Jump to content
  • entries
    2
  • comments
    36
  • views
    4,334

An STAers Complaint Against Complaints and Grievances


Ragashingo

1,000 views

 Share

Let me start out by reminding everyone of my love and respect for CnG. I have long been a supporter of the ODN, ever since the Citrus War. I have been impressed with the outspokenness, strength, and honor of the Mushroom Kingdom, and I for some reason have always liked Athens despite some of their more recent slip ups. Also CnG as a whole was essential in helping defeat the NPO in last year's Karma War and if anybody knows me defeating the NPO had been one of my priorities for a long long time.

Unfortunately CnG is now proving to be a massive source of turmoil in this current war which the New Polar Order kicked off. My alliance finds itself at war against superior forces, yet our two treaties with CnG alliances have brought us exactly zero support. Our allies also have treaties with CnG members and they too are left with zero support. Now I'm not naive. I realize that this lack of support is because multiple CnG alliances have treaty conflicts. But their problems while understandable don't provide our nations any relief.

Some of our members have said that our treaties with these CnG alliances are totally without value, but I don't find that to be true at all. Our treaties with CnG alliances do have substantial value, even in this massively mixed up war. While the STA is currently facing somewhat overwhelming force our CnG treaties are preventing us from being utterly crushed. That is a good thing. We will be able to defend ourselves and our allies for far longer this way. Because of that I am of the strong opinion that we should remain allied with CnG alliances, but with a catch.

It seems fairly clear that the CnG bloc is caught in the treaty web and that the planets will have to align before we can expect our allies in CnG to be able to actually defend us. On the other hand it seems fairly clear that all the alliances of the CnG bloc are highly honorable and take their treaties seriously. Given these two facts I think the best solution for the STA is to downgrade all of our treaties with CnG alliances to NAPs. Typically a NAP is a sign of a lesser level of friendship than a MDP, but that would not be the case here. The reduction of our treaties to NAPs would simply provide an accurate portrayal of the level of support our friends in CnG are actually able to provide us. I think we are still great friends with MK, and I think the strained feelings between us and Vanguard can be repaired, but I certainly don't want to go through this again in the next war.

 Share

31 Comments


Recommended Comments



Why not simply cancel all your treaties?

Edit: that goes for all alliances.

Because they mean something. Because they are currently protecting us from further damage. And because they provide the valuable service of letting people know where we stand. Ambiguity would just make our limited FA staff have to work much harder. Why spend the time to personally tell every minor and major alliance where you stand in a one on one chat when a clearly written treaty can do the job for you?

Link to comment

It's never easy for an alliance to choose which friends to support and which to abandon, CnG has a tremendous decision to make as a whole, and ultimately it should come down to treaty obligations but it may not.

Link to comment

Because they mean something.

What, exactly?
Because they are currently protecting us from further damage.
No they're not, heh. Strategy is protecting you from further damage. Besides, if you had no treaties, then NO ONE would attack you because literally ANYONE could defend!
And because they provide the valuable service of letting people know where we stand.
That's a terrible service! You don't WANT people to know that! The first rule of war is never tell the enemy what you're up to! Like it or not, CyberNations is a War Game. A strong strategy is to let out as little info as possible.
Ambiguity would just make our limited FA staff have to work much harder. Why spend the time to personally tell every minor and major alliance where you stand in a one on one chat when a clearly written treaty can do the job for you?
Why would you go around telling everyone stuff like that? 1st off, they can come to you and ask. And 2nd, your friends will know they're your friends w/o asking. Ours do.
Link to comment

You declared war on two allies of Vanguard and they've been kind enough to not counter attack, now you want them to defend you? Give me a break. STA was a vocal supporter of Grub's war wagon from the beginning, full well knowing that it meant bringing war to MK and Vanguard's MADP allies.

Link to comment

I wasn't looking for support. I'm looking for whats best for STA in the future.

The best for STA in the future is to stop being allied to Polaris. Stop blaming CnG for your own allies mess-up.

Link to comment

The best for STA in the future is to stop being allied to Polaris. Stop blaming CnG for your own allies mess-up.

That's not going to happen. I don't think I'll ever fully understand the NpO / STA bond since I was in GATO when it was formed, but I can get behind it. And yes, we are partially to blame for our own mess. There's no denying that. But to drop Polar over this seems wrong because we agree with their stance.

Link to comment

Didn't you hear? The Optional Defense Network is rubbing off on them.

I kid, of course (Because I do <3 ODN) but I understand that conflicting treaties DO get frustrating. My only suggestion here is this: When you (and this goes for everyone in general) go to sign a treaty with another alliance, make sure their other treaty partners are people you can see yourself getting along with and having similar views to when it comes to wars. That way, situations like this one can be partly mitigated.

Hope that helps. :/

Link to comment

Its a sad situation for C&G. In saying that, don't most of their treaties have no-chaining clauses?

Yes, indeed they do. For that reason we weren't obligated to assist STA, not that it was a decision we enjoyed making or took lightly. It's too bad this had to happen, but it was not exactly a position we put ourselves into.

Link to comment

It's a tough war in this regard. Lots of allies are in bad spots. Any time an alliance has more than one treaty conflict is possible. When CnG goes into this war we won't be able to defend them any more than they are able to defend us now.

If you think that our treaty with the Mushroom Kingdom is worthless then perhaps we need an internal history lesson at the STA. There have been two very recent incidences where we were expecting to go into a losing war and MK had our backs without reservation. One of them would have been in defense of the NSO, which we all know they have no love for.

The post war political situation is likely to be one where MK's ability to defend us, and vice-versa, will be considerably reduced by treaty conflict. That doesn't mean we should cancel. It means we should recognize our treaties for what they are. If we expected our treaties to chain then we should have written chaining treaties.

I am happy with the side of the war I'm on. We cannot unilaterally expect that everyone we've signed with has to follow our lead. We had the decision to make first, and we chose Polar. If we had chosen not to activate our treaty and instead enter through ties on the other side, you can be damn sure that MK would have our backs (and that our allies on the other side would be powerless to help us). We made the right decision in this war, but it was our decision and rubbing it at one of our best allies isn't fair.

MK :wub:

Link to comment

You declared war on two allies of Vanguard and they've been kind enough to not counter attack, now you want them to defend you? Give me a break. STA was a vocal supporter of Grub's war wagon from the beginning, full well knowing that it meant bringing war to MK and Vanguard's MADP allies.

Its pretty much this. I don't think CnG appreciates what Polar is doing by attacking their side of the web. This is totally understandable, seriously put your self in their shoes. I imagine I would feel pretty damn used. Not to mention CnG is made out of a few raiding alliances, who says they couldn't be next should this witch hunt continue?

Link to comment

CnG has alliances on both sides of the war, why should they support the alliance that put them in this situation? The alliance I'm referring to is NpO. NpO should never have declared in the first place seeing as doing so puts all of CnG in a tight bunch and forcing them to pick sides. If they choose NpO's side they'll lose support from all of the people against NpO, same can be said from the other side. Sitting neutral is their best option from what I can currently see. Please map out CnG's current treaty web and you'll understand why they offer no support the either side.

Link to comment

CnG has alliances on both sides of the war, why should they support the alliance that put them in this situation? The alliance I'm referring to is NpO. NpO should never have declared in the first place seeing as doing so puts all of CnG in a tight bunch and forcing them to pick sides. If they choose NpO's side they'll lose support from all of the people against NpO, same can be said from the other side. Sitting neutral is their best option from what I can currently see. Please map out CnG's current treaty web and you'll understand why they offer no support the either side.

Indeed, it does put everyone in a bad position. And let me make it clear that I don't think our allies in CnG are doing anything wrong. They haven't broken or ignored treaties like we've seen others do in the past. But even though they are acting properly we are unable to count on their support and it is likely to remain that way in future conflicts. If we can't reasonably count on their support then I don't think we should have these MDP level treaties with them even though we are likely to remain stronger friends than most alliances in CN. A treaty should both show the level of friendship and the level of comitment two alliances can afford each other. Right now the treaties are doing a great job with the former but a poor job at the latter.

Link to comment

Didn't you hear? The Optional Defense Network is rubbing off on them.

I kid, of course (Because I do <3 ODN) but I understand that conflicting treaties DO get frustrating. My only suggestion here is this: When you (and this goes for everyone in general) go to sign a treaty with another alliance, make sure their other treaty partners are people you can see yourself getting along with and having similar views to when it comes to wars. That way, situations like this one can be partly mitigated.

Hope that helps. :/

I totally agree. Far too many alliances sign treaties with each other each other knowing that they conflict or they sign them then forget about them. STA is not that kind of alliance. We have been very careful with our treaties. I think our CnG allies are the same way. We all agree on political and military viewpoints 99% of the time. What's happening now is that remaining 1% that is essentially impossible to properly account for. I'm not at all suggesting that we step away from our CnG allies. I love those guys. I just think that we need to take a realistic look at how capable we are of defending each other when a large war like this one pops up again in the future.

Link to comment

I totally agree. Far too many alliances sign treaties with each other each other knowing that they conflict or they sign them then forget about them. STA is not that kind of alliance. We have been very careful with our treaties. I think our CnG allies are the same way. We all agree on political and military viewpoints 99% of the time. What's happening now is that remaining 1% that is essentially impossible to properly account for. I'm not at all suggesting that we step away from our CnG allies. I love those guys. I just think that we need to take a realistic look at how capable we are of defending each other when a large war like this one pops up again in the future.

You do realize that this "1% scenario" came about because of decisions STA made, right? C&G isn't any different now then when you signed your treaties with MK and Vanguard, in fact it was clear from the beginning that C&G wasn't on the world police bandwagon when you chose to support it (your NpO treaty is non-chaining). When you put yourself in opposition to your allies it's only natural they might not chose to defend you.

Link to comment

I realise this is a problem for STA- but remember that treaties are bilateral. We could alternatively ask- "Why isn't the STA following C&G here? Why must they always follow Polar?" We all know that the STA and Polaris share a close bond- and would go to ZI for each other- so the STA and Polaris share a 'higher' treaty. STA, in short, treats Polaris above her other allies. This is (imo) the exact same situation with C&G. The MDAP nature of the bloc means that we must put the will (or at least, the 'interests') of the entire bloc first. We put each other before our other allies (if we have to). I know for a fact that Vanguard and MK are hating this situation. But they don't have much of a choice.

Link to comment

You declared war on two allies of Vanguard and they've been kind enough to not counter attack, now you want them to defend you? Give me a break. STA was a vocal supporter of Grub's war wagon from the beginning, full well knowing that it meant bringing war to MK and Vanguard's MADP allies.

So was MK.

Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh :awesome:

Link to comment

You declared war on two allies of Vanguard and they've been kind enough to not counter attack, now you want them to defend you? Give me a break. STA was a vocal supporter of Grub's war wagon from the beginning, full well knowing that it meant bringing war to MK and Vanguard's MADP allies.

First of all, Vanguard announced a treaty with stickmen minutes after stickmen declared on Polar. You can't seriously expect us to try and avoid them because they hold a treaty with an ally of ours given the circumstances surrounding that. For what it's worth, we didn't hit SLCB. Also, even if we did hit SLCB, I feel that the entire not hitting your allies' allies is more of a courtesy than an obligation/rule. Given the unique circumstances surrounding this war, it's not really fair to uphold that courtesy.

Secondly, STA has not taken a stance on the CB at all. Individual members have, but officially we haven't. And trust me, support for the CB is far from unanimous in the alliance. To say that we've been a vocal supporter of Grub's "war wagon" is to be completely ignorant of the situation at hand. The point is we support our allies, essentially no matter what. Even if Athens does something stupid against and MK was dragged in, we'd defend them. Because we love them.

That said, I agree with bzelger: our treaties have non-chaining clauses for a reason (because STA is ridiculously cautious; despite our very strong commitment to our allies, we want to keep our options open). I also understand that MK and CnG have a bunch of treaty conflicts. It's not as simple as MK simply supporting us or not. They're in a !@#$%* situation where supporting one ally means providing ammunition to the side fighting another of their allies. MK have been steadfast allies of ours and have supported us in many situations in the past, including situations involving NSO who they couldn't care less about.

I love MK. I know they love us. Just because they're not aligned with us in this war doesn't mean that they're bad allies. Heck, we're the ones that insisted on the non-chaining clauses in the first place. We fully knew what we were getting ourselves into. While I'd love for MK to defend us, I fully understand that they cannot at this point in time.

The best for STA in the future is to stop being allied to Polaris. Stop blaming CnG for your own allies mess-up.

We're not blaming anyone for anything. And we're not going to stop being allied to Polaris. Everyone of our allies knew the strong bonds between Polar and STA when they signed a treaty with us. Again, I understand that Vanguard and MK can't help us now. I get that they're in a difficult situation with many allies on both sides of the war. But we're not going to cancel on Polar. We'll defend polar if they're attacked regardless of why they were attacked. Just like we would do for MK.

Link to comment

The best for STA in the future is to stop being allied to Polaris. Stop blaming CnG for your own allies mess-up.

lol.

Well, I guess that goes to show you what you think of friendship, right?

Man, I feel bad for your friends.

Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   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...