Pheonix Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Eh, I wouldn't applaud them as much as you'd think. They are supporting an aggressive war on an ally, whether they entered to defend an ally or not. To make it even worse, their BK treaty is non chaining, which makes their entry optional. Pretty much on par with the paper they have with an ally that was noCBed. Non chaining does not equal optional There is a difference between an MnDoAP and ODoAP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Non chaining does not equal optional There is a difference between an MnDoAP and ODoAP What? 1 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sans Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 Non chaining does not equal optional There is a difference between an MnDoAP and ODoAP You're right, in the case where an ally in attacked initially or whether they were chained in from another treaty/attacked aggressively. The differences between them do not apply in this case. 1 Quote “ Life before death. Strength before weakness. Journey before destination. †–The First Ideal of the Windrunners, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 CKD gets credit for helping. The status of a treaty doesn't really matter imo 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aesir Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 All the violence Quote Art by Faroreswind159 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Settra Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) CKD gets credit for helping. The status of a treaty doesn't really matter imo Are you advocating some treaties are worth 3/5's of other treaties? Edited April 18, 2017 by Robert E Lee 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcKnox Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 CKD gets credit for helping. The status of a treaty doesn't really matter imo Good thing we never allied with Lord A Arron 3 Quote Praise Dio. Every !@#$ing day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Puns Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 From what I gathered from my side of the war, the upper tier of IQ was vastly outnumbered by the upper tier of Syndisphere. If you look at Pantheon and t$ for example: and see how their upper tier handled, only very few of them entered into a defensive war despite being on the defense. It looks like mistakes from last war were made again, not properly managing strikes on the important targets but settling for easier picks which is where getting countered really screws you over. Nonetheless, while impossible to source via code, I would like to see what percentage of the blitz was successful according to victories. While I won the wars I fought I was out damaged because of consistent nuke strikes. Not arguing against the data, it clearly failed, but I would still like to see the outcome of the wars. 5 Quote 22:26 +Kadin: too far man 22:26 +Kadin: too far 22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: that's the point of incest Kadin 22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: to go farther 22:27 Bet: or father Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quichwe10 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) Good thing we never allied with Lord A Arron I wish we knew that earlier around December-January... actually, maybe earlier, can't quite remember. We were allies against the threat of raiders alongside the Night's Watch! We had something there! And the it came crashing down when Lordaeron ended it and attacked both of us, the Night's Watch and TFP. It was very sad times for us. Edited April 18, 2017 by Quichwe10 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PackAnimal Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 I'm not sure how we went from NPO not carrying their weight to CKD, but I respect CKD trying to help out their allies. I doesn't matter the context of the war. Their ally needed help and they gave it, despite no doubt being fully aware of the misalignment of tiers and ranging. Compared to BK, Zodiac et al backstabbing their allies it's nice to see an alliance simply defend their friends 2 Quote Mans two modes of existence can be thought of as his light and dark side. He is either the Protector or the Ravager. The Immovable Object or the Unstoppable Force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™ Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 BK lists it as an MDoAP We list it as an MnDoAP It depends on your interpretation of the original scripture. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 From what I gathered from my side of the war, the upper tier of IQ was vastly outnumbered by the upper tier of Syndisphere. If you look at Pantheon and t$ for example: and see how their upper tier handled, only very few of them entered into a defensive war despite being on the defense. It looks like mistakes from last war were made again, not properly managing strikes on the important targets but settling for easier picks which is where getting countered really screws you over. Nonetheless, while impossible to source via code, I would like to see what percentage of the blitz was successful according to victories. While I won the wars I fought I was out damaged because of consistent nuke strikes. Not arguing against the data, it clearly failed, but I would still like to see the outcome of the wars. From what I gathered from my side of the war, the upper tier of IQ was vastly outnumbered by the upper tier of Syndisphere. If you look at Pantheon and t$ for example: and see how their upper tier handled, only very few of them entered into a defensive war despite being on the defense. It looks like mistakes from last war were made again, not properly managing strikes on the important targets but settling for easier picks which is where getting countered really screws you over. Nonetheless, while impossible to source via code, I would like to see what percentage of the blitz was successful according to victories. While I won the wars I fought I was out damaged because of consistent nuke strikes. Not arguing against the data, it clearly failed, but I would still like to see the outcome of the wars. Mistakes from the preceding 5 or so wars haven't been learned you mean? People just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over with the main one being sending too many attackers at one or two alliances leaving themselves overextended and wide open to counters. Plus we still have clowns who think inflicting infra damage on day one or two is a priority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printer635 Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 From what I gathered from my side of the war, the upper tier of IQ was vastly outnumbered by the upper tier of Syndisphere. If you look at Pantheon and t$ for example: and see how their upper tier handled, only very few of them entered into a defensive war despite being on the defense. It looks like mistakes from last war were made again, not properly managing strikes on the important targets but settling for easier picks which is where getting countered really screws you over. Someone needs to give you a gov role. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord of Puns Posted April 18, 2017 Share Posted April 18, 2017 (edited) -delet- Edited April 18, 2017 by Lord of Puns Quote 22:26 +Kadin: too far man 22:26 +Kadin: too far 22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: that's the point of incest Kadin 22:26 Lordofpuns[boC]: to go farther 22:27 Bet: or father Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 BK lists it as an MDoAP We list it as an MnDoAP It depends on your interpretation of the original scripture. Interesting. In the end, we all have an internal codex for how we interpret treaties. I tend to view all the aggressive side's treaty activations as oA's basically, but not sure that's typical and this game really does punish people for putting in non-chaining clauses it seems. Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegoz Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Mistakes from the preceding 5 or so wars haven't been learned you mean? People just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over with the main one being sending too many attackers at one or two alliances leaving themselves overextended and wide open to counters. Plus we still have clowns who think inflicting infra damage on day one or two is a priority. Well considering half the fighters roughly were ex-OO or tS side last time. I'm not sure they're exactly repeating mistakes if they have never done them before Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avruch Posted April 19, 2017 Author Share Posted April 19, 2017 Well considering half the fighters roughly were ex-OO or tS side last time. I'm not sure they're exactly repeating mistakes if they have never done them before Right? It means they saw the effects of all the mistakes from the winning side, but STILL MADE THEM! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Eh, I wouldn't applaud them as much as you'd think. They are supporting an aggressive war on an ally, whether they entered to defend an ally or not. To make it even worse, their BK treaty is non chaining, which makes their entry optional. Pretty much on par with the paper they have with an ally that was noCBed. So what you saying is if an ally of yours was attacked that you had a Mutual Defense Pact in your treaty, you would not defend them? Even if that Alliance was in another, completely different Aggressive war happening at the same time? Please explain before my respect for you drops even further than it normally does because you are just the shit poster from TKR no one actually likes around here. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avruch Posted April 19, 2017 Author Share Posted April 19, 2017 So what you saying is if an ally of yours was attacked that you had a Mutual Defense Pact in your treaty, you would not defend them? Even if that Alliance was in another, completely different Aggressive war happening at the same time? Please explain before my respect for you drops even further than it normally does because you are just the shit poster from TKR no one actually likes around here. Whoa, kinda rude! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vonnorman Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 I dont feel bad at all for fighting against pantheon, they are always fun. And memph? You raskal lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Whoa, kinda rude! Yeah, Kayser is a shit though. Even TKR gov admitted it several times to me in the past to not take him seriously. Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sketchy Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 So what you saying is if an ally of yours was attacked that you had a Mutual Defense Pact in your treaty, you would not defend them? Even if that Alliance was in another, completely different Aggressive war happening at the same time? Please explain before my respect for you drops even further than it normally does because you are just the shit poster from TKR no one actually likes around here. His point was CKD had a non-chaining MDoAP with BK. BK attacked Rose, CKD's ODoAP ally, then Pantheon attacked BK, in defense of Rose, then CKD attacked Pantheon in Defense of BK. So CKD were effectively contributing to the fight against their own ally (Rose), based on a treaty that was non-chaining and therefore they weren't obligated to enter. Personally I don't care, his point was that the legality and morality of the situation was far more grey. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doktor Avalanche Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 (edited) His point was CKD had a non-chaining MDoAP with BK. BK attacked Rose, CKD's ODoAP ally, then Pantheon attacked BK, in defense of Rose, then CKD attacked Pantheon in Defense of BK. So CKD were effectively contributing to the fight against their own ally (Rose), based on a treaty that was non-chaining and therefore they weren't obligated to enter. Personally I don't care, his point was that the legality and morality of the situation was far more grey. LOL Like TKR would avoid that type of situation. Like any alliance would avoid that confrontation when they hold a Mutual Defense Pact in their treaty. To not defend would be a shitty ally. Very cool that Rose has no qualms about it. EDIT: I thought Rose attacked BK? Edited April 19, 2017 by The King in Yellow Quote Beer. Damn Good Beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Memph Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 That appears to be the case yes. Perhaps the game changes since previous wars has contributed to all this as I remember back when tS was fighting wars with a disadvantage at the top with, nations in alliances like Rose mostly going untouched even, they still would pull out the wins. Certainly seems to me that NPO overkilled on the staying low mechanic they wished to exploit, and bumping it up to 12ish cities would have been better. Yeah, the numbers became even or in our favour at city counts closer to the top tier. So they might have had 50 nations at the top in a bracket where they outnumbered us, while now we have about 200 up top in a bracket where we outnumber them. However we were able to expand our area of control into their top at least partially for most wars. In Silent War their top was completely taken out and in the previous wars we came close and could have done it but it wasn't worth it keeping hundreds of nations militarized just to take out a few last nations. I don't think IQ has done that so far this war, in fact I think it's been the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 EDIT: I thought Rose attacked BK? No, BK preempted Rose. Pantheon attacked BK, however. 1 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg 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.