Jump to content

Arrnea

Members
  • Posts

    3,911
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Arrnea

  1. [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1298014632' post='2637447']Hell no. This would be just !@#$@#$ insane in SE. In TE you don't have the time to stock pile crazy amounts of tech so not a huge deal, here though... Who wants to do the math and tell us what a 10k tech nuke would do with this?[/quote]
    A 10k tech nuke from a nation with no WRC would do a base damage of 1,650 infra (provided the target nation had more than about 4710 infra).
    From a nation with the same tech, but with a WRC added, it would do a base damage of 3,150 infra (provided the target nation had [s]over 9000[/s] 9000 or more infra).

  2. #7 would sure be game-changing. Instead of just Hime Themis and few others being able to delete 35% of your infrastructure with the push of a button, anyone with over 10,000 tech could pull it off (assuming they also had a Weapons Research Complex).

    The resource switching would be a nice addition, but in SE there should be a (significant, at least for a small nation) cost involved.
    I'm not opposed to the idea of wars being shorter, either.

    PS: Doesn't this kind of thread belong in Gameplay Discussion?

  3. [quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1297491851' post='2630099']Somehow I'm not surprised these two alliances would be close.[/quote]
    Well, considering two of the founders of Jamahiriya were members of the SOS Brigade on previous occasions, you'd have to be pretty silly to have been surprised. :v:

  4. [quote name='janax' timestamp='1297440407' post='2629392']
    I started an alliance that was invited to join Citadel, the most elite bloc to have existed on Planet Bob. An alliance that isn't almost universally despised.
    One not allied to (almost exclusively, INT and RIA are fair) other equally terrible alliances.

    Hurr durr I'm irrelevant hurr durr.
    :smug:
    [/quote]
    Actually, I was being honest. I have no idea who you are. I've heard of your alliance, but not you. :mellow:

  5. [quote name='janax' timestamp='1297437960' post='2629363']That would be like betting on whether or not the sun rises in the morning. It's been implied by the vast majority of people that aren't allied to you (and some that are), I just have no problem saying it outright.

    I mean, Haflinger and the weaboos all at once? Priceless. Once you add in the neighborhood tattletale alliance and it's just gold.

    GOLD, JERRY![/quote]
    Who are you again? :huh:

  6. [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1297420968' post='2629225']No these are pretty much mutual exclusive. You either wanted in but didn't get the chance, or you didn't want in.[/quote]
    On the occasions where we wanted in (all of which were optional, again no mutual articles were invoked with us), we did not get the chance (for the previously mentioned reasons).

    I never implied that we didn't [b]want[/b] in.

    [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1297421071' post='2629229']I'm just looking for an angle to bash you, naturally.[/quote]
    Par for the course, but you're barking up the wrong tree as usual.

  7. [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1297420552' post='2629221']Sure, which one is it. You wanted in like you are saying or you didn't feel the need to go like Arrnea is saying? You are confusing me.[/quote]
    Both are true. Our articles were optional by virtue of the non-chaining clauses. Of these, we either attempted to go in only to be thwarted by either someone else going in first (Exodus) or no counter materialising (UBD) [b]OR[/b] our assistance was not requested (GATO, MCXA) or we were specifically told to stay out (SLCB).

    Edit: Grammarfix.

  8. [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1297419794' post='2629217']Ok, I'll go along for the ride. So you are saying the attack of Exodus and GATO on RIA didn't enact your defence treaty and the attacks of THL (even though they only stayed in for 2 days) and MCXA on INT didn't warrant it either?[/quote]
    Nope, those wars started due to treaty chains, thus making our non-chaining clause turn the Mutual defense articles into Optional defense articles.
    In addition, neither alliance directly requested our support in the aforementioned conflicts.

    PS: I believe THL actually stayed for less than 2 days... it was something on the order of 15 hours.

    PPS: We were actually voting on hitting Exodus, but Sparta beat us to it... anything after that would be pointless bandwagoning.

    PPPS: Locke puts it more succinctly in the next post.

  9. [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1297419159' post='2629211']To be honest I don't think it would matter much. SOS didn't even help their current allies out so why would they help out an ODOAP partner? Although one could hope.[/quote]
    In this conflict we have honored every single [b]mutual[/b] article that has been activated with every single one of our allies, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

    In fact, that has been (to my knowledge, I wasn't Chief the whole time) the case through our entire alliance history.

  10. [quote name='CheeKy' timestamp='1297412853' post='2629175']
    I think a treaty with Invicta is pretty conflicting with your current treaties.
    [/quote]
    Invicta is not presently at war with any of SOS's allies.
    In addition, our treaty with Invicta is [b]optional[/b] and we have already said that we will not be activating it in this conflict.
    I see no direct treaty conflicts here. Just friends putting a relationship down on paper.
    Sure, some of our existing friends may not like our new friends, but since all our treaties are non-chaining, they don't have to fight for those friends if they don't want to.
    Furthermore, some [b]our[/b] friends' friends are people who we don't like (and the feeling is mutual)... a non-chaining nature again makes it so that we don't have to fight for those alliances and they do not have to fight for us, should they choose not to.

    Finally, this treaty was actually first proposed before the entire NPO-Doomhouse front even opened.

  11. [quote name='Trikoupis' timestamp='1297412044' post='2629162']The problem is that conflicting treaties are hard to manage, unless there is a really good understanding between the alliances involved. I do wish to you to manage to find such a level of understanding with Invicta and move forward to a treaty of a higher level doubled with the necessary understanding . However, there is no way to know the future and I can't say that I am optimist about it.[/quote]
    Sure there is a way to handle conflicting treaties (not that any of them are conflicting at this point). You go with the mutual one and direct fire away from the others.
    Treaty priorities 101, right there.

    If you have two equal-level treaties, you either honor them both (hi RIA) or go neutral.

    In any case, I'm sure LSF knows about conflicting treaties... INT and NATO have fought on opposite sides before, iirc.

  12. [quote name='Solaris' timestamp='1297408870' post='2629097']I support everyone who doesn't work against me. I'm magnaminous like that.[/quote]
    Haha, that's rich. Really, really rich. :awesome:

    [quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1297408954' post='2629099']Right. *I'M* the one coming in here with only useless remarks.[/quote]
    Yes, you are:[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1297399546' post='2628911']Wow. Just wow.

    Please cut your treaty with RIA.[/quote]

×
×
  • Create New...