Jump to content

JoshuaR

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,328

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by JoshuaR

  6. Recognition of Hostilities

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    Meh, I don't find it an act of war unless convenient, but I won't begrudge someone finding tech dealing/aiding an act of war, nor do I care how people go about trying to enforce embargoes or reacting to those declarations. All acts in this game when they are by your enemy are acts of war as they strengthen opposing nations. Whether you are receiving aid, cutting off aid, warring, defending, sanctioning, trading, or collecting your nations together in an alliance, if you are not for me you are against me, and I will do what is necessary to improve my position and make yours weaker. 

     

    Some of the above, however, is clearly counterproductive. I personally don't like the idea of sanctioning due to the annoying ramifications of everyone fixing trades. I don't like the idea of targeting sellers because I like to continue stockpiling tech during war, and wouldn't want it interrupted for me. But these are just time suck annoyances, so I certainly wouldn't begrudge an enemy that uses that against me. Any and all methods of warfare are fair game, the problem being that when they are used, people do get angry. :P

  9. To the concerned parties

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    Statistically, we're not anywhere near where we were in relative terms. Have to account for inflation. Politically, your assessment of the present seems exaggerated, but  Umbrella was its at nadir at the time of Eq FA-wise, which made the war possible to begin with, so anything was an improvement more or less. 

    The example that we've "jumped" from 105 to 135k NS average is a staggering rebuke of our current nation growth considering the time that has passed since Anti-BIBO.

  14. Genmay 2.0 DoW

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    I really don't know all the internals of your relationship with MI6, but I really hate it when people say their aggression was defensive or "reactive" in nature.  It was done in Disorder as well when clearly it was just because you didn't like NG or NSO and it was politically convenient for you.  The same is going on here.

     

    You could say MI6 accurately predicted you'd do this.  That's not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's just an excuse you are using.  You cancelled on them and MI6 didn't force Umbrella to react.  Umbrella acted based on what it felt was the most favorable outcome and MI6 was not apart of that picture.  Lets call a spade a spade.  Umbrella isn't a martyr here.

    Lusitan probably said it better. MI6 isn't so much a threat as a treat. It's always a treat to hit someone who has it out for you, even if you thought you were friends quite recently.

     

    The self-fulfilling prophecy part is real, though. All I wanted was to unite AZTEC/Umbrella/MI6 and company. But then certain parties, MI6 included, decided AZTEC/IRON were a threat, spread rumors to try to isolate and split them, tried to use Umbrella and others against them, and plotted a goliath operation to take them down, our newest allies. So do we keep the older allies in MI6, a treaty vote that barely passed in the first place, was almost voted down after the last war, and was finally annulled given the above cited information and actions? Do they deserve a grace period of one war where we're not allowed to battle them, even though they are part of the root cause of us being on opposing sides?

     

    Anyway, given the manner that MI6 took the cancellation as an outright declaration of enmity, we're happy to join forces with our esteemed allies in VE, as some of the most suitable to match up with MI6 at an overall strategic level of play.

     

    Also, who are you referring to in this post? I don't even remember hitting NSO. And of course I enjoyed hitting Non Grata. Destroying your nations was certainly more rewarding than seeing the aborted fetuses posted in our embassy on your boards, dated from before MK disbanded and we were still OTPs.

     

    It isn't a "dubious" claim. Whether intentional or not, Umbrella was only doing half sets for their workout. We're talking a lot of weight they should have picked up that they didn't here.

    As for the treaties, I haven't cared about getting in to the "inner workings" of politics in any way, shape, or form -- aside from keeping my !@#$%* little micro afloat -- for about 8 months or more. The fact that the treaty was pre-planned is not relevant; it's very easy to say "sorry, that would put our allies in a bad position." You have signed several treaties since Disorder that placed you on the side you are on. If they were planned since the end of last war or so, you are clearly enabling others to hit allies of yours. If they are not recent works, you very easily could have said "maybe after we go to bat for TOP, they'll probably need it."

    By signing those treaties, you were positioning yourself. You could have stopped at any point and said "Hey, this could make us look bad or set us up against our older allies." Hell, you could have signed those treaties and sat it out or helped out even with allies on the other side. But that would take burning a bit of your pixels, eh?

    Umbrella is a large reason why the current upper tier scheme of the game revolves around allying each other and on occasion taking on one or two alliances of the club -- with the rest firmly in position to risk as little as possible, of course.

     

    None of us pre-supposed that these spheres would be on opposite sides. It isn't until much later that a revisionist would say a year's worth of slow diplomacy and added treaties constitutes side switching and abandoning allies.

  15. Genmay 2.0 DoW

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    I have to respectfully disagree with you, it is possible to make a concise declaration that also explains a casus belli (i.e. treaty activation). This indicates responsibility and respectability, and furthermore, a more graceful understanding of politics.

    This whole attitude of "I do what I like" is not only very chaotic but heavily damages their reputation among civilized alliances. I understand Umbrella doesn't care about that as they feel they are the long term winners, but it only consolidates the "losing side," aka the smaller tier side, into a more unified class conscious entity. And in the meantime, Umbrella and Pacifica has a fundamental difference in political philosophy, however much NPO wants to pretend they are willing collaborators right now.

    I don't think I've ever bothered replying to you in the past, but Roq's DoW certainly makes no mention of declaring this war simply because we "do what we like." Did you look past our sweet war flag and the bolded letters, to the second and third paragraphs explaining the necessity for this action? MI6 created a self-fulfilling prophecy in believing we were out to get them even while we were still allied, thus ruining the relationship. They then made us their enemy after the cancellation, all but forcing us to react. Does it make more sense to give former allies a grace period war after cancellation if that prior ally sees you (instead of its own leadership) as their downfall, blames you, and targets you for revenge? Or is it wiser to do something about a looming threat from the get go?

  18. Your First War

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    Joined the New Pacific Order and was immediately tasked with hitting LUE nations. I didn't realize this was Great War 2, and thought we just hunted LUE for the hell of it or something. By Great War 3 I had at least discovered some of the politics and understood I was in a global war. Had a blast posting on MFO boards about fighting in a global war with and against thousands of opponents and got enough people interested in CN we just had to form our own alliance. War is good.

×
×
  • Create New...