Jump to content

Declaration of Wussiness


Defender

Recommended Posts

NPO NPO he's our man, if he can't do it, Umbrella can!

 

Umbrella Umbrella he's our man, if he can't do it, Sengoku can!

 

Sengoku Sengoku he's our man, if he can't do it, sanctions can!

 

UoUDUBz.jpg

gyXkNHa.jpg

7uMrjMD.jpg

 

 

ivYEjGf.jpg

 

Defenderland hereby recognizes SWF and their elite fire-team Team Faddef as the most dangerous man in the Bob.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 118
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is probably regarded as poor form to use sanctions during war, but when if you think about it, it should probably be done more often.  Sanctions are tactics.  If you are at war you better be sure you have some control of the Senate in the color team where you reside.  Find a different color sphere like Blue where this would most likely not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I moved off Black to get away from Umbrella and their ability to sanction people there, despite having been there since my nation creation date before they sanctioned me there on behalf of GOONS. Now my trade circle which has been around since before any PECS alliances came to Pink will likely need to move because of Umbrella's unwelcome influence on Pink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree it is poor form to use sanctions as a war tactic. It would be different if they were rogues, but it these two are not. Man up and fight your war or go hide in peace mode if you can't win a 3v1. Thats pretty weak play right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used sanctions quite effectively as Vox's Red Senator, so I know just how much they can disrupt an enemy. My own tactic was actually worse in some respects. I'd wait until a nation was on its last day of inactivity before applying the sanction. If it was on the way to deletion, no real harm done. Otherwise, I would completely ruin a perfectly good back-collection. The number of angry PMs I received made this quite fulfilling. But then again, I was fighting an enemy who had informed me that I "would never get to play Cybernations again." (What is this Cybernations, anyway? Oh well, no matter.) So in many respects the situation was quite different.

 

But consider this: Umbrella is merely pinching off resources at the source, as Polar did with DBDC's tech suppliers. How is one acceptable while the other is not? This is a legitimate question, btw.

 

There was a time when using nuclear weapons was taboo. Isn't this just part of the evolution of warfare? What specifically about this makes it unacceptable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used sanctions quite effectively as Vox's Red Senator, so I know just how much they can disrupt an enemy. My own tactic was actually worse in some respects. I'd wait until a nation was on its last day of inactivity before applying the sanction. If it was on the way to deletion, no real harm done. Otherwise, I would completely ruin a perfectly good back-collection. The number of angry PMs I received made this quite fulfilling. But then again, I was fighting an enemy who had informed me that I "would never get to play Cybernations again." (What is this Cybernations, anyway? Oh well, no matter.) So in many respects the situation was quite different.

 

But consider this: Umbrella is merely pinching off resources at the source, as Polar did with DBDC's tech suppliers. How is one acceptable while the other is not? This is a legitimate question, btw.

 

There was a time when using nuclear weapons was taboo. Isn't this just part of the evolution of warfare? What specifically about this makes it unacceptable?

 

So then you would be fine if NoR got hit with sanctions in war? Gotcha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used sanctions quite effectively as Vox's Red Senator, so I know just how much they can disrupt an enemy. My own tactic was actually worse in some respects. I'd wait until a nation was on its last day of inactivity before applying the sanction. If it was on the way to deletion, no real harm done. Otherwise, I would completely ruin a perfectly good back-collection. The number of angry PMs I received made this quite fulfilling. But then again, I was fighting an enemy who had informed me that I "would never get to play Cybernations again." (What is this Cybernations, anyway? Oh well, no matter.) So in many respects the situation was quite different.

 

But consider this: Umbrella is merely pinching off resources at the source, as Polar did with DBDC's tech suppliers. How is one acceptable while the other is not? This is a legitimate question, btw.

 

There was a time when using nuclear weapons was taboo. Isn't this just part of the evolution of warfare? What specifically about this makes it unacceptable?

The situation when you used it was a special one.

 

In standard war situations sanctions are generally not used and for good reason.

 

(OOC: They are a pain in the ass to deal with, don't add much to wars, and won't hurt active people almost at all except for making them go through the tedious process of getting secret trades.  Extensive use of sanctions would just create a headache for everyone, they aren't "fun".)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a crappy move.  Provoking a sanction war would be annoying for everyone.

Indeed so.

 

Umbrella are dicks, hell they even had a leader named dickos.  They can't even fight wars without having to ask us for help.  Whoever treaties them should be laughed off the planet.  Honestly, if you can't beat SWF without using sanctions, what kind of respectable alliance are you really?

 

Those screenies are so impressive, I'm thinking about reversing the sanctions just so we can unleash the full fury of SWF onto these Umbrella cowards.  

 

Pink sphere is so amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So then you would be fine if NoR got hit with sanctions in war? Gotcha. 

 

Maybe if you go back and read what I actually wrote instead of picking up what you wish I had said you'll come across as less of a clown.

 

No guarantees, though. That you responded so quickly and so stupidly is not an encouraging sign.

 

 

The situation when you used it was a special one.

 

In standard war situations sanctions are generally not used and for good reason.

 

(OOC: They are a pain in the ass to deal with, don't add much to wars, and won't hurt active people almost at all except for making them go through the tedious process of getting secret trades.  Extensive use of sanctions would just create a headache for everyone, they aren't "fun".)

 

I'm not suggesting that they're 'fun'. Believe me, I understand the headaches they can cause in a way few others can. But if the point of war is to win, and if you can contribute to that effort by disrupting resources, then why not? Think of it as my blowing up your gold mine, or giving your livestock anthrax.

 

There's been this unspoken arrangement that trade partners will overlook alliance politics. But why should that be the case?

 

The thing about sanctions is that they can only be applied in a limited way, so the effects would not be far-reaching except, perhaps, to smaller AAs.

 

I'm just trying to wrap my head around why they're inherently evil while other methods of curtailing exchanges between nations are not. I have no opinion one way or another, but simply saying "They're bad and aggravating" isn't really much of a counter-point.

Edited by kingzog
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.


×
×
  • Create New...