Opaque Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='MitchellBade' timestamp='1340472593' post='2993653'] We? Come now Spock, you'll last 2 weeks tops in LSF before leaving for another alliance. Don't even play it up as if you'll be sticking around in LSF. [/quote] Ad hominem attack ftl? My choice of alliance has nothing to do with the fact that LSF simply hasn't called in tR for help. Edited June 23, 2012 by Captain Spock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Flynt Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 [quote name='Captain Spock' timestamp='1340469958' post='2993636'] ...but we haven't even asked them for help. [/quote] That's because it's not an ODP, they're [i]obligated[/i] to help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opaque Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Baron Flynt' timestamp='1340474522' post='2993683'] That's because it's not an ODP, they're [i]obligated[/i] to help [/quote] The general sentiment that I've seen in LSF is that we don't want our allies to burn for us. Are you really going to argue that despite the wish for them to stay out, they should have declared on IRON or NoR anyway? Edited June 23, 2012 by Captain Spock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 [quote name='Roxas' timestamp='1340470792' post='2993641'] Oh gosh, is KDF gonna come in on a oAP again? [/quote] There are no MDoAP signatures to the KDF bloc anymore, tR are the only ones left as MDoAP sigs, unless the two ODP alliances upgrade their membership in the bloc. SoN merged a while back and TPC merged recently. So no, KDF won't oA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Smith Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Captain Spock'] [color="#1C2837"][size="2"]...but we haven't even asked them for help.[/size][/color] [/quote] Your treaty makes no mention of call in's, it's perfectly valid with or without you forcing them to join you. It specifically states "[color="#1C2837"][size="2"]an attack on one signatory is an attack on both signatories" not "an attack on one signatory is only considered an attack upon the other after the attacked signatory tells the other that it is".[/size][/color] [size="2"] [/size][color="#1C2837"][size="2"]I find it odd that when[/size][/color] given the choice between voluntarily helping LSF and randomly attacking another alliance, tR decides to randomly attack another alliance. What makes it even stranger is that they are using "SF doesn't honour it's treaties" as a CB. The irony of the entire situation really is quite delicious. Edited June 23, 2012 by Emperor Smith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaoshawk Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 [quote name='Garion' timestamp='1340445940' post='2993468'] Is this the LEO Resistance? O_o [/quote] When The Resistance quietly disbanded, the United Earth Directorate 2.0 hijacked the AA with its dozen or so nations left. One remaining tR member protested, but it was pretty much a one-sided merge to snatch up a dozen inactive nations for King Chill. I think only INT kept their treaty with them after that since INT was already allied/protector of The UED. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opaque Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Emperor Smith' timestamp='1340475804' post='2993705'] Your treaty makes no mention of call in's, it's perfectly valid with or without you forcing them to join you. It specifically states "an attack on one signatory is an attack on both signatories" not "an attack on one signatory is only considered an attack upon the other after the attacked signatory tells the other that it is". I find it odd that when given the choice between voluntarily helping LSF and randomly attacking another alliance, tR decides to randomly attack another alliance. What makes it even stranger is that they are using "SF doesn't honour it's treaties" as a CB. The irony of the entire situation really is quite delicious. [/quote] Regardless of what the actual treaty text says, if LSF doesn't ask or want tR to defend LSF, why in the world should they feel obligated to defend LSF anyway? It just doesn't make sense. Edited June 23, 2012 by Captain Spock Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Seriously e-lawyers just stop. You look like idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 [quote name='Chaoshawk' timestamp='1340476027' post='2993709'] When The Resistance quietly disbanded, the United Earth Directorate 2.0 hijacked the AA with its dozen or so nations left. One remaining tR member protested, but it was pretty much a one-sided merge to snatch up a dozen inactive nations for King Chill. I think only INT kept their treaty with them after that since INT was already allied/protector of The UED. [/quote] Thanks for your clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dejarue Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 [quote name='Captain Spock' timestamp='1340476141' post='2993710'] Regardless of what the actual treaty text says, if LSF don't ask or want tR to defend LSF, why in the world should they feel obligated to defend LSF anyway? It just doesn't make sense. [/quote] That kind of explains what I've experienced (on the battlefield) in the last 14 hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 People trying to elawyer that they should have defended us against our own wishes are arguing against what has been the norm in CN, on all sides, for most of the past five years. Alliances getting curbstomped generally just take their licks and don't call in allies to shield them from getting into the same predicament. It's the same for allies who have allies on both sides of the conflict. Nobody places it in their treaties but it goes without saying that if one ally refuses the help, the other won't say: "no, I know better than you do what is best for you". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 [quote name='Chaoshawk' timestamp='1340476027' post='2993709'] When The Resistance quietly disbanded, the United Earth Directorate 2.0 hijacked the AA with its dozen or so nations left. One remaining tR member protested, but it was pretty much a one-sided merge to snatch up a dozen inactive nations for King Chill. I think only INT kept their treaty with them after that since INT was already allied/protector of The UED. [/quote] Pretty much. By the time this had happened, most of tR's active members had left, usually for GOONS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 See people we CAN get along. All in the name of calling KD2 a dumbass Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1340479226' post='2993757'] See people we CAN get along. All in the name of calling KD2 a dumbass [/quote] Universal agreements: KD2 is retarded; Mogar and Rotavele are Attention Whores; Batallion sucks at war and leading alliances. Edited June 23, 2012 by Mogar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mompson Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) Meh, whatever. Good luck NPL. Edited June 23, 2012 by mompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 [quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1340479226' post='2993757'] See people we CAN get along. All in the name of calling KD2 a dumbass [/quote] Kumbaya milord, Kumbaya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winston Smith Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Go NPL! I'm pretty sure you can crush them in no time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverlordShinnra Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Nice flag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yankees Empire Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1340479070' post='2993756'] Pretty much. By the time this had happened, most of tR's active members had left, usually for GOONS [/quote] And ODN! Three of us here xD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockey766 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I can't wait to get a shot at tR o/ NPL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1340465393' post='2993587'] And if GOD goes in to defend allies as opposed to waiting to be attacked, this successfully keeps VE out because...? [/quote] Because VE will say that in this case the activation of the treaty is optional and will stay out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Targaryen Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Just to make it clear: LSF specifically asked it's allies to not get involved in our war with NoR. tR is in no way betraying our treaty. They are free to start their own war and I wish them luck with their choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 I was going to post how dumb this, was but apparently several hundred people have beat me to it. So instead, I will just remark that tR has an advantage in tech and AVG NS, but I bet NPL wins a one on one with them due to very superior activity and willingness to fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1340489781' post='2993853'] I was going to post how dumb this, was but apparently several hundred people have beat me to it. So instead, I will just remark that tR has an advantage in tech and AVG NS, but I bet NPL wins a one on one with them due to very superior activity and willingness to fight. [/quote] Actually, I ran the numbers last night. tR's top 4 nations are out of range of any of the fighting, which means the stats of the actual combatants came out to: NPL: 941k NS; 395 nukes; 173k infra; 36k tech tR: 565k NS; 136 nukes; 111k infra; 20k tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1340490360' post='2993860'] Actually, I ran the numbers last night. tR's top 4 nations are out of range of any of the fighting, which means the stats of the actual combatants came out to: NPL: 941k NS; 395 nukes; 173k infra; 36k tech tR: 565k NS; 136 nukes; 111k infra; 20k tech [/quote] That is too funny. This will be fun to watch. Edit: Also NpL already has as many offensive DoWs as tR, so any advantage the update blitz gave has already run its course. Edited June 23, 2012 by supercoolyellow 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.