pigsticker

I like this a lot, but the cynic in me is asking why didn't you do this a long time ago before all the !@#$ happened or before everything couldn't be salvaged? Didn't see much abou boting being referred in your charter, is the old voting structure still in place? If I didn't get my facts wrong, part of your problem was the voting structure was so weighted towards those in charge that those not in power would find it difficult to change things? What are your plans to prevent something like this happening again? It's probably none of my business, but as a Harmlin (yes, i know it's dead, but still it's something i treasure)it would be nice to know that the new version won't suffer the same fate.

they could have done something sneaky like declare on someone else before the agreement was published. that would have technically evaded the problem.

[quote name='Dr.Gamer' timestamp='1297171788' post='2625629'] Lets see. TFD is an alliance of 150. MHA is an alliance of 600-something. TFD lost 1.2 million NS throughout our entire conflict (11 days), MHA lost 2 million within four or five days. You were 8 times our NS, yet we did more damage to you than you did to us on the front. Not only did you have an average 3 MHA'ers to 1 TFD'er, but the TFD'er also had a Spartan opponent or two. I think its the other way around Mister. Plus, many MHA'ers had awful warchests, work on that next time, k? Thanks. [/quote] That is correct, but when nukes come into play, there's really not much strategy in play. On a 3 on 1 situation with the 1 turtling, the most the 3 can do is 6 air attacks, 6 cruise missiles and a single nuke. In contrast, that one guy can nuke all 3 opponents, send 6 air attacks and 6 cruise missiles. (Ok, i didn't factor in SDIs but that would really be too much effort) In a conventional war, I would agree that these stats are awful. But in a nuclear war? The nukes are the great equaliser. I guess i could state average NS lost per nation per day, going by your stats, the average TFD nation lost around 727ns per day while the average MHA nation lost between 666-833ns (average 740) per day. So whose victory is that? Stats are good, anyone can twist them to present the viewpoint they are trying to reinforce as I have done here. But as Duncan King pointed out, the longer the war continued, TFD would only suffer more than MHA. I'm already in a position to nuke all your lower-tier nations w/o nukes. Is that what you want for your alliance? We may lose more ns than you but we definitely have the greater capability to recover much faster than you. In the end, continuing the war will just be a pyrrhic victory to TFD. We [b]may[/b] lose the war, but it will be a long time before you could even fight at your current level. Anyway, peace is great. Now i can go back to my hobby of hugging my precious infra Cheers

[quote name='tobiash' timestamp='1296917357' post='2620477'] Why does the fact that MHA can destroy our alliance in 1 vs 1 war mean that LittleRena should shut up? Yes you did call for backup after you lost a lot of NS! and no shame in that, I too like to have the upper hand I cant speak for LittleRena, but I hope that she will keep saying, what she wants, when she wants! Have we dropped more NS then the AA that is 11+ times (24+ NS-wise) bigger then us? Now how can that be? Surely not because you have more resources the we have! No that cant be it Also we have already reached one of our goals in this war, that we enter only to protect our friends! Curerently we are blocking 50+ slots that MHA could use on TFD. We loose our NS protecting a friend. You loose yours protecting an aggressor! Loose or win! I belive that our cause is more just then yours! #Edit: o/PPO and welcome to the battlefeild [/quote] i suppose when you have more nations, you lose more infra? Let's not get propaganda get in the way of reason. It's all in the game of making your opponent look bad. We have entered the war to protect our friends. Funnily PC and Fok took the opposite stand during the last war and were roundly blasted for it. And now we take the opposite stand and we are the evil aggressors. Some consistency would be appreciated. Continue standing on the moral high ground, it doesn't bother us one bit. Hi PPO, have fun

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1296454193' post='2612516'] Where we're going, we don't need warchests [/quote] u sure? wanna compare chest sizes? I like your OP though. Looking forward to some fun

[quote name='Lusitan' timestamp='1296466633' post='2612782'] MHA are fat. Being fat doesn't make them good at fighting, but it does hurt when they step on your feet. [/quote] there's chinese saying, 3 cobblers are better than a good strategist it translates to that somehow. though the exact translation would be lost on a lot of people if they don't know the historical background of the saying.

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1296462494' post='2612742'] I can vouch that this is absolutely true. [/quote] I second that. He's a Trium's worst nightmare. I think he ties with Scutter. But Scutter's losing his edge lately. Myth's still going strong.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1296390282' post='2611041'] You guys don't even know your recent history, do you? Well... so. During the Karma War, RV decided to ghost NPO. Unsurprisingly he was attacked by Sparta, and then he changed his AA and posted [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=59670"]this thread.[/url] He was then on the Blue team. Magicalbricks, who had been high government in Nueva Vida, had recently joined MHA from Nueva Vida, and was still a sitting Blue senator. Sparta requested a sanction on RV, and an MHA triumvir ordered Magicalbricks to place it. They did this because they knew that the other Blue alliances would laugh in their face for wanting a sanction against a non-nuclear nation that they themselves had attacked. MHA however said "It's Sparta!" and complied. You've been their buttmonkeys for a long time. [/quote] No. I usually don't access the OWF. Just reading through that 40 pages of RV's histronics just re-inforced that point. From what I read, the problem was the usage of a sanction on a blue nation by an aqua alliance. i think I don't really need to go through the whole story of RV ghosting NPO and then changing his AA to FAIL before launching attacks against Sparta. And yes, I did see then MHA gov members admitting that the situation needed to be looked into and NV having come out with a post stating the procedure going forward regarding MB's senator's powers. I can only assume that the gov then did manage to reach an agreement with NV on the issue. I like how you like to twist the whole issue to suit your point. Simply put (seeing you are on red), if you need a sanction on a nation on red, do you go to an alliance you are most familiar and have a relationship with or do you go to any random red senator? And on the current sanction list, I see an NpO blue senator sanctioning a 11k ns nation with the title "Legion request" I also see a Rok Aqua senator sanctioning a 4k ns nation with the title "cause RIA told me to". I even see the NpO senator sanctioning a 4k ns nation with the title "NPO/GOONS Request". 4k ns, should i laugh at NPO and GOONS for ordering the sanction? Are NpO and Rok the buttmonkeys of Legion and R buttmonkeys respectively? I wonder if one day Invicta requires a sanction from an aqua senator, would that alliance that the senator belong to be Invicta's buttmonkeys? While looking at your nation just to find your alliance, I noticed that the whole upper tier of your alliance in in peace mode. Which leads me to think that you should probably be on the other side of the war, which then makes sense why you have attempted to post the issue in the worst possible light. cheers

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1296374438' post='2610821'] Oh, I never stated you will ever satisfy everyone, I just called you retarded for only being able to see 2 options. The 3rd one, of course, is where you stick to your obligations as opposed to band-wagoning on what is literally a war of aggression. Were you honestly too retarded to see that option, or did you just choose to ignore it so you can create a false dichotomy to strengthen an otherwise piss-poor argument? [/quote] I'm sorry but did we attack NV? I don't think so. Did we attack the alliances attacking Sparta with whom we have an MDAP or something like that? (i'm too lazy to find the exact treaty signed, but this shoulde cover it at the min) Yes, we did. I would think that this covers our obligations? If not, take it that I'm really retarded, kindly spell out explicitly what do you expect the MHA to do so that we can stick to our obligations. FYI, I don't agree with the war at all, but I see my obligations and act on it. After the war, I expect the alliance leadership to review what happened and take appropriate action with the support of the members. Let's just say that the criticism on the OWF, warranted or not, will influence and define the opinions of the membership. Unwarranted criticisms will only hurt your position. Though I don't think that you care either way.

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1296366357' post='2610558'] Ya, with people declaring on you. BOOOOOM THAT JUST HAPPENED [/quote] Hi, Have yet to see your reply on the various possible options that are available to the MHA that could satify the whole spectrum of Bob. Still looking forward to your reply. Haven't seen anyone DoW on us today yet. Still waiting. Cheers

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1296359676' post='2610321'] That's pretty bad. You could get 1800 wars declared (which would be stupid btw) and you managed to only get 1/6 of that? You're averaging .5 DoW's per nation if my math is correct. Which is might not be but, it's still pretty bad. [/quote] It's a combination of ghosts and deserters, stagger attacks, preparing for the counter-attack and not over-reaching, being party time on a weekend and sleeping over the hungover, etc etc. I think 50% of the max wars we could declare tactically is a more valid figure. Doesn't make us very good but we ain't as bad as it seems. I guess after today, the number of wars should look more respectable to everyone.

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1296324530' post='2609649'] This isn't new; you've always done what Sparta wanted you to do, whether it was helping fight Sparta's former MADP partners, or issuing sanctions on [b]Blue[/b] against non-nuclear nations. I knew exactly where you were going once Sparta went. [/quote] on Blue? didn't know we had a senator there. we must have a spy in some alliance on blue

[quote name='Mark Ashton' timestamp='1296317605' post='2609543'] I am not angry. I am annoyed. And I haven't just said that your alliance sucks. Saying your alliance sucks, isn't a fact, I agree. But I said your alliance sucks [u]because...[/u] and then proved my claim. So let's do this again. Your alliance, that ironically is called mostly harmless alliance isn't worth a dime, because you have a history canceling eternal treaties, of lacking coordination in wars, of being unprepared, of being inactive and lastly of being a meatshield. Now I could proof all my points with showing you statistics about war declarations, screenshots of MHA Members attempting to spy non-existing Cruise-Missiles of nations with 25 nukes; I could link you to the threads in which you e-lawyered your way out of all your major treaties, but that would be a complete waste of time. Because everyone, even your allies know and admit that it is true. [OOC]Yeah, but it's winter on the northern hemisphere. And I assume, considering this game is developed by an American, it is played by people on the northern hemisphere. (USA, Canada, Europe. I think Australia would be the exception of the rule. [/OOC] I wasn't able to find another reason for the lack of your effort. [/quote] I think many of us have already adnitted that signing treaties with an eternal clause was a mistake on our part. However, at the point of signing, it made a lot of sense then. Did you anticipate that Gre would change so much? Did anyone else? I really don't think so. Ask Hellangel, Steelrat or Bob Janova, did they ever thought that the Gre of then would become the Gre of today? On hindsight, everyone can see where went wrong, but during the signing of the treaties, it made perfect sense. You also think we suck because we lack coordination in wars, of being unprepared, of being inactive and being a meatshield. I would like to ask if your opinion of managing a 600 member alliance? Do you think that everyone would be active? How many players are those that logs in every 15-20 days just to collect and keep their nation going. Every alliance has their fair share and because we are much larger, we have a larger quantity. By not being an elite alliance, we cater to a much more wider spectrum of players than say, Umbrella or TOP. Players that one day would grow to be military monsters or continue to be noobs. It's precisely this that we don't perform consistently in wars. And it's because of alliances like ours that players are allowed to grow and find out for themselves what they want. Do they want to develop their nation peacefully (GPA) or involve themselves in wars once in a while (MHA) or join militaristic alliances that allow tech-raiding (Goons). Sure, we could model ourselves after top-heavy alliances like TOP and Umbrella, but that's not the nature of our alliance and I'm proud to have an alliance that can cater to everyone. I'm sorry you are annoyed because we don't perform militarily. But if my alliance sucks because we try to cater to everyone's style of play, then I gladly prefer my alliance to suck than to have an alliance that cares nothing more than ensuring that their nations are in tip-top form for war. Or bullying and extorting nations just because they don't belong to an alliance or belonging to a recognised alliance.

[quote name='hizzy' timestamp='1296285882' post='2609165'] literally too retarded to see more than 2 options. [/quote] since everyone is generally categorising the war into the New-hegemony and the other side (is there a term for them yet?), there's really 2 sides we could choose right? That's besides staying neutral which would also lead to brickbats everywhere. yup. I would really like to hear your views on what other options we could have that could really satisfy the whole spectrum of Bob. Looking forward to hear your views.

[quote name='AtheistRepublican' timestamp='1296285287' post='2609135'] Duncan never said you were ignoring a treaty. Duncan was commenting on the fact that you would go into to defend an ally [i]who attacked aggressively and with no treaty link[/i], considering your history of ignoring treaties for allies who are just defending. Had MHA felt this way before Karma they could have cancelled the treaty instead of hanging NATO out to dry by surprise. And we did attempt relations after Karma but the reasons for that failure I can only guess. [/quote] Could it be repaired? All i saw on the OWF was guys like Wentworth while he was still in NATO leadership spewing insults at us. I've been around since 2008 and I've rarely seen any NATO guys posting on our forums. I don't know about your forums, it might be the same situation over there. From a political point of view, the set of allies you choose tend to differ from ours. In the event of war, either of us would always be in trouble over allies attacking allies. In such a situation, do you actually see relations being able to be maintained at a decent level?

So while you condemn Doomhouse for attacking without a valid CB, are you asking us to declare on Doomhouse or other alliances without any treaties connecting us? Hmmm.... sounds hypocritical to me... either way, I don't see how we can ever satisfy everyone. We might as well just fight for our allies and let the world burn alongside us.

i still prefer the merger with WTF. WTF has such a nice ring to it.

[quote name='Bavaricar' timestamp='1283657051' post='2442127'] I don't even know why I am speaking here, but if these alliances are the two alliances I think they are, and I could be wrong, and yes, this could be a run-on sentence, and now it probably or by now most definitely is, but I think both alliances deserve each other, so without taking a breath for air, congrats on continuing on your past paths of least resistance and your shared quests of generating more of the same. [/quote] Brilliant post. The lack of full-stop is positively stupendous.

[quote name='Ramirus Maximus' timestamp='1280865962' post='2399837'] You can rest assured, I had nothing to do with the so-called "white peace", and did not authorize my signature being used by Peron. [/quote] I had never supported the decision to cancel the Accords and up till now, I still don't. However, seeing posts like there one quoted does make me understand why our Triums and my fellow hitchhikers voted to cancel the treaty. I can only second what Damean said and what Sham posted. I will fight to defend Gre. Hell may freeze over one day, but no way will I ever fight to support Ramirus.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='24 March 2010 - 11:47 PM' timestamp='1269445608' post='2235275'] Well I guess this is the final death of the idea that everyone is welcome in Aqua. I never really agreed with you on much but a successful colour should be able to accommodate alliances from all parts of the web. [/quote] you speak as though there was either subtle or overt pressure to force NATO off Aqua. Mind sharing your sources? Good luck with the move NATO, hope you have luck finding the trades you need.

Simple fact, We made mistakes so did TOP. Whoever made the first misstep is irrelevant because both side believes that the other party made the first misstep. Did we lie? I don't know as I'm not in Gov. Did the manner of TOP's entry into the war and its DoW made any difference? I would say yes. Therein lies the crucial difference in opinion. I'm sorry but no matter how i read it, I don't see it as TOP coming in on behalf of NpO but rather to take advantage of the current chaos to launch an attempt to devastate CnG. Events might have proven this view wrong later, but you can't deny that this was a valid viewpoint [b]at that time[/b] (bold for emphasis). Considering that most or all of the official OPs by Gov would be vetted before being posted, would there be any doubts that this wan't TOP's official position? From my perspective, if TOP had entered the usual way, e.g. attacked some alliance currently involved in the war except Fark, got countered by CnG, I will definitely admit that we were solely at fault if we attacked IRON. But with you DoW, I consider an entirely new war with TOP declaring aggressively on CnG, which Gremlin is [b]honour-bound[/b] (i didn't say by treaty, but please don't start the argument on their lack of treaty again. If you do, this bring us again to the issue of perspective) to support MK. Which will in turn bring us into the war. Is Harmlins a monolithic entity? I would say no as both alliances have their own FA. But do Harmlins act in accordance with each other? The answer is yes. Every argument on both sides inevitably goes back to the fundamental question of how TOP declared. Top is seeing it as an action to enter on behlaf of NpO. I see from their DoW as an entirely separate issue from the NpO war. In a nutshell, this is how I see it : TOP declares aggressively on CnG with no CB, an attack made on an alliance with a MDP-level of relationship of our sister alliance. Gremlins enter on behalf of MK and MHA follows Gre in accordance with Harmlins Accords. I consider this the breaking of the spirit but not he letter of the treaty because Gremlins did not have an official MDP with MK (Really, please don't bring up the issue of their paperless FA again). On the issue of aiding GGA, when we first raised the issue with TOP on TOP's IRC channel, I was around and was frankly looking to cause trouble. That was uncalled for but emotions was running high. Crymson was informed and he stated that he had no idea this was happening and promised to investigate. At that time, the official results of TOP's elections were still not announced and publicly, Crymson still had not stepped down. (This is all based on my memory but I am definite on the part that Crymson was still Gov when we first raised the issue on IRC.) It might have blown over eventually if Crymson made clear their official stance at that time, i.e. it's coalition aid and while regretable (well probably with not too much regrets, but that's just diplomacy) that aid was rendered to enemies of the MHA, it's coalition aid and not meant to hurt the MHA. But when said denial with made by Crymson when at the same time, he was sending out aid to one of those fighting against MHA, it makes his denial wholly unbelievable.

i'm a coke person.. alcohol doesn't interest me

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 February 2010 - 07:24 AM' timestamp='1266621875' post='2192617'] Are you suggesting that part of TOP's terms should be the banning of Crymson from government, similar to how caffine was barred from Echelon government and Chris Kaos banned from GATO government? [/quote] It could be an option instead of reps. Seeing that he seemed to be acting on his own personal agenda (maybe), his actions to the ouside world will always be tainted by the suspicion. It does not have to be a total ban, but more along the highest level of the government and maybe the FA side of things. He could still contribute to his alliance internally. After all C&G claims to want to remove TOP as a threat to them, so what better way than for C&G to remove this threat by allowing more level-headed(i.e. less emotional persons to lead TOP. Some people might be offended as it might constitute an interference in the direct governance of their alliance, but it's just an idea that might be explored.

[quote name='Saber' date='20 February 2010 - 12:30 AM' timestamp='1266597020' post='2192109'] Yes, it's by choice. While I am not ignorant to our situation it does not change the fact that regardless of circumstances we won't leave until everyone else does. [/quote] just a query, knowing crymsom's massive dislike for C&G, will he ever be put into a position again where he could act out his innermost dislikes, bearing mind that his actions could always have the suspicion that it's motivated by his dislikes.

[quote name='MCRABT' date='19 February 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1266573801' post='2191821'] Oh my using TOP's aiding of alliances on their-side of the war after you bandwagoned onto their allies with no reason to speak of other than Gremlins right of sovereignty is a pretty poor justification of negating your treaties. Personally I think we have found our replacement for the old ODN. [/quote] I will just repost a summary of my questions/conversation I had with a member of TOP, also ex-GRE 1) Did TOP not break the spirit of the treaty by attacking MK? whom I believe any of the ex-Gre members in TOP could have told you that Gre would move to defend them. By attacking MK, you are bringing in Gre and this leaves the MHA no room to maneuver. Is this something an ally should do? 2) Did TOP/IRON not consider the depth of the MHA-Gre relationship before attacking C&G? Did TOP/IRON really think that the TOP-MHA treaty or any treaty would supercede the Harmless Accords? Was any of the ex-Gre members in TOP consulted on how MHA would react if TOP were to hit C&G? Did they also think that the Harmless Accords are just another piece of paper? TOP's actions essentially forced us to choose between them and Gre. But was there any doubt where we would fall? Everyone blames us for violating the treaty. But I would just ask this question, who forced us into the situation where we had to choose violating our treaty with TOP or leave Gre to fight IRON alone? Was there any doubt which would we choose? Yes, the way our treaties lean, we would probably be fighting on the SF side, but if TOP didn't choose this course of action, would we be fighting IRON? 3) A suggestion was made that we could have hit TORN and DAWN w/o hitting IRON. Asking us to hit TORN and DAWN is akin to asking TOP to hit only Vanguard and Athens only in C&G. Doesn't make any sense does it? If TORN and DAWN was not involved, what then can the MHA do? Watch while Gre fights IRON alone? Fight TOP or IRON? Was TORN and DAWN brought in for the sole purpose of ensuring that the MHA would not fight IRON? I do not think so and hope that this is not so. If you still are not happy, I would request you approach any ex-Gre TOP members for their strategic view of how Gre would react and then how MHA would react with TOP's DoW? You had such a huge resource of Gre-MHA relations experts in your coalition, but was any of it ever utilised when deciding your plans? Anyway, good luck to NADC, Echelon and MCXA in their rebuilding.