NpO-NSO War Map

[Saxplayer]

That's not what "In lieu of" means, unless you're making the map instead of fighting.

 

I am making the map instead of fighting. My alliance has made no DoW

[Master Hakai]

That's not what "In lieu of" means, unless you're making the map instead of fighting.

I thought the same thing but never said nothin

[Deadwartin]

He's wrong.  I'm not sure why there would be any confusion.

 

NpO hit NSO for attempting to hatch some plot against them. (rough paraphrase).

Every other entry in that war is predicated on treaty relationships to those two powers.

 

Meanwhile, Kaskus attacks SL for piling in on them in the last war.

Everyone is entering based on their relationship to SL.

 

There is zero connection between the causes and escalations of these two wars.

 

It is almost the exact situation as the last Kaskus war:

Kaskus and NSO go at  over Unknown Smurf.

EQ goes at it with Competence over... whatebver the hell it was, I can't remember.

 

NPO was involved in both wars.  But it was still two, distinct, unconnected wars and CB's.

The connection is that SL had an ally who was occupied in a war.

an ally we would have defended in said war if it wasnt for Kaskus.

Said ally is NSO.

 

It's pretty clear to me why they declared war when they did.

[Walshington]

The connection is that SL had an ally who was occupied in a war.

an ally we would have defended in said war if it wasnt for Kaskus.

Said ally is NSO.

 

It's pretty clear to me why they declared war when they did.

 

I assume that you don't believe that ANY two wars occurring simultaneously are connected.  For these two wars, I submit the following:

 

The question is, did Kaskus attack you because it was an opportune time for revenge as your allies were busy?

(An opportune time to attack someone they wanted revenge on).

 

 

Or did they attack to remove an ally from NSO in their war?

(A strategic move to aid NpO and company in their war on NSO).

 

If the former is true, it is a separate war unconnected to the global war.

 

If the latter, it's the same war as the global war.

 

Unless there is proof of the latter, the CB as listed by Kaskus seems to back the former.

[YOLO SWAG]

The question is, did Kaskus attack you because it was an opportune time for revenge as your allies were busy?
 
 
 
Or did they attack to remove an ally from NSO in their war?

 
 
Both ends were achieved. Thus, connected. Edited November 9, 2013 by YOLO SWAG

[Walshington]

 
 
Both ends were achieved. Thus, connected.

 

Only if the intent is there, my friend.

 

Say, for example, tonight TDO hits LPH for jumping in with MQ. (I didn't say it was likely, I'm just sayin'.)

 

That would serve have two effects: Gets TDO their revenge, AND takes an ally of yours out of a war for you. Same scenario.

 

Would you then say that LPH and TDO are part of the Kaskus-SL kerfuffle?  And by extension, the NpO-NSO donnybrook?

I submit that that would be a third, unconnected war. 

[Saxplayer]

Only if the intent is there, my friend.

 

Say, for example, tonight TDO hits LPH for jumping in with MQ. (I didn't say it was likely, I'm just sayin'.)

 

That would serve have two effects: Gets TDO their revenge, AND takes an ally of yours out of a war for you. Same scenario.

 

Would you then say that LPH and TDO are part of the Kaskus-SL kerfuffle?  And by extension, the NpO-NSO donnybrook?

I submit that that would be a third, unconnected war. 

 

 

I agree with you Walshington, but with more alliances that are like Kashmir, that go attacking alliances on both side, this may look more like one conflict.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Saxplayer

[Phil Coulson]

You seem to be missing TPF as well.

[Saxplayer]

You seem to be missing TPF as well.

 

 

 

Thanks 

[Farnsworth]

Anyone doing updates on this? Kthxbai

[Ziperia]

Anyone doing updates on this? Kthxbai

There is this one:
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/119081-npo-nso-war-map/