281 replies to this topic

[Atmosfear]

So a friend and I were talking, and we were wondering how does a coalition that considers itself sovereign and the defeaters of evil still go to war against alliances that it has no cause to do so? Granted, there are alliances and blocs out there that have a right to declare on an alliance through defense of allies, but the EQ seems to be ridden with alliances that have no reason to fight other alliances.

 

The only reason I can think of is that the EQ is bad at war and has to use numbers to make up for their infra-hugging tendencies.

 

Just curious, you know?

[jraenar]

Try harder.

[Mogar]

what alliances do we have no cause to go to war against?

[IYIyTh]

i love totally ooc topics about totally ic things that totally aren't reflected by the fact that you're allied to mk

[keeology]

Try harder.

[Penlugue Solaris]

So a friend and I were talking, and we were wondering how does a coalition that considers itself sovereign and the defeaters of evil still go to war against alliances that it has no cause to do so? Granted, there are alliances and blocs out there that have a right to declare on an alliance through defense of allies, but the EQ seems to be ridden with alliances that have no reason to fight other alliances.

 

The only reason I can think of is that the EQ is bad at war and has to use numbers to make up for their infra-hugging tendencies.

 

Just curious, you know?

Evil is a relative concept. I don't consider myself to be fighting for the forces of good or to be a defeater of evil, but rather for my allies just like you are.  You were offered peace a while back, and you chose to not accept it. That is your choice as a sovereign alliance, and it is our choice as a sovereign alliance to keep grinding your alliance down.  I feel quite bad continuing this fight as you are fighting for your allies, but you are making the decision to continue at this point in time, not us.  

 

I would also point out that superior numbers is a good war strategy and everyone uses it whenever possible.  No one (for the most part) starts a war to lose a war, and as a result superior numbers are used.  

 

Btw, what ally is Alchemy fighting to defend here?  I seem to have lost the copy of the Alchemy TOP treaty, seem to recall you chaining in...

Edited by Penlugue Solaris, 14 March 2013 - 12:03 AM.

[Auctor]

i'm not a scientist but *not going to war at all* seems like a better infra hugging move

[Atmosfear]

what alliances do we have no cause to go to war against?

Well, for one, this thread is a perfect example. I was checking the war chart and Ai's treaties; there appears to be no treaty between DB4D or Sparta, and GOONS appears to only be attacking Ai. There are others, and I will try to dig them up if you wish

 

Fixed the link

Edited by Atmosfear, 13 March 2013 - 11:52 PM.

[Dochartaigh]

Well, for one, this thread is a perfect example. I was checking the war chart and Ai's treaties; there appears to be no treaty between DB4D or Sparta, and GOONS appears to only be attacking Ai. There are others, and I will try to dig them up if you wish

 

You missed something there mate.

[Atmosfear]

i love totally ooc topics about totally ic things that totally aren't reflected by the fact that you're allied to mk

 

My opinion does not reflect my alliance or MK. However, we can see you have an issue with MK You should talk to them about that issue!

i'm not a scientist but *not going to war at all* seems like a better infra hugging move

Not going to war could be considered pixel envy

[King Wally]

So a friend and I were talking, and we were wondering how does a coalition that considers itself sovereign and the defeaters of evil still go to war against alliances that it has no cause to do so? Granted, there are alliances and blocs out there that have a right to declare on an alliance through defense of allies, but the EQ seems to be ridden with alliances that have no reason to fight other alliances.

 

The only reason I can think of is that the EQ is bad at war and has to use numbers to make up for their infra-hugging tendencies.

 

Just curious, you know?

 

Your from Alchemy you say.... hello you probably remember me... I was in that Alliance you oportunisticly dogpiled without a CB a little over a year ago. Great to hear your keeping well and still about. Have a nice day.

[Mogar]

Well, for one, this thread is a perfect example. I was checking the war chart and Ai's treaties; there appears to be no treaty between DB4D or Sparta, and GOONS appears to only be attacking Ai. There are others, and I will try to dig them up if you wish

you didnt link that correctly, but I'll humor you, the original decleration clearly stated an attack on one is an attack on all, and as long as there isnt a treaty conflict(see, any of NPO's direct allies on any of the NPO allies part of the opposing coalition) they're fair game to anyone part of EQ.

[rabonnobar]

Well, for one, this thread is a perfect example. I was checking the war chart and Ai's treaties; there appears to be no treaty between DB4D or Sparta, and GOONS appears to only be attacking Ai. There are others, and I will try to dig them up if you wish

 

Fixed the link

 

In coalition wars, such things happen. Usually, the exact treaty chains are laid out (example: http://forums.cybern...showtopic=80101). That convention has been done away with this war because it just wastes space. Just about any Eq alliance could choose to defend any other Eq alliance via treaty with enough chains. Removing the actual chains from the DoW is just tidy, imo.

 

Of course, everyone should just adopt the Moldavi Doctrine.

[Lord Hershey]

Evil is a relative concept. I don't consider myself to be fighting for the forces of good or to be a defeater of evil, but rather for my allies just like you are.  You were offered peace a while back, and you chose to not accept it. That is your choice as a sovereign alliance, and it is our choice as a sovereign alliance to keep grinding your alliance down.  I feel quite bad continuing this fight as you are fighting for your allies, but you are making the decision to continue at this point in time, not us.  
 
I would also point out that superior numbers is a good war strategy and everyone uses it whenever possible.  No one (for the most part) starts a war to lose a war, and as a result superior numbers are used.  
 
Btw, what ally is Alchemy fighting to defend here?  I seem to have lost the copy of the Alchemy TOP treaty, seem to recall you chaining in...

MK declared war on GLoF so Alchemy used its optional aggression treaty with MK on GLoF so it was legitimate. ACTUALLY, in terms of technicality, you side actually declared war via the original DoW on MK first. So, really, you attacked MK, which bought Alchemy into the war.

[jraenar]

MK declared war on GLoF so Alchemy used its optional aggression treaty with MK on GLoF so it was legitimate. ACTUALLY, in terms of technicality, you side actually declared war via the original DoW on MK first. So, really, you attacked MK, which bought Alchemy into the war.

You have a very strange way of spelling Umbrella, the target of the original DoW.

[Penlugue Solaris]

MK declared war on GLoF so Alchemy used its optional aggression treaty with MK on GLoF so it was legitimate. ACTUALLY, in terms of technicality, you side actually declared war via the original DoW on MK first. So, really, you attacked MK, which bought Alchemy into the war.

Whatever way you spin it, its still !@#$%^&*.  MK attacked GLOF on behalf of TOP to chain you into the war, which is just as horrible as what your member is suggesting (Spoiler: Neither is actually horrible and just a part of war).

Edited by Penlugue Solaris, 14 March 2013 - 12:32 AM.

[Enamel32]

So a friend and I were talking, and we were wondering how does a coalition that considers itself sovereign and the defeaters of evil still go to war against alliances that it has no cause to do so? Granted, there are alliances and blocs out there that have a right to declare on an alliance through defense of allies, but the EQ seems to be ridden with alliances that have no reason to fight other alliances.

 

The only reason I can think of is that the EQ is bad at war and has to use numbers to make up for their infra-hugging tendencies.

 

Just curious, you know?

DH, TOP, CnG, are getting the spanking they deserve. That's all I care about atm. If axis alliances want to get in the way of the meat grinder, then go right ahead, but complaining about collateral damage seems kind of silly given that this war has been a long time coming.

 

Also, lol@this topic.

Edited by Enamel32, 14 March 2013 - 12:30 AM.

[OverlordShinnra]

Your from Alchemy you say.... hello you probably remember me... I was in that Alliance you oportunisticly dogpiled without a CB a little over a year ago. Great to hear your keeping well and still about. Have a nice day.

 

So do you just alliance hop to be opportunistic or is it a coincidence you are in alliances that dog pile when it happens?

[Lord Hershey]

You have a very strange way of spelling Umbrella, the target of the original DoW.

Obviously you have been living under a rock since the beginning of the war. I was referring to the EQ's original DoW that involved an "attack on one is an attack on all." And the sad part is, you guys tried to "undeclare," lmao.

[King Wally]

Now this is how you should DOW hey Alchemy?

http://forums.cybern...howtopic=107288

 

Just start hitting random AA's sitting on the sideline not even involved in the war? You didn't even bother to name all the alliances you hit that day, but to remind you it was TTK, CRAP, CSN and NPL. Cheers.

 

So do you just alliance hop to be opportunistic or is it a coincidence you are in alliances that dog pile when it happens?

 

You dont know me very well do you. You might want to try again.

Edited by King Wally, 14 March 2013 - 12:35 AM.