Rozalia Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 In case you've forgotten, SAI-40 is the guy who Mensa drove away from this game Pretty sure he drove himself from the game with his actions as he no longer saw the need to continue when the people who trusted him no longer wanted anything to do with him. Mensa merely seemed to speed it up if anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgan Posted May 24, 2015 Author Share Posted May 24, 2015 Our declaration was like a sentence long -- it's traditional to make a declaration post on these forums when you go to war, just like everyone else does. And eh, I'd say we're losing, but I don't think there's any hard feelings in the alliance. We've been playing just around two months now, so it's not like any irreversible damage has done. We'll chalk it up as a learning experience in how to build & fight more efficiently for the future. Who is SAI-40? And when exactly were we never true to our allies? I fail to see the irony you're referencing. Plan was for us to join the whole time. Plans changed slightly, and it put us off a day or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Braunsberg Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I don't know if you really had to arrive. Is it the loot? it is the loot isn't it? We initially weren't really planning on going to war, at least the Officers, since there wasn't much space left and it wouldn't be worth the mess. After the news about backstabbing Rose came out, though, we opted to take the slots that were left and at least contribute a small amount to the effort. Quote "Bibant, quoniam edere nolunt." ~ "Let them drink, since they do not wish to eat." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesica Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 The "Great Wars" in real world history never involved such one sided numbers. The two world wars certainly didn't, and other great war contenders like the Crimean war also didn't (and that one even involved a bunch of countries ganging up to fight one). Though I'm confident it will likely be seen as one regardless. I'd have to disagree. In WWI France and Britain has MASSIVE world spanning Empires, that took up a good chunk of the world's population. Russia was the world's third largest nation behind British India and China. Add in the fact near the end a lot of Central American nations joined in on the dog pile against Germany after the United States got involved and it really did start looking one sided. Mind you, there has never been a situation from the get go. I'd be willing to compare this to World War One, with Mensa/Guardian/SK being the Central Powers and VE and friends being the Entente 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 I'd have to disagree. In WWI France and Britain has MASSIVE world spanning Empires, that took up a good chunk of the world's population. Russia was the world's third largest nation behind British India and China. Add in the fact near the end a lot of Central American nations joined in on the dog pile against Germany after the United States got involved and it really did start looking one sided. Mind you, there has never been a situation from the get go. I'd be willing to compare this to World War One, with Mensa/Guardian/SK being the Central Powers and VE and friends being the Entente Had Germany dealt the killing blow to Great Britain their large empire would have mattered little. Germany had contact with many rebel groups in British held land and those groups would have gained far more transaction once the situation became clear Germany was winning totally, after all everyone loves to throw their lot in with the winners (that and Germany had promised them independence and such). Its why I've always maintained that the Battle of Britain was along with the Russian fightback the most important part of the war, though of course if Germany had defeated Britain they could have refocused a great deal of strength back on Russia which would lead them to win there too. Just how I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesica Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Had Germany dealt the killing blow to Great Britain their large empire would have mattered little. Germany had contact with many rebel groups in British held land and those groups would have gained far more transaction once the situation became clear Germany was winning totally, after all everyone loves to throw their lot in with the winners (that and Germany had promised them independence and such). Its why I've always maintained that the Battle of Britain was along with the Russian fightback the most important part of the war, though of course if Germany had defeated Britain they could have refocused a great deal of strength back on Russia which would lead them to win there too. Just how I see it. not talking WWII only WWI and it was impossible for Imperial Germany to ever deal a death blow to Britain though if you'd like to debate that we can do that in a separate thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Actually the battle in the north Atlantic came very close to knocking GB out of the war as she was almost unable to replace her shipping losses. But I have learned not to argue this too hard unless I intend to write about 12 tldrs. Bl: GB required 55m tons of imports to maintain production. Their losses exceeded new ship construction by more than half in 40 and 41, an unsustainable rate. 1 Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vesica Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Again though not talk WWII, purely WWI. Imperial Germany has no ability to deliver a decisive blow to GB throughout the war. But again, if we want to have a friendly debate about this we can always go to the debate sub-forum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 The mods should be able to split out the related posts and move the thread. You should ask them to. Quote -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted May 24, 2015 Share Posted May 24, 2015 Again though not talk WWII, purely WWI. Imperial Germany has no ability to deliver a decisive blow to GB throughout the war. But again, if we want to have a friendly debate about this we can always go to the debate sub-forum You know I noticed that oddly even though you were talking WWI I replied with WWII. When I was outside busy however with a task and couldn't thus edit my post... oh well. Imperial Germany merely needed to me decisively defeat the western forces on the field which trench warfare prevented though I don't think it was totally impossible. Germany was no stranger to fighting a lot of enemies and being outnumbered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valdoroth Posted May 25, 2015 Share Posted May 25, 2015 The "Great Wars" in real world history never involved such one sided numbers. The two world wars certainly didn't, and other great war contenders like the Crimean war also didn't (and that one even involved a bunch of countries ganging up to fight one). Though I'm confident it will likely be seen as one regardless. That's true. So far it's been fun I think. 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.