Jump to content

How long will this war go on for?


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

In that you cannot be accurately defined as anything other than a subsidiary of BKsphere. Feel free to point to a single instance in which your "bloc" has acted in any other way, or has even once stood up to BK even as much as @Epi.

 

493368532_ScreenShot2019-07-16at21_35_49.thumb.png.4e0681ffdf6d68cd96f9beb0397768e2.png

1339684925_ScreenShot2019-07-16at21_35_40.png.2f03fa52bbf6bde0e178c5d844a05c02.png

We existed a week, bruh, when did you expect us to #standuptoBK?

We also had/have a bloc-wide MDAP with BK. To Bourhann's point, I don't think you needed a war to figure out that we were tied to BK and as such, would act as allies do...

Also, why the passive-aggressive quotes around bloc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was a misstep by KETOG to start talking about the extermination of any alliances tied to BK or portraying continued wars with BK/NPO inevitable after this one due to them working together; even if that was the plan. 

Now they’re backed into a corner and have most of their enemies at war with them, I doubt they’ll be in a rush to peace those they are pretty sure will just rebuild and try attacking again from a better position next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, El Chach said:

493368532_ScreenShot2019-07-16at21_35_49.thumb.png.4e0681ffdf6d68cd96f9beb0397768e2.png

1339684925_ScreenShot2019-07-16at21_35_40.png.2f03fa52bbf6bde0e178c5d844a05c02.png

We existed a week, bruh, when did you expect us to #standuptoBK?

We also had/have a bloc-wide MDAP with BK. To Bourhann's point, I don't think you needed a war to figure out that we were tied to BK and as such, would act as allies do...

Also, why the passive-aggressive quotes around bloc?

Yeah that MDAP really just proves the original point that you're a subsidiary. Like it literally does nothing to disprove it and everything to back up said claim. Just saying.

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

10 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Yeah that MDAP really just proves the original point that you're a subsidiary. Like it literally does nothing to disprove it and everything to back up said claim. Just saying.

Ok, so ally = subsidiary in TGH/Akuryo's world. Got it. Nobody can say nuance is lost on you...

My point, so that this isn't dragged out, is that all BK-allied blocs aren't created equal and Citadel hasn't exactly had time to find its niche. Hence, bringing up the timeframe between launching and y'all teaching tCW and BK a lesson. You're deluded if you thought/think we weren't going to be involved as BK allies.

In closing, Bourhann's initial metaphor is a lazy misrepresentation of what Citadel is, and the claim that this war has somehow 'shown' that we're Vanguard is premature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, El Chach said:

Really, how?

In that we're a bloc, tied to BK?

In that, you're literally going the same path that "Vanguard" did before they also "disbanded".

1 hour ago, El Chach said:

In closing, Bourhann's initial metaphor is a lazy misrepresentation of what Citadel is, and the claim that this war has somehow 'shown' that we're Vanguard is premature.

You've yet to show anything to prove it wrong.  In fact, a representative of yours basically admitted to it.

It's also odd that, while you weren't in the initial plot against KETOG/Chaos (Therefore you weren't hit), that your bloc pretty much doubled down with joining alongside with it.  All through a single treaty chain.

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sphinx said:

Our entire coalition, individually most major AA's have been positive the last few days.

Rightyo, just another 1250 days to go before you break even then :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

In that, you're literally going the same path that "Vanguard" did before they also "disbanded".

You've yet to show anything to prove it wrong.  In fact, a representative of yours basically admitted to it.

It's also odd that, while you weren't in the initial plot against KETOG/Chaos (Therefore you weren't hit), that your bloc pretty much doubled down with joining alongside with it.  All through a single treaty chain.

Vanguard entered a war of their own free will?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Akuryo said:

Vanguard entered a war?

Ayyslamic, but they were on the wrong end of a Hippo's digestive tract 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Epi said:

Ayyslamic, but they were on the wrong end of a Hippo's digestive tract 

So, as part of IQ's coalition. Can you name a war that they fought where they weren't basically a subset of IQ?

 

 

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Epi said:

Wasn't claiming that, was just poking fun
 ezgif-com-resize.gif

Dark shall be the day when i defend Vanguard. But yeah, Citadel isn't quite Vanguard yet, despite my own old comments ? i was being mean. They're more aggressive than Vanguard was for better or worse.

-I'd written a post on the KT-Polar history, but it's more divisive than Vanguard=Bad should be ?-

They're absolutely meaningless, forever in the shadow of their BK-IQ overlords. Doesn't matter how aggressive they are, they'll never doing anything on their own and will always come to the side of daddy BK/IQ. In that, they are no different than Vanguard was. 

Chief Financial Officer of The Syndicate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Epi said:

Wasn't claiming that, was just poking fun
 ezgif-com-resize.gif

Dark shall be the day when i defend Vanguard. But yeah, Citadel isn't quite Vanguard yet, despite my own old comments :p i was being mean. They're more aggressive than Vanguard was for better or worse.

-I'd written a post on the KT-Polar history, but it's more divisive than Vanguard=Bad should be :p-

>more aggressive than Vanguard

>had BK activate a MDP treaty to pull them in

Yeah....

 

(Actually I think Polaris and Friends did have a treaty activation before and weren't preempted.  Was it Silent War?  Were they even "Vanguard" then?)

13 minutes ago, Justin076 said:

They're absolutely meaningless, forever in the shadow of their BK-IQ overlords. Doesn't matter how aggressive they are, they'll never doing anything on their own and will always come to the side of daddy BK/IQ. In that, they are no different than Vanguard was. 

Honestly BK will always be heavily reliant of NPO as well.  They couldn't rely/coordinate with Covenant, Citadel, and other miscellaneous allies to fight back.  Syndicate distraction and NPO's interference had to come bail them all out.

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

>more aggressive than Vanguard

>had BK activate a MDP treaty to pull them in

Yeah....

 

(Actually I think Polaris and Friends did have a treaty activation before and weren't preempted.  Was it Silent War?  Were they even "Vanguard" then?)

Honestly BK will always be heavily reliant of NPO as well.  They couldn't rely/coordinate with Covenant, Citadel, and other miscellaneous allies to fight back.  Syndicate distraction and NPO's interference had to come bail them all out.

Vanguard didn't exist until post ayyslamic crusade I'm pretty sure.

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

31 minutes ago, Epi said:

If you guys hit Covenant and not Bk, they wouldn't have entered

Wait, I'm confused... Are you saying it was Citadel's policy to not have BK enter in their defense? Why sign treaties with BK then? Or was it Citadel's policy to not enter into wars in BK's defense? If so, then why did they do exactly that?

Either way, that's transparently nonsense.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Wait, I'm confused... Are you saying it was Citadel's policy to not have BK enter in their defense? Why sign treaties with BK then? Or was it Citadel's policy to not enter into wars in BK's defense? If so, then why did they do exactly that?

Either way, that's transparently nonsense.

Think Epi is saying they wouldn’t have chained in had you hit a lot of their allies.

Either way Yakuza not honoring that treaty likely would have been political suicide. So you can dislike them for whatever you want, but they had an obligation to defend & the rest of Citadel knew this tie still existed. So I think they pretty much had no choice when BK was hit while that treaty was active.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Think Epi is saying they wouldn’t have chained in had you hit a lot of their allies.

Either way Yakuza not honoring that treaty likely would have been political suicide. So you can dislike them for whatever you want, but they had an obligation to defend & the rest of Citadel knew this tie still existed. So I think they pretty much had no choice when BK was hit while that treaty was active.

....Yes... that's our point. They're wholly part of BKsphere. Glad we're on the same page.

That first sentence just makes no sense at all though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

....Yes... that's our point. They're wholly part of BKsphere. Glad we're on the same page.

That first sentence just makes no sense at all though.

Had you attacked a BK ally other than them & BK were to defend them, Yakuza would have had an excuse not to get involved. Although personally not a fan of going about wars in such a round about anyways & you probably just should have expected them to get involved.

I’d never heard of these Citadel positions prior either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Had you attacked a BK ally other than them & BK were to defend them, Yakuza would have had an excuse not to get involved. Although personally not a fan of going about wars in such a round about anyways & you probably just should have expected them to get involved.

I’d never heard of these Citadel positions prior either.

No they wouldn't have because a leader of a Citadel alliance had already admitted they have an MDAP with BK, which means mutual aggression. They would've been dragged in anyway.

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

Just now, Akuryo said:

No they wouldn't have because a leader of a Citadel alliance had already admitted they have an MDAP with BK, which means mutual aggression. They would've been dragged in anyway.

Don’t remember seeing that that. Also was just explaining what Epi meant & I do vaguely remember him saying they wouldn’t defend if Covenant was hit after the leaks. Don’t think them & Camelot got along all that great, so not to surprising he wouldn’t want to help them.

Not making any claims as to whether they really would have stayed out as more alliances hit BK not allied to any BK would be countering. So doubt they would have been able to stay out anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Don’t remember seeing that that. Also was just explaining what Epi meant & I do vaguely remember him saying they wouldn’t defend if Covenant was hit after the leaks. Don’t think them & Camelot got along all that great, so not to surprising he wouldn’t want to help them.

Not making any claims as to whether they really would have stayed out as more alliances hit BK not allied to any BK would be countering. So doubt they would have been able to stay out anyways.

I know. It's also listed on BKs alliance page. If BK was in this they were in this, and that's why they're just BK-lite.

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

19 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

No they wouldn't have because a leader of a Citadel alliance had already admitted they have an MDAP with BK, which means mutual aggression. They would've been dragged in anyway.

I'm not trying to insult anyone, just go back and listen to Elijah first radio shows. That clears citadels positions as a bloc and it's aims. They're a better representation, I can't do it justice. 

Edited by Epi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Epi said:

I'm not trying to insult anyone, just go back and listen to Elijah first radio shows. That clears citadels positions as a bloc and it's aims. They're a better representation, I can't do it justice. 

I've actually spoken to enough of them public and private to not listen to the radio show of a lunatic who is as paranoid as NPO.

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

1 minute ago, Akuryo said:

I've actually spoken to enough of them public and private to not listen to the radio show of a lunatic who is as paranoid as NPO.

I mean, they actually offered no information on their bloc in their initial Declaration, straight up. And people tend to tailor their information to the scenario in discussion. Elijah's show was directed by him, he fully intended to say only what he wanted to say, to give the most comprehensive view of the bloc.

Ignoring it is basically ignoring Citadel Imo. I doubt any other radio show (except Great Job & Great Fire) carries the political weight his does. And some of the things said were actually rather interesting, things you wouldn't have heard from Polaris at any point in their history (that I've seen or heard of at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Epi said:

I mean, they actually offered no information on their bloc in their initial Declaration, straight up. And people tend to tailor their information to the scenario in discussion. Elijah's show was directed by him, he fully intended to say only what he wanted to say, to give the most comprehensive view of the bloc.

Ignoring it is basically ignoring Citadel Imo. I doubt any other radio show (except Great Job & Great Fire) carries the political weight his does. And some of the things said were actually rather interesting, things you wouldn't have heard from Polaris at any point in their history (that I've seen or heard of at least).

I know they have a 5th spot to fill, but think this only got side tracked about them since they felt like doing a Vanguard comparison. Although there are some pretty good people in there; who actually severed (or never renewed) their treaties with BK because I think they wanted an independent bloc.

Although I don’t think it would be until after the war they’d consider severing the tie with BK, personally I’m not 100% sure if they’ll remain connected after or try a more independent FA. Also wasn’t sure they’d defend BK until I saw them attack. :P

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
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.