Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums

The Fremen

Members
  • Content Count

    881
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The Fremen

  1. That is indeed the issue. If there was a group that did set that up for whatever reason it would require multiple DW’s on many different nations per the SOP of DW on all the TA’s of your enemies. in other news The 🐑 molesters look to have turned tail and ran. Not without causing some damage in some lost economic output though. This will be quickly corrected baaaaaaahahhaha 😁.
  2. You don’t have to listen to it yes? Just ignore it if you don’t like it. If I see something I say something that’s just me. negative vibes?? Using a phrase from a famous person I have to say. “Come on Man!”
  3. Perhaps we have been extremely unfortunate with those INT’s. It’s been known to happen. 😁
  4. Aren’t going so well? For who? Us? You obviously have been looking at the wrong turns. There will soon be many dead Egyptian divisions in what seems to be a victory for them. Baaaaahahabaha. And those Libyans aren’t doing to well either. There has been no defeat here so that sore loser comment is a bit premature. At least I didn’t bow out from 102 when my airbases got absolutely smashed in Turkey. I recall something about massed airstrikes against some Baltic States divisions that totally destroyed them. After that CR was left holding the bag. Would that be considered a sore loser as we
  5. The reason I say it’s gamey is that this order is impossible to counter and for some reason one of the techs was left without a unit that could exploit it. There are many examples of ‘fictitious’ units in the game for balance but this was overlooked it seems. Apparently those TR units with an actual TAS rating can bypass all FC’s or INT’s. This was obviously not intended but it’s part of the game and as such will enable these units to gather critical intel unimpeded. Seems like an exploit to me.
  6. Acknowledging that you abuse a certain aspect of the rules is ok in my book. However considering the amount of tactical recons( also an abused aspect of the game) that your side was doing, abusing a certain order seemed the intent all along. That isn’t so ok I’m my book. There are many issues in Victory whose rules are pretty much static ( last overhaul back in 1995?) that players have learned to ‘game’. Such is life really but until Russ can come up with a Victory II that addresses the short comings of the current rules I suggest a bit less chicanery and more strategic and tactical forethou
  7. Did I take a hostile stance Ninja? Is discussing something that is obviously being used in a way not originally intended( per the programmer himself) whining?? You need to grow up yourself and learn to talk about things rather then flaming others or besmirching when they have a differing point of view. I personally couldn’t give a rats behind what you think but am still willing to discuss matters relating to making victory a more enjoyable experience for all
  8. I think a few on the list may have been unjustly accused and are on there due to ‘guilt by association’ 😁. you are correct though Predator and MarklenX the CL becomes meaningless if you DW on all your enemies TA’s but if there are interlocking TA’s then the list of DW’s Becomes excessive especially in the early game. That was the point that is trying to be made and I agree with it. for example Lets say Ireland is TA’ed to GB USA Canada and Morocco but Morocco is TA’ed with Ireland GB USA and Algeria. GB is TA’ed to Ireland USA Canada and Norway. You see the pattern
  9. I know many of you remember the dreaded Terror attack option of the OMN CB order. After relentless abuse this was removed as was the morale loss from such attacks. enter another way to indirectly drop the morale of a nation using the CL order. Using interconnected Groups of TA’s a territory can be ceded like a hot potato forcing the target nation to declare war on all tentacles of the alliance. A clear abuse of the CL order and something that should be addressed. Maybe remove the morale loss for Declaring war? Or maybe increase the morale loss of the cede order significantly when the
  10. This information is confirmed. We did indeed find another HW only 4 jumps away ( one way) and the return trip was only 6 jumps also one way.
  11. A new ‘coral reef’ was just started in the Aegean Sea. Thank you to the Italian Navy for supplying the raw materials. 😁
  12. That sFair MarklenX In this case Persia actually believed that cedeing territory to his TA to open a path for one of his TA’s to attack the TA’s of his ally was going to be just fine by the allies he just penned a deal with. Mmmmhmmm sounds like someone is smokin some good grass. He needs to tell us where he got it cause we 🐑 need some of that stuff 🤣. so I think this would be considered a quasi backstab as he is stabbing a TA of an ally of his in the back. My problem is that this was their plan as soon as his neighbors offered an alliance. Hey I have an idea!! Maybe my
  13. Agreed. Like I said we 🐑 don’t get mad ....... you know the rest😈
  14. Aye caramba dude!! Explain to me how these actions give you a way out??? Turkey ceded Semdimli to SR. This was detected on TP2. Persia cedes Khvoy to SR this was detected later. now why would Turkey cede Semdimli to SR??? and why would Persia cede Khvoy to SR?????? does everyone see why Iraq declared war on SR? Or is it just me? But in the end we 🐑 don’t get mad we get even 😈. It’s just too bad I have to put you on my list of players where no agreements are possible in future games. It’s a very short list ( only 1 player atm).
  15. Hmmm you must be two different people in one body and neither knows what the other is up too. first off let’s talk alliances it is true that you entered into alliances with 3 of your neighbors. The question I ask is what was the understanding in entering into said alliances ? Was this even discussed? I know the answer as we were copied into those emails. it is also true that YOU stated you would honor the alliances. But is it honoring an alliance when YOU cede territory to a TA to enable him to attack one of the allies you allied with?? Maybe it is maybe it isn’t. BU
  16. I would have to concur on The Persian players actions. I don’t think we can come to agreements in any future games of victory with Mr Parker. With friends like that who needs enemies?? Bahahahha. 😁
  17. Hopefully to help him. Someone must have painted a 🎯 on him. 🤣
  18. Baaaaahahaha. We shall see. Our 🐑 super soldiers can fly like hawks swim like fish borrow under the ground engage in one on one combat with razor sharp hooves eat metal etc etc. oh and our wool has been also genetically engineered to be fire proof. 🤣
  19. Nope your not the target either Mark. nothing but above board dealings in 101. straight up slaughter with no quarter given nor wanted. 😁 these are players I myself have never played with until now and they are far from above board. It’s all good though we 🐑 don’t get mad we get even. 😈. You know who you are...... baaaaaahahaha
  20. That’s true but my snake in the grass remark wasn’t directed at Tunisia or its ruler. At least you dealt with the 🐑 somewhat honestly. Since game 101 we have been conducting genetic experiments on our 🐑 genome and have come up with savage warlike bloodthirsty 🐑 Warriors with an eye on each butt cheek. Our neighbors are in for a very rude awakening. Baaaahahaha😈
  21. Alliances have been wrought, deals have been made, targets have been chosen, now unleash the dogs of war Never mind the dogs of war it’s the snakes in the grass you need to watch out for. Way too many of those that need stomping IMHO. 😈
  22. Nope we 🐑 never run away. Only advances to the rear on occasion. 🤣. as for our nation the person who you asked if an email was received knows who we are playing 😉. like 101 this game will be much fun as we seem to have the usual suspects but in different locations.
  23. I think your right about that DW stuff but you got the nation wrong. It wasn’t Yugoslavia. It was Germany and any nation totally allied with same😁
×
×
  • Create New...