Versus Battle France Armed Forces vs C3 Admirals

Who wins?

  • Total voters
    13
AverageBuggyEnjoyer

AverageBuggyEnjoyer

Buggy Too Stronk!
‎
#62
#62
Blackbeard said:
@RayanOO



VS.
​


France forces as per global firepower statistics:



Scenario 1: Nuclear weapons restricted
Scenario 2: Nuclear weapons allowed
Scenario 3: France has access to both American and Russian nuclear weapons stock, Admirals are Domi Reversi'd

Discuss.

@EmperorKinyagi @Elder Lee Hung @Owl Ki @SakazOuki @MarineHQ @Kurozumi Wiwi @ZenZu @ShishioIsBack @Reborn @Jailer @TheKnightOfTheSea @Akai2 @centurion @MonsterKaido @Levi @Ven437 @Seraphoenix @Erkan12 @Dragon777 @Topi Jerami @Sentinel @Tyki_Mikk @HA001 @God Buggy @Monet @Topi Jerami
Click to expand...
Nuclear? France has Logiko bro they won't need nuclear he'll just wall text them to death :suresure:
 
AverageBuggyEnjoyer

AverageBuggyEnjoyer

Buggy Too Stronk!
‎
#64
#64
Owl Ki said:
Dying of boredom? That cruel cur. :pepeanger:
Click to expand...
Ah, what a delightfully superficial dismissal — “Dying of boredom? That cruel cur.” A phrase that pretends to wound but collapses under the faintest analytical scrutiny. Let us dissect this, if only to relieve the conversation from the tyranny of glibness.


First, boredom. The accusation of “boredom” presupposes that the burden of engagement rests on the speaker rather than the listener. This is not merely laziness — it is an oppressive assumption, a relic of a culture that privileges passive consumption over active thought. To declare oneself bored in the presence of rigor is to announce, proudly, that one’s attention span is a casualty of modern intellectual decay. The onus of meaning-making is collectivized; dialogue is a shared enterprise. To abdicate that responsibility, then, is to enact a subtle violence against discourse itself.


Second, “that cruel cur.” Cruelty implies intent to harm, yet what greater kindness exists than the attempt to enlighten? To dismantle misconceptions with precision is not malice — it is mercy. The surgeon’s scalpel may sting, but only because it pierces infection. The epithet “cur” thus reveals more about the accuser’s discomfort with being intellectually outpaced than about the accused’s supposed temperament.


And let us not forget the structural assumptions embedded in this mockery: that passion in argument is excess, that depth is indulgence, that articulation beyond tweet-length constitutes a kind of social trespass. These are the quiet mechanisms by which mediocrity sustains itself — the rhetorical policing of intellectual ambition.


So yes, if my posts induce boredom, then I offer my sincerest apology to your dopamine receptors. But perhaps the problem lies not in my verbosity, but in your dependence on brevity as validation. For the “cruel cur” you denounce is merely a mirror, and what you perceive as cruelty is your own unease at being confronted with unfiltered reasoning.
 
Owl Ki

Owl Ki

‎
#65
#65
Akai2 said:
Ah, what a delightfully superficial dismissal — “Dying of boredom? That cruel cur.” A phrase that pretends to wound but collapses under the faintest analytical scrutiny. Let us dissect this, if only to relieve the conversation from the tyranny of glibness.


First, boredom. The accusation of “boredom” presupposes that the burden of engagement rests on the speaker rather than the listener. This is not merely laziness — it is an oppressive assumption, a relic of a culture that privileges passive consumption over active thought. To declare oneself bored in the presence of rigor is to announce, proudly, that one’s attention span is a casualty of modern intellectual decay. The onus of meaning-making is collectivized; dialogue is a shared enterprise. To abdicate that responsibility, then, is to enact a subtle violence against discourse itself.


Second, “that cruel cur.” Cruelty implies intent to harm, yet what greater kindness exists than the attempt to enlighten? To dismantle misconceptions with precision is not malice — it is mercy. The surgeon’s scalpel may sting, but only because it pierces infection. The epithet “cur” thus reveals more about the accuser’s discomfort with being intellectually outpaced than about the accused’s supposed temperament.


And let us not forget the structural assumptions embedded in this mockery: that passion in argument is excess, that depth is indulgence, that articulation beyond tweet-length constitutes a kind of social trespass. These are the quiet mechanisms by which mediocrity sustains itself — the rhetorical policing of intellectual ambition.


So yes, if my posts induce boredom, then I offer my sincerest apology to your dopamine receptors. But perhaps the problem lies not in my verbosity, but in your dependence on brevity as validation. For the “cruel cur” you denounce is merely a mirror, and what you perceive as cruelty is your own unease at being confronted with unfiltered reasoning.
Click to expand...
am ded. catded
 
BoaHancocksHusband

BoaHancocksHusband

‎
#70
#70
Akai2 said:
Ah, what a delightfully superficial dismissal — “Dying of boredom? That cruel cur.” A phrase that pretends to wound but collapses under the faintest analytical scrutiny. Let us dissect this, if only to relieve the conversation from the tyranny of glibness.


First, boredom. The accusation of “boredom” presupposes that the burden of engagement rests on the speaker rather than the listener. This is not merely laziness — it is an oppressive assumption, a relic of a culture that privileges passive consumption over active thought. To declare oneself bored in the presence of rigor is to announce, proudly, that one’s attention span is a casualty of modern intellectual decay. The onus of meaning-making is collectivized; dialogue is a shared enterprise. To abdicate that responsibility, then, is to enact a subtle violence against discourse itself.


Second, “that cruel cur.” Cruelty implies intent to harm, yet what greater kindness exists than the attempt to enlighten? To dismantle misconceptions with precision is not malice — it is mercy. The surgeon’s scalpel may sting, but only because it pierces infection. The epithet “cur” thus reveals more about the accuser’s discomfort with being intellectually outpaced than about the accused’s supposed temperament.


And let us not forget the structural assumptions embedded in this mockery: that passion in argument is excess, that depth is indulgence, that articulation beyond tweet-length constitutes a kind of social trespass. These are the quiet mechanisms by which mediocrity sustains itself — the rhetorical policing of intellectual ambition.


So yes, if my posts induce boredom, then I offer my sincerest apology to your dopamine receptors. But perhaps the problem lies not in my verbosity, but in your dependence on brevity as validation. For the “cruel cur” you denounce is merely a mirror, and what you perceive as cruelty is your own unease at being confronted with unfiltered reasoning.
Click to expand...
Every Single Word
 
JackThaConflagration

JackThaConflagration

‎
#71
#71
Bakura said:
Fun fact, France won more wars then it lost.
Click to expand...
You're going to have to elaborate because France lost almost every major war it participate in a humiliating fashion.

War of Spanish succession - lost and bankrupt themselves
7 years war - lost all their new world colonies to Britain
Napoleonic wars - lost, unconditionally surrendered
Crimean war - won, although wasn't much of a victory
Franco-Prussian war - lost, prussians captured Paris, France surrendered and the prussian emperor was crowned at palace of Versailles
WWI - won, although it was mostly UK and US doing the heavy lifting.
WWII - lost, conquered
Vietnamese war - lost even with us support, humiliated
Algeria war of Independence - lost

So, France definitely didn't win more wars than they lost. And was humiliated most of the time. The only wars it won were with heavy support from us and UK.
 
RayanOO

RayanOO

Lazy is the way
‎
#72
#72
JackThaConflagration said:
You're going to have to elaborate because France lost almost every major war it participate in a humiliating fashion.

War of Spanish succession - lost and bankrupt themselves
7 years war - lost all their new world colonies to Britain
Napoleonic wars - lost, unconditionally surrendered
Crimean war - won, although wasn't much of a victory
Franco-Prussian war - lost, prussians captured Paris, France surrendered and the prussian emperor was crowned at palace of Versailles
WWI - won, although it was mostly UK and US doing the heavy lifting.
WWII - lost, conquered
Vietnamese war - lost even with us support, humiliated
Algeria war of Independence - lost

So, France definitely didn't win more wars than they lost. And was humiliated most of the time. The only wars it won were with heavy support from us and UK.
Click to expand...
You know France didn’t start in 1700 my friend

Its had a long history before that and numerous wars / battle / kings etc

(And some points in your list are weird choices)
 
JackThaConflagration

JackThaConflagration

‎
#80
#80
RayanOO said:
You know France didn’t start in 1700 my friend

Its had a long history before that and numerous wars / battle / kings etc

(And some points in your list are weird choices)
Click to expand...
Before the modern era, there wasn't even an idea of a nation state. Yes, there were people living there, but they didn't view themselves as French nor care about the king/nation. Hell, language wasn't even standardized.

As far as the modern state military affairs ,France has a disastrous record.


As for the wars, I literally picked the first thing you would see in a European history book. The major wars in continental Europe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top