Blue Turtle Alliance Announcement

[Heft]

[quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1318020277' post='2820050']
I imagine if I ask you how come you can't inflict the same amount of damage on that 6mill NS alliance with more NS than them at your disposal, in the same time frame, your answer would be the same.

EDIT: Also Banedon, WTF man, you can't be logical on the OWF ..
[/quote]
We haven't had more NS or more nations or really more anything at our disposal for most of the war. Even now, our numerical advantage is only slight and incomplete.

And even a 60M alliance wouldn't be able to destroy a 6M alliance in 4 days, or one week for that matter. These things take time. Be patient.

[Flonker]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1318028344' post='2820193']
We haven't had more NS or more nations or really more anything at our disposal for most of the war. Even now, our numerical advantage is only slight and incomplete.

And even a 60M alliance wouldn't be able to destroy a 6M alliance in 4 days, or one week for that matter. These things take time. Be patient.
[/quote]

And yet you keep claiming you've already won the war.

More Kook-Aide(tm), Heft?

[Heft]

[quote name='Flonker' timestamp='1318028778' post='2820202']
And yet you keep claiming you've already won the war.

More Kook-Aide™, Heft?
[/quote]
And you keep saying you're the Queen of England.

[Flonker]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1318029085' post='2820208']
And you keep saying you're the Queen of England.
[/quote]

And I said this where, exactly?

[Heft]

[quote name='Flonker' timestamp='1318029811' post='2820217']
And I said this where, exactly?
[/quote]
Keep trying, I'm sure you'll find the point eventually.

[Baron Flynt]

I think this was probably a dumb idea, BTA!

Edited October 7, 2011 by Baron Flynt

[Flonker]

[quote name='Heft' timestamp='1318030267' post='2820226']
Keep trying, I'm sure you'll find the point eventually.
[/quote]

The one on top of your head, covered in fur?

[Jtkode]

[quote name='Cyber Nationz' timestamp='1318022170' post='2820086']
seriously, you need this much firepower to fight legion.
NsO what a pathetic alliance. Cant do a brawl by it self.
[/quote]


^^^ what he said

[Heft]

[quote name='Flonker' timestamp='1318032349' post='2820261']
The one on top of your head, covered in fur?
[/quote]
Since you're apparently not getting it: I have never said we have already won, nor do I believe anyone else has either. Plenty have asserted that we are winning (We might be, too soon to tell definitively) or that we will win (we will) but not that we have already won.

[Saniiro Matsudaira]

[quote name='Cyber Nationz' timestamp='1318022170' post='2820086']
seriously, you need this much firepower to fight legion.
NsO what a pathetic alliance. Cant do a brawl by it self.
[/quote]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1318023053' post='2820107']
Come in and "even up the odds".
[/quote]

Pretty much what Hereno said. If you have so much of a problem with it, nothing's stopping you from doing something.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Saniiro Matsudaira

[Jtkode]

I mean, we should all look at it this way, if all these alliances want to deplete their war chests for...um....the legion? And it leaves me with a bigger war chest then them in the next war... Then so be it. Be LOLwagoners for all I care....


The funny thing is, this war is giving Legion MORE respect and taking away respect for the NSO & LOLwagon, you guys look like fools, while Legion look like the S***.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Jtkode

[Saniiro Matsudaira]

[quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1318034767' post='2820282']
I mean, we should all look at it this way, if all these alliances want to deplete their war chests for...um....the legion? And it leaves me with a bigger war chest then them in the next war... Then so be it. Be LOLwagoners for all I care....[/quote]

At least our allies/friends/etc are willing to honor/activate our treaties. That is the bare necessity.

[quote]
The funny thing is, this war is giving Legion MORE respect and taking away respect for the NSO & LOLwagon, you guys look like fools, while Legion look like the S***.
[/quote]

smug =/= respect

Edited October 8, 2011 by Saniiro Matsudaira

[The Big Bad]

[quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1318034767' post='2820282']
I mean, we should all look at it this way, if all these alliances want to deplete their war chests for...um....the legion? And it leaves me with a bigger war chest then them in the next war... Then so be it. Be LOLwagoners for all I care....


The funny thing is, this war is giving Legion MORE respect and taking away respect for the NSO & LOLwagon, you guys look like fools, while Legion look like the S***.
[/quote]

While I think you are over stating it a bit, in some ways I have to agree. I do not think NSO loses any respect as they entered by treaty to defend an ally and lets face it they are the only thing holding that group of alliances from getting crushed. NsO its hard to fault as well and they are to small to matter one way or the other anyway. IAA and BTO come off very badly as they entered for no reason anyone can figure out and then completely face palmed on the battle field. And thats facing Legion, who would want them in a real war? Tetris of course comes out looking the worst, they called out Legion to laugh at them and instead Legion has left them mostly dead on the floor in tears. Over all its hard to tell if Legion is better at war now or if most of the others are just that bad. I do not think Legion will be any better liked but, they have in this case gained a great deal of support from new areas. How that will translate post war is hard to tell.

[Vulpes Inculta]

[quote name='Saniiro Matsudaira' timestamp='1318034993' post='2820286']
At least our allies/friends/etc are willing to honor/activate our treaties. That is the bare necessity.[/quote]
This has been explained multiple times by multiple different people. Legion has the ability, through their treaties, to request when their allies come in. If Polar/Invicta/whoever else decided to come in without that request, they would be in violation of the treaty and entering the war illegally.

Then of course, your side would !@#$%* and complain.


[quote]smug =/= respect
[/quote]
Declaring war on a rock solid CB = = respect

Edited October 8, 2011 by Vulpes Inculta

[Saniiro Matsudaira]

[quote name='Vulpes Inculta' timestamp='1318036054' post='2820299']
This has been explained multiple times by multiple different people. Legion has the ability, through their treaties, to request when their allies come in. If Polar/Invicta/whoever else decided to come in without that request, they would be in violation of the treaty and entering the war illegally.

Then of course, your side would !@#$%* and complain.[/quote]

I don't care about which alliance counterdeclares in result. The main problem is when two alliances sign onto a MDoAP, the matter behind mutual defence is not that they request it, but that an ally is obliged to come in defence of an alliance. It does not matter if it was Legion/Tetris/Polar/NSO/Invicta/NsO/etc, etc. MDoAP partners are obliged to help, necessary or not. If they are not going to honor mutual clauses, then treaty partners might as well keep it optional.


[quote]
Declaring war on a rock solid CB = = respect
[/quote]

I will not object that it is a fair CB, but there are those still being smug about the war.

[Krunk the Great]

[quote name='Jtkode' timestamp='1318034767' post='2820282']
I mean, we should all look at it this way, if all these alliances want to deplete their war chests for...um....the legion? And it leaves me with a bigger war chest then them in the next war... Then so be it. Be LOLwagoners for all I care....


The funny thing is, this war is giving Legion MORE respect and taking away respect for the NSO & LOLwagon, you guys look like fools, while Legion look like the S***.
[/quote]

Why should we lose respect for honoring a treaty regardless of why our ally was attacked?

That one puzzles me.

EDIT: If anything, it is to be expected from us.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Krunk the Great

[Vulpes Inculta]

[quote name='Saniiro Matsudaira' timestamp='1318036911' post='2820311']
I don't care about which alliance counterdeclares in result. The main problem is when two alliances sign onto a MDoAP, the matter behind mutual defence is not that they request it, but that an ally is obliged to come in defence of an alliance. It does not matter if it was Legion/Tetris/Polar/NSO/Invicta/NsO/etc, etc. MDoAP partners are obliged to help, necessary or not. If they are not going to honor mutual clauses, then treaty partners might as well keep it optional.[/quote]
I half-agree, it might've been easier to just colour the whole defence part optional rather than mutual, especially given that in a completely e-lawyering technical sense they made it optional with the "requesting" part, but it's their treaty at the end of the day, they can do what they want with it and word it how they like.

[quote]I will not object that it is a fair CB, but there are those still being smug about the war.
[/quote]
Certainly. I guess we'll see soon enough whether they still have a right to be smug.

[Saniiro Matsudaira]

[quote name='Vulpes Inculta' timestamp='1318037261' post='2820322']
I half-agree, it might've been easier to just colour the whole defence part optional rather than mutual, especially given that in a completely e-lawyering technical sense they made it optional with the "requesting" part, but it's their treaty at the end of the day, they can do what they want with it and word it how they like.
[/quote]

The requesting part is the whole meaning of why I think it is going around the clause of mutual defence. If you are going to do that, then make the treaty an oD(A)P-level treaty. If it is at that level, two alliances can treat it the same as a Mutual-level treaty, but stay away from MD(oA)P treaties if you are not going to oblige to the clauses of the treaties in the end.

[Vulpes Inculta]

[quote name='Saniiro Matsudaira' timestamp='1318037620' post='2820327']
The requesting part is the whole meaning of why I think it is going around the clause of mutual defence. If you are going to do that, then make the treaty an oD(A)P-level treaty. If it is at that level, two alliances can treat it the same as a Mutual-level treaty, but stay away from MD(oA)P treaties if you are not going to oblige to the clauses of the treaties in the end.
[/quote]
Yup. Probably should've been an ODoAP or just changed that particular article to a fixed, strictly mutual defence term.

Saying that though, it does have a tactical/strategic advantage, as we are seeing now.

[Saniiro Matsudaira]

[quote name='Vulpes Inculta' timestamp='1318037824' post='2820334']
Yup. Probably should've been an ODoAP or just changed that particular article to a fixed, strictly mutual defence term.

Saying that though, it does have a tactical/strategic advantage, as we are seeing now.
[/quote]

Well, ODoAPs can serve that same purpose. If two alliances' relationship is strong enough, then the treaty can serve up to the same purpose. MDoAP shouldn't be used to any other advantage but to unite both alliances militarily against a common enemy/enemies when one or the other is attacked, as they should be.

[EViL0nE]

The problem is, as has been stated many times, an oDoAP puts the option on the alliance being requested. A well written MD[oA]P puts the option on the requesting alliance.
Stop whining and fight your war.

[Vulpes Inculta]

[quote name='Saniiro Matsudaira' timestamp='1318038103' post='2820339']
Well, ODoAPs can serve that same purpose. If two alliances' relationship is strong enough, then the treaty can serve up to the same purpose. MDoAP shouldn't be used to any other advantage but to unite both alliances militarily against a common enemy/enemies when one or the other is attacked, as they should be.
[/quote]
Mm, true. I stand convinced, good sir.

[wickedj]

[quote name='The Reccesion' timestamp='1317928909' post='2818763']
I hope Legion stomps you.
[/quote]
Why dont you declare on them then. otherwise shut up

Sometimes i hate "do something about it" but this thread SCREAMS of retards who should "do something about it" or go back to coddling your infra

[asewland]

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1318038602' post='2820348']
Why dont you declare on them then. otherwise shut up

Sometimes i hate "do something about it" but this thread SCREAMS of retards who should "do something about it" or go back to coddling your infra
[/quote]
U mad bro?

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Saniiro Matsudaira' timestamp='1318034993' post='2820286']
At least our allies/friends/etc are willing to honor/activate our treaties. That is the bare necessity.
[/quote]
Activating an optional aggression treaty doesn't require much honor, just an eagerness to hit an alliance who is already busy fighting someone else. Whether its becuase you guys needed the help or BTA/IAA decided they wanted to get in on the curb stomp hitting an alliance who's already getting beaten, either scenario doesn't paint your side as being that great. Either you guys got yourselves into a war you couldn't win to honor your treaty with Tetris or BTA/IAA are opportunistic alliances who enjoy bandwaggoning onto the winning side in a war for fun even when their help isn't needed.

If you guys actually needed BTA/IAA to assist you in the war, them entering to help an ally who got themselves in a bad situation is understandable, but even that scenario makes Legion seem like an alliance either so powerful you guys need to keep bringing more alliances in to attack them or the ones they are fighting aren't very strong themselves. I don't need it in writing to have the option to attack someone, that you guys put that option in writing doesn't change that they're choosing to aggressively attack Legion.