Jump to content

If people complain so much about the tangled treaty web...


Leet Guy

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315503956' post='2796908']
Did not miss the point, was not being obtuse. I simply said if he hates trying to work up a coalition, then just go to war. He cannot attempt to tell me that DH will not roll out an aggressive war for absolutely no reason, ya'll proven more than capable of doing just that. Not to mention, you obviously did not read what I posted except the first couple of sentences. Read the rest, where I actually stated that it would take a large coalition to take out Umbrella. not to mention, Umbrella does have their own treaties such as DH and PB. So how about you stop being intentionally obtuse mate before you attempt to accuse me of it.[/quote]

If you think we rolled NPO "for [b]absolutely[/b] no reason" than I'm not even going to continue this argument, because it will be lost on deaf ears here. It was fitting for the enemy we attacked, and I can't think of another instance where I would support such an aggressive action.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315503956' post='2796908']If ya'll despise blocs, then make DH a standalone. Get rid of your treaties that tie DH to PB and PF and CnG and Mjolnir. I am absolutely amused at the fact that MK is directly tied to PF, PB, CnG, and Mj as well as in DH, but that you are complaining about the prevalence of blocs and how the ties between the blocs are destroying chances of wars...

I mean looking at Umbrella's treaties and we have Umbrella in DH and PB as well as tied to CnG, PF, and XX. GOONS is also in DH and PB and helps solidify ties to CnG.

So this puts DH tied to PB, CnG, PF, XX, and Mj. that is 5 blocs that DH is tied too... And you want to complain about how blocs and ties between blocs are screwing up wars... And then you accuse me of being intentionally obtuse... Okay buddy. How about you put your words where your ass is and work on cutting DH's ties to 5 other blocs. Otherwise, don't even attempt to call anyone as being intentionally obtuse without looking at yourself first.
[/quote]

You're completely watering down the point of my argument, though. The larger claim I made in the OP was that it's the bloc themselves that are hurting the politics of this game, and while yes the treaties between them are a hindrance and add to this poisonous concoction, the prevalence of bloc politics is what complicates it. I'll stand by the fact that each [b]individual[/b] ally of mine has a very unified FA vision. I was, again, complaining about how these blocs should not be viewed as such black and white entities, which is precisely the argument you just regurgitated at me. Do I have ties to, for example, MJ? Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean I have the same vision as Rok. I'm tied to Nordreich because that specific sovereign alliance has both the merits of friendship and unified foreign policy that validates the level of a treaty we hold with them. This is what I mean by "black and white" assumptions. My tie to an alliance in bloc X does not mean I now suddenly share the views of every alliance in bloc X, especially when some of these blocs don't even seem to be conveying a united foreign agenda themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1315507259' post='2796925']
If you think we rolled NPO "for [b]absolutely[/b] no reason" than I'm not even going to continue this argument, because it will be lost on deaf ears here. It was fitting for the enemy we attacked, and I can't think of another instance where I would support such an aggressive action.



You're completely watering down the point of my argument, though. The larger claim I made in the OP was that it's the bloc themselves that are hurting the politics of this game, and while yes the treaties between them are a hindrance and add to this poisonous concoction, the prevalence of bloc politics is what complicates it. I'll stand by the fact that each [b]individual[/b] ally of mine has a very unified FA vision. I was, again, complaining about how these blocs should not be viewed as such black and white entities, which is precisely the argument you just regurgitated at me. Do I have ties to, for example, MJ? Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean I have the same vision as Rok. I'm tied to Nordreich because that specific sovereign alliance has both the merits of friendship and unified foreign policy that validates the level of a treaty we hold with them. This is what I mean by "black and white" assumptions. My tie to an alliance in bloc X does not mean I now suddenly share the views of every alliance in bloc X, especially when some of these blocs don't even seem to be conveying a united foreign agenda themselves.
[/quote]

The stagnation of the game has never had anything to do with FA vision. MK being tied to Mj via NoR, PF via TOP, PB via Umbrella/GOONS/FOK, and CnG via ODN/TLR is what helps to stagnate the game. I don't care if all the alliances above had such a similar FA vision and shared such a relationship that ya'll could merge into a single super-alliance, fact is, should anyone want to hit MK, they have to know that PB, PF, CnG, and Mj all could easily jump in to the war on MK's side. That would lead to most alliances not doing it since it is not really worth it at all.

What I stated is very black and white as I do not care a whit about FA in any way shape or form. I only care about treaties between alliances and treaties between members of different blocs. Hell, Mj alliances are guilty of this including DT. But I am not complaining really, just pointing out a fact. One you are attempting to ignore while you complain about the stagnation of this game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315512815' post='2796977']
I do not care a whit about FA in any way shape or form. [/quote]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1315512815' post='2796977']I only care about treaties between alliances and treaties between members of different blocs.
[/quote]

Yup, I'm walking away from this now as well. Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1315513043' post='2796979']
Yup, I'm walking away from this now as well. Wow.
[/quote]

Yup, can tell you fail to read anything at all. I do not care about all that crap you spoke about how your FA is similar to NoR's and all the other alliances MK is allied to that are in other blocs and thus, MK could not possibly be helping the stagnation whatsoever because MK's FA is similar to their allies....

That I do not care anything about. I only care that MK holds said treaties and thus, as I showed in my example, helps lead to the stagnation of the game. Bloc's aren't really killing the game, it is all the treaties held between them that is killing the game.

But thanks for proving you don't have much of an argument at all to refute what I posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1315507259' post='2796925']
If you think we rolled NPO "for [b]absolutely[/b] no reason" than I'm not even going to continue this argument, because it will be lost on deaf ears here. It was fitting for the enemy we attacked, and I can't think of another instance where I would support such an aggressive action.
[/quote]
Of course you had a reason. The reason was "We have a huge grudge and now we get to kick them when they're down!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already covered this in my blog (though inconsistent and rambly), but I think the fundamental reason is that treaties are given too easily. They're given between people who talk a lot, yet whose actions show no real care for the relationship. Treaties, especially binding mutual ones, should only be given out between those alliances who are economic partners that share a common worldview. Ideally other factors would come into play, but that should be the main one.

Treatying for the sake of having a treaty (throwing ODPs around), treatying solely for security, and treatying for personal reasons of the leaders of the alliances are the reason why it's so tangled, and they need to be addressed individually by every alliance leader in the game in order for it to be fixed.

I mean they won't, but still, that's how it'd get done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315575402' post='2797379']
Of course you had a reason. The reason was "We have a huge grudge and now we get to kick them when they're down!"
[/quote]
That CB has been used an awful lot by many different people throughout the history of Planet Bob. Don't see why folks got upset that it was used again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1315603178' post='2797560']
That CB has been used an awful lot by many different people throughout the history of Planet Bob. Don't see why folks got upset that it was used again.
[/quote]
Because it was the exact CB that MK claimed was used against them by NPO in the war they call NoCB.

It's the hypocrisy that's the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1315611075' post='2797629']
Because it was the exact CB that MK claimed was used against them by NPO in the war they call NoCB.

It's the hypocrisy that's the problem.
[/quote]
I remember people being far more upset about there not being a CB/reason (when there clearly was one) rather than pointing out the hypocrisy of something MK said 2-3 years ago. I've no doubt some like yourself pointed the hypocrisy part out but I don't remember the large portions of people whining about the move making your point.

Edit: The hypocrisy really doesn't bother me because like I said almost everyone has used that CB to start a war. The only thing Doomhouse did differently than everyone else that's used it was not wrap it up in !@#$%^&* reasoning.

Edited by Feanor Noldorin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1315611600' post='2797632']
I remember people being far more upset about there not being a CB/reason (when there clearly was one) rather than pointing out the hypocrisy of something MK said 2-3 years ago. I've no doubt some like yourself pointed the hypocrisy part out but I don't remember the large portions of people whining about the move making your point.

Edit: The hypocrisy really doesn't bother me because like I said almost everyone has used that CB to start a war. The only thing Doomhouse did differently than everyone else that's used it was not wrap it up in !@#$%^&* reasoning.
[/quote]

Go back and reread. That is exactly what DH did. Look at Antoine's posts iirc. They tried to make claims such as NPO was some sort of major threat to DH. They tried to make claims that NPO deserved it because NPO's FA policies did not change or NPO's gov did not change. and so on and so forth. So, actually DH did attempt to wrap it up in bs reasoning throughout the entire length.

They also gave crap terms and then turned around and blamed it on NPO for peace not happening because NPO refused to accept the crap terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1315603178' post='2797560']
That CB has been used an awful lot by many different people throughout the history of Planet Bob. Don't see why folks got upset that it was used again.
[/quote]

Some of us actually aspire to a community and a planet that is just ever so slightly more refined and civilised than [i]Lord of the Flies[/i].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1315612607' post='2797641']
Some of us actually aspire to a community and a planet that is just ever so slightly more refined and civilised than [i]Lord of the Flies[/i].
[/quote]

Any degree of utopia happening around these parts are only in the thoughts of dreamers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1315603178' post='2797560']
That CB has been used an awful lot by many different people throughout the history of Planet Bob. Don't see why folks got upset that it was used again.
[/quote]

And beneath all of the claims of "alleged spying" or "acts of aggression" the next war will be the exact same CB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1315621290' post='2797715']
And beneath all of the claims of "alleged spying" or "acts of aggression" the next war will be the exact same CB.
[/quote]
Exactly.

[quote]Go back and reread. That is exactly what DH did. Look at Antoine's posts iirc. They tried to make claims such as NPO was some sort of major threat to DH. They tried to make claims that NPO deserved it because NPO's FA policies did not change or NPO's gov did not change. and so on and so forth. So, actually DH did attempt to wrap it up in bs reasoning throughout the entire length.[/quote]
Ok, so Doomhouse wrapped its "I don't like you/grudge" reasoning in a bunch of !@#$%^&* just like everyone else before them has. Yet you people still moaned and complained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1315634509' post='2797898']
Ok, so Doomhouse wrapped its "I don't like you/grudge" reasoning in a bunch of !@#$%^&* just like everyone else before them has. Yet you people still moaned and complained.
[/quote]
"If the world was perfect, it wouldn't be."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen a war start for reasons that weren't complete BS, and a CB is in general not the reason you go to war so much as the excuse given.

If not for the years-old grudges and dredged up grievances this would be an incredibly dull world though, so huzzah for BS CBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Risk is more fun when you have a reason for invading Australia, South America, Europe, etc.

I'm not a fan of recklessly throwing the dice around.

Edited by IYIyTh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1315634509' post='2797898']
Ok, so Doomhouse wrapped its "I don't like you/grudge" reasoning in a bunch of !@#$%^&* just like everyone else before them has. Yet you people still moaned and complained.
[/quote]

Actually, most complained about the bs reasoning used as well as the length of war and terms DH demanded. Had DH simply said, "we don't like NPO" and hit, then gave white peace without demanding NPO have any nations leave PM, I bet there would not have been that much "moaning and complaining". DH though acted utterly retarded and handled, what could have been an easy way to hit NPO and damage them some more, with complete stupidity.

but that is neither here nor there. I was simply countering your claim to DH not wrapping their reasoning up in complete !@#$%^&*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='JoshuaR' timestamp='1315710824' post='2798458']
Wait, is Umbrella supposed to attack people or not? Too many conflicting opinions!
[/quote]
Umbrella's supposed to have a civil war, as it has far too many uber-tech nations that everyone else is either too frightened of or too far below range to hit.

(That is, those of us with the guts to fight Umbrella have all already been blitzed down so that we're now too small to fight you.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...