Nokia Rokia Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 @Buorhann thanks for making the one list of Coalition B that doesn't include real Coalition C members who entered because Coalition A attacked with zero good reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Julius Caesar Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 10 hours ago, alyster said: Mate your bloc is down -200 million net damage, I'm surprised you'd even come out ion public. As Pasky said, we can go rounds for days with this. Indeed, our bloc is down a bunch of net. That tends to happen when two blocs with no infa declare on alliances with normal infa. We're in a much better position than you folks are though, and our side is getting more and more positive per day. BK, Mythic, NPO, all positive. tCW is positive when factoring in Dont Know and Sphinx who are in their alliance but are just on their own. Your alliances have next to no score, and the stats grow more and more in our favour as this goes on. I'm in no rush to end this war, the longer it goes on the better for our bloc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 Just now, Tarroc said: Indeed, our bloc is down a bunch of net. That tends to happen when two blocs with no infa declare on alliances with normal infa. We're in a much better position than you folks are though, and our side is getting more and more positive per day. BK, Mythic, NPO, all positive. tCW is positive when factoring in Dont Know and Sphinx who are in their alliance but are just on their own. Your alliances have next to no score, and the stats grow more and more in our favour as this goes on. I'm in no rush to end this war, the longer it goes on the better for our bloc. IQ bloc stronk 3 1 Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Julius Caesar Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 15 hours ago, Miller said: Accomplish something without having to call in half of Orbis then come talk to the big kids about war, period. Seeing as your side started by bringing in Rose, Grumpy, TKR, SK, CoS, TGH, KT, Valinor, SK, Empy, Guardian, Animation Domination, and Ming to fight tCW, BK, and the rest of our bloc, I don't really think your post works. You called in two blocs to go after one bloc mate. 1 minute ago, REAP3R said: IQ bloc stronk Honestly, since it doesn't seem to matter what anyone on our side says, I'll just call it our bloc. Y'all seem insistent on bringing up NPO, so sure, I'll include them when I speak about our side of the war, 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Tarroc said: Seeing as your side started by bringing in Rose, Grumpy, TKR, SK, CoS, TGH, KT, Valinor, SK, Empy, Guardian, Animation Domination, and Ming to fight tCW, BK, and the rest of our bloc, I don't really think your post works. You called in two blocs to go after one bloc mate. I'm so sorry for us bring in Chaos and KETOG. Maybe it had something to do with your "bloc" getting caught with its' pants down plotting to roll us all. Also lol you guys brought in Animation Domination on our side AFTER they had fought on your side. Please ask Roq for updated talking points mate. Edited September 22, 2019 by alyster 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Julius Caesar Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 minute ago, alyster said: I'm so sorry for us bring in Chaos and KETOG. Maybe it had something to do with your "bloc" getting caught with its' pants down plotting to roll us all. Also lol you guys brought in Animation Domination on our side AFTER they had fought on your side. Please ask Roq for updated talking points mate. Forgot about AD. Eh, they were bad at war, might as well have been fighting for your side. As for our side "planning to roll you" if that was the case, why would we have not attacked as soon as the logs were released? It was obvious you were planning on attacking as the Surf's Up wars were peaced out and you began fixing your militaries to hit us, if our plan was truly to attack when you were weak, why would we wait for your wars to end and for you to fix your militaries? This point had been made a hundred times, those logs were from before Surf's Up and were discarded and irrelevant once Surf's Up began because we had no interest stepping into Surf's Up and fighting while you two fought each other. That's no fun. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 17 minutes ago, Tarroc said: You called in two blocs to go after one bloc mate. Right let’s ignore actual nation counts and just count blocs. I also find it hilarious all those involved on our side got involved based on logs you guys call “old” but are simultaneously ok with NPO using much older logs to justify their entrance. You have well and truly lost the plot mate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 14 minutes ago, Epi said: @Miller The total number of nations passing through Coalition B. was unexpected. Most of the micros and peripherals for instance joined at the tail-end of week 1. Whereas usually they avoid global wars. A likely reason for their participation is Knightfall. They thought this would be another easy win for BK thanks to all the propaganda they were spewing prior to the war and occupying Rank 1/2 for 5 months. I think Miller's point was moreso to debunk what Tarroc said in his quote than it was to make a big deal about the amount of nations against us, but I agree with what you said regardless. 1 1 Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRBOOTY Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Nokia Rokia said: real Coalition C members who Quote MR BOOTY IN DA HOUSE http://i.imgur.com/R5WWAB1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 4 hours ago, Pop said: As many ties as KETOG has to Rose winkwink right? Rose gave a reason to join without using a Protectorate to try and chain in or a -very- flimsy excuse of some alliance planning to hit them while in the middle of a war. Nor were they part of a frickyuge bloc that had a leak detailing plans to roll the two smaller blocs. 3 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossiya Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 Given current mechanics as long as an AA keeps its membership, there is no "fall" of alliances as people can just rebuild infra post-war. People keep their cities and their land, and Infra rebuild to 1.5k is cheap, and up to 2k is reasonably doable within a short timeframe. Stockpiles may take some time to rebuild and there's been a massive opportunity cost, most-likely exceeding war damages, but that's about it. The three big Knights alliances will do just fine in the long run. No major AA "fall" has happened or will, but many of the mid-tier (tier as in power, not average city count) AAs have been slaughtered on both sides. If anything this war should be "Militiafall", "Peasantfall", "Plebfall", etc. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 19 minutes ago, Rossiya said: Given current mechanics as long as an AA keeps its membership, there is no "fall" of alliances as people can just rebuild infra post-war. People keep their cities and their land, and Infra rebuild to 1.5k is cheap, and up to 2k is reasonably doable within a short timeframe. Stockpiles may take some time to rebuild and there's been a massive opportunity cost, most-likely exceeding war damages, but that's about it. The three big Knights alliances will do just fine in the long run. No major AA "fall" has happened or will, but many of the mid-tier (tier as in power, not average city count) AAs have been slaughtered on both sides. If anything this war should be "Militiafall", "Peasantfall", "Plebfall", etc. How is it even possible to miss the point or meaning of what the OP is saying this hard? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 3 hours ago, Miller said: Right let’s ignore actual nation counts and just count blocs. I also find it hilarious all those involved on our side got involved based on logs you guys call “old” but are simultaneously ok with NPO using much older logs to justify their entrance. You have well and truly lost the plot mate. Again that's false. Sheesh, reading our reasons would actually be helpful at this point. @Buorhann nice try extrapolating stuff from a response that was dealing with his claims that BK forced their allies into the war. If Rose has a valid reason to enter the war, then almost anyone does tbh, and therefore our reasons are valid and has nothing to do with your claim of secret treaties. But you know, keep trying to spin standards as different for your friends and different for your enemies and expect people to buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sphinx Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 7 hours ago, Buorhann said: snip Come on Buor you know you're throwing out strawman arguments when you imply a micro like OFA peacing out would have the same impact if say Camelot or TCW dropped out. Also its admirable how you guys had a flare of activity when BotC peaced out. Clearly BotC leaving will be the impetus for TGH and their 26 members to turn things around and triumph over that evil Coalition B. 5 hours ago, Pasky Darkfire said: C'mon buddy. Your side doesn't believe in stats. Get off the high horse. XD ❤️ Ty Pasky. Regarding stats I don't think they're always a good metric for judging how the progress of a war is going, but some stats are more important overall than others. Namely net production (IE the stuff Frawley showed to counter Booty's claims) and unit kills which illustrate the long term endurance of alliances which in this case favours us as KERCHTOGG is trailing us massively in production and daily net unit kills. I think overall damage values are nice but I wouldn't put as much weight towards them as Tarroc does, since billions of Infra lost 2 months ago is irrelevant in the progression of the war front now. 4 hours ago, Tarroc said: Indeed, our bloc is down a bunch of net. That tends to happen when two blocs with no infa declare on alliances with normal infa. We're in a much better position than you folks are though, and our side is getting more and more positive per day. BK, Mythic, NPO, all positive. tCW is positive when factoring in Dont Know and Sphinx who are in their alliance but are just on their own. Your alliances have next to no score, and the stats grow more and more in our favour as this goes on. I'm in no rush to end this war, the longer it goes on the better for our bloc. Actually the NPO stats include our offshores so we're still slightly negative, but $-3.7b net is better than the -$55b we had in Knightfall. :,v But we are getting close to being in the black whilst AA's like Rose are going the opposite direction. 1 hour ago, Buorhann said: Rose gave a reason to join without using a Protectorate to try and chain in or a -very- flimsy excuse of some alliance planning to hit them while in the middle of a war. Nor were they part of a frickyuge bloc that had a leak detailing plans to roll the two smaller blocs. Gotta admit that's impressive coming up on 3 months now with you still claiming that we intended to hit KETOG To repeat ourselves for a 100th+ time, only Chaos was the target of BK sphere, nothing was organised against KETOG. I guess we maybe should include that as a peace term, "KETOG bloc accepts that there was no plan to roll them and that their entry into the war was based on incorrect assumptions". 2 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said: Again that's false. Sheesh, reading our reasons would actually be helpful at this point. What is it this week? I couldn’t be bothered when Roq has to start writing novels to justify it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, Miller said: What is it this week? I couldn’t be bothered when Roq has to start writing novels to justify it. It's been the same since we posted an actual DoW. Keshav and I have written multiple posts about it as well. Your inability or unwillingness to read things longer than several sentences is not our problem. 2 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Marx Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 9 hours ago, Buorhann said: Does this statement cover alliances that held no ties to alliances being attacked too? Just curious how far the bias is going here with your AA's sudden appearance. I believe the statement speaks for itself. If unaligned third parties chose to enter the war on someone else's behalf then wouldn't that be their prerogative? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Posted September 22, 2019 Share Posted September 22, 2019 43 minutes ago, Edward I said: Your inability or unwillingness to read things longer than several sentences is not our problem Just like your inability or unwillingness to have a valid, clear cut CB that doesn’t require long winded justification isn’t my problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sir Scarfalot Posted September 22, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 22, 2019 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Edward I said: It's been the same since we posted an actual DoW. Keshav and I have written multiple posts about it as well. Your inability or unwillingness to read things longer than several sentences is not our problem. 1st narrative: "We're not entering the war because we're not tied to BK" 2nd narrative: "We're not really entering the war because we're only attacking Grumpy and Guardian and we have no intention of helping BK" 3rd narrative: "We're only attacking TKR because they planned to roll IQ, which means they were planning on rolling us, but we're not IQ, and we're not acting like we are, really" 4th narrative: "We're only helping BK because OGREKTGEWTL are winning and therefore we have to stop that, but we're not tied to or allied with BK and we're not doing this to help them really" 5th narrative: "We're only attacking our own allies because their tactics might possibly allow ODKREGTLEGZ to build up individual nations' airforces back, which is an existential threat to our bloc. Sorry I mean blocs, we're still not allied." 6th narrative: "We're only attacking uninvolved, paperless neutrals because they're tied to Rose. Paperlessly. Trust us on this" 7th narrative: "Oh frick off with calling out our narratives, we don't care about optics, all we care about are our strategic interests. But that doesn't mean we're a hegemony making a power play, because we're not allied to BKsphere, just read the last half dozen narratives." 8th narrative: "Our narrative has been the same since we posted our DoW, just read what we've written, if you see any contradictions then it's just your illiteracy" @Miller I think that's most of it. If there's any other narratives I'm missing... ...I don't wanna know, because I'm already tired of the spin >_< Edited September 22, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot 3 8 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Exar Kun -George Posted September 23, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) 17 hours ago, Buorhann said: You sound bitter. Interesting that you view them as such. Glad you admit that they were simply meat shields for you. So, with a gov member of BK saying this - why would any one ally up with BK at this point? Not bitter at all, tho i can see how you think that, in fact i really dont care, this war is free to last two years if need be. Here we go again with you and your side twisting words to fit your poor narrative, just because they do not currently have any major bearing on the war, does not mean they did not do their part. Each and every alliance that exited (apart from FR) put forth a effort. The moral of the story for AD and TFP is "don't be a fricking jackass when you exit the war". 17 hours ago, Buorhann said: guess all of these were simply useless alliances then, right @George (James T Kirk)? No wonder some of them left. I'm sure you didn't force any of them to join, but I'm quite positive some of them were lied to about the purpose of your war. Despite the fact you basically asked for it with that leak popping out that started the major conflict. Oh, I forgot, how many of these alliances that supported you, did you hit when they left? No wonder you have the idea of me claiming you'd ruin the game on your mind. Must be feeling guilty of something. I did forget something, which alliances did BK gov pressure to break/cut treaties with other alliances? Do answer honestly on this one Here we go again, we lied to absolutely no one, it was a defensive war, point and blank. However ill take some of whatever you're smoking Please refer to my dont be a asshat comment regarding exiting. I mean if you really want to point blame on the downward trend on current activity I will do that, its you and people like you. In your sides giant egoistic crusade to blame BK, you became the cause. We won this war a while ago, it has been within your sides power to end it, meaning less members would have quit / some would become active again . However i dont think you will get that, TGH is rocking the 25 members? Or is it less yet But Rather than just admit defeat and let the game recover, you have chosen to take a stance of "not losing" and people citing "bad terms" as a reason for not ending it, the best part of all that is we havent even given an official term list I have no idea what you are talking about, but continue pulling random bull from the air, the look fits you Edited September 23, 2019 by George (James T Kirk) 2 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasky Darkfire Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) Whole post decided it was going to crash Edited September 23, 2019 by Pasky Darkfire FML Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasky Darkfire Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 On 9/21/2019 at 6:46 PM, Tarroc said: Another six months? Maybe if we stretch the war out that long, you might get some decent stats. A net of $340,312,964 and you call yourself a war mongerer? Pick up your stat game, then come talk with the big kids about this war. Monger. You don't have to have the second er in there. It's Warmonger. Common error, it's okay though. And obviously you have some trouble with the definition. It's a noun. Defined as a person who encourages or advocates aggression towards other countries or groups. Which, As you can see, I do. A lot. I like attacking, I like being attacked. Even when it's for weird reasons (Looking at you @GreatWhiteNorth <3). But if you want to bring stats into it, I'd more be looking at these ones: Tarroc: Pasky: I mean. I wasn't able to go whale fishing, so that was a disappointment. But I also wasn't able to attack unaligned AAs as statpads, but I'm classier than that. You might want to get them offensive wars up, I'm catching up quick. 14 hours ago, Sphinx said: Ty Pasky. Regarding stats I don't think they're always a good metric for judging how the progress of a war is going, but some stats are more important overall than others. Namely net production (IE the stuff Frawley showed to counter Booty's claims) and unit kills which illustrate the long term endurance of alliances which in this case favours us as KERCHTOGG is trailing us massively in production and daily net unit kills. I think overall damage values are nice but I wouldn't put as much weight towards them as Tarroc does, since billions of Infra lost 2 months ago is irrelevant in the progression of the war front now. At this point, I'm here to punch and get punched like this is some final stand anime battle bullshit. He does love his stats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted September 23, 2019 Share Posted September 23, 2019 Yeah maybe we don't count offensive wars as a negative thing, a war mongering. 1. Blink [TKR] 192 offensive 41 defensive 2. Sholman [TKR] 174 offensive 40 defensive 3. Alyster [TKR] 171 offensive 28 defensive To be honest although KETOG+Chaos launched the global war, it was very much a defensive war for both of them. IQ being arrogant and dangerous enough for both sides to cancel the Surf's Up and stand side by side. Especially after the leaks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.