Jump to content

Peace in our Time


BigMorf
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, alyster said:

Rather like "No matter who Quack declares war at, everyone will counter" Which is very strict MDP bloc wide. 

You mean the agreement we made when Quack made it abundently clear that they would hit HM and Swamp. Then proceeds to hit HM and Swamp.

You can ask the guys in HW. We had no clue Rose would enter and didn't know until they literally began declaring. We were fully expecting to eat the loss.

  • Like 4

[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

2 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

image.thumb.jpeg.def68eb05c800f3c8c544effe8309e1a.jpeg

Relevance? All the critique here is that in a very tiny case two blocs will assist each other. On top of it Clock now keeps claiming that they had no plans to attack either one - so the mutual defense clause is pretty much useless anyway.

While at the same time half the people running their mouths about it were signing secret treaties to defend one or another bloc just little while ago.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alexander the Great said:

The issue that I (and most of Aurora & friends) have seen, is game stagnation.  If everyone took this approach to spheres, there would virtually never be a GW—if this was in real life, that'd be wonderful—But this. Is not. Real life. This is a game. That exists. For war too. Not just politics.  If you think that it doesn't, then you are playing the wrong game.  It's not called "Politics & Diplomacy".  All of you people thinking that everyone who disagrees with your decision wants to randomly attack your precious pixels are delusional and paranoid in the highest, most extreme degree.  Whenever your best "arguments" against the main problem with the pact are simply personal attacks and insults, you show that you are not even capable of reasoning.

Im sorry but... who asked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say good on y'all for creating the most controversial and debated forum post in a while. Didn't know if I would ever see anything past like 4 or 5 pages in a while and here we are... page 8. Lmfao.

  • Like 4

Jacob Knox

Federation of Knox

Advisor, Aurora

Former Head of Military Affairs, Aurora

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

Meanwhile in this situation- easily the two largest spheres (to the point where it would no longer be a contest to do a 1v1 against them with any other sphere) decide to sign a MDP to prevent a war torn (not to mention, a far smaller) bloc from hitting them.

War torn? Are you kidding me? Low infra high tier nations down declaring against unarmed nations with full infra and peace time builds. For stat padding. That's how it would work. 

We all know and have seen how effective smaller force has been at such strikes. KT has shown that in this game time after time again. 

 

Edited by alyster
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, alyster said:

War torn? Are you kidding me? Low infra high tier nations down declaring against unarmed nations with full infra and peace time builds. For stat padding. That's how it would work. 

We all know and have seen how effective smaller force has been at such strikes. KT has shown that in this game time after time again. 

 

The problem with your 'stat padding' rhetoric, is that Clock is one of the most vocal critics of stats meaning much. They argue against looking at stats defining wars. So your argument falls on deaf ears when you claim the reason for any of their moves is 'stat padding'. 

  • Like 4

image.gif.d80770bf646703bba00c14ad52088af9.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

The problem with your 'stat padding' rhetoric, is that Clock is one of the most vocal critics of stats meaning much. They argue against looking at stats defining wars. So your argument falls on deaf ears when you claim the reason for any of their moves is 'stat padding'. 

Those stats translate directly into cash in bank and that's something you guys can count well. (This was a compliment)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said:

Apparently quivering enough to sign with the only obvious opponent. It’s not about “us” getting our way; it’s about HW being quite vocal about wanting or enticing Clock to hit them, and when people start militarizing, there’s a cuddle group formed in the fake veil of safety, and it’s perpetuated as an anti-chaining resolve.

Pointing out what people perceive, is not moaning and groaning, by the way. If that’s the case, then you guys are all doing the same via treaty.

Saying “We’ll if you aren’t going to hit HW or ro$e, it doesn’t matter”, is a fallacy statement and everyone knows it. I can flip it by saying “You’re not worried about Clock’s quote-unquote little drama, so why sign with ro$e?”. It’s a double standard, and a fake attempt to appear right or to be justified.

I'm not involved in any back channel secret FA chit chat my friend, but I don't think I'm completely deaf either.  I'm gonna take a stab in the dark though and suggest you lot misinterpreted comments made somewhere in jest, or are just plain making stuff up. 

Also there is an apparent lack of trust consequent to your last chaining war which now I guess means you just have to lie in the bed you've made for yourselves.  I'm not however reading any sort of profound rejection of the practice from the player-base in general.  Personally I think it's in the same realm as dog-piling, a valid, if somewhat inglorious strategy that shouldn't be misused.

Additionally, I think it quite an imaginative leap to say we 'signed' Ro$e, when in fact it is a clearly time limited clause within a demilitarization agreement and otherwise very different from any sort of treaty.  Continually calling it a treaty or anything like it doesn't make it so.

As an aside, I'm always here for cuddles if you need one ;)

  • Upvote 2

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Etat said:

I'm not involved in any back channel secret FA chit chat my friend, but I don't think I'm completely deaf either.  I'm gonna take a stab in the dark though and suggest you lot misinterpreted comments made somewhere in jest, or are just plain making stuff up. 

Also there is an apparent lack of trust consequent to your last chaining war which now I guess means you just have to lie in the bed you've made for yourselves.  I'm not however reading any sort of profound rejection of the practice from the player-base in general.  Personally I think it's in the same realm as dog-piling, a valid, if somewhat inglorious strategy that shouldn't be misused.

Additionally, I think it quite an imaginative leap to say we 'signed' Ro$e, when in fact it is a clearly time limited clause within a demilitarization agreement and otherwise very different from any sort of treaty.  Continually calling it a treaty or anything like it doesn't make it so.

As an aside, I'm always here for cuddles if you need one ;)

We’re responding to what was said, by HW gov itself. I’ll take a stab in the dark and assume you didn’t listen to Thalmors show, and I’d recommend or encourage you and others listen to it? Hard to make things up on our end, when it’s the other side saying things.

I still think there’s some misinterpretation, lol. We’re not sitting here with a “Ah shucks, we’re the chainers now!”. There’s nothing but glee, and excitement on Clock’s side.

A treaty is an agreement between two parties. All treaties ingame are “time limited”, and inb4 someone says “they don’t activate unless someone hits them”, yes, congratulations for understanding how all treaties work. Call it a deal, an accepted offer, an arrangement, and then look up synonyms for the word Treaty.

I also wonder why either party to this treaty actually even cares if the other is hit, really weird to think about that

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said:

I also wonder why either party to this treaty actually even cares if the other is hit, really weird to think about that

Again, not a treaty, but I get your point.  And yes this is a weird situation given our history, which I think pragmatism has perhaps played a bigger part in this decision rather than our feelings for each other 😂 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said:

I also wonder why either party to this treaty actually even cares if the other is hit, really weird to think about that

Pretty simple mate it's called a division of risk. Rather than risk a coin flip over who would be hit, they can effectively split the cost between themselves and deter any potential attacker.

Lets say this treaty came out without Article 3, I would not be surprised to see one of the two spheres get hit, it is a big target that a well co-ordinated blitz could take down and earn some decent reputation off of.
 

1 hour ago, KittenGosCrazy said:

Here is a pitstop for anyone reading through the thread

I'll take a syndisprite, immortal gum and [Redacted] please!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, His Holy Decagon said:

A treaty is an agreement between two parties. All treaties ingame are “time limited”, and inb4 someone says “they don’t activate unless someone hits them”, yes, congratulations for understanding how all treaties work.

Ummmmmmm MDAPs exist tho >.>

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Humans cannot create anything out of nothingness. Humans cannot accomplish anything without holding onto something. After all, humans are not gods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, Gaius Julius Caesar said:

*snip*

You keep dodging what you promised to address earlier and what Kev asked you here...

11 hours ago, Kevanovia said:

This does set a bad precedent. Your argument is "well..it's not bad if there is nothing to worry about" - then why not do it every war? Then it effectively becomes acceptable for blocs to have MDP's with one another going forward in every single war when they aren't the first ones attacked. 

It is hilarious how HW and Ro$e keep defining traditional MDPs while arguing that this one in-fact is not a traditional MDP and keep trying to present it like it's some light hearted promise made over drinks that people do not need to think much about.

"Treaty only gets activated when either participant is under attack"
My friend that's literally how MDPs work, cutting down the duration does not affect how it's going to be used within that duration, if you are using it like an MDP, it is, by all means and definitions, a bloc wide MDP and somehow worse than Myoasis  inc because they were not the 2 biggest spheres in game and did not overpower the rest of the game on their own.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

tvPWtuA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheRealMonty said:

Im sorry but... who asked?

Literally everyone not part of your ridiculous game-breaking and frankly cowardly megasphere (and part of the people in said megasphere). Be. Seated.

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.