Jump to content
Naval Games Community

Pitch for USA to vote Great Brittain as enemy

Nyurtle

By Nyurtle
in National news

 Share

Recommended Posts

Nyurtle Ordinary seaman

Nyurtle

Posted
Posted (edited)

pvp2-USA server
I feel it's important to keep Great brittain as an enemy. We've always had a good amount of pvp because we have been able to attack Great Brittain, them being one of the larger nations also being in close proximity to USA. There would be an unhealthy imbalance to the pvp situation if we allied with one of our best sources for PVP. We are the largest population on the server and in no need of an official alliance. If people don't want to attack Great Brittain players it is always a choice they can make as long as we do not have an Alliance that limits us from that. I fear an alliance with Great Brittain would lead to a situation where larger nations are working together to wipe out smaller nations which leads to a decrease in population which is arguably the biggest problem on pvp2 usa server. So I emplore you to spend your every vote on voting to keep Great Brittain as an enemy where as again you always have the choice to negotiate your own private negotiations/alliance/treaty. Do not take away the freedom of your fellow countrymen to fight who they see fit.

Edited by Nyurtle
  • Like 7
GrapeShot Lieutenant

GrapeShot

Posted
Posted

Now, now -- let's remember the man is a strategic and tactical genius. Don't sell him short. Only he understands the quantum entanglement between PVP1 and PVP2 alliances.

Lord Vicious Master and Commander

Lord Vicious

Posted
Posted

Now, now -- let's remember the man is a strategic and tactical genius. Don't sell him short. Only he understands the quantum entanglement between PVP1 and PVP2 alliances.

 

Never forget that no military leader has ever become great without audacity. 

 

Nyurtle Ordinary seaman

Nyurtle

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I'd be willing to debate the logic of this situation on teamspeak and upload it to this thread to address any counterpoints in this logic. just let me know and we can do it. 

Ledinis Junior Lieutenant

Ledinis

Posted
Posted

I'd be willing to debate the logic of this situation on teamspeak and upload it to this thread to address any counterpoints in this logic. just let me know and we can do it. 

Sorry to tell you this dude but so far everyone who replied here is from pvp1. 

  • Like 3
Gooneybird Able seaman

Gooneybird

Posted
Posted

I think this argument should apply to the US on PvP1 as well.

 

The so much appreciated 'balance' you so often advocated, apparently no longer apply when the numbers could work for you.

  • Like 1
Ledinis Junior Lieutenant

Ledinis

Posted
Posted

This is a good post and no need for hijacking. This is a step towards a better pvp environment.

There would not be any hijacking if the OP simple (pvp2) at the end of his title. Otherwise the majority of players that are on pvp 1 come in,see a title like this and just have to come in here and ask "say what ...?"

  • Like 2
mouse of war Lieutenant

mouse of war

Posted
Posted

Never forget that no military leader has ever become great without audacity. 

 

there goes you chance of being a great military leader then... :P

  • Like 2
CptEdwardKenway Lieutenant

CptEdwardKenway

Posted
Posted (edited)

There would not be any hijacking if the OP simple (pvp2) at the end of his title. Otherwise the majority of players that are on pvp 1 come in,see a title like this and just have to come in here and ask "say what ...?"

I knew from the very first post this is from pvp2. It was the one and only great leader Lord Vicious who had no clue and felt the need to torture us with his verbal vomit once again.

Edited by CptEdwardKenway
Anolytic Master and Commander

Anolytic

Posted
Posted (edited)

The so much appreciated 'balance' you so often advocated, apparently no longer apply when the numbers could work for you.

As a matter of fact I have never argued for alliances to be made on the basis of some goal to achieve "server balance". Rather I have occasioned to mock those that do talk of "balance". You must be confusing me with someone else. 

However I have no wish to have "the numbers work for [us]" as you say. This game uses real historical nations, and some nations were historically larger or smaller than others. I chose a small nation with full awareness of the implications and I do not wish to form an alliance that covers too large a portion of the server population. Glory and fun comes from winning, or fighting valiantly, against a superior foe.

 

From a strictly dispassionate standpoint, disregarding the current strategical and diplomatic positions, I would have liked to see the US disentangle themselves from the sticky octopus hug of the British and together with one or two nations from the opposing block, the one Danmark-Norge is a part of, form a third alliance block. However I don't see this happening as long as geographical neighbors cannot get over their differences. But the admirable attitude displayed by Sweden recently may leave it a slight possibility for the future.

Edited by Anolytic
  • Like 2
CptEdwardKenway Lieutenant

CptEdwardKenway

Posted
Posted

As a matter of fact I have never argued for alliances to be made on the basis of some goal to achieve "server balance". Rather I have occasioned to mock those that do talk of "balance". You must be confusing me with someone else. 

However I have no wish to have "the numbers work for [us]" as you say. This game uses real historical nations, and some nations were historically larger or smaller than others. I chose a small nation with full awareness of the implications and I do not wish to form an alliance that covers too large a portion of the server population. Glory and fun comes from winning, or fighting valiantly, against a superior foe.

 

From a strictly dispassionate standpoint, disregarding the current strategical and diplomatic positions, I would have liked to see the US disentangle themselves from the sticky octopus hug of the British and together with one or two nations from the opposing block, the one Danmark-Norge is a part of, form a third alliance block. However I don't see this happening as long as geographical neighbors cannot get over their differences. But the admirable attitude displayed by Sweden recently may leave it a slight possibility for the future.

 

France, spain, pirates and danes will always be fighting GB since Danes have done good work in talking other nations to fight GB. You also forget that danes/pirates was the ultimative zerg coaltion for a long time and they were able to crush GB with ease. Your wish to see US change the side in this war makes no sense since it's already out of balance once again. What do you want? The 6 vs 1 or 7 vs 1 you always wanted? Everyone fighting GB? Make the british quit?

Anolytic Master and Commander

Anolytic

Posted
Posted (edited)

France, spain, pirates and danes will always be fighting GB since Danes have done good work in talking other nations to fight GB. You also forget that danes/pirates was the ultimative zerg coaltion for a long time and they were able to crush GB with ease. Your wish to see US change the side in this war makes no sense since it's already out of balance once again. What do you want? The 6 vs 1 or 7 vs 1 you always wanted? Everyone fighting GB? Make the british quit?

Why quote me if you didn't read what I wrote?

The salt you display in every topic on this board is quite amusing, but you should notice that I have not called for any of what you accuse me of. And I am flattered by your high opinion of mine and my fellow Danes' oratory skills, but I believe you will find that Great Britain themselves have done most of the work in convincing other factions to fight them. It's just that it's so much fun sinking you. You guys are so cute when you're loosing.

Edited by Anolytic
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...