Jump to content

D34th

Banned
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,106

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by D34th

  15. King Wally

    Posted

    Considering my country wouldn't be a superpower:

    Air-Force: F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet (Being part of International Road Map upgrades) | Gripen E/F (They use the same engine of SH) | A few F-35 Lightning II to be user as silver bullet. | M-346 Master as trainer | EMB-314 Super Tucano for COIN

    Navy: KD-III Destroyer with Seahawk | FREMM frigates | Hyuga-class Aircraft carrier with some F-35B | HDW Type 212 Submarines with AIP

    Army: AH-64E Apache | Leopard 2A7+ MBT

  16. OsRavan

    Posted

    OsRavan says that what we say doesn't matter to CnG, that they doesn't care and criticizes our mindless PR to then write a long blog post replying for what we said and full of mindless PR. Few players can match OsRavan expertise on hypocrisy, one of the best examples was when he said a few days ago that he abhors spying, he just forgot that his alliances is one of the biggest MK enablers of all time, an alliance well know to support and make use of such heinous weapon.

  20. jerdge

    Posted

    Treaties with the other side aren't so bad when they're used like you described - which is mainly going to occur when it's done by one of the 7 or so major players in the game. When an MK or an NPO signs a treaty that's otherwise incongruent with their treaty set, it often implies that the group they signed is going to be following them into battle. When an alliance like INT signs a treaty with an alliance like R&R, you know it's just going to muck things up and either 1) impeded interesting conflicts from happening and/or 2) get ignored once the pressure is on and the rest of their treaty partners need help. So in that sense, I think there's a strong OOC argument against them most of the time (i.e., they reduce the potential for conflict by trapping everyone in an interconnected web) and from an IC argument (i.e., the only way to really "enforce" adherence to treaties is through community opinion, and so it behooves us to raise a stink when people ignore treaties so that others including our own allies see that there is a penalty for violating them).

    This^

    The problem isn't people signing treaties with the "other" side, the problem is when one alliance sign treaties with alliances who are in a completely different FA path and when war comes those treaties are simply ignored: See ODN-Sparta, RnR-INT... The problem lately happens more with alliances who are part of blocs, when you sign a treaty with an alliance who are in a bloc there seems to exist an implied clause who says that unless you are aligned with the objectives of all alliances in the bloc your treaty with one of their alliances will be worthless. I think that alliances who are part of blocs shouldn't be allowed to sign external treaties(Like GUARD) and to avoid isolationism when wanting to signing external treaties they should be signed for the bloc as a single entity, eg: "DH-TOP MDoAP" or between blocs "SF-XX MDP".

  21. Schattenmann

    Posted

    Give me an ally I can truly trust any day of the week and twice on sunday over an 'ally' who will be with me when im on top but that I can't trust with my back turned.
    The irony contained in this post is greater than words can describe.
    ::yawns:: D34th insults ODN. Color me shocked.

    I'm not insulting ODN, I'm just pointing that based on the history of your alliance, who insulted itself with coward decisions, your comment is pure irony.

×
×
  • Create New...