Sisyphus Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I don't think I remember a time when alliances were berated for not hitting an alliance they were allied to. It's as if there's some sort of supremacy clause hidden somewhere within the text and only one side knows about it. But whatever, reading through these topics is a good time killer.And, apparently, signing a MDP with someone means you're also signing NAPs with all their allies, too. Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jgoods101 Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 And, apparently, signing a MDP with someone means you're also signing NAPs with all their allies, too. Those kinds of policies don't play out very well in the grande scheme of things. Quote Hello Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) Everyone was building up, so we were also building up. It doesn't even need a deeper reason. Your alliance was one of the first to start and most who had started doing it were on your side. It started almost immediately the morning after the MI6 hit. So where is the credible threat? If our coalition was as aggressive as it's been being portrayed we would have just whacked BK when they had low mil from decomming a while back. Edited June 15, 2016 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) Your alliance was one of the first to start and most who had started doing it were on your side. It started almost immediately the morning after the MI6 hit. So where is the credible threat? If our coalition was as aggressive as it's been being portrayed we would have just whacked BK when they had low mil from decomming a while back. No, you would have been rolled much faster with less effort. Wouldn't want that now fam! Give everyone a challenge! Edited June 15, 2016 by Eumirbago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostWorld Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I hope we all learn aftwr this event that diplomacy is more than just signing treaties. A lot more effort and integrity has to be shown in order to preserve good rlatiobships with anyone regardless of papers signed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Your alliance was one of the first to start and most who had started doing it were on your side. It started almost immediately the morning after the MI6 hit. So where is the credible threat? If our coalition was as aggressive as it's been being portrayed we would have just whacked BK when they had low mil from decomming a while back. No, because your whole idea was to obligate allies to defend you. It's the same trick Alpha tried to pull. Did we fall for it? Sure. What can I say. Poke the bear, you get mauled. Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Yes, mutual defense clauses are a trick. Caught us! Good thing TKR didn't fall for that and do something silly, like sign a treaty with us they didn't intend to honor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Yes, mutual defense clauses are a trick. Caught us! Good thing TKR didn't fall for that and do something silly, like sign a treaty with us they didn't intend to honor. Yeah, thank goodness they honor treaties. Too bad u guys are just bad so u didn't really get to enjoy what TKR all about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) No, because your whole idea was to obligate allies to defend you. It's the same trick Alpha tried to pull. Did we fall for it? Sure. What can I say. Poke the bear, you get mauled. Um what? Are you really saying we were actively trying to get you to hit us? You guys were the ones that went around talking to people about the For Steve thing and had threats out there. You were the ones to call us out as well. Just because we prepared because we knew you guys are aggressive and have a chip on your shoulder doesn't mean we were trying to get you to hurt us. Again, if we're attributing motivations I get you guys just want a simulcra of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) where you win and are on top. That's cool but horribly ironic when complaining about crossplay. Edited June 15, 2016 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Filthy Fifths Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Stands for mutual. I find it funny that Kastor of all people understood this. You've leveled up a bit mate. Quote "In an honest service there is thin commons, low wages, and hard labor; in this, plenty and satiety, pleasure and ease, liberty and power; and who would not balance creditor on this side, when all the hazard that is run for it, at worst, is only a sour look or two at choking. No, a merry life and a short one, shall be my motto." - Bartholomew "Black Bart" Roberts Green Enforcement Agency will rise again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman Thrax Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Yes, mutual defense clauses are a trick. Caught us! Good thing TKR didn't fall for that and do something silly, like sign a treaty with us they didn't intend to honor. The ties you guys made made it literally impossible for you to honour all of them. You came into the game late, so you could have put yourself anywhere you wished. You chose the middle, and now you're upset that that's resulted in some of your allies not being able to defend you? Particularly after you signed a treaty with an alliance that went out of their way to attack TKR last war, presumably without informing them? What a joke. Things happen, particularly with the web as tangled as it is. You're not showing a lick of class about it, though. Um what? Are you really saying we were actively trying to get you to hit us? Yes. Quote Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe. ~ William S. Burroughs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 That's not what he's upset about. He's upset about an aggressive war being backed and being lied to about it. That's it. Most of us get our allies have different obligations. We didn't give much notice on the UPN treaty since we weren't 100% sure if it would go through or not until it was being finalized due to the government changes. We brought it up as soon as it was a done deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordship Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) That's not what he's upset about. He's upset about an aggressive war being backed and being lied to about it. That's it. Most of us get our allies have different obligations. We didn't give much notice on the UPN treaty since we weren't 100% sure if it would go through or not until it was being finalized due to the government changes. We brought it up as soon as it was a done deal. Being backed and lied about lol So I guess we should just tell you our entire coalition's war plan so that you can then run along to your allies with the information. You guys picked a bone with tS, got yourself rolled for it, and are mad at us because we are tied to them? "Most of us get our allies different obligations" this is pretty funny considering you thinking we backstabbed you lol I've only seen one person from NPO posting that they understand we had different obligations Edited June 15, 2016 by Lordship Quote Life before Death. Strength before Weakness. Journey before Destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) Being backed and lied about lol So I guess we should just tell you our entire coalition's war plan so that you can then run along to your allies with the information. You guys picked a bone with tS, got yourself rolled for it, and are mad at us because we are tied to them? "Most of us get our allies different obligations" this is pretty funny considering you thinking we backstabbed you lol I've only seen one person from NPO posting that they understand we had different obligations When it involves us getting hit, yes and when we knew about it anyway, it would have been the sensible move to simply fess up and admit it. It wasn't exactly a close-guarded secret. We didn't pick a bone with tS. Keep saying we did, but we were content to ignore them unless they hit an ally. Again, it's about how it was handled rather than the end result. If you had just been upfront with your intentions, it would have been a lot different. I mainly bring up "backstabbing" since it was being used against me despite not being really germane in the game. This is the second time you have supported wars that would get us rolled. None of us are particularly shocked about getting rolled or targeted. I'm not shocked your priorities lie with tS. That has always been the case for you and BK. Some people may have had naive notions, but I didn't. I'm not particularly enraged about it. I just don't like it being pinned on us. Edited June 15, 2016 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyvbuck Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 When it involves us getting hit, yes and when we knew about it anyway, it would have been the sensible move to simply fess up and admit it. It wasn't exactly a close-guarded secret. I actually wonder how often that actually happens with any alliance. I doubt any side would appreciate their war plans being told to the other side even if it may or may not be obvious so blaming them for it seems a little silly to me seeing as doing something like that could easily destroy a war plan and get the ones telling the other side hated depending on how it's done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I actually wonder how often that actually happens with any alliance. I doubt any side would appreciate their war plans being told to the other side even if it may or may not be obvious so blaming them for it seems a little silly to me seeing as doing something like that could easily destroy a war plan and get the ones telling the other side hated depending on how it's done. At the point where it's obvious, it usually becomes clear to everyone else so lying outright is pretty problematic. Being vilified because people obscured the chronological order of events when we actually went on the intel we had and started preparing for it is also pretty upsetting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordship Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 When it involves us getting hit, yes and when we knew about it anyway, it would have been the sensible move to simply fess up and admit it. It wasn't exactly a close-guarded secret. I'm pretty sure I told you guys that for our relationship to move forward, we'd have to see how the war played out because you signed with nearly the entire opposite side. I'm also pretty sure I told you we'd end up fighting each others allies. Like I don't know what you wanted me to do other than literally tell you the time and place of the hit. If you truly knew about it, why not discuss it with us rather than wait till it happened? Your only attempt at dialogue was auctor asking me why BK was militarizing (which at the time I'm pretty sure was for a different reason, could be wrong though feel free to correct me Yoso/Strum/Jimmy) and him saying that apparently BK was gonna hit them based on those old logs from pre-tS occupation of Alpha. Quote Life before Death. Strength before Weakness. Journey before Destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyvbuck Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 At the point where it's obvious, it usually becomes clear to everyone else so lying outright is pretty problematic. Being vilified because people obscured the chronological order of events when we actually went on the intel we had and started preparing for it is also pretty upsetting. The fact that you expect them to just up and say "yeah BK is hitting you" is kinda silly tbh. Even if you did think you knew do you think we would like it if they just told you? No, we would not, and nor would you if our positions were reversed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordship Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 The fact that you expect them to just up and say "yeah BK is hitting you" is kinda silly tbh. Even if you did think you knew do you think we would like it if they just told you? No, we would not, and nor would you if our positions were reversed. That's the thing dude he can't seem to see it from anybody else's shoes. It's fine to be upset for getting rolled, but to be upset at TKR because we wouldn't tell you what our coalition was planning on doing is just totally unfair. 1 Quote Life before Death. Strength before Weakness. Journey before Destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) I'm pretty sure I told you guys that for our relationship to move forward, we'd have to see how the war played out because you signed with nearly the entire opposite side. I'm also pretty sure I told you we'd end up fighting each others allies. Like I don't know what you wanted me to do other than literally tell you the time and place of the hit. If you truly knew about it, why not discuss it with us rather than wait till it happened? Your only attempt at dialogue was auctor asking me why BK was militarizing (which at the time I'm pretty sure was for a different reason, could be wrong though feel free to correct me Yoso/Strum/Jimmy) and him saying that apparently BK was gonna hit them based on those old logs from pre-tS occupation of Alpha. You said there was nothing to worry about when asked about BK and others planning to slam us. Could have just said it was the case or there was a chance of it happening. We did bring it up. It's just owning up to what is already known rather than giving anything away. Edited June 15, 2016 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyvbuck Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 You said there was nothing to worry about when asked about BK and others planning to slam us. Could have just said it was the case. We did bring it up. I don't think that has ever happened ever. "Oh yeah we have intel that x alliance is going to attack us, is that true?" "Oh yeah that's totally the case" ... I mean really? That is never going to happen unless that guy is either an idiot or a spy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 The fact that you expect them to just up and say "yeah BK is hitting you" is kinda silly tbh. Even if you did think you knew do you think we would like it if they just told you? No, we would not, and nor would you if our positions were reversed. I remember BK being pretty upset when its allies got hit by other allies and said they weren't being informed of anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordship Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 You said there was nothing to worry about when asked about BK and others planning to slam us. Could have just said it was the case or there was a chance of it happening. We did bring it up. It's just owning up to what is already known rather than giving anything away. Let's be real Roq, you didn't know. You may have suspected, but you didn't know. If you knew, you and your allies would have started militarizing ASAP. Quote Life before Death. Strength before Weakness. Journey before Destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmyvbuck Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) I remember BK being pretty upset when its allies got hit by other allies and said they weren't being informed of anything. You mean UPN? I personally was more upset that they actually hit our ally (which is why I get why they are also upset), I did not expect them to actually tell us about it. "Oh yeah we are going to go ahead and hit your ally okay?"...I give you examples just so you can see how silly it looks. Edited June 15, 2016 by jimmyvbuck 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I don't think that has ever happened ever. "Oh yeah we have intel that x alliance is going to attack us, is that true?" "Oh yeah that's totally the case" ... I mean really? That is never going to happen unless that guy is either an idiot or a spy. Then you'd be wrong. Basically anything other than "don't worry about it" and then vilifying us for preparing anyway would be fine. 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.