Unknown Smurf Posted November 10, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 They'd probably do better if they didn't start wars without checking whether the alliance they're attacking has more than one ally. Yes because if an alliance has multiple allies then they cannot be attacked? They did something wrong and so we attacked. If you have an issue with our CB, then by all means complain, but please don't sit here preaching that might makes right bullshit. 1 SWF and a few LSF nations. SPTR are allied to you and apparently kaskus asked bones to impose sanctions. I claim this because their is no other logical explanation to the series of events i have witnessed. Before war, pink sphere was peaceful. Just after the DoW by Die Linke in defence of SL, a pink senator sanctions Die linke nations. Then that senator moves to Kaskus AA and gets accepted (BONES is also involved in your Aid Bombing program). After this, you want us to buy your 'not authorized by Kaskus govt' theory Smurf? And what about those rape-joke messages your nations are circulating? Its rather funny that kaskus started this moral-discussion thread. What rape-joke messages? You mean the ones sent by edieclark? Who is a spoof of EddieClark? Man we never had issues with people making similar fake nations to ours until you guys went to war therefore it must be you guys who are sending the rape jokes to make us look bad. (same logic as your pink sphere logic) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubuntu the Great Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Hilow it is I Ubuntu the Great. Attacking a POW nation is a dishonorable thing. Such attacking nations should be disciplined by their alliance or the alliance is also dishonored. Do it is written so it shall be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Yes because if an alliance has multiple allies then they cannot be attacked? They did something wrong and so we attacked. If you have an issue with our CB, then by all means complain, but please don't sit here preaching that might makes right bullshit. What rape-joke messages? You mean the ones sent by edieclark? Who is a spoof of EddieClark? Man we never had issues with people making similar fake nations to ours until you guys went to war therefore it must be you guys who are sending the rape jokes to make us look bad. (same logic as your pink sphere logic) Haha, its Kaskus who seeks to make the SL coalition look bad and score some PR points. We are in a cozy condition having 200+ nations in our coalition. The eddie phenomena is most probably an attempt to get your alliance out of the pathetic state you are in. Kaskus is known for playing it dirty, and thus i am not surprised; although saddened by watching you guys hitting a new low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sabcat Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Yes because if an alliance has multiple allies then they cannot be attacked? They did something wrong and so we attacked. If you have an issue with our CB, then by all means complain, but please don't sit here preaching that might makes right bullshit I've no issue with your CB at all it's the execution that's pathetic. You chose your moment based on their allies being busy. Not all of us were. Your plan was a joke your prosecution of the war has been a joke and the eventual end of the war will be a joke no matter how many thread you make whining about this or that. Everyone seems to get the joke except you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 I've no issue with your CB at all it's the execution that's pathetic. You chose your moment based on their allies being busy. Not all of us were. Your plan was a joke your prosecution of the war has been a joke and the eventual end of the war will be a joke no matter how many thread you make whining about this or that. Everyone seems to get the joke except you. haha yeah.. Maybe having five nations hitting you makes one lose sense of humor :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anarquista Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 Hilow it is I Ubuntu the Great. Attacking a POW nation is a dishonorable thing. Such attacking nations should be disciplined by their alliance or the alliance is also dishonored. Do it is written so it shall be ubuntu the great, to my knowledge, we have not attacked any POWs so far, what do you think about using POWs to attack the alliance they surrendered from, what would you do with defectors and traitors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 (edited) You may not like and/or agree with "might makes right" but that is how it is around here. I mean, what are you going to really do to force a group you are already at war with to stop attacking the people who surrender to you from any alliance - declare war on them? Sorry, already played that card. Once alliances are at war there is little you can threaten. Maybe to make the war longer or demand worse peace terms - but you have to be on the side that is winning to even try that and it may backfire.That being the case, you have two options.1. Tell those who want to surrender to you that you can assure them that YOU will not attack them but can't make any promises for the alliance that they are leaving.2. Find some group(s) that is(are) bigger than the ones you are fighting who are not already involved in the war and have that group announce protection over the POW AA. Since the group doing the protecting isn't involved in the war, the alliance which is considering attacking the POW AA has something more to lose than one attack slot.Of course you can try complaining on the OWF, but as you can see there is hardly any sympathy for people who surrender during a war so doing so is not all that affective. Edited November 10, 2013 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wobblies Posted November 10, 2013 Report Share Posted November 10, 2013 He's only a POW if his alliance is "kaskus POW" or some such. His alliance is Kaskus so he is a fair target. Next. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EgoFreaky Posted November 11, 2013 Report Share Posted November 11, 2013 If you can't protect your PoW's you shouldn't be taking surrenders.As for how anyone can protect their PoW camp, personally I usually just say that people attacking the PoW AA will be kept at war after peace has been reached. But for that you have to be in a position where you can make good on such threats and kaskus.. isn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Craig Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 (edited) attacking a pow makes you a cowardI can't speak for all alliances, but I know that we in INT do not recognize the validity of any individual surrenders from within our ranks. When a nation joins our alliance, we commit ourselves to their defense, and by their entrance into our brotherhood, they have equally committed to defend the whole. Therefore, a former INT nation flying a POW flag is a deserter, not a prisoner. I have, in the past, pulled resources from the front to deal with such traitors, and if it were to be deemed necessary by the command structure, I wouldn't hesitate to do it again.Overall I have to agree with your point but what about allowing defectors/PoWs to join a neutral AA (or any AA that isn't at war). Would you consider that a valid protection of those nation(s)?You take things on a case-by-case basis. I don't believe in a rigid one-size-fits-all solution, and not all defections are equal. There should always be room for sympathy and discretion...-Craig Edited November 12, 2013 by Comrade Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manis B Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 I can't speak for all alliances, but I know that we in INT do not recognize the validity of any individual surrenders from within our ranks. When a nation joins our alliance, we commit ourselves to their defense, and by their entrance into our brotherhood, they have equally committed to defend the whole. Therefore, a former INT nation flying a POW flag is a deserter, not a prisoner. I have, in the past, pulled resources from the front to deal with such traitors, and if it were to be deemed necessary by the command structure, I wouldn't hesitate to do it again.You take things on a case-by-case basis. I don't believe in a rigid one-size-fits-all solution, and not all defections are equal. There should always be room for sympathy and discretion... -Craig theres a process,but oce you leave the gato aa you are no longer a member or a part of our legal jurisdiction.your explanation, though harsh in my eyes, certainly has a valid premise. what im talking about is a pow attacked by an uninvolved party. raids, rogues, etc. still i feel that attacking an unarmed nation is bad form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Helbrecht Posted November 12, 2013 Report Share Posted November 12, 2013 (edited) Hilow it is I Ubuntu the Great. Attacking a POW nation is a dishonorable thing. Such attacking nations should be disciplined by their alliance or the alliance is also dishonored. Do it is written so it shall beIt is with a lot of astonishment and one double take too many, that i observe the great impis of Ubuntu the great, sitting around, eating cornmeal cookies. Why is not the Zulu nation at war, at this time, when the world burns.@ Smurf... If you have the slots, and you really feel strongly about living up to your commitment as regards protecting those that surrendered to you, by all means, go all "hulk smash!!". Sometimes it is the only thing people understand. Edited November 12, 2013 by Helbrecht Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ubuntu the Great Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 ubuntu the great, to my knowledge, we have not attacked any POWs so far, what do you think about using POWs to attack the alliance they surrendered from, what would you do with defectors and traitors? if nation has POW in its AA it should not be touched. If it changes it's AA to its victors AA without the words POW it is a target. If a nation goes POW there is no sense in attacking them as deserter or traitor. This nation has shamed itself already. Set this nation loose as you would a man with plague and be glad it gone before he infects true warriors . If you must. You deal with him after big war ends . In the meantime you should have honor. Your warriors concentrate fighting lions not rats. I shall be glad to be of service as binding arbitrator in such matters if it is so wished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenoCore Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 But we built all these re education camps :( . What will we do with them now :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 But we built all these re education camps :( . What will we do with them now :( Have you looked at your own membership? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenoCore Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 We can't look inside ourselves we are an empty void. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 I think there's a cream for that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairna Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 Protection for PoW camps has always been a sort of unspoken gentleman's agreement in CN, so it's only fitting that Kaskus doesn't get to benefit from ti since you refuse to play by all the other rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 Overall I have to agree with your point but what about allowing defectors/PoWs to join a neutral AA (or any AA that isn't at war). Would you consider that a valid protection of those nation(s)? To a certain degree I would have to agree with you but in this situation we would actually be able to use him more effectively then he is currently being utilized by SL. He does have nukes, but no money. We could peace out our wars with him and since he has no offensive ones, he could slip in PM. We could aid bomb him, he builds up nukes/comes out prepared for war. Being blindsided he hasn't been able to do much. EDIT: What I mean to say is that defectors/POWs usually aren't worth the effort, but in this particular instance I would argue that he is. While I understand your logic; I meant to pose the question in a broader sense. How can anyone protect their POWs? Even if someone is outnumbered, they could hypothetically attack POWs. If I recall correctly Legion did it in the Legion/Tetris war despite being outnumbered. Any alliance worth a damn would not accept a defector, and neutrals almost certainly would not, as they don't want to draw the ire of the alliance that is going to be gunning for the coward during or after the war. No mercy for defectors, if you can't protect your POWs, don't offer them protection. Which you will anyway, of course, because you don't give a damn about the person defecting, you only care about harming your enemies. But it's in your opponent's interest to send the message that defectors will not be safe, other people considering desertion will likely think twice about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted November 13, 2013 Report Share Posted November 13, 2013 We promise pows safety from attacks from our side only. If their own side wants to attack them then by all means let's let them waste their own time on their own traitors. Attacking a pow in the middle of a war is pretty pathetic though. No it isn't. Its probably the most acceptable person to attack. I'd raid some POWs if they were in my range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wobblies Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 Whelp he thought he could get away by changing his alliance to "None" and NOT go into peace mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangeline Anovilis Posted November 16, 2013 Report Share Posted November 16, 2013 Do I grasp the purpose of this thread correctly as Kaskus complaining about us attacking people who surrendered to them? First, they surrendered to you, not to us, whom's AA they left. We got no obligations from any agreements you make with them. Second, deserters are getting shot. That's nothing new and shouldn't come as a surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SynthFG Posted November 17, 2013 Report Share Posted November 17, 2013 Those who flee from an AA in time of war by surrendering without permission from their alliance should always be seen as fair game, 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.