WarriorConcept

[quote name='RustyNail' timestamp='1325715525' post='2892654'] This thread has gone from stupid, to ridiculous to downright pathetic. Somebody...PLEASE STOP THE MADNESS!! [/quote] Not GGA levels yet, at least. Still amusing to the rest of us however.

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1325704952' post='2892450'] Don't get me wrong, I love Mj, but couldn't you have DoW'd RnR heavy and used some of that NS deployed elsewhere to counter VE/FOK? I mean look at the huge NS advantage there were on other fronts, some of that could have been redeployed? Maybe not, they are both heavily treatied and you probably would have had a hard time finding people capable of countering that weren't directly allied. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for Mj's planning, I'm betting the scenerios/decisions that were discussed would have been very awesome! Either way, Mj > CnG, DT/RoK > ODN, Bob > Omni, life continues. [/quote] I would much prefer being allied to CnG than MJ.

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1325702077' post='2892426'] I can fill both roles, removing any need for the 2 of them. [/quote] So merciful.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325664129' post='2892180'] It's understandable given the history between FOK and R&R, but in most cases I wouldn't be for something like that. GO went to bat for FOK in the last war without question. Maybe the counters could have been limited instead. VE took a good approach to a bad situation. [/quote] We're taking plenty of flak for it anyway, so can't blame FOK.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1325663627' post='2892178'] How is choosing only to honor one of the two optional portions of your treaties not elawyering? Just to be clear I'm not buying into your premise that all "elawyering" is bad. [/quote] I don't think all elawyering is bad either, but FOK said that if any of its allies were attacked they would defend them. Honestly that's a stance I personally respect.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1325662840' post='2892170'] Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or did you just not read the last sentence of my post? I'm assuming you know how non-chaining clauses work. [/quote] I did read it, you're the one trying to paint this as some plot by FOK to help out the SF/XX/Polar side. FOK defends its allies and doesn't play e-lawyer with their commitments, considering you are their allies you should know this.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1325662078' post='2892153'] You still don't get it. No help to Asg would have come. Bottomline. You are arguing for FOK and VE (and PB, based off the comments of WC) to be attacked and for CSN not to be, not for Asg to be helped. [/quote] You know, considering your arguments about VE not immediately defending GOD this war this whole stance regarding Asgaard is very comical, if not hypocritical.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1325662335' post='2892158'] It's no one's fault, it's just a fairly obvious and predictable result given the nature of the war where R&R was the only ally on the polar/loosing side. So it's the fault of whoever came up with that policy. None of FOK's allies were attacked in a way that would trigger mandatory defense, since all of them chained into the conflict. [/quote] So your only argument is that FOK honors its treaties.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1325661755' post='2892148'] That basically only meant R&R, since R&R could take the obvious route of only hitting a smaller group of alliances that they couldn't lose against unless they were countered, and since R&R's side was going to lose anyway they could easily not counter any of FOK's allies. The fact that this would put them only in a position to help the polar side was easily predictable and probably the intended result of such a policy. [/quote] Is it their fault that's the only alliance people would counter? All you're complaining about is that FOK honors its treaties.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1325661100' post='2892140'] Our coalition needed to put enough NS on R&R to be able to crush R&R and FOK both (after FoK made it clear they'd support the R&R/SF/polar side) [/quote] FOK's only comment about the war was defending all of its allies that were attacked, as far as I know. That RnR happened to be the only one is not really their fault. Regardless it wouldn't have mattered, if FOK needed help PB would have helped, through an aggression clause if needed.

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1325660861' post='2892134'] I'd like to think all the rhetoric of CnG's wouldn't fall empty. Maybe it would though, I don't know. [/quote] Shouldn't you know?

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1325660402' post='2892123'] Understood, I used you as an example because you are the obvious example to give since you clearly have sympathies for both sides. [/quote] It wouldn't be about sympathy, it'd be about supporting PB at that point. But fair enough.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1325659820' post='2892116'] Let's put this more clearly for you. We wouldn't be defending our ally, we would be fighting FOK. That better? The only point of a declaration of war on RnR would be to fight FOK, not to help Asgaard. I'm just going to keep stating it in slightly different ways until it becomes clear for you. Btw, this assumes that FOK hits both DT/RoK for countering RnR. If FOK only hit one of us, there would be no way to get support for the one hit (as VE would counter whoever hits them I would assume, though I am not sure) so we would now have a Mjolnir alliance actually outgunned and outnumbered significantly. How has this improved the situation at all? [/quote] VE aren't FOK's only allies, but yea it would not have resulted in much help for Asg.

No rey, so I approve.

I can't fathom talking about CN out loud.

Now the fun starts.

Makes things easier, actually.

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1325613667' post='2891558'] I don't see the point of harassing MHA about leaving the war so early. They lost more score in this war than the vast majority of alliances possess. They were in the war for only a short time, but they actually fought as opposed to sitting in peace mode waiting for war to end like many large alliances do when the war hammer falls. If more alliances followed this example, leaving after 3 weeks of war would be acceptable practice. Their real problem is that I am using the term 'fighting' very loosely. We have had a LOT of members whom after attacked respond with "Why are you attacking me? I didn't do anything to you!", who clearly weren't even aware a war was going on. Add to that the general lack of aptitude (hi there, let's send 15-50 bombers on one aircraft attack), and coordination among the membership, and you have an alliance whose fighting capabilities are so amazingly laughable we will be joking about this for years to come. tl;dr: Focus on how bad MHA was, not how long they stayed in the war. They took more damage in their 3 weeks than most alliances do in 3 months, I figure they deserve the out, but that just highlights how unbelievably terrible they are. [/quote] I have to agree with this. I'm looking forward to a more organized and perhaps even influential future from you MHA, don't continue to be a Legion.

Omni in gov? Ruh roh.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325548673' post='2891003'] I am. I don't think MK-NpO relations would be as strained without that factor. [/quote] Was referring to the OP, my bad.

You're serious? Edit: Directed towards the OP.

Much respect to Apparatus, fought tooth and nail despite the odds.

Best of luck, OS.

[quote name='dvdcchn' timestamp='1325362011' post='2889667'] when you have to call yet another alliance in, it shows [/quote] You're smarter than this.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1325357033' post='2889626'] Every who burned for Polaris at all burned too long for Polaris in this war. [/quote] I agree. Also congratulations on peace guys, seems like it was a very respectable front.