Aluminumsoldier

Yeah, make sure your alliance members aren't out there expressing unpopular opinions and asking tough questions. That might make people feel challenged or, heaven forbid, uncomfortable. Best to quash all that fancy logic talk as fast as possible.

While I don't have a problem with this war in principle, I find the notion that its being declared because "the gap in strength they'd form after whatever next big war happened would have been nearly insurmountable" to be laughable, as well as any assertion that GPA is somehow a strong or difficult opponent. The very threat of war turned their strength chart into a passable reenactment of a kamikaze attack. An actual assault is sure to leave them begging for beige or PoW status. They could be ten times the size they are now, but as long as their military performance runs along these same lines, any attempt to paint them as a threat to anyone rings hollow. I mean, could you see GPA actually launching an attack? On actual nations? Keep doing what you're doing, of course, not really my business there. But trying to spin GPA as a bogeyman made me chuckle a bit.

This wouldn't be a legitimate nation builder if GPA wasn't rolled at one point or another. It's a rite of passage.

1.As Ulm, own all Bavarian culture provinces by 1550. Emperor by 1600 Unite into HRE ASAP 2. As Mogadishu, become independent by 1500 take the decision " Confirm Thalassocracy" by 1600/1650 Have highest income and largest navy 3. Do an AAR wherein you switch countries with the "random country" function every 20-30 years. Just do your best with each country, skipping repeats or close neighbors within too close of a time period.

Well, there are a couple ways we can look at that. One, defense can easily be extended to allies, or allies' allies, which would involve an offense of our own. In most cases I'm aware of, this is considered legitimately defensive if done via a treaty. The question of defending an ally who started a war would be another one, though, which I'm certain would need to be decided on a case by case basis, considering the strength of their CB and any moral factors. OOC: Two, from a game-play perspective, we still want to win, right? Offensive wars are a part of the game, and they make the game fun. Look at it from the standpoint of a chess game. It wouldn't be very fun if one player never moved his pieces and never tried to take your pieces. It's in everyone's best interest, including our potential enemies, that we play like any other alliance as far as war goes, because war is what makes the world go round. /OOC But no, our organization has never actually started an aggressive war in our eight and a half year history. (Have we fought in them? Yeah.) Not saying we won't on this planet, because its not the same situation, but it's a track record, whether one finds it impressive, boring, or any other combination of emotions. So, all that to say, you may be disappointed if you're looking forward to us only declaring strictly defensive wars. It's far more likely that we'll only declare Strictly "defensive" wars.

If they're bad, they'll disband or be avoided. If they aren't, then good for them. Maybe you should be more optimistic?

This will turn out terribly, I'm sure. Anybody remember BD's last alliance? Infinity? Me neither.

Nation Name: El Tierra Del Fuego Nation Link: http://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=4064 Good idea, Sheepy. I hope to see some new faces around the forum.

o/ Infinity Prepare yourselves, Orbis. Your time is now.

Pretty spot on, actually. Very interesting, thanks for sharing.