Hansarius
-
Posts
241 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Hansarius
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Dear Guardian and Mensa HQ
War
Much love
- UPN
-
25
-
-
I'm curious about this Amanda Torres
I don't think women can be knights.
And certainly not a prince
Can be a Dame/Lady and a member of an order of Chivalry though
In any case, welcome and good luck
-
Congratulations to both parties.
-
Isn't once a year enough?
-
Yeah, it's exactly what you think it is.
And there's not really much to say about it except that we're both awesome
so here goes:
The Purple Cheese Accords
Article 1. Mutual Defense- Both signatories agree to defend each other in the event one is subject to an aggressive attack.
Article 2. Optional Aggression- Both signatories are strongly encouraged to back each other up in an aggressive attack, but it is not mandatory.
Article 3. Non-chaining- In the event one of the signatories is attacked as a result of the activation of another treaty, the Mutual Defense becomes optional.
Article 4. Cancelling- Should either side decide relations are not working out and wish to cancel this treaty, a 72 hour notice must be given, during which this treaty will remain active.
Signed for The United Purple Nations
Hansarius - Primarch
Saru - Chief Librarian
Ole - Warsmith
Aenir - Acting Master of the Forge
Emmad - Chooser of the Slain
Signed for The Black Knights
-
5
-
-
interesting read.
I'm sure you're an alliance that will have an interesting life here on Orbis
-
Good read.
Always interesting to see the perspective of the guy on the other side.
-
I like it.
Just hope it's used for what it is intended for and that it won't turn into a war-strategy to keep your nation safe from harm
-
1
-
-
I have to admit, underlordgc is a better troll than me.
That's why we love/hate him so much here in UPN.
He's a godawful troll, but he's our godawful troll.
-
3
-
-
Well this is going to be interesting
-
3
-
-
Congratulations guys!
-
The Speaker is hated more than underlordgc? Unthinkable
I don't know, Under has shaped up a bit as of late.
-
1
-
-
I'm happy to see Diabolos has been granted peace.
-
Congratulations on your ascent to power Keegoz
-
I find that the alliance announcement section can easily get cluttered by the amount of outdated alliance announcements.
I propose that we add the ability to delete announcements so that we are able to some cleaning up when it is needed.
-
2
-
-
You mean the part where I asked you a question? If I made a statement, sure, I'd validate it, but I asked you a question. My opinion on the matter wasn't given. You might think it was implied, but that may have been your assumption. If I did say somewhere that supporting your allies isn't a valid reason for war, then I'll address that.
Fine, I will grant you the point, you did not outright say that you do not consider blindly supporting your ally an unjustifiable act.
But don't tell me this:
Prefontaine So that's all it takes for a justified war in your opinion?
is not a loaded question where the implied answer in the affirmitive would be considered inexcusable.
And whether you outright said it or merely implied it, it still calls your current action and the justification of that action into question.
-
I'm not wrecking them. We're not using missiles, at least I don't believe any have been used thus far and I've asked for none to be used from us. As I've stated before, we're sending 5 nations, performing 7 wars. If people consider this destroying an alliance of 35 members, I don't know what to tell you. We seem to have a fundamental difference in understanding the meaning of some words in the English language.
I'm pretty bad at baking.
From my understanding of the situation, CU is admitting to not being able to fight back, I call that being wrecked. And your alliance is taking part in it.
Care to address my first point as well or are you going to just continue using veiled insults from this point on?
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
So my allies ask for some help, and I want to give my new members military experience is TOTAL COMPLETE FABRICATED REASONS TO GO TO WAR. Just because you swear doesn't make you right. Just because you using the Socratic method in your post doesn't make you clever. Everyone seems to be forgetting reason 1 and reason 2. Well you better ignore those reasons otherwise, well, you'd look like an idiot with what you just said. The third reason simply highlights that isolation makes you vulnerable. War would of happened with or without me stating that. Now I get to highlight that fact without creating a conflict that wasn't going to happen anyway. Run around in circles? I've been running in a straight line since I've gotten here. I've not wavered, I've not lied, I've meant what I've said, and said what I've meant. Sorry I've offended you SO horribly to in trying to highlight the dangers of rolling alone for so long in a war that was happening anyway.
Concerning reason 1 & 2
1: It's interesting that you seem to fall back on "supporting your ally" as justifiable reason to go to war in it's own right
And yet, when we discussed UPN's decision to support our late ally EoS in attacking TAC way back when you said this and I quote:
Prefontaine So that's all it takes for a justified war in your opinion?
2: I can not fathom that you would take part in wrecking an alliance so that you could provide them with experience, and call it just.
-
7
-
I didn't know 20 v 35 was a curb stomp. Guess I'm bad with numbers.
How about these numbers then?
Avg Score ScoreGuardian - 809.20 26,703.56
Terminus Est - 726.47 10,897.00
Total - 783.33 37,600.56
VS
Avg Score ScoreCelestial Union - 343.75 12,031.13
-
increasing ship damage might not be that bad of an idea to increase the interest in using other units than missiles.
But this is probably stretching it a bit.
Perhaps capping the damage at 100infra would be more reasonable?
Also, the fact that the attacker took no casualties also seems a little bit too good to be true.
There should be some risk involved when you go to battle, even where you have the upper hand.
Not so much as to discourage attacking of course, but enough so that it's felt.
-
Now, I don't have a stake in this conflict
But Prefontaine, I have to ask:
What happened to you having no interest in curb stomping?
because, regardless of how many Guardian Nations who actually take part in the fighting, your declaration of war against CU turned this into precisely that.
-
40% seems fair to me
-
This is an excellent point, and it's important to remember that you can coordinate with other nations to break blockades, air superiority, and ground control. If you get an IT victory on a nation in, say, a ground battle, they lose all Ground Controls they have in any other wars. Heaven forbid we encourage tactics like cooperation and coordination in wars.
These tactics are already encouraged and are already what wins wars.
Breaking control/blockade might be possible in conflicts were you are on the winning side, but for those on a losing side of a conflict, it's next to impossible as all those you'd need to coordinate with are all suffering the same fate.
#5 is making it so that the losing side of a war now has even less chance of fighting back, no chance in fact and all you can do once you've lost your footing is watch as your nation is destroyed.
The other changes are all good and should be enough to put the proper balance to missile warfare, and it was needed.
But #5 now leaves missiles a weapon that is only reliable for those who are already winning the war
The following announcement has been paid for by the Black Knights
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Good luck guys!