Jump to content
Mikey

Seven Kingdoms Declaration of War

Recommended Posts

On a side note.

 

"The Dong Axis and Terminus Est agree that no new war declarations will occur in this conflict between us. The signatories also agree to uphold peace for a period of two weeks following the war. Should anyone who participated in this war break that peace and, instead of rebuilding, re-declare in revenge for things that happened in this war, it is agreed that the coalition will come together to counter the aggressor once more."

 

SK participated in the war, though not signed, this was directly stemming from our bank being raided. I look forward to the coalitions declaration on SK as our peace was broken and our rebuild interrupted. 

 

The bank of TEst itself was never touched, only the bank a single 1 man micro. Sure it turns out he was hiding your bank, but I don't know why you wouldn't expect a 1 man AA with no visible ties to you to be treated as your member, his bank to be treated as your bank, or to not get raided. Moreover he was already raiding our members so we sent in a counter, which happened to be successful and get the loot. I understand the reasoning behind your decision as an alliance to just raid everybody towards the end, and for the most part it worked out and made good sense. But don't get upset when some of those raids get countered and you happened to lose a billion because you send the bank hiding nations to attack people. We'd view that money as legitimately won even if he was in TEst due to the raids on us, let alone the fact he was in a different alliance (without even a mention in his bio he was from TEst).

 

All of our other conflicts played out the same. You raided us, we sent counters to those raiders. If thats a war now the wiki is going to need to add a lot of new entries.

 

Being in the chat, I can say that's entirely untrue. You did call them in. Do not lie.

 

Being in the chat you were also aware we were a day away from attacking TEst when peace broke out.

 

Let me clear this up,

 

Valyria came to me the same night they were hit, and after awhile, we got called into a chatroom and decided we'd hell by hitting Arrgh only, because they hit our ally in Nights Watch. Even though it was an ODP, our allies are very important to us. In that chatroom were the various members of GoTsphere and Lordaeron(minus WTF who decided they weren't coming in). We figured out a plan of action and were going to execute it, however I elected to drop out and opt for peace(provided that it was a valid peace offer), because Polaris wasn't militerizing as fast as necessary for us to pull off the plan. They were supposed to anchor and Lordaeron had a higher military at the time, it wasn't going to work.

 

Anyway, I talked to Bluebear and Prefontaine and got peace, the terms weren't that bad and I felt comfortable not going in knowing what they were. They weren't humiliating nor would they seriously hurt Valyria and after talking with Bluebear we finished the war and obtained peace.

 

I'm not saying SK was a bad ally here or anything, but they were in the chatroom and militerizing, so I'm confident that they were called in, they called Lordaeron in and we had around 30k-40k score, so I'm sure that SK was called in. They also definitely called Polaris in.

 

I can most of this. Initially though Valyria hadn't expected the attack and notified their allies they didn't want them joining. After discussing with them and Polaris we reversed that and began planning the entry. The only real point of contention on our end (or my end, I didn't really read the entire bluebear/tywin exchange) is with claims we weren't going to help.

 

I mean... going to war with TEst now doesn't exactly get 'getting into a war with TEst' out of the way. You just added another war in the long line of wars that will keep happening because you keep giving them a reason to go to war with you. Next time they hit you they'll use this as a reason, so I don't exactly see the point of going to war with them to "get it out of the way".

 

You're right, short of permanently occupying them, which won't happen,  we can't stop them from ever coming back for us. And as many have pointed out they may well choose to do so down the line. Perhaps wars between us will continue, though I would disagree that the loot from their bank nation, given the circumstances around it (not being in TEst and also raiding us) was a pretty poor reason in the first place. Regardless, its true, as others pointed out, they may just come back again when they're built up. But if the only way to truly prevent future wars between us and TEst....is to wait and allow them to launch the promised future war...its not really so useful.

 

 

There's a lot flying in this thread about our lack of "honor" or how this isn't a fair fight, how we aren't impressing anyone, etc etc. Of course we aren't. We didn't expect to and its clearly not about demonstrating our might or w/e it is people think. Its simple. Through your weight around it might just get thrown back you.

Edited by Mikey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean don't get me wrong, I as an individual support this war (not speaking for all of TUE). Who cares about honor and fair fights? TEst was in no position to threaten you since they were weak. I say hit them while they're down for thinking they're important enough to matter.

 

Some people should know when to put their ego aside and realize they F'd up and are in no position to make demands. Good for you SK for showing them they're really not all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean don't get me wrong, I as an individual support this war (not speaking for all of TUE). Who cares about honor and fair fights? TEst was in no position to threaten you since they were weak. I say hit them while they're down for thinking they're important enough to matter.

 

Some people should know when to put their ego aside and realize they F'd up and are in no position to make demands. Good for you SK for showing them they're really not all that.

 

To be very fair, at the time this supposed threat was given, if it even can be called that, TEst was very much in every position to threat. The fight was always going to be tough but given their incompetence it could've been won actually. The splinters and TEst kind of disbanding changed everything obviously. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this sudden outbreak of "fair fights" and "what's the point in fighting, you can't keep someone down forever" to be rather absurd.  I know there are those out there who have this real hate boner for SK but really now can't you try and and relieve your pain in a less dishonest way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dishonest is an interesting choice of words. why do you feel the current sk criticism is dishonest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can behind people worrying about fair fights and honor in many circumstances. From an OOC perspective I don't really care. People can play however they want, and act however they want in-game, and it wont effect my character judgement of the man/woman behind the monitor. But there is an RP element to these games and of course in-game we deal with the personas presented, which aren't always analogous to the people themselves, and it can be fun to get into the politics and morality etc from that perspective.

 

But there's a time and place for it. I think if we had just attacked them over nothing, or even went so far as to claim this a good fight or a good testament to our strength or some BS like that people would be very justified to call us out over it. But we're not doing this because we wanted a war and we're not claiming it to be some kind of even matchup or a good test (get it) and we're certainly not asking for any accolades or respect over it. We're just responding to what we see as very clear provocation.

 

Its possible, as some have suggested, TEst wouldn't have attacked us after their rebuild, I will admit. They could always decide not to follow through, they can do anything as a sovereign alliance. But I don't have access to the minds of their leaders or their gov forums. The only thing I have to go by are the words spelled out to me in writing by the leader of their alliance. I don't think its unfair to operate on the assumption that what we were told is true. I'm certainly not going to rely on our enemies simply deciding they dont feel like following through. We've learned the hard way (and probably shouldn't have needed to learn) that you can't just stick to your little corner and not pay attention to anything and hope for the best, especially when such an actionable and clear threat is given.

Edited by Mikey
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can behind people worrying about fair fights and honor in many circumstances. From an OOC perspective I don't really care. People can play however they want, and act however they want in-game, and it wont effect my character judgement of the man/woman behind the monitor. But there is an RP element to these games and of course in-game we deal with the personas presented, which aren't always analogous to the people themselves, and it can be fun to get into the politics and morality etc from that perspective.

 

But there's a time and place for it. I think if we had just attacked them over nothing, or even went so far as to claim this a good fight or a good testament to our strength or some BS like that people would be very justified to call us out over it. But we're not doing this because we wanted a war and we're not claiming it to be some kind of even matchup or a good test (get it) and we're certainly not asking for any accolades or respect over it. We're just responding to what we see as very clear provocation.

 

Its possible, as some have suggested, TEst wouldn't have attacked us after their rebuild, I will admit. They could always decide not to follow through, they can do anything as a sovereign alliance. But I don't have access to the minds of their leaders or their gov forums. The only thing I have to go by are the words spelled out to me in writing by the leader of their alliance. I don't think its unfair to operate on the assumption that what we were told is true. I'm certainly not going to rely on our enemies simply deciding they dont feel like following through. We've learned the hard way (and probably shouldn't have needed to learn) that you can't just stick to your little corner and not pay attention to anything and hope for the best, especially when such an actionable and clear threat is given.

No one is reading your posts and you're not convincing anyone.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can behind people worrying about fair fights and honor in many circumstances. From an OOC perspective I don't really care. People can play however they want, and act however they want in-game, and it wont effect my character judgement of the man/woman behind the monitor. But there is an RP element to these games and of course in-game we deal with the personas presented, which aren't always analogous to the people themselves, and it can be fun to get into the politics and morality etc from that perspective.

 

But there's a time and place for it. I think if we had just attacked them over nothing, or even went so far as to claim this a good fight or a good testament to our strength or some BS like that people would be very justified to call us out over it. But we're not doing this because we wanted a war and we're not claiming it to be some kind of even matchup or a good test (get it) and we're certainly not asking for any accolades or respect over it. We're just responding to what we see as very clear provocation.

 

Its possible, as some have suggested, TEst wouldn't have attacked us after their rebuild, I will admit. They could always decide not to follow through, they can do anything as a sovereign alliance. But I don't have access to the minds of their leaders or their gov forums. The only thing I have to go by are the words spelled out to me in writing by the leader of their alliance. I don't think its unfair to operate on the assumption that what we were told is true. I'm certainly not going to rely on our enemies simply deciding they dont feel like following through. We've learned the hard way (and probably shouldn't have needed to learn) that you can't just stick to your little corner and not pay attention to anything and hope for the best, especially when such an actionable and clear threat is given.

 

This still doesn't justify you saying your alliance was never a push over, after what TEst and Mensa & Co have done to you in past though.. A lot of issue stems from the fact that you're trying to now claim some sort of honour in not being pushed around when you took it so happily before. Sure, I will understand if it said we're trying not to be push-overs anymore, but this never thing is a bit of a stretch. 

 

Also, once again, I really don't understand, you say your reason behind attacking is because TEst said it might war you in future. How exactly will you warring them during already being rolled stop it? Obviously, this would have only worked if you guys wanted a permanent war on TEst til the end of time, otherwise, they could've always lived up to the threat, all the more. So my question is, did you want to war them permanently? What resolution did you expect?

 

Obviously the above scenario is moot since TEst was kind of disbanding anyway so just shows how out of touch with reality you guys are since TEst doing this was very public knowledge, or you just wanted to act tough on an alliance on it's way out in a desperate attempt to salvage your lost reputation. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find this sudden outbreak of "fair fights" and "what's the point in fighting, you can't keep someone down forever" to be rather absurd. I know there are those out there who have this real hate boner for SK but really now can't you try and and relieve your pain in a less dishonest way?

Along with Obelisk, you will be flattened come February.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is reading your posts and you're not convincing anyone.

 

You are :wub: I do everything for you baby don't you see?

 

This still doesn't justify you saying your alliance was never a push over, after what TEst and Mensa & Co have done to you in past though.. A lot of issue stems from the fact that you're trying to now claim some sort of honour in not being pushed around when you took it so happily before. Sure, I will understand if it said we're trying not to be push-overs anymore, but this never thing is a bit of a stretch. 

 

Also, once again, I really don't understand, you say your reason behind attacking is because TEst said it might war you in future. How exactly will you warring them during already being rolled stop it? Obviously, this would have only worked if you guys wanted a permanent war on TEst til the end of time, otherwise, they could've always lived up to the threat, all the more. So my question is, did you want to war them permanently? What resolution did you expect?

 

Obviously the above scenario is moot since TEst was kind of disbanding anyway so just shows how out of touch with reality you guys are since TEst doing this was very public knowledge, or you just wanted to act tough on an alliance on it's way out in a desperate attempt to salvage your lost reputation. 

 

There's no attempt to salvage anything here reputation wise or win any kind of "honor". They thought they could throw their weight around and threaten us over the resources, and they thought wrong. Thats what we are referring to along with a bit of rhetorical flourish in the DoW (unless you think we were also trying to give a history lesson when we opened with "SK is an old alliance" and the rest of the fluff).

 

And you are right, short of perma war we can't physically stop them from coming back in the future if they want. I'll concede that again as I have before. We certainly don't intend to perma occupy them. But we also don't intend to give in to their demands or just accept the slap in the face and bald faced threat that was their statement. You can argue it was just a 'statement' and there was no threat. But when he talks about how they'll want a war once they have rebuilt, and that war will be us unless we give them the money, its pretty easy to see why we'd take it as a threat.

 

This is an obviously imbalanced war and we neither expected nor hoped to gain any respect, external or internal, over this action. Its not about that. Its about responding to provocation. You tell us your going to hit us, then we're going to hit you. Or is that not legitimate grounds for war? It sucks to be hit under the circumstances they have but they made the bed and they get to lie in it. It wasn't a bad gamble and I'm sure he had reason to believe we would give in or otherwise do nothing at the least but in the end it backfired and now here we are.

 

Unless you think they should go throwing their weight around with no consequences? Its a game, war is a part of that, and they are well within their rights as a sovereign alliance to try and strong arm us if they want to, I'm not going to dictate to anyone how they should play. But we are also within our rights to respond to those provocations  and I'm honestly not sure why everyone is so surprised we are acting this way. If we went to TEst and tried to get...anything really, from them through threats of force I'd bet we'd be staring down the barrel of their guns within days. We're no different.

Edited by Mikey
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dishonest is an interesting choice of words. why do you feel the current sk criticism is dishonest?

When I see people complaining that we are not having a "fair" fight I can't help but roll my eyes considering the history of conflicts in this game.  Like in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) before it people don't go for anything that is "fair" much of the time and the same people who are complaining here themselves are guilty of what they are accusing us of here now, Test included.  Same with the Valyria situation, they themselves have no issue with what occurred, we really were planning on jumping in yet still we "betrayed them" or some nonsense. 

 

People can criticize us of things like our foreign policy and how well we prepare and do in fights, such is reasonable toward any alliance even if I may not agree with the conclusions.  The above though is simply pathetic and its hypocritical on the face of it.

 

Along with Obelisk, you will be flattened come February.

Well at least you are open about your desires. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

People can criticize us of things like our foreign policy and how well we prepare and do in fights, such is reasonable toward any alliance even if I may not agree with the conclusions.  The above though is simply pathetic and its hypocritical on the face of it.

 

 

 

oh ok - i see what you meant now. i thought you meant dishonest in the literal sense that critics of you guys were saying it isn't a fair fight when it actually is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are :wub: I do everything for you baby don't you see?

 

 

There's no attempt to salvage anything here reputation wise or win any kind of "honor". They thought they could throw their weight around and threaten us over the resources, and they thought wrong. Thats what we are referring to along with a bit of rhetorical flourish in the DoW (unless you think we were also trying to give a history lesson when we opened with "SK is an old alliance" and the rest of the fluff).

 

And you are right, short of perma war we can't physically stop them from coming back in the future if they want. I'll concede that again as I have before. We certainly don't intend to perma occupy them. But we also don't intend to give in to their demands or just accept the slap in the face and bald faced threat that was their statement. You can argue it was just a 'statement' and there was no threat. But when he talks about how they'll want a war once they have rebuilt, and that war will be us unless we give them the money, its pretty easy to see why we'd take it as a threat.

 

This is an obviously imbalanced war and we neither expected nor hoped to gain any respect, external or internal, over this action. Its not about that. Its about responding to provocation. You tell us your going to hit us, then we're going to hit you. Or is that not legitimate grounds for war? It sucks to be hit under the circumstances they have but they made the bed and they get to lie in it. It wasn't a bad gamble and I'm sure he had reason to believe we would give in or otherwise do nothing at the least but in the end it backfired and now here we are.

 

Unless you think they should go throwing their weight around with no consequences? Its a game, war is a part of that, and they are well within their rights as a sovereign alliance to try and strong arm us if they want to, I'm not going to dictate to anyone how they should play. But we are also within our rights to respond to those provocations  and I'm honestly not sure why everyone is so surprised we are acting this way. If we went to TEst and tried to get...anything really, from them through threats of force I'd bet we'd be staring down the barrel of their guns within days. We're no different.

 

Once again, maybe you didn't read what I said, but my issue against your current CB of never being push overs was that it's all you did in the past few months. TEst wiped the floor with your ally and walked without any issues. Mensa & Co did the same of your entire sphere and walked off. Then TEst threatened you, and you didn't act. Then members in TEst started leaving to other alliances and forming splinters, while in public saying TEst was kind of disbanding and ending. Suddenly, you guys discovered courage and honour? It's a tough sell mate. Just say you saw an easy opportunity and wanted to take it. 

 

I'm really not against you guys warring, war as much as you want. Just don't use silly reasons or justifications for it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I see people complaining that we are not having a "fair" fight I can't help but roll my eyes considering the history of conflicts in this game.  Like in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) before it people don't go for anything that is "fair" much of the time and the same people who are complaining here themselves are guilty of what they are accusing us of here now, Test included.  Same with the Valyria situation, they themselves have no issue with what occurred, we really were planning on jumping in yet still we "betrayed them" or some nonsense. 

 

People can criticize us of things like our foreign policy and how well we prepare and do in fights, such is reasonable toward any alliance even if I may not agree with the conclusions.  The above though is simply pathetic and its hypocritical on the face of it.

 

Well at least you are open about your desires. :P

 

For what it's worth, I don't think any former or current TEst is talking about fair fighting or anything fair really. If they are, they really shouldn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, maybe you didn't read what I said, but my issue against your current CB of never being push overs was that it's all you did in the past few months. TEst wiped the floor with your ally and walked without any issues. Mensa & Co did the same of your entire sphere and walked off. Then TEst threatened you, and you didn't act. Then members in TEst started leaving to other alliances and forming splinters, while in public saying TEst was kind of disbanding and ending. Suddenly, you guys discovered courage and honour? It's a tough sell mate. Just say you saw an easy opportunity and wanted to take it. 

 

I'm really not against you guys warring, war as much as you want. Just don't use silly reasons or justifications for it. 

 

We've never given into threats of force before. Yeah Mensa kicked our shit in, no denying that. I'm not meaning to claim, with that phrasing, that we don't lose wars (sometimes quite badly). Poor choice of words perhaps Its a largely rhetorical flourish that also holds true in that we have never given in to demands and threats. We've lost wars, yes. But this isn't about claiming to be elite fighters or that we are somehow better fighters than TEst, which we aren't. Its a point that then, as now, you can make demands of us if you wish but dont expect us to accede.

 

The valyria thing is barely worth responding to at this point. TEst reached peace less than 48 hours after going in. In that period our score was climbing, our top member deserted to avoid any fighting (ironic given the war ended before that :P ) and allies and even Kylo have confirmed that we were in planning with Valyrias other allies and prepping for a large counter of our own to try and turn the war around. We could have rushed in day 1 with no real blitz or plan or military (it was a failing on our part that we were unprepared for an immediate fight, I acknowledge that). But we learned that lesson the hard way with Valyria in the Silent War where we both did the same to t$ and got demolished and accomplished nothing. We'd rather wait a few days to coordinate a larger offensive to try and turn the war around and actually relieve the pressure on them then rush in a symbolic gesture that accomplishes nothing and leaves them at TEsts mercy.

 

As for the splinters, it was bad timing I suppose, but I don't think it really plays into the "fairness" of the war. TEst was already at 0 mil and it was never a fair war. never claimed it to be. Never claimed that this represented some courage or honor on our part either (some non SK people have, in what seems to me a very tongue-in-cheek way). They through their weight around, it got thrown back. Thats it.

Edited by Mikey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

however I elected to drop out and opt for peace(provided that it was a valid peace offer), because Polaris wasn't militerizing as fast as necessary for us to pull off the plan. They were supposed to anchor and Lordaeron had a higher military at the time, it wasn't going to work.

 

Anyway, I talked to Bluebear and Prefontaine and got peace, the terms weren't that bad and I felt comfortable not going in knowing what they were. They weren't humiliating nor would they seriously hurt Valyria and after talking with Bluebear we finished the war and obtained peace.

 

Pretty sure you slated us to NW for accepting peace as it made us "look weak" and tried to get them to drop us, but we'll skip that part ay?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've never given into threats of force before. Yeah Mensa kicked our shit in, no denying that. I'm not meaning to claim, with that phrasing, that we don't lose wars (sometimes quite badly). Poor choice of words perhaps Its a largely rhetorical flourish that also holds true in that we have never given in to demands and threats. We've lost wars, yes. But this isn't about claiming to be elite fighters or that we are somehow better fighters than TEst, which we aren't. Its a point that then, as now, you can make demands of us if you wish but dont expect us to accede.

 

The valyria thing is barely worth responding to at this point. TEst reached peace less than 48 hours after going in. In that period our score was climbing, our top member deserted to avoid any fighting (ironic given the war ended before that :P ) and allies and even Kylo have confirmed that we were in planning with Valyrias other allies and prepping for a large counter of our own to try and turn the war around. We could have rushed in day 1 with no real blitz or plan or military (it was a failing on our part that we were unprepared for an immediate fight, I acknowledge that). But we learned that lesson the hard way with Valyria in the Silent War where we both did the same to t$ and got demolished and accomplished nothing. We'd rather wait a few days to coordinate a larger offensive to try and turn the war around and actually relieve the pressure on them then rush in a symbolic gesture that accomplishes nothing and leaves them at TEsts mercy.

 

As for the splinters, it was bad timing I suppose, but I don't think it really plays into the "fairness" of the war. TEst was already at 0 mil and it was never a fair war. never claimed it to be. Never claimed that this represented some courage or honor on our part either (some non SK people have, in what seems to me a very tongue-in-cheek way). They through their weight around, it got thrown back. Thats it.

 

So I guess it all comes down to Valyria's terrible handling of affairs which gave SK a bad name?

 

Also, when I said the honour part, I meant your war dec. going all never been a push over type stuff. 

Edited by Tywin Lannister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure you slated us to NW for accepting peace as it made us "look weak" and tried to get them to drop us, but we'll skip that part ay?

 

Kylo got one thing right then, it did make you guys look very weak. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why its interesting that SK didn't react belligerently to Mensa or someone else but did to TEst in this instance. TEst made what sound like threats (but to others may be banter) from a position of weakness. That's usually bad strategy, and it backfired in this case. If I were in SK's position I might've made the same decision, even if I interpreted the "splintering" to be smoke and mirrors. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure you slated us to NW for accepting peace as it made us "look weak" and tried to get them to drop us, but we'll skip that part ay?

It made you look weak and they should've dropped you. The reason they've been rolled 3 times already is because your lack of ability to protect them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get why its interesting that SK didn't react belligerently to Mensa or someone else but did to TEst in this instance. TEst made what sound like threats (but to others may be banter) from a position of weakness. That's usually bad strategy, and it backfired in this case. If I were in SK's position I might've made the same decision, even if I interpreted the "splintering" to be smoke and mirrors. 

 

You don't come from the same history they come though. The fact SK decided to do this given the time is funny and how they suddenly remembered about not wanting to be a push over. All it took was 90% of TEst leaving. 

 

It would be a different story if Mensa had never come to aid of an ally for example and let them get humiliated, so the history + what they're saying now is just hard to add up. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.