Viridian Entente exits the war

[Mikey]

Its also worth considering - how would everyone react if VE didn't join the immediate blitz. As Rose's longstanding MDP partner, would you view them as unaware and uninterested in the war, or would you assume they knew and supported it? Most people, myself included, would think they were in the know and would go along with it. One way or another, when it comes to these large wars most direct allies end up getting brought in. Countermeasures would probably be made, and they would probably be hit. Its the same logic by which I assume t$ preempted us, and it just makes sense. It may not always be true, but do you avoid taking the initiative, and allow your enemies to build up and act at their leisure, on the off chance they didn't know or agree with whats going on?

 

I have no idea what happened in VE, how much they knew or supported, etc. But some posts seem to imply they weren't informed of the war until shortly before it kicked off, which may have left them feeling like they were presented with a fait acompli they had little choice but to go along with. You can still refuse, of course, but given a desire to stand by allies and the likelihood you would be lumped in anyway, they may have felt that option wasn't a meaningful one. Ultimately one must still bear the responsibility for pulling the trigger, but in such an instance I would assign them less blame then if they had been actively involved in the planning, or had been given appropriate time to voice their concerns and weight their options for staying out.

[Eumirbago]

Its also worth considering - how would everyone react if VE didn't join the immediate blitz. As Rose's longstanding MDP partner, would you view them as unaware and uninterested in the war, or would you assume they knew and supported it? Most people, myself included, would think they were in the know and would go along with it. One way or another, when it comes to these large wars most direct allies end up getting brought in. Countermeasures would probably be made, and they would probably be hit. Its the same logic by which I assume t$ preempted us, and it just makes sense. It may not always be true, but do you avoid taking the initiative, and allow your enemies to build up and act at their leisure, on the off chance they didn't know or agree with whats going on?

 

I have no idea what happened in VE, how much they knew or supported, etc. But some posts seem to imply they weren't informed of the war until shortly before it kicked off, which may have left them feeling like they were presented with a fait acompli they had little choice but to go along with. You can still refuse, of course, but given a desire to stand by allies and the likelihood you would be lumped in anyway, they may have felt that option wasn't a meaningful one. Ultimately one must still bear the responsibility for pulling the trigger, but in such an instance I would assign them less blame then if they had been actively involved in the planning, or had been given appropriate time to voice their concerns and weight their options for staying out.

"Paracovenant played themselves"

[Mikey]

"Paracovenant played themselves"

 

Keep deluding yourself my old friend In truth, you are all dancing in the palm of our hands. As we "played ourselves" and began this conflict, your sphere took to your battle stations, drafting plans and executing counters. But while you were busy "winning", we were left unopposed in the true battlefield - Club Penguin. Yes, every war you launched, every minute spent bombing and buying, was that much less time to stop us where it mattered most. Why do you think there were so few nations in the early coalition blitz? While you look to the present here, we look to the tundra, and the future! Enjoy your moment of victory in this "world" my friend. Winter is coming, and we shall rule its icey plains.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Mikey

[Avruch]

I have no idea what happened in VE, how much they knew or supported, etc. But some posts seem to imply they weren't informed of the war until shortly before it kicked off, which may have left them feeling like they were presented with a fait acompli they had little choice but to go along with. You can still refuse, of course, but given a desire to stand by allies and the likelihood you would be lumped in anyway, they may have felt that option wasn't a meaningful one. Ultimately one must still bear the responsibility for pulling the trigger, but in such an instance I would assign them less blame then if they had been actively involved in the planning, or had been given appropriate time to voice their concerns and weight their options for staying out.

 

Despite what some have said and what you may have heard, VE appears to have had roughly a weeks notice. No one in this game decides to go to war and goes to war both on the same day, nor would they expect that of an ally (because that ally would then be worthless in the war effort). 

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Despite what some have said and what you may have heard, VE appears to have had roughly a weeks notice. No one in this game decides to go to war and goes to war both on the same day, nor would they expect that of an ally (because that ally would then be worthless in the war effort).

didnt you guys just accuse me of lying like 10 posts above? why are you lying now?

[Mikey]

No one in this game decides to go to war and goes to war both on the same day, nor would they expect that of an ally (because that ally would then be worthless in the war effort). 

 

One would think, and hope, that this would be universally true. Unfortunately I've seen that its not always the case

[Seeker]

Despite what some have said and what you may have heard, VE appears to have had roughly a weeks notice. No one in this game decides to go to war and goes to war both on the same day, nor would they expect that of an ally (because that ally would then be worthless in the war effort). 

Like I have told you and a few other alliances, our military had increased to meet our new minimal requirements that were implemented AND ensuring the people who still had pretty much zero military to actually get a military.  I have a stats page that lists the members stats.  More often than not, around half or more of the alliance had barely any military at all so of course once we started getting people to produce military there would be indication that our military is indeed building up.

 

Once we did go into the war, we were not at a military readiness that would make sense to enter a war with..

[Battle Dino]

If only someone would have said Rose was a shit-tier alliance .... 

[Dr Rush]

In fairness & actually being consistent unlike a lot of people on both sides. I do feel that VE was obligated by treaty to hit Mensa & whoever else they hit. The mutual aggression clause says they must attack with rose & common sense says that it should be where it is the most effective in the war effort. Treaties are all about helping your allies, piling onto an alliance that already has all their slots full (I'm assuming competence here) does not really helping the war effort overall. 

[Placentica]

People are fooling themselves if they think after this war there will be anything but one side.  Not saying that's good or bad. 

 

It's funny how quickly we are mirroring (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), which makes sense considering where the decision makers come from.  I expect 3-4+ top 30 alliances to suck into the Syndi-sphere, including VE.  We'll have maybe a year or so of various curbstomps on alliances who will keep allies out because it's pointless to activate treaties. 

 

Everyone will complain about how stagnate it's gotten and blame the treaty web including those who are propagating it, but they still not allow any dissenting voices or opposition to form.  No one will break way for fear of being rolled next.  And then players start to quit.

 

$500m is the steepest reps ever paid by a single alliance, correct?  I don't have any issues with reps, just wondering.

 

And is the point of huge reps to make people even less likely to form opposition to you?

[The Mad Titan]

And is the point of huge reps to make people even less likely to form opposition to you?

 

The point of huge reps is to help the winning defenders rebuild after the aggressors lost a war without a CB. Do you honestly our side should let them off scott free? Do you think if Pacacovenent had won the Pacifica War there would have been no reps?

[Memph]

People are fooling themselves if they think after this war there will be anything but one side.  Not saying that's good or bad. 

 

It's funny how quickly we are mirroring (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), which makes sense considering where the decision makers come from.  I expect 3-4+ top 30 alliances to suck into the Syndi-sphere, including VE.  We'll have maybe a year or so of various curbstomps on alliances who will keep allies out because it's pointless to activate treaties. 

 

Everyone will complain about how stagnate it's gotten and blame the treaty web including those who are propagating it, but they still not allow any dissenting voices or opposition to form.  No one will break way for fear of being rolled next.  And then players start to quit.

 

$500m is the steepest reps ever paid by a single alliance, correct?  I don't have any issues with reps, just wondering.

 

And is the point of huge reps to make people even less likely to form opposition to you?

Reps in Octoberfest were about $400-450m for each UPN and DEIC when you include resource costs and nations were smaller back then.

[Eumirbago]

People are fooling themselves if they think after this war there will be anything but one side. Not saying that's good or bad.

 

It's funny how quickly we are mirroring (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), which makes sense considering where the decision makers come from. I expect 3-4+ top 30 alliances to suck into the Syndi-sphere, including VE. We'll have maybe a year or so of various curbstomps on alliances who will keep allies out because it's pointless to activate treaties.

 

Everyone will complain about how stagnate it's gotten and blame the treaty web including those who are propagating it, but they still not allow any dissenting voices or opposition to form. No one will break way for fear of being rolled next. And then players start to quit.

 

$500m is the steepest reps ever paid by a single alliance, correct? I don't have any issues with reps, just wondering.

 

And is the point of huge reps to make people even less likely to form opposition to you?

Less likely to form an idiotic opposition.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

500m wouldn't even buy 5 cities; it's quite meaningless in the overall scheme of things.

[Buorhann]

500m wouldn't even buy 5 cities; it's quite meaningless in the overall scheme of things.

 

Well, depends.  It'd buy a lot of cities for a noob.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Well, depends.  It'd buy a lot of cities for a noob.

 

You are a hippo.

[The Mad Titan]

500m wouldn't even buy 5 cities; it's quite meaningless in the overall scheme of things.

 

It all depends on what your alliance is composed of. It buys 71 city 7's (the last city that BK fully pays for). That is a lot of growth potential.

[Vanek26]

It all depends on what your alliance is composed of. It buys 71 city 7's (the last city that BK fully pays for). That is a lot of growth potential.

 

Mensa will be using it to buy 10 Nuclear Research Facilities, because nukes are the best weapon in the game. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

It all depends on what your alliance is composed of. It buys 71 city 7's (the last city that BK fully pays for). That is a lot of growth potential.

 

500m is 500m. Compare it to the alliance net damage numbers I posted, or the individual damages. According to Memph's tracker, I alone, as a player did damage worth $516,120,998 (absolute). Mensa, in total inflicted around $7 billion damage (net). VE suffered $6.4 billion (net). 500m is peanuts. It is less than the damage I as a person inflicted.

[Azaghul]

In fairness & actually being consistent unlike a lot of people on both sides. I do feel that VE was obligated by treaty to hit Mensa & whoever else they hit. The mutual aggression clause says they must attack with rose & common sense says that it should be where it is the most effective in the war effort. Treaties are all about helping your allies, piling onto an alliance that already has all their slots full (I'm assuming competence here) does not really helping the war effort overall. 

This.  Alliances usually don't engage every alliance their allies are war with, but work to put themselves where it will make the most sense.

Edited September 25, 2016 by Azaghul

[Kurdanak]

But I'm willing to be lenient with VE given they were very much along for the ride that Keegoz was driving.

 

Except in this case Keegoz also jumped out of the car. >_>