King Louis the II Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='MitchellBade' timestamp='1322701584' post='2857407'] TOP and IRON have already clearly stated that their quarrel lay with Polaris' actions from many years ago. And as such, this should remain a conflict between them. Prior to AZTEC's intervention in this war, many of you should be pleased to know that this was statistically a relatively fair fight, or at least fairer than now. But of course, as certain Polar allies failed to take the bait and as Polar held against the relentless attacks, more peons were sent in to tip the scales and almost guilt RIA into war. Then there are threads such as this. But I ask why, when we have/had a chance to actually witness a statistically even fight, between parties who respectfully needed to settle their differences, must we ruin it by turning it into a potential curbstomp? Those of you who may have your quarrels with SuperFriends should take your quarrel somewhere else and let these warriors fight on their own stage. Do not disgrace yourselves and the rest of us due to your lack of a plausible or righteous casus belli. For there is no honor in having others do the work for you. [size="1"]Disclaimer: The opinion in the post above does not reflect that of NPO, so please don't try to be all cute and point out the alliance affiliation. It gets old[/size] [/quote] best post of the year. Hands down. And no, I am not being sarcastic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='MitchellBade' timestamp='1322701584' post='2857407'] But I ask why, when we have/had a chance to actually witness a statistically even fight,[/quote] My friend, there has been one and only one statistically even fight in the history of CN and this ain't it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1322706322' post='2857475'] So RIA taking very easy fronts last war should excuse them from !@#$ting on their newest ally, whom they signed a treaty with [b]knowing[/b] that war was literally days away? [/quote] I think what he's saying is one moment doesn't make or break an alliance's reputation (or shouldn't anyway). Edited December 1, 2011 by Omniscient1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormsend Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 wait Since when was war about being statistically even? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Nikanor Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1322699386' post='2857375'] Joined: 16-November 10 Now I understand your lack of knowledge, you should ask your alliance's older players, perhaps NoR's predecessor NoV members? [/quote] It was a joke man....... I'm the founder of the Tauberg Pact, the Volksleitung's predecessor. (TP > VL > NoR > NoV > NoR2) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1322707173' post='2857488'] I think what he's saying is one moment doesn't make or break an alliance's reputation (or shouldn't anyway). [/quote] So their reputation should be bad posting and taking the quickest route to (easily) winning war until it was their time to burn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1322706083' post='2857472'] What could RIA actually do to TOP? Go read Delta's post. [/quote] Excuses are an awful lot like ass holes. TOP has enough of a distribution in NS that RIA could do something. Might not be alot, but something nonetheless. The point of entering a war is to do what you can and to take as much heat as you can off your allies. You enter because thats what you signed your name to. If thats all this is about, perhaps RIA should look at taking a page out of the book of TFD and NATO and how they acted during the PB-NpO war. In that war, MHA attacked TFD. TFD held a dual membership treaty with NATO, and MHA had what I believe was treaty of amnity with MHA. NATO canceled the treaty of amity with MHA, honored the waiting period, and proceeded to, if I remember correctly, provide assistance to TFD in non-military ways. If you've got a NAP with somebody who attacks your direct MDoAP partner, I'd think perhaps you ought to look at why you've got a NAP with them. I can't think of many NAPs that read along the lines of saying that you can't cancel it, wait the waiting period and then attack them for something they did prior to the NAP being canceled. Most NAPS aren't written to that effect, so I imagine that would be an option on the table for RIA if they really wanted an option to live up to their agreements. I'm not saying that RIA should do that, I understand it's a stretch, however if they are serious about backing up the people who they have made a serious pledge to (as a MDoAP is), it is an option on the table. Then again, it is rather convenient for RIA to hide behind the NAP, and who knows, perhaps RIA doesn't take treaties seriously enough to only sign MDoAPs with alliances for whom they are willing to go the extra mile. Edited December 1, 2011 by memoryproblems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322708366' post='2857513'] Excuses are an awful lot like ass holes. TOP has enough of a distribution in NS that RIA could do something. Might not be alot, but something nonetheless. The point of entering a war is to do what you can and to take as much heat as you can off your allies. You enter because thats what you signed your name to. If thats all this is about, perhaps RIA should look at taking a page out of the book of TFD and NATO and how they acted during the PB-NpO war. (....) If you've got a NAP with somebody who attacks your direct MDoAP partner, I'd think perhaps you ought to look at why you've got a NAP with them. I can't think of many NAPs that read along the lines of saying that you can't cancel it, wait the waiting period and then attack them for something they did prior to the NAP being canceled. Most NAPS aren't written to that effect, so I imagine that would be an option on the table for RIA if they really wanted an option to live up to their agreements. I'm not saying that RIA should do that, I understand it's a stretch, however if they are serious about backing up the people who they have made a serious pledge to (as a MDoAP is), it is an option on the table. Then again, it is rather convenient for RIA to hide behind the NAP, and who knows, perhaps RIA doesn't take treaties seriously enough to only sign MDoAPs with alliances for whom they are willing to go the extra mile. [/quote] But for TPF to not backup STA is fine? when your treaty was canceled? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322708366' post='2857513'] TOP has enough of a distribution in NS that RIA could do something. Might not be alot, but something nonetheless.[/quote] The only point it would serve is to expand the war; we all know as soon as RIA jumps in, they will get hit the next day [possibly the same day] by [more than likely] several large/well-connected alliances. I'm not privy to what RIA and Polar have talked about, but I assume they agree that it's better to wait and see how the war plays out rather than play into the enemies hand. At least for now. [quote]NAP rant[/quote] It's not our place to worry about RIA's interpretation of treaties. They will do what is right by their allies; they always have. Edited December 1, 2011 by Gibsonator21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322705960' post='2857470'] And strangely, its a treaty that doesn't even make its way onto the RIA wiki. [/quote] http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Random_Insanity_Alliance#Treaties http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Treaties_of_the_Random_Insanity_Alliance#Treaties http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Non-military_treaty_partners_of_the_Random_Insanity_Alliance#List_of_non-military_treaty_partners Are you dense, or just blind? Edited December 1, 2011 by Locke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1322708780' post='2857520'] But for TPF to not backup STA is fine? when your treaty was canceled? [/quote] For the 46159235'th time in this thread, the STA-TPF treaty is non chaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Korey Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1322706667' post='2857480'] best post of the year. Hands down. And no, I am not being sarcastic. [/quote] I disagree. "TOP and IRON have already clearly stated that their quarrel lay with Polaris' actions from many years ago. And as such, this should remain a conflict between them." Why, because it's a really old vendetta, does that mean everyone else should stay out of it? That doesn't even make sense. The TOP/IRON side clearly wants other alliances to jump in so his whole point is negated. It might make sense if TOP/IRON at all gave the sense that they wanted it to be mano-a-mano against Polar then maybe it would have legitimacy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 The war is already taking a toll on RIA without any actual combat: [quote] 4) -306,271 Strength Change - Random Insanity Alliance [/quote] Is it any wonder they want no part? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1322706083' post='2857472'] What could RIA actually do to TOP? Go read Delta's post. [/quote] Why they could declare and then be attacked by others of course bringing in other allies who would also then be attacked. Its a great plan, I have no idea why RIA is not down with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlogYou Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [IMG]http://i281.photobucket.com/albums/kk225/badboybill2007/RIA.jpg[/IMG] this screen shot might suggest RIA already joined the war, and is being clobbered? Damn you WN! Edited December 1, 2011 by FlogYou Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Charles Stuart' timestamp='1322637259' post='2856729'] Ivan did it better. [/quote] This is true in most situations. Also, hello. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehChron Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1322712036' post='2857584'] This is true in most situations. Also, hello. [/quote] That's not what she said to me last night. Oooooh yeah, welcome back, Ivan. Additionally, I don't think it's anyone's business if RIA doesn't want to throw themselves onto Polaris' sword just because they wanted to codify a friendship/acquire a meatshield. By both rationale's very nature, they should prioritize their own safety. If they get hit, then who will aid Polar with rebuilding aid? They just sent all of their spare non-WC cash to the Legion to keep them from losing in the IE a month ago. And even if they just want to use Polar as a meatshield, then why should they even care if they get hit? It's not like there's anyone else that'll take them if they give the NpO the cold shoulder. Bravo, RIA. Truly, bravah. Don't listen to the random haters trying to taunt you into rash actions. I, for one, am truly impressed by your Machiavellian skills, and eagerly await your next brilliant maneuver. Damn, it's good to see Ivan back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcomandante VL Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Oh snap. There goes the neighborhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomdeplume Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='VladimirLenin' timestamp='1322712674' post='2857597'] Oh snap. There goes the neighborhood. [/quote] Finally, I found a lol in this thread. I knew there had to be gold in these hills. NDP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1322709805' post='2857537'] For the 46159235'th time in this thread, the STA-TPF treaty is non chaining. [/quote] And what part of "as requested" you dont understand? And who said that RIA and Polar treaty is chaining? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted December 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1322713783' post='2857621'] And who said that RIA and Polar treaty is chaining? [/quote] Polar was directly attacked. The chaining of the RIA-NpO treaty is beyond irrelevant. Edited December 1, 2011 by Ardus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
memoryproblems Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1322708780' post='2857520'] But for TPF to not backup STA is fine? when your treaty was canceled? [/quote] Why is it that your debating tactics so closely resemble a game of three card monte? "I don't like your criticism of X, so I'm going to criticize you of the same thing, which de facto recognizing that it is bad, while failing to tell you why your original criticism was wrong." Not to mention that the situations aren't at all comparable. [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1322709600' post='2857535'] The only point it would serve is to expand the war; we all know as soon as RIA jumps in, they will get hit the next day [possibly the same day] by [more than likely] several large/well-connected alliances. I'm not privy to what RIA and Polar have talked about, but I assume they agree that it's better to wait and see how the war plays out rather than play into the enemies hand. At least for now. [/quote] Is that SF's official stance on this war? Let those who have already entered to defend polar try to wear down IRON and then "see how things are going"? I had heard rumors of such, but when you put it like that, it somehow sounds even more slimy. [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1322709616' post='2857536'] http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Random_Insanity_Alliance#Treaties http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Treaties_of_the_Random_Insanity_Alliance#Treaties http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Non-military_treaty_partners_of_the_Random_Insanity_Alliance#List_of_non-military_treaty_partners Are you dense, or just blind? [/quote] My mistake, as people have been repeatedly been referring to it as a NAP, that was where I had looked. The irony of you calling anybody dense is not lost on me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 [quote name='King Louis the II' timestamp='1322713783' post='2857621'] And what part of "as requested" you dont understand? And who said that RIA and Polar treaty is chaining? [/quote] Please show me anywhere in that statement where I said anything about the RIA/Polar treaty? Also lol. It doesn't matter if it's chaining or not. As Ardus pointed out, Polaris was directly attacked. Chaining isn't a factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefjoe Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1322709600' post='2857535'] The only point it would serve is to expand the war; we all know as soon as RIA jumps in, they will get hit the next day [possibly the same day] by [more than likely] several large/well-connected alliances. I'm not privy to what RIA and Polar have talked about, but I assume they agree that it's better to wait and see how the war plays out rather than play into the enemies hand. At least for now. [/quote] So the new way to war on planet bob is to do the math, and if it comes up looking bad, just claim that you understood you would be hit quickly by larger alliances better connected then you thusly the path to victory is to not war at all and claim it was a strategy all along? ah I love the smell of e-lawyers in the morning, smells kinda like victory......or !@#$.....one of the two anyhow Edited December 1, 2011 by chefjoe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='memoryproblems' timestamp='1322714023' post='2857628'] Is that SF's official stance on this war? Let those who have already entered to defend polar try to wear down IRON and then "see how things are going"? I had heard rumors of such, but when you put it like that, it somehow sounds even more slimy. [/quote] I agree with Locke, minus the possibility of blindness. [quote name='chefjoe' timestamp='1322714410' post='2857632'] So the new way to war on planet bob is to do the math, and if it comes up looking bad, just claim that you understood you would be hit quickly by larger alliances better connected then you thusly the path to victory is to not war at all and claim it was a strategy all along? ah I love the smell of e-lawyers in the morning, smells kinda like victory......or !@#$.....one of the two anyhow [/quote] Nope. Point is that if Polar and co. can handle the mid-tier fighting that's going on, then why would they want to expand it and give the enemy what they want? They have other allies who aren't fighting as well. They're all in communication, and they will deal with this how they see fit. Not you. Edited December 1, 2011 by Gibsonator21 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.