Chief's Blog

While Tromp does his best to translate FEAR's actions from "honouring the written word of a treaty" to "attacking other alliance's active protectorates" (which even NEW didn't do), it's hard to argue that this isn't an ideological war.

NEW didn't? Might want to explain that one.

The only problem is the people losing this war aren't really having as much fun as the people winning. So they need something to make them feel like they won somewhat. To make this happen, they try to win the battle of words. That's the only reason you have arguing. It'll happen every war where there is a clear loser.

Don't bother trying to talk to these tools chief, they'd be !@#$%*ing and moaning nonstop no matter what the scenario was. It's their standard mode of operation.

NEW didn't? Might want to explain that one.

NEW attacked a group of protected unaligned nations on a single AA, not a protected alliance.

NEW attacked a group of protected unaligned nations on a single AA, not a protected alliance.

It remains a protectorate. One that was violated by NEW.

It remains a protectorate. One that was violated by NEW.

It's still not an alliance. Come on, we both agree what NEW did was wrong, you don't really have to argue this point.

It's still not an alliance. Come on, we both agree what NEW did was wrong, you don't really have to argue this point.

What does it matter whether the protectorate is an alliance?

The protection of that what we used to call DF was there, and that's the only thing important in this case. That was my point.

What does it matter whether the protectorate is an alliance?

It's an important distinction to the Red Safari alliances, who all argued that it is impossible to unilaterally protect unaligned nations - you have to sign protectorate treaties with alliances.