Jump to content

How long will this war go on for?


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, El Chach said:

First of all, "y'all" really "like" "quotes". Vanguard was a "thing", and they did disband.

Second, we haven't "shown anything" in our short existence, other than that we're reasonably loyal allies and that we're not horrific at clicking 'declare war' buttons and selecting the right drop-down menus at the right time in the right order for just long enough.

Don't get it twisted, joining a defensive war for an ally is not "doubling down" on your plot narrative; that's doing what an ally does.

Finally, the "single treaty chain" in your words = a bloc-wide treaty to BK, as you'll gather from BK's AA page; Yakuza just holds the tie for cleanliness of the web.

Cut us some slack dawg, and in the meantime, see if you can muzzle Justin and Scarfalot. Their FA "nous" makes you guys look simple-minded <- how you use quotes the right way.

Our “point” is that “your” bloc is “entirely” treatied to “BK”, which you just “confirmed” is the “case”, and “therefore” is not an “independent” “bloc” but in fact a “part” of BKsphere, and therefore is not a bloc at “all” but just a “bunch” of pretentious “goons” that haven’t made a single “move” without “acting” in lockstep with BK.

“Quotes” added purely “to” “troll” “you”. If you want me to shoosh, all you gotta do is stop giving me accurate things to say about you.

Also, neither Justin nor I speak with any FA authority, but then again it seems neither do you.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Buorhann said:

No.  Are you sure you’re included in all the talks that occurred?

The hang up you folks had was with Syndicate and House Stark.  Had that not occurred, you would have entered in sooner than 10 days.

Who are you?

I'll break my silence this once. His statement doesn't contradict yours.  It was always a concern if BKsphere was unable to stalemate at least that it would be a huge security risk to us. As the situation deteriorated, our need to enter would increase to avoid a complete victory and domination by your coalition. We've never shied away from saying this and we don' shy away from fighting. We had awareness of the conversation that occurred between Adrienne and the source on the 18th of the plans she had. We were stalled on it, yes, but we still wanted to act on it. The growing antagonization and confidence shown by people on your side was enough incentive to do it.

Getting arrogant here and saying we're lying and floating logs after all the flak about not posting ours  just pushes us into a corner where we have to keep this going regardless of momentum for as long as possible. The escalation of stakes was started with the raze the earth pledges but you haven't changed tack. This has been your decision and it's all I have to say about it. 

Edited by Roquentin
clarification
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2019 at 7:19 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

Well, keeping it going as long as it has has already made a bunch of your side peace out (successfully or otherwise), so let's not extrapolate from that. Unless those separate peaces mean you're going to surrender soon yourselves of course.

Just because Im against the KKK doesnt mean Fark is on IQs side.  Ive made that pretty damn clear.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

As the situation deteriorated, our need to enter would increase to avoid a complete victory and domination by your coalition

By the people who actually supported mini-spheres? No, not this "I'll drop old allies, keep secret treaties with them, and sign on new meatshields" BS, actual "I'll get away from the treaty web and do my one thing with a handful of competent alliances". But keep telling us all about KERCHTOG's hegemonic intentions, it's quite entertaining. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, El Chach said:

First of all, "y'all" really "like" "quotes". Vanguard was a "thing", and they did disband.

Second, we haven't "shown anything" in our short existence, other than that we're reasonably loyal allies and that we're not horrific at clicking 'declare war' buttons and selecting the right drop-down menus at the right time in the right order for just long enough.

Don't get it twisted, joining a defensive war for an ally is not "doubling down" on your plot narrative; that's doing what an ally does.

Finally, the "single treaty chain" in your words = a bloc-wide treaty to BK, as you'll gather from BK's AA page; Yakuza just holds the tie for cleanliness of the web.

Cut us some slack dawg, and in the meantime, see if you can muzzle Justin and Scarfalot. Their FA "nous" makes you guys look simple-minded <- how you use quotes the right way.

lol.

I like how the use of quotes is your first point.  Cute.

>joining a defensive war

After their plot of going on the offense was revealed, sure.  You can be naive.

>bloc-wide treaty to BK

That's interesting.  So you were in the plot then?  Noted.

>dawg

>muzzle

And no.

Don't worry.  I know this is only one event, but I have a strong gut feeling that your precious bloc will simply be another Vanguard 2.0.  And that's ok.  They too spun similar arguments as you have during their existence.

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

-snip-

This is pretty damn awful coming from you.  Oh no, the coalition that formed after a plot revealed that both of their spheres were targeted is suddenly a security risk to us...

Here's some tips.  Don't tell low gov members your dastardly plans to roll 2 spheres that are currently warring each other, or show that the implication of your own alliance being involved ends up being true in multiple ways.  Cuts down on the security risk, don't you think?

Edited by Buorhann
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who's more impartial and doesn't really care who wins, I do have questions that I think the average person viewing the forums and reading this has as well.

 

First, to @Roquentin

1. Would you have attacked TKR & Friends even if it meant losing t$ and HS? and if so, wouldn't that put you back in the same "FA" basket that you were at before this war/IQ split?

2. Do you think you would've lost a war against either TKR sphere or KETOG after this war? 

3. The way you structure your arguments around the forums make it seem like you consider this war defensive. If it is defensive "from future aggression" what signs have been shown that made you think that war was coming your way.

Also, can you clear something up, so you got logs from TKRsphere that stated that you were next, but the logs seem to indicate(from what you, and other NPO gov have said) that TKR was going to attack you in the next few days, or the near future. Is that true? Or, were you more worried about them attacking you several months from now?

 

For @Buorhann

1. Can you clarify whether or not you were told that attacking BK would result in Citadel's entry into the war?

2. Is it not true that several Citadel nations were attacked in the first round by your side?

3.  How do you feel about this war, going forward?

4. Is Citadel not supposed to defend MD-level allies, in this circumstances?

Edited by Kastor
  • Upvote 1

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Kastor said:

As someone who's more impartial and doesn't really care who wins, I do have questions that I think the average person viewing the forums and reading this has as well.

 

First, to @Roquentin

1. Would you have attacked TKR & Friends even if it meant losing t$ and HS? and if so, wouldn't that put you back in the same "FA" basket that you were at before this war/IQ split?

2. Do you think you would've lost a war against either TKR sphere or KETOG after this war? 

3. The way you structure your arguments around the forums make it seem like you consider this war defensive. If it is defensive "from future aggression" what signs have been shown that made you think that war was coming your way.

Also, can you clear something up, so you got logs from TKRsphere that stated that you were next, but the logs seem to indicate(from what you, and other NPO gov have said) that TKR was going to attack you in the next few days, or the near future. Is that true? Or, were you more worried about them attacking you several months from now?

 

 

1. I mean, it's a risk that happened since they didn't see it as a credible threat that there would be KERTCHOGG retaliation for the GOB/Guardian hit.  Ihe alternative was getting rolled as a minisphere and risking people quitting it anyway. I didn't feel as a minisphere it could handle fighting the entire KERTCHOGG coalition on its own. We had cut a lot of our ties to other groups so our ability to influence people was severely limited if we ended up in a situation where we'd need the help as I expected no assistance.  It felt like people were insufficiently concerned about the other spheres or had some friendships they preferred to keep even if it was risky.  If it does that, it's ultimately based on how people reacted. My initial intention was just to try to balance the war but the rhetoric has made this into a quasi-death match.

2. On our own, definitely. The combined coalition would have the momentum and energy to do it with the low infra upper tier nations.

3. It was basically that Adrienne thought  we were complicit no matter what and that we'd get hit either within the war or some point after as the main thing was to have Bk secured. It was basically we'd get pursued for it or some other grievance.

3 Answers your other question too. I don't know the exact timeline, but given the way people were talking, it seemed within the realm of possibility given the total collapse of the BKsphere fronts. It was kind of obvious a lot of the peripheral alliances wouldn't hold up to the pressure of the war with the particularly harsh down decs from low infra super tier nations, so it was a situation that seemed to be deteriorating to one where they'd get most alliances out and have BK locked down for a period of time. This would then facilitate potential expansion.

----

There's been a lot of  indignation about the Sphinx leaks when it's known most of the other coalition had wanted to roll BKsphere for quite some time. Two side wanting to roll each other is something normal.  For me the concern in this war is what would happen if people were less prepared on one side and it deteriorated into a situation where one side could be held down. That's why I don't put a lot of weight into the moral highground people are claiming. Chaos wanted to beat up BK and so did Rose and the others. There's bad blood there and general dislike for the treaties they hold. The new claim that I told low gov about a plan to roll two spheres while they were at war is weird since it never happened and Kayser's plan for doing a no-animosity war with KETOG was not meant to follow a war on Chaos as he did not anticipate they would intervene.  The reason the KETOG-CHAOS war was weird to me is because they both wanted to fight BK, so it made no sense. It's unlikely tS would have been willing to do it in such close proximity as a followup to a war on Chaos by BKsphere. We had multiple opportunities to fight KETOG with other reasons,. The whole paperless treaties argument flies in the face of all the "cooperation" done by the alliances involved without paper in the past, like Rose's non-existent ties to either KETOG/Chaos but tons of personal connections. One side has all the powerful personal connections through former leaders maintaining ties and personal connections are often more powerful than treaty ties as evidenced by people leaving the war who were allied. Ayyslamic Crusade was another example of these coming into play.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

(Just clarifying: the question said either or, not both. Same answer or different one?)

 

 

Well, it would depend on their ability to hit with low infra as that's the main factor that makes it easier.  If they hit first and had the momentum going, then either of those could have inflicted a beating. CoS was in a unique position due to the low infra allowing 30 cities to hit 20 easily.  Out of the two  KETOG would be able to do more since they have more versatile fighters especially with their ties to Arrgh, so the answer is yes, but moreso KETOG with perhaps Rose assistance due to the personal ties.

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

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

1.  Ihe alternative was getting rolled as a minisphere and risking people quitting it anyway. I didn't feel as a minisphere it could handle fighting the entire KERTCHOGG coalition on its own. 

Thanks for the confidence, papa roq.  

Edited by Darth Revan
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2019 at 2:37 PM, Miller said:

So basically we're all going to die of natural causes before this is over. 

Speak for yourself. I intend on out-living all of you.

Personally, long as my buffet is filled eternal war sounds like a relaxing pass-time.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
  • Like 1

 

V̢ͭ̔ͣͯͫ͐ͥ̄͗ͬ̄ͭ͏̹͖̺̲͕̦͉̣̙́i̡͕͙̺̗̻̹̘͇̋̽̆ͮ̈́́ͭ͢͢͞n̢̛̫̘͎̝̪̪͔̙̗̘͚͇͚̣̦ͫ̊ͩ͊͌͘͜͝i̡̱̭͉͔̘̖̠̲̺̍͐ͯ̌̈̾̾́̔͑̋ͬͯ̑̚͠ ̸̷̨̜̦͓͖͖̹̫̹̖̮͙̻̻̹̺̞͍̙ͥ̏̃ͨ̓͑̏͊̀ͯ̉ͯ̒͒͗̄̚V̢̢̡̙̻̳̘͖̖̟͚̣̬̏͐ͮ͒̎̈̽̽̾̂̔̅ͩͪͦ̑̿̏̍ͅͅi̶͍̮͈͇̰̫̯͉̜͒́̉̊̓̚͘̕ḑ̸͈̟̫̹̟͓̹̠͇̗͖̤̥̰̲̬ͮ̉ͫi̴͔̪͍͇͌̋̆̃͆̈̔ͧ͆̎̋ͥͫͫ́͢͠ ͕̞̠̯͍̫͚̪̺͓̣̦̖ͧ̓ͬ̎̀͝ͅV̴̨̤̙͔̥͍̟̦̥̺̟̯͔̤̫ͬͮ͑͌i̞͎̹͇̻͎̘̳̮̤͙̯̩ͪ̂͌̐ͪ͐̓̃ͧ̈̓͛̎̄̈͞͡ͅd̸̵̬̫͔͙̀̓͐̈́͜͡e͍̝̗̱̝͈̣̤̜̳͑̓͂̈ͯͤ̕͡v̸̖̰̟͈̠̰̣̮̦ͭ̆̑ͮͮ̾͊ͤ̒̊̊ͯ̈́ͬ͌ͭ̚͜ȏ̧͊̿͑ͯ̚͏̲̣̩̼͙ṙ̴̴̠̗̼̥͈̣̌͋̃̔̎̿ͨͥ͗̈̋̋̆̐̀ͩͦ̕͘͜ͅá̵̦͎̣͇̦̙͙͖̟̣̲̳̘̣̣̳̝͊̈́̐̇̑̔̈̉͒̆ͬv̵̨̭̝̯̫̞̜̭̭̘ͦͧͭ͋̂ͣͨͮ̑ͪͤ͌ͣ̒̽̾̾͢͠͡î̛̞̟̤͍̰̂ͪ͛̒̍̅͒̉̅ͥͯ̌̽̈́̾̈͛̏͡ț̷̲̟͎̰̟͇͖͖̻̼̰̞͎̯͚͚ͩͧͨ̆͗̕͢.̵̢̦̭̳̗͖͙̼̜̩̖̹̤͓͔̈́ͫ̂͊ͩͮͤ̕͢͡ͅ ̴̡̰̙̙͕̩͈̩̻͕̰̠͑̅̔ͩ͛ͩ͆̂̀̋ͬ͂̑̔I̶̢͇̖͖̥̠̳̘͚̓͋ͮͮ̊̽ͯ̈̽̒̓ͮ͂ͨ́͠f̶̴̥̗̙̳̫̜̥̗̞̳̍̅̎̍̒̒ͮ̇̈̊̿̚̕ ̸̢͕͇̜̙̩̭̮̱̈̓͆ͨ̄ͥͮ̽ͧ́́͘ͅy̡̱͚̺͈̳̤̺̞͎̻̮̣̤̘͖̥̗̬͒̊̉̅̆ͧ́͛̌̑ͣ̿̾͋̊̀͜͟͡o͚̳̯͙̬̦͉͚͙̦ͣͥ̿̏̌ͩ͗͌̎̆ͫ̌̿ͫͩͥ̕͝ͅu̷̲̘̖̯͈ͪ̔̇ͥͧ̈́̓ͬ̓͑ͨ̋̓̃̅͜͜ͅ ̸̢̖͇̜͖̺̙̲͙̻̫̝̣̗̈ͦ́͞a̶̢̢̰̻̰͍͎͙̺̪̪ͯͯ̄̋ͮ̒͛̅ͬ͆͐ͧ̃ͬͤ͛ͯ͟r̷̟̦͈͈̥̤̖̤͔͎̤͉̜̼͇͇ͭ͂ͩ̔ͥ̀͋ͨ̈́̊͐̈̆͒̓̃̎́̕͘͝e̶̱͓̜͙ͩ͒ͪ̂͛̋͆̈̂̌̌̒̂̐ͪ͗̓͐͠͞ ̴ͦ̉̏̓ͨͬ̐̓͛ͦ̽ͮ̎̎̓͟͏̶͏͖̩͙͕̗̘͉̯̫̹̱̺̻̞͇á̴̧̮̹̜͓͕͒̽̈ͤͪͮ͋̊̑̔ͤ͂̉͑͛̚͜t̛ͪͮ̈́̋̉͏̮̫͓͙̲͔̼ ̴̵͎̫̝̼͈̰͇̑͋ͤͩͮ͘w̵̡̥̫͉̯̯̭̪͈̜͎̤͇̙͎͖̳̝͛̄̔ͯ͐̓̅ͩ͑̃ͤͥ̕͢a̵̡̡ͦͫ͊ͣ̍̓͐͒̈̒ͧ͌̉͛͏͖͕̜͉͉r̵̛̘̞͙͕̉̄̔́̉̓ͯ͌̾̓̄͞͡ ̨͊̇̊͏̛͓͕̘̤͟͞w̢͚͎̥̙̜̠̻̫̹̮̦͛̑͒͋̏͗̊͜͞i̸̶̧͖͈̥͚̭̰̦̞̫̥̬̰̝͍̬̗̦͚̲ͨͨ̉͟t̸̵̵͖̦͉͕̱͇̐͑ͧ̋͆̀̔ͯͨ͌͆̚ḧ̵̛͎̫̬̣̩͇̥̞̭̼̜̩͕̈̐̂̌̍̎ͬͭ͌͠ ̛̘̫͔̹͓̻̗̻̲͉̞̞͚̩̯̮ͪ̔̌̿̍ͦ̀ͥ̍̎̿ͨ̽̀́͢͠m̶̶̡̭͎͎̤̩̹̩̞͇̦̼̳̝̑̅̑͛̽ͭ̅̓̆̍ͫͮ́̄͘ͅeͬ̊ͨ͂̿ͨ̊͝҉̸̺̰̯̤͚̖͜ͅ,̡͎̖͇̙͎̿ͨ̆ͤ̑́͡ ̷̸̫̲͕̻̫̰͇̖̳̗̙ͮ́̓̉ͯͭ̀́͜ͅp̆͐ͥ̐͒ͦ̐͊̂̓̈̊̽ͫ͊̊̇ͨ͠͏̸̼̘̦̺͈̠̰̤͚̝͙̰̺̩̰r̛͙̩̭͚̞͇̩̥̼̦ͯ̇̃̐̂̔ͫͯͫ̏ͭͤ̑̀̽̾͗ͫ̓̀̕͡ͅe̛̳͖͚͇͎͑͑̓̍̓͗͗̓̄ͦ͠͝͡p̸̘̮͉̼̯̲̻͔͕͇͖͖̟̗̭̹̘͚̗ͩ͗͛̉͒ͥ̀̌̆ͩͤ̃ͨ̽̿͒ͨ͠͠a̸̷͒̒̍̀͗͑͜͏̱̘̘̲̮̯̳̘̀r͙̜̝̲̯̝͔̦̺̗͉͚͉͙͍̠̓ͦ͊̿ͬ̈ͪ͂̌̚͟͡͡ͅe̶̪̱̪̟̣͉͉̹͈̫͇̝̪̮̙ͯ͂̈̈̓ͦ̍̂̾̏ͪ̏ͭͧ͛ ̷̧̭̝̺̗̟ͬ̾̏ͫ̕t̷̵̡͓͔̜͙̘͈̲͈̳ͦ̊̇̽̅̄̀ͮ̒ͪ͆̑̓͊́͝ͅǫ̶͈̞͚̹̻̤̲̙͖̪̍̃̐̏ͦͪͦͤͩ̽̿̿ͮͪ̿̀͂̀͡ ̡̤̹̲̜̪̞̽̽̓ͥ̒ͨ͊̐ͫ͗ͫ̐̈́̑ͥ̕͢͡b̴̨̨̛̦͇̪̠̺͔͙̤̜̉͐̓̌̀͟ͅͅë̢̼͔̗̰̦̼̘̯̟̩͚́͗͆͒͋̀͆̑̋ͩ̉̒͊ͬ͊̃ͪ̆͊͟͡ ̵̡̛̳̜̦̱͎̞ͤͣ̏͒ͯ̇̈́͗ͮ̇̎ͬͧc̴͍̞̼̹ͨͭ̇̒͌͗̉ͥͥ͗̓̎̌̅͒ͭ̇̅́o̧̧̤̘͕̬̰̣͔͖̘̥͖̜̐ͥ́ͤ̒̔͘͠ͅņ̶̛͔͎͍͉ͪ̾̃ͦ͛̈́̒̅̒s̶̷̸̙͍̹͎̬̜̦̞̤̥̦̙̞̥͚͈̬̋̃͒ͮ͒ͪ̆ͩͯ̒͋̾̒̾͋̅͌̓͡ǔ̶͚͈̠̭̻̜̉ͪ́̓ͩͤ̅̌̌̈̍ͤ̾̌͛ͥ͗ͦ͟͜͞m̛̯̪̘͍̜͕͕̞̤͖͉͉͔̞͙͈͓̐ͦͯ̽ͬ͒̾ͣ̓̒̔͛ͤ̎̏̈͜͝è̵̱̜̯̙͔̜̝͙̼̬̤̥̒̒ͣ͒̈́͊̀́̕͟ḑ̧̅͂̈͌̔ͧͤ̋ͤ́́̒̂̋͗͆ͮ̚҉̙͚̬̻͎͚̤͞.̴̨̺̜̟̯̹̪͋̋͆ͫͧ̐̔ͩ̉͌̋͋͞

 

>!

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2019 at 9:06 PM, Akuryo said:

Partisan didn't damage morale because unlike we weren't retarded enough to expect a guy LITERALLY called "the snek" to be anything other than a "snek". 

Crazy, I know, that people can manage their expectations and not be gullible idiots who believe a guy whose only goal was to troll the whole world.

Greetings, Friend!

 

You wound me!

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Roquentin said:

My initial intention was just to try to balance the war but the rhetoric has made this into a quasi-death match.

given the total collapse of the BKsphere fronts

Okay, here is the thing I don't understand. If a war is clearly one sided, peace is likely to come quicker. You entering to bring balance to the force has actually made it drag because now victory conditions are more nebulous and therefore it'll be a multi month slog before white peace is reached.

I've spoken privately with you about the insecurity argument, so I won't comment on that, but this war of words on the forums is not by any means grounded in logic on either side. It's grounded in optics and everyone knows it to varying degrees. You made a move that can be justified in a variety of ways, some valid others not, but what matters is how it looks and it looks bad. You can't argue out of that.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Roquentin said:

1. I mean, it's a risk that happened since they didn't see it as a credible threat that there would be KERTCHOGG retaliation for the GOB/Guardian hit.

So you were worried that when your members attacked us, (yes NPO was part of that attack) that you would be attacked in turn?  weird how that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leave Citadel alone, give them time and they will become an independent bloc, they already understand how dangerous can be being tied with BKshpere

When we attacked we knew they where in cause the tie between BK and Yakuza

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Buorhann said:

lol.

I like how the use of quotes is your first point.  Cute.

Just trying to keep it light, almighty hippo guy! :)

16 hours ago, Buorhann said:

>joining a defensive war

After their plot of going on the offense was revealed, sure.  You can be naive.

This argument dumb.

16 hours ago, Buorhann said:

>bloc-wide treaty to BK

That's interesting.  So you were in the plot then?  Noted.

This insinuation stupid dumb.

We're not smart enough or cool enough to know what's going on.

16 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Don't worry.  I know this is only one event, but I have a strong gut feeling that your precious bloc will simply be another Vanguard 2.0.  And that's ok.  They too spun similar arguments as you have during their existence.

Thank you for walking this (below) back when you switched from present to future tense.

My work here is done, and apology accepted.

Give us some time.

On 7/16/2019 at 8:19 PM, Buorhann said:

The war showed some very clear stuff...Citadel is “Vanguard 2.0”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Buorhann said:

All I really got from Roq’s reply is that he’s BK’s “White Knight”.

Apparently he’d prefer things to be like this.

Well while I'm not saying I agree with Roq, all I got from your replies is this:

1. MD-level allies are not supposed to defend MD-level allies, and if they do, they're just mindless cannon fodder.

2. Citadel is supposed to just go back on its word of signing the treaties, if that treaty is somehow chained into fighting you.

Whats worse, apparently Citadel gave you an out by not blitzing BK, and you didn't take it. While I won't say it hurt or helped your war effort to disregard them, it really shows that on the surface your words against Citadel don't mean much. You can't call them out for defending their allies, especially when you had a shot for them not to defend them, and ignored it. If anything, they're the inverse of the NPO situation, which you say was terrible. So which is, either you dislike NPO's way of handling it or you dislike Citadel's? Or you just want to shit on both because they're against you? 

My pick is the latter.

  • Upvote 2

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Roquentin said:

1. I mean, it's a risk that happened since they didn't see it as a credible threat that there would be KERTCHOGG retaliation for the GOB/Guardian hit.  Ihe alternative was getting rolled as a minisphere and risking people quitting it anyway. I didn't feel as a minisphere it could handle fighting the entire KERTCHOGG coalition on its own. We had cut a lot of our ties to other groups so our ability to influence people was severely limited if we ended up in a situation where we'd need the help as I expected no assistance.  It felt like people were insufficiently concerned about the other spheres or had some friendships they preferred to keep even if it was risky.  If it does that, it's ultimately based on how people reacted. My initial intention was just to try to balance the war but the rhetoric has made this into a quasi-death match.

2. On our own, definitely. The combined coalition would have the momentum and energy to do it with the low infra upper tier nations.

3. It was basically that Adrienne thought  we were complicit no matter what and that we'd get hit either within the war or some point after as the main thing was to have Bk secured. It was basically we'd get pursued for it or some other grievance.

3 Answers your other question too. I don't know the exact timeline, but given the way people were talking, it seemed within the realm of possibility given the total collapse of the BKsphere fronts. It was kind of obvious a lot of the peripheral alliances wouldn't hold up to the pressure of the war with the particularly harsh down decs from low infra super tier nations, so it was a situation that seemed to be deteriorating to one where they'd get most alliances out and have BK locked down for a period of time. This would then facilitate potential expansion.

----

There's been a lot of  indignation about the Sphinx leaks when it's known most of the other coalition had wanted to roll BKsphere for quite some time. Two side wanting to roll each other is something normal.  For me the concern in this war is what would happen if people were less prepared on one side and it deteriorated into a situation where one side could be held down. That's why I don't put a lot of weight into the moral highground people are claiming. Chaos wanted to beat up BK and so did Rose and the others. There's bad blood there and general dislike for the treaties they hold. The new claim that I told low gov about a plan to roll two spheres while they were at war is weird since it never happened and Kayser's plan for doing a no-animosity war with KETOG was not meant to follow a war on Chaos as he did not anticipate they would intervene.  The reason the KETOG-CHAOS war was weird to me is because they both wanted to fight BK, so it made no sense. It's unlikely tS would have been willing to do it in such close proximity as a followup to a war on Chaos by BKsphere. We had multiple opportunities to fight KETOG with other reasons,. The whole paperless treaties argument flies in the face of all the "cooperation" done by the alliances involved without paper in the past, like Rose's non-existent ties to either KETOG/Chaos but tons of personal connections. One side has all the powerful personal connections through former leaders maintaining ties and personal connections are often more powerful than treaty ties as evidenced by people leaving the war who were allied. Ayyslamic Crusade was another example of these coming into play.

 

 

 

 

 

1. Wouldn't that be the case anyway? And are you sure that you want to state this and adopt this FA policy? 

If you have 4 "major" spheres, BK, Chaos, KTsphere, and NSO, and if 2 teamed up to take down one, that one that sat out would "technically" be at a disadvantage if they decided to swing at you. But thats a big IF, and it'd have to be after a long war where the losing side gets steamrolled and stays down for a long period of time. Even 1-2 rounds into this war, we saw that wasn't the case, BK and friends started making the way up, beefing out the bottom, and while they wouldn't have won, it probably wouldn't have been a long war. Maybe 30-45 days max. Then, it would make no sense for Chaos/KT nations, fresh off back-to-back wars, lowering resources to turn around and fight you in the next 1-2 months(60 days), allowing BK to build back up. Let's keep in mind that both Chaos and KT fought each other as well. 

2. I see you clarified that later, seems like you thought your allies were rather lacking to be able to fend off an attack from 2 smaller spheres fresh off 2 "Global" wars. I can't exactly go against you here, as its your belief, but that really says something about your alliance's military skills and your ally's as well.

3. Fair enough.

 

A follow-up question for you based off of what you said about "balance."

1. While other things obviously led to the attack, you cite trying to "balance" the war" as one of the main components. My question is, do wars need to be balanced, and by extension fair? And if so, how do you defend your attack on TKR in Knightfall? If wars don't need to be balanced and fair, how do you defend your attack on TKR in this war? 

  • Upvote 3

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kastor said:

Well while I'm not saying I agree with Roq, all I got from your replies is this:

1. MD-level allies are not supposed to defend MD-level allies, and if they do, they're just mindless cannon fodder.

2. Citadel is supposed to just go back on its word of signing the treaties, if that treaty is somehow chained into fighting you.

Whats worse, apparently Citadel gave you an out by not blitzing BK, and you didn't take it. While I won't say it hurt or helped your war effort to disregard them, it really shows that on the surface your words against Citadel don't mean much. You can't call them out for defending their allies, especially when you had a shot for them not to defend them, and ignored it. If anything, they're the inverse of the NPO situation, which you say was terrible. So which is, either you dislike NPO's way of handling it or you dislike Citadel's? Or you just want to shit on both because they're against you? 

My pick is the latter.

Interesting that you’re being all serious.  Goodluck on maintaining that facade.  I’ll give it a month till you start leaking or trolling again.

Did you completely overlook where I stated we expected them to join on the initial posts?  (That’s because of the treaty situation dumbass)

Their problem all stemmed from me stating they’re going to end up like Vanguard 2.0.  Which I still stand by.

But I’ll amuse you, no, their “coming to BK” aid isn’t necessarily an issue.  The conflicting (and contradicting) actions and statements their reps have stated here and in back channels is the issue.

As for your final question:  All of the above.  If you don’t see the issue of NPOs involvement and the various spins/reasonings given from both Citadel reps and NPO, there’s really no need to further talk to you about it.

Its pretty clear from the start to present, but we also know you like to flip flop to whomever can give you more attention too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Micchan said:

Leave Citadel alone, give them time and they will become an independent bloc, they already understand how dangerous can be being tied with BKshpere

When we attacked we knew they where in cause the tie between BK and Yakuza 

Leaving IQ is just as dangerous as remaining. Just ask Alexio.

Praise Dio. Every &#33;@#&#036;ing day.

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.