anenu

Unless i am mistaken TPF and STA have never actually directly fought each other and as such don't have the normal hostilities that can remain from such a war.

I see absolutely no problem with using sanctions during war time as they are a tool put into the game that should be used and could potentially tip the sides in a conflicts or shorten the length of a war. As for trading with nations that are on opposite sides of a war i disagree with it unless the alliance on the other side of the war is fighting an alliance that is basically in a separate conflict, for example how i traded with several aqua nations in the noCB war despite them being on the opposite side of the war as me because they were fighting NpO and allies in what was essentially an entirely different conflict. Other than that and possible exceptions i can't think of right now I see trading with someone on the other side of a conflict as basically aiding them in a war against you and your allies. And while you could say that both sides are equally hurt so it doesn't change anything hopefully you are smart enough to have a warchest and don't have to rely on your trade to keep you out of bill lock in war time.

Think of it like this Color 1 has 3 major alliances on it alliance A, B, and C all 3 colors belong in different political spheres recently alliance A and B fought a war were B lost and had to pay reparations to A now at this point i doubt think many alliances from B are going to be looking to trade with A because their is still hostilities between them and as such B will only trade with C and A can only trade with C but C can't create trade circles with both A and B. However had A, B, and C all been at least partially united by their color then A and B wouldn't have fought and while their may still be some hostilities trade would be much more likely to happen between them and as such all 3 alliances benifit. (A, B, and C may represent multiple treatied alliances or individual large alliance or even medium sized alliances with several treaty partners)

The problem with a conflicted color sphere is that while it may have more people than a harmonized color sphere less of those people would be willing to trade with you based on you political location and the fact that at some point in the future you may be at war. And since all a color is basically is a trade bonus and a senator why would you choose to be on a color were you have to fight to have one and have to selectively choose the other when you could choose a color where you have both?

because having your colormates allied to you means that trades won't be broken during a war and you get a senate seat to sanction rogues and such. While a diverse color sphere that has alliance on all ends of the political spectrum means that during war time unless their is some unity already you will inevitably have alliances on the same color fighting and as such after the war hostilities will remain between the alliances that will cut down on the number of potential trading partners to do to unwillingness to trade with a former enemy and may even lead to alliances leaving the color due to the fact that they decide they cannot remain on a color that they have no power in meaning that the color overall is reduced in size and strength. TL;DR Conflicts in a color make alliances leave to a friendlier area instead of staying in an area were they have little influence.

I don't see the consequence of losing a trade partner as a completely horrible thing. People lose them to inactivity or other such things all the time and you take a risk whenever you choose to trade with a person that you may loose that trade sometime in the future. I personally have seen several trade partners come and go but i always get another in a couple of weeks at most so all it does is slow my growth. Also the fault lies in the person who choose to do something worthy of a sanction as they were quite clearly not considering their trade partners at all.

I see nothing wrong with sanctioning rogue or during wartime as for ghost i don't think they need a sanction but its not something horrifically bad or anything. All in all sanctioning is tool in game and if you have numbers or allies to have a senator then why wouldn't you use it in situations that it would help if fact i strongly support its use during wartime as it could very well change how the political face of bob looks with team color becoming more important militarily and politically rather than were it is now.

Generally i am the same in RL as CN with the exception that i am more outgoing on CN then RL also i speak a little differently due to the fact that i have a large vocabulary and a limited spelling ability.

Didn't fight for either because i wasn't here. Voted stalemate because i don't know many of the alliances in UJP well enough to know if they would have been better than ~

I would have bet that none of the alliances would have constantly remained sanction from 2006 to 2009 except maybe the neutral alliance. I would have been rather wrong though Also i think its rather funny that people are already blaming reps for NPO's drops.

The question isn't weather or not they will regain their sanction eventually the question is if they can hold onto their sanction and still pay reps at the same time.

I agree with this. I also read a suggestion somewhere a while back that i think would be cool were color effects radiation significantly. Effectively their would be a worldwide radiation level that effects all colors but individual colors can have increased radiation depending on the number of nations on that color and the number of nations on that color being nuked, this essentially makes colors the equivalent of continents which they seem to be already to me.

don't worry it should go down until it settles around 1 or so. You should be thankful their is a cap though cause 5 radiation would feel like a clear day compared to 40.

Your question was already answered earlier in this thread. Basically it was need because everybody and their grandma know this war was coming and if Athens had simply contacted the involved parties on IRC then the people waiting for something to happen would still be waiting and would still be building up tension and that would just blow up in someones face eventually. Also i am finding all the people who seem to think that Athens backed out of this because we were scared of being rolled rather humorous as either they somehow missed the part were tool suspended the treaty or want to look knowledgeable because they have no idea what is happening.

No but posting without reading the op and declaring that their must be a military reason behind this decision when you have absolutely no idea of what really happened is trolling

I never said he didn't i simply asked if he did as his post seemed out of line with knowing that TOOL suspended and yes i do know what Argent's stance was in this affair and i am sorry you took what i said as an insult.

Or maybe we actually talked to them and decided that they had learned their lesson and war wasn't needed. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

You are aware that tool suspended their protectorate so nothing would have happened right?

people need to read Also Bama what was that we have entered a brave new world of peace and reason i thought you would be one of the first to recognize this.

don't play stupid here their are opinions that are obviously opinions as they admit to not having all the facts and acknowledge that they may be wrong and their are opinion in were they claim things without evidence and while they may state them as "opinions" they phrase them in such a way as to make them sound like facts. Of course i am sure you have logs of the entire event and know all the details and are making no assumption based on half facts their. However you want to look at it though the fact remains that Athens has never and hopefully will never roll a small alliance without due reason and as such to state that they are "overlords" and roll small alliance randomly is pure lies and one of the worst type of posting.

except that TOOL suspend the protectorate so we wouldn't have. Anyway o/ A brave new world of peace and reason

when he created a thread for it.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with Athens i do have a problem when people make their post out to be facts instead of opinions and conclusions created with solid evidence. For example this tread started with Mhawk calling Sparta and Athens "overlords" and claiming that TPF was the only thing preventing us from randomly curbstomping small alliances a practice that neither Sparta or Athens has ever engaged in.

Because when people spoke out against the NPO they were criticizing a large aggressive superpower that had connections to a large part of CN and could very well decide they didn't like that persons alliance and roll them all at some point in the future. Yet when people speak out against Athens it is generally people who have been aggressive in the past and are now attempting to look like they are the protectors of kittens and rainbows. In short people who speak against NPO now aren't heroic but their was a time when it was actually dangerous to do so and people who speak out against Athens, at least in this post, seem to not be involved and don't have all the details and yet are making up their minds already.

what he is saying their is that the hegemony was very good at what they aimed to do which was mainly to stay on top and make sure nobody could threaten them and with the exception of a couple months leading up to the karma war they indeed were very good at staying on top and making sure nobody could threaten them.