Hereno Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) Orr... just maybe he had bank access and took it on his own? You mean the same TEE guy that attacked TAC as well? yeah, shellhound already beat you to it you'd think guardian were the ones at war with how much y'all give a !@#$ lmao at any rate, it was accurate as of like 3 in the morning not too long ago - he had even won one of his wars at the time - pretty impressive Edited October 25, 2014 by Hereno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 that post wasn't for you but actually, the first escalation was by a member of TEE who attacked EoS last night along with TAC I think it's pretty clear who the aggressors are. I've never considered saber rattling to be a very good CB for an outright attack. And we can see UPN/VoC building up since EoS can't really beat TAC alone most likely. Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) I think it's pretty clear who the aggressors are. I've never considered saber rattling to be a very good CB for an outright attack. And we can see UPN/VoC building up since EoS can't really beat TAC alone most likely. who actually expected this to remain a 1v1 fight with all of the allies on either side like it isn't that you guys are wrong it's just mind-numbingly boring someone dump some logs or something jfc oh, and please stop being empty shills Edited October 25, 2014 by Hereno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) And we can see UPN/VoC building up since EoS can't really beat TAC alone most likely. Are you 100% sure TAC is alone without anyone backing them from outside the cage? Orr... just maybe he had bank access and took it on his own? i doubt anyone who isnt even a minister has access to the bank , unless SG operates like the way Commonwealth of Independant State do. Edited October 25, 2014 by vincentsum8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Are you 100% sure TAC is alone without anyone backing them from outside the cage? Gotta be honest though, why declare on someone (as the aggressor) where you're not confident you'll win without you're allies also declaring at the same time. If an EoS ally has to join the fight now after the fact, without more than 1 or 2 members from other alliances aiding TAC (certainly not a whole alliance), it doesn't shine brightly on the aptitude of EoS as the aggressors, especially when the DoW reasoning was relatively thin. We'll see what happens though, I'm just judging this on the complete reversal of opinions Vincent seems to be having on the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) Are you 100% sure TAC is alone without anyone backing them from outside the cage? i doubt anyone who isnt even a minister has access to the bank , unless SG operates like the way Commonwealth of Independant State do. EoS attacked TAC. I know you want to play it up like TAC are the aggressors, but TAC isn't. Even pre-empts, if you want to call this a pre-empt, can't be described as non-aggressive imo. I don't have any irons in the fire, but lets call a spade a spade. So now you have a decision to make. UPN/VoC delcares on TAC and EoS looks pathetic, or EoS takes it on the chin. Either way it was a blunder on your part, tactically (or maybe EoS was just impatient). Edited October 25, 2014 by Placentica 1 Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 EoS attacked TAC. I know you want to play it up like TAC are the aggressors, but TAC isn't. Even pre-empts, if you want to call this a pre-empt, can't be described as non-aggressive imo. I don't have any irons in the fire, but lets call a spade a spade. So now you have a decision to make. UPN/VoC delcares on TAC and EoS looks pathetic, or EoS takes it on the chin. Either way it was a blunder on your part, tactically (or maybe EoS was just impatient). call a spade a spade? if you like spades, then well, i know an alliance i think you'd really enjoy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellhound Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 you'd think guardian were the ones at war with how much y'all give a !@#$ lmao Two top dogs duking it out, whoever wins could potentially define politics in the game for some time after this. Anyone who doesn't give a shit is an idiot or inactive. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) Two top dogs duking it out, whoever wins could potentially define politics in the game for some time after this. Anyone who doesn't give a !@#$ is an idiot or inactive. That is the ugly point of the game. Winners enjoy their victory and the losers will most probably quit the game. End up , the game loses no matter who won Which bring me to this question, why is the following nation still around? https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=4974 I came across it by chance. Believe it was part of The Raiders Return or Red Guards and probably quit the game when the Raider alliance died. Going by Sheepy's announcement of 30 day inactive, shouldnt it be deleted already? Is already more than 30 days inactive. 23rd October should be the last day. he should have log in to prevent his nation being deleted? NO? Edited October 25, 2014 by vincentsum8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 That question is OOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwynn Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 That question is OOC. Report it then. He's right, I'm such a stinker. Play my exceptional game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Anyone interested in seeing a clear visual on how ready TC are to come into this war, here you go. bonus image: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) EoS attacked TAC. I know you want to play it up like TAC are the aggressors, but TAC isn't. Even pre-empts, if you want to call this a pre-empt, can't be described as non-aggressive imo. I don't have any irons in the fire, but lets call a spade a spade. So now you have a decision to make. UPN/VoC delcares on TAC and EoS looks pathetic, or EoS takes it on the chin. Either way it was a blunder on your part, tactically (or maybe EoS was just impatient). EoS carried out reactionary measures. They didn't attack because they held some sort of contempt for TAC -- it was purely in response to them plotting against EoS and the rest of TC. Therefore it's very much a non aggressive move. Edited October 25, 2014 by Saru 1 Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooohu Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Anyone interested in seeing a clear visual on how ready TC are to come into this war, here you go. bonus image: To be fair to the purple people, it'd be a bit crazy to not build up for a possible fight... even if they didn't plan on it they have no way of know what others might be doing. And being honest about it, if I were allied to either side I'd be stocking up on resources & preparing for a fight just in case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Two top dogs duking it out, whoever wins could potentially define politics in the game for some time after this. Anyone who doesn't give a !@#$ is an idiot or inactive.Agreed. Everyone is watching closely (yes, even the GPA) for one reason or another, and I would think that having commentary from third parties of sorts would be beneficial for the discussion and activity, in general, surrounding this war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vincent Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Agreed. Everyone is watching closely (yes, even the GPA) for one reason or another, and I would think that having commentary from third parties of sorts would be beneficial for the discussion and activity, in general, surrounding this war. Watching and at the same time also benefitting from the high price of the resources . This war certainly gave the market the boost it needed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grillick Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 EoS carried out reactionary measures. They didn't attack because they held some sort of contempt for TAC -- it was purely in response to them plotting against EoS and the rest of TC. Therefore it's very much a non aggressive move.You have provided a justification (however valid) for the actions of EoS, but you have not demonstrated nonaggression. A first strike (even a preemptive one) is an act of aggression. 2 "It's hard to be a team player when you're omnipotent." - Q Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenages Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) EoS carried out reactionary measures. They didn't attack because they held some sort of contempt for TAC -- it was purely in response to them plotting against EoS and the rest of TC. Therefore it's very much a non aggressive move. As far as the word "aggressive" is concerned, it doesn't really matter if they attacked due to TAC plotting or not. A preemptive strike is in fact an aggressive act. There's no way to get around that. (Well unless you're George Bush I guess ) Now whether or not it's a justified aggressive act is another discussion entirely. Edit: Yeah what Grillick said. Damn fast typers Edited October 25, 2014 by Tenages Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 You have provided a justification (however valid) for the actions of EoS, but you have not demonstrated nonaggression. A first strike (even a preemptive one) is an act of aggression. As far as the word "aggressive" is concerned, it doesn't really matter if they attacked due to TAC plotting or not. A preemptive strike is in fact an aggressive act. There's no way to get around that. (Well unless you're George Bush I guess ) Now whether or not it's a justified aggressive act is another discussion entirely. Edit: Yeah what Grillick said. Damn fast typers The underlying point here, ignoring the semantics/trivial debates, is that EoS reacted to a very real and tangible hostile threat. The moment that TAC began plotting against them, was the moment that TAC were placed on the offensive, and EoS on the defensive. I would argue that just because EoS made the strategic decision to strike first -- doesn't mean that they were the ones who made this all happen. Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phiney Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Sorry saru but talking does not equal actions. One of my citizens talked to another about egging another citizens house, however they decided against it, this doesn't make them the aggressor when the potential target eggs them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Sorry saru but talking does not equal actions. One of my citizens talked to another about egging another citizens house, however they decided against it, this doesn't make them the aggressor when the potential target eggs them I have good reasons to believe that the wheels were set in motion, and EoS, aswell as the other TC alliances were under threat. In regards to your analogy, it's pretty poor. Your example was one with close to no consequences, and sounds like a one-off conversation, as opposed to a series of planned discussions setting an agenda. As far as I am concerned organised meetings are very much actions, in the context of this world. Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Attacking is aggressive. Why do we care about the optics? Why can't the aggressors own it? Aggression isn't always bad. 2 Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 (edited) Attacking is aggressive. Why do we care about the optics? Why can't the aggressors own it? Aggression isn't always bad. Just to clear this up again. I was referring to the context of the war, on the macro scale... and that I see EoS as the defensive side, given that TAC were actively plotting against them, and the wheels were set in motion already. Not that attacking isn't inherently aggressive -- which it obviously is, but the distinction that it was a reactionary measure is important. Edited October 25, 2014 by Saru Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aisha Greyjoy Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 If planning how to deal with a huge bloc is plotting, might as well DoW everyone. 4 Duke of House Greyjoy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeon Helikos Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 If planning how to deal with a huge bloc is plotting, might as well DoW everyone. what he said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts