Numby
-
Posts
88 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Numby
-
-
http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_d...ation_ID=170852
Link to my nation is above.
Should I buy infrastructure or a wonder at this point time in my nation's growth? If you think I should buy a wonder, please state which wonder.
Current stats for my nation:
Infrastructure: 5,439.29
Tech: 1,049.63
Let me know if you need to know anything else about my nation to make your recommendation.
Thanks in advance.
-
I've got a new laptop and I think different laptops have different IPs. I don't want to get banned for accessing one nation from two IPs. Is it fine for me to access my nation with my new laptop?
-
Do I see a picture of The Rock doing the People's Eyebrow?
-
Alright, I've got to go. No hard feelings.
-
Convenient words for the alliance who refused to help BLEU in the last war but still remained a member. I guess the commies and a few other alliances aren't willing to fight for their friends.
What did you want GDA to do? We also had to follow The Ring Cycle treaty, which was actually older than BLEU.
Was GDA suppose to split the alliance in half and fight each other?
-
a cancellation clause is different than notification. a cancellation clause means that the treaty is still in effect for a certain amount of time, during which if anything happens that activates the treaty, then the proper action has to happen. in this case, GDA coming to USA's defense.
though after reviewing the treaty, there is no cancellation clause except this:
Article VII: Removal
At any point in time any member of this treaty may withdraw from it but a 72 hours notice must be given.
Exactly. Notice was given well before the war. Notice was given 72 hours before the war. The war began and the treaty was canceled before the war began. That's why GDA don't have to come to the defence of the USA in this war.
-
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=38653
There's the link to the now canceled GDA-USA protectorate treaty. I've got to go soon.
-
I will ask you again...
Do "72 hour cancellation period ring a bell"?
Because, the treaty wasn't canceled 72 hours before the war. That decision was made later. So, you're still obliged to defend them according to your treaty.
You may have thunk about it for longer, but in my eyes, that really doesn't count towards that cancellation period.
Cancellation periods are made for a reason. This is one of them. So my advice to you is to man up and just admit that GDA just won't defend these guys, even if they really should.
the proposition to cancel the treaty has been up for quite a while.The treaty actually only specified 72 hours notice before the cancellation of the treaty. There was no clause about GDA having to defend USA 72 hours after the cancellation of the treaty. United Socialist Alliance was already given notice well before the war (As GDA have had issues with them for a while now, longer than the past 3 days) that the treaty may be canceled. So, infact, GDA gave USA a longer than 72 hour notice.
I doubt any of you have even seen the treaty before.
-
i know that the treaty was dropped. i could pretty much do what you did by stating that GDA knew this war was coming and instead of honoring the treaty, dropped it as quickly nay, conveniently as possible in order to not become involved in this war. one could say that GDA should not sign a protectorate if they are unwilling to actually protect the protectorate. while this, i believe, is not the reason behind the dropped treaty, still sounds fairly similar to what you said about WP.
i would not be so quick to judge lest you wish others to judge you.
Uh, it doesn't sound similar. You're implying that once you sign a treaty, you must follow it, even when after it's canceled. It would be fair enough if Warsaw Pact expelled United Socialist Alliance, but they didn't. United Socialist Alliance is still part of the Warsaw Pact.
-
Does the words "72 hour cancellation period" ring a bell?
Did you read the link I posted at the start of this page?
-
Yes, i would have to agree with this statement. GDA dropped USA as a protectorate, and though i do agree with the reasoning behind it, it is rather odd to see a statement such as Numby's made by someone in GDA. WP has not dropped the treaty and is helping in an area that will actually do more good than bad. Had WP defended USA, the war would have been dragged out as more alliances entered into the fray. USA made a smart choice and WP is standing behind that decision.
We canceled the treaty before the war was declared. We aren't obligated in any way to defend United Socialist Alliance.
-
Why didnt GDA come in either. You were bound by a treaty and dropped. This was a diplomatic by USA and her allies.
The treaty was canceled before the war was declared.
-
I didn't know the new definition of compulsory is "compulsory when convenient". If you aren't willing to defend an alliance under any circumstances, why sign a mutual defense treaty with them?
-
Doesn't really matter as USA has already stated they do not want to activate this pact.
Why is it a Mutual Defense Pact then? It may as well be an Optional Defence Pact if a member(s) of the Warsaw Pact can choose whether to activate it or not.
-
People truly need to read the Warsaw Pact treaty before they comment on it.II. Defense and War
1) In the event that any signatory comes under attack, it is compulsory that all other signatories will come to the assistance (military, financial, intelligence and diplomacy) of the attacked party. 2) Signatories are strongly encouraged to engage in offensive war alongside the other signatories but not obliged to do so. 3) Notice of offensive military action by any signatory must be given to other signatories no less than 72 hours before the commencement of hostilities. This time period will be used for voting on joining the war or not and making of preparations. 4) Failure of a signatory to notify the other signatories of offensive military action may lead to a vote for the removal of that signatory from this pact. 5) Signatories shall not engage in offensive military action against any alliance which a fellow signatory is obligated by treaty to defend.
Note, the use of and, which means the other members of the Warsaw Pact must come to the aid of the United Socialist Alliance militarily, financially, intelligence and diplomatically.
Enlighten me on what I am missing.
-
Since when does "wouldn't dominate" mean "wouldn't do any damage at all"?? MK certainly did not dominate against NPO but we still inflicted 2m NS in damages. Anyone with a brain would know that with an arsenal twice as big as the one we worked with, another alliance (like TOP or the Grämlins) could do much more damage in such a situation. However, NPO learned well and doubled their SDI count since our little skirmish
I still don't understand how MK is better than TOP militarily. One of the things about being strong militarily is having a big arsenal, which MK didn't have in comparison to TOP (as said in your post), which is why TOP > MK militarily. Yes, MK has a very good military, but not the best military out of all the alliances. MK wins the propaganda section by a long way though.
-
He did,but the unsc leader Snipez has the diplomacy of a broomstick,and he was willing to talk,he's the only reason the UNSC peace is even being negotiated.
I see. Honourable stuff by Kiwiland.
-
Firstly I must say that is an excellent play on words, very mature.
Secondly, as great as you might think TOP is, you wouldn't dominate a war if you were on the short end of the odds we faced.
Clearly, an alliance with 2,665 nukes obviously wouldn't do any damage at all.
-
Actually, that nation's called for peace already. Besides, check our alliance. We've got a nuke-armed nation that is in the guy's range. But since he's at peace, we're not engaging him.
GDI have nukes, surprising. I thought Kiwiland said he disagreed with the surrender terms earlier on?
-
I am not sure how to respond,but not all nations declared war,and not all were declared war on.My alliance's strongest nation was to large to attack him.
I just checked all the alliances of the WMC, you don't even have a nation in range to attack UNSC's strongest nation (Which is Kiwiland + The strongest nation in your alliance is the only nation in the whole of the WMC that's too strong to declare on Kiwiland) yet RyanGDI gives UNSC a nice facepalm? How could you expect a nation that hasn't even been declared war on to surrender?
-
This "distaster of a bloc"? At least it's better than CoMA, which only lasted about 3 months before a coup, allied syping, departure in disgruntlement, and other reasons of sorts tore it apart.
(PS: We kinda got thrown into the WMC anyhow. Just ended up happening...for some reason of a kind.
)(PPS: We've confirmed that the ToS, even heavily modified, has still not been passed. I hereby give UNSC a nice facepalm for their...err...whatever you'd prefer to call it. I don't even have a descriptive enough term for it.)
I think WMC deserves a facepalm, six alliances vs one alliance and you haven't even declared war on their strongest nation. In fact, their strongest nation is decommissioned and in DEFCON 5.
-
I cannot speak for the entire alliance, but I reject these terms for reasons already expressed through private means.
You don't have a reason to surrender though.
They haven't even declared war on you yet. What's there to surrender to? You aren't suffering any damage. -
So far SMF is losing horribly to TUON forces.
http://www.cybernations.net/search_wars.as...&Extended=1
Their leader doesn't even have a defensive war.
-
Post retracted.
)
They haven't even declared war on you yet. What's there to surrender to? You aren't suffering any damage.
Wonder or Infrastructure?
in Gameplay Discussions
Posted
Thanks for the help.