Jump to content

Recognition of Hostilities


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 383
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Actually, we do seem to have based off Polar's reaction here.  If you want to attack our tech sellers and members, then there will be consequences.

In terms of fighting like Polaris seems to intend to, you are absolutely correct we would not.  Who in their right mind would when the option on the table is most likely white peace?

Poor argument, Bob. You and I both know that I would speak out against a CB less attack on an uninvolved alliance with this much force, regardless of what is going on. Avalanche was never a threat, and now they are down nearly a million NS.

And you wonder why Polar still fights? Well you might have your answer. Even if peace were made, we would be raided the moment we get nations above 100k again because we have to pay for "crimes" 8 years ago. Your side attacks nations on a whim, and has shown an utter disregard for anything political.

Avalanche has been under attack by DBDC for over a year, preceding this attack, and you want to state that your defending yourselves from Avalanche?

Face the facts: This is not about attacks on DT Probes, this is not about Polar "crimes", you simply saw an opportunity and took it. Edited by Starfox101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did y'all let Zeke out of his cage? Thought you kept him in there so he would stop trying to bite the nurses...


Someone dared to interrupt his tech supply.

Face the facts: This is not about attacks on DT Probes, this is not about Polar "crimes", you simply saw an opportunity and took it.


Let me complete that sentence; saw an opportunity to get back at Polar for hitting our probes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just shocked that there was over three pages disputing whether the DT CSN conflict was one of the darkest moments in DTs history. It's one thing to troll and incite responses with flaming rhetoric, it's another thing entirely to just deny history and trivialize one of the most gruesome defeats an alliance has ever faced.

I, for one, commend the Dark Templar on their spectacular growth and political positioning. Their leadership has been steady and their loyalty unquestioned throughout their history. Integrity is hard to come by in this world, and they exemplify it more than most.

Auinur is still a little girl though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just shocked that there was over three pages disputing whether the DT CSN conflict was one of the darkest moments in DTs history. It's one thing to troll and incite responses with flaming rhetoric, it's another thing entirely to just deny history and trivialize one of the most gruesome defeats an alliance has ever faced.

I, for one, commend the Dark Templar on their spectacular growth and political positioning. Their leadership has been steady and their loyalty unquestioned throughout their history. Integrity is hard to come by in this world, and they exemplify it more than most.

Auinur is still a little girl though.

 

 

Loyalty unquestioned?

 

PC-DT MDAP notwithstanding...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Loyalty unquestioned?

 

PC-DT MDAP notwithstanding...

 

I don't believe DT has ever left an ally hung out to dry. But, if you can provide me with an example then I'll change my tune. My memory is truthfully pretty shoddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming from the person that tried to recruit me to Vox Popoli during the BDC-NPO War.

I'm sorry, if it makes you feel better I tried to recruit many people.

 

What does any of that have to do with what I said? You dodged my posts in response to you earlier, and now deliver this strawman. Again - if this is all you can deliver, go find Auctor or someone competent and ask for help.

 

Let me complete that sentence; saw an opportunity to get back at Polar for hitting our probes.

Got back at us attacking an uninvolved alliance who was never going to be called in.

 

Keep arguing that this is a justified response to Polar's actions until you are blue in the face. Nobody is buying it. They simply had open slots. Otherwise, you'd be hitting the rest of our allies, but you're not. That argument literally collapses on itself the moment it's delivered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Supplying nations with tech that are at war with us is the opposite of uninvolved.

If you want to attack our members, expect some retaliation.  You attacked our defenseless members since you couldn't attack DBDC, so we attacked your defenseless ally like you attacked our defenseless members.  

Edited by Bob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have your opinions, we have ours.  Ours is if you want to attack our members, expect some retaliation.  You attacked our members since you couldn't attack DBDC, so we attacked your ally since we couldn't attack you/you were already covered.  

 

Maybe you should have put up an announcement that DT Probes is part of your alliance, if it really is. But im probably asking too much from alliances that prefer to use one-liners as DoWs, if they post them at all. Or use ominous crimes one alliance supposedly commited some unspecified time in the past as a justification to attack another alliance.

Edited by Lamorak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to attack our members, expect some retaliation.  You attacked our defenseless members since you couldn't attack DBDC, so we attacked your defenseless ally like you attacked our defenseless members.

 
Why are either Avalance or DT Probes defenseless?
 
And, although you may not like the reasons, we did at least give fair warning  :ehm:
 
Anyways, welcome to the war Avalance. Be thanking your aggressors for inviting you into the fun that is destroying pixels - it's blast!  :war: Edited by Mihail the Just
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Maybe you should have put up an announcement that DT Probes is part of your alliance, if it really is. But im probably asking too much from alliances that prefer to use one-liners as DoWs, if they post them at all. Or use ominous crimes one alliance supposedly commited some unspecified time in the past as a justification to attack another alliance.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/87815-dt-foreign-policy-statement/

 

Sorry what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right so....because we did what you did first... you're in the right? Somehow? Err...

What? DT Probes were attacked for supplying tech to nations who have been attacking us for the past year without any reason. If that isn't poking us with a sharp stick, I don't know what is. Besides, Avalanche made no attack on your alliance. If you wanted revenge for us hitting your probes, perhaps have AB ramp up their attacks on us, or you know, attack us yourself.

 

Besides, what did Avalanche do to AB or Umbrella? It's an exagerrated response to a political situation that did not involve Avalanche. Your round-about non-sensical political chain to involve Avalanche is not an acceptable justification. I understand you guys don't play politics - so I'm not sure why I'm even bothering explaining this. Just accept you did it for fun, and move on. Defending yourself here is pointless.

 

 

Please reference the Avalanche declaration of nonparticipation thread.   It seems to have escaped my notice.

We're what, two months into the war? We've already been hit by 10 alliances and have yet to call them in. What exactly did you think we were waiting on?

 

Don't be purposely ignorant.

 

If you want to attack our members, expect some retaliation.  You attacked our defenseless members since you couldn't attack DBDC, so we attacked your defenseless ally like you attacked our defenseless members.  

No, we attacked DBDC as well. Unfortunately we were also hit by 10 alliances and our upper tier has been dissolved.

 

I did indeed expect retailiation for the attack. However, I expected that to come against the party that actually committed the attacks...rather than an independent alliance with nothing to play for in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It would take a while sure but our side would be the ones still capable of warring fully whereas DBDC would not be able to hit the vast majority on our side and it would be a minority that could hit anyways, meaning the ones who can hit, would end up in the grinder where DBDC would not be able to help much outside of sending aid. 

I know this to be true from personal experience. One of their nations is in the grinder. Surprise surprise, he's been nuke turtling the entire time. I hope he's having as much fun as we are. He probably could've done far more damage to us by not turtling, but you can't maintain damage ratios that way, m i rite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The saddest part in this is just before the attack Avalanche lost their forums due to unconnected OOC reasons so they can't even co-ordinate or communicate easily with each other, let alone fight this war effectively.
Note: I doubt the coalition were aware of this at all and it is not a propaganda point to be used by anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The saddest part in this is just before the attack Avalanche lost their forums due to unconnected OOC reasons so they can't even co-ordinate or communicate easily with each other, let alone fight this war effectively.
Note: I doubt the coalition were aware of this at all and it is not a propaganda point to be used by anyone.

 

I didn't know Avalanche shares forums with DT...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're what, two months into the war? We've already been hit by 10 alliances and have yet to call them in. What exactly did you think we were waiting on?

 

Don't be purposely ignorant.

 

So what?  We entered the war late too.

 

If you have a defense treaty with an alliance that goes to war and say nothing then it is assumed you are leaving your options open.  Otherwise you would either denounce the actions of your treaty mate or at least offer a "moral support yet no war plans" statement.

 

If you still don't want to accept it then look at it this way, we are being proactive for future wars. 

 

If you sign a treaty then either honor that treaty or go public with your position otherwise or be assumed you are waiting in the wings looking for your moment to strike.

 

Precedent has now been set.

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...