Jump to content
Kastor

How long will this war go on for?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Ripper said:

1. But... IQ doesn't exist, so what's the problem exactly?
 

The problem with you guys is you wipe away any hostile comments said about individual alliances with it just being IQ. If someone clashes with specific alliances, it's not IQ. It's a problem wit those alliances. IQ isn't a solid entity. It's like if I said I distrusted Chaos bloc but not any of the alliances in it. It's a really weird claim. Throughout its existence those alliances were hated/disliked for specific things. To pretend they just went away with a bloc's dissolution is really hard to contemplate. The fact that you were willing to do plotting against an abstract entity is the hardest line your side has to sell.

Quote

2. I guess the "plotted" part is for different things. It just happens that you love the word and use it everywhere! In any case, one does not "plot" a bloc. They form it.
Regarding this "if scenario"... I don't know Roq, just get in our shoes and think what would Roq do and why? Why would Roq fight/impose terms/press on the terms if he was already "plotting" to form a bloc (and a greater coalition?) with the alliances he is fighting.

I mean... CoS asked for TKR to sign Guardian/GOB till the end of the war, without ever withdrawing the term. And when TKR got invited to Chaos bloc, it was asked to drop all of its ties with other alliances (including the ones they had just signed!)

If that looks like to you that we were "plotting" all along, I don't really know what to say. The 5D chess is strong with this one.

Uhm... Did I take any terms back?
Also, I didn't know it's illegal to state your opinion about whether the opponent alliance will accept terms or not.
And if you had a problem with that... then tell me then and/or make a motion to remove me from negotiations?

1. Drop them all you want. I don't see how they counter anything I said before. Here, let me quote myself too.

fCTgD1DK.JPG

2a. What I get from that point is that you felt "pressure" from me and understood that I was trying to make you feel guilty because... I asked you whether you would follow-up with the pre-war deal?

"I am ok with starting from scratch."   /   "What I want is to see whether this will happen or not."

Well... my apologies if these two sentences made you feel pressure. Do tell me what part of them made you feel pressure and guilt. No idea where this "do what I want when I want" part you are talking about comes out of the logs you posted. Maybe try with better logs.

2b. Again, regarding the "a reason" part, I think I made myself clear at my previous post.

Since you post logs, I guess it's ok I post some myself (in my case, just to prove the timeline I am talking about is right):

WrOpgRy.jpg

 

I guess Sans (= Hilmes) also pressed you a lot by asking for your opinion, just like me...

In any case, that's the last thing I saw from our mutual discussions for the formation/support of your new sphere. That's at the end of January. I presume you took the conversation elsewhere and just removed me from the exchange of messages for your own reasons (which is understandable). After that, I asked t$ multiple times whether they were seeing light in the tunnel and the answer I was getting was not very supportive.

In any case, as I said, NPO is not the center of the world. Instead of waiting and spending more of my time in your alliance rather than mine, I just decided to make things interesting for my members, find some nice comrades and try to make something new. Chaos formed two months later.

If you removing me from the N$O negotiations and me signing Chaos two months later "gave you a lot of misgivings"... Well, this sounds like a you problem. I don't know what you expected from CoS.

-------------------------------------------

To me it looks like that whatever anyone tells you can be spinned as trying to press you, make you feel guilt, use you, plot against you, etc. Either you have trust issues, or want to pretend you have trust issues to justify your actions, or that's just how you work and just assume that others do the same.

 

We removed you because we determined it was inappropriate for you to be involved. It was suspicious the entire time during the war that you usually spoke positively of TKR and then you  went onto sign them. No one in NPO present thought it made sense for you to initiate the discussion before the war was even over. The bloc leaks show Chaos is in discussion less than 2 months after peace is signed. That's not really the time table I'm skeptical over. I don't care about when it went public. Our reservations about how Chaos was formed were made clear Kayser and tS from the get-go. The whole 2 months thing doesn't really do it justice when you are making big moves as part of an effort to pool resources against the people you had been working with not too long prior. The whole potemkin spheres thing was also known well before the Sphinx logs were dropped on here. These things all add up.

 

I don't see a point in arguing further now that everything is just dismissed as me making it up ex post facto.

 

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

Oh, my tone was definitely different then and I still very much back a lot of what was said then.

However, none of that matters on how much full of shit you are and how others may sit there and try to play with you still.

The main points you keep conveniently ignoring is that you weren’t under threat (Whether we flat out told you, or the fact it was nearly logically impossible as @Shiho Nishizumi attempted to educate you on, or the SIMPLE fricking FACT that multiple of us attempted to play “nice” with you) and you entered into a conflict with some cockeyed bullshit excuse, which you’re still arguing about.

At least the hits on Guardian or Grumpy (hitting whales) was something, but TKR?  Good god man.

Just admit you feared losing your connections to BK and the rest of the gang.

I do have to give you props on the multiple misdirects you’re throwing out for others to reply to.

Don't play with me then. I'm cool fighting as long as everyone else wants to and for as long as everyone else wants to, so there's your answer. I just have no reason to go out of my accommodate your constant shittalk and the fact that you literally ignore most of what I said. I just have no reason to have any compulsion to agree to any rushed deal with an entity that has this perspective. I don't intend to be a TRF and will take as many precautions as I can. 

At the time, the BK/Cov group was only recovering to around 900-1200 air. People were able to sell down and suppress those efforts and it was evident there wouldn't be a recovery if it stayed the same. if the war objectives of pulling people out could be achieved and I've shown the nation counts of the people who are actually fighting and actively have been fighting the war and not counting people who were not genuinely fighting and were statpads due to OOC issues or whatever reason, then it would have been an easy transition once the core was sufficiently down. Given people on your side were saying BK was losing and needed outside intervention, I'm sure you would have been taking some hits in super low score areas if it meant having the 16-25+s in BK/Cov/etc. suppressed.

Here's the other thing your spin is constantly that I think TKR was going to hit us on their own. I never said that's all the intel I had was them and Chaos doing it later on. It never was meant to be oh they're going to do it on their own and no one will help them. If i had the same convo about TGH or KT, then I'd have hit TGH/KT.  I would have much preferred to hit CoS/Valinor along with TKR as CoS/Valinor had a lot of people that were problematic score-wise or your entire coalition all at once. I didn't have the capacity to do that though and my concerns were not shared by the other alliances as they traditionally had friendly relations with those alliances and TKR especially with Kayser gone. The fact that we distrusted both Chaos and KETOG's intentions was always explicitly laid out within our sphere.  I was pretty clear in the DoW that the imbalance the war's trajectory was introducing was severely problematic and that I did not see it as strategically beneficial to stay out.

I've been pretty clear that I feared the collapse of the only sphere that stood in the path of a collective that I saw as friendlier to each other than to our interests.  This is also the reason for the doctrine we had in place as this was an almost inevitable outcome regardless of feigned indignation over the leaks. I would have much preferred to just stay on the whales had there been a possibility of it stalemating at minimum on other fronts. I said it in reply to Shiho that I would not expect assistance if the scenario were reversed as it would put us in the place where they could not be in position to help or not desire to help due to the historical examples I gave.  You've also used that Partisan line about "maintaining contacts in BK" when it was never something I ever stated. That was someone else's interpretation even though I wasted tons of time on restating all the concerns about Chaos and KETOG within the sphere we had previously brought up.

I've tired of wasting energy on these discussions so my replies from now on will be mostly troll responses from now on just to treat you and everyone else who responds similarly with the level of respect they merit.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

We removed you because we determined it was inappropriate for you to be involved. a. It was suspicious the entire time during the war that you usually spoke positively of TKR and b. then you  went onto sign them.

So, let me get this straight:

1. Ripper states (?) that the war will last for many more months due to TKR not accepting terms. This makes Roq suspicious of Ripper, since showing respect to your enemies is unheard of. Ripper pushes all the terms on TKR regardless, some of which would actually prevent the formation of Chaos (TKR signing Guardian or GOB).
2. The war ends and the talks for the formation of N$O start, with both t$ and NPO including Ripper in the negotiations, because trust (?) till the 29th of January.
3. Something magic happens.
4. Ripper gets removed from the talks on the 29th.
5. Ripper forms with others Chaos two months later.
6. Roq states that he removed Ripper from the talks because Ripper would have formed Chaos 2 months later (probably Roq is a prophet).

Can you make it more clear what happened in #3? I am really lost here. Do tell me what changed from the 29th of January to the 30th. I may have to work on something I am unaware of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

The problem with you guys is you wipe away any hostile comments said about individual alliances with it just being IQ. If someone clashes with specific alliances, it's not IQ. It's a problem wit those alliances. IQ isn't a solid entity. It's like if I said I distrusted Chaos bloc but not any of the alliances in it. It's a really weird claim. Throughout its existence those alliances were hated/disliked for specific things. To pretend they just went away with a bloc's dissolution is really hard to contemplate. The fact that you were willing to do plotting against an abstract entity is the hardest line your side has to sell.

The reason that war only would have applied to IQ and not to the original alliances making up IQ was because the reason for wanting the war in the first place had to do with your bloc's refusal to split and do something different. We wanted to do minispheres and, as a group, you didn't seem to be on board. It wasn't born of any issues with any individual alliance. That's why when you broke up IQ to form N$O, the war plans died. That's why I said I was interested by the move and wanted to see how things played out.

Edited by Nizam Adrienne
Typo >.<
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ripper said:

So, let me get this straight:

1. Ripper states (?) that the war will last for many more months due to TKR not accepting terms. This makes Roq suspicious of Ripper, since showing respect to your enemies is unheard of. Ripper pushes all the terms on TKR regardless, some of which would actually prevent the formation of Chaos (TKR signing Guardian or GOB).
2. The war ends and the talks for the formation of N$O start, with both t$ and NPO including Ripper in the negotiations, because trust (?) till the 29th of January.
3. Something magic happens.
4. Ripper gets removed from the talks on the 29th.
5. Ripper forms with others Chaos two months later.
6. Roq states that he removed Ripper from the talks because Ripper would have formed Chaos 2 months later (probably Roq is a prophet).

Can you make it more clear what happened in #3? I am really lost here. Do tell me what changed from the 29th of January to the 30th. I may have to work on something I am unaware of.

You initially wanted us to consider white peace instead of surrender.  War dragged out and everyone including you wanted non-white peace and your terms also cause SRD and co not to want to give in rather than your initial concern about surrender out. 

You historically have positive relations and views on TKR. During someone(not IQ) proposed an idea for the POW and it was about closing the gap between TKR/and presumably the others and the coalition. "That's not my intent behind the war".

I removed you because your intent behind trying to push it before the war was resolved wasn't really seen warmly by us as a group. The mini-sphere at that point as described as being solely tS/NPO to start with. I had no real expectations of getting people to cancel all of their treaties to join it and when it was tried later on, it didn't work. You didn't want to be part of it and went onto join a bloc that was actually bigger than the two tS/NPO alliances. I was also told by Kayser that CoS saw tS as too OP to be with normally and that people didn't see NPO as someone they wanted to work except on a super short-term basis  and that I wasn't really mistaken about my perceptions of how they felt.

I'm not sure if you were present in the specific convos before but the intent of the post-war plans wasn't for anyone to sign EMC in the 2 months after. It was like a huge wtf. The rationale given by Kayser for the creation of Chaos was that we were doing too much mid-tier consolidation and that it would have no purpose if we cut ties with everyone close to IQ. I didn't really buy that a bloc would simply dissolve overnight or that people would balkanize upper tiers in response.

Anyway I don't want to go in circles with this.  If you were a nice guy all along with your intentions and these were all just unfortunate misunderstandings then I just don't know.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when NPO said they did everything they could to prevent this in their DoW on TKR?

You've literally put more work into spin on this thread than you did actual diplomacy in the entire period since you supposedly broke from BK.

Edit: Roq your anti-TKR grudge positively bleeds off of your last post. The truth is, Chaos broke TKR away from their upper tier buddies. That was a real break, not the fake one you did from BK. So don't expect anyone to take your word anymore, absent some genuine action.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Edit: Roq your anti-TKR grudge positively bleeds off of your last post.

Notice how he intentionally ignores Niz in this topic. She doesn't fit into his 4D chess. blobshrug.png

Edited by alyster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

You initially wanted us to consider white peace instead of surrender. War dragged out and everyone including you wanted non-white peace and your terms also cause SRD and co not to want to give in rather than your initial concern about surrender out. 

lol, what? It gets tiring if you even decline the facts.

The war started on October 19th, 2018. Two weeks later...

LB1aN3F.jpg

VYztIL9.jpg

We may not have had treaty terms on day 1 (hell, we didn't even know whether we would win), but were the first alliance to post terms. And regardless of terms, we would never accept to end the war before getting all the whales to go down. For which we knew it would take months.

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

You historically have positive relations and views on TKR.

lol, what? #2

a. Do you mean the time when I was in Arrgh and was raiding them all the time... then joined CoS... didn't fight for them at any war... then plotted to get EMC down... then imposed the treaty term on them which was one of the hardest to accept?
Again, no idea what you have in mind. I beg you, enlighten me on that part too. What historical events do you have in mind?

b. Even that was true... So what? You decide whether you will work with others based on their relations with TKR? This is some weird obsession you got there.

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

1.  During someone(not IQ) proposed an idea for the POW

2. and it was about closing the gap between TKR/and presumably the others and the coalition. "That's not my intent behind the war".

1. It wasn't IQ, it was peripheral-IQ (more specifically, Malal)  that suggested it. PoWs... suck. I hope I don't have to elaborate on that?

2. Yeah, you got this right. I wasn't getting my neutral alliance to spend all those resources and time for IQ to profit from the war and "close the gap". Our intent behind the war are/were in our DoW. See, we have no backrooms as you may be used to.
But since you are not happy that this was not my intention, this means that your reason to go for this war was to "close the gap".

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I removed you because your intent behind trying to push it before the war was resolved wasn't really seen warmly by us as a group

??? We made a deal before the war, talked nothing about it during the war and contacted Hilmes about it right after the war. Again, zero idea what you are talking about.
As I said, tell me what changed from the 29th of January to the 30th and stop trying to dodge the question.

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

The mini-sphere at that point as described as being solely tS/NPO to start with. I had no real expectations of getting people to cancel all of their treaties to join it and when it was tried later on, it didn't work.

Nothing was "described" or determined up to the point you cut communications with me. Also, are you implying I "pressed you"/ imposed such a term on you? The only ones that talked about dropping extra ties were you (see Keshav's comment):

poo5DSi.jpg

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

1. You didn't want to be part of it and...

2. went onto join a bloc that was actually bigger than the two tS/NPO alliances.

1. Yes, I didn't want to... and never said I did. And you knew that even before Knightfall. The deal between TEst/CoS/t$/NPO was about a 2 months protection.

2a. Sorry for not asking you! But as I said, NPO is not the center of the world.
2b. Yes, I did it... After you removed me from the negotiations. Meaning that you didn't want to work with me.
2c. 40 members for SK, 40 for Soup, 40 for CoS and 120 for TKR adds up to 240 members. 130 for NPO and 90 for t$/e$ alone adds up to 220. That's 1:1 ratio. Maybe check your math again

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

1. I was also told by Kayser that CoS saw tS as too OP to be with normally and...

2. that people didn't see NPO as someone they wanted to work except on a super short-term basis  and that I wasn't really mistaken about my perceptions of how they felt.

1. Yes, NPO/t$ and allies PLUS CoS would be too OP. t$ already had a high-tier. Supposedly, we were in the process of forming new blocs, not a new hegemony.

2. And yet I got them to fight with you in Knightfall and accept protecting you for 2 months, while CoS was paperless. You are welcome!

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I'm not sure if you were present in the specific convos before but the intent of the post-war plans wasn't for anyone to sign EMC in the 2 months after. It was like a huge wtf.

a. I cannot know what you discuss with others in backrooms. It's the first time I hear about this. Even if I was in the discussions, I don't see why my alliance's FA should be restricted by your attempt to isolate TKR.
b. Ok, that's really funny that you don't see it:

EMC was dissolved because Chaos was formed! So, again, you are welcome!

Edited by Ripper
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so I removed the negativity. Just ignore what I said and scroll up or down to the next comment.⬆️⬇️

Edited by Madden8021
Okay so I removed the negativity. Just ignore what I said and scroll up or down to the next comment.
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Remember when NPO said they did everything they could to prevent this in their DoW on TKR?

You've literally put more work into spin on this thread than you did actual diplomacy in the entire period since you supposedly broke from BK.

Edit: Roq your anti-TKR grudge positively bleeds off of your last post. The truth is, Chaos broke TKR away from their upper tier buddies. That was a real break, not the fake one you did from BK. So don't expect anyone to take your word anymore, absent some genuine action.

I had completely forgotten that.

"

When word reached us that The Knights Radiant were using the predicament we were in of not being able to declare past the front as a way to lock down the current fronts and then attack us it was a pressing enough threat.  This was coupled with reports the lack of expansion was simply due to not having enough coverage. As fronts fell, it was a matter of time in our eyes. Whether it was now or after the war, it was a serious liability.  We have been reluctant to sit on the sidelines to wait for it to happen. We have stood idly by with constant antagonism. In every previous war with this scenario of a limited front, the alliances initiating it are usually targeted next and the reactions this time indicated the same. Note this is our decision unilaterally as we could no longer allow our sovereign right to declare a war against people who seek to act against us to be withheld. It is regrettable that we must act outside of the scope with this new conflict.

There is no intention of domination or anything. The imbalance this war has introduced made it clear that we could not just sit back and wait for the inevitable. The numbers cited as why the other sphere was so big have not materialized, allowing for manuveurability.  We did everything we could to avoid this outcome but here we are. By the day they grew emboldened while our strategic situation deteriorated. We expect to take severe losses here and there is no avoiding that but allowing this status quo to continue has been determined to be  untenable, which is why we declare war on TKR."

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I had completely forgotten that.

"

When word reached us that The Knights Radiant were using the predicament we were in of not being able to declare past the front as a way to lock down the current fronts and then attack us it was a pressing enough threat.  This was coupled with reports the lack of expansion was simply due to not having enough coverage. As fronts fell, it was a matter of time in our eyes. Whether it was now or after the war, it was a serious liability.  We have been reluctant to sit on the sidelines to wait for it to happen. We have stood idly by with constant antagonism. In every previous war with this scenario of a limited front, the alliances initiating it are usually targeted next and the reactions this time indicated the same. Note this is our decision unilaterally as we could no longer allow our sovereign right to declare a war against people who seek to act against us to be withheld. It is regrettable that we must act outside of the scope with this new conflict.

There is no intention of domination or anything. The imbalance this war has introduced made it clear that we could not just sit back and wait for the inevitable. The numbers cited as why the other sphere was so big have not materialized, allowing for manuveurability.  We did everything we could to avoid this outcome but here we are. By the day they grew emboldened while our strategic situation deteriorated. We expect to take severe losses here and there is no avoiding that but allowing this status quo to continue has been determined to be  untenable, which is why we declare war on TKR."

 

 

 

 

what does any of this matter, you lost so get over it already?

ooooo thought of a term we can place on you, every time you post all members of KETOG has to downvote it until you reach -10,000 votes :D

Edited by Elijah Mikaelson
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

what does any of this matter

 

Because words mean things and promises that are broken will matter when people are trying to decide future treaties.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

what does any of this matter, you lost so get over it already?

ooooo thought of a term we can place on you, every time you post all members of KETOG has to downvote it until you reach -10,000 votes :D

 

On 8/12/2019 at 5:13 AM, Roquentin said:

Sorry. I really appreciate the effort here, but it's not adding up for me. I've tried to figure out where the 900 nation count thingy comes from, but here's who I'd consider viable.

Effective alliance: 

  • BK 134
  • Afrika Korps 40
  • Camelot 47
  • Guardians of the Galaxy 66
  • Polaris 31 ( sat out last war)
  • OWR 28 ( sat out last war )
  • Solar 25 ( Unproven)
  • UPN 28
  • Acadia 29
  • BoC - 32 (Unproven)
  • Hanseatic League - 21 (Unproven)
  • IronFront - 13 (Unproven)
  • The Commonwealth 75
  • Yakuza 24 (Unproven)
  • Carthago 46 (unproven)

I didn't add Goon Squad or banking AAs, since I forgot but think this is a good list without counterproductive micros and adds up to 598. This is just off the top of my head.

Sorry, @Elijah Mikaelson, but Yakuza is "unproven". It's not proven to be a part of BK-sphere. So, once we get peace with BK-sphere and NPO, we will just keep fighting you.

Either that or @Roquentin will have to stop hiding behind his finger and admit that the above list is the actual bloc that BK holds and NPO supports.

Edited by Ripper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

what does any of this matter, you lost so get over it already?

ooooo thought of a term we can place on you, every time you post all members of KETOG has to downvote it until you reach -10,000 votes :D

Don't you have a bunch of multis to focus on hiding away from Alex?  Or better yet, figuring out what to do postwar since you pretty much got nuked from SNN's leaks?

(And no, whoever is savvy enough with the war mechanics will realize there's no real winner or loser until either side relents.  I could go on and on raiding your coalition since all the damage has already been done and I can still make a profit)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ripper said:

 

Sorry, @Elijah Mikaelson, but Yakuza is "unproven". It's not proven to be a part of BK-sphere. So, once we get peace with BK-sphere and NPO, we will just keep fighting you.

Either that or @Roquentin will have to stop hiding behind his finger and admit that the above list is the actual bloc that BK holds and NPO supports.

He meant militarily unproven, yakuza or previously Zeon hasn't fought a war since like 2017. Also to note that list is not a comprehensive list of BK sphere for 2 reasons. 

1. Citadel blantantly stated they wouldn't be participating if BK wasn't hit in the first wave. 

2. BoC was going to stay out of the war, but they were totally slotted in the first wave and changed their minds. 

3. Polaris is polaris. Enough said. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Epi said:

He meant militarily unproven, yakuza or previously Zeon hasn't fought a war since like 2017. Also to note that list is not a comprehensive list of BK sphere for 2 reasons. 

1. Citadel blantantly stated they wouldn't be participating if BK wasn't hit in the first wave. 

2. BoC was going to stay out of the war, but they were totally slotted in the first wave and changed their minds. 

3. Polaris is polaris. Enough said. 

Noted and thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ripper said:

lol, what? It gets tiring if you even decline the facts.

The war started on October 19th, 2018. Two weeks later...

LB1aN3F.jpg

VYztIL9.jpg

We may not have had treaty terms on day 1 (hell, we didn't even know whether we would win), but were the first alliance to post terms. And regardless of terms, we would never accept to end the war before getting all the whales to go down. For which we knew it would take months.

Initially when the war started you said we had to be prepared for the scenario where we could not get a surrender even if it lasted for months. Hope that helps. It *did* happen so please don't deny it.

 

Quote

lol, what? #2

a. Do you mean the time when I was in Arrgh and was raiding them all the time... then joined CoS... didn't fight for them at any war... then plotted to get EMC down... then imposed the treaty term on them which was one of the hardest to accept?
Again, no idea what you have in mind. I beg you, enlighten me on that part too. What historical events do you have in mind?

b. Even that was true... So what? You decide whether you will work with others based on their relations with TKR? This is some weird obsession you got there.

1. It wasn't IQ, it was peripheral-IQ (more specifically, Malal)  that suggested it. PoWs... suck. I hope I don't have to elaborate on that?

2. Yeah, you got this right. I wasn't getting my neutral alliance to spend all those resources and time for IQ to profit from the war and "close the gap". Our intent behind the war are/were in our DoW. See, we have no backrooms as you may be used to.
But since you are not happy that this was not my intention, this means that your reason to go for this war was to "close the gap".

a. You always posted positively about them and then always took every FA effort on good faith when they did the treaty cuts while trolling us at every turn especially when OWLS was ongoing. There was always positive sentiment expressed towards whatever they did. 

I'm not sure where I said historical events but it was CoS in general along with you having positive relations?

b. if the war happens to be against TKR, then yeah it's kind of a fifth column if we have people who are super TKR fanclub and then sign them right after. That would be in any war with any alliance we're fighting.

So it wasn't Malal, and they weren't near IQ. It was a different person altogether and part of another sphere and not attached to us at the time even within 2 treaty links. I hope I don't have to elaborate on this? 

It's the basic principle. If you're going to war over consolidation in the upper tier and you undo the war more or less right after by reinstituting a scenario where the upper tier alliances are more or less protected from damage, then it's a huge problem. And no, sorry,  CoS getting hit because there wasn't enough buy-in to steam roll mid-tier alliances and restore that paradigm doesn't count.

 

Quote

 

??? We made a deal before the war, talked nothing about it during the war and contacted Hilmes about it right after the war. Again, zero idea what you are talking about.
As I said, tell me what changed from the 29th of January to the 30th and stop trying to dodge the question.

Nothing was "described" or determined up to the point you cut communications with me. Also, are you implying I "pressed you"/ imposed such a term on you? The only ones that talked about dropping extra ties were you (see Keshav's comment):

poo5DSi.jpg

1. Yes, I didn't want to... and never said I did. And you knew that even before Knightfall. The deal between TEst/CoS/t$/NPO was about a 2 months protection.

It's not after the war. It's 1/18. War ended on 2/01.

You didn't want to work with us and did an entirely new sphere. Had there been any interest from CoS in some sort of long-term balance arrangement then we could have worked something out without you being in the sphere. Instead it was just pseudo-hostility and suspicion. Chaos was literally bigger than the potential core group and you had it open to add more alliances. YOu 

Quote

2a. Sorry for not asking you! But as I said, NPO is not the center of the world.
2b. Yes, I did it... After you removed me from the negotiations. Meaning that you didn't want to work with me.
2c. 40 members for SK, 40 for Soup, 40 for CoS and 120 for TKR adds up to 240 members. 130 for NPO and 90 for t$/e$ alone adds up to 220. That's 1:1 ratio. Maybe check your math again

1. Yes, NPO/t$ and allies PLUS CoS would be too OP. t$ already had a high-tier. Supposedly, we were in the process of forming new blocs, not a new hegemony.

2. And yet I got them to fight with you in Knightfall and accept protecting you for 2 months, while CoS was paperless. You are welcome!

a. I cannot know what you discuss with others in backrooms. It's the first time I hear about this. Even if I was in the discussions, I don't see why my alliance's FA should be restricted by your attempt to isolate TKR.
b. Ok, that's really funny that you don't see it:

EMC was dissolved because Chaos was formed! So, again, you are welcome!

Glad to know you had a bias.

You didn't really express interest in actually doing stuff alongside it besides maybe helping in a curbstomp. What else would happen?

Yeah I didn't say you had to join, just not make another big bloc which also departed from paperless. 

I don't recall those being the membercounts at the time but also was talking about nation score and tiering since obviously high tier low count alliances will have a lot less.

 

-----

If you can't see the problem with not really expressing any interest in cooperation, signing the primary target shortly after when the initial group didn't have that as its goal, and then plotting against one of the other people involved on the basis of them having lied the entire time, it doesn't really work out. I was straight up with my opinions to anyone that Chaos and your de facto temporary alignment and coalition-building with the rest of EMC(not really a great name for it maybe like GGTT) undid Knightfall altogether. It's not even about TKR, it's about your natural plan being to  go back right to rolling the guys who had always gotten rolled up to that point.

14 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Remember when NPO said they did everything they could to prevent this in their DoW on TKR?

You've literally put more work into spin on this thread than you did actual diplomacy in the entire period since you supposedly broke from BK.

Edit: Roq your anti-TKR grudge positively bleeds off of your last post. The truth is, Chaos broke TKR away from their upper tier buddies. That was a real break, not the fake one you did from BK. So don't expect anyone to take your word anymore, absent some genuine action.

Oh. I meant we did everything to prevent the scenario where we had to act on our own and anger spheremates. I didn't mean to say we had begged everyone in the Old Boys Club coalition side would be nice to us.

Sorry man. Those screenshots getting out wasn't really the first mention of those plans. If you try to set up potemkin village spheres and it's all for one unified cause, it's not much to go on.

So if my word isn't trustworthy why would any assurance or action taken  matter? The only solution to the old boys club issue I've seen raised would be a formalized framework like the one Edward mentioned. These splits and murky waters typically favor whoever has the most longtime friends spread throughout the game. We know which individuals are at an advantage there, which is why we have never taken the anti-treaty rhetoric at face value.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Roquentin @Ripper

Just for reference these were stats for Chaos and N$O as newly-formed blocs:

N$O (including peripheries): 9674 cities, 581 members, 16.65 city avg

N$O Core (NPO, T$/E$, HS): 5290 cities, 301 members, 17.57 city avg

 

Chaos (including peripheries): 5792 cities, 372 members, 15.57 city avg

Chaos (SK, TKR, CoS, Soup): 4191 cities, 240 members, 17.46 city avg

 

 

I should note that city counts are way more important than member counts, but it also isn't really fair to look at "cores" because NPO and T$ bring around a lot more peripheries than Chaos bloc does (which doesn't even include Nova/TF anymore).  Also, to say that this is some upper tier consolidation misinterprets the actual data as your average city count is actually a bit higher.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

@Roquentin @Ripper

Just for reference these were stats for Chaos and N$O as newly-formed blocs:

N$O (including peripheries): 9674 cities, 581 members, 16.65 city avg

N$O Core (NPO, T$/E$, HS): 5290 cities, 301 members, 17.57 city avg

 

Chaos (including peripheries): 5792 cities, 372 members, 15.57 city avg

Chaos (SK, TKR, CoS, Soup): 4191 cities, 240 members, 17.46 city avg

 

 

I should note that city counts are way more important than member counts, but it also isn't really fair to look at "cores" because NPO and T$ bring around a lot more peripheries than Chaos bloc does (which doesn't even include Nova/TF anymore).  Also, to say that this is some upper tier consolidation misinterprets the actual data as your average city count is actually a bit higher.

It wasn't known at the time whether HS would be involved. It came at a later stage, as the enthusiasm on the complete reset had died by that stage.  Our peripheries are not really discussed as being parts of the sphere as some people wanted us to cut them to decrease the size of the sphere. Nova was more likely to get involved in wars alongside TKR and it was at the time where it was shown TKR and TCW still had a tenative agreement to cooperate. 

I didn't really mean to say Chaos was much bigger, but rather the intention to do the bloc didn't represent the same hesitation towards consolidating a group previously shown.

The average city count wouldn't really show the distribution of the upper tiers as averages are distorted by things like TKR having new players while having also the biggest nations often off AA like Benfro combined with the outside links the alliances have.

Edited by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It wasn't known at the time whether HS would be involved. It came at a later stage, as the enthusiasm on the complete reset had died by that stage.  Our peripheries are not really discussed as being parts of the sphere as some people wanted us to cut them to decrease the size of the sphere. Nova was more likely to get involved in wars alongside TKR and it was at the time where it was shown TKR and TCW still had a tenative agreement to cooperate. 

I didn't really mean to say Chaos was much bigger, but rather the intention to do the bloc didn't represent the same hesitation towards consolidating a group previously shown.

The average city count wouldn't really show the distribution of the upper tiers as averages are distorted by things like TKR having new players while having also the biggest nations often off AA like Benfro combined with the outside links the alliances have.

It's not fair to include Nova, a protectorate, and then disregard the multitude of protectorates T$ has (CoA, Aurora, Typhon) and your smaller allies, ODN and USN.  TKR had to cut too as a precondition upon entering chaos.  

The formation of the bloc itself was against consolidation as each alliance would be allied to each other and have one external MDP to an untied alliance.  For its existence, SK and soup have not even used this option.  Also, a defining quality of the creation of chaos was that it was inherently risky.  You had alliances who had really been in contact with a diverse set of enemies and only a medium-sized bloc.  This in contrast to N$O where NPO maintained de facto relations with the largest bloc and could easily crush an attack by any other bloc due to sheer size.  I'd argue that a reason that we got to this point, war and all, is because not just NPO but many alliances refused to take risks and put themselves in new and potentially dangerous situations.  Unfortunately, multipolarity requires us all to take risks and not be protected through underhand relations or the blob, and maybe there is some blame to go around with chaos and KETOG too that we can discuss but at the moment the problem with consolidation can not be pinned on chaos.

Also, yeah we could talk about distributions all day, but averages are usually a good point to start that conversation statistically speaking.  I agree that CoS (high 20s avg city) and SK (mid 20s avg city) are upper tier, but post-KF TKR lost most of its upper tier and besides few exceptions, benfro and yir (who are literally the only two whales that sit offshore and account for only about 60 cities or a drop in the bucket of the bloc) are tiered in the 18-25 range.  TKR isn't low on its average because of just new members but because its truly a mid-tier alliance after losing a lot of members after knightfall.  Soup, on the other hand, is a lower and mid-tier alliance.  Put together, that makes chaos two upper tier alliances and two mid-tier alliances.  That seems somewhat reasonable and unconsolidated especially when due to your strategy (i'm not blaming you for this) whichever bloc NPO is in has nearly a third of that tier controlled by a single alliance.

Edited by Cooper_
Spelling
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

It's not fair to include Nova, a protectorate, and then disregard the multitude of protectorates T$ has (CoA, Aurora, Typhon) and your smaller allies, ODN and USN.  TKR had to cut too as a precondition upon entering chaos.  

The formation of the bloc itself was against consolidation as each alliance would be allied to each other and have one external MDP to an untied alliance.  For its existence, SK and soup have not even used this option.  Also, a defining quality of the creation of chaos was that it was inherently risky.  You had alliances who had really been in contact with a diverse set of enemies and only a medium-sized bloc.  This in contrast to N$O where NPO maintained de facto relations with the largest bloc and could easily crush an attack by any other bloc due to sheer size.  I'd argue that a reason that we got to this point, war and all, is because not just NPO but many alliances refused to take risks and put themselves in new and potentially dangerous situations.  Unfortunately, multipolarity requires us all to take risks and not be protected through underhand relations or the blob, and maybe there is some blame to go around with chaos and KETOG too that we can discuss but at the moment the problem with consolidation can not be pinned on chaos.

Also, yeah we could talk about distributions all day, but averages are usually a good point to start that conversation statistically speaking.  I agree that CoS (high 20s avg city) and SK (mid 20s avg city) are upper tier, but post-KF TKR lost most of its upper tier and besides few exceptions, benfro and yir (who are literally the only two whales that sit offshore and account for only about 60 cities or a drop in the bucket of the bloc) are tiered in the 18-25 range.  TKR isn't low on its average because of just new members but because its truly a mid-tier alliance after losing a lot of members after knightfall.  Soup, on the other hand, is a lower and mid-tier alliance.  Put together, that makes chaos two upper tier alliances and two mid-tier alliances.  That seems somewhat reasonable and unconsolidated especially when due to your strategy (i'm not blaming you for this) whichever bloc NPO is in has nearly a third of that tier controlled by a single alliance.

I mean we've all heard the yarn of Chaos being some super risky move while NPO hasn't taken that risk. We did. We had no "de facto" relations with anyone else lol. Our relations have always been in our paper and that's about it. If we wanted forced to have paperless agreements, Polar would be the only alliance, because the NPO will always reserve the right to defend Polar and vice versa. I mean it's why we ended up signing the OoO.

We've taken our risks and been put in dangerous situations, we just refuse to operate of the "word" or "faith" in your leadership's promises. That's where the difference is. Also it's quite funny having TKR lecture folks on paperless, given you just combined with KETOGG for a hit, and then expect everyone else to sit idly by and believe you that it's a one-time thing. 

I wish we controlled a third of any tier, especially the mid, but thats categorically false. City averages do not point out the numbers in specific tiers, so unless you start specifically pointing out tier numbers, it's hard to believe that the ranges CoS/TKR/SK can effectively cover is somehow not consolidated. 

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ripper said:

why should the rest of the world believe you! You have only words to back this up. No actions.

You had one chance to prove that IQ really didn't exist and just blew it in this war. Maybe next time!

See, I can play your game too. Look at some nice "arguements". Please try to address them:
> IQ never split because NPO has always been talking positively about BK.
> NPO has worked in the past a lot of times with BK, so it's improbable they cut ties from one day to another.
> NPO signing t$ was just a way to further make "mid"-tier a safe place and for mid-tier alliances to not fight each other, thus establishing even greater mid-tier domination.

It's super easy to talk about hypothetical scenarios. And I can throw some logs in between if you want.

What a load of nonsense. I don't have to prove it to you IQ does or does not exist by having BK disbanded/sat on and completely neutered by your set of alliances for your pleasure. I see your attempts of twisting Roq's arguments here, so let me answer a few of your statements,

1) We ended our communications with CoS, because I honestly felt you were pushing an IQ split as your entire agenda of joining the war and felt entitled to be a part of deal, that was muddied at the moment. The interactions from the group DM's was pretty much you'd have us split but you're playing another game/being duplicitous since this split and the narratives you were pushing of a short 2month protection clause made us wonder if you had other stuff planned and if it's worth working with you. We didn't trust you, Kayser didn't trust you, we decided to cut communications and move on to a private DM excluding you. What is it that happened between 28/01 and 01/02? Not much, just the belief you weren't being truthful and that's how our interactions went with you. 

 

2) CoS also telling folks that anything with NPO could be short-term because we were too OP and other such interactions pointed to a general direction and we weren't interested in keeping you involved anywhere near our future FA given the fact that the information around was you were in it for you and CoS (which is fine) and those interests have nothing to do with ours, and possibly even were a threat for us. We continued with our discussions with tS nevertheless, given that it was quite intense over weeks to arrive at a mutual agreement which did not involve a hark back to "we were promised this! now do this!" rhetoric we originally got from you. 

 

3) 

1 hour ago, Ripper said:

You stopped working with me 2 months before the formation of Chaos. So, stop lying and saying that you didn't want to work with me on February because I would form Chaos on April. This is the third post you repeat yourself like this with a statement that makes zero sense. Unless you really are a prophet.

As I said, you didn't want to work with me, even in a short-term arrangement (although you were more than happy to do so pre-war). Thus, I was free to do whatever I wanted after February, with you having cut all communications.

This is the part of your argument that annoys me the most. Your interactions with us, led us to believe you were working on different projects (fine enough), but that meant that we didn't trust you and stopped working with you in February. We did believe you would most likely sign TKR post war, and that's something even Kayser mentioned was very likely, or go back to the old paperless agreements with TKR. That was our educated guess and its because of the lack of trust as I've stated in 1 and 2, we stopped working with you. Doesn't need to mean Roq's a prophet, but I love the hark to he's "crazy" narrative coming from your side, but it was an educated guess made by multiple people and hence why it was agreed to drop CoS from our discussions. 

The rest of your post, I'll leave for Roq to counter :)  

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

It's not fair to include Nova, a protectorate, and then disregard the multitude of protectorates T$ has (CoA, Aurora, Typhon) and your smaller allies, ODN and USN.  TKR had to cut too as a precondition upon entering chaos.  

The formation of the bloc itself was against consolidation as each alliance would be allied to each other and have one external MDP to an untied alliance.  For its existence, SK and soup have not even used this option.  Also, a defining quality of the creation of chaos was that it was inherently risky.  You had alliances who had really been in contact with a diverse set of enemies and only a medium-sized bloc.  This in contrast to N$O where NPO maintained de facto relations with the largest bloc and could easily crush an attack by any other bloc due to sheer size.  I'd argue that a reason that we got to this point, war and all, is because not just NPO but many alliances refused to take risks and put themselves in new and potentially dangerous situations.  Unfortunately, multipolarity requires us all to take risks and not be protected through underhand relations or the blob, and maybe there is some blame to go around with chaos and KETOG too that we can discuss but at the moment the problem with consolidation can not be pinned on chaos.

Also, yeah we could talk about distributions all day, but averages are usually a good point to start that conversation statistically speaking.  I agree that CoS (high 20s avg city) and SK (mid 20s avg city) are upper tier, but post-KF TKR lost most of its upper tier and besides few exceptions, benfro and yir (who are literally the only two whales that sit offshore and account for only about 60 cities or a drop in the bucket of the bloc) are tiered in the 18-25 range.  TKR isn't low on its average because of just new members but because its truly a mid-tier alliance after losing a lot of members after knightfall.  Soup, on the other hand, is a lower and mid-tier alliance.  Put together, that makes chaos two upper tier alliances and two mid-tier alliances.  That seems somewhat reasonable and unconsolidated especially when due to your strategy (i'm not blaming you for this) whichever bloc NPO is in has nearly a third of that tier controlled by a single alliance.

I wouldn't have to include Nova. There's Valinor which was added and adds upper tier like Oberstein that wouldn't be counted.  Soup had people who were closer to 18/20 before the recent split. They weren't as recruitment heavy at the time and it was still reliant on them taking people from hobo express.

Some of the upper tier you count lost were only lost once Surf's Up Happened. Several 20-27s seem to have not checked in since then. 

7 hours ago, Ripper said:

 

hahahaha! Ok, ok, sorry for making you mad. I hadn't realized your entire politics and war decisions were based on how people treat TKR. An obsession indeed. At least it is clear now.

In any case, with that last statement you make:
1. Either you say you are not planning to fight anyone else except for TKR, so you will never work with people that have "positive relations with them"...
2. or you are stating you will never work with an alliance that has positive relations with alliances that you may fight in the future (which is anyone but BK/Polaris?)...

I see. Maybe that's why you cannot work with anyone, as you complain, no? The filters you got there are... quite strict.

I didn't say that. I said the timing was suspect coupled with the intra-coalition antagonism.

Quote

-----------------------------------------------------------

You are right, it wasn't Malal. The first mentions in the coalition channel about a PoW where from...

FwqshJz.jpg

Oh, Thanos and Keshav. Totally not IQ. :P I hope I don't have to elaborate on this?

You can also see Revan's statement about "closing the gap between ourselves and TKR" specifically. As I said, TKR is your obsession, not mine. My "obsession" would be the whales, most of which were hardly in TKR.

So you just named who I was actually referring to and he wasn't IQ. You pushed back on the concern he raised.  You didn't say anything about getting whales, just that it wasn't your concern to close a gap. Before and during the war, Radoje and  Mitsuru  bragged about how rich they were and how the war wouldn't matter and that we had accomplished nothing whatsoever. See the problem here? 

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------

So, let me get this straight and don't even think about dodging this one.

Are you implying that Chaos formed with TKR keeping its ties with Guardian and/or GOB or CoS having ties to Guardian/GOB? Because that's the only way I can see cancelling upper tier domination/protection.

Yes. It was something you were specifically called out on at the time. It was the one month protection and admittance of a de facto tie between TKR and TCW existing in the screenshots that leaked. Your revisionist history simply because your fake sphere experiment with TCW ended up blowing up in your face doesn't change what actually happened.

Quote

I won't focus on the "doesn't count part", because I am speechless on that one. xD

It's wonderful how you contradict yourself though. Here you state that "there wasn't enough buy-in to steam roll mid-tier alliances". Yet, your whole rhetoric is about Chaos combining forces with KETOG to "steam roll" poor mid-tier alliances (the BK-blob in this case). And, on the other hand, you state that NPO had to intervene because the war was not balanced, and BK-blob had a huge disadvantage!

 

So, which is it, Roq? Was there enough buy-in? There wasn't? If Chaos/KETOG were working together from the beginning and were keeping the high-tier safe, why didn't they attack the BK-blob at full force before... you know... blowing each other's military up?

Okay, I'll explain it then. People didn't have the confidence to go head on without additional support. Then Surf's Up happened and both sides lost infra in the ranges they needed to engage in and it actually benefited them vs BK when they would have otherwise had people too far out of range. The screenshot magically appears at an interesting juncture and they turn around at a fast pace to hit  Covenant BK without having much to lose. They had much to lose  by doing it when there were considerable amounts of infrastructure to lose and  less people they could downdec on. So yes, they initially tried to preach being afraid of the numbers but once they had nothing to lose, they went for the people they didn't think highly of in terms of military capability and the people they attacked were not winning the war and were at a disadvantage by the stage we entered.

Hope this helps.

Quote

It's not 1/18. It's 1/28. War officially ended 3 days later, with the other side having accepted most terms already earlier than that (and the result of the war being obvious even earlier than that).

I meant your approach was on the 18th. Hope that's clarified. It literally says 1/18

Quote

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

You stopped working with me 2 months before the formation of Chaos. So, stop lying and saying that you didn't want to work with me on February because I would form Chaos on April. This is the third post you repeat yourself like this with a statement that makes zero sense. Unless you really are a prophet.

As I said, you didn't want to work with me, even in a short-term arrangement (although you were more than happy to do so pre-war). Thus, I was free to do whatever I wanted after February, with you having cut all communications.

Chaos was in discussions before it was posted. The general trajectory CoS was more than predictable with the dissolution of Terminus Est and the open hostility shown to other coalition members.  When your gov member  who has access to all of the discussions says he will not work with certain alliances in the coalition again, what do you think the conclusion is going to be? Like this is some serious revisionist history. Not to mention an alliance that was openly critical and hostile based on differences on tactics merged into CoS shortly afer.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Roq... The only old boy with power in this war is you. I have engaged in politics and alliances for less than a year. Adrienne is a young leader too. BK has changed 2-3 leaders during the 3 years I've been playing. If the problem is really old boys...

... maybe you should retire and get some new blood take over and open up new paths that are not based on strange obsessions about specific alliances.

What are you smoking man? You are in a coalition with Buorhann, Keegoz, Memph, and SRD. I don't even have to mention all the 2nd-in-commands and people who have done FA on their behalf, including Manthrax who as shown in the screenshots was still doing FA. I don't even have to go into how he has used the connections he has to present a more favorable view of his alliance's intent in this war. It should be more than obvious to you. The whole thing where someone has to have the position of leader to wield FA influence is a lie frequently repeated by your side and frequently disproven by its actions. I've been clashing with most of the veteran leaders for the past 3 years, so I am not part of any "network". While I have longevity I do not have the personal connections they possess between each other.

The problem isn't the people themselves. It's that there will be a relationship asymmetry in a system with less treaty ties because they do  not need treaty ties to make things happen and they will not get criticized for on and off cooperation based on those connections when it is easier for those connections to come together.  For the most part even though I have worked with some of them in the past, more often than not those connections are used against my interests.

I already explained it has nothing to do with strange obsessions or do I just obsess about a bunch of different people? I'm the mastermind who made anyone who wasn't BK/Cov have negative dispositions to KETOG? I'm not allowed to dislike SK because they justified half-assing a war, denounced us as hopelessly incompetent, and attacked people who criticized for them it with a coalition that claimed IQ was too big? I can't be concerned about TKR when their gov had said the war would do nothing to them?

Quote

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Then... why did TEst/CoS start Knightfall, Roq? Why didn't we sign them to stay safe and dominate the upper tier forever!? I cannot even fathom how you believe other people think like this.

I know what Prefontaine's intentions were but I recall you were dismissive about even having a defensive arrangement post-war against people who might seek retribution in the upper tier.

I think you just saw it as a one time thing due to the issues you had with people in Grumpy and then you'd go back to business as usual.

Quote

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any case, the hard truth for you is that there have been two wars that prove the conflict between upper tier alliances. Knightfall and the Chaos/KETOG war.

These are actions.

You can try to paint all of our leaders as evil plotters and talk about motives, relations, motivations, plans, you can look for and post logs all you want, you can talk about semantics, IFs, secret discussions, deals under the table, you can try to spin our declarations and analyse each and every word we use and paint it as you want, BUT...

but the hard truth for you is that these don't matter. Actions talk bigger than assumptions and conspiracy theories. And for our case, we have two wars to mention.

On the other hand...

why should the rest of the world believe you! You have only words to back this up. No actions.

You had one chance to prove that IQ really didn't exist and just blew it in this war. Maybe next time!

It doesn't really work given everyone from Knightfall is gone from your side that was involved except you.  The Chaos/KETOG war is a product of frustration and was not by design. 

The only way I could prove IQ doesn't exist is to let Cov and BK get rolled to dirt by your coalition with no buffer separating a composite group of alliances from a relatively small sphere that has not closely coordinated militarily in the past? lol. I acknowledged people had some gripes with them and I was patient for the week I let it at happen at great military expense. 

 

Quote

See, I can play your game too. Look at some nice "arguements". Please try to address them:
> IQ never split because NPO has always been talking positively about BK.
> NPO has worked in the past a lot of times with BK, so it's improbable they cut ties from one day to another.
> NPO signing t$ was just a way to further make "mid"-tier a safe place and for mid-tier alliances to not fight each other, thus establishing even greater mid-tier domination.

It's super easy to talk about hypothetical scenarios. And I can throw some logs in between if you want.

--------------------------------------------------------------

As such, I see no reason to further debate with you on whether Chaos/KETOG plotted, targeted you or whatever. We have actions and they are there. Your assumptions are cancelled by reality.

And I see no reason to further debate with you whether IQ broke or not, since I don't see you going for any actions. Our assumptions are not cancelled by reality.

-------------------------------------------------------------

So, thanks for the debate. You could have used arguements that wouldn't be based on prophecies or time-travels, but still, it was entertaining and fun.

Good luck with your wars and relations. I wish you find new people that you can trust and work with. My apologies all my efforts failed on that.

 Just because I don't shit on them on here doesn't really mean I haven't been critical of some of the things BK has done. 

How would it make the mid tier a safe place if we are guaranteed to fight enough people where we will take damage in it while for the most part, the upper tier can do one or two rounds and then not have to fight?

So yeah, I agree we're back to square one and we should stop, but some of your arguments are hilariously wrong.

Edited by Roquentin
corrected
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

The general trajectory CoS was more than predictable with the dissolution of Terminus Est and the open hostility shown to other coalition members.  When your gov member  who has access to all of the discussions says he will not work with certain alliances in the coalition again, what do you think the conclusion is going to be? Like this is some serious revisionist history. Not to mention an alliance that was openly critical and hostile based on differences on tactics merged into CoS shortly afer.

What are you smoking man? You are in a coalition with Buorhann, Keegoz, Memph, and SRD. I don't even have to mention all the 2nd-in-commands and people who have done FA on their behalf, including Manthrax who as shown in the screenshots was still doing FA. I don't even have to go into how he has used the connections he has to present a more favorable view of his alliance's intent in this war.

I'm just going to reply to the nonsense that specifically mentions me.

I already noted that I am not the FA head for my alliance. Your problems with CoS are borne of your own interactions with Ripper, sorry to say.

I did indeed say there were some people that I don't want to deal with. Me, personally. So I don't deal with them. I'm not in our coalition's channel currently, because there are people on our side of this war I prefer not to deal with as well. So that's a pregnant leap there, and one that would be easily dispelled if you have a mind to.

I will note again that you are citing old grudges. Most of these people are probably "biased" against you because of actually TRYING to deal with you though. Again, sorry dude, you're the common denominator there.

"I don't even have to go into how he has used the connections he has to present a more favorable view of his alliance's intent in this war. " This might actually be the funniest bit. This is literally you blaming me for countering the nonsense narratives you put out about me. Uhh yeah. Guilty. Burn me at the stake. If we're playing a political game, blaming me for this is tantamount to blaming me for playing/breathing. And actually, damn, if that's what you got on me after all this time, I must be a spiffy fella.

 

Anyway. If you want to move the conversation forward, actually, please start with the "intel" you had that showed my ally planned to attack you, because that's the most important thing, and that's what you keep dodging with these weird tangents.

 

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ripper said:

 

hahahaha! Ok, ok, sorry for making you mad. I hadn't realized your entire politics and war decisions were based on how people treat TKR. An obsession indeed. At least it is clear now.

In any case, with that last statement you make:
1. Either you say you are not planning to fight anyone else except for TKR, so you will never work with people that have "positive relations with them"...
2. or you are stating you will never work with an alliance that has positive relations with alliances that you may fight in the future (which is anyone but BK/Polaris?)...

I see. Maybe that's why you cannot work with anyone, as you complain, no? The filters you got there are... quite strict.

-----------------------------------------------------------

You are right, it wasn't Malal. The first mentions in the coalition channel about a PoW where from...

FwqshJz.jpg

Oh, Thanos and Keshav. Totally not IQ. :P I hope I don't have to elaborate on this?

You can also see Revan's statement about "closing the gap between ourselves and TKR" specifically. As I said, TKR is your obsession, not mine. My "obsession" would be the whales, most of which were hardly in TKR.

Hi Ripper!  I have missed talking to you, we should catch up sometime. :P  

Please refrain from bringing me into a thread I don't care about, thanks!

Edited by Darth Revan

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.