Jump to content

Lord Boris

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,517

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Lord Boris

  1. Rush Sykes

    Posted

    I read the line about putting magicninja in charge and all I could think of was how hard the gears in OsRavan's head would start churning about how to crisis manage the situation. Twas a great good read and a great laugh. Maybe I'll have to drag my largely retired self off the couch stop on by TLR's forums sometime so you can get to know FTW a bit more.

  3. Gopherbashi

    Posted

    Neither alliance is one I'd want to be in the crosshairs of, simply because both tend to be very well coordinated and very deadly (although I'd say that traditionally NEW tends to be a bit more coordinated largely due to the timezone synchronicity among their memberbase). While NoR's standing navy is much larger, an alliance militarizing for combat doesn't need very long to pack on a lot of extra naval ships when needed.

    As far as who would win/lose, I'd put this one as a draw. Neither alliance could hope to "win" as they'd both likely grind each other to a fine powder before one relented, and both are so close in terms of firepower.

    NEW gets an edge though as they annoy New Frontier.

  9. Ashoka the Great

    Posted

    Agreed. Must be fakeHowever it being true does follow the law of celebrity marriages never lasting.
    well they aren't necessarily married.
    I don't know what the law is like in California. Up here in Ontario, if a couple lives together for a year or more, they are considered to be common-law. All this really means is that they can take advantage of whatever tax goodies exist for married couples. (Trust me, there aren't many.) Less than a year is acceptable if there's a child involved. So under Canadian law, they could be treated as a married couple for the purposes of spousal/child support and so on, provided one filed the appropriate paperwork in court.

    Most states in the US I believe have 3-5 years for common-law to kick in.

  18. R3nowned

    Posted

    This post and the ensuing debate has been a very interesting read, and I feel that both sides have valid points. There are cases in which non-chaining treaties do certainly have a use, at least as far as politically and for self-preservation, but I do feel that the large number of MDP/MDoAP treaties are signed these days simply to create an inflated sense of strength, rather than actually signifying legitimately strong bonds and actual action in the event of trouble.

    My own opinion on treaties is that there needs to be less of them in general. I personally support the idea of having very few treaties, and only have them at a level that legitimately matches the level of trust, respect, and friendship that exists. If you are friends, but not always sure about their judgment, other commitments, etc, then sign an ODP, PIAT, or similar level treaty. If you are willing to trust their judgment as far as who else they sign with and other factors, then sign the MDoAP and be ready to go go guns blazing if something comes up.

    As far as the whole chaining/non-chaining goes, it really does depend on the people involved. I remember some months back (when I was still in Krynn) I was talking to a good friend who mentioned that one of their allies wanted to re-work their treaty to explicitly have a non-chaining clause in it. In that instance, I told my friend to just dump the treaty entirely as I saw it as pretty clear indication that the other alliance in question would most likely not be there when needed the next time around. I sooo called it.

×
×
  • Create New...