Crimius

if somebody tried raiding me, I would check to see if they violated their alliance's charter, first and foremost. since there is truly no international law, it means we must defer to the individual alliance laws for guidance. depending on if he had violated his or not, I would ask reps or strike back with a full force attack, as well as spy ops and a naval assault, then offer peace. I am in agreeance that there is not "right to reps", with the exception that if the raider is in violation of his/her alliances charter. If I were unaligned, I wouldn't dream of getting reps and would proceed straight to retaliation and contact the higher ups in their alliance about their actions and ask that they let me have some fun with the raider and not to interfere for the duration of the war cycle. the question of reps lies on the rules of the alliances in question, and alliances must be plural here. Edit: to actually answer the question, if you caused more damage fighting back than you were dealt, then yes.

[quote name='Baldr' date='21 February 2010 - 04:30 PM' timestamp='1266787823' post='2195467'] Tech has other uses when you're talking about the difference in 0 tech and 100 tech. Once you get over a few hundred tech, though, tech has very small benefits for anything except war. You *know* why people are buying tech. You just want to pretend that it isn't true. [/quote] exactly, and if the nation is buying tech from another nation, then it's a safe assumption that it's cheaper for them to buy it off of a seller nation than on their own, which means they already have a tech level well beyond what the 'other benefits' are, with the exception of some wonder requirements (maybe). if they're buying tech from another nation, it's used for either boosting NS, meeting a wonder requirement, or to improve war stats. at that level, he is an arms dealer as much as the game allows him to be, even though to him what he is selling may not be a weapon.

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='20 February 2010 - 08:13 PM' timestamp='1266714783' post='2194330'] Yes, but they are not involved in attempting to help an alliance win a war; they're involved in a financial transaction that is designed to help them grow. If anything, they are watching out for their own nations and not for the welfare of the nation with whom they are dealing. Thus, I don't consider them to be involved parties in the war. [/quote] nations A and B are at war. He is nation C. Nation A is buying tech from nation C. Nation C's the equivalent of an arms dealer. he doesn't know, nor does he care to know, who's fighting whom. He's just capitalizing on a demand for a product he can provide; a product that improves the fighting strength of the buyer, Nation A. his concern may very very well be to improve his nation, but Nation Bs concern is his war with Nation A. if Nation A is getting stronger from his dealings with Nation C, then regardless of whether Nation C wanted it or not, he's making an enemy of Nation B by partaking in a transaction that makes both his nation and Nation A stronger.

as comrade craig said. [quote] It is legitimate war tactic to isolate and destroy your target's economy. Period. -Craig[/quote] within the power of my nation [ooc]in game functions[/ooc]

as a Grey Councilman, I'm sure this will come as a surprise to all of you, but True Neutral.

thanks admin and mod team!

though I am very much in support of this, I can only see it ending poorly for you. what would be some general conditions for peace once this assault on the offender has begun?

about a month before GWII

The Grey Council, GC, is still around for this update to the list.

The same fun of watching TV or reading a book.

The Grey Council knows all, sees all, and stays out of it all. at least that last one, anyway.

bump

bump

bump

fixed it. it bothers me.