Haflinger

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1318601965' post='2824881'] Acts of war are in the eyes of the individual. We(TLR and GATO) set forth a policy beforehand in this conflict, that we would aid IAA, and we would not consider any aid from Legion allies to be an act of war. However, there was no official policy allowing non-allies to freely aid an alliance at war with my allies in IAA. If, and when, such a situation arises, we will discuss our response and act accordingly. [/quote] Maybe Kaskus should sign a PIAT with Legion.

[quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1318558874' post='2824411'] Must not have gotten the memo, NSO members have warchests and don't need cash. Just troops. [/quote] It's remarkable how effective cash is at providing troops. With that said... http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?search=429339&Extended=1 http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?search=233662&Extended=1 http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?search=273692&Extended=1 http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?search=417567&Extended=1 http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?search=454592&Extended=1 http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?search=469820&Extended=1 http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?search=461891&Extended=1 et cetera. [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1318560831' post='2824481'] To be honest, we should probably thank you Polaris. Because of your overreaction to Asgaard sending [i]at most[/i] 2 slots of aid to people they'd been tech dealing with (and thus not malicious war aid but simple mistakes) they've now generously offered to coordinate an actual round of aid for us! Much appreciated Polar! [/quote] Yeah no. http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp?searchstring=Declaring_Alliance%2CReceiving_Alliance&search=Asgaard+New+Sith+Order Three slots before yesterday, four more slots yesterday. This is not an actual round of aid, Asgaard is a 3M alliance with 63 currently active aid slots. [quote name='Dajobo' timestamp='1318561027' post='2824486'] Awesome, this could turn into Bob's first aid war! [/quote] No, that was the Popcorn War. This one is a lot bigger than that one was though. [quote name='New Frontier' timestamp='1318563088' post='2824546'] Has anyone in the world used aid trains since 2006? [/quote] Invicta used to do it before I arrived. I got everyone to switch over to tech selling as a primary means of getting aid, and then people started turning down newbie aid because it was using too many slots, so it eventually got upped to 3M. I think that happened in 2008. [quote name='heggo' timestamp='1318571418' post='2824702'] I really hope we don't end up with a rash of wars that don't escalate because they're fought by proxy via aid flows after this. That would make this world even more disappointing than before. I prefer my wars big. Oh well. [/quote] If you wanted this war to escalate, you could have persuaded your allies to declare first. Of course we both know why you didn't. [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1318578136' post='2824733'] Do you really think FARK would dare to say something like that to their own allies? [/quote] Yes. Fark's not known for bending its knee. [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1318583780' post='2824750'] Then we would have to consider flattening you since you are in no way related to this war... [/quote] NEW are related to this war, you should read their treaties. Wait, suryanto isn't in NEW anymore? My world is rocked.

Nice way to try and dodge the direct question. Because you know perfectly well that's not what ODN did.

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1318535775' post='2824195'] How on earth do you come to the conclusions that you do? Pay up and get the protection you seek for the remainder of the conflict, don't pay and continue to receive attacks. Simple. [/quote] What do you do with nations who haven't finished paying at the end of the conflict? You're always going to have people who are inefficient with paying reps, even assuming you guys are better than GOONS at providing targets.

So, then ODN immediately leapt to the defense of Legion and asked them what they needed in order to survive their disaster?

Lots of people buy infra while at war. You need 1K infra to buy nukes. Heck I've gone to 2K to keep my navy afloat while at war too. It's bloody cheap down there.

Good luck, NAC.

I like my card; the misspelling of my name is annoying, but that's mostly because it's the common misspelling produced by people who don't know where my name comes from. Still it's funny. Also does Mogar block me?

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1318505809' post='2824050'] Are you talking about the time I was ODN Senate? Because if that's what you got from this, you're dumber than I thought, trying to 1up me on events I was part of.... Or just plain lying to appear "in the know". This is not what happened. At all. [/quote] I don't know if you were Senate then. I'm talking about Purplegate.

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1318505987' post='2824051'] A terrible idea? Why? [/quote] It's because normally when nations pay reps to victorious alliances, they get protection in return for those reps. The reason alliances have treated POWs with a fairly hands-off approach in the past (generally the orders being just don't come back into the war) is because after the war is over, they don't want to have to deal with those POWs anymore. You're setting up a situation where you have to deal with the enemy's deserting nations after the war is done.

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1317933720' post='2818841'] The only precedent, which is now quite visible: Reps from deserters [/quote] Yeah. And I really think this is a terrible idea. Not sure why it was put forward; is NG going to protect these nations now?

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1318426878' post='2823461'] Besides the fact that your example is wrong, as usual might I add, C&G didn't exist at the time, nor did most alliances that ended up creating it. And MK isn't a C&G alliance anymore. [/quote] How about when Legion was facing possible disbandment and ODN threw up its hands and said it couldn't do anything then? The member alliances of C&G have plenty of examples of cowardice in their history.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1318005912' post='2819790'] As I said in a blog reply earlier, it is why alliances in the C&G sphere have risen to prominence in the game, we did not fear our beatdowns, because at the end of the day, we knew we were better than the other side. [/quote] You mean, like when Valhalla hit BAPS and MK begged BAPS to let them stay out? C&G got beat down once, in a war that lasted about two weeks. Whoopee. You guys have nothing on us; those of us who've fought fourteen alliances in a war that lasted for months know what it means to be strong inside. Also, what Londo said. [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1318009226' post='2819842'] I would suggest that the mass # of NpO nations in peace mode is a 100% perfect example of fear. [/quote] It's good strategy. It's obvious that a number of alliances want to hit NpO right now, when Legion is occupied. By keeping its nations in dove, NpO preserves the ability to attack when it wants - if Legion should need the help - and prevents the preempt. If NPO had done the same thing at the outbreak of PB-NpO, the Doomhouse preempt would have been much less effective. Now I intensely dislike Polar, but really, you're not making any sense here. Going to peace mode is a common move for alliances preparing to enter a war, especially when they don't know when they may be called on. [quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1318010357' post='2819874'] Alot of people are referencing the VE-Tetis downgrade and wither or not people knew about it beforehand. Do you know what would have solved that problem? Announcing the treaty downgrade on the OWF. More and more alliances are subscripting to this ridiculous notion of not announcing changes to their treaties. [/quote] It's because we don't want your posts on our treaty threads. [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1318253581' post='2822155'] There is a difference between optional and non chaining. [/quote] Partly. However one of the things non-chaining means is that if one alliance declares war, its allies are not obligated to support it. Non-chaining clauses make treaties optional most of the time.

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1318305228' post='2822680'] False. The coalition leadership stuck everyone over 75k NS in peace mode "for later" and never ordered them out. SNAFU went off the reservation, but that was about it. [/quote] Yes, except GOONS had like three nations over 75K. 75K is not "upper tier" for GOONS, it's the pinnacle. Currently they have four nations above 75K. Their first page got absolutely hammered. As for the OP, at least it's real information. Pity there's really extremely little of it and it's incredibly badly organized. Hilariously Hiro collected today, perhaps he will be gone in 25 days.

The simple answer to the tech dealing problem is to reinstate the tech damage bonus cap. Once upon a time, the bonus damage from tech was capped so any tech level over 300 did not produce any extra damage. This cap was wayyy too low, it meant that tech was basically irrelevant in warfare. So it was removed. The problem now is that there is no cap at all, and high-tech nations (10K tech and above) do so much damage with their attacks - particularly tech damage - that when they engage their opponents, in a single week months or possibly even years of tech dealing is removed. The infra damage isn't important in itself, the problem is that these high-tech nations can render the other side permanently less effective at fighting. We need a cap. Maybe 10K tech or so. Limiting nukes to 1 per 1K infra would not have a huge impact on people's long-term fighting ability when they're on the receiving end of a curbstomp. Admittedly it'd mean the lower-infra nations would start the war with fewer nukes, but they'd still be able to buy 1 a day when they hit 1K infra, which is what most of them do now anyway. Well it would mean that WRC owners would need to maintain 2K infra to keep on buying 2 a day. Maybe cap it at 2 per 1K infra? That would mean a 5K infra nation like one of BAPS' bulldogs would have 10 nukes, and I'd have 16.

[quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1318229541' post='2822055'] I dislike the self-serving way that you held an MDoAP with Legion for the longest time and then decided to turn on them like this, when they are no different an alliance to when you were allied. [/quote] NPO's policies have actually changed with the new Emperor. Also, Legion, like other alliances, is not exactly the same as they were in 2009.

For the roughly ten thousandth time, we were somewhere around #5 or so out of the war. It was because the then-Invicta Vice President (yours truly) got hauled into a channel with various people, including Orion's leader sup its me bk, and I made an offer that Invicta would leave the war if Orion did as well, expecting it to be thrown back in my face, and then bk accepted it. The terms of the peace were pretty much a simple armistice. I talked to Moo directly about it; if you may recall, he signed the peace agreement because it included a white peace between Orion and NPO.

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1318173992' post='2821496'] Wasn't Bernkastel in Invicta about ten days ago? (I'm going by his aid screen.) [/quote] Yes. [quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1318173992' post='2821496'] Did he move to SOS, achieve leadership, get couped, leave and be targeted with this [i]in just about a week[/i]? [/quote] No comment on the specifics of events as described. But the timeframe is reasonably accurate. [quote name='Bernkastel' timestamp='1318175254' post='2821509'] I think a [b]ZI Arrnea[/b] fund would garner 10x what is at stake here and it would be just so much more fun and exciting. [/quote] You might be right there. [quote name='thedon125' timestamp='1318178554' post='2821541'] Publicly encouraging nuclear warfare against an alliance of Blood 4 Friends, and providing a bounty for anyone who follows through. Now, I may be new to this whole "External Affairs" thing, but I'm pretty sure that's a valid CB, and not a bad one at that. You may want to reconsider the OP's "not a joke" status. [/quote] Man, you try to give somebody an out... Can't say I blame you here. [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1318183213' post='2821579'] I understand you have a bit of blue balls, but this really isn't the hill to make a stand on; it's impotent and childish, just let it pass. Should someone actually be influenced to do so by this topic you might have a point though. [/quote] You have greatly mischaracterized FEAR's position, although I understand your concern. [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1318190369' post='2821651'] You seem worried. [/quote] Go on, hit Europa. Pleeeease.

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1318151945' post='2821399'] If you want him nuked so bad, why do people have to jump through hoops to do it? [/quote] They don't want him nuked so bad, as you say. It was a joke.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1318075990' post='2820743'] Its not to late, unless you're saying Invicta doesn't plan to enter later. It will probably take at least a week before Legion starts needing the help and there isn't a huge advantage to declaring immediately after the enemy. They can take some nuke damage first for a round of war, then you could come in to keep their war worn nations in war mode without allowing them to recover as you can send aid to nations who need some to recover from the first round of fighting. [/quote] Actually, this whole war is a smokescreen for our planned attack with TOP against Polar for revenge over events years in the past. Wait no, that's not it. But: you are not going to find out any useful information about our military strategy here in public. Our allies know what's going on, and nobody else gets to find out. That is how opsec is supposed to work.

We do not have particularly good relations with Polar. That's a bit like claiming that the reason RoK hasn't declared is because they're listening to Xiphosis. Oh wait, they actually used to be really close to Xiphosis. So it's even dumber than that would be.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1317837229' post='2817190'] I'll wait to see if you let him off easy before making it out to be a big deal, but I'm not sure how anyone with any pride can do it how you want. [/quote] Mogar doesn't have any pride (or shame). So, bad example I guess? [quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1317849538' post='2817352'] Also, I require at least 2 dozen high profile OWF posters to make trading cards of, I'll make this publically decided, so list whomever you'd like in this thread and there will be a trading card of them by update. [/quote] Nobody mentioned the one, the only... Bob Janova. He's been fairly quiet lately but I can think of nobody that symbolizes these fora over the years more than him. Also Dochartaigh.

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1317995352' post='2819659'] THIS JUST IN: A 9ms NS alliance can take a 700K alliance. More at 11. [/quote] Well, it's actually a 6M alliance taking out a 1M alliance, but yeah, the point is generally correct. Still people seem to miss the obvious around here a lot. [quote name='janax' timestamp='1317995352' post='2819659'] Now, is there any truth to the rumor that you guys in Rectum Insertionum piddled yourselves when you found out that Rok was ready and waiting for you? [/quote] No. We expected RoK to counter us well before any battle plans were drawn up. [quote name='janax' timestamp='1317999574' post='2819690'] My bad, only 6. Silly me for assuming an alliance with 4 times our membership would have at least double our NS. MY BAD [/quote] Legion does something your alliance considers passe: they recruit nations that have existed for less than two years. Also they don't always bandwagon onto the winning side in wars.

[quote name='asawyer' timestamp='1317924688' post='2818701'] That being said, what the hell is the point of TLR's financial support? IAA has a roughly a 50:50 breakdown of upper and lower tier nation, so with DRAs factored in they should have no trouble whatsoever keeping their low tier stocked. [/quote] As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, IAA appears to have major activity issues. [quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1317925940' post='2818712'] Sending aid bombs to alliances at war is usually considered an act of war. [/quote] It wasn't when we aided Crimson Guard. [quote name='Jgoods45' timestamp='1317956351' post='2819273'] Even when we utilize our non-chaining clause, we support them in the back channels. [/quote] It's tough to turn moral support into bombs and bullets. I know which one I'd rather have in a war. [quote name='janax' timestamp='1317995041' post='2819653'] The CB still isn't spying, it's dissemenation of information. [/quote] Espionage is the unauthorized dissemination of information.

[quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1317934519' post='2818855'] The CB or other reasons really don't play into our choice. IAA is our pal. For better or worse. [/quote] I feel like I'm back in 2008 listening to NPO talking about GGA. [quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1317938107' post='2818930'] oA's have always in my eyes been purely for bandwagoning, nothing else. [/quote] That's just plain silly. Bandwagoning is when you have 13M NS fighting 3M NS and a 2M alliance hops on. It has nothing to do with treaty clauses. [quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1317946234' post='2819042'] I think NSO is the only alliance in the game with an ODoAP with every other alliance in the game. [/quote] We recognize the Moldavi Doctrine as well. [quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1318018052' post='2820008'] Legion is in an offensive war. Correct. So no ally of yours is obligated to attack Tetris, since attacking Tetris was an offensive action. However, you have since been attacked by other alliances. These other alliances, while entering as defense, is an attack on Legion, mandating your allies to defend you. This is especially true in the case of the IAA (whose DoW we're all supposed to be discussing), and BTA, since they represent alliances coming in off aggressive clauses. Really how hard is it to understand, if you get attacked, allies are obligated to defend. [/quote] Do you understand what a non-chaining clause is? [quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1318019886' post='2820038'] As to treaty chaining, please point me to the non-chaining clauses in your treaties. NADC and Polar treaties have a mention that the treaty becomes optional when chained, but not that it is forbidden. Invicta and TLR have no chaining clause at all that I see, so if you asked their help they'd still have to come in (TLR may not if they have a conflicting treaty). [/quote] Heh, I wrote the non-chaining clause in our treaty. I don't write separate non-chaining clauses, I think they're foolish. I write the defense clause in such a way to make it not chain. Here it is. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1258263988' post='1970491'] ARTICLE IV - Mutual Defense Should either signatory alliance come under attack, they may request military assistance from the other signatory. Such assistance is mandatory except in the event that the attack has been launched due to the fulfillment of another treaty obligation. In that case it is up to the other signatory to decide whether or not to grant the request. [/quote]