Congrats to Farkistan and the New Polar Order!

[Detlev]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1311301588' post='2760888']
I was flipping through the CN Wikipedia the other week and noticed that the PIAT shared between the two alliances in the topic title had been upgraded to an ODP.
[/quote]
Nobody reads CN wiki. You found this out with one of yours spies and are trying to play it off as though you found out some other way.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[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]

In a one on one matchup I'm going to have to disagree with what many have said here. FARK would win undoubtedly, they have 5 million more NS than we do and we don't really have a lower tier, or a tier below 40k NS for that matter. I think we'd do massive damage and their <70k NS tier would be trashed, but so would ours. If you did TOP + someone in the vein of Nordreich, which would even out the total NS and the lower tier roughly, I'd give it to us hands down. But a 5 million NS disadvantage to start with is to large to overcome

[flak attack]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1312114459' post='2768187']
Yes. They have 22 people. All of the 22 coordinate attacks.
[/quote]
Personal experience says otherwise.

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='Detlev' timestamp='1312132454' post='2768353']
Nobody reads CN wiki. You found this out with one of yours spies and are trying to play it off as though you found out some other way.
[/quote]

Grub, errr I mean our spy is pretty useful these days .

[the rebel]

[quote name='Vladisvok Destino' timestamp='1312123362' post='2768233']
I must have missed the part where the wiki was suddenly closed to the public....[/quote]

Not every alliance keeps their wiki updated, so if the lack of posting and updating became a common place then there would be a problem in a sense....

[Bob Janova]

In fact in other threads we've had people complain that the wiki is not a reliable source and they shouldn't be expected to look there. The fact is that this forum is the central and official location for the registration of relationships between alliances, and it makes sense to post an annoucement here. Although, indeed, in this case the 'upgrade' is extremely marginal if the treaty is to be taken at face value (a PIAT often includes optional defence and an ODP usually includes intelligence sharing, so even if you think there is value in optional clauses – which I don't really – there is almost no difference between them).

[Zero-One]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1312154408' post='2768586']
In fact in other threads we've had people complain that the wiki is not a reliable source and they shouldn't be expected to look there. The fact is that this forum is the central and official location for the registration of relationships between alliances, and it makes sense to post an annoucement here. Although, indeed, in this case the 'upgrade' is extremely marginal if the treaty is to be taken at face value (a PIAT often includes optional defence and an ODP usually includes intelligence sharing, so even if you think there is value in optional clauses – which I don't really – there is almost no difference between them).
[/quote]

I echo Bob Janova's sentiment. A treaty is only valid if it is recognized by the community as a whole. If a treaty is not posted on World Affairs, which is designated as a centralized location for treaties among alliances and blocs, then the treaty is not known, recognized, and effectively invalid. This trend of not posting treaty announcement is utterly retarded and must stop.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Zero-One

[Sephiroth]

If this is true, it makes sense from a political viewpoint. Even after their losses they got from the BiPolar War in allies, NpO still has a considerable ally base, with most of those still allied to them pretty loyal. Fark is closely tied with SF and other scattered allies of SF who aren't closely tied with PB/CnG/PF. If those who have allies not closely integrated with DH want a chance when war comes rolling around to crush anyone willing to oppose PB/CnG/PF in order to defend allies who are targeted, they better start getting ready to work together next time a war comes around and put up a united front.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Methrage

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Zero-One' timestamp='1312183588' post='2769006']
I echo Bob Janova's sentiment. A treaty is only valid if it is recognized by the community as a whole. If a treaty is not posted on World Affairs, which is designated as a centralized location for treaties among alliances and blocs, then the treaty is not known, recognized, and effectively invalid. This trend of not posting treaty announcement is utterly retarded and must stop.
[/quote]
I dunno, that's totally a perspective thing. Like some alliances would come into a war to defend their friends, treaty or not. In my opinion, as long as the two alliances recognize it, then it's valid. If other alliances don't recognize it, what can they do to oppose it?

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1312121725' post='2768226']
Not announcing treaty changes to the public is indeed dumb. The whole point of a treaty is as a public affirmation of how inter-alliance affairs will be conducted, and not to post them makes them in a very real sense invalid – Fark of all alliances should know that after the débacle of GW2.
[/quote]
Funny how we're only hearing this opinion now, when Fark has been doing it for a bloody long time. Also, FAN?

[quote name='Zero-One' timestamp='1312183588' post='2769006']
I echo Bob Janova's sentiment. A treaty is only valid if it is recognized by the community as a whole. If a treaty is not posted on World Affairs, which is designated as a centralized location for treaties among alliances and blocs, then the treaty is not known, recognized, and effectively invalid. This trend of not posting treaty announcement is utterly retarded and must stop.
[/quote]
lol. I'd say a treaty is valid if the parties to the treaty say it is. Other people can disregard it, or try and punish them for activation ala CSN, but saying it's invalid because the general public says it is is ridiculous.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1312154408' post='2768586']
In fact in other threads we've had people complain that the wiki is not a reliable source and they shouldn't be expected to look there. The fact is that this forum is the central and official location for the registration of relationships between alliances, and it makes sense to post an annoucement here. Although, indeed, in this case the 'upgrade' is extremely marginal if the treaty is to be taken at face value (a PIAT often includes optional defence and an ODP usually includes intelligence sharing, so even if you think there is value in optional clauses – which I don't really – there is almost no difference between them).
[/quote]
Perhaps you should start a war over Fark's policy of aggressively disregarding this forum that you appear to love so much.

Face it: Fark have enough power that they can do what they want, and do not have to kowtow to your personal preferences about how they should announce treaties.

[Cynic1]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1312202075' post='2769069']
Perhaps you should start a war over Fark's policy of aggressively disregarding this forum that you appear to love so much.

Face it: Fark have enough power that they can do what they want, and do not have to kowtow to your personal preferences about how they should announce treaties.
[/quote]


They dont care about announcing treaties. They also don't care if your alliances MoD spies their nations out of boredom. Actually, if you tell them it was your alliances MoD then they call for your head and let the spy walk XD. !@#$%*^

Edited August 1, 2011 by Cynic

[janax]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1312202075' post='2769069']
Perhaps you should start a war over Fark's policy of aggressively disregarding this forum that you appear to love so much.

Face it: Fark have enough power that they can do what they want, and do not have to kowtow to your personal preferences about how they should announce treaties.
[/quote]

Oh how I missed the completely insane, detached from reality Haflinger. Is it nice in your version or reality? Is the sun shinier? The birds tweetier?
Do the medical professionals in Llonach have a name for what you have or shall deranged suffice?

Never change.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Funny how we're only hearing this opinion now, when Fark has been doing it for a bloody long time[/quote]
I'm pretty sure I aired that last time Fark made an FA move that I cared about enough to notice (leaving SF).

[quote]If other alliances don't recognize it, what can they do to oppose it? [/quote]
Non-chaining treaties typically define their non chaining in terms of mandated defence, so whether a treaty is recognised or not can have serious legal implications in a major war.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1312226724' post='2769315']
I'm pretty sure I aired that last time Fark made an FA move that I cared about enough to notice (leaving SF).


Non-chaining treaties typically define their non chaining in terms of mandated defence, so whether a treaty is recognised or not can have serious legal implications in a major war.
[/quote]


Given all of the talk of "X vs Y in defence of Z," this scenario revolves around the idea of a defensive strategy.

The day when the aggressor or other alliances dictate the legality of a defensive treaty between opposing forces will be the day political victory has been achieved and the point of playing long gone.

Edited August 1, 2011 by IYIyTh

[EViL0nE]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1312121725' post='2768226']
It's pretty hilarious holding ML up as an example of an 'elite' alliance.

Fark's numerical advantage is large enough that I think it would probably be a draw.

Not announcing treaty changes to the public is indeed dumb. The whole point of a treaty is as a public affirmation of how inter-alliance affairs will be conducted, and not to post them makes them in a very real sense invalid – Fark of all alliances should know that after the débacle of GW2.
[/quote]
I thought the point of a treaty is as a contract between two alliances outlining their willingness to work together. I'm not sure how that has anything to do with alliances outside of the contract? As a side note, you were also the one defending an alliances right not to publicly affirm their entrance into war, weren't you?

[D34th]

Bob Janova with two different opinions about the same subject? Impossible!

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1312202075' post='2769069']
Face it: Fark have enough power that they can do what they want, and do not have to kowtow to your personal preferences about how they should announce treaties.
[/quote]
FARK can do whatever they want but that doesn't mean people don't want to know or discuss their foriegn affairs and how it affects the global community.

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1312233656' post='2769392']
FARK can do whatever they want but that doesn't mean people don't want to know or discuss their foriegn affairs and how it affects the global community.
[/quote]

By global community, you mean TOP, right?

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1312233752' post='2769396']
By global community, you mean TOP, right?
[/quote]
The 2nd largest alliance in terms of NS (who happens to be in the largest NS bloc) signs with an alliance that has the size of the NpO it affects the global community. Your power base just got stronger by bringing in an outside power with connections to alliances that arent' in the Mj/CnG/PF/DR/Pandora* sphere's of influence. Do you not think that is news on the global front?

I'm unsure if you are capable of looking past someone's AA when replying to something they say but do try.

Edit: Forgot to add the Vikings, my bad guys.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Feanor Noldorin

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1312234178' post='2769398']
The 2nd largest alliance in terms of NS (who happens to be in the largest NS bloc) signs with an alliance that has the size of the NpO it affects the global community. Your power base just got stronger by bringing in an outside power with connections to alliances that arent' in the Mj/CnG/PF/DR/Pandora sphere's of influence. Do you not think that is news on the global front?

I'm unsure if you are capable of looking past someone's AA when replying to something they say but do try.
[/quote]

This implies that Farkistan not only signed a MDAP with Polaris, but that Farkistan's treaties it signs with other alliances are also co-signed by its other allies and that Polaris is now in XX (I'll assume that's what "your," meant, and likely that you'd include SF as a part of this "power base.") Both are false.

I'm capable of looking past someone's AA, but given your own and remarks of TOP in general in a plethora of fora, it's hard... rephrase... impossible to pretend your alliance affiliation has nothing to do with the jejune display here.

Edit: Minor bracket loss.

Edited August 1, 2011 by IYIyTh

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1312235148' post='2769407']
This implies that Farkistan not only signed a MDAP with Polaris, but that Farkistan's treaties it signs with other alliances are also co-signed by its other allies and that Polaris is now in XX (I'll assume that's what "your," meant, and likely that you'd include SF as a part of this "power base.") Both are false.
[/quote]
A large NS alliance (Polar) that was not connected to any power bloc now has a treaty with a member of XX (Fark). If Fark ever finds itself in a war (aggressive or defensive) it can call on a 7.5 mil NS alliance that no other power bloc can call on. Fark's (and XX in an indirect way) side got stronger in comparsion to the other power blocs. That's an important development in the political world.

[Bob Ilyani]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1312239427' post='2769447']
A large NS alliance (Polar) that was not connected to any power bloc now has a treaty with a member of XX (Fark). If Fark ever finds itself in a war (aggressive or defensive) it can call on a 7.5 mil NS alliance that no other power bloc can call on. Fark's (and XX in an indirect way) side got stronger in comparsion to the other power blocs. That's an important development in the political world.
[/quote]
I honestly don't see why people are having issues recognizing that Feanor... this is a side play, as pure of one as it gets.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1312239427' post='2769447']
A large NS alliance (Polar) that was not connected to any power bloc now has a treaty with a member of XX (Fark). If Fark ever finds itself in a war (aggressive or defensive) it can call on a 7.5 mil NS alliance that no other power bloc can call on. Fark's (and XX in an indirect way) side got stronger in comparsion to the other power blocs. That's an important development in the political world.
[/quote]
They already had a treaty, though. It's not some new treaty, it's an upgrade from a PIAT to an ODP.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1312241629' post='2769473']
I honestly don't see why people are having issues recognizing that Feanor... this is a side play, as pure of one as it gets.
[/quote]
I'm unsure why they don't get it either. I tried in my last post to use the NpO's name as little as possible to avoid people going "rawr TOP/NpO" even though my alliance has nothing to do with this thread. The treaty is a good play for both sides. The point I'm trying to make is that it should be public because both alliance are considered priemer alliances.

[quote]They already had a treaty, though. It's not some new treaty, it's an upgrade from a PIAT to an ODP.[/quote]
I think the jump from PIAT to ODP is big (in any treaty) because of the Defense clause. That's just my personal opinion because now both of them have "legal" means to enter into a war in support of one another. Does the treaty have an optional aggression clause? I honestly don't remember.

Edited August 2, 2011 by Feanor Noldorin