Jump to content

Azural

Members
  • Posts

    149
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Azural

  1. [quote name='Merrie Melodies' date='04 April 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1270425650' post='2248048']
    There are many reason so many nations suffer infant death syndrome, tech raiding is just one of them.
    [/quote]
    So since it's only one of the causes to the problem we shouldn't do what we can to help prevent it?

  2. [quote name='Mr Damsky' date='04 April 2010 - 04:37 PM' timestamp='1270417044' post='2247867']
    The only person who can tech raid someone of fifty nation strength is another nation of fifty nation strength. Plus international law dictates a nation receives one day to train its soldiers before it may be attacked. That's plenty of time to mull over your options for an alliance.
    [/quote]
    Because one day is just so much time. <_<

  3. [quote name='Mr Damsky' date='04 April 2010 - 04:27 PM' timestamp='1270416415' post='2247858']
    And for the love of admin, don't tell me new nations don't know about alliances.
    [/quote]
    Sure, they get flooded with recruitment messages. But why should they have to choose to join one of those alliances quickly if they don't wish to be destroyed?

  4. [quote name='memoryproblems' date='04 April 2010 - 02:57 AM' timestamp='1270367803' post='2247379']
    As for the larger picture, it seems strange to me, how far are you going to take it? Are you going to try to stand up against alliance raiding policies, or are you just going to bully the unaligned who raid other unaligned?
    [/quote]

    That depends on which alliance is helping the particular victim and how they choose to enact the article quoted below.

    [quote]ARTICLE III: Raid Victim Assistance
    *An optional agreement to come to the aid of non-aligned nations that are the victims of piracy through an application of optional diplomatic, economic or military force commensurate with the strength of the offending pirate and according to the attackers alliance status or lack thereof.[/quote]

    That could mean contacting an alliance who's member is raiding a unaligned nation to try to find a diplomatic solution (say if the nation who attacks refuses to peace out). It also means that military force may be used at the signatory's discretion if they so choose. Though I find it unlikely that that particular option will be used against any alliance. It's much more likely to affect those unaligned nations who refuse to stop attacking another.


    I'm not sure how you figure we'll be bullying anyone.

  5. [quote name='DogeWilliam' date='31 January 2010 - 02:27 AM' timestamp='1264926471' post='2147168']
    Umm, no. You probably wouldn't see a single TOP post if they had given no reason. But, Doitzel is quite the attention grubber. So he has to bring out some dirty laundry that he has no claim to so that there will be multiple pages to this thread.
    [/quote]
    And here I was thinking we all agreed on the reason to go to war. Who knew this was all about our Grandmaster wanting to be an attention whore?

  6. [quote name='Sal Paradise' date='31 January 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1264925676' post='2147157']
    If TOP no longer wishes to continue this conflict, perhaps they can relinquish their claim to our members' rights to be cocky. You'll have to take this up with our government, of course.
    [/quote]
    I don't see any reason to start peace talks yet.

  7. [quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1264921555' post='2147021']
    Your declaring on them because of an old log with Saber stating an opinion? Seeing as you seem to be unrelated to TOP's other wars it will be interesting to see if this brings in some of TOP's allies, considering this is clearly offensive and bandwaggoning onto a war that doesn't involve you.
    [/quote]
    I'm sorry, why did TOP declare on C&G again?

×
×
  • Create New...