Jump to content

The Knights Radiant Declaration of War


Dalinar
 Share

Recommended Posts

Spirit vs Letter of the law.

The fact that you have a MDoAP with all three combatants means at best you should have done nothing against ANYONE. Just sit the war out. 

 

Why would they let their Bloc, their former protectors(i remember that correct yes?) and long term ally all burn down to not hurt the feels of their newest ally firmly postitioned in the oposite coalition to all their friends. that makes no sense at all.

  • Upvote 1

Ole2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riiiight, sit out and let tS/BK get rolled just so we don't end up on opposite sides of a war with an ally. /facepalm

Yup. That's the right thing to do.

Maybe you could use the money you gained sitting out to help them rebuild.

 

A. It's non-chaining, so by technicality, we are allowed to hit a friend of a friend.

B. We sort of have a major case of blue balls, so if IC had refused war their might have been a rebellion.

Still shows how many fu**s you give about NPO.

Hint: 1-1=Answer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spirit vs Letter of the law.

The fact that you have a MDoAP with all three combatants means at best you should have done nothing against ANYONE. Just sit the war out.

Pretty much that's what they are doing since they are not at war with any of their treaty partners. Edited by Ivan the Red
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your damaging the capacity of their allies to help them? This hurts NPO, don't try and pretend it doesn't. I'm just wondering why you even bothered signing the paper if it's worthless. Hell, the build up to this wars was at least a week long, just cancel the treaty and go in honestly.

I think it's entirely up to us how we handle our FA negotiations.

 

Damaging the capacity of their allies to help them. So you want us to let BK/tS get rolled? That is literally what you are saying lol.

 

About the treaty itself, both we and NPO have our reasons for the treaty, something that is in no way your business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So? BK aggressively attacked NPO so your MDP does trigger, it doesn't matter what the chain clause is - it's straight aggression and you avoided honoring your treaty with them.

 

Nice job backstabbing NPO in support of OOC reasons.  Congrats. :)

Quit B&^$£ing about OOC

Edited by Codonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's entirely up to us how we handle our FA negotiations.

 

Damaging the capacity of their allies to help them. So you want us to let BK/tS get rolled? That is literally what you are saying lol.

 

About the treaty itself, both we and NPO have our reasons for the treaty, something that is in no way your business.

You're dodging. Why sign a paper you have little to no intentions of following? It's clear NPO was never going to get your help, barring some strange wild card offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're dodging. Why sign a paper you have little to no intentions of following? It's clear NPO was never going to get your help, barring some strange wild card offensive.

They literally can't follow that treaty because of NAPs with both BK and t$.

 

VE and TKR have no such agreement.

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're dodging. Why sign a paper you have little to no intentions of following? It's clear NPO was never going to get your help, barring some strange wild card offensive.

 

It's almost as if people have political agendas behind treaties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This will not be forgotten or swept under the rug. You've made it quite clear where you stand with us in this action.

 

Directly supporting efforts to drive us out makes you shitty allies and I only wish all our enemies could have pacts with you.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To drive us out"

 

I have yet to see anyone confirm the goal is to drive NPO out. That is purely detrimental to the game.

 

No alliance has been driven out and there's been plenty of opportunity for it to happen.

 

Most likely you'll get a white peace offer when the war itch is done scratched. Just like every other war the past few wars.

 

Suck it up, buckle down, and enjoy the ride of being set back.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"To drive us out"

 

I have yet to see anyone confirm the goal is to drive NPO out. That is purely detrimental to the game.

 

No alliance has been driven out and there's been plenty of opportunity for it to happen.

 

Most likely you'll get a white peace offer when the war itch is done scratched. Just like every other war the past few wars.

 

Suck it up, buckle down, and enjoy the ride of being set back.

 

YEEEEEEEEEE WE ALL GONNA DIE

  • Upvote 1
Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To drive you out? We literally hit VE in defense of tS getting hit by VE.

 

Shitty allies? Alright man sounds good, though I think everyone else that we are allied to would probably beg to differ. It just so happens that you, NPO, literally signed with nearly the entire opposite side of the web so we aren't in a position to be amazingly supportive of you.

 

But that makes us shitty allies right? You put is in this position, expect us to let BK/tS get rolled, but we're shitty allies right? You slander our name on OOC forums but we're shitty allies rights?

Basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget treaties and cbs and everything for a second.

 

You do realize that BK, TKR's bloc mate is also fighting with tS. Y'all are asking TKR to not help their two long held allies in order to help their single relatively new ally? That doesn't make sense.

Then perhaps they should have alerted their bloc mate to the fact that they were hitting an MD-level ally of TKR's before BK hit said ally.

 

What exactly is BS? That we defended our long time ally in tS? How did we backstab NPO exactly?

 

How did we backstab NPO exactly?

I want you to really explain it to me Steve.

 

You want us to counter BK, our blocmate/longtime ally who we have a non aggression treaty with? You want us to counter tS, our long time ally who we have a non aggression treaty with?

You backstabbed NPO by ignoring the MD-level treaty you have with us.

 

13e0d5bce06183a71401004b81d43c9c.png

Shut up Steve

Name the "other treaty" that would make Article 3 apply.

 

We definitely valued NPO, but we also recognize that they have firmly entrenched themselves in the other side of the treaty web and that ending up on opposite sides of a war is almost inevitable.

 

 

I don't see how us sitting out is any different than what we're doing now in relation to NPO? We're at war with VE lmao. You expect us to sit out when our bloc, tS, and Guardian are all at war just because we're on the opposite side of NPO?

 

EDIT: grammar

It's different because TKR is not defending NPO like you guys promised to in our treaty. t$ and BK hitting NPO was the opening declaration of a this war. NPO didn't come to anyone's defense or engage with anyone before t$ and BK

 

Why would they let their Bloc, their former protectors(i remember that correct yes?) and long term ally all burn down to not hurt the feels of their newest ally firmly postitioned in the oposite coalition to all their friends. that makes no sense at all.

Because they promised to and their bloc apparently doesn't understand what "mutual defense" or "non-chaining" actually mean?

 

I think it's entirely up to us how we handle our FA negotiations.

 

Damaging the capacity of their allies to help them. So you want us to let BK/tS get rolled? That is literally what you are saying lol.

 

About the treaty itself, both we and NPO have our reasons for the treaty, something that is in no way your business.

No. We want you to engage one or both of them because you promised to via our treaty.

 

They literally can't follow that treaty because of NAPs with both BK and t$.

 

VE and TKR have no such agreement.

We have NAPs with everyone who hit NPO

I think the treaty with NPO makes a distinction between defense and aggression. See, if you go to war with someone because they attacked your MD ally, it's called defense. If your ally attacks someone and you join in, it's called aggression. Defending an ally doesn't break a non-aggression pact because it's not aggression.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interestingly, if you look at history from another world - there's more than enough precedence to justify this move from TKR.

 

 

It's not really unheard of at all, no idea why it comes as such a shock that people defend their allies against un-allied counters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.