Kowalski
-
Posts
1,134 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Kowalski
-
-
Well done TFD for winning round 1!
-
NATION: Killallippies
RULER: Kowalski
NATION LINK: Clicky
NATIONALITY OF TEAM: (see list above): England
-
Club take overs are not allowed as of current. Everyone must create a club from scratch, it will ultimately result in speeding up the process of getting already active/competitive teams into the Primera. I apologize for this inconvenience, new teams will be accepted after the 1/30 league boxing-day.
I was in a queue, then assigned to Gumbo Gods and now my application has vanished altogether. Do I need to re-apply after 1/30?
-
This is one of the best non-Härmlin announcements that their could ever be. You sexy beasts deserve each other.
-
Why isn't TOP winning this all important poll
Every MHA diplomat has been instructed to leak information that we will be leaving tC shortly, just so we can win a damn poll for a change. Looks like it's working.
-
This is assuming time is constant.
Actually time is one of those circular tube things that goes round and round, so we're actually thinking of leaving six months ago.
-
MHA is still very into being "Harmless" in the last war Genesis was declared on by MHA and when they beat us, as was inevitable, they gave us very reasonable terms. Not only that both alliances have had more contact and interest in eachother since meeting on the battlefield.
I think what GB/whoever is trying to say is that the 'old' MHA would never have entered the war, and as well as it being less inevitable that the 'old' MHA would've won, they'd have given more reasonable terms and had more contact with Genesis afterwards.
-
Hmmm interesting...
Top 3 vote getters:
MHA, Sparta, TOP
Alliances that Umbrella holds a non-citadel treaty with:
MHA, Sparta, TOP
I think our sour grapes are more effective than we thought.
You forgot the third category
Alliances that will drag Umbrella into the tC civil war:
MHA, Sparta, TOP
-
Well done CCC, you have some great new friends there!
-
It doesn't even have a binding defense clause.
What it does say is that 4 alliances will coordinate should we find ourselves in a war. 
Sure, that's what led me to think there would be no need/call for a DoW. But it still means that if you attack one you potentially attack all, right?
EDIT: Or is the case simply that if all four alliances find themselves in the same war, on the same side and against the same foes, that the military resources will be pooled together and co-ordinated accordingly?
-
Interesting stuff, good luck to the signatories.
Just to confirm, if an alliance were daft enough to attack, say, IRON, does this mean that the military forces of ML, TORN and Valhalla would mobilise in defense without any DoW being required from the alliances?
Multiple alliances involved in a war without matching DoW's could play havoc with the treaty web.
-
Sparta are great guys and we are very happy to get this treaty signed in time for us to leave tC, attack NPO and IRON and take over the whole world. Oh shi...
-
I think the issue is that MHA are not as friendly or reasonable as we used to be.
-
Also thanks for that last bit. Not sure what relevance it had as you just explained a very basic concept. When a situation comes down to accepting the diplomatic solution that has already been offered, or going to war, and MHA gov members say "Id really rather attack them" thats looking for a fight.
Pfffft. Looking for a fight would mean going out of your way to create a situation where by you could declare war on somebody. Being provoked whilst sitting around minding your own business and biting back isn't looking for anything, whether the party involved suggests a diplomatic solution directly afterwards or not. Accusing an alliance of looking for a fight just because they don't take every available opportunity to back away from it is laughable.
MHA is bigger, has more allies and is more involved in global politics. Of course it will be involved in more wars, you can use those stats all day and it won't mean anything. The 'old' MHA used to tech raid, it isn't allowed anymore. MHA used to demand reps after wars, we accepted no reps from either of the three alliances we were at war with last time around. MHA has retained it's original values and we are proud at the fact we've done so whilst growing in the way that we have. People just have a hard time accepting that this is possible so refuse to believe it.
-
I remember seeing in a LM thread a while ago that there was a link to a guide to xpert eleven in a PDF format. Is this correct?
-
NATO and Zenith are two good friends of ours so this is sad to see but obviously the best move for both.
-
Bob's right, our declaration on FAN was inevitable no matter how harmless we are judged to be. And we weren't at war with them at that point. I won't publicly discuss which wars we have deliberately stayed out of but look back through the major wars that we weren't in but could easily have bandwagoned. And regardless of what 'evidence' you have I don't believe MHA goes looking for a fight without reason; looking for a fight and preparing for one due to provocation are two completely different things.
-
While you think you are being clever that proves my point right there.
Old MHA was very much more harmless. While its hard to put into into a corresponding percent, it is safe to say it was well over 75%. Anyone that was around at that time should know that clearly.
I am even willing to dispute you are that harmless. In all the pas conflicts that have happened, when MHA has some tie to the fight, they have joined. They were not needed against FAN. Not against IAA. Not in this "coalition war". Yet they still fought. But for the sake of keeping the argument simple, this isnt even needed.
Not being clever, merely playful, relaxed and not taking this too seriously. That's the MHA way, remember.
We did not 'join' the war against FAN because we had 'ties', our DoW against FAN came around three months after the re-declaration on FAN by NPO, GGA, etc. and was for a completely different reason. It was a separate DoW. A futile one given their situation but one that their actions gave us no choice with. I don't think we can be accused of entering that looking for war because there was never going to be any meaningful military action. As for IAA and the Coalition War, there could be arguments that a number of alliance's participation wasn't needed. There have been major wars that MHA's participation may not have been crucial to the outcome of the war but in the last year there have also been wars that we have received requests to enter but have not given the wishes of our membership AND government, and there has been at least one recent glaring occasion when we could have lead our own war but have chosen not to. If we truly wanted a war we could have had one. Your assessment of whether participation is necessary is based on the actual outcome of a given war but there are far greater factors involved.
If you're bitter that the 'old' MHA may have given you and tR even more chances that the horrible 'new' MHA did I'm sorry, but every alliance has to learn from it's mistakes and move on. It's called growing up.
-
Well im glad you took a step back now. So anything i can post can be put into that Mostly category? At what point does mostly harmless lose its meaning?
Please define what you think MHA is and what mostly harmless means to you, and then we can move on.
49% harmful, 51% harmless
-
I misread then.
No worries. Nice avatar
-
If you don't think losing three members can change an alliance, go ask old \m/ members about August 11th through September 19th in the second year of our Admin, PBUH.
I was actually saying that it isn't surprising that an alliance that loses it's three founding members changes.
-
So alliances change in focus and behave when governments change. Your government has changed. But you still remain true to your original values? Your change in focus doesnt change your values?
And it appears you are going to need me to post proof of MHA looking for a fight. Is this what you want?
Do what you like, I can't tell you what to do or what not to do and I'm not interested in doing either. So you have 'proof' MHA nas been looking for a fight? We're only Mostly Harmless. Everyone has boundaries.
-
It appears you are agreeing they have changed, therefore agreeing with my point. I am not the one saying they haven't. That would be those arguing against be so please direct your "Call the cops" at them.
Of course MHA has changed, every alliance has. To say that alliances don't change in focus or behavior when the government changes is ridiculous. Your point is that MHA has changed for the worse and is somehow no longer true to it's original values or doesn't live up to it's name. We do not agree.
-
Now go poke holes in my post. I bet its coming.
Of course it's coming, don't profess to be some kind of psychic or beaten-down beacon of truth just because people disagree with you. On one hand you bemoan the 'new' MHA's lack of freedom-of-speech, on the other you pre-empt any disagreement with you by mocking anyone who may dare to do so.
An alliance that used to be small but now the three founders have left and the alliance has 609 members it's different! Somebody call the cops!
What it does say is that 4 alliances will coordinate should we find ourselves in a war. 
Season 4 Commencement
in Fantasy RP (IC)
Posted
True, but supposedly for club teams rather than national teams. Perhaps each manager could put on their page which CN nation their Liga Mundo team represents?