaty itself (and thus the BK/TKR tie).  During and after Tiers, BK ended its treaty relationships with a number of other people (or vice versa), but initially the only tie that ended when IQ was formed was OO and thus TKR.

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

Can you (or anyone in BK) list off the “significant” changes BK contributed since IQ?

Pretty sure, other than signing a bunch of Protectorates, you contributed more to the stagnation of the game than anything else.  I guess you could count that as a significant change considering how the game went a complete 180.  From activity to stagnation.

I'm not sure if you're referring to after the founding of IQ or after its dissolution, but I'd say being the first major AA to split from Syndi-OO (which had clearly established itself as the dominant sphere by the end of 2016), was a fairly significant development.  If we had elected to stay where we were the tS/Mensa/TKR/BK/Rose/Pantheon/BoC/CS/VE (prior to the coup)/TCW/Guardian/Chola/TC/KT bloc would have continued to enjoy a pretty overwhelming superiority over the remains of Paracov, which would hardly have been conducive to maintaining the super active game tempo you seem to remember from the period immediately prior to IQ's formation.

Of course, our decision to form IQ ultimately triggered an Orbis wide war in March/April 2017 (the first that had happened since October 2016) and that was an event that probably would not have happened if we had elected to stay in OO.   We (and IQ more broadly) were also one of the two major opponents for KT/Rose et al in the next global (TGH's inaugural war), which certainly wouldn't have occurred if we had opted to quietly stagnate in OO in 2017/18 instead of doing our own thing.  We were also a key component of the coalition that took down EMC in Knightfall (a war TGH ended up sitting out), something that certainly wouldn't have occurred (or at least would have taken a very different form) if we hadn't left TKR's sphere a couple of years earlier.  So yeah, the last three global wars were launched by IQ, launched against IQ or spearheaded in large part by IQ and BK played an integral role in that process every step of the way.   That suggests that we did a little more than 'signing a bunch of protectorates' during that period, I'd say.

Also, lets not forget that following Knightfall, BK/NPO/GoG voluntarily dissolved our bloc, which I'd count as a pretty significant FA shift in its own right.  In doing so we broke up our mid tier dominance, which means that instead of the majority of 17 to 19 city folks being concentrated in one group, they are now spread out over a couple of  different spheres.  Both BK and NPO then went on to work with new allies (in some cases former opponents), which also represented a pretty big shift in our FA and an evolution that has impacted Orbis as a whole.

So yeah, if you want to identify factors that decreased the frequency of wars we can do that.  Sheepy's economic update certainly contributed, as did the advent of first unipolarity (under Syndi-OO) and then bipolarity (under EMC/IQ) between late 2016 and late 2018.  But to try to lay the blame for 'Orbis-wide stagnation' at BK's door is absurd, since our actions were a catalyst for much of the conflict that occurred over the next two years and none of that would have happened if we had sat back and done nothing during that period.

Edited by Curufinwe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mom said it's my turn to treaty BK"

RW19GkG.jpg

>when you notice there's an empty 5th spot in the pentagon

?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
16 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

If you don't intend to live in anyone's shadow, then what do you call your bloc's relationship with BK? There's a huge power imbalance there that you're on the small side of, which is the very definition of living in their shadow. If you're willing to live with that dissonance then that's entirely on you, but we're still going to call you out on it for the simple reason that us on the outside of the treaty clusterfrick have an interest in seeing your bloc be genuinely independent, rather than whatever you seem to think independence is.

What has BK done for you lately, anyway?

You generally want to see us as independent why, if everyone wanted to play the game as you do we would have loads of blocks split from each other already, you do understand your way of playing is not the right or wrong way, its just your way.

If you really had any interest within the block growing you would support it and not push us closer to BK, but you do not care if we become independent or not, All you want to see is a weakened BK sphere so you can finally hit them, when you all hit Chaos a member of TEKOG gov openly admitted that you guys thought about hitting BK but quickly woke up to the fact you would lose and badly as you didn't have the numbers.

So i personally think you are more interested in seeing BK weakened more than anything else, by all means say we live within BK shadow, IT will not change our plans, it will not change our path, unlike you when we want to do something we will do it, you wanted to hit BK but didn't makes me think you are living within BK shadow, the shadow of fear they seem to cast all over TEKOG.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright, so I count 3, maybe 4, points to discuss over the course of almost 3 years.  In all actuality you only had 1 significant moment (And no, it’s not the disbanding of IQ because that’s laughable).  

I’ll create a separate thread about this when I have time once at home.

I’ll separate it between the Golden Era/Pre-Shifty Edgelord years to the Boring Era.

Seems rather odd you state EMC/Syndisphere a few times in that too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yeah Scarfalot, your in KETOGG, which means you hate blocs growing, which means you want to destroy them, which makes your arguments invalid, which makes ALL of KETOGG's arguments invalid, because they are obviously trying to undermine blocs, by disagreeing with us, because you can't disagree with us, otherwise you want to destroy blocs, ALL blocs, and because BK is the one you are arguing against, you are also against BK, because you are arguing against them, which makes your arguments invalid, which makes me right, which makes every point you make wrong, because your in KETOGG, and that makes everything we say right, and you can't argue against that...." 

Haha.... Oh.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 2
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.