Congrats to Farkistan and the New Polar Order!

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1311584533' post='2763305']
In a hypothetical scenario, say if Polar is hit and CB is Bi-Polar betrayal, what would FARK do..its an air-tight CB tbh.

[size="1"]Now someone will try to be real witty and come up with 'why dont you try and find out', well, I do not command any such authority, I'm just looking for discussion.
[/size]
[/quote]

I think I'd have to disagree with that assumption.

I could see some alliances thinking that TOP might use the same CB on them in the future for not complying with their plans and ambitions of that war, which lest we forget, though bold was of their own doing.

This forces their hand to defend polar, lest they try to acquire more than Alsace-Lorraine.

Hypothetical aside, I surely can sympathize with TOP's hatred for Polar but am not nearly as sold on the idea that they will be attacked outright, let alone that they deserve a curbstomping when Grub's talking seems to do as much damage without a war.

[potato]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1311547342' post='2763000']
In no sense is Alterego a leader of BAPS. He's a loudmouth individual member with really no clout inside his own alliance.

I suppose you don't have anyone like that in your alliance; every loudmouth in MK really does represent your alliance fully.
[/quote]

Congrats on cherry picking a quote to try and contradict me only to end up reinforcing my point.

[mattski133]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1311573322' post='2763241']
Really? Unless there is a whole lot of cancelling in the future, XX and SF are pretty treaty tied to PB. Certainly much moreso than TOP is tied to PB.
[/quote]

I agree there is a mess of treaties tying PB to all kinds of places. Personally, I'd pick TOP over [i]most blocs[/i] in a war. If TOP wanted to break itself off some of that sweet sweet NpO, I think it'd carry more weight in Doomhouse and PB than what you suspect.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1311605334' post='2763404']
I agree there is a mess of treaties tying PB to all kinds of places. Personally, I'd pick TOP over [i]most blocs[/i] in a war. If TOP wanted to break itself off some of that sweet sweet NpO, I think it'd carry more weight in Doomhouse and PB than what you suspect.
[/quote]

I think I'll disagree on the point that it would have already happened.


Not to say it couldn't happen in the future, but there have been plenty of opportunities.

Edited July 25, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Khyber]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1311625995' post='2763562']
I think I'll disagree on the point that it would have already happened.
[/quote]

Gah, why is this another TOP vs. NpO talk? I know the NpO are involved and Feanor is a member of TOP, but really TOP as a whole has nothing to do with this thread, leave us out of it.

On a side note, as a counter point to the point you've made, what are we going to attack? Our average NS is 62k of which we have 67 nations. NpO has 18 nations that are larger then 62k. Even if you calculate what nations we are able to hit, we are short a lot of targets for our above average nations, which are most of the nations that were betrayed by the NpO.

[brokenhead]

[quote name='Khyber' timestamp='1311637760' post='2763660']
Gah, why is this another TOP vs. NpO talk? I know the NpO are involved and Feanor is a member of TOP, but really TOP as a whole has nothing to do with this thread, leave us out of it.

On a side note, as a counter point to the point you've made, what are we going to attack? Our average NS is 62k of which we have 67 nations. NpO has 18 nations that are larger then 62k. Even if you calculate what nations we are able to hit, we are short a lot of targets for our above average nations, which are most of the nations that were betrayed by the NpO.
[/quote]

You do realize your "side note" completely contradicts your first point, right?

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Khyber' timestamp='1311637760' post='2763660']
Gah, why is this another TOP vs. NpO talk? I know the NpO are involved and Feanor is a member of TOP, but really TOP as a whole has nothing to do with this thread, leave us out of it.
[/quote]

You're either kidding or insulting everyone's intelligence.

[janax]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1311649991' post='2763804']
You're either kidding or insulting everyone's intelligence.
[/quote]

TO be fair, this is the OWF. There's not a lot to insult.

[Necromancer V4L]

You know, in reality this is a very ballsy move for Polaris, politically. By seeking to tie themselves to a stable bloc connection, they chose to go towards XX, in which they had very little friendship established, forgoing a more traditional approach of working towards relations with ex-Hegemony. Considering their last treaty fiasco, Legion, I would say that this is a step forward towards Polaris putting itself in a survivable position. They do have a pretty horrid reputation at the moment, and that is of course why you are seeing Spartans and Harmless and R&Rer's in here stressing the "Optional" part of this whole mess, because in reality FARK is telling them, "Hey, I know Polar isn't our first choice of a viable ally, but we should give them a chance, you know, get to know them, maybe we'll PIAT or ODP them or something and just talk to them for a while."

It will be interesting to see how Mergerberger and RandomInterrupt, Carfre Inpor and the rest of the gang play their cards here. Who knows what'll happen, they might even pull it off. (Doubtful)

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Necromancer V4L' timestamp='1311664467' post='2764000']
You know, in reality this is a very ballsy move for Polaris, politically. By seeking to tie themselves to a stable bloc connection, they chose to go towards XX, in which they had very little friendship established, forgoing a more traditional approach of working towards relations with ex-Hegemony. Considering their last treaty fiasco, Legion, I would say that this is a step forward towards Polaris putting itself in a survivable position. They do have a pretty horrid reputation at the moment, and that is of course why you are seeing Spartans and Harmless and R&Rer's in here stressing the "Optional" part of this whole mess, because in reality FARK is telling them, "Hey, I know Polar isn't our first choice of a viable ally, but we should give them a chance, you know, get to know them, maybe we'll PIAT or ODP them or something and just talk to them for a while."

It will be interesting to see how Mergerberger and RandomInterrupt, Carfre Inpor and the rest of the gang play their cards here. Who knows what'll happen, they might even pull it off. (Doubtful)
[/quote]

This operates under the assumption they were given more (or better,) alternatives.

[quote name='janax' timestamp='1311650807' post='2763825']
TO be fair, this is the OWF. There's not a lot to insult.
[/quote]

I must be insane. I keep thinking people will change, and I just walk away like I do every Sunday morning.
Disappointed and in need of a shower.

Edited July 26, 2011 by IYIyTh

[chefjoe]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1311689313' post='2764141']
This operates under the assumption they were given more (or better,) alternatives.
[/quote]

They have no one to blame but themselves for the above.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1311701338' post='2764261']
They have no one to blame but themselves for the above.
[/quote]

I still wonder had the whole thing had been successful how different the game would be, as well as the opinions of the users in this thread on an identical ODP.

I guess we'll never know.

[PhysicsJunky]

Fark and Polar's relationship warmed in part from sharing our protectorate. That is in support of an alliance that is forbidden by charter from signing treaties (or alternatively considers ODP status universal), and has made a single OWF announcement in its two years of existence, which was even then was thought necessary only due to raiding practices at the time.

So is it really inconsistent not to announce the upgrade from one meaningless treaty status to another simply to avoid trolling? I'd stop short of reading it as some sort of supporting evidence for a secret MDP. And if the idea of treating an ODP like an MDP, supplying you agree with the circumstances, is scandalous, what the heck is an ODP then? I thought that was the definition of an ODP in the first place. Apparently we now share a secret MDP with the world because we're radical enough to consider fighting for causes we agree with a good idea.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Avakael' timestamp='1311388726' post='2761738']
Because TOP will totally trash Fark in a figh~ oh wait.
[/quote]
You're deluded if you don't think TOP would dominate such a fight.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1311720247' post='2764447']
You're deluded if you don't think TOP would dominate such a fight.
[/quote]

Well, not sure about WCs, but just going from NS, it appears that Fark actually holds a fairly good edge. For example, Fark has a nation over 160k which TOP does not. Fark also has 12 nations over 120k NS whereas TOP only has 6. TOP has a total of 19 nations over 100k and Fark also has 34 over 100k NS. TOP has 7 nations between 90k NS and 99,999 NS. Fark has 13 in that same range. TOP has 17 nations between 80k and 89,999 NS. Fark has 24 in that same range. So overall, it appears FARK has a 2 to 1 odds in their favor at least for 80k NS and above.

Not sure exactly how TOP is dominating that fight.....

[Krack]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1311728386' post='2764532']
Well, not sure about WCs, but just going from NS, it appears that Fark actually holds a fairly good edge. For example, Fark has a nation over 160k which TOP does not. Fark also has 12 nations over 120k NS whereas TOP only has 6. TOP has a total of 19 nations over 100k and Fark also has 34 over 100k NS. TOP has 7 nations between 90k NS and 99,999 NS. Fark has 13 in that same range. TOP has 17 nations between 80k and 89,999 NS. Fark has 24 in that same range. So overall, it appears FARK has a 2 to 1 odds in their favor at least for 80k NS and above.

Not sure exactly how TOP is dominating that fight.....
[/quote]

It's magic.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1311728386' post='2764532']
Well, not sure about WCs, but just going from NS, it appears that Fark actually holds a fairly good edge. For example, Fark has a nation over 160k which TOP does not. Fark also has 12 nations over 120k NS whereas TOP only has 6. TOP has a total of 19 nations over 100k and Fark also has 34 over 100k NS. TOP has 7 nations between 90k NS and 99,999 NS. Fark has 13 in that same range. TOP has 17 nations between 80k and 89,999 NS. Fark has 24 in that same range. So overall, it appears FARK has a 2 to 1 odds in their favor at least for 80k NS and above.

Not sure exactly how TOP is dominating that fight.....
[/quote]


FARK has a huge tech advantage over TOP. Not that there would ever be a 1 vs 1 fight between the alliances, but FARK would be pretty tough to handle for any alliance 1 vs 1. It would quickly turn into TOP trying to harass the middle tier of FARK.

[Vanilla Napalm]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1311728386' post='2764532']
Well, not sure about WCs, but just going from NS, it appears that Fark actually holds a fairly good edge. For example, Fark has a nation over 160k which TOP does not. Fark also has 12 nations over 120k NS whereas TOP only has 6. TOP has a total of 19 nations over 100k and Fark also has 34 over 100k NS. TOP has 7 nations between 90k NS and 99,999 NS. Fark has 13 in that same range. TOP has 17 nations between 80k and 89,999 NS. Fark has 24 in that same range. So overall, it appears FARK has a 2 to 1 odds in their favor at least for 80k NS and above.

Not sure exactly how TOP is dominating that fight.....
[/quote]
GPA or Sparta would annihilate TOP too from that perspective.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1311775989' post='2765212']
GPA or Sparta would annihilate TOP too from that perspective.
[/quote]

IRON beat Ramlins.

Edited July 27, 2011 by IYIyTh

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1311720247' post='2764447']
You're deluded if you don't think TOP would dominate such a fight.
[/quote]

Yeah, my money would be on TOP too.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='Vanilla Napalm' timestamp='1311775989' post='2765212']
GPA or Sparta would annihilate TOP too from that perspective.
[/quote]


FARK is much more prepared for war than GPA, who don't fight, and Sparta from a tech perspective. Believe me, having experienced fighting on the smaller side vs nations with big tech advantages, no amount of war chest or activity will over come that.

TOP's upper tier would be decimated and relegated to trying to fight FARK's mid tier. Umbrella has the only upper tier in the game that is large enough to take on FARK's 1 vs 1.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1311790249' post='2765406']
IRON beat Ramlins.
[/quote]
Don't be ignorant.

[Zoomzoomzoom]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1311795232' post='2765482']
FARK is much more prepared for war than GPA, who don't fight, and Sparta from a tech perspective. Believe me, having experienced fighting on the smaller side vs nations with big tech advantages, no amount of war chest or activity will over come that.

TOP's upper tier would be decimated and relegated to trying to fight FARK's mid tier. Umbrella has the only upper tier in the game that is large enough to take on FARK's 1 vs 1.
[/quote]

Need I remind anyone of the NEW-FARK war? An opponent with less numbers inflicted enough damage to FARK's upper tier to where they had to ignore almost all of their MDoAPs in the last war.

TOP would win, hands down.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Zoomzoomzoom

[Sandwich Controversy]

That was really embarrassing, but if you've seen Fark's military performances since Karma it's not a surprise.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1311800813' post='2765539']
Need I remind anyone of the NEW-FARK war? An opponent with less numbers inflicted enough damage to FARK's upper tier to where they had to ignore almost all of their MDoAPs in the last war.

TOP would win, hands down.
[/quote]
I don't think they "had to" ignore their treaties. Even if those nations were not in fighting condition, which at that size means depleted warchests, they could have fought more in the other tiers with the bulk of their alliance. "Didn't want to fight for their allies" is a more accurate description.