Jump to content

Non-Aggression Pact Announcement


Clash
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since y'all were too lazy to make this, I'll help you out.
Next time have the balls to post it at the start of the round.




[center][img]http://i326.photobucket.com/albums/k426/Erni3/LEflag2.jpg[/img]

[img]http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090105003648/cybernations/images/thumb/1/18/Pork_Shrimp.gif/250px-Pork_Shrimp.gif[/img]


[b][size="5"]A Non-Aggression Policy[/size][/b]

[size="4"]The above-flagged and under-signed [s]alliances[/s] fields of delicate yet fragrant flowers hearby agree not to war each other no matter what during Round 19 of CN:TE. Even when other alliances all chose what are very legitimate wars, proving not only their courage on the battlefield, but their enthusiasm for the game itself, we shall not war each other. Even when we grow barnacles on our buttocks and calluses on our arseses, we shall not fight. Even when each of us is left as having the highest avg ns and cash to kill with it, in the entire game, by several thousand of the former and many millions of the latter, we shall not fight (unlike the honorable examples set by such alliances as RE, OP and Synergy.) No matter what, in any way, shape or form, under any circumstances, know for an iron-clad and steel-shod fact: We shall not fight.

[b]Signed in philosophy if not on epaper,

Whoever came up with this:
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106828"]Petunias[/url]

Whoever came up with this:
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106765&st=0"]Daffodils[/url][/b][/size][/center]


Non-Aggression Policy (NAP) = You do not fight. I'm embarrassed to have to share TE with both of you. The really bad thing? TE is a tournament, and tournaments are about competition. Y'all are competition junkies as much as anyone else who plays CN, and no one can argue that. It'd have been a great war, the highlight war of the round. Maybe in TE history to this point, on a nation-by-nation level. You screwed over yourselves and each other more than you screwed over anyone else.


G'nite and godspeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've fought LE in the past. We'll fight them in the future. We opted not to here for reasons that have been enumerated.

However, a question -- before this skirmish, when was the last time that PS and Warriors fought? The answer, I believe, is never. There is a reason for this; while we'll fight people we like, we try to avoid screwing them over when possible. In this case, someone was getting screwed regardless...we were either going to screw over LE to the benefit of the rest of TE, or the rest of TE to the benefit of LE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1322414344' post='2853813'][...]...before this skirmish, when was the last time that PS and Warriors fought? The answer, I believe, is never.[...][/quote]
I'd say that had more to do with other NAPs, like the one between RE and TPC, and Anon/G6's previous involvement with RE. There were/are other alliances involved with that group of course, like Duckroll who is now in Anon, and Gay Rollers. tW, PS, LE, OP, plus others like WAPA and TFK, all ended up on the other side and were stuck that way for a while. The remnants of that time/place lasted all the way into this round. This is kind of a spurious argument due the multitude of other times and places involved.

This is Round 19.

I was impressed with Syn/Op is the respect that they took the best war they possibly could. They took on the biggest group in TE at the time. That was all there was to it. It's the same when RE hit LE in what seems like forever ago. LE were the biggest in TE, so that's who RE hit. They took on the top. No politics, no personal crap involved. Before their roguings, PS had not been at war for 5 weeks and LE hadn't been at war for a long time either. RE certainly warred, they did not. You could have been at war weeks ago and STILL had end of round roguings to do.

Round 19's LE/PS NAP just kind of sucked. It wasn't because of a need to fight others, either. It reminds me of all those rounds where RE and TPC never fought even when they were the biggest alliances by far. Every excuse in the book why they didn't want to fight, too. All the excuses. Instead of fighting, they screwed over a bunch of other alliances with down-declares and crap wars. Just like PS's crap war they chose instead of taking on the top, and all the excuses why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bcortell' timestamp='1322419171' post='2853868']
Heh, Clash, this shows how much of a !@#$%* you're being. Continue to cry. Didn't expect it from you, but it does provide its entertainment.
[/quote]

It's not so much that we care that our nations are being destroyed as the general morals of AAs nowadays.

OT: I see you decided to go ahead and post it Clash :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see you're still calling it a "crap war" Clash. I really want to know how we've taken such a huge amount of losses if this war wasn't every bit as damaging as a war with LE would've been. LE's 26 nations can only nuke/ground us so much. The near 200 nations we've hit/been hit by instead...even if there were simply well trained monkeys at the controls would still at least come close to matching that. I've been nuked all but one day since we started, CMed, grounded, bombed etc. I lost 1500 infra, bought 1000 of it back, lost 400 tech, etc. Was it what you all wanted? No. Was it a cop-out? I truly don't believe that. Especially when we went into it knowing everyone would hate us. Especially if you add in the stats for the next nine rounds of AAs trying to "get us back" :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember when treaties were actually used in TE for real. The use of treaties in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just a preference and "we" (aka: everyone in TE) have not used them in a while. Thus we fall into accusing each other of having them anyway.

Maybe we should use this next round. Put a time limit on it though.

Call it The Clash Accords.

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Cellardoor' timestamp='1322422375' post='2853909']
I see you're still calling it a "crap war" Clash. I really want to know how we've taken such a huge amount of losses if this war wasn't every bit as damaging as a war with LE would've been. LE's 26 nations can only nuke/ground us so much. The near 200 nations we've hit/been hit by instead...even if there were simply well trained monkeys at the controls would still at least come close to matching that. I've been nuked all but one day since we started, CMed, grounded, bombed etc. I lost 1500 infra, bought 1000 of it back, lost 400 tech, etc. Was it what you all wanted? No. Was it a cop-out? I truly don't believe that. Especially when we went into it knowing everyone would hate us. Especially if you add in the stats for the next nine rounds of AAs trying to "get us back" :P
[/quote]

I think the problem has become not so much the war itself, but rather that PS would do such a thing as give LE the flag (thus Clash's points about alliance politics).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NeoGandalf' timestamp='1322438357' post='2854066']
I think the problem has become not so much the war itself, but rather that PS would do such a thing as give LE the flag (thus Clash's points about alliance politics).
[/quote]

This shouldn't have resulted in LE being handed the flag. If, that is, after we announced exactly what we were doing, and then pointed out that the slots were there to spend 10+ days nuking every member of LE and PS into oblivion, people had actually taken us up on the offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1322440351' post='2854093']
This shouldn't have resulted in LE being handed the flag. If, that is, after we announced exactly what we were doing, and then pointed out that the slots were there to spend 10+ days nuking every member of LE and PS into oblivion, people had actually taken us up on the offer.
[/quote]

It takes a lot less time to post on a forum obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clash, you should know better

You've worked with us a lot in the past. We expected PS to hit us, they chose their own route for their own reasons. We've fought em before and we'll fight em again.

In fact, the only alliance we have never fought as far as I know... Warriors.

This extended round was weird for us all, I am not a fan of it and I hope it goes back to the reduced times. And I still think nukes should be way harder to get. Conventional fights should be the norm as opposed to nuke offs being the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Janitor' timestamp='1322457610' post='2854282']
Clash, you should know better

You've worked with us a lot in the past. We expected PS to hit us, they chose their own route for their own reasons. We've fought em before and we'll fight em again.

In fact, the only alliance we have never fought as far as I know... Warriors.

This extended round was weird for us all, I am not a fan of it and I hope it goes back to the reduced times. And I still think nukes should be way harder to get. Conventional fights should be the norm as opposed to nuke offs being the norm.
[/quote]

Yes, I completely agree. TE was better in the old days when it was hard to get nukes and not everyone had a MP. Reducing the power/effects of nukes would also help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='NeoGandalf' timestamp='1322458181' post='2854297']
Yes, I completely agree. TE was better in the old days when it was hard to get nukes and not everyone had a MP. Reducing the power/effects of nukes would also help.
[/quote]
+2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Janitor' timestamp='1322457610' post='2854282']
Clash, you should know better

You've worked with us a lot in the past. We expected PS to hit us, they chose their own route for their own reasons. We've fought em before and we'll fight em again.

In fact, the only alliance we have never fought as far as I know... Warriors.

This extended round was weird for us all, I am not a fan of it and I hope it goes back to the reduced times. And I still think nukes should be way harder to get. Conventional fights should be the norm as opposed to nuke offs being the norm.
[/quote]

It's funny you say this, since LE's Guide basically says 'Acquire HNMS and Nukes. Good Day.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=105996&st=45"]PS previous war ends:[/url] 10/18
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106765&st=0"]PS last [s]war[/s] roguings start[/url]: 11/20.
A couple days short of five weeks.

[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106224&st=90"]LE previous war ends:[/url] 10/29
[url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=106828&st=0"]LE's current "war" starts:[/url] 11/23
Almost 4 weeks.

If neither of you wanted the flag, y'all could have gone to war weeks ago and STILL gone flag-runner hunting before end of round. Instead, you both just look silly. Everybody gets an opinion, among other things, and that's mine. ESPECIALLY when I put it in the right thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1322461977' post='2854536']
It's funny you say this, since LE's Guide basically says 'Acquire HNMS and Nukes. Good Day.'
[/quote]

It's what the game demands right now. Reduce their effect or make them much harder to get and more attention will go towards navy or some other advantage. N0-0ne can ignore nukes, they are required to fight well and last any length of time.

For that matter when a nuke lands - why aren't some of the nukes on the ground destroyed? I don't really understand the thought here in making the game so nuke centered but it is what it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Janitor' timestamp='1322491533' post='2854826']It's what the game demands right now. Reduce their effect or make them much harder to get and more attention will go towards navy or some other advantage. N0-0ne can ignore nukes, they are required to fight well and last any length of time.

For that matter when a nuke lands - why aren't some of the nukes on the ground destroyed? I don't really understand the thought here in making the game so nuke centered but it is what it is.[/quote]

I agree. I think it's just one of the effects caused by the rules changes and not so much intended. It's also not important to have a navy at all these days, since you can just delete land and avoid it completely. Navy has needed to be improved for a long time anyways, maybe this is a good time for it.

How about if you have a harbor, then you can be attacked by navy? Harbors should be allowed to be blockaded. For that matter, I've always thought that when a nation with a harbor gets blockaded, they should lose the extra trade they had for having one. Whatever the blockaded nations' final trade was by server time gets suspended until the blockade is lifted. Once the blockade is lifted, then the trade automatically restarts. I suggested this once in the other forum but that place was dead as disco at the time lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Clash' timestamp='1322492188' post='2854831']
I agree. I think it's just one of the effects caused by the rules changes and not so much intended. It's also not important to have a navy at all these days, since you can just delete land and avoid it completely. Navy has needed to be improved for a long time anyways, maybe this is a good time for it.

How about if you have a harbor, then you can be attacked by navy? Harbors should be allowed to be blockaded. For that matter, I've always thought that when a nation with a harbor gets blockaded, they should lose the extra trade they had for having one. Whatever the blockaded nations' final trade was by server time gets suspended until the blockade is lifted. Once the blockade is lifted, then the trade automatically restarts. I suggested this once in the other forum but that place was dead as disco at the time lol.
[/quote]

I could get behind this. I've wanted an excuse to get some navy experience, but half the time i'm on my third re-roll and don't have enough improvement slots to justify it. This forces you to do it early and often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Confusion' timestamp='1322461977' post='2854536']
It's funny you say this, since LE's Guide basically says 'Acquire HNMS and Nukes. Good Day.'
[/quote]

Don't think he was posting this roan so much as an argument about nukes as he was to try and let you know that he got the info from LE's forums.
Not that it is much of an accomplishment as I can get info from pretty much every alliance in TE.

Quote from RE's build guide "Buy Infra"

Quote from tWarriors build guide "Buy Tech"

Quote from PS's battle guide "Buy and Launch Nukes"

Quote from OP's trade guide "Try and get your trade set complete asap"

Quote from Synergy's only guide "Do exactly what LE guys are doing" :lol1:

See, how hard was that?
I am sure you have all of these guide quotes also confusion.
If not then write me and we can compare notes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...