Ole Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryleh Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan the Red Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) 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 June 15, 2016 by Ivan the Red 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordship Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 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. Quote Life before Death. Strength before Weakness. Journey before Destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codonian Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 (edited) 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&^$£ing about OOC Edited June 15, 2016 by Codonian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
durmij Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I think it's entirely up to us how we handle our FA negotiations. Damaging the capacity of their allies to help them. So you want us to let BK/tS get rolled? That is literally what you are saying lol. About the treaty itself, both we and NPO have our reasons for the treaty, something that is in no way your business. You're dodging. Why sign a paper you have little to no intentions of following? It's clear NPO was never going to get your help, barring some strange wild card offensive. Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boony Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Quit B&^$£ing about OOC He's hoping it'll catch on. Actions of a broken man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 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. Quote One must imagine Sisyphus happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codonian Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 He's hoping it'll catch on. Actions of a broken man. He's like a broken record, Constantly whining Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floating Hippo Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 We have NAPs with everyone who hit NPO Quote ^oo^ (..) () () ()__() Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 We have NAPs with everyone who hit NPO Consider you planned it this way, that's not much of an excuse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekaterina Kalmyk Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I respect TKR for having the backs of the folks who had their backs in an earlier war. 1 Quote Original Art Credit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Good luck VE! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Welcome TKR, I appreciate the solid aid and will not forget. 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 "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. 4 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Lordship Posted June 15, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted June 15, 2016 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. 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? 11 Quote Life before Death. Strength before Weakness. Journey before Destination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 "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 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryleh Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 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. 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$. VE and TKR have no such agreement. We have NAPs with everyone who hit NPO I think the treaty with NPO makes a distinction between defense and aggression. See, if you go to war with someone because they attacked your MD ally, it's called defense. If your ally attacks someone and you join in, it's called aggression. Defending an ally doesn't break a non-aggression pact because it's not aggression. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bollocks Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 *insert butthurt e-lawyering* 1 Quote The Coalition Discord: https://discord.gg/WBzNRGK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floating Hippo Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 Basically. I don't think any of our other allies would back you up on that claim. Quote ^oo^ (..) () () ()__() Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eumirbago Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 I don't think any of our other allies would back you up on that claim. They're hurt that they got !@#$ed in their first war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foltest Posted June 15, 2016 Share Posted June 15, 2016 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. 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.