Jump to content

Martijn

Members
  • Posts

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Martijn

  1. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 06:20 PM' timestamp='1267118667' post='2203168']
    The issue here is that FOK has declared (through their choice or MK's) on an old friend and that shows a lack of class.
    [/quote]

    If TOP hadn't attacked MK, FOK and TOP would now not be fighting. It's as simple as that. Of course FOK did not want to go to war with TOP and as Divi and many others have already gone out of their way to explain, FOK is not happy with this situation at all.

    But having said that, treaty obglitations are not to be taken lightly. FOK's signature on an MDP means something and that is why we are now meeting on the battlefield. If that isn't classy, I don't know what is.

  2. [quote name='Bob Janova' date='25 February 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1267104920' post='2202958']
    ... except that it states three times in their DoW that they are not.
    [/quote]

    It is completely irrelevant if TOP's attack is a seperate war or part of something larger. It changes nothing to the fact we have a treaty with MK and not with TOP, making the defence of MK against TOP the only possible option.

  3. [quote name='Mussolandia' date='24 February 2010 - 07:49 AM' timestamp='1266990807' post='2200686']
    There is definitely a pattern. It is the second time FOK declares on a former ally a short while after the end of obligations.
    [/quote]

    Funny how you leave out that each time, the former ally aggressively attacked one of FOK's allies.

    If there is a pattern, it's a pattern of FOK honoring their treaties, even when the choice is a tough one.

  4. Yeah, having a GGA level military or FAN level military is irrelevant if you don't have any allies who will fight for you in the war, because you will just be too massively outnumbered.

    Ironically, this is exactly what happened to NPO. Their loss is not caused by their lack of military readiness, but because too few alliances were willing to defend them.

  5. Look at the NPO growth chart. As you'll see, our drop is stalling. Its going to be almost impossible to de-sanction us. We simply have too many people.

    NPO is only 4 points from being desanctioned. Even though loss of score is indeed declining, Pacifica still loses about a quarter of a point and a handful of members on a daily basis, while all other alliances are gaining score.

    Even by the most positive forecast, NPO will be without a sanction within a month and probably a lot sooner than that. That's not propaganda, that's just facts.

  6. What goes around comes around, right?. ;)

    Exactly. CN is a slow game. You shouldn't be suprised or annoyed that alliances retaliate for something months or even years later. That's what you get with a game at a pace of only one tick a day.

  7. Its this kind of post that annoys the hell out of me. That happened when, about two years ago?. Stop whining about the past and get over it!. Some members of the community probably don't even know who the hell ONOS was. Honestly, sometimes am all in favor of admin just resetting this game.

    I'll remind you to just "get over it" when Pacifica takes their revenge on Karma in two years.

  8. I would accept peace with NPO if every single member of Pacifica would post an apology on YouTube. I would require no further payments or anything. Just one topic with 707 704 YouTube links in which every single member would sit in front of their webcam to say he/she is sorry for all this.

  9. Btw, anyone got the list of all the alliances that are currently at war with NPO?

    As far as I know, these alliance still have active DoWs on NPO:

    VE, Athens, GR, R&R, RoK, MOON, INT, Orion, DiCE, Vanguard, Avalanche, GOD, GUN, FOK, Sparta, UCR, =LOST=, Fly.

  10. I don't know about you, but ever since I have been here, IRON was ranked second.

    They weren't always #2 (of course). GPA and GOONS used to be in front of them, at least back in june 2007 when I joined the game. GOONS got knocked down during the Unjust War, GPA lost it's spot during the Woodstock Massacre and I guess IRON was second in command ever since. Until now of course.

  11. This:

    "Sparta had a 0.32 loss" or "Sparta had a 0.32 point loss"

    looks a lot better than this:

    "Sparta had a 32 centipoint loss" or "Sparta had a 32cp loss"

    Especially since a hundreth of a point is a very little amount. Writing it down as 0.01 reflects that. It looks like a small number, contrary to centipoints, which make it seem like large numbers.

    32 centipoints sounds and looks like a lot to me, I think 0.32 points reflects it's actual value a lot better.

  12. The Phalanx' policy if one of ours attacks someone without authorization is to withdraw all protection from the aggressor until the war he started expires. Simple, clean and no drama.

    FOK's policy is exactly the same. You have noticed we have kicked the illegal raider out of our alliance, right?

    It is ludicrous to believe FOK desires to destroy small alliances. There is absolutely no basis for such a claim.

  13. Your people, earlier in this thread, said that your response to such a situation would be to start an alliance war against the tech raided alliance. That's what got people so up in arms.

    Obviously FOK would never start a war against a random alliance without first trying to resolve the conflict through diplomacy.

  14. This policy being that a tech raid victim can't invite his alliance mates into the fray when one of your alliance mates tech raids him. I find this policy to be repugnant and it makes you a lessor alliance for it.

    What you are stating here is simply not true. FOK is not in the position to dictate how nations of other alliances should respond. If the raid victim whishes to call his mates to help him out, he should do so.

    Our response to such a situation would be to start using diplomacy to resolve the conflict. I can't imagine what you see wrong in this line of action.

×
×
  • Create New...