Striker DCS
-
Posts
59 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Striker DCS
-
-
Ok, final flag...
-
Very well said and very thoughtful of the nations you represent. Although there has been destruction on both sides each has something left to rebuild. First step to peace would be both sides acknowledging that mistakes were made.
Once that is accomplished the rest should come easier…
o/peace
-
LOL, no kudos for the cheesy one?
Disco ball, hmmmm... maybe one behind the minuteman.
-
Final Flag, I think.
-
Just putting in my bid for the "official" name. I think this "big" war is going to need a name that describes best what it was about.
This war will probably last till the end of the round with many more alliances taking sides or finding easy targets. Slot availability will probably not be a problem if DCS should enter the war.
-
Double post see next post
-
The truth is there is no hard written rule concerning tech raids or fair play that everyone has to read and agree to before entering the game.
I would dare to say that 30% of nations in an alliance could care less about that alliance and have probably never been to their website to read any rules. Many of the players entering this game are noobs and run their nations in such a way as they become easy targets, this is a learning process. Many other players entering this game intentionally plan on not listening to anyones rules and simply causing as much mayhem as they can.
To think that ANY alliance can maintain control or be responsible for all of it's nations 100% of the time is absurd.
That is where diplomacy should come in.
I do not know the answer to this. I don't think there really is one answer. Each alliance has to look at each situation differently and determine whether the action was simply a tech raid for good reason, if there is one, or something that threatens the sovereignty of their alliance.
If you look back at the very beginning of this NAAW/BW conflict and disseminate the first actions taken it becomes pretty easy to see where the first mistakes were made. First the action and the reaction.
1. A NAAW nation tech raided an inactive BW nation:
a. Not the smartest thing to do although most alliances would agree "serious inactivity" is an acceptable reason for a tech raid. First mistake made in conflict.
2. Three nations then retaliated against the raiding nation.
a. Not an appropriate response given the inactivity of the raided nation. Second mistake made in conflict.
Everything else that happened following these two initial "mistakes" made by both sides is a result of failed diplomacy.
Diplomatic mistake upon diplomatic mistake has been heaped onto the situation making it the "War Of Failed Diplomacy". Both alliances should have recognized these initial mistakes, apologized for their mistake and rectified the situation before it got to this point.
Instead the decimation of many nations resulted.
Had diplomacy occurred, the correct diplomatic responses would have been the two great alliances simply admitting they had each made a mistake.
IMO
-
It appears the "pork shrimp" got a little to close to fire and got seriously burnt. I was just checking their alliance to ask how those pentagons worked out for them in defending their nations but under closer scruitiny I realized the question wasn't necessary. I couldn't help but drag a quote from one of their bios saying "Pork Shrimp arguably the most prolific small alliance in TE History.". Not sure of their meaning using the term prolific,
pro⋅lif⋅ic –adjective
1. producing offspring, young, fruit, etc., abundantly; highly fruitful: a prolific pear tree.
2. producing in large quantities or with great frequency; highly productive: a prolific writer.
3. profusely productive or fruitful (often fol. by in or of): a bequest prolific of litigations.
4. characterized by abundant production: a prolific year for tomatoes.
but pathetic sounds closer to what was meant.
Ok that was a little bitty flame but as burnt as they are I doubt any one will notice.
Would have been better to let the past go and live in the present... now your just tech raid practice for MHA noobs.
-
I am not going to go through the trouble to drop quote each and every post I agree or disagree with, just way too much. I will say, I know Avenger well, and he will (if you can't) remove any sanctions he placed against BW asap. He would never have used "unfair" sanctions against nations that had done nothing wrong in the first place. His actions in sanctioning BW was an act of "returning the favor". Although I am sure had he not removed the sanctions you placed against us that you certainly would have...
Anyhow, back to the thread, we are neutral "for now". We are sitting back redoing trades and reading the mail. I want to thank Thaisport, Burning Glory, and Bill Nye for their assistance and understanding during this transition. We take our committments seriously and want you all to know we will be there for you if needed just give us some time to lick our wounds.
I hope everyone takes time to look at the big picture. This has got to be more about the nations you represent than any personal "trophy" you might achieve. Talk is cheap and God knows there's plenty of cheap talk in here. Metal seems to like to play the verbal game so much it hurts my head listening to him to the point when I see his name and another drop quote I crindge. Bill is understandably "pissed" by what BW has done to their alliance over minor tech raid infringement... The sad part is so many other "little" nations have been destroyed as a result of the "big" alliances differences of opinion.
Agree to disagree on everything, thats fine, but end the war. Find some point you both can agree on and work from there. Concentrate on what is good for your respective alliances. I know you both feel backed into a corner having been forced into a situation neither wanted. So now you have the nothing-to-lose attitude going on. The truth is you both still have a lot to lose, your prestige...
edit:... or nevermind, lets just blow !@#$ up. Let's let some nation from NONE, that had no possible chance of winning, win the round when all the dust settles...
-
Digital Combat Soldiers / DCS - "old school" squad since 1997
We have declared ourselves neutral in this war.
We have separated from NAAW and have begun using our "old school" squad name
Digital Combat Soldiers. Although we have separated from NAAW as an alliance
we will continue to be their allies now and in the future.
See MDP’s and MDAP’s below.
We have not participated in any raids or wars against Blackwater.
We have NO further plans of aggression or retaliation for the economic sanctions placed
against our nations unless further aggression takes place. Any attacks against us would be
unwarranted and misguided and would be dealt with accordingly. We also request that the
economic sanctions placed against any nation in DCS be canceled ASAP.
We welcome any nation or alliance that wishes to join our alliance and we
will gladly accept trades with any black team nation.
We will also negotiate MDP's or protectorates from any alliance that believes in the
basis of fair play as we do. We will also discuss possible mergers with interested alliances.
Again, we have declared ourselves neutral in this war. This is with the
understanding that we shall retaliate if attacked or attack if we feel threatened.
Contact: IRC is #DCS ____ Visit Forums: http://dcsmessageforum.yuku.com/
Digital Combat Soldiers - a multi-game squad since 1997. Cyber Nations, Crysis,
Combat Arms, Joint Operations, Counter Strike, Delta Force Extreme and old Delta Force 1.
___________________________________
*** DCS / MHA Mutual Defense Pact
Article I: Mutual Defense
Digital Combat Soldiers (DCS) and Mostly Harmful Alliance will not engage in acts of
aggression upon one another, and shall honor all requests for military assistance should
either find itself under attack by an outside party.
Article II: Cancellation
Should either alliance feel the need to withdraw from the agreement, they shall notify
the other alliance privately. A 48 hour cancellation period shall be in effect from the
time that an alliance is notified of cancellation.
/s/ for MHA
Thaisport, Prime Minister of MHA
/s/ for DCS
Striker, DCS
_____________________________________________
*** DCS / TPF Mutual Defense and Aggression Pact
Article I: Mutual Defense
The Phoenix Federation (TPF) and Digital Combat Soldiers (DCS) will not engage
in acts of aggression upon one another, and shall honor all requests for military assistance
should either alliance find itself under attack by an outside party.
a.) If either DCS or TPF encounter a conflict of treaty obligations under this article,
the non-waring alliance shall try diplomatic solutions first and act as a peace negotiator.
If all attempts to resolve the conflict fail, the other is obligated to defend.
Article II: Optional Aggression
The Phoenix Federation has the option to engage in offensive actions that
Digital Combat Soldiers takes, but is not obligated, and vice versa.
Article III: Cancellation
Should either alliance feel the need to withdraw from this agreement, they shall notify
the other alliance privately. A 48 hour cancellation period shall be in effect from the
time that an alliance is notified of cancellation.
/s/ for TPF
Burning Glory, The Flame
/s/ for DCS
Striker, DCS
_________________________________________________
*** DCS / NAAW Mutual Defense and Aggression Pact
Article I: Mutual Defense
National Alliance Of Arctic Warlordz (NAAW) and Digital Combat Soldiers (DCS) will not
engage in acts of aggression upon one another, and shall honor all requests for
military assistance should either alliance find itself under attack by an outside party.
a.) If either DCS or NAAW encounter a conflict of treaty obligations under this article,
the non-waring alliance shall try diplomatic solutions first and act as a peace negotiator.
If all attempts to resolve the conflict fail, the other is obligated to defend.
Article II: Optional Aggression
The National Alliance Of Arctic Warlordz has the option to engage in any offensive actions
that Digital Combat Soldiers takes, but is not obligated, and vice versa.
Article III: Cancellation
Should either alliance feel the need to withdraw from this agreement, they shall notify
the other alliance privately. A 48 hour cancellation period shall be in effect from the
time that an alliance is notified of cancellation.
/s/ for NAAW
Bill Nye, NAAW
/s/ for DCS
Striker, DCS
_____________________________________________________________
DCS / RE Mutual Defense and Aggression Pact
Article I: Mutual Defense
Roman Empire (RE) and Digital Combat Soldiers (DCS) will not
engage in acts of aggression upon one another, and shall honor all requests for
military assistance should either alliance find itself under attack by an outside party.
a.) If either DCS or RE encounter a conflict of treaty obligations under this article,
the non-waring alliance shall try diplomatic solutions first and act as a peace negotiator.
If all attempts to resolve the conflict fail, the other is obligated to defend.
Article II: Optional Aggression
The Roman Empire has the option to engage in any offensive actions
that Digital Combat Soldiers takes, but is not obligated, and vice versa.
Article III: Cancellation
Should either alliance feel the need to withdraw from this agreement, they shall notify
the other alliance privately. A 48 hour cancellation period shall be in effect from the
time that an alliance is notified of cancellation.
/s/ for RE
Caesar43, Consul of the Roman Empire
/s/ for DCS
Striker, DCS
-
Let me see, I need a trade with Nashinda Zote, Rogbania and Totolith ...
-
I believe this to be a sincere offer of peace so I hope everyone takes it as such. Time to stop the back and forth blasting of each other and the blame game and get down to real politics.
Declare peace
Both parties drop sanctions asap
Sanctioned nations work out as many trades with each other
Never tech raid each other again
Lets get a deal going here before the chance slips away... alot of loose cannons out there that need to be reigned in.
-
If we do this quickly now, before any more crap comes in. Lets build a strong relationship by uniting trade partners and acting as part of a block sharing trades. It is kinda like me sending my beautiful princess daughter to be married to your ugly-as-butt son prince. We unite as one... if only in trades, the rest should come later.
-
All that was said was said as you list it less a couple you chose to leave out. It was my effort to remain neutral in the entire conflict as you can tell from my "private" messages. Sometimes things are said in diplomatic talks that bend the truth some but I never once said I would never return to NAAW just that we choose to remain nuetral in "this" war. Primarily due to being sanctioned.
Now you choose to throw those up instead of taking the olive branch?
Let's get this behind us, by the way, what resources do you have? I need everything...
-
I agree with Bill. The sanctions recently placed against those who paced them against us have managed to balance out this conflict. I hope both sides can find the common ground and put and end to this black sphere disaster. It should also be signed into agreement that neither side will tech raid any nation within our team color for the good of the bloc.
Everyone should take a look at their SOP's for tech raiding and reaction to tech raiding and making everyone in their alliance aware of these policies.
Give peace a chance...
-
I am not as familiar with the ethics of war in CN but I tend to believe this is a simple case of escalation due to overreaction.
Initial tech raid resulted in overreaction by Blackwater initiating an unacceptable response sending three nations to do an all out DOW on offending tech raider, without proper warning or use of diplomatic channels.
UAAW responded correctly directing initial retaliation against Blackwater's attacking nations only and followed with diplomacy.
Blackwater ignored diplomacy and overreacted again initiating further attacks against NAAW, attacking nations not directly involved in the conflict and sanctioning their top nations.
UAAW correctly responded to this overt DOW with a properly posted DOW stating the intention to attack if Blackwater does not agree to immediate cease fire and accept all peace.
To me it looks like a clear cut case of Blackwater:
1. Overreacting and escalating initial tech raid.
2. Ignoring diplomatic attempts.
3. Escalating conflict again by additional unwarranted attacks.
4. Sanctioning nations not involved in conflict.
I would think that rational decisions regarding what is best for your alliance would be your top concern at this point. Causing your alliance to be destroyed over a simple tech raid doesn't sound rational to me and should give pause to others in your alliance.
Take a deep breath and a step back, propose a 24 hour cease fire for further negotiations.
I am not a diplomat or anyone that has any say in any of this. Just an innocent bystander that has been caught up in it.
-
IMO, I believe a BLACK senators sanctioning abilities are empowered by and for the entire BLACK team and as such should not at any time be used for any "individual alliances" benefit or as a preemptive strike for any "individual alliance" especially when it directly has an affect on nations within the senators own BLACK team.
I feel the urge to hunt down some kittens... See below
-
Titanium of DominationStation (Blackwater) has used his powers as senator of black team to sanction top players in the game for no legitimate reason. This shows how blackwater operates unfairly. Sanctions should be used for good reason and just cause like ghosting or cheating... Not because you "feel" like it...
Isn't this game about fairplay? Isn't that what Judgement was about, enforcing fair play?
I believe all alliances should see this as an unfair, unjust and unwarranted act of misuse of power by a Senator for personal gain by Blackwater and react accordingly.
In case anyone would like to send a message to him and their alliance that this will not be tolerated his addy is.
http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_...tion_ID=1000270
Any alliance that sees this as unfair and would not like this done to their alliance should stand up and let them know this kind of underhanded gameplay will not be tolerated.
-
IMO I believe the correct alliance defensive response to any tech-raid with peace sent, would be assigning "one" other aligned superior nation to respond in kind. This technically puts two nations against the one raiding and normally inflicts acceptable damage. Of course, this response could lead to peace, if peace was sent, or it could escalate to one of the raiding nations alliance member joining in. At this point all bets are off, knowing most alliance wars begin this way.
To immediately assign two nations to curbstomp another nation for a tech raid should be considered an immediate action of excessive force and delt with accordingly.
Fair play is part of the game and any nation that trys to create their own rules or dominate without abiding to rules of fair play will be judged by all that play the game.
Have we forgotten the war with MI and the reasons for Judgment?
This said, I am sorry to see George the Great get dealt such an unfair blow but happy to see everyone concerned has worked it out.
-
I can really appreciate your resolve and I salute your honoring a MAP.
My attempt was to raise question whether your allegiance to MI is warranted when they have made many bad decisions that will directly affect your alliance for the rest of this round. If their new government had addressed the initial problems that caused this and ammended their doctrine, MI and their allies wouldnt be in the position they find themselves. It's all about fair play...
Take for example MHA, it is a large well run alliance that plays fairly and doesn't try to coerce or threaten alliance wars because of tech raiding. If someone tech raids your alliance you might retaliate with one other nation joining in, that is acceptable. You don't threaten to destroy an alliance over a tech raid.
When someone is successfully tech raided it teaches that nation that was raided a few things. It teaches them that they have to consider whether they should have been in def1 instead of def5, it teaches them that Gureilla Camps can be more useful than Banks, it teaches them that an airforce although expensive is a strong deterant to raids and is of great value, etc. These things are learned the hard way as many of us have learned already. When the next round comes around they will build out their nation according to what they learned in the last round. It is part of the game and part of the learning process. I can only imagine what CNTE will look like and how it will be played by round 5.
Good luck...
-
Every day I come in here and read all this (mostly quotes and more quotes) , followed by foolish and childish banter and yet no one seems to state the obvious. What I stated in another thread may help some decide that there is more to it than the personal insults everyone keeps throwing around. I for one would not enjoy the game as much if it turns into the same thing we now have in CN:S with NPO completely dominating, so please read... Please do not quote it, just read it...
-
Okay, I normally stay out of diplomatic or political discussions because I am not in council and possibly not current on what's going on behind the scenes but I will make an exception this time.
To stand by and have your alliance destroyed due to a misguided allegiance to an alliance that base their world domination doctrine on ideas that run contrary to fair play is ridiculous.
Murder, Inc brought this on themselves by threatening retaliation against any alliance whose nations would dare to tech raid any of their nations. The only reason they did this was because of their size. Judgment came about as a means to deal with this aggression. If it had been allowed to continue it would have ruined the game for so many.
Whether they realize it or not MI is responsible for creating Judgment by their own overt actions. They have since changed governments several times but have yet to address the problem that created this situation in the first place. Now they are willing to let other alliances suffer the consequences for their lost cause and still refuse to change their doctrine.
Why do you think Warlordz and others have turned their backs on MI? Because what they were attempting to do ran contrary to what most consider fair play in the game.
Do not let blind allegiance to their lost doctrine destroy the nations you have promised to protect. Stand up against their foolish and flawed plans of domination. Stand up for fair play.
Lets all get back to playing the game the way it was meant to be played. It is not to late to reconsider. Think of what is best for your alliance now that MI has failed in their plans to corrupt the game. Better yet, let your nations know, let them choose whether to be on the side of what's right for the game.
That's all I have to say, choose wisely...
-
I am fairly new to these forums but not new to CN:TE. I have been in the last two rounds and have seen some things that could possibly improve the game.
I agree with the shorter wars (5 days) but I also think anarchy should be reduced to 5 or less days. Sorry if this has already been discussed.
Another thing that seems to be causing a problem is the ghosting of alliances. Nations leave and join other alliances without ever really belonging to those alliances (ghosting) causing trouble for those alliances. Perhaps you could set it up so that you first have to join that alliance and be approved. I play !@#$%* and to join an alliance you must first register your colony or nation and be approved. This would solve some major problems that seem to be running rampant throughout the game.
Also, if you could place voting info on a nations page so others can see if they have voted.
If this has already been addressed disregard this post. Appreciate your consideration...
Striker DCS
Wars need changed!
in Tournament Edition Suggestions
Posted · Edited by Striker DCS
YES, reset CN:SE please. WOW would that be awesome or what. Reset that sucker every year...
We have learned how aggressively you can grow when well planned. It would be fantastic to restart CN:SE and apply all that has been learned. Let's just say NPO won first round and start a new one then resets every year with awards (flags) going to each years winners. Look what can be done in a 90 day round, just imagine a 12 month round,.
I can hear the crying now, lol, but most would say SE has gotten boring as compared to TE...
Anyone agree?