Atzuya Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 This war hasn't changed anything, but people have certainly made a lot of requests to change the war 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalmor Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 How many people have died because of this war? How many millions in damages have been caused? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 >implying VE had a CB against Guardian Put your persecution complex away, if you didn't want to fight, you should have talked Mensa down from declaring war in the first place, we didn't cast the first stone in this thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordRahl2 Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 How many people have died because of this war? Pixel people or real people? -signature removed for rules violation- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalmor Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Pixel people or real people? Pixel people Last time I checked the world map, I think about 100,000,000 were dead, but I'm not sure. I was hoping someone was keeping up with the specific statistics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Put your persecution complex away, if you didn't want to fight, you should have talked Mensa down from declaring war in the first place, we didn't cast the first stone in this thing. except you did. You didn't declare on Mensa, and if i remember correctly, You blamed guardian when we attacked you for "militarizing" "We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge." "Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Can somebody give me the run down on what would've happened if Rose had attacked Mensa HQ and VE attacked Syndicate? 1 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Can somebody give me the run down on what would've happened if Rose had attacked Mensa HQ and VE attacked Syndicate? If Rose had attacked Mensa HQ, it would have triggered the UPN treaty. This would have led to a UPN-Mensa front versus Rose-Alpha-Asgard. VE hitting tS would have triggered the same alliances as VE is currently engaged with, save for tS-Mensa swapping places. So: tS-TKR-The Coalition- TEst-Guardian versus VE/Cornerstone/NAC. In this scenario, the fronts would have the following (dis)advantages: Rose/Asgard/Alpha vs. UPN/Mensa: - Mensa and UPN middle tier partially idle due to lack of targets - UPN upper tier takes on Rose upper tier. Fairly even. In terms of war prep though, I'd expect UPN to win it hands down, especially due to middle tier updeclare support VE/NAC/Cornerstone vs. tS/TEst/Guardian/TKR/Coalition - tS/TEst/Guardian upper tier dominance: numerical superiority - VE has lower-middle tier dominance over TKR/Coalition: numerical superiority At this point, I would see Mensa shift its idle lower-middle tier to the VE front to even the odds. That's all just speculation, but it is how I personally would have expected fronts to fall in that scenario. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karrde Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 If Rose had attacked Mensa HQ, it would have triggered the UPN treaty. This would have led to a UPN-Mensa front versus Rose-Alpha-Asgard. VE hitting tS would have triggered the same alliances as VE is currently engaged with, save for tS-Mensa swapping places. So: tS-TKR-The Coalition- TEst-Guardian versus VE/Cornerstone/NAC. In this scenario, the fronts would have the following (dis)advantages: Rose/Asgard/Alpha vs. UPN/Mensa: - Mensa and UPN middle tier partially idle due to lack of targets - UPN upper tier takes on Rose upper tier. Fairly even. In terms of war prep though, I'd expect UPN to win it hands down, especially due to middle tier updeclare support VE/NAC/Cornerstone vs. tS/TEst/Guardian/TKR/Coalition - tS/TEst/Guardian upper tier dominance: numerical superiority - VE has lower-middle tier dominance over TKR/Coalition: numerical superiority At this point, I would see Mensa shift its idle lower-middle tier to the VE front to even the odds. That's all just speculation, but it is how I personally would have expected fronts to fall in that scenario. As a simple grunt I have no knowledge of plans, but to my mind that's exactly the war that was probably planned for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryu[Old Account] Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 How about this CB: The game was a freaking wank without any wars and bunch of kids playing amateur politics. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isolatar Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 >implying VE had a CB against Guardian <Hodor> Hodor Its up for interpretation but from what I can see, it seems like Guardian wanted to pre empt The Covenant. Someone had to stop them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 except you did. You didn't declare on Mensa, and if i remember correctly, You blamed guardian when we attacked you for "militarizing" The last war, your side kicked off by hitting us, this war your side kicked off by hitting Vanguard. Soooo yeah two of these things are not the same, no matter how much you want them to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critters Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 How about this CB: The game was a freaking wank without any wars and bunch of kids playing amateur politics. Word The Redneck Caliphate of Forrest's Critters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Boss Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) The last war, your side kicked off by hitting us, this war your side kicked off by hitting Vanguard. Soooo yeah two of these things are not the same, no matter how much you want them to be. That's plain stupidity. My "Side" (meaning guardian) didn't do anything. we were militarizing, anticipating a hit on t$. We didn't declare war, activate a moadp, and nor did we show any aggression. You're looking more foolish by the minute. Most of Guardian, for that matter, wanted to stay outside the war. The funniest thing here is you instigating that your CB was valid especially after everyone last war was saying our CB wasn't valid, and literally saying "Don't persecute us... it was GUARDIAN that wanted to fight" Edited August 30, 2015 by Big Boss 1 "We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge." "Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naTia Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 war changes people 1 Resident DJ @ Club Orbis Founder of The Warehouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 War changed alliance scores and rankings. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isolatar Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 War changed alliance scores and rankings. Someone mark this as solved 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu Xun Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 If Rose had attacked Mensa HQ, it would have triggered the UPN treaty. This would have led to a UPN-Mensa front versus Rose-Alpha-Asgard. VE hitting tS would have triggered the same alliances as VE is currently engaged with, save for tS-Mensa swapping places. So: tS-TKR-The Coalition- TEst-Guardian versus VE/Cornerstone/NAC. In this scenario, the fronts would have the following (dis)advantages: Rose/Asgard/Alpha vs. UPN/Mensa: - Mensa and UPN middle tier partially idle due to lack of targets - UPN upper tier takes on Rose upper tier. Fairly even. In terms of war prep though, I'd expect UPN to win it hands down, especially due to middle tier updeclare support VE/NAC/Cornerstone vs. tS/TEst/Guardian/TKR/Coalition - tS/TEst/Guardian upper tier dominance: numerical superiority - VE has lower-middle tier dominance over TKR/Coalition: numerical superiority At this point, I would see Mensa shift its idle lower-middle tier to the VE front to even the odds. That's all just speculation, but it is how I personally would have expected fronts to fall in that scenario. Thanks for the honesty, but try not to be honest again; alliance leaders have to BS for PR purposes 24/7. So here you have it, this entire war was all about The Covenant; alliances ran around each other trying to drag the Covenant in or trying to hide behind the Covenant, to the point where they tore up the treaty web just to avoid giving UPN / DEIC an excuse to enter. The one question I do have was that was this war an attempt by tC to fight Paragon down to the last Mensan; i.e, was tC in on the Mensa-side planning or was tC a truly neutral party that simply decided to opt out of a war it had no interest in? . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Thanks for the honesty, but try not to be honest again; alliance leaders have to BS for PR purposes 24/7. So here you have it, this entire war was all about The Covenant; alliances ran around each other trying to drag the Covenant in or trying to hide behind the Covenant, to the point where they tore up the treaty web just to avoid giving UPN / DEIC an excuse to enter. The one question I do have was that was this war an attempt by tC to fight Paragon down to the last Mensan; i.e, was tC in on the Mensa-side planning or was tC a truly neutral party that simply decided to opt out of a war it had no interest in? You read too much into my comment. The above can literally be read from treaty chains. You put down a hypothetical, this is what I would have expected. Can give you that for p. much any situation. It's fun to speculate. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lu Xun Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) Just to put my cards on the table; I think that the triangular situation (Paragon, Mensa-Guard-SK, The Covenant) is unstable and will eventually degenerate into a hegemoney; if you're consulting Orwell for your strategic planning he's being idealistic about his world system (not to mention that the afterword of 1984 claims that Ingsoc collapses), in every other triangular system (Chinese three kingdoms, Korean three kingdoms, even RL East Asia Eurasia Oceania; since Eurasia (Russia) is nearing the point of collapse), eventually the system falls apart and it becomes 1v1 or just one. In that case, I don't actually have any complaints about tC; I like UPN, DEIC, and BoC, and I think they spent a lot of effort on making themselves as inoffensive as possible. The question is who is going to be their partner once the system falls apart, and then who's going to be their rival? Also, a ton of people have been claiming that tC is completely uninvolved when it's obvious that even if tC were totally uninvolved and neutral, the declaration pattern is 100% based around avoiding bringing tC into the war. As we both agree, that's nonsense; as others have stated, the biggest winner of the war is tC, and ironically the most powerful player this war is tC, even though they have not gotten involved at all. Edited August 31, 2015 by Inst 1 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Just to put my cards on the table; I think that the triangular situation (Paragon, Mensa-Guard-SK, The Covenant) is unstable and will eventually degenerate into a hegemoney; if you're consulting Orwell for your strategic planning he's being idealistic about his world system (not to mention that the afterword of 1984 claims that Ingsoc collapses), in every other triangular system (Chinese three kingdoms, Korean three kingdoms, even RL East Asia Eurasia Oceania; since Eurasia (Russia) is nearing the point of collapse), eventually the system falls apart and it becomes 1v1 or just one. In that case, I don't actually have any complaints about tC; I like UPN, DEIC, and BoC, and I think they spent a lot of effort on making themselves as inoffensive as possible. The question is who is going to be their partner once the system falls apart, and then who's going to be their rival? Also, a ton of people have been claiming that tC is completely uninvolved when it's obvious that even if tC were totally uninvolved and neutral, the declaration pattern is 100% based around avoiding bringing tC into the war. As we both agree, that's nonsense; as others have stated, the biggest winner of the war is tC, and ironically the most powerful player this war is tC, even though they have not gotten involved at all. You forgot to factor in Prefontaine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan77 Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 So yeah, that's pretty conclusive. No CB required. Cheers. For those saying there must always be a reason, there always is anyway. Whether that reason is classed as a valid CB or not shouldn't really matter. 70% is a supermajority, so you can all shut up about needing a CB now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 So yeah, that's pretty conclusive. No CB required. Cheers. For those saying there must always be a reason, there always is anyway. Whether that reason is classed as a valid CB or not shouldn't really matter. 70% is a supermajority, so you can all shut up about needing a CB now Half the fun of this game is whining about CBs tho. One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayayay Posted September 1, 2015 Share Posted September 1, 2015 So yeah, that's pretty conclusive. No CB required. Cheers. For those saying there must always be a reason, there always is anyway. Whether that reason is classed as a valid CB or not shouldn't really matter. 70% is a supermajority, so you can all shut up about needing a CB now I'm sad that we can't see who voted for what. As, iirc, there's only one alliance that actually cares about the OWF enough to vote. 2 Orbis Wars | CSI: UPN | B I G O O F | PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea. On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said: This was !@#$ing gold. 10/10 possibly my favorite post on these forums yet. Sheepy said: I'm retarded, you win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isolatar Posted September 3, 2015 Share Posted September 3, 2015 inb4 someone in Mensa posted this on their boards and asked for them to vote No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts