A Declaration of Support from the Viridian Entente

[Omniscient1]

Are these the back channels that in the last war VE announced ignored the agreed coalition battle plan & full deployed. Then informed us they've all peace out if other alliances didn't save their arses? Or the ones that after we threw a needless amount of NS into an area of the war we knew we were outgunned in they announced they'd be peacing out with or without the rest of us?Calling C&G out for being bad allies when defending VE is one of the worst arguments I've ever heard. How many times do I have to tell people to stop listening to the zombie alliance. What is dead should always stay dead.

So you hate VE for not hiding in peace mode? Well, I'm convinced. They should move to yellow shouldn't they! Such cowards!

[potato]

So you hate VE for not hiding in peace mode? Well, I'm convinced. They should move to yellow shouldn't they! Such cowards!

Why does it still surprise me that you don't understand what's going on, even when it's stated clearly?

 

[Omniscient1]

Why does it still surprise me that you don't understand what's going on, even when it's stated clearly?
 

Because you need to pretend I have no clue what's going on in order to make your friend look like he's not so pathetic.

[Neo Uruk]

More people who weren't around for any part of any talks speculating on what happened. We dished out as much damage as any alliance in CN did this past war, put our entire alliance on the line for our ally in Umb, and didn't plot with the opposite side to limit damage or ensure specific fronts didn't get countered. People who didn't want to accept that it was their working with the enemy and avoiding the fight being the reason for the war being lost wanted a scapegoat, and I'm happy to play one if it means the people who hardly did anything are seen on an absolute opposite spectrum of us.

Yeah, you dished out as much damage as any alliance, but could you have said the same if the war had continued as much as two weeks? You drowned your own alliance and bitched to get out.

[potato]

Because you need to pretend I have no clue what's going on in order to make your friend look like he's not so pathetic.

 

Oh. So you actually have no clue. I thought you were just pretending... My bad.

 

[Rooman33]

No one is whining, MQ is not getting their ass kicked, and I find hilarious that you think it was completely fair for GOP nations to down declare 100k NS MQ targets already in engaged in multiple nuclear wars.  Yet, now that you've been confronted by equivalent nations to your own, you claim the victim card. 

 

Where I'm from we call that cowardice and no one likes a coward.

 

Okay Rooman try to stop for a second. If you want to downdeclare on an alliance who attacked your mates, disturbed your mood or just because you don't like them and wanna see them nuked to the ground it's okay. Just don't claim moral superiority while you are doing it. If you want to take cheap shots, take them, just don't try to picture yourself as a righteous hero.

 

Before GOP attacked MQ they were already fighting TDO, TTE, CCC and got raids by a lot of other alliances. In terms on nation strength they were outnumbered like 4 vs 1, and even if we don't count the high tier of TDO who were rolled by us the high tier of MQ could be have been rolled by TTE and CCC, if they would have cared to declare war and not to flee into peace mode (by the way hello TTE 241k guy, we will come for you  :) ). Then you came with your wrath (or urge to fight a probably easy war and get some generals) and made a nice downdeclare on nations who were already engaged in nuclear wars. Then you hide behind VE's coat fast just to ensure that none will attack you. Sadly it didn't work, because DBDC likes to fight wars and hate hypocrite neutrals.

 

Heh, that's an interesting retelling of events.

 

Couple of things to note: First, AFAIK, all of the CCC has not attacked nor declared war on MQ. In fact, I think I read that CCC is considering MQ a bunching of rogues, not an AA. Only a few nations from the CCC are even in the fight - so let's not pretend MQ was fending off the entire CCC. Second - and more importantly - MQ are the aggressors here. They launched an unprovoked and unexpected attack on a neutral alliance (TDO) - rendering almost all of TDO useless/in anarchy and unable to counter. TTE lacks nations able to fight MQ's top half. When we entered, there was no one declared on almost any of MQ's top 12 nations. So, let's dispense with the idea that we just piled on to an already unfair fight. The unfair fight was when MQ declared on a neutral alliance for no freaking reason than for the lulz.

 

As for the GOP's supposed "down declare" - funny, I didn't hear any talk or complaints of us "down declaring" when we announced. Quite the contrary, I heard a lot of talk from MQ and her friends about how we were going to get rolled like the rest of TDO, etc. When that turned out not to be the case, this "down-declare" narrative formed to explain away what has happened to MQ's upper tier.

 

On to the premise of our attack even being a "down-declare." Yes, we had a higher avg NS. Obviously. We have/had one of the highest avg. NS's in the game. Maybe MQ ought to have considered that (and our DTOM doctrine) before deciding to post a "call to Jihad" on neutrality on the OWF. That being said, our total NS was virtually the same when we entered. Nevertheless, we had less than half the nations as MQ and our top nine nations (an entire third of our alliance) was not in range of anyone in MQ but their top three nations. So much for our supposed advantage. All that Avg. NS was pretty much rendered useless and it's our middle tier - which isn't extraordinarily strong and which is outnumbered by MQ - which has done most of the fighting and dying. So I reject out of hand that it was a "down-declare." 

 

So spare us the victim card. You don't play it well. You're just upset that you thought you could pick on neutrals without any repercussions and that turned out not to be the case.

 

As to DBDC, their professed leadership has told us they are not involved with TDO for the "jihad" on neutrality. I take it their beef is personal. That's not our concern. Combine that with the fact that they have not posted such a call - let alone a formal DoW on TDO - we take them for their word. As such, we've made every effort to try to avoid a direct confrontation with them. Note, we do not have a single offensive war against DBDC (though several of their nations have attacked us) even though we would have been best suited to declare on them right out of the gates when they were all heavily engaged against TDO's largest nations. We chose not to attack them as a gesture of goodwill and in hopes that we wouldn't needlessly create an FA nightmare for VE and others. We saw this as a fight to be had with MQ - who had threatened all neutrals. If DBDC decides to fully counter us (and I'm still not sure why they feel inclined to - they have no formal treaty with MQ and, as I said, we have not declared a single offensive war on them), it will be solely because they have chosen that conflict despite our best efforts to avoid it. Interestingly, they told me they've no interest in MQ's "jihad" on neutrals, and yet they seem to want to focus their counter attack on the only other neutral alliance in the fight - instead of the upper tier nations of the other half dozen alliances in this war. That says volumes, I think. 

 

Among the many differences between DBDC potentially down-declaring on us and our response to MQ's attack on neutrality is 1) We have not threatened DBDC at all, let alone in the way MQ threatened us with their "call to Jihad." 2) Pretty much every single DBDC nation can declare three offensive wars on our ranks - as I mentioned earlier, our top nine could only hit MQ's top three, leaving most of our top-tier under-engaged (with slots that could have been aimed at occupied DBDC nations, but weren't, BTW) 3) nations are AA hoping in and out of DBDC and MQ, and very powerful and/or connected alliances are throwing aid at them. What you see is what you get with the GOP. 

 

That being said, if DBDC declares, they declare. We will fight back as we would anyone else. We knew there was a possibility they would when we entered this conflict. We've done what we could to avoid that out of deference to DBDC's abstention from formal "Jihad" talk and the potential FA conflicts it might cause for all involved. So if they decide to declare on us (knowing VE has no one in range to assist - and knowingly putting potential treaty webs under unnecessary strain) that's on DBDC. The easy route here, for everyone, is to leave us to our fight with MQ - who, supposedly, wanted to fight neutrals but - as it turns out - only meant they wanted to fight neutrals who don't fight back. 

 

Finally, let me address again this nonsense that we're in some way "hiding" behind VE. First, they can provide little-to-no cover fire against DBDC. That was obvious going into this. Second, I've stated several times in this thread and elsewhere that we told VE we did not expect them to fight our fight in this - that we knew our invoking the DTOM doctrine to respond to MQ's attack on neutrality could/would be seen as an offensive rather than a defensive action. So in both the spirit and letter of our relationship with them, they were in no way obligated by their protector status to involve themselves in this conflict. And we told them we were completely and totally fine with that. We've since reiterated that, multiple time, to them and here publicly. Goldie can confirm. We respect they're in a sticky situation and we've tried to make it as un-sticky as we could without sacrificing our own sovereignty on the matter. 

 

 

Also you should be rather worried about being bill-locked in the coming days, then to fight on the OWF. It will be sad to see you turtleing.

Orly? 

 

Isn't your alliance and/or its friends arguing elsewhere that turtle-ing is a "valid tactic?" So, which is it? 

Edited September 25, 2013 by Rooman33

[MagicalTrevor]

More people who weren't around for any part of any talks speculating on what happened. We dished out as much damage as any alliance in CN did this past war, put our entire alliance on the line for our ally in Umb, and didn't plot with the opposite side to limit damage or ensure specific fronts didn't get countered. People who didn't want to accept that it was their working with the enemy and avoiding the fight being the reason for the war being lost wanted a scapegoat, and I'm happy to play one if it means the people who hardly did anything are seen on an absolute opposite spectrum of us.

If only there was a way that I ended up seeing the logs & discussions of that war. Say perhaps I became royalty in one of the key participants. Wouldn't that be nice.

[Goldie]

If only there was a way that I ended up seeing the logs & discussions of that war. Say perhaps I became royalty in one of the key participants. Wouldn't that be nice.

So you saw the logs where IC told the coalition planners that he'd pull everyone out of PM to support us. Or the ones where we were told that support was coming on our fronts, but you guys wanted to respect GATO, TLR, and NG, who requested that IRON/NPO not be countered. Or the ones where we were told that C&G/NG/MK no longer cared about the fronts we were fighting in, only their own. Or the ones where we were told to shut up, and keep fighting, because NG/TLR/GATO were coming out of PM imminently, they just had to decide when and where.

 

Once VE decided that the weeks of discussing how to come out of PM were actually never going to result in anyone coming out of PM, we made the decision to figure out how best to close out our front. Umb gave us our blessing, but they also said that us continuing to be in the fight would be an important piece in continuing to support them, so we stayed in. We fought our asses off for Umbrella. So did MK, I just wish you guys had focused more entirely on supporting Umbrella, and less on supporting NPO and IRON.

 

I'm sorry that the wishes of VE didn't line up with the wishes of MK in the past war, and that we clashed over it. VE's wishes were to see Umbrella get the most total defense possible, MK's were to defend Umbrella but also pander to those who cared more for those we were fighting than those we were defending. Sad state of affairs, because I can distinctly remember a time when MK would have put their chips all in line to defend their allies that needed it. It's fine though, you're the ones who folded under the pressure of the shit you got yourselves in in the past war, and we're the ones who have flourished past it.

[potato]

 on supporting NPO and IRON.

 

It's like you've never talked to MK. Literally never.

 

[Dre4mwe4ver]

... GATO..., who requested that IRON/NPO not be countered...

I'm willing to believe that's a typo, but in case it's not: Tell me where I requested that IRON/NPO not be countered.

I'll wait. Edited September 26, 2013 by Dre4mwe4ver

[The Zigur]

Interesting. Received some intel that there are MQ/MK infiltrators in my alliance and other alliances. Of course too early to say for sure, but it is something I am actively investigating myself.

[Clash]

Can I take a moment to say that tunafish just doesn't taste as good now that it's dolphin-free? Nowadays, tunafish is bland and sort of boring. I don't even think it counts as brain food anymore. If tuna companies really cared about the taste, they'd double the dolphin - and throw in some whale. Whale is said to be delicious, and let's face it, a thousand generations of eskimo can't be wrong. I'd eat that all day long.

[dvdcchn]

Well done Viridia, causing a fury for  supporting your own protectorate. For shame....

 

[lebubu]

Interesting. Received some intel that there are MQ/MK infiltrators in my alliance and other alliances. Of course too early to say for sure, but it is something I am actively investigating myself.

 

yeah we only target the most relevant alliances so there you go

[Beauty]

No NSO members below the rank of tech seller may post in this thread.

[Ardus]

Can I take a moment to say that tunafish just doesn't taste as good now that it's dolphin-free? Nowadays, tunafish is bland and sort of boring. I don't even think it counts as brain food anymore. If tuna companies really cared about the taste, they'd double the dolphin - and throw in some whale. Whale is said to be delicious, and let's face it, a thousand generations of eskimo can't be wrong. I'd eat that all day long.

There's a certain charm to this post that I can't help but smile at.

[MagicalTrevor]

I just wish you guys had focused more entirely on supporting Umbrella, and less on supporting NPO and IRON.

I've spent the last few months telling people to stop listening to you. I hope by quoting this point on it's own for the world to see will help prove that I am right in my assertion that you are paranoid and dumb.

[jerdge]

<...> 
that we didn't just sit back and hope upon all hope that we'd never have to fight (*ahem* GPA *ahem*), <...>

This resembles what I said, but it isn't it... :)

If you have some criticism for the Agency you know where to find us, Roo. I can't guarantee we'll agree, but you know that we always listen.
If you wish feel free to vent here, instead, but you should know that only a very few of us pay any attention to the OWF.

[WarriorConcept]

I've spent the last few months telling people to stop listening to you. I hope by quoting this point on it's own for the world to see will help prove that I am right in my assertion that you are paranoid and dumb.

 

Yes because you were definitely in those planning channels and in the queries with all the relevant parties, right?

[WarriorConcept]

I've spent the last few months telling people to stop listening to you. I hope by quoting this point on it's own for the world to see will help prove that I am right in my assertion that you are paranoid and dumb.

 

Yes because you were definitely in those planning channels and in the queries with all the relevant parties, right?

[Neo Uruk]

Reminder that MK ever supporting NPO or IRON via anything, exempting support of CnG/TOP, is possibly the most retarded idea to ever circulate this forum.

[Biff Webster]

This resembles what I said, but it isn't it... :)

If you have some criticism for the Agency you know where to find us, Roo. I can't guarantee we'll agree, but you know that we always listen.
If you wish feel free to vent here, instead, but you should know that only a very few of us pay any attention to the OWF.

 

Someone should bump that NSO/TDO/GOP thread that came after the NSO mass messaged neutral alliances for you.  That should put his criticism into context for you.

[Free Quebec]

Ahahaha, check this out. VE trying to be politically relevant by dipping their hands in any cookie jar they can. Good luck with that, but there's no room for your booster seat at the adult table.

 

Oh, ouch. really.

[Incitatus]

Oh, ouch. really.

 

That's a name I haven't seen in a longgg time.

 

 

*waves to FQ*

 

-Kev

 

VE, do yo' thang.

[MCRABT]

Reminder that MK ever supporting NPO or IRON via anything, exempting support of CnG/TOP, is possibly the most retarded idea to ever circulate this forum.

 

IRON and MK supported one another when their goals weren't mutually exclusive, in fact MK asked IRON for a treaty once. I know, mind blown.

Edited September 27, 2013 by MCRABT