Jump to content

We are here for the Whales


Sisyphus
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Kriegskoenig said:

Oh, the irony. 

Really, none of you complaining here can be taken seriously being salty about what BK does, because, save a few alliances that lean paperless, your entire group has done the same thing repeatedly, for years.  But I don't expect most of you to be objective enough to grasp that. ?

And seriously, has none of you ever read Von Clausewitz, Machiavelli, or Sun Tzu?  Going into a "fair fight" is the utter height of stupidity for anyone that wants to achieve something beyond pointless destruction.

Some people just want to stir the pot and see what happens.

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kriegskoenig said:

Oh, the irony. 

Really, none of you complaining here can be taken seriously being salty about what BK does, because, save a few alliances that lean paperless, your entire group has done the same thing repeatedly, for years.  But I don't expect most of you to be objective enough to grasp that. ?

And seriously, has none of you ever read Von Clausewitz, Machiavelli, or Sun Tzu?  Going into a "fair fight" is the utter height of stupidity for anyone that wants to achieve something beyond pointless destruction.

I daresay your opinion would matter more if your alliance could launch a blitz even equal to that of a micro who just 3 days prior to said blitz was couped and its entire bank missing.

However, since you and your comrades, through some hreculean prowess we mere mortals could never understand, managed to fail at even that, i now wonder when people start calling Polaris the micro and me the "normal but small alliance". Because SOMEHOW, you've made it seem more fitting that be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

I daresay your opinion would matter more if your alliance could launch a blitz even equal to that of a micro who just 3 days prior to said blitz was couped and its entire bank missing.

However, since you and your comrades, through some hreculean prowess we mere mortals could never understand, managed to fail at even that, i now wonder when people start calling Polaris the micro and me the "normal but small alliance". Because SOMEHOW, you've made it seem more fitting that be done.

I prefer to call them Poolaris (;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, chanel said:

Yeah because you have no fricking integrity. Instead of doing something interesting and fightimg N$O you pick on two smaller spheres that aren't a threat on their own. After they've been beaten down in a war a log is leaked showing plans to roll them, so they white peace and declare on you. HOWEVER they start WINNING so you bring in all your protectorates and satellites (former Vanguard) but YOU ARE STILL LOSING so you bring in a whole OTHER sphere to bail you out to fight TWO SMALLER spheres that just emerged from a war and have 250-300 less nations than you because your milcom is so incompetent. YES people are salty now frick off

Nobody 'called us in', this war has nothing to do with BK's war. It literally says that in our DoW. ?

Edited by Vent
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vent said:

Nobody 'called us in', this war has nothing to do with BK's war.

something tells me this has everything to do with BK's war but what do i know

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

it probably wont, we are going to steam roll them, just like we do to everyone else, the only thing that may save them, is if they hide below our range like they did last war.

Maybe, but can't deny tS for rolling the hard six, knowing fully well its an uphill battle in that tier~ 

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

2 minutes ago, CitrusK said:

snip

Of which more than 300 of those on the BK/TC side are under 13 cities, so that doesn't tell you the full picture. On a raw city count basis your side has us beat,

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vent said:

Nobody 'called us in', this war has nothing to do with BK's war. It literally says that in our DoW. ? 

We only have your word on that, and right now your word is worth less than a weimar paper mark

  • Haha 5
  • Downvote 1

Praise Dio. Every !@#$ing day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Dio Brando said:

"You're incompetent, you need the whole game to help you take us down!" / "You're hegemonic, we couldn't possibly do anything to you!"

Pick one.

Ride well, my brothers in Syndicate.

most retarded shit ive read here so far

 

ⲡⲓϣⲁⲉⲓ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Dwynn said:

Ah yes... the age old "fair fight is pointless" argument. Sure, if your entire purpose is to create a powersphere great enough to dominate the game so you can sit in circles telling each other how great you are, then yes going into a fair fight is pointless.

However, if your purpose is to create some atmosphere of uncertainty about war or to create an atmosphere where war is more abundant so there is more activity in this world, fighting to break apart the powershperes and allow for more dynamic war structure that doesn't rely on who can pull the most treaties is actually more useful and productive.

So the real question is what do you want to do? Sit in a circle jerking chains on how awesome you are, or actually playing the game and proving how great you are?

My dear friend from Rose makes thoughtful points, rare on here these days.  So I'll respond before taking off for another couple months of ignoring the OWF.

1) Dwynn suggests fair fights don't create a superpowersphere.

2) Dwynn suggests uncertainty and abundant war is desirable.  

I understand the motives behind your statement.  I too, would like to be able to go toe-to-toe with an equally-sized opponent over an issue rather than getting into repeated globals with the entire game on a side, which require longer downtimes for preparation, and are almost always more destructive for both sides.  Superpowerspheres have always limited the options in play for smaller alliances.

However, psychology, political science, and economics IRL all make it abundantly clear that human nature hates both uncertainty and abundant war, especially war with high losses.  We desire the ability to engage in smaller wars.  That requires less protection.  But as soon as ONE alliance began signing another alliance to a treaty to fight a third, that Eden was over, and we all left the garden.  The slide toward hegemonic spheres is almost inevitable without adjusted game mechanics to make it less attractive.  I'd agree that in a game, fluidity, change, and an ability to have an immediate, observable effect on your surrounds is desirable in gameplay to preserve interest and activity.

In other words, take a large part of the politics out of the game, or reset it/level it at intervals.

But I think you need a different game for that, unless Alex makes some massive changes...in which case it's already going to be a different game.

Hit me up on discord if you want to talk polisci, human nature, economics, and psychology!  Y'all have a fun war.

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

5 minutes ago, CitrusK said:

~snip~

I feel like your forgetting a few things when you try to state that this is a dogpile.

 

Please feel free to share the average city counts for both sides, feel like that will better reflect the member counts, and ya missed a few alliances on each side, as well you missed that you guys hit several unmiltarized alliances while being war torn and crying "we still have postive damadge" no shit ya do there's nothing to burn. Stop !@#$ing about it be a dog pile and face the war ya started.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ArcKnox said:

We only have your word on that, and right now your word is worth less than a weimar paper mark

We'll let ya know when your opinion on the worth of our word is a concern of ours. 

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.