oops

[BeeNo]

AA Semi-Active Chaos(#21)[ICN] Everlasting Gobstopper(#10)[USA]
1.642.904 Military Units 00:27:28-2011/01/20
AA Semi-Active Chaos(#21)[ICN] matter(#78)[Sky] 3.436.573 Military
Units 00:27:10-2011/01/20
AA Semi-Active Chaos(#21)[ICN] Havens of Umbar(#39)[USA] 3.244.244
Military Units 00:26:48-2011/01/20
AA Semi-Active Chaos(#21)[ICN] kotov(#83)[USA] 4.306.688 Military
Units 00:26:11-2011/01/20
AA Semi-Active Chaos(#21)[ICN] Nenito(#71)[HNY] 6.688.183 Military
Units 00:25:18-2011/01/20

i was searching threw grabs today and came to 5 different states i was thinking about grabbing, did a spy op, and they all turned out to be 100% infantry.

now there are times when being heavy infantry is unavoidable, say in a competition for 1st place, or early in the month you can't expect everyone to have full defense right away. but at this point i just figured they didn't care enough about their states to get any sort of defense.

if any of these nations are upset enough to come after me i would warn you that i can break any state in the game right now in any unit. i've also looked threw said nations and trust me, none of your nations are anywhere close to ready for any sort of conflict.

now i hope Santa Claus still brings me a present this year :)

[Mr President]

ICN leadership allows these types of actions? Due to the good relations between USA and ICN we will not engage at this time. But I do urge them to contact me as soon as possible.
Your not going to just AA a USA state cause you feel some of the members are playing the wrong way and get away with it.

[BeeNo]

honestly if i hadn't made a forum post i don't think anyone would of noticed lol

besides its just 1 silly AA

[Max Logan]

it`s just 3-6m infantry...pffft :D

[Xavior]

Keep AAing Dogma.

[Soviet Russia]

more:tongue::

[BeeNo]

ICN leadership allows these types of actions? Due to the good relations between USA and ICN we will not engage at this time. But I do urge them to contact me as soon as possible.
Your not going to just AA a USA state cause you feel some of the members are playing the wrong way and get away with it.

you do see the irony of this statement? your telling me i have to play my state according to what calvin wrote on some stone tablets that the gods(nations) of a millennium ago agreed with.

you could care less when sky states (who know what they are doing) double you repeatedly but 1 little AA from me = war and death. you see the crazy extremes of that?

[Devil]

you do see the irony of this statement? your telling me i have to play my state according to what calvin wrote on some stone tablets that the gods(nations) of a millennium ago agreed with.

you could care less when sky states (who know what they are doing) double you repeatedly but 1 little AA from me = war and death. you see the crazy extremes of that?

first LOL @ the calvin stone tablet reference haha.

2 double taps have always been a grey area. and when sometimes it is easy to miss click a bubble and hit a different state or make a typo on the attack screen. And if they do double tap their state still makes gains where as your single AA didn't benefit yours and the attack is designed to destroy ground units ( which you knew that made up most of their NW and lower readiness)

[KelpKris]

you do see the irony of this statement? your telling me i have to play my state according to what calvin wrote on some stone tablets that the gods(nations) of a millennium ago agreed with.

you could care less when sky states (who know what they are doing) double you repeatedly but 1 little AA from me = war and death. you see the crazy extremes of that?

It's not like those double taps were made on purpose. One of the guy didn't notice he had already grabbed him and the other one didn't seem to know this rule.

[BeeNo]

first LOL @ the calvin stone tablet reference haha.

2 double taps have always been a grey area. and when sometimes it is easy to miss click a bubble and hit a different state or make a typo on the attack screen. And if they do double tap their state still makes gains where as your single AA didn't benefit yours and the attack is designed to destroy ground units ( which you knew that made up most of their NW and lower readiness)

well, the point of the second part of my post was to point out that the death of my state is too extreme a retaliation for 1 AA on a couple 100% infantry states.

[Zeonic]

I thought it was already known that going 100% in one type of military unit is asking to be attacked? IE build no jets or sams, expect AR. Build no inf or tank, expect GA. Build no ships, expect AA.

[Mr President]

well, the point of the second part of my post was to point out that the death of my state is too extreme a retaliation for 1 AA on a couple 100% infantry states.

Tell that to the fallen soldiers family that your death is too extreme for 1AA. That 1 AA killed lots of good men. Had it been just 1 AA then no big deal I could move on. But you made them against several USA states and then when I made a post about it, you did more and even against me. That's pretty much spitting in my face and asking me what I'm going to do about it. Don't worry, we are not going to kill you. I gave my word to your leader that you would not die at the hands of USA. We are going to get our retal and move on.


I thought it was already known that going 100% in one type of military unit is asking to be attacked? IE build no jets or sams, expect AR. Build no inf or tank, expect GA. Build no ships, expect AA.

Do AA's and expect retal. It's a complete circle :)

Listen, I have no problem with people playing how they want to play. As a nation leader I have my own style that I accept and styles I don't. Just as he made a choice to AA us, I'm making a choice to retal those AA's. There is nothing wrong with having that many Inf. He didn't like it so he AA'd us. I didn't like that so I'm going to retal him.

[Devil]

well, the point of the second part of my post was to point out that the death of my state is too extreme a retaliation for 1 AA on a couple 100% infantry states.

i agree that 1 aa doesnt warrant a death. you know unless you AA me :P

[BladeEWG]

Indeed so, and I shall not be expecting to see a kill come out of this, just as I will not expect USA to take advantage of a WD and start grabbing others.
That would just be poor form

[Mr President]

Well sadly I look like an idiot.. I sent SEVERAL messages saying he was not to be killed but a state was trying to be sneaky and get one last attack in which resulted in the death of his state. My sincerest apologies for the lack of discipline with this member. I'll be in touch with ingame messages.

[BladeEWG]

Well that is unfortunate.
Seems the only "right" thing to do now is to allow us to kill your offender to make things right again.

[Calvin74]

you do see the irony of this statement? your telling me i have to play my state according to what calvin wrote on some stone tablets that the gods(nations) of a millennium ago agreed with.

you could care less when sky states (who know what they are doing) double you repeatedly but 1 little AA from me = war and death. you see the crazy extremes of that?

wow now why was i brought into this?

also the rules we made were just common sense rules. your state in no way benefits from war attacks. yes they are very good in war (i still maintain that AA's are too strong and should be scaled way back) but it doesn't seem that you were in a time of war.

this is also more of you forcing your beliefs on them instead of them on you. from what you have stated they didn't grab you or harm your state in any fashion. out of the blue you randomly hit these states with harmful attacks solely for the purpose of them not playing up to your belief of how the game should be played.

if you don't like the current unwritten rules then that is fine but what you did has zero bearing on that and doesn't say anything at all about those rules. had these people grabbed you and you not been able to retaliate with a regular SA so you used AAs then you have a point but to just come out of nowhere and AA a state simple b/c they don't have units is crazy.

it has been proven time and time again that no one will ever have "enough" defense and that these ideas that you must be 100% mixed states are flawed at their very core.

man i didn't even want to start a lecture i just wanted to make a funny rebuttal to you making old jokes at my expense:(



oh yeah except to point out that all these unwritten rules were made before anyone here (other than obviously me and totte and maybe czarcris) even knew what this game was. if you want to change them that is fine and on you. i have even told people the two options you have to change them. you can do it through diplomacy by talking to all the main nations or you can do it through force by having the best most dominate nation. we used a combination of that in the old days and that is the only way to change them now.

if you could what would you want to be acceptable now? why do you want changes? who do you think it would benefit?

[BeeNo]

These "unwritten rules" have been loosely applied for ages and sometimes people enforce them and sometimes they don't. and i've seen people push the envelope and get away with it for ages. for me personally over the past 2 years i've randomly throw a few spy ops here and attacks there, as long as the states weren't in a battle for top spots it never really bothered me.

i have just never made a post to brag about it before. i still believe if i hadn't posted on forums nobody would of even noticed.

for me personally i enjoy a happy mix between netting and warring. to much of one or the other gets tiresome to me. but i will tell you think 100% infantry states is stupid. and i miss some of the old times where if your nation wasn't war prepared to defend themselves you'd get smoked, and you know what, it was your own fault for it. in nations i have lead in the past if i see a state doing this i will ask him to ready his state just in case.

the difference between a good war nation and a bad one? being ready for it. not having to waste 35 turns upgrading jets, having some of all the units on hand. i guess people just feel there are no threats out there so it doesn't matter?

in no way is what i did even remotely in the same league as a suicide, and no a top state can't defend yourself from a big stocker. but that isn't what was said or done.

the greatest netting achievement in my mind has always been what gnorf did when he came back to vindication. captured 1st place suicided down before he could get defenses up. we warred and killed the crap out of the nation responsible, and by the end of the month he finished 6th or 7th i believe. don't know how this is relevant, but the point is he didn't give up or let a few attacks bother him. he took his revenge came back helped us win a war and at the end of the month dak took a narrow 1st place nation finish. this was still when there were 500+ players in the game.

these states were 100% infantry 100% with 1 week left in the month? you can't tell me any of them were playing seriously?

anyways, i'd like to point out that when you threatened to kill my state i resisted the temptation to AA the crap out of your top states and trust in the fact that you would simply carry out your retaliation. as it is my faith was misplaced. and i guess that's all i will say on the subject. i shall hopefully rejoin ICN and finish the month, further negotiation on the subject will have to be between you and blade Mr. P.

in terms of the unwritten rules i guess what i would like to see is tighter rules on top 10 play(or more enforcement there), and looser rules for the mid-low rank states with a little more leeway to monkey and have a bit of fun.

[Mr President]

these states were 100% infantry 100% with 1 week left in the month? you can't tell me any of them were playing seriously?


This isn't true at all. when you attacked me I had about 2.5M Jets and 7M ships and 290M Inf. yes I had mostly Inf, but far from 100% inf.

I'm sad you died. I'm even more sad that I gave the order for you NOT to be killed and you were... But it's all been taken care of now and our nations are still on good terms.

I will say I'm not sad that we attacked you though. Our nation won't accept people who just AA us cause you don't like our playing style. If we went all Jets and Ships would it be ok for someone to GA us? I just don't understand where anyone has the right to force someone how to play. It's been a huge problem around here for ages. It's one thing to advise someone to help them learn the game and get them a higher NW, but it's another to start hitting them cause they have more of 1 unit then the other. If you had just declared on us to try for the top spot then I would understand.. But just hitting some of us for no reason other than inf hording, that just bugs me. BUT, your free to play anyway you wish.. As long as your prepared to accept the consequences.

[BeeNo]

no, mr. p i aa'd you cause u complained on forums, nothing to do with your units :P

i'm not talking if a guys a little light here or there, i'm simply refereing to states who are using 1 unit :(