brucemania Posted June 10, 2016 Report Share Posted June 10, 2016 2 hours ago, the rebel said: I thought Pacifica didn't hold long grudges anymore? Not that it matters as many were bored silly at Invicta with lack of war. this was not the intent ... was in reference to someone else and post about old allies hitting old allies ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackatron Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 I have to question the validity of any part of this CB when recent leaks imply Pacifica has been intending to attack Invicta for several months now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Given that Invicta had been attempting to build a sphere to directly oppose NPO and Oculus, I am at a loss as to why plans like that may have been in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 28 minutes ago, Auctor said: Given that Invicta had been attempting to build a sphere to directly oppose NPO and Oculus, I am at a loss as to why plans like that may have been in place. Please show some proof of this as the prior has been proven. Pure curiosity at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackatron Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 (edited) On top of what Smurf said; if Invicta was seriously forming an anti-Oculus sphere then why are their allies NADC, Legion and Sparta not under attack, given that they are considerably larger in NS, or TTK and SUN for that matter? Furthermore considering that some of their allies (SUN especially) are generally considered non-aggressive how can you reasonably claim they would actively "oppose" Oculus or NPO specifically offensively? Edited June 11, 2016 by Blackatron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 28 minutes ago, Blackatron said: Furthermore considering that some of their allies (SUN especially) are generally considered non-aggressive how can you reasonably claim they would actively "oppose" Oculus or NPO specifically offensively? this is a new one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Neo Uruk said: this is a new one I struggle to recall a time when TTK or SUN declared offensively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 12 minutes ago, Mogar said: I struggle to recall a time when TTK or SUN declared offensively. That could easily be chalked up to "reserves," if that's the case. wars with inactive/passive alliances involved do still happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 3 hours ago, Auctor said: Given that Invicta had been attempting to build a sphere to directly oppose NPO and Oculus, I am at a loss as to why plans like that may have been in place. 2 hours ago, Unknown Smurf said: Please show some proof of this as the prior has been proven. Pure curiosity at this point. Silly Smurf -- it is all right here in black and white. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackatron Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 2 hours ago, Mogar said: I struggle to recall a time when TTK or SUN declared offensively. Actually I believe we did once aggressively attack CCC, due to religious arguments between our GM and their leader, but yes we essentially always avoid aggression and most of the time aren't involved enough in the political backstabbing to have cause to. I believe SUN's non-aggressiveness is in their charter, which is why non of their treaties have an "oA". Of course for a sphere to wage war against someone it is not necessary for every member to be involved aggressively, but if you are forming a sphere for the sake of aggression then including members who would almost certainly reject any ridiculous aggressive moves such as declaring on Oculus doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 I don't really understand what TTK or SUN have to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 They're arguing against your point, which was to say that Invicta was building an anti-Oculus bloc, by talking about the character of their actual allies. I once fought a war against SUN, which was essentially over issues connected to one particular nation which had had its sanction removed. While in some senses I would definitely argue that SUN behaved aggressively in that dispute, I can't imagine them ever being a building block in an attempt to take down any superbloc, mainly because they lack ambition. If you look again at Invicta's allies, you'll see this is a common trend. None of them resemble Grämlins circa 2009. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King William Posted June 11, 2016 Report Share Posted June 11, 2016 Someone could just... you know.... ask me.... Just a thought. One caveat though, I often claim to be telling the truth, but will say completely polarizing things. Like "I want to roll Pacifica" and "I love Pacifica". So it's a mess to get what I really mean. Best to not even talk to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walshington Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 3 hours ago, Auctor said: I don't really understand what TTK or SUN have to do with it. It's almost as if you didn't read the Lord Hitchcock quote I provided. What part of "Fair and balanced for an unbalanced world" do you not get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Haflinger said: They're arguing against your point, which was to say that Invicta was building an anti-Oculus bloc, by talking about the character of their actual allies. I once fought a war against SUN, which was essentially over issues connected to one particular nation which had had its sanction removed. While in some senses I would definitely argue that SUN behaved aggressively in that dispute, I can't imagine them ever being a building block in an attempt to take down any superbloc, mainly because they lack ambition. If you look again at Invicta's allies, you'll see this is a common trend. None of them resemble Grämlins circa 2009. SUN wasn't declared on. This whole "Invicta's totally innocent because some of their allies weren't informed and possibly not involved" line of reasoning is neither here nor there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Poutine Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 There are only like 5 alliances that still bother to do enough to secure the foundations required to do anything, and none of them are brought up in this thread, save for the OP. I do not understand this mindless babbling about SUN and TTK. All but pawns in the grand scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Gunn Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 1 hour ago, Auctor said: SUN wasn't declared on. This whole "Invicta's totally innocent because some of their allies weren't informed and possibly not involved" line of reasoning is neither here nor there. When did Invicta become such a good, influential alliance to where we could build coalitions again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 4 hours ago, Auctor said: SUN wasn't declared on. This whole "Invicta's totally innocent because some of their allies weren't informed and possibly not involved" line of reasoning is neither here nor there. What is here and there is the fact that you have yet to post any sort of proof whatsoever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 15 hours ago, Auctor said: SUN wasn't declared on. This whole "Invicta's totally innocent because some of their allies weren't informed and possibly not involved" line of reasoning is neither here nor there. It's not "some of their allies weren't informed". It's "if any of their allies were informed of such a plan, they would all run and hide somewhere." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackatron Posted June 12, 2016 Report Share Posted June 12, 2016 22 minutes ago, Haflinger said: It's not "some of their allies weren't informed". It's "if any of their allies were informed of such a plan, they would all run and hide somewhere." We're not running or hiding anywhere. The nonsensical [OOC] as people can't even be bothered to deny OOC [/OOC] claim presented by Pacifica in the OP are that Invicta was "opposed" to them and is trying to create a hostile sphere. Still no one has actually provided evidence of any(or more importantly any meaningful) hostility towards Oculus from Invicta. The point of bringing TTK and SUN into the discussion was to show that there is no aggression nor a great deal of ambition in Invicta's sphere. If Oculus was half comprised of non-aggressive alliances that weren't particularly bothered about status or power then it would not be taken seriously as a fighting bloc or a hegemonic entity on Bob. Thus any counter-bloc/sphere that is partially comprised of said alliance cannot be taken seriously as a threat to Oculus, unless Oculus would be the aggressor in any case, in which case the idea that the sphere is a threat to Oculus is ludicrous; it harms Oculus by being attacked by Oculus for the crime of being a threat to Oculus. If the CB had been "we wanted to roll Invicta at some point, but we were worried that they might beef up their FA a bit and be able to put up a fight if we left it a couple of months, so we'd best attack now" then that would make sense. It would be awfully draconic but it would still be an explanation for what prompted the attack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted June 14, 2016 Report Share Posted June 14, 2016 I wish I could dislike y'all more but really at this point it's on the rest of the slouches for not having the sack to do anything about ya for fear of their own pixels. Then again the only sort who have the ability are just as spineless and cowardly as yourselves, so perhaps that's the bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vellocet Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inferno Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 o/ Pacifica Wellcome to the Hill Pacifists. Nice move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 Staying in the lower tier is a great way to avoid the boredom-based politics that happens when a bunch of massive nations sit around and collect taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted June 30, 2016 Report Share Posted June 30, 2016 It's a good point because there hasn't been any upper tier fighting around here for months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.