Experience The AUT

I like people who stand by their allies.

Signing treaties entirely based on friendship with no basis in FA benefits is just as foolish as the opposite.

I think what Mike meant is that he likes TFD but dislikes their allies.

I could say something similar about plenty of alliances. (But not TFD, since I know zero about them.) What's not to understand?

Consider the following:

"I like you a lot, but some of your closest allies are led by or act like jerks." (I said as much to a couple of the groups NoR fought in the past war. What was really weird was that they agreed with me.)

"I like you a lot, but your allies keep dragging you into losing wars for stupid reasons." (I've said this to the leader of at least one alliance, who agreed and then said, "But they're our friends.")

"I like you a lot, but your treaties conflict so much that one mis-step could start a war that would end up biting its own tail." (This is one I would never have thought of until this past war.)

I could say something similar about plenty of alliances. (But not TFD, since I know zero about them.) What's not to understand?

Consider the following:

"I like you a lot, but some of your closest allies are led by or act like jerks." (I said as much to a couple of the groups NoR fought in the past war. What was really weird was that they agreed with me.)

"I like you a lot, but your allies keep dragging you into losing wars for stupid reasons." (I've said this to the leader of at least one alliance, who agreed and then said, "But they're our friends.")

"I like you a lot, but your treaties conflict so much that one mis-step could start a war that would end up biting its own tail." (This is one I would never have thought of until this past war.)

Of course other alliances make decisions and ally with others you may not approve. That's part of the dynamic of the game, so we're supposed to be one world? It's why you have autonomy and sovereignty. With it comes the territory of having different friends and allies.

To someone they may be a jerk, to another they may be a friend.

Of course other alliances make decisions and ally with others you may not approve. That's part of the dynamic of the game, so we're supposed to be one world? It's why you have autonomy and sovereignty. With it comes the territory of having different friends and allies.

To someone they may be a jerk, to another they may be a friend.

And that's why people gave TFD a 5, because they don't like your allies because we're not "one world". If you want a higher rating from those people, change your allies. Why should someone give you a 10 if they dislike a key component of your alliance?

Its a simple way to drive a wedge between you and your allies. They praise one but, in the same breath they can attack your allies. Its a common tactic. You see it in a wars alot for example Alliance X you did great and fought well but, your allies in alliance Y were riding your coat tails. Its a quick easy way of driving wedges between allies. You would be suprised how effective it can be.

Signing treaties entirely based on friendship with no basis in FA benefits is just as foolish as the opposite.

I think what Mike meant is that he likes TFD but dislikes their allies.

That's about it. Don't read too much into it.

(And no The Big Bad, there were no tactics involved)

Its a simple way to drive a wedge between you and your allies. They praise one but, in the same breath they can attack your allies. Its a common tactic. You see it in a wars alot for example Alliance X you did great and fought well but, your allies in alliance Y were riding your coat tails. Its a quick easy way of driving wedges between allies. You would be suprised how effective it can be.

I would think it's most effective when it's true?

And no, I'm not being sarcastic. Sometimes it really is true.

Well everything has to have some truth to it or it is just pointless noise. Of course liking ones allies is simply opinion based, and of course you what they about opinions and .... well you know. When it comes to other things you have some truth behind things. At least that is the most effective way. Thats the way I work. I am not a log dumper but, I have no problem hinting at things to make certain parties nervous and to make certain parties become more aware of what is going on. Of course I do not do such things out of the goodness of my heart it has to fit whatever agenda I have. Ok so sometimes I do it just to cause trouble but, I get bored. Who can blame me.

Signing treaties entirely based on friendship with no basis in FA benefits is just as foolish as the opposite.

I think what Mike meant is that he likes TFD but dislikes their allies.

i would have to agree with this and that is sad. while i know that realpolitick has a place in this world, it should not outweigh true friendships. shoot, the fact is their are alliances on all sides led by jerks and fools, not just the side AUT is discussing. yet we see those alliances led by jerks and fools on the opposite side not treated in the same way. we see "they are our friends and always have been" paraded around just as we do from AUT's side.

this comment though tends to be spouted by those in power (was done during the Old Heg time as well) as a way to try and split the other side as well as to get alliances on the opposite side to sign treaties with those in power or allied to those in power to ensure that once war comes, some alliances would be split due to treaties.

Its a simple way to drive a wedge between you and your allies. They praise one but, in the same breath they can attack your allies. Its a common tactic. You see it in a wars alot for example Alliance X you did great and fought well but, your allies in alliance Y were riding your coat tails. Its a quick easy way of driving wedges between allies. You would be suprised how effective it can be.

See Karma's love for NEW, amirirght?

SCY, you think NEW does not have enough redeeming qualities of their own to be liked by people, regardless of which flag they fight under?

SCY, you think NEW does not have enough redeeming qualities of their own to be liked by people, regardless of which flag they fight under?

No but the courtship by some alliances to bring it over to their side isn't exactly discrete or subtle either.

No, in fact they do. However much like the universal praise of FAN post GW2 by League alliances you can take those qualities and use them to create division. If people just said we love NEW/FAN that would be liking them. When people say we love NEW/FAN but, they are to good for their allies or you allies don't deserve you etc. That would be trying to cause division. The two things do not have to be mutually exclusive. For example post UJW when I was with TPF we used this tactic with Sparta to move them into our camp. We praised their war fighting abilities but, in the same breath ragged on their allies. Now don't get me wrong we really liked Sparta at that point, they were good people. They could not fight any better then than they do now but, we had a positive opinion of them. So we worked to move them with us. So in that case you have a legit like for an alliance but, also a tactic to divide them from allies.

SCY, you think NEW does not have enough redeeming qualities of their own to be liked by people, regardless of which flag they fight under?

Hi Afred Von Tirpitz

I do agree that they have redeeming qualities, and I do believe most people praise them for genuine reasons, but I also believe not everyone is genuine about it. Although tbh I hope ex-heg alliances will reach out, but what I worry about for NEW is that they have so few treaties as of now, that a few treaties could easily change where they are on the web.

I came here expecting to see a blog about Alterego

Don't let it bother you, AUT. If they don't like us, our allies, or a decision we make, for whatever reason, they can come and take it up with us. That thread means close to nothing besides people putting out there who they do or don't like.