Kurdanak Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Not surprised with these outragoues terms. Yes Arrgh was at fault for raiding, but they didn't deserve to have such harsh term. Oh well, shows integrity of the winning alliances. o/ Arrgh Indeed, and I'm sure the integrity of their MDoAP allies are just the same! Oh, wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Young Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Well, That was interesting. Quote They bid me take my place among them. In the halls of Valhalla Where the brave may live forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutwa Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Complements to Arrgh, they are good fighters and have given me a few beat downs in the past, which is why getting one over on them feels so good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangui Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Not surprised with these outragoues terms. Yes Arrgh was at fault for raiding, but they didn't deserve to have such harsh term. Oh well, shows integrity of the winning alliances. o/ Arrgh Precedent had been set for us to ask for repartitions and we did not, they are even left with their bank contents and have more money in it than UPN did when we lost Oktoberfest, and we had triple the membership count. We do not aim to salt their fields, rather ensure our protection from organized raiding. Glad to see this end. o/ UPN o/ NAC o/ DEIC 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Not surprised with these outragoues terms. Yes Arrgh was at fault for raiding, but they didn't deserve to have such harsh term. Oh well, shows integrity of the winning alliances. o/ Arrgh Com'on this has to be a joke. We've seen plenty of the integrity of the winning alliances to know Arrgh got a good deal. Edited April 12, 2016 by Clarke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyte Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 o/ Arrgh o/ DEIC o/ UPN Let the rebuilding begin! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalmor Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 I don't really understand the whining of about the terms being harsh. Arrgh! has probably costed different alliances billions of dollars in past several months. They're been merciless and uncooperative, and this war is exactly what they deserve. o/ UPN o/ DEIC o/ NAC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 We've seen plenty of the integrity of the winning alliances to know Arrgh got a good deal. Says this person who's never won a major conflict. He's got experience in losing, Arrgh. Listen to this man. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Indeed, and I'm sure the integrity of their MDoAP allies are just the same! Oh, wait. i mean if it's because i'm the one who is asking, there are other people with the same concerns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatkitteh Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 >harsh terms >Coming from people who demanded Millions of dollars to UPN and Deic in October,including Arrgh members. All for the Peace! 1 Quote :sheepy: :sheepy: Greatkitteh was here.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefontaine Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 inb4 Arrgh no longer raids, but goes treasure hunting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Says this person who's never won a major conflict. He's got experience in losing, Arrgh. Listen to this man. Technically won 2 global wars, just not recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Trying to paint the terms as harsh is ridiculous imo. Arrgh have raided us, our allies and our protectorates for months without end. Furthermore they attacked us -- and then lost, that alone has been responsible for far heavier reps in this game. All our stipulations do is ensure that this time Arrgh proactively try to enforce their no raids list, as far as us and our allies are concerned. There are no upfront reps -- which would of bee crippling, and they could of been asked for given the position Arrgh find themselves in and considering the money/resources we have to used for this conflict. I imagine exceptions will obviously be made for people who clearly just want Arrgh to pay up -- but as long as Arrgh kick them, and it's not mass raids which are either explicitly or tacitly supported, then we will also keep that in mind. Those insistent on saying that these terms are harsh, all things considered, clearly have an agenda. Anyway, I am happy with the outcome. And I honestly hope Arrgh are able to bounce back, and pull through this. Thanks for the fun. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boony Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Precedent had been set for us to ask for repartitions and we did not, they are even left with their bank contents and have more money in it than UPN did when we lost Oktoberfest, and we had triple the membership count. We do not aim to salt their fields, rather ensure our protection from organized raiding. Glad to see this end. o/ UPN o/ NAC o/ DEIC Well I don't consider there to be a president for reps. In the last three large wars, two had reps and only one of them was pretty harsh (Oktoberfest). But that was a case of a few alliances almost creating an hegemoney . That being said, the last war did not have any reps. Those insistent on saying that these terms are harsh, all things considered, clearly have an agenda. Not true. The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the terms were that they were harsh. It just feels wrong. You guys are free to do what you like though. Also, lets not forget that Arghh cannot do what they have been doing anymore. With the score changes, any dangerous raider can be dealt with easily. So I feel like this was a great war to roll them so they don't !@#$ with you anymore. But to bind them on paper for a year is pretty, meh. It was your decision and your right to impose these terms, but don't classify everyone as having an agenda. EDIT: I actually reps would have been better. Edited April 12, 2016 by Boony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Yeah, the year binding is amusing. What year are we talking about? In-game year or out-of-game year? That's going to open up a can of worms. 3: Arrgh will no longer raid UPN, DEIC, NAC, VE, Polaris, or Rose. Protectorates are off limits as well. If a raid does occur Arrgh will refund the damages/loot plus $3mil. This is in force for one year. This is also amusing too. 3 Alliances went to war, yet an additional 3 got a deal. Edited April 12, 2016 by Buorhann 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Not true. The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the terms were that they were harsh. It just feels wrong. You guys are free to do what you like though. Also, lets not forget that Arghh cannot do what they have been doing anymore. With the score changes, any dangerous raider can be dealt with easily. So I feel like this was a great war to roll them so they don't !@#$ with you anymore. But to bind them on paper for a year is pretty, meh. It was your decision and your right to impose these terms, but don't classify everyone as having an agenda. EDIT: I actually reps would have been better. They have raided us, our allies and protectorates for months. Our government have taken the diplomatic approach, only for Arrgh to not take the enforcing of their do not raid list seriously... What exactly is harsh about adding a term that prevents them from raiding us? We have invested massive amounts of money and resources into this war, they have raided significant money away from us in the past, and have caused significant damages too. We did not ask for any reparations. As for your point about reperations being preferable. Our thinking was that taking the majority of what is left of their remaining bank will simply cripple Arrgh to the point of no return. And while we want to get rid of them being a nuisance to us, we don't want to get rid of them as an alliance. Hence the logic to put in that stipulation about raids in the future. It's funny that the alliance who asked for far heavier terms, based on the logic that we attacked you and lost, so we must pay up... is now being hypocritical. So I feel like this was a great war to roll them so they don't !@#$ with you anymore. They declared on us. 2 Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pangui Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 (edited) Well I don't consider there to be a president for reps. In the last three large wars, two had reps and only one of them was pretty harsh (Oktoberfest). But that was a case of a few alliances almost creating an hegemoney . That being said, the last war did not have any reps. Not true. The first thing that came to my mind when I saw the terms were that they were harsh. It just feels wrong. You guys are free to do what you like though. Also, lets not forget that Arghh cannot do what they have been doing anymore. With the score changes, any dangerous raider can be dealt with easily. So I feel like this was a great war to roll them so they don't !@#$ with you anymore. But to bind them on paper for a year is pretty, meh. It was your decision and your right to impose these terms, but don't classify everyone as having an agenda. EDIT: I actually reps would have been better. They raided UPN, our allies, and our protectorates for months, when an AA is raided, the attacked usually asks for reps. They were attempting to take out us before we reached a militarization level that they deemed dangerous to them, preemptively struck, I think that is enough to warrant repartitions. This was the cumulation of Arrgh antagonizing us for months while diplomatic approaches failed. They have a great opportunity to rebuild now and come back form this. Harsh would of been us trying to impose terms that where intended to keep them down. This does not such thing, rather it solves a problem that we have been running into for months. Edited April 12, 2016 by Pangui Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarke Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 As for your point about reperations being preferable. Our thinking was that taking the majority of what is left of their remaining bank will simply cripple Arrgh to the point of no return. And while we want to get rid of them being a nuisance to us, we don't want to get rid of them as an alliance. Hence the logic to put in that stipulation about raids in the future. It's funny that the alliance who asked for far heavier terms, based on the logic that we attacked you and lost, so we must pay up... is now being That's it, Sheepy pull the plug. Orbis shouldn't be allowed to exist as long as people think a massive amount of reps is preferable to what is basically a NAP. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Clooney Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Not surprised with these outragoues terms. Yes Arrgh was at fault for raiding, but they didn't deserve to have such harsh term. Oh well, shows integrity of the winning alliances. o/ Arrgh Look on the bright side, since they won't be raiding the listed alliances, they are now freer to raid yours. Be sure to hail them each time. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Ooh do tell Forced reenactments of terrible memes from the internet. No peace till every member of Arrgh Gov has posted at least 1 colossally cringe worthy video or picture. 2 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diomedes Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Great to see! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Jerry Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 inb4 Arrgh no longer raids, but goes treasure hunting. Also......inb4 they form a splinter AA called "Pirates Booty" which will be made up of 95% of it's members. Let the raids recommence!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saru Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 Also......inb4 they form a splinter AA called "Pirates Booty" which will be made up of 95% of it's members. Let the raids recommence!!!!!!! Honestly it's not something that would be that surprising. We put those terms forward in good faith, and we can only hope that Arrgh members/gov recognise that (as oppose to the critics in this thread), and hold up their end of the bargain. We shall see I guess. Quote Second in Command of UPN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted April 12, 2016 Share Posted April 12, 2016 They have raided us, our allies and protectorates for months. Our government have taken the diplomatic approach, only for Arrgh to not take the enforcing of their do not raid list seriously... What exactly is harsh about adding a term that prevents them from raiding us? We have invested massive amounts of money and resources into this war, they have raided significant money away from us in the past, and have caused significant damages too. We did not ask for any reparations. As for your point about reperations being preferable. Our thinking was that taking the majority of what is left of their remaining bank will simply cripple Arrgh to the point of no return. And while we want to get rid of them being a nuisance to us, we don't want to get rid of them as an alliance. Hence the logic to put in that stipulation about raids in the future. It's funny that the alliance who asked for far heavier terms, based on the logic that we attacked you and lost, so we must pay up... is now being hypocritical. They declared on us. One member does not equate to an alliance, Saru. You are free to levy what terms you wish. I think the majority of the $yndicate does not have a strong opinion on this matter either way. Let's not make this another 'he said she said' between UPN and t$ as entities. I'd like to think that we have long moved on from that. Best of luck rebuilding to you all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 12, 2016 Author Share Posted April 12, 2016 Forced reenactments of terrible memes from the internet. No peace till every member of Arrgh Gov has posted at least 1 colossally cringe worthy video or picture. But we do that anyways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.