End of the NPO | VE FRONT

[jraenar]

It still blows my mind that VE was even asked to hit AAs allied VE's other MD-level allies. And was expected to just go along with it! They have three MD-level treaties on the MK end of the war, and the GOD treaty on the SF end. VE took the respectable position of only going in on a D clause in this crock of a war, and in return they are vilified by the SF side for not allowing themselves to be used in the way SF wanted on an oA clause? Remember, they could just as easily used the oA clauses on those other three treaties to go in against SF.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1342339721' post='3010436']
It still blows my mind that VE was even asked to hit AAs allied VE's other MD-level allies. And was expected to just go along with it!
[/quote]

AA's allied to VE's MD-level allies pre-emptively started the war by aggressively attacking allies of VE's MD-Level allies with absolutely no reason other than they felt like it. The same side is directly attacking MD-Level treaty partners of their bloc-mates to support MK. So asking VE to hit an ally of their ally is pretty small potatoes.

VE made some back room deals, refused to work as a coalition mate, took superficial damage and got to walk away. And yes, 2 rounds of war and 49% ns loss is very superficial in comparison to the losers of past several wars. Two weeks war isn't going to seriously impact their tech levels or war chest levels, all else is easily recovered.

[jraenar]

So, two jumps away instead of one, unless I'm missing a treaty link somewhere. This all started out with "because we feel like it" / manufactured CBs with MK on CSN, and NG on RIA. VE is not tied to either of those alliances.

The only reason for SF/GOD to ask VE to hit MK or NG is so that VE could be used by SF to do damage without counters from Umb/GOONS/Deinos. In other words, VE was asked to be a horribly ally, and offense was taken when VE refused.

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1342341740' post='3010440']
So, two jumps away instead of one, unless I'm missing a treaty link somewhere. This all started out with "because we feel like it" / manufactured CBs with MK on CSN, and NG on RIA. VE is not tied to either of those alliances.

The only reason for SF/GOD to ask VE to hit MK or NG is so that VE could be used by SF to do damage without counters from Umb/GOONS/Deinos. In other words, VE was asked to be a horribly ally, and offense was taken when VE refused.
[/quote]

You said VE shouldn't have been asked to hit an ally of an ally (NG due to UMB tie). But it's direct allies (GOONS) are hitting allies of VE's ally GOD and NG did as well (CSN,RIA).

[Monster]

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1342339721' post='3010436']
It still blows my mind that VE was even asked to hit AAs allied VE's other MD-level allies. And was expected to just go along with it! They have three MD-level treaties on the MK end of the war, and the GOD treaty on the SF end. VE took the respectable position of only going in on a D clause in this crock of a war, and in return they are vilified by the SF side for not allowing themselves to be used in the way SF wanted on an oA clause? Remember, they could just as easily used the oA clauses on those other three treaties to go in against SF.
[/quote]

The problem is, the overall incoherence of VE's FA. They are allied to a grouping on one hand that has repeatedly targeted GOD. They are one of the war's main targets. If my allies are actively gunning for my other ally on multiple occasions, they are being "horrible" by the same standard you're saying VE was asked to be, probably worse. VE's other allies have made it clear they intend to crush GOD definitively or will underwrite military adventures to that effect.

They are hardly the only alliance to be in such a situation, but there's a kind of cognitive dissonance at work in the entire framework.

The war was engineered to get at GOD and Umbrella, Deinos, and GOONS all pushed it forward.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Roquentin

[Stewie]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1342343978' post='3010445']
You said VE shouldn't have been asked to hit an ally of an ally (NG due to UMB tie). But it's direct allies (GOONS) are hitting allies of VE's ally GOD and NG did as well (CSN,RIA).
[/quote]

Last I saw NG didn't have an Umb tie...

We've got a GOONS tie though.

[deviousfairie]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1342343978' post='3010445']
You said VE shouldn't have been asked to hit an ally of an ally (NG due to UMB tie). But it's direct allies (GOONS) are hitting allies of VE's ally GOD and NG did as well (CSN,RIA).
[/quote]
Why would we care if one of our allies hit an ally of one of our other allies? That happens all the time. We just wouldn't want one ally hitting another. If we had attacked NG, GOONS would have two of their allies fighting each other. That would be a pretty crappy thing to do to GOONS.

Edited July 15, 2012 by deviousfairie

[AmbroseIV]

[quote name='jraenar' timestamp='1342341740' post='3010440']
The only reason for SF/GOD to ask VE to hit MK or NG is so that VE could be used by SF to do damage without counters from Umb/GOONS/Deinos. In other words, VE was asked to be a horribly ally, and offense was taken when VE refused.
[/quote]

Not to be too ungrateful (at least we're fighting people we're friendly with and who aren't unreasonably hostile), but R&R being attacked by two C&G alliances was no doubt, in some part, intended to prevent INT from helping us against someone else and complicating the war - politics is a business and if that's what VE were asked... what's good enough for one side to take advantage of should be good enough for the other. It's nothing new and increasingly unavoidable in order to keep control of a war, so it doesn't deserve more attention in this instance just because parts of SF/VE dislike each other and one party didn't have any anything to gain by assisting the other.


That said, there was a comment earlier in the thread where someone from VE stated "we were asked not to attack NPO the day before, but with everything ready to go we decided to do it anyway" (or something to that effect) - not hard to see why some people think VE were acting in spite of GOD whether it's an accurate view or not.

[deviousfairie]

[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1342352150' post='3010458']
Not to be too ungrateful (at least we're fighting people we're friendly with and who aren't unreasonably hostile), but R&R being attacked by two C&G alliances was no doubt, in some part, intended to prevent INT from helping us against someone else and complicating the war - politics is a business and if that's what VE were asked... what's good enough for one side to take advantage of should be good enough for the other. It's nothing new and increasingly unavoidable in order to keep control of a war, so it doesn't deserve more attention in this instance just because parts of SF/VE dislike each other and one party didn't have any anything to gain by assisting the other.

That said, there was a comment earlier in the thread where someone from VE stated "we were asked not to attack NPO the day before, but with everything ready to go we decided to do it anyway" (or something to that effect) - not hard to see why some people think VE were acting in spite of GOD whether it's an accurate view or not.
[/quote]
We made it clear from the beginning of this war that we would only enter it under a defense clause. If any of our treaty partners needed us to defend them, we would be there. We also knew full well which ally would need defense. Just before GOD hit NG, they asked if we would like to either oA in with them on NG or pick up the counter. We again stated that we would only enter the war in defense of an ally. After NPO hit GOD, we immediately began to make plans to counter them. Not long before we put up the DoW, we were again asked to oA somewhere else, as they didn't think us hitting NPO was putting us to the best use for the coalition. We then reiterated the fact that we weren't going to enter the war for any reason other than defense. Our concern was GOD, not the coalition, so we declined and proceeded with our declaration. It's not that they didn't want us to attack NPO; it's that they wanted us to attack someone else instead. That just wasn't an option for us. And we weren't offended by them asking, as some seem to suggest. We just weren't going to do it.

You also mentioned that what's good for one side should be good enough for the other. The problem with that is that we didn't consider ourselves on a "side."

[Goldie]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1342341126' post='3010438']
AA's allied to VE's MD-level allies pre-emptively started the war by aggressively attacking allies of VE's MD-Level allies with absolutely no reason other than they felt like it. The same side is directly attacking MD-Level treaty partners of their bloc-mates to support MK. So asking VE to hit an ally of their ally is pretty small potatoes.

VE made some back room deals, refused to work as a coalition mate, took superficial damage and got to walk away. And yes, 2 rounds of war and 49% ns loss is very superficial in comparison to the losers of past several wars. Two weeks war isn't going to seriously impact their tech levels or war chest levels, all else is easily recovered.
[/quote]

What happens to CSN and RIA is on the level of what happens to MK or NG. In each case, those are allies of allies. If they want to attack each other, there is no pressing need for us to pick a side. However, when one of our allies enters in on a side, and then is attacked, we do have an impetus to defend them. We made it very clear, multiple times, that we would not be participating in an aggressive war on the SF/XX side. We tend to value the relationships we have with our allies, and it is not our role nor our wish that we put them in a bad spot with two allies at war with each other. If Umb, GOONS, or Deinos had hit GOD directly, this would be a different story. Likewise, if GOD had countered GOONS, the script would be entirely different again.

Who did we make backroom deals with? That would imply that we would have perhaps received a lighter counter, which was certainly not the case. We did refuse to work as a coalition mate, because the alliances that sit at the center of this coalition and are taking the brunt of the attacks are frankly alliances who don't care about us, and we don't care much about them. Even with our consistent statements on the fact of not considering aggressive action, we kept being badgered about it, which shows that they only wanted to use us as a pawn to help negate their own incoming damage (the damage we took was irrelevant), and that they had no respect for our stated position.

As for superficial damage, let's see how many of the alliances in that coalition take as much damage in however long this war lasts vs. our two weeks, and then you can see who superficially was involved in this war or not.

[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1342352150' post='3010458']That said, there was a comment earlier in the thread where someone from VE stated "we were asked not to attack NPO the day before, but with everything ready to go we decided to do it anyway" (or something to that effect) - not hard to see why some people think VE were acting in spite of GOD whether it's an accurate view or not.
[/quote]

It was nothing to that effect. Change 'day before' to 'minutes before' and the picture becomes clearer, and if we had decided to stop and not attack, you'd be in this thread giving us !@#$ for that too. And yes, going balls to the wall and hitting the people hitting GOD with every nation we have was absolutely in spite of GOD, clearly.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1342333924' post='3010409']
That's assuming TIO/TPF/Oceania would oA on VE. I don't know whether they would or wouldn't, so I'm not gonna argue with you about it. NG would have had a lot more slots taken up on them, though. And hey, maybe if VE hit NG, GOD (etc.) would have brought their upper tiers out together.
[/quote]

So you wanted VE to go in on an oA and then would not expect others to go oA on VE? Seriously. Also, I forgot completely about IRON. Which means in your scenario, you could very well have that move bringing in NPO/IRON/TIO/TPF/Oceania against not only VE but also against GOD. So if VE goes along with your coalition's conventions, it would mean hiding most of the upper tier in PM, while hoping to get peace soon.

All I am hearing is that you are pissed VE did not play your game and lose a !@#$load more NS while their ally they were defending hid in PM to avoid taking damage... It looks like GOD wanted to shove VE in front of them so that a whole bunch of alliances could beat on VE while GOD tried to run the other direction. And instead of continuing to get pounded on while GOD ran farther away, VE got peace. Awesome ally GOD is. Truly.

[Komodovaran]

Thank you NPO, for a good fight. There was a lot of respect and I had a good time fighting your members. There was even room for some jokes, which is nice when you're losing infrastructure. I look forward to rebuilding and perhaps meeting you on the battlefield again.

Edited July 15, 2012 by Komodovaran

[Laslo Kenez]

[quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1342352150' post='3010458']
Not to be too ungrateful (at least we're fighting people we're friendly with and who aren't unreasonably hostile), but R&R being attacked by two C&G alliances was no doubt, in some part, intended to prevent INT from helping us against someone else and complicating the war
[/quote]

It wasn't really that, but I can see how it might be thought that way.

[berbers]

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1342392077' post='3010561']
It wasn't really that, but I can see how it might be thought that way.
[/quote]

I would think there was a bit of payback from GATO for LoSS last war in the mix somewhere :/ I hope you got that out of your system.

[Laslo Kenez]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1342395299' post='3010575']
I would think there was a bit of payback from GATO for LoSS last war in the mix somewhere :/ I hope you got that out of your system.
[/quote]

Again, that wasn't it either, while we wanted to help LoSS at the time and it sucked being constrained, we did not and do not now hold any ill feelings towards R&R.

[Lord Fingolfin]

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1342341126' post='3010438']
VE made some back room deals, refused to work as a coalition mate, took superficial damage and got to walk away. And yes, 2 rounds of war and 49% ns loss is very superficial in comparison to the losers of past several wars. Two weeks war isn't going to seriously impact their tech levels or war chest levels, all else is easily recovered.
[/quote]

BREAKING NEWS: Losing half your NS is superficial!

Unless you're one of the main targets/on a center front of a Great War then I highly doubt you can name an alliance which has lost much more than half their NS even on a losing side. And VE was an ancillary/periphery alliance in this war at best. If 49% isn't enough then perhaps you can cast some harsh words in the directions of MHA, Sparta, FARK, GOD, and others who haven't lost more than a a third of their NS so far.

Glad to see you have peace VE, good fight

[iamthey]

Congrats on achieving peace.

[Omniscient1]

edit: NVM

Congrats on peace.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Omniscient1

[Trout]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1342365248' post='3010482']
So you wanted VE to go in on an oA and then would not expect others to go oA on VE? Seriously. Also, I forgot completely about IRON. Which means in your scenario, you could very well have that move bringing in NPO/IRON/TIO/TPF/Oceania against not only VE but also against GOD. So if VE goes along with your coalition's conventions, it would mean hiding most of the upper tier in PM, while hoping to get peace soon.

All I am hearing is that you are pissed VE did not play your game and lose a !@#$load more NS while their ally they were defending hid in PM to avoid taking damage... It looks like GOD wanted to shove VE in front of them so that a whole bunch of alliances could beat on VE while GOD tried to run the other direction. And instead of continuing to get pounded on while GOD ran farther away, VE got peace. Awesome ally GOD is. Truly.
[/quote]
Absolutely the best. You guys should sign a treaty with them!

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1342365248' post='3010482']
So you wanted VE to go in on an oA and then would not expect others to go oA on VE? Seriously. Also, I forgot completely about IRON. Which means in your scenario, you could very well have that move bringing in NPO/IRON/TIO/TPF/Oceania against not only VE but also against GOD.[/quote]

Again, that assumes all those alliances were OK oAing in. Not every alliance was OK with oAing, and would only enter this war through their direct ally being directly attacked. And before you say "this is what VE did," they weren't even wanted on NPO.

[quote]So if VE goes along with your coalition's conventions, it would mean hiding most of the upper tier in PM, while hoping to get peace soon. [/quote]

I think you're thinking reading too much into what was requested, and what I said. Chill, Doch.

[quote]All I am hearing is that you are pissed VE did not play your game and lose a !@#$load more NS while their ally they were defending hid in PM to avoid taking damage... It looks like GOD wanted to shove VE in front of them so that a whole bunch of alliances could beat on VE while GOD tried to run the other direction. And instead of continuing to get pounded on while GOD ran farther away, VE got peace. Awesome ally GOD is. Truly.
[/quote]

I don't think you read what I said. If VE hit NG, they might have brought out their upper tiers to take them out together.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Gibsonator21

[AmbroseIV]

Laslo — I know what you're getting at... but given some in TLR/GATO claimed NATO couldn't possibly have hit MK without thinking NPO would protect them, I think it's more than likely that we were hit by C&G to prevent INT winding up in an even more difficult position at least as much as it's a result of other people's good intentions. Not to say it's a bad thing, but... I can't see how it wouldn't've been a consideration by some parties given the political maneuvering in the lead-up.

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1342362919' post='3010471']
It was nothing to that effect. Change 'day before' to 'minutes before' and the picture becomes clearer, and if we had decided to stop and not attack, you'd be in this thread giving us !@#$ for that too. And yes, going balls to the wall and hitting the people hitting GOD with every nation we have was absolutely in spite of GOD, clearly.
[/quote]

[i]I[/i] haven't said anything negative about VE in public, and I doubt any R&R members have either — I actually thanked VE for putting up a spirited fight earlier in the thread and have zero interest in trying to undermine the relationship our allies hold with other alliances. One set of standards because I wouldn't want them to do the same to us, so any problems are for you and GOD to solve.

Although I did try to be somewhat objective and explain why people are upset, implying that it's nothing new and not worth continued attention. That you leapt in head-first to dispute an observation from earlier and continued the public !@#$%*-fest about how ungrateful SF are... doesn't help at all and just shows how some members of VE/SF are trying to score political points over personal dislikes — it works both ways and you're one of the people who gives everyone else an excuse to complain further.

[Iotupa]

The biggest thing I don't understand at this point is that people are saying VE was really far from the center of the fight. They were one treaty from the center, as their direct ally GOD was one of the two main targets of this war. Attempting to say otherwise is just ignorant.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1342410136' post='3010644']
Again, that assumes all those alliances were OK oAing in. Not every alliance was OK with oAing, and would only enter this war through their direct ally being directly attacked. And before you say "this is what VE did," they weren't even wanted on NPO.[/quote]

Yeah, from what I hear, they were wanted in on NG, which means they were wanted to oA into the war... Your sentence is contradictory unto itself.

[quote]I think you're thinking reading too much into what was requested, and what I said. Chill, Doch.[/quote]

I am chill Gibs. Just kind of tired of y'all trashing VE in this thread and I don't even personally like VE much.

[quote]I don't think you read what I said. If VE hit NG, they might have brought out their upper tiers to take them out together.
[/quote]

Key word in your sentence, MIGHT. Would GOD really have done that considering they would be getting hit by NG and by NPO? VE would have still been hit by NPO, which means that both would be getting hit by NG and NPO. As for whether TPF/Oceania/IRON/TIO would have hit VE, who knows. Maybe we would have, maybe not. TIO, to my knowledge, made no indications as to whether we would only go in on a defense clause.

Considering the way the war has gone, I could have seen IRON/TPF/Oceania/TIO oAing in on not only VE but also GOD at that point. Which means GOD, had they taken their upper tiers out of PM, would be getting pounded worse right now. Had they not, VE would have most likely lost a lot more NS considering you would now have to add in the damage done by NG, while GOD sat in PM allowing VE to get destroyed for them.

[Timberland]

Glad to see you guys get peace VE.

Goldie

[deathcat]

Seriously? Still bashing VE? Sad day when people won't accept a quick all out war and white peace as a GOOD thing. Forget the GOD 'deserves/doesn't deserve rhetoric' and be thankful Karma has gotten what the other side wanted finally... Quick, Fun wars without reps. I look forward to the next war being more of the same but sooner.

oo/ VE

*DC breaks into a koombaya rendition and start passing the rum around... and starts looking for volunteers to hold the dead man switch for Bob... or or