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.

I appreciate the clarification. I must have missed the part where ZH made it clear to TPF that they would not fulfil their purpose in the 60-odd pages I skipped of this thread.

you lost me when you implied an alliance can do the op. or do you mean operation and not original post? if it's operation you're talking about, then it still doesn't make sense. According to the OP (original post this time), there was no contact after July 18. Now, I'm not certain on this since I didn't follow the Karma war too closely, but the CN wiki lists July 19th as the day the war ended. Now, to quote from the OP (original post again): this line makes it seem like it isn't their fault that they can't control their creation, which is entirely different from your statement about the operation, which i take to mean destroying Athens from the inside out. again, if there's something I missed in the 70+ pages of discussion, please fill me in and link to it.

you made sense up until there.

Did you tell your target once the war was over of your plan to attack? Did you actively call off the attackers before the war was over (defined as: "hey, don't attack them anymore," not "I don't like you anymore")?

a couple of the more recent posts of course hold contradicting views, but this wouldn't be a discussion otherwise.

now, I'm not the most up-to-date person reading this, as 69 pages is an awful lot to read through front-to-back (after the first 12, i skipped to the last 5 or so), so please forgive me if any of my points have already been proven invalid. If I'm reading these correctly, TPF formed ZH with the intent to destroy Athens from the inside out during the Karma war. Once the War was finished, all hostile operations ceased, including ZH's mission. sometime between then and now, TPF and ZH had a severe falling out, to the point where ZH became its own entity, which had almost nothing to do with TPF, other than that's where they came from. to help describe this, I'll craft a metaphor that I hope you won't take too much exception to: TPF and Athens aren't friends, and are in an ongoing conflict. TPF decides to leave a remotely-detonated-explosive kitten outside Athens house in hopes that Athens can't resist its cuteness. Athens takes it, but by that time the conflict is over, and TPF lost the detonator. Now, what strikes me as the biggest problems with this is: 1. ZH is somehow dodging the bullets by throwing TPF under the bus. Once Athens discovered the plot, ZH should have been put down so to speak, regardless if the adorable little kitten came clean and said I was designed with the sole purpose of killing you. The kitten could still go boom if someone finds the remote again. 2. TPF didn't come clean and say "we sent you that adorable little kitten. it's explosive, so you might want to put it down" as soon as the Karma war was over. bad move. 3. TPF is using "I lost the detonator" and "I put the bomb there while we were fighting, not after we surrendurred" as a defense. it doesn't change the fact that they left the volatile cat in Athens house, knowing full well that someday it might be something to use against Athens if they ever went at it again, and should TPF one day find the detonator (patch things up with ZH) then kitty again becomes a deadly implement. Now, assuming you don't find fault with these points (but I'm sure many of you will), TPF is at fault for not coming clean. ZH is at fault for being a volatile cat. Many will say Athens & co. is at fault for not taking the diplomatic approach as well. This strikes me as a quite valid CB. although I feel war could have been averted if diplomacy were at least attempted, by either TPF or Athens, at any point up to the DoW, I don't think there is any reason for anyone to be upset that this is happening, other than Athens & co. or TPF. every action has it's consequences, and believe it or not, inaction counts as an action. In all honesty, I would have liked to see Athens take in ZH despite knowing their intent, get the ZH members to feint at making good with TPF, and then when in the future TPF tried to activate their cell, they would get to watch as it completely backfired and had all of Athens, including ZH, come down on them. then again, subtlety isn't exactly Athens' style. this is my stance and view, and does not reflect the collective view of the Grey Council in any way.

nicely put. I like

that seemed like an act of grumpiness and poor taste chairmanR. you weren't ever that ornery when you were in GLOP, what happened?

good idea. I would only include this on DoWs or treaty cancellations, though, since those are the only things where authenticity might matter.

edit: two pages popped up between reading and typing. no longer relevant.