Dochartaigh Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='deathcat' timestamp='1342417030' post='3010686'] 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 [/quote] /me takes a swig of rum and grabs the dead man switch I am game brah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathcat Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1342417097' post='3010688'] /me takes a swig of rum and grabs the dead man switch I am game brah! [/quote] First one to let go of the switch... Wins? or is it Loses? Ah hell... I forget now (tough being old AND senile...) GET OFF MY LAWN! Also, why's the rum gone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibsonator21 Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1342416355' post='3010678'] 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] It's not, because GOD would have rather had them not come in than hit NPO and definitively pull all those alliances against them. VE knew this plenty of time in advance as well. [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 meant it as you didn't read the part where, if VE hit NG, maybe GOD [and co.] would have pulled their upper tiers out of PM to tip the scales. Not had VE hid and wait. They made it very clear they weren't part of our coalition anyway. [quote]Key word in your sentence, MIGHT. [/quote] Right, might. Hitting NPO /definitely/ brought in all those who did hit VE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1342300321' post='3010240'] I hate to be a !@#$%, but if you don't want to use your power to help GOD then cancel the treaty. Signing an eternal MADP (Even if you somehow magically uneternally downgrade) is a "Political Commitment" in the first place. [/quote] I don't believe that for a minute, you love being a !@#$%. It's the only explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vol Navy Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1342396578' post='3010581'] 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. [/quote] Yes, it is. They have huge war chests, they lost infra and land. Got to keep their tech mostly intact and their war chests too. 2 weeks of war is very very light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laslo Kenez Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='AmbroseIV' timestamp='1342412046' post='3010659'] 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] Maybe after the war is over we'll sit down and talk about it, but I can really assure you that while an upshot, that wasn't really the story. You have to remember that it was hardly the "nice" move at the time, despite how it turned out, because either way Int caught a lot of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1342343978' post='3010445'] But it's direct allies (GOONS) are hitting allies of VE's ally GOD and NG did as well (CSN,RIA). [/quote] You really are determined to be wrong about every issue, aren't you? Allies of allies hit each other all the time in this tied up world. Edited July 16, 2012 by Sardonic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1342418049' post='3010692'] It's not, because GOD would have rather had them not come in than hit NPO and definitively pull all those alliances against them. VE knew this plenty of time in advance as well.[/quote] So where were they wanted in then? NG correct? So, what I wrote is correct and you contradicted yourself. kthxbai. [quote]I meant it as you didn't read the part where, if VE hit NG, maybe GOD [and co.] would have pulled their upper tiers out of PM to tip the scales. Not had VE hid and wait. They made it very clear they weren't part of our coalition anyway.[/quote] Again, maybe is the key word. If the coalition had not, VE would have been more screwed since they oAed in on NG. You can't even state definitively that had VE done what the coalition wanted, the coalition would have 100% for sure come out of PM. [quote]Right, might. Hitting NPO /definitely/ brought in all those who did hit VE. [/quote] I guarantee there was a better chance of TIO/IRON/Oceania/TPF coming in against VE than there was for GOD/coalition of coming out of PM. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1342440608' post='3010723'] You really are determined to be wrong about every issue, aren't you? Allies of allies hit each other all the time in this tied up world. [/quote] If people honored their treaties this wouldn't happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorConcept Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1342453865' post='3010750'] If people honored their treaties this wouldn't happen. [/quote] Non-chaining clauses are the norm for most treaties, so although we all know what you're trying to get at, you're still wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daikos Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 I'd say based on the all star lineup of feigning moral outrage in this thread that you made the right choices, VE. The best part of this thread is that anyone with even the slightest level of understanding of Planet Bob knows that these same clowns would have been !@#$%*ing and moaning the loudest if you hadn't entered the war. Stay classy, schmucks. [quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' timestamp='1342412842' post='3010664'] The biggest thing I don't understand at this point is that people are saying VE was really far from the center of the fight. They were one treaty from the center, as their direct ally GOD was one of the two main targets of this war. Attempting to say otherwise is just ignorant. [/quote] [img]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/MagnumSpyder/498mr_jefferson.jpg[/img] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1342455494' post='3010754'] Non-chaining clauses are the norm for most treaties, so although we all know what you're trying to get at, you're still wrong.[/quote] Indeed non-chaining treaties are used to manage risk, but at the same time, they also get abused. Perhaps there is more truth in IYIyTh's statement than it might appear--at least you can't dismiss it out of hand. That said... IYIyTh: If you have evidence that someone used the optional aspect of a treaty to dodge out of a fight they should have been in, let's see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brehon Posted July 16, 2012 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 I can tell most of the people in this thread have not been following that front. If they had they would know what VE actually allowed GOD to do - Enter peacemode with more nations (cycle or otherwise). Why do I say that? Its simple, while engaged with VE (at the start) all but 1 GOD nation in war mode was in anarchy and locked up. So while we shifted a heavier focus to VE, GOD was allowed to get more than (at that time) 50% of their alliance into Peacemode. Mind you, this isn't a cause to jump on the pm !@#$%^&* because this was definitely cycling (at least in the majority). So, before you jump VE's ass (man I can't believe I am saying this) perhaps you should thank them for keeping us occupied so you could cycle. A simple thank you I am sure would suffice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) I was being relative to CN as a whole. You all can relax. There are plenty of treaties that have gone ignored over the years. My point was more to the affect that allies have the ability to intervene on their allies behalf -- and don't -- for one reason or another. Usually, because they're selfish. A la you have a great deal of people who would talk about how they are only obligated to do so much, that what they offered was more than deserved, how people are greatful/ungreatful etc. Maybe I'm just an idealist in that a treaty is worth more than the paper it's written on. Perhaps to expect an ally to tell their other allies to not attempt to destroy their direct allies or else face grave consequence (and this can vary, we've seen it with large alliances who would have been able to stop any incursion on their own and go along with it because they not so secretly support it (this is the one I'm getting at, WC!,) and then you have smaller allliances who will give it their all irrespective of their size.) Very few adhere to these ideals, unfortunately. Edit: In before some idiot claims I'm talking about VE. Edited July 16, 2012 by IYIyTh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) I don't see any GOD members complaining, Gibs is in CSN, not GOD. VE is their own alliance and they are free to do whatever they choose to do, they are a sovereign entity as the Balkan Entente says they are, and the treaty was amended to be a oA rather than MA and has a chaining clause, so VE truly was free to do whatever they wanted, and so they did. Personally I don't think VE and Goldie's stated policy of deliberately avoiding assisting SF even indirectly, and then fighting a number of alliances (TPF in particular) who are friendly alliances, is very helpful to our coalition, but they have made it very clear that they are not part of our coalition, so their temporary assistance to GOD members should be lauded, they did take a lot of pressure off GOD and allowed them to re-arm and get more control over their front with NPO. Thanks for helping GOD, VE. Edited July 16, 2012 by Ogaden Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1342396578' post='3010581'] 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, [b]FARK[/b], 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 [/quote] We're doing our best to lose more NS, but we've been left disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='Atanatar' timestamp='1342460761' post='3010776'] We're doing our best to lose more NS, but we've been left disappointed. [/quote] I'm pretty sure it's you all have been doing your best to save your NS and it's we who have been left disappointed but whatever works for you I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1342462136' post='3010779'] I'm pretty sure it's you all have been doing your best to save your NS and it's we who have been left disappointed but whatever works for you I guess. [/quote] Yeah the might of Deinos and TLR are sure showing Fark who's boss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornguard Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 We should just rename this thread "Warchest Envy" and be done with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='hornguard' timestamp='1342465347' post='3010795'] We should just rename this thread "Warchest Envy" and be done with it. [/quote] Hey man, long time no see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1342462136' post='3010779'] I'm pretty sure it's you all have been doing your best to save your NS and it's we who have been left disappointed but whatever works for you I guess. [/quote] wha... How do I... Well, I guess I should've remembered your posts has no basis in reality. *walks away in a daze* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='magicninja' timestamp='1342462136' post='3010779'] I'm pretty sure it's you all have been doing your best to save your NS and it's we who have been left disappointed but whatever works for you I guess. [/quote] Fark has a total of 31 nations "hiding" Come on Magicpirate, Fark have kept their nations on the battle field for the last 2 beat downs on them, credit where credits due. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaBravo42 Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1342471139' post='3010822'] Fark has a total of 31 nations "hiding" Come on Magicpirate, Fark have kept their nations on the battle field for the last 2 beat downs on them, credit where credits due. [/quote] Peace mode is reserved for buying nukes. Total nations 172 War mode 141 81.97% Peace Mode 31 18.02% Anarchy 68 39.53% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 [quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1342471139' post='3010822'] Fark has a total of 31 nations "hiding" Come on Magicpirate, Fark have kept their nations on the battle field for the last 2 beat downs on them, credit where credits due. [/quote] Right on the mark Pansy, Fark went from 13.8 mil NS to 3.1 mil NS last war, they lost as much as we did in relative terms (6.3mil drop to 1.7 mil) maybe a bit more actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atanatar Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 (edited) Also, since we're still on the subject of "avoiding NS loss", Magicninja, take a gander at this real fast: [quote]Stats as of download available at 16:00CN Time Nations- GATO: 252 Fark: 172 Aggressive Slots- GATO: 52 (6.88%) Fark: 94 (18.22%) Defensive Slots- GATO: 53 (7%) Fark: 48 (9%)[/quote] Edited July 16, 2012 by Atanatar 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.