lor vs NS

[Dogma]

no offense, but it seems you could have done anything to NS and they would have just stood there with their thumbs in their *you know what*.

Got to hand it to LOR, with out them the set would have been boring...

I take extreme issue with this statement. I agree with NS leadership on the way they handled their own business. They acted in the way they felt would best help the majority of their members and not just to satisfy one member.

Now I would not have had 2-6 places to start with, but given that they did have them, they acted in the best way for all their members.

As leader, you have to weigh the outcome of all decisions made and do your best to benefit the most members as you can. That is what builds loyalty and a great nation.

[Divine Intervention]

Well, I'll just make two more quick points.

1. Being farmed is very demoralizing, hence top NS states deleting/going inactive.

2. The nation with that top state will be your main competition for top nation net so it would be smart to do anything you can to reduce their net.

If everyone is so sure sanctions should not have been declared, why do we even have sanctions. This round seems like a textbook case to me of when sanctions should be used.

Idc how many people you have on your side, unless jameswheel or tnova posts, im not convinced .

probably, true infact. in which case they should have hovered in top30 getting hit 6 times a day or something (mainly because so many people have so little clue on how to grab well) getting bigger military losses and land losses.

i think people are wrongly assuming that high would have reacted same way that Prey did if they were sanctioned. i spoke to my members before the set started and i told them i wouldn't accept sanctions on us. considering that i think only nball and crimson (and maybe fangz? dont remember) had respectable war ready states, putting sanctions on high would have had v.bad results for top NS states...

NS problem was that their top players played like individuals and not for the nation. having everyone rush to the top to get a little ego boost for the first 20 days of the set (until they start getting outjumped by smart stockers) isn't good for the nation. i realized that after the first set i ran DaK and tried to avoid it (happened again in WAL unfortunately but w/e)...i learnt from my mistakes as leader/recruiter in the past and would like to think that i run my nations much better now in terms of strategy & the players i recruit etc...sets like this serve (as someone already pointed out) as a good lesson for nations like NS on how to be run. Take for example SLOB, (which imo is the best run tag)...you'd never see them in this type of situation

[Satan666]

Moderators really need to do a better job here. I just read 8 pages of bull**** that has nothing to do with this war, and moderators are posting contributing to the bull****.

What does NS decision to not sanction/war Anton have to do with LoR warring us? Nothing. So why is that the only thing I'm reading in this thread? Is this thread titled "LoR vs NS" or is it "NS didn't sanction High?" Jeezes.

well i would but i'm not a mod over this, and like someone told me when i tried to get on someone for getting off topic, "You'll never find a thread completely on topic and you have to let them get off topic from time to time and sooner or later it will get on topic. Theres really nothing you can do about it."

[runbch]

I take extreme issue with this statement. I agree with NS leadership on the way they handled their own business. They acted in the way they felt would best help the majority of their members and not just to satisfy one member.

Now I would not have had 2-6 places to start with, but given that they did have them, they acted in the best way for all their members.

As leader, you have to weigh the outcome of all decisions made and do your best to benefit the most members as you can. That is what builds loyalty and a great nation.

What I saw was the decision between doing what the top 2 members and doing what a friend outside of the clan wanted. Anyways if the outcome of the decision involves your top 2 members leaving and then getting wiped out by lor, how is that not the worst case scenario?

[runbch]

probably, true infact. in which case they should have hovered in top30 getting hit 6 times a day or something (mainly because so many people have so little clue on how to grab well) getting bigger military losses and land losses.

i think people are wrongly assuming that high would have reacted same way that Prey did if they were sanctioned. i spoke to my members before the set started and i told them i wouldn't accept sanctions on us. considering that i think only nball and crimson (and maybe fangz? dont remember) had respectable war ready states, putting sanctions on high would have had v.bad results for top NS states...

NS problem was that their top players played like individuals and not for the nation. having everyone rush to the top to get a little ego boost for the first 20 days of the set (until they start getting outjumped by smart stockers) isn't good for the nation. i realized that after the first set i ran DaK and tried to avoid it (happened again in WAL unfortunately but w/e)...i learnt from my mistakes as leader/recruiter in the past and would like to think that i run my nations much better now in terms of strategy & the players i recruit etc...sets like this serve (as someone already pointed out) as a good lesson for nations like NS on how to be run. Take for example SLOB, (which imo is the best run tag)...you'd never see them in this type of situation

What could high do about sanctions? NS early on was stronger than high. You were number 1, but you were breakable. Ns also had more active states and total net.

[Divine Intervention]

heh, the minute i out jumped you and grabbed you and it was obvious that you couldn't catch me, you sent me a message saying that you realized you weren't going to be able to catch me and that you would drop down and stock. that would have been smart idea. why didn't you do it?

in regards to your last post - i wouldn't be suprised if NS had a "good ridance" attitude to you and forkys. and NS decision not to sanction me had no effect on LOR warring NS. 1st of all you probably would have tag jumped to help them (which is what everyone expected) and secondly they would have been weakened by SOUL states grabbing them

and it wasnt a case of me wanting something. i would have gotten my land either way. you do know that declaring war = sanctions stop having an effect?

@ your second post: what could high have done? a much more organized nation and no you couldn't break me. oh wait...people like Fangz who were stockers maybe...but the main culprits of this whole situation of *****ing ie. you and forkys were infantry *****s to the max. if you want i can look through the old intels to see when you FINALLY upgraded. your war preperations wouldn't have gone unnoticed. had you placed sanctions i would have stocked for 2 days then AAed you all to ****s and giggles and got my land either way. even when you first went 100% ships you weren't able to break me. i intelled your market info, i knew how many ships you made a turn, i knew how many ships youd have after using 300 turns. i was always ahead.

last set i threw to hell my top3-5 stocker state because my friend was landdropped. you think id be a ***** if someone sanctioned me?

[Crimson Shadow]

To get more or less back on topic. I still have not received any responses to the list of questions I posted....More or less toward FeaRLezZoN3, but anyone who feels the same way can go ahead and chime in here too, because I know he isn't the only one who thinks NS is nothing but the scum of the earth.


From page 5 or 6:

1. it was only me and prez that were active, so it was 2 members, SLOB fought very well, and could have won all by themselves, u didnt have to go and kill all of vt full of inactives.

First off, SLOB was fighting WLF and didn't have turns to waste on you guys. So I don't see how we are the bad people in this situation when you were the ones who instigated the GB.

Yes you had inactives, but that doesn't mean that NS was full of warrers either. That set NS only had 7 members who actually gave a **** and warred. The rest netted because there were only 5 days left in the set when we declared.

You had more than just you and pres warring. You 2 just so happened to be the 2 largest, the others were medium states. Yes I'm sure that some of those that we killed were inactive, but the point is it wasn't just you and pres. Don't play the "poor us" card because it took us 2 days after our declaration to get built up enough to kill pres. You guys just spent your turns attacking SLOB instead of us. If you would have killed us instead then we probably couldn't have killed all your """inactives"""


As far as last sets war against TNG:

I was going to post this last set when the war actually happened but by the time I got home it wasn't worth going back 7 pages to find the post to quote. NS planned to hit TNG right after they declared on Prey (I think that was on Tuesday.) However, none of the NS leaders were going to be around that weekend. Ooga was coming home from college, I was going to be gone for an early Christmas, and Andy....I don't remember why :S. Anywho, why declare for 2 days and leave your members without a leader for a weekend? So we were going to declare Sunday night when we were all going to be home. Thursday/Friday GRIM informs us that they wanted to hit as well because of the threat against them in the forums. They were going to be ready to hit Monday night. So we postponed our strike until Monday night. Makes more sense to hit at the same time right? If we hit early and then a day later GRIM declares, it makes them look like the bad nation. But since we waited, all of a sudden we become the bad nation???

Not trying to throw GRIM under the bus here, but we were planning to hit first...so why is it always NS that was the bad nation, when we intended to declare immediately after Prey was demolished? Was it because NS leaders couldn't be online? Was it because we declared 7 seconds later then GRIM? Was it because we had smaller numbers than GRIM? Please inform me why NS is the "bad nation" out of the two...when really neither of us did anything wrong. We waited a day to strike together; GRIM wanted to strike because of a threat against them.

2.LoR hit and killed off vt and pain, you didnt do anything. why? because LoR has more than twice your member count and you know they can put up a fight, so of course you let it happen, thats why I am happy to see NS get what they deserve.

So it is our duty to protect everyone? That is BS. Why does NS have to kill LoR when vT is killed? Please inform me of that. Why isn't it GRIM, SLOB, SOUL, or high's responsibility? Is it because NS contains *****s who "only attack people that are 1/8th their size"? Is that why its our responsibility?

According to most people I've talked to, paIn was going to war NS, so why should we care if they die? Our threat is over...unfortunately vT was an unnecessary causality.

3. No matter what you say, you know I am right when I say you guys dont get involved unless you have a huge advantage, which i think its pretty sad and cheap imo.

All I have to say to this is that is total BS. I have no problem losing a war.

[forkys]

check the NW portal. anton has yet to grab over 4k land so i dont think he was getting that much off of you guys. plus there hasnt been any grab done on NS for over 4k land other than my 2 top guys and the grabs LoR made on you whilst warring you lot.

I didn't mean anton grabbing for 4k+
Soul and Lor people that were later hovering at the same NW as some of NS got a few grabs into NS for 8k, 5k etc.

And anton, i don't think you've seen real breakage if you think you were unbreakable.
In the estonian game 2-3 states on several occasions blew all of their turns in order to fail on their target that was 3x more NW than the second guy and eventually the target's military was worn out because of the losses and he was broken.

NOTHING is unbreakable if you have the manpower.

[Crimson Shadow]

And anton, i don't think you've seen real breakage if you think you were unbreakable.
In the estonian game 2-3 states on several occasions blew all of their turns in order to fail on their target that was 3x more NW than the second guy and eventually the target's military was worn out because of the losses and he was broken.

...I believe that would be considered a suicide here.

[MAGGIO]

I take extreme issue with this statement. I agree with NS leadership on the way they handled their own business. They acted in the way they felt would best help the majority of their members and not just to satisfy one member.

Now I would not have had 2-6 places to start with, but given that they did have them, they acted in the best way for all their members.

As leader, you have to weigh the outcome of all decisions made and do your best to benefit the most members as you can. That is what builds loyalty and a great nation.

it is evident that you know more about the situation then I.