Jump to content

[PEACE] "We were never at war..."


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Arln Nen said:

About 3:2 to be exact 

You put time into making a multi sphere dream?!?!?!? What the hell is Mystery Inc it definitely it isn’t a mini sphere, mate!

So would you like to count nations or tiering right now? I can show you the numbers and stats of Mystery Inc we are 100 nations bigger than HM and Rose 200 nations bellow Oasis and 300 nations bellow T$ sphere. Tiering we dont stand out in any single tier since we dont have 30 c40s or 300 c15s so do explain how we arent a small sphere? 

Also I thought TKR splitting was to help make multi sphere come true but i guess not. 

Edited by Kan0601
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Kan0601 said:

So would you like to count nations or tiering right now? I can show you the numbers and stats of Mystery Inc we are 100 nations bigger than HM and Rose 200 nations bellow Oasis and 300 nations bellow T$ sphere. Tiering we dont stand out in any single tier since we dont have 30 c40s or 300 c15s so do explain how we arent a small sphere? 

Also I thought TKR splitting was to help make multi sphere come true but i guess not. 

This argument is not a new one. You know who else claimed that it was fine for one sphere to have a bunch more nations than another sphere due to tiering? IQ.

It was a bullshit narrative back then (as proven by what we saw in Dial Up), and it still is. It’s funny that there’s a lot of the same people making the same arguments.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

This argument is not a new one. You know who else claimed that it was fine for one sphere to have a bunch more nations than another sphere due to tiering? IQ.

It was a bullshit narrative back then (as proven by what we saw in Dial Up), and it still is. It’s funny that there’s a lot of the same people making the same arguments.

Hold up did you read anything I wrote because clearly you didnt. I said Mystery Inc doesnt have the most nations or the tiering advantage so where did you get IQ and more nation arguement from my last comment.

If you are talking about my other arguement about nations vs tiering then you are mistaken, IQ is one sphere that is has enough lower tier nations to take on almost the whole game. I am talking about 3 spheres adding up together to have this much lower tier nations if you split it up no one sphere has that amount of lower tier nations to do what IQ did. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

We have 30 c40s?  that is more than twice what grumpy has, has one of my new allies been holding out on me?  It it you BK?  I bet its you guys, you sly dogs...

Kan, if you are going to sit here and cry about numbers, you probably should use actually accurate numbers to make your point, or how can any of us take you seriously?

Now hold up I was generalising it as you can see I put 300 c15 lol, I don’t mind go in detail about statistics if you would like, do DM me we can chat about the stats. I am trying to point out our lower tier numbers (most of the coalition is lower tier) can’t touch your c30 plus or c40 plus so trying to say 3:1 ratio doesn’t work. Of course we can try to calculate how many each side has that can hit upper tier like c25 can attack a c30 but you would need 3 c25 to fight 1 c30. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

I would explain to you the inherent weakness of our upper tier, but I am not in the habit of telling people how to beat us, even tho its not too hard to figure out.

And then you go and spoil it on Morf Radio, nice work Ronny.

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The argument that HW has broken trust, sphere'd up to hit Rose with hegemonic intent is flawed.  It is somewhat pathological in the unaligned/unconcerned to automatically conclude it necessary to develop an even bigger sphere to counter.

To initiate a war with the intent of winning, valid CB or not, it is normal to obtain an advantage or two to ensure a quick and clear win.  This is manifest in IRL military doctrine (at a super simplistic level this is a minimum of 3:1) and is also applicable here.  Whining about a dogpile (especially if your idea of a dogpile is the reported 1.3 : 1) in the first instance is just that, whining.  Bogging the public discussion down into tiers, city counts, militarization is just a straw-man tactic.  In the current context it is only the inexperienced and small minded who are won over by such diversions. 

It is clear to me at least that Rose had it coming (however this is a different argument), and what may have been a war of a few weeks with a bit of back slapping and banter at the end before moving on has now deteriorated into tears from some, and the prospects of a somewhat more drawn out affair.  Indeed the tears and rage largely appears in HW's opposition despite their numbers advantage 😂

Ultimately the current situation is not the direct and natural result of TKR and friends joining for the specific purpose of rolling Rose, but the conscious and fear driven inclination of what seems like close to 50% of Orbis jumping on the bandwagon to be on the winning side, or to otherwise just scratch that TKR induced itch hahaha

PS.  I will own to a certain TKR bias in all my published works, and as such I apologize to our current allies should I have under-represented any itchiness deserving of recognition you may be causing our opponents.

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Etat said:

The argument that HW has broken trust, sphere'd up to hit Rose with hegemonic intent is flawed.  It is somewhat pathological in the unaligned/unconcerned to automatically conclude it necessary to develop an even bigger sphere to counter.

To initiate a war with the intent of winning, valid CB or not, it is normal to obtain an advantage or two to ensure a quick and clear win.  This is manifest in IRL military doctrine (at a super simplistic level this is a minimum of 3:1) and is also applicable here.

 

Agreed. Now think about this, but from the other side's perspective. Sure, they could just wait while you took out Rose and then took out anyone else you pleased. Other spheres decided it was in their best interests to group together against you guys and have a numbers advantage themselves, at least in various tiers. I mean, as you say, this is manifest in IRL military.

Edited by Phoenyx
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

 

Agreed. Now think about this, but from the other side's perspective. Sure, they could just wait while you took out Rose and then took out anyone else you pleased. Other spheres decided it was in their best interests to group together against you guys and have a numbers advantage themselves, at least in various tiers. I mean, as you say, this is manifest in IRL military.

Oh absolutely.  From the perspective of Rose just trying to win after being caught flat footed, there is no argument :)  And before I bring up some other discussion points, I'd just say that in actual terms I am very happy with the way this war is unfolding for now, nothing wrong with burning pixels every now and again. Though in general the OWF performance leaves a bit to be desired (no real surprise there though I guess haha)

Anyway, and I'm really no FA guru, being dimly aware of the various unpredicted entries into this war coupled with the rage broadcast against a HW hegemony, I wonder at what has prompted this.  TKR fought to the end against such a thing not so long back, and we are very much the same beast as we were then.  So what information have you that I do not suggesting hegemonic intent?  There is yet to be any info intimating Rose was just the start of an Orbis wide rolling spree.  I can vouch for the majority of my tier and up the boredom we experienced while draining the swamp.  I can also vouch for the enthusiasm, general increase in player enjoyment and participation now we're on the receiving end (albeit unintentionally).  I cannot see how this can be interpreted as a sphere intent on suppressing Orbis, as opposed to a sphere having some fun.  That as an argument to join against HW in the absence of any ties is flimsy at best, but I think actually untenable.

I think the only concerning thing is the anti-hegemon narrative that is being put out there against HW.  The resurrection of that anti-IQ sentiment, despite such a devil not existing, and aimed at HW with the possible consequence of the sort of war we all undertook to prevent/avoid a year ago.

Edited by Etat
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, I hope this doesn't end with TKR leaving the game due to frustration and taking several people with them, in like six months. 

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Etat said:

Oh absolutely.  From the perspective of Rose just trying to win after being caught flat footed, there is no argument :)  And before I bring up some other discussion points, I'd just say that in actual terms I am very happy with the way this war is unfolding for now, nothing wrong with burning pixels every now and again. Though in general the OWF performance leaves a bit to be desired (no real surprise there though I guess haha)

OWF?

3 hours ago, Etat said:

Anyway, and I'm really no FA guru, being dimly aware of the various unpredicted entries into this war coupled with the rage broadcast against a HW hegemony, I wonder at what has prompted this.  TKR fought to the end against such a thing not so long back, and we are very much the same beast as we were then. 

 

I'm guessing you mean that TKR fought along with most Alliances against NPO. Anyway, I'm not saying that you aren't much the same as then. However, I was intrigued by God Emperor mentioning Knightfall, and it looks like, before NPO's last time, you guys were part of the Bloc that others decided had to be trimmed a bit. For those who aren't aware of the history of Knightfall, here's the PnW wiki on it:

https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/Knightfall

 

3 hours ago, Etat said:

So what information have you that I do not suggesting hegemonic intent?  There is yet to be any info intimating Rose was just the start of an Orbis wide rolling spree. 

Let's consider that members of Hollywood were already doing aggressive moves before Hollywood was even formed:

1- HM attacked Delta. Delta, a very small sphere in comparison, definitely didn't want that war and sued for peace terms almost immediately. 

2- Quack's last ride, of which TKR was a member was basically initiated because some members of Swamp were talking tough concerning Quack in their own inner circles. Now while this one does seem a tad more justifiable, the idea that even -suggesting- attacking a sphere can result in war is what got Quack in trouble last time, with the Leaky Faucet conflict, of which TKR was also a member.  Ironically, it seems that it was Hedge Money itself that did the suggesting. And now, well, you guys are buddies with Hedge. Don't you find that a tad ironic? I mean, it makes sense if the goal is to be the biggest Bloc on the block, but not so much otherwise. 

Furthermore, In yesterday's Morph Radio show, Tyrion mentioned something about someone of importance in Hollywood intimating that Oasis might be next.

Finally, there's the fact that Hollywood hadn't even finished writing their declaration of existence before declaring war on Rose. The declaration of war itself was problematic, especially when it was revealed that the initially hidden CB for this declaration was the fact that Rose had entered the Leaky Faucet conflict, another conflict in which a Bloc was considered too big and aggressive to continue its wars on other Blocs without intervention. Interestingly, in -that- conflict, you were part of the Bloc that attacked HM and Rose was one of the Blocs that came to HM's rescue. You'd think HM would have been a little more appreciative of that, but instead, they're attacking Rose because they... helped them last time? And make no mistake, in any conflict with Quack, Grumpy's Ronny had specifically stated that he didn't want to get into a war with them -unless- Rose was part of the Coalition against them. Strange logic, but hey, if the goal is hegemony, things such as logical CBs don't really matter much, do they?

Edited by Phoenyx
Added information
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Grumpy's Ronny had specifically stated that he didn't want to get into a war with them -unless- Rose was part of the Coalition against them. Strange logic, but hey, if the goal is hegemony, things such as logical CBs don't really matter much, do they

The selling out of Hedge is where I miss the joke punchline or troll attempt. Then to turn around and complain about being dog piled when all they do is enter wars after an alliance has been slotted, including joining the side they think will win; Quack in this instance, is just a bad look. 

I understand they can do what they want but volunteering to be a little sister to Quack and being total parrots of their deceptive propaganda (not even trying to sound any different as well) isn't "based". 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Deulos said:

The selling out of Hedge is where I miss the joke punchline or troll attempt. Then to turn around and complain about being dog piled when all they do is enter wars after an alliance has been slotted, including joining the side they think will win; Quack in this instance, is just a bad look. 

I understand they can do what they want but volunteering to be a little sister to Quack and being total parrots of their deceptive propaganda (not even trying to sound any different as well) isn't "based". 

Technically, it's now Hollywood, though TKR was in both. The bit about winning is on point though. As I mentioned with Etat, I have nothing against wanting to be on the winning side. But when you sell out your former allies to do so, that doesn't look so good to me. 

Edited by Phoenyx
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

OWF?

OWF is Open World Forum, aka the Politics and War Forums that we're currently typing on.

5 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

I'm guessing you mean that TKR fought along with most Alliances against NPO. Anyway, I'm not saying that you aren't much the same as then. However, I was intrigued by God Emperor mentioning Knightfall, and it looks like, before NPO's last time, you guys were part of the Bloc that others decided had to be trimmed a bit. For those who aren't aware of the history of Knightfall, here's the PnW wiki on it:

https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/Knightfall

Listening to Fist is generally a bad idea, just for the record. He's well known for maintaining long time grudges against several alliances here and only popping out of the woodwork to spout hate and nonsense and then disappear again. And I'm not sure where you're going with this attempt at a comparison either. Folks had a wide variety of reasons for wanting to hit us then and we gave them the opportunity when we broke up EMC and downsized our sphere. Trying to equate the reason for that war to a predisposition for hegemonic actions shows that you still have quite a bit more research to do.

5 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Let's consider that members of Hollywood were already doing aggressive moves before Hollywood was even formed:

1- HM attacked Delta. Delta, a very small sphere in comparison, definitely didn't want that war and sued for peace terms almost immediately. 

2- Quack's last ride, of which TKR was a member was basically initiated because some members of Swamp were talking tough concerning Quack in their own inner circles. Now while this one does seem a tad more justifiable, the idea that even -suggesting- attacking a sphere can result in war is what got Quack in trouble last time, with the Leaky Faucet conflict, of which TKR was also a member.  Ironically, it seems that it was Hedge Money itself that did the suggesting. And now, well, you guys are buddies with Hedge. Don't you find that a tad ironic? I mean, it makes sense if the goal is to be the biggest Bloc on the block, but not so much otherwise. 

Furthermore, In yesterday's Morph Radio show, Tyrion mentioned something about someone of importance in Hollywood intimating that Oasis might be next.

Having a war prior to this one doesn't mean that we're heading into a spree. The wars left both HM and Quack relatively undamaged and we were already militarized. If we wanted to do a war, it made sense to take advantage of the situation instead of demilitarizing and rebuilding and waiting. Pragmatism doesn't equate to anything sinister down the line. I'm not sure where you're going with the suggesting bits though. You find it ironic that we would ally Hedge after they wanted to hit us? It takes more than just planning to hit us or even hitting us to piss us off - we've allied people right after they've hit us before.

Relating to the Morf Radio bit, I'm not sure what prompted that but I would hazard a guess that information is a tiny bit faulty because that makes rather little sense.

5 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Finally, there's the fact that Hollywood hadn't even finished writing their declaration of existence before declaring war on Rose. The declaration of war itself was problematic, especially when it was revealed that the initially hidden CB for this declaration was the fact that Rose had entered the Leaky Faucet conflict, another conflict in which a Bloc was considered too big and aggressive to continue its wars on other Blocs without intervention. Interestingly, in -that- conflict, you were part of the Bloc that attacked HM and Rose was one of the Blocs that came to HM's rescue. You'd think HM would have been a little more appreciative of that, but instead, they're attacking Rose because they... helped them last time? And make no mistake, in any conflict with Quack, Grumpy's Ronny had specifically stated that he didn't want to get into a war with them -unless- Rose was part of the Coalition against them. Strange logic, but hey, if the goal is hegemony, things such as logical CBs don't really matter much, do they?

You may not be aware of this, Phoenyx, but when several entities, especially ones who were not previously allied, come together and hit someone, they may have different reasons for wanting to do so. TKR's reasons largely have to do with Rose's conduct around and during Duck Hunt but as you pointed out, that doesn't make much sense for the former HM portion of Hollywood. You shouldn't try to ascribe our reasons to them as they have their own.

Edited by Adrienne
Typo >.>
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Adrienne said:

OWF is Open World Forum, aka the Politics and War Forums that we're currently typing on.

Ah ok.

  

1 hour ago, Adrienne said:

  

5 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

I'm guessing you mean that TKR fought along with most Alliances against NPO. Anyway, I'm not saying that you aren't much the same as then. However, I was intrigued by God Emperor mentioning Knightfall, and it looks like, before NPO's last time, you guys were part of the Bloc that others decided had to be trimmed a bit. For those who aren't aware of the history of Knightfall, here's the PnW wiki on it:

https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/Knightfall

Listening to Fist is generally a bad idea, just for the record. He's well known for maintaining long time grudges against several alliances here and only popping out of the woodwork to spout hate and nonsense and then disappear again. And I'm not sure where you're going with this attempt at a comparison either. Folks had a wide variety of reasons for wanting to hit us then and we gave them the opportunity when we broke up EMC and downsized our sphere. Trying to equate the reason for that war to a predisposition for hegemonical actions shows that you still have quite a bit more research to do.

 

Alright, I acknowledge that my knowledge of what happened in Knightfall is limited to that wiki page there and a few things that have been said here, clearly including God Emperor/Fist. It's not much to go on, so I'll leave that one alone.

1 hour ago, Adrienne said:

Having a war prior to this one doesn't mean that we're heading into a spree.

True. That being said, from the perspective of myself and others, it seemed that you guys were getting overly aggressive, akin to when you attacked HM and Swamp at the start of Leaky Faucet. 

1 hour ago, Adrienne said:

The wars left both HM and Quack relatively undamaged and we were already militarized. If we wanted to do a war, it made sense to take advantage of the situation instead of demilitarizing and rebuilding and waiting. Pragmatism doesn't equate to anything sinister down the line. I'm not sure where you're going with the suggesting bits though.

The suggesting bits has to do with my understanding of your DoW against Swamp in Quack's last time. Now, admittedly, I may have missed some things, the Alliances I tend to focus on had left Swamp by that point, but it seems my impression was shared by others. The impression being that Swamp made a few statements in their inner circle about wanting to attack you guys- tough talk perhaps, but nothing fleshed out and that seems to have been the reason for your CB against them. Now, I fully admit that this interpretation that I and others have may not be fully accurate and more representative of your CB when initiating the Leaky Faucet conflict, but we tend to expect behaviour that we've seen in the past from a given Alliance.

1 hour ago, Adrienne said:

You find it ironic that we would ally Hedge after they wanted to hit us? It takes more than just planning to hit us or even hitting us to piss us off - we've allied people right after they've hit us before.

Fair enough. But tell me, do you trust them not to hit you a few months after this war? I mean, Rose was part of the counter effort when you guys attacked HM in Leaky Faucet and now HM is attacking Rose...

 

1 hour ago, Adrienne said:

Relating to the Morf Radio bit, I'm not sure what prompted that but I would hazard a guess that information is a tiny bit faulty because that makes rather little sense.

It's based on my recollections of the conversation on Morf Radio yesterday. Hopefully, @Lord Tyrion will clarify this in the future, otherwise I'll just have to leave this as a footnote.

1 hour ago, Adrienne said:

You may not be aware of this, Phoenyx, but when several entities, especially ones who were not previously allied, come together and hit someone, they may have different reasons for wanting to do so. TKR's reasons largely have to do with Rose's conduct around and during Duck Hunt but as you pointed out, that doesn't make much sense for the former HM portion of Hollywood. You shouldn't try to ascribe our reasons to them as they have their own.

No, I'm very aware that different Alliances who were not previously allied may have different reasons for wanting to do so, and I definitely think it applies here. What I'd like you to consider that while yours may be in part due to feeling wronged by Rose during Leaky Faucet, HM's reasons are still rather mysterious. Some suspect that their main reason was the feeling that they could win the war and perhaps get some glory out of it. Now, if Rose hadn't helped counter Quack after they attacked HM in Leaky Faucet, that would be one thing, but they did. If I were a Bloc that had just recently been helped out by another, I'd want to have -very- good reasons for attacking them shortly thereafter and be rather explicit about them too. Otherwise, it might look like I wasn't very appreciative of the help and would also signal that I'm not that good an ally. But to each their own.

Edited by Phoenyx
Added information
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Fair enough. But tell me, do you trust them not to hit you a few months after this war? I mean, Rose was part of the counter effort when you guys attacked HM in Leaky Faucet and now HM is attacking Rose...

For as long as we're allied to them, yes. That's the game - anyone not allied to you can hit you and your goal is to work on maintaining relationships to be able to accomplish your goals. I wouldn't take offense to the hit itself if it were to happen. It would depend more on the other actions surrounding the hit for me.

24 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

The suggesting bits has to do with my understanding of your DoW against Swamp in Quack's last time. Now, admittedly, I may have missed some things, the Alliances I tend to focus on had left Swamp by that point, but it seems my impression was shared by others. The impression being that Swamp made a few statements in their inner circle about wanting to attack you guys- tough talk perhaps, but nothing fleshed out and that seems to have been the reason for your CB against them. Now, I fully admit that this interpretation that I and others have may not be fully accurate and more representative of your CB when initiating the Leaky Faucet conflict, but we tend to expect behaviour that we've seen in the past from a given Alliance.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say here.

Edited by Adrienne

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Adrienne said:
36 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Fair enough. But tell me, do you trust them not to hit you a few months after this war? I mean, Rose was part of the counter effort when you guys attacked HM in Leaky Faucet and now HM is attacking Rose...

For as long as we're allied to them, yes. That's the game - anyone not allied to you can hit you and your goal is to work on maintaining relationships to be able to accomplish your goals. I wouldn't take offense to the hit itself if it were to happen. It would depend more on the other actions surrounding the hit for me.

Alright, let's put this another way. Imagine that you had been in Rose's position in a previous war- that is, HM is hit, and you decide to help them out and counter their opponent. I for one would think that HM would be grateful. They would "owe us one", so to speak. If HM were to then hit you a few months later for no apparent reason, wouldn't you consider them not to be that good an ally?

 

14 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

  

36 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

The suggesting bits has to do with my understanding of your DoW against Swamp in Quack's last time. Now, admittedly, I may have missed some things, the Alliances I tend to focus on had left Swamp by that point, but it seems my impression was shared by others. The impression being that Swamp made a few statements in their inner circle about wanting to attack you guys- tough talk perhaps, but nothing fleshed out and that seems to have been the reason for your CB against them. Now, I fully admit that this interpretation that I and others have may not be fully accurate and more representative of your CB when initiating the Leaky Faucet conflict, but we tend to expect behaviour that we've seen in the past from a given Alliance.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say here.

 

What I'm trying to convey is that your Alliance tends to get into wars that are based on little more than rumours and perhaps some tall talk by people in a game that are prone to barking more than they bite. In terms of serious wars your Alliance has gotten into, I've only really been around for the Leaky Faucet conflict and the Quack's Last time conflict, but both of these events seem to have this same characteristic. It's a type of characteristic that I believe has made other Blocs leery, as they may suspect that if someone whispers a few words against you guys, they'll be on the hit list next. It's also the type of thing that can get Blocs to either create informal "secret" agreements to counter them if they continue such attacks or decide to counter their of their own accord without any agreement at all, but with the simple belief that if they aren't countered soon, it may well be their turn next. 

Edited by Phoenyx
Added information
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Etat said:

Anyway, and I'm really no FA guru, being dimly aware of the various unpredicted entries into this war coupled with the rage broadcast against a HW hegemony, I wonder at what has prompted this.

I think it's simple. The embarrassment and shame of not decisively winning the first round, despite what would have appeared to be overwhelming numbers superiority. Hollywood bad since Rose doesn't know when to military up apparently, have allies who have a bunch of war dodgers and have had mediocre to bad coordination.

Thus, fervent cries to the buzzwords of our time are taking place, "DOgPIle", "HEgemoNY", "uPPeR tiER consoLIDatION". Anything to excuse poor war performance.

This typology of whining personifies the self-serving bias, anything to avoid responsibility for simply being bad at war.    

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Alright, let's put this another way. Imagine that you had been in Rose's position in a previous war- that is, HM is hit, and you decide to help them out and counter their opponent. I for one would think that HM would be grateful. They would "owe us one", so to speak. If HM were to then hit you a few months later for no apparent reason, wouldn't you consider them not to be that good an ally?

HM owed Rose nothing, in my opinion. Their decision to hit Rose has no bearing on how good/not good they are as allies.

49 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

What I'm trying to convey is that your Alliance tends to get into wars that are based on little more than rumours and perhaps some tall talk by people in a game that are prone to barking more than they bite. In terms of serious wars your Alliance has gotten into, I've only really been around for the Leaky Faucet conflict and the Quack's Last time conflict, but both of these events seem to have this same characteristic. It's a type of characteristic that I believe has made other Blocs leery, as they may suspect that if someone whispers a few words against you guys, they'll be on the hit list next. It's also the type of thing that can get Blocs to either create informal "secret" agreements to counter them if they continue such attacks or decide to counter their of their own accord without any agreement at all, but with the simple belief that if they aren't countered soon, it may well be their turn next. 

I don't agree with your characterization here, as you well know given that we discussed it last war too. With Duck Hunt, we wholeheartedly disagree on the severity of the logs that started that war. As Quack, we perceived a serious threat and we acted on it. You can downgrade that to a rumor, that's your prerogative, but it was accompanied by a plethora of actions that lent credence to it and that is why we acted. To pretend otherwise does everyone involved a disservice.

I don't think I really need to explain how Last Ride was different. It was our Last Ride, we wanted to go out with not having Duck Hunt our only war as a group, some of our group had issues with alliances in Swamp, and the opportunity presented itself rather nicely with the release of those logs. We were fairly clear with that on the whole, I believe.

Wars have been started for far less than those. To sit there and push that we go to war for no reason at all or are setting out to roll the world is fearmongering.

Edited by Adrienne
  • Upvote 4

BrOQBND.jpg

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.