Enamel32 Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Yes, I seem to recall some shens during maroonity, and yet I don't recall any NG butthurt back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I've been affected by the sanctions from the Bones character but I'm not sure I can condemn sanctions in game. Before the changes to the resources system you had to make up a trade circle with who ever you could find on your team with the resources you needed. In those days sanctioning a nation in one alliance could potentially have a negative impact on nations in multiple alliances, even your allies. This made sanctions a less than useful tool of war. Now we can all change our native resources the tendency is to build trade circles with members of our alliances. This makes sanctions a very effective tool of war. In the case of Kaskus though it was a silly idea. Before this all happened a lot of us in LSF had the attitude "let's get this over with, try and get SL to give them decent terms" now it's more like "let's burn the little rat bastards to ground and piss on the remains". So I don't think in this case it's a very useful thing for them to have done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcrews Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I remember something similar happening and everyone flew off the handle. If funny watching the change from war to war as previously taboo practices become normalized until to becomes meta. Peace mode, sanctioning, next thing you know crushing debts or forced disbandment will be only seen as another normal aspect of the game or politics again. Personally, I wouldn't advocate the use of sanctioning your targets in war,but to each his own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 And before that he was in TOP and DBDC and pretty much still is de-facto member of DBDC. Bones is getting 36 votes in the senate, if I had to guess TOP accounts for a high enough percentage of that vote. It is misguided to blame Kaskus for it because it probably would have happened anyway. Literally never heard of the guy but please continue to make unfounded assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 we have been speaking with a kaskus diplo about this guy (BONES), even before he was in kaskus he was in spatr (kaskus MDOAP ally), now he is an approved member of kaskus, and the diplo seems to not know or acting purposely ignorant about the situation, it's not misguided Who have you been talking to? I've been affected by the sanctions from the Bones character but I'm not sure I can condemn sanctions in game. Before the changes to the resources system you had to make up a trade circle with who ever you could find on your team with the resources you needed. In those days sanctioning a nation in one alliance could potentially have a negative impact on nations in multiple alliances, even your allies. This made sanctions a less than useful tool of war. Now we can all change our native resources the tendency is to build trade circles with members of our alliances. This makes sanctions a very effective tool of war. In the case of Kaskus though it was a silly idea. Before this all happened a lot of us in LSF had the attitude "let's get this over with, try and get SL to give them decent terms" now it's more like "let's burn the little rat bastards to ground and piss on the remains". So I don't think in this case it's a very useful thing for them to have done. As mentioned earlier int his thread your allies used it against us originally. UCR openly supported it in the last war, and as Die Linke is "basically the same alliance" (according to your government), then it follows that you also supported the sanctioning. I'm sorry that you can only support it only when it is your side using it but that is not the issue. The issue is that you only care enough to oppose it when it is used against you. I wish that there was some sort of consistency so for when there is an alliance getting curb-stomped and then sanctions are used we have something to hold their actions against. That said we did not approve this sanction action on a government level. In-fact BONES has not contacted us about it. We will not hold him accountable though just like you did not hold your allies accountable for when they used it against us in the last war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Sanctions could actually be an interesting tool of war if they, and Senators, were revamped a bit. I'd like to see that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Having been sanctioned during an active war, I am especially sensitive to such a drastic action. Sanctions are supposed to be used as a diplomatic punishment, and we've always seemed to reserve them for rogues or special requests. It's a pain to try to rearrange a trade circle mid-war, and it's just a dirty war move and an abuse if powerful done on someone you happen to be fighting. DBDC does not support this type of action, and Methax has been banned from our AA. As for BONES, I myself am not sure why such drastic action was needed on what's basically a glorified tech raid by him, but if you're pink sphere and you voted for him, perhaps he's not the best candidate for senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Frankly, this is a tool like any other. I am surprised we didn't see widespread use of it yet.Maybe we'll experience a little shifting in colorspheres after such a long time, or the return of a modicum of color politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Frankly, this is a tool like any other. I am surprised we didn't see widespread use of it yet. Maybe we'll experience a little shifting in colorspheres after such a long time, or the return of a modicum of color politics. That'd be nice. A little something-something to resurrect 'action,' 'effort' and 'play' in this so-claimed dying world. Don't rely solely on your allies and their strength, build yourself and take some control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Are we pretending like NG wouldn't have done it for the lulz if they had thought of it long ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Are we pretending like NG wouldn't have done it for the lulz if they had thought of it long ago? NG has had a senator in all the wars against us and they've never used sanctions against us, so this isn't really true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 NG has had a senator in all the wars against us and they've never used sanctions against us, so this isn't really true. That's rotavele talking out of his ass, as usual. It sets a bad precedent to use sanctions as an attack tactic, but it's technically part of the mechanics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I've been affected by the sanctions from the Bones character but I'm not sure I can condemn sanctions in game. Before the changes to the resources system you had to make up a trade circle with who ever you could find on your team with the resources you needed. In those days sanctioning a nation in one alliance could potentially have a negative impact on nations in multiple alliances, even your allies. This made sanctions a less than useful tool of war. Now we can all change our native resources the tendency is to build trade circles with members of our alliances. This makes sanctions a very effective tool of war. In the case of Kaskus though it was a silly idea. Before this all happened a lot of us in LSF had the attitude "let's get this over with, try and get SL to give them decent terms" now it's more like "let's burn the little rat bastards to ground and piss on the remains". So I don't think in this case it's a very useful thing for them to have done. Yeah, Kaskus tends to have that effect on people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 http://www.cybernations.net/all_sanctions_view.asp Could I get some clarification on this. Did Umbrella just start using sanctions as a tool of war? Thank you. Alliance Affiliation:Umbrella (Pending) Alliance Seniority: 11/10/2013 12:26:17 AM (0 Days) At lease do cursory research before trying to score cheap political points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 NG has had a senator in all the wars against us and they've never used sanctions against us, so this isn't really true. They never lifted the sanctions MK put on me, though. So it's sorta debatable how much that could be considered their responsibility for enabling sanctions as a tool of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBRaiders Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 At lease do cursory research before trying to score cheap political points. You should do the same. He was ghosting off AA and is a long time Umbrella member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirWilliam Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Are we pretending like NG wouldn't have done it for the lulz if they had thought of it long ago? I'm sure it neeever crossed NG's minds. Not like they've possessed the ability and utilized it before (albeit under different circumstances). :facepalm: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Oh well, I guess this opens the gates. Thanks for increasing the tedium by forcing us all to re-align trades 10 times a day :( This is why I don't like sanctions and think they should be left out of war. Any fun that can be had from them is vastly outweighed by the tedium that they cause. It's a lot less fun to sanction someone than it is annoying to be sanctioned or to have to move your trade circle around to different colors because of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 NG has had a senator in all the wars against us and they've never used sanctions against us, so this isn't really true. If they had thought about it, and could have gotten away with it without consequence I'm sure they would have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted November 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) NG has had a senator in all the wars against us and they've never used sanctions against us, so this isn't really true. And I won't ever use sanctions as a war tool and I don't support them even if others do. I agree with Azaghul statements. They have limited benefit and can end up screwing over people completely not involved in a conflict if you have non-alliance trades. Besides, in this case it's quite clear, NoR was just honoring their treaty with us. Punishing them like this when you already outnumber NoR 5v1, shows only cowardice, not tactics. And no, Rotavele, I wouldn't have. And yes, we did have a chance last war. We didn't. Edited November 10, 2013 by Steve Buscemi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I think that's stupid. Military/Economic Embargoes have been used for awhile. I'd rather be sanctioned off a team than destroyed. I think it would add a new twist. Plus you should sanction away military resources to help your guys. You might say that the ones your sanctioning wouldn't like it, but hell they don't like that your at war either, so yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) Frankly, this is a tool like any other. I am surprised we didn't see widespread use of it yet. Probably due to most alliances at war with each other are based on different colours and/or don't have senate control/support. Also you can only have 30 active sanctions on each colour so wouldn't be a really effective use in a global war in the long run. Boils down to being a dick move. Edit: though I can see it possibly being employed in future situations where alliances take the FAN route to drive them out of peacemode. Edited November 10, 2013 by the rebel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Probably due to most alliances at war with each other are based on different colours and/or don't have senate control/support. Also you can only have 30 active sanctions on each colour so wouldn't be a really effective use in a global war in the long run. Boils down to being a dick move. Edit: though I can see it possibly being employed in future situations where alliances take the FAN route to drive them out of peacemode. Yes but with alliances being so much smaller now, 30 is actually a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Yes but with alliances being so much smaller now, 30 is actually a lot. Sure but if it got employed large scale then it would set off a chain reaction that would hurt both sides, the risk would outweigh the benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beauty Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Probably due to most alliances at war with each other are based on different colours and/or don't have senate control/support. Also you can only have 30 active sanctions on each colour so wouldn't be a really effective use in a global war in the long run. Boils down to being a dick move. Edit: though I can see it possibly being employed in future situations where alliances take the FAN route to drive them out of peacemode. Yes but with alliances being so much smaller now, 30 is actually a lot. Sure but if it got employed large scale then it would set off a chain reaction that would hurt both sides, the risk would outweigh the benefit. I think it would cause wide spread chaos and it would result in being bad for the people of this game because we would have to change color and add a new tax percentage. 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.