Another micro announcement?!

[Kurdanak]

It's like my uncle always told me: "When you have a problem with another man, never tackle the issue directly. Instead, !@#$ up his kids, like a real man would! That'll show 'em!"

 

A shining beacon of courage and honour, that man was.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Kurdanak

[Kemal Ergenekon]

> Draws a red line, promising to attack nations attacking an alliance.

> Nations get attacked. Does not follow up on the promise.

 

Great idea Rose. Here's a comic for you:

 

[Keegoz]

> Draws a red line, promising to attack nations attacking an alliance.

> Nations get attacked. Does not follow up on the promise.

 

Great idea Rose. Here's a comic for you:

 

Yeah follow on the promise where you'd have UPN and everyone else counter us and everybody gets rolled.

 

Would be a real smart plan, 10/10 helps the protectorates.

 

I mean we could argue about how Mensa hits smaller alliances driving away players from the game but lets talk about the impossible position we put Rose in by attacking their protectorates and laugh that they couldn't do anything without being rolled. It's hilarious.

 

If I was to illustrate this it would be UPN holding a gun to Rose's head whilst Mensa attacked its kids.

 

Now I shall wait for the angry replies.

[Jodo]

Yeah follow on the promise where you'd have UPN and everyone else counter us and everybody gets rolled.

 

Would be a real smart plan, 10/10 helps the protectorates.

 

I mean we could argue about how Mensa hits smaller alliances driving away players from the game but lets talk about the impossible position we put Rose in by attacking their protectorates and laugh that they couldn't do anything without being rolled. It's hilarious.

 

If I was to illustrate this it would be UPN holding a gun to Rose's head whilst Mensa attacked its kids.

 

Now I shall wait for the angry replies.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Lesson to Rose: Do not make promises you cannot follow up on, or your enemies will eventually call your bluff and show that it was cheap talk.

[Buorhann]

Yeah follow on the promise where you'd have UPN and everyone else counter us and everybody gets rolled.

 

Would be a real smart plan, 10/10 helps the protectorates.

 

I mean we could argue about how Mensa hits smaller alliances driving away players from the game but lets talk about the impossible position we put Rose in by attacking their protectorates and laugh that they couldn't do anything without being rolled. It's hilarious.

 

If I was to illustrate this it would be UPN holding a gun to Rose's head whilst Mensa attacked its kids.

 

Now I shall wait for the angry replies.

 

 

I'm not faulting Rose on that.  It's a valid concern, but then UPN could just say we were the aggressors and therefore not have supported Mensa if Rose had declared on us.

 

However, if you're going to say it's poor showing attacking one's protectorates, but turn around and not show any sort of protection ( Other than warding off raiders during off season ) - no one is better than the other in that situation.  Which is why I stated earlier that if you can't protect an alliance in all what is called for with Protectorates, don't do it.

 

At least officially, that is.  No one is stopping you from keeping an eye on smaller alliances and beating up on raiders for "justice".

 

It's a tricky situation to put yourself in with taking in Protectorates, that's why I'm glad Mensa doesn't take any in.

[Caillou]

Yeah follow on the promise where you'd have UPN and everyone else counter us and everybody gets rolled.

 

Would be a real smart plan, 10/10 helps the protectorates.

 

I mean we could argue about how Mensa hits smaller alliances driving away players from the game but lets talk about the impossible position we put Rose in by attacking their protectorates and laugh that they couldn't do anything without being rolled. It's hilarious.

 

If I was to illustrate this it would be UPN holding a gun to Rose's head whilst Mensa attacked its kids.

 

Now I shall wait for the angry replies.

I can understand your opinions if you had no idea what was going on in the backrooms, which you might not have as you aren't a leader. However, people seem to forget the point I bolded in Keegoz's post - if it had just been Mensa raiding protectorates then the issue would have been resolved either diplomatically or through war between the two alliances, and we wouldn't have !@#$ed out and called all of our allies in to help (if you doubt my claims in that then please ask metro about the TAC war, when our nations were nearly ZId from refusing to accept help from allies and he was upset he didn't get to roll our allies as well.). You guys were trying to start a war with Rose, without hitting Rose; your allies in UPN were basically telling us that if we responded to it they were going to step in on your side. Do you fault Rose for trying to think of a more strategic plan over fighting Mensa (which likely brought in SK), and UPN (which likely would have resulted in TC involvement)? Yes. You guys do. Because you didn't get all the backing you were expecting with it being the world vs. Rose and VE, and instead just got a handful of alliances involved. You didn't get us completely destroyed in the fashion you desired and instead try to capitalize on all that you can, which just consists of bragging about beating up the weakest chain in the link. Had we just run in hamfisted then we likely would have immediately been attacked by tS, Guardian, SK, and UPN. I currently have no issue with Mensa but with regards to those events: until you have been put in a similar position and you have all the information, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

[Buorhann]

Ok.

[Oblige]

And we were getting along so well.

[BeachBunny]

And we were getting along so well.

 

 

LIES!!!

[Cromstar]

And we were getting along so well.

 

Dolphins: dicks of the sea?

[Boony]

I can understand your opinions if you had no idea what was going on in the backrooms, which you might not have as you aren't a leader. However, people seem to forget the point I bolded in Keegoz's post - if it had just been Mensa raiding protectorates then the issue would have been resolved either diplomatically or through war between the two alliances, and we wouldn't have !@#$ed out and called all of our allies in to help (if you doubt my claims in that then please ask metro about the TAC war, when our nations were nearly ZId from refusing to accept help from allies and he was upset he didn't get to roll our allies as well.). You guys were trying to start a war with Rose, without hitting Rose; your allies in UPN were basically telling us that if we responded to it they were going to step in on your side. Do you fault Rose for trying to think of a more strategic plan over fighting Mensa (which likely brought in SK), and UPN (which likely would have resulted in TC involvement)? Yes. You guys do. Because you didn't get all the backing you were expecting with it being the world vs. Rose and VE, and instead just got a handful of alliances involved. You didn't get us completely destroyed in the fashion you desired and instead try to capitalize on all that you can, which just consists of bragging about beating up the weakest chain in the link. Had we just run in hamfisted then we likely would have immediately been attacked by tS, Guardian, SK, and UPN. I currently have no issue with Mensa but with regards to those events: until you have been put in a similar position and you have all the information, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

From what I remember, Mensa wanted a 1v1, and didn't attack directly to avoid the DEIC treaty. If you just said this in the begining, you guys could of had your 1v1 .

[Isolatar]

From what I remember, Mensa wanted a 1v1, and didn't attack directly to avoid the DEIC treaty. If you just said this in the begining, you guys could of had your 1v1 .

 

I'm pretty sure Oblige offered Mensa a 1vs1 somewhere on these forums.

[Pfeiffer]

I have said from my joining that protectorates are dumb and easily abused...thus I don't have any.

[Bollocks]

Feasting on young alliances that are full of new players and new faces to the world is an awful thing, it is going to kill new alliances, illustrate the people raiding them as tyrants, and make it that much harder for people to join the political scene. 

 

I hear this refrain in a lot in the geo-political simulators type of games we play. "We shouldn't prey on the weak".  You see it in EVE, Cybernations, Astro-Empires, Diplomacy, eRepublic, etc and it's always wishful thinking.

 

It's has always happened and it's always going to happen. If you can't stomach it then just don't play these kinds of games. 

 

Diplomacy has such a dirty reputation because it's known for players lying to your face, manipulating you and then stabbing you in the back. Why? Because those options are available. And the kinds of machiavellian players that are willing to go there have been around since the inception of the game in 1959. And of course, there are those in the community who have spoken out against such play styles characterizing it as immoral and unethical. 

 

But this dialogue has been going on since 1959, and it has changed absolutely nothing. People are willing to explore every option the game mechanics present to them, and as long as these games such as ours allows for and rewards unsavory actions-- people will do it.

 

We're not playing Apples to Apples or Monopoly with house rules here for some harmless entertainment. This is a geopolitical simulator, and there will be eBlood. So save your breath, it will change nothing.

[Ibrahim (Banned)]

I have said from my joining that protectorates are dumb and easily abused...thus I don't have any.

 

Nobody really abuses protectorates apart from Mensaco.

[Boony]

Nobody has abused protectorates yet apart from Mensaco.

Corrected.

[PigInZen]

I hear this refrain in a lot in the geo-political simulators type of games we play. "We shouldn't prey on the weak".  You see it in EVE, Cybernations, Astro-Empires, Diplomacy, eRepublic, etc and it's always wishful thinking.

 

It's has always happened and it's always going to happen. If you can't stomach it then just don't play these kinds of games. 

 

Diplomacy has such a dirty reputation because it's known for players lying to your face, manipulating you and then stabbing you in the back. Why? Because those options are available. And the kinds of machiavellian players that are willing to go there have been around since the inception of the game in 1959. And of course, there are those in the community who have spoken out against such play styles characterizing it as immoral and unethical. 

 

But this dialogue has been going on since 1959, and it has changed absolutely nothing. People are willing to explore every option the game mechanics present to them, and as long as these games such as ours allows for and rewards unsavory actions-- people will do it.

 

We're not playing Apples to Apples or Monopoly with house rules here for some harmless entertainment. This is a geopolitical simulator, and there will be eBlood. So save your breath, it will change nothing.

 

!@#$ing all my applauds for the Dip reference.

[Wayne]

If you are connected to an alliance during a war and you have a military, regardless of it's size, do not be surprised if you are perceived as a threat.  Didn't VE's protectorates attempt to go on the offensive last war?

[Kurdanak]

Well said, Pub. It's nice to see you posting again.

[Jodo]

If you are connected to an alliance during a war and you have a military, regardless of it's size, do not be surprised if you are perceived as a threat. Didn't VE's protectorates attempt to go on the offensive last war?

Yes, they got beat pretty hard I think?

[Wayne]

Yes, they got beat pretty hard I think?

I couldn't remember if they got hit and then joined in or if they just jumped in.  I do remember laughing at the score drop though.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I can understand your opinions if you had no idea what was going on in the backrooms, which you might not have as you aren't a leader. However, people seem to forget the point I bolded in Keegoz's post - if it had just been Mensa raiding protectorates then the issue would have been resolved either diplomatically or through war between the two alliances, and we wouldn't have !@#$ed out and called all of our allies in to help (if you doubt my claims in that then please ask metro about the TAC war, when our nations were nearly ZId from refusing to accept help from allies and he was upset he didn't get to roll our allies as well.). You guys were trying to start a war with Rose, without hitting Rose; your allies in UPN were basically telling us that if we responded to it they were going to step in on your side. Do you fault Rose for trying to think of a more strategic plan over fighting Mensa (which likely brought in SK), and UPN (which likely would have resulted in TC involvement)? Yes. You guys do. Because you didn't get all the backing you were expecting with it being the world vs. Rose and VE, and instead just got a handful of alliances involved. You didn't get us completely destroyed in the fashion you desired and instead try to capitalize on all that you can, which just consists of bragging about beating up the weakest chain in the link. Had we just run in hamfisted then we likely would have immediately been attacked by tS, Guardian, SK, and UPN. I currently have no issue with Mensa but with regards to those events: until you have been put in a similar position and you have all the information, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

Hahahahahah. We didn't get you completely destroyed, because there was a rollback. Don't try to rewrite history, we were all there. You got pubstomped, xdxd.

[Buorhann]

There's a reason why I simply said "Ok" to Pubbie.

[Keegoz]

 

Hahahahahah. We didn't get you completely destroyed, because there was a rollback. Don't try to rewrite history, we were all there. You got pubstomped, xdxd.

Well if we're talking about history here, you guys didn't actually destroy Rose even without the rollback. tS did, but Mensa enjoys taking the credit.