Jump to content

Deruvian

Members
  • Posts

    383
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Deruvian

  1. But Hizzy, don't you know you're supposed to make it THIS BIG?
  2. You don't understand it? I believe it looks something like this: Poor flanks...
  3. Only if that warm and fuzzy feeling is down in your pants
  4. Not to take anything away from our awesome VE allies but AZTEC combined has more NS than VE. Aye, VE did a big part in fighting MCXA but, as has been stated, NPO was probably their main concern. Keep insulting AZTEC all you want. Our allies know our worth and that's good enough for us.
  5. The spice must flow... The naibs of Sezchronne welcome you to this world.
  6. And he's back! WB MB... Thank you to Raasaa for an amazing job... /me changes his coup plans
  7. I fail to see how asking them to decommission improvements that they won't need anytime soon and which only add to their bills, slowing their rebuilding, is "silly".
  8. These reps are relatively light considering the size of MCXA and compared to TSI's.
  9. I don't believe MCXA has any intention of straying out of the guidelines. Neither do we have any intention of e-lawyering any miniscule step out of line into an attack on MCXA. As I said, for the purposes of brevity take the alliances there: http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Karma_War as your definition of Karma. Also I don't understand how your example relates to this surrender thread.
  10. Nueva Vida is secretly Polar 2.0. Look at all the former Polars in our gov. That tech is back in the family
  11. For the purposes of brevity in announcements that involve non-aggression or no aiding they should be unless you want us to list every single alliance we don't want you aiding. If we had to do that then MCXA would have had to wait a longer time for peace
  12. For the purposes of this agreement, non-karma represents the side of the war linked by treaty chains to the NPO and karma represents the rest. edit: when I say treaty chains I mean treaties activated for war
  13. o/ AZTEC for we rolled like a steamroller o/ VE, Syndicate, ARES and allies, for being awesome war buddies o/ MCXA for being great and honorable opponents o/ Peace I'm glad this front has been brought to a close. I never held any ill will towards MCXA and it was a bit unsettling to fight these great people.
  14. And yet the fact remains (as Moo implied with his infamous [00:00] quote) that the only way this information could have been retrieved was through the same activities that sethb may have been engaged in. Counter-offers to sethb being attacked was simply the equivalent reaction on the person who "spied to catch a spy" (for simplicity's sake)
  15. It's funny you mention that because iirc the very first Karma PoW was a nation called The Republic of France ruled by The President of France (I think it's gone now though)
  16. agreed I believe that, with the treaty web as tangled as it was, treaties (not all, though) served more as a light outline of true relationships. An unfortunate situation, but one that should hopefully be amended in the future.
  17. Both Big Z and I already explained this in previous posts (one right after the other... right after you saying you were going to bang your head against the wall that's probably why you missed it) Therefore your explanation of Directly falls within the EXCEPTIONS of the definition of Direct Aggression. edit: I was confused by that at first as well.
  18. There might have been that clause, but MHA aren't dogs to be led around by the NPO. They told the NPO what would have happened and either the NPO tried to drag them into a mess or outright didn't care. IMO that violates the treaty much more than limiting the defensive clause. As you might have noticed MHA defended the NPO from two alliances trying to jump on the bandwagon.
  19. Then let me quote the Citadel TREATY edit: okay I wasn't fast enough
  20. It was actually their codex which overrides their treaties.
  21. I backtracked and realized I was talking about the Grämlins' codex when talking about non-chaining clauses. That says that they won't treaty chain. If I'm not able to find non-chaining clauses in the other treaties then I admit I was wrong.
×
×
  • Create New...