Starcraftmazter

On this day, the alliance of Dark Fist, would like to issue declaration of war on the Nusantara Elite Warriors. The reason for the war is pretty simple; We're on one side, they're on another...of the same war. We got word that some alliances fighting NEW could use some backup, and so we're going to provide it. DF is not an alliance which needs a piece of paper as an excuse to do what's right and help out some friends. In b4 e-laywers. Our message to NEW: Nothing personal fellas, but we shall fight you to ZI...if required Pic related - It's DF's war motto; /s/ Daikos, Diarch Starcraftmazter, Diarch

Give 'em hell IPA!

Ahahahaha SCM finds your pathetic attempts at trying to spin things funny.

Be alert...but not alarmed. I welcome you to black.

Unless they have withdrawn just now, yes. I will let Anu reply to this more officially, but I do not believe NATO was ever at war with either Vox or FAN. No idea what that means

Don't know about hundreds either, but they seem to have enough in their applicant AA or another AA or perhaps banks off AA, etc to keep their numbers up. And n00bs certainly are not anything to deal with. And then we rinse and repeat and do what we did with the Karma war. The fun never ends. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here, as I simply don't see that happening. For one, EZI will be pretty much abolished after this war, and all the alliances/communities previously banished from the game will be allowed to return. So in that sense, CN will already never go back to what it was. They are not going to get a white peace, I never argued for a white peace for NPO and it certainly won't happen. The biggest way in which NPO will be hurt after this war is ideologically - not economically. I feel this is adequate in order to not allow NPO to return to their position of power. No matter how many reps we could demand or how harsh of terms we could devise, they will always be able to rebuild and come back - and it would just make them really determined to get back at us if we did give them harsh terms. With allies like mine, I really couldn't care less. I think that's true for most of Karma.

Yeh, we told the boys to do that out of spite </sarcasm>

It'd like to say thanks to NATO on behalf of Dark Fist for giving us a good and honourable fight. We were more than pleased to negotiate a white peace, and I am very disappointed that some people are upset with that. To such people I would like to say; Your archaic views on peace and surrender terms is probably the reason you're not in power and are the ones issuing surrender terms, and I certainly hope it stays that way. The biggest victory Karma can achieve, is to crush the disastrous precedent of harsh surrender terms - especially for alliances which simply honour their treaties. Good day.

But we didn't fight as a bloc. Had you joined NOIR, it would not at all impact on your ability to enter this war on the side of your choosing nor your ability to fight in this war, nor your relations with other NOIR signatories. In fact had you joined NOIR, you would have probably been aided by other NOIR signatories who chose to remain neutral to the war. And this demonstrates perfectly, that it is not a political and war bloc. Which obviously doesn't mean that individual alliances within NOIR are not allowed to wage war...

AFAIK, they are flooding their AA with n00bs to keep up appearances of retaining a high number of members. As for the Hegemony, I believe it was over even before the war - this could be evident with people's attitudes on the forums, and NPO being forced to implement changes, even if they are for PR. This war is just the proof the the Hegemony was over. As long as we have the same treaties as we currently do, I doubt it. That sounds horrible =/ Everyone should enjoy the game - so long as it is not at the expense of others. I really used to be like you for the longest time, and wished harsh terms on NPO's soul. These days, I just don't see the point though. I'm very confident we won't let them ever do this - what they have done in the past - ever again.

Excellent, I'm glad we can restore ties and remain friends after the war. OOC: Now can I get unbanned from your channel?

Happy birthday guys, and thanks. We're proud to be allied to such a loyal bunch.

Welcome to the fight TSC - give 'em hell

When you've fought every GW in history on the lesser side and not surrendered, I will still not be interested in you. When you are anally violated like FAN was by it's own so called allies, and fight on for almost 2 years, then you would have earned my respect.

Sure - come in after we've done the hard work But yeh, someone had to take those top 4 nations. Good luck to ODN.

Well, it's all over for Hegemony now. Gremlins + TOP = Unbeatable.

Dark Fist entered the war to support it's treaty partners - who just so happened to be alliances we are closest to (and not by coincidence). We have never broken a treaty. We never will. Learn2honour & sign meaningful treaties.

Yeh, because you win like half My wars and ground losses are kind of like this - "Oh, thanks for the 1mill, but you should have it, no you can have it, no u, u, U, NO U TAKE IT, NO U DAMNIT!!"

I do not support surrenders. Although I can understand if someone is getting beaten and has no hope of individual victory, they deserve the chance to exit wars. However, IMO when they became a member of an alliance, they removed their right to decide when to exit an alliance vs alliance war - this should be decided only by the alliance. Also as a strategy, alliances could get all of their poorly beaten nations to surrender so they don't have to incur additional losses, while letting the remaining nations fight, thereby significantly postponing their surrender. So I will for one now be allowing such terms against people who are fighting against my alliance. If they wish to surrender, I think it's important to prevent them from coming back to their alliance for a little while after the war (say 3 months).

There's really only; Republic (senators, elected officials) Actual Democracy (referred to as communism - this is what INT has) Dictatorship & Dictatorship with some elected officials. I think all can work good and bad - just depends on the leadership.

Excellent propaganda, kudos.

For what, being the ultimate paper tiger in GW3 and giving them a good laugh? Not worthy of vengeance in my opinion. But yes, I do get your point.

Wow, that is truly horrible, and I am sorry to hear that. I really don't know why anyone would do such a thing, but I would assume those to be FAN/Vox spies (I suppose I should thank them, since this has inadvertently helped us). In a way - if it was them - it is your fault for committing actions which have severely upset them. But the good news is, after this war, hopefully - that will all stop. Still, I think such nations would have done so anyway, and so I don't think it would have hurt to make it mandatory for nations to get nuclear wonders. Certainly, if I was you, I would not let nuke rogues diminish the fighting capabilities of legitimate nations like that and make a stand.

Good luck BTO, have fun.

Thanks Anu Also, I missed your post earlier brass; I don't think NPO attacked you at 2 months and 27 days, because on that day someone happened to have more than 20% troops and NPO just so happened to catch them. I will always remember that DoW, and as you mentioned, all other non-troop violations (which were also insignificant) were ghosts - planted by NPO probably. It was clearly planned either from the beginning, or because FAN was making such an amazing recovery after the initial war ended. IMO FAN set the precedent for MK and others later on - they hurt NPO very badly with nukes, and proved that it's possible to recover fast after defeat - even after a prolonged war. NPO was threatened by this, and wanted to make sure this behaviour would not be repeated, hence they decided to put an end to FAN as a way of setting an example for everyone. I have no clue why the Karma alliances negotiating peace with NPO set the condition for 20% soldiers, but AFAIK this is something which does not happen anymore, as surrender terms these days often state 30% (or around) for leniency and/or include binding conditions for the negotiation and resolution of violations - and even Q alliances have done this in the past from what I remember. Why Karma's troop level condition had neither of these things truly baffles me. I don't want to even consider that alliances like GR, Vanguard, Athens, VE and others who attacked NPO would have anything to do with the possibility doing to NPO what it did to FAN over their "violation" of terms, but I don't see any logical reason for 20% of soldiers as opposed to 30% of soldiers either - given that 30% soldiers would be much easier to follow for NPO's nations and much easier to impose by NPO's gov and it makes absolutely no other difference in any way whatsoever, that truly leaves me completely clueless as to what Karma's intentions were with that. I agree with NPO when they say that Karma went into negotiations, knowing that their terms are skewed, and would not be accepted. I don't think NPO stalled any more than Karma did by not listing the terms all at once as opposed to individually, thereby forcing NPO to try and figure out what each term meant one by one. Doing this, they virtually eliminated any possibility for real negotiations, as they forced NPO to either accept every term quickly or not get peace at all. And I understand that the terms are non-negotiable - but as I've just said with the troop numbers, they clearly required some clarification to say the least. Furthermore, with the NPO's CB against OV term, Moo and Zhadum had some moderately good points - though I'm not saying I agree with NPO's CB, but if they wanted to word it in a different way which was also true, so long as Karma considered it to be true, I don't see why they couldn't compromise on this. I think the use of arbitrators during these negotiations ultimately had a very bad effect for how they played out as well, because this removed what little chance NPO had left to negotiate or clarify the conditions, as attempts by NPO to do almost anything other than blindly accept terms were simply met with the reaffirmation of the fact that they were non-negotiable. I think it would have been better if the leaders could directly talk to each other. Oh and on that note, I obviously don't blame Archon, Tyga or any of the other arbitrators as I realise that they were in fact just arbitrators, and did not make any decisions. They all did a good job IMO. I am not saying NPO's terms were completely unacceptable either, but reasonably speaking, if I was moo, I would not accept them - and I would certainly be extremely suspicious about the 20% soldier term. NPO's enemies accepted far worse terms in the past no doubt - but again, I don't see how this is relevant, as I believe the whole point of Karma is to not follow NPO's horrible precedent. At least I for one certainly think it should be. I would love for someone who was negotiating on the Karma side to give their perspective here and to address my points.