Jump to content

The next DBDC raid target


Beauty

Ya?  

222 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

That was the argument I tried to make to some of them. Alliances are by definition a collective of nations defending each other, typically predicated on mutual adherence to a shared set of rules for conduct (charter). If different neutral AA's could establish agreement upon the code of conduct that warrants protection of their nations, then what difference would it make which AA they reside on? Nations within an alliance aren't neutral with respect to one another, they just choose to draw the line only around their particular AA instead of considering whether they could also draw that line around another (otherwise) neutral AA.

 

Too bad they didn't go for it, or we would've rolled out 50 mil NS deep back when TDO got hit.

This is exactly the reason they won't ever go for your idea and precisely the same reason why DBDC's hit on Pax Corvus didn't include allies like DT/IRON/UMB/SPATR who may have wanted to help us with Optional Aggression (not that we ever asked).  We didn't bring a coalition, because a coalition wasn't needed.  As much as you particularly (as well as a few other posters on this page) want to see ungodly numbers stacked upon DBDC, I can't imagine you think us so shortsighted to not consider the implications of our actions.  If the major neutrals cared as much about their pixels as you assume they do, they'd have signed such an imaginary treaty long ago and made many a defensive pact to preserve their beautiful pristine casualty counts.  If you would listen to their public statements you would glean that they care about their neutrality more than their stats and signing any form of treaty such as you suggest would violate the core of their beliefs.

 

Bottom line is, if they're going to stack NS against attackers, you just bring more attackers.  You're not solving a problem, you're guaranteeing it's going to be a bigger problem.

Edited by CubaQuerida
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between rallying allies for a legitimate casus belli, and rallying allies for an unprovoked raid though. Does IRON want to be associated with Woodstock 2.0 after the events of the prior war? Does Umbrella for that matter want to be placed in a position where it must engage in a war it has no political interest in, and thereby weaken its image among its other allies? It is all very questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But let's not pretend this didn't happen.


Must not eat the forbidden fruit
Must not eat the forbidden fruit
Must not eat the forbidden fruit
Must not eat the forbidden fruit
Must not eat the forbidden fruit
Must not eat the forbidden fruit
Must not eat the forbidden fruit

.... something about this story makes me feel like the ending is inevitable, human nature and all that Jaz.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will be that before or after their second raid on GPA?

 

This isn't about GPA it's much more personal.

 

Polar's boys got a stern talking to now were just waiting for Jerdge to get that same conversation from his handlers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to call it a raid, you're setting up a false premise, thereby negating any conclusion you draw from it.  It's an exercise in futility to assume what others would have done under a circumstance that doesn't exist.

 

My larger point, which seems to have been lost on you, is that a coalition is brought when you either don't have sufficient numbers, or you want overkill.  It's a non-issue really and was used to show why a defensive treaty doesn't improve any hypothetical situation necessarily.

 

Furthermore, to Prodigalmoon, your reference of "we" and the action on TDO brings really questionable motives to your involvement here.  There was a TON of outside involvement in the aftermath of the TDO hit and many claimed false pretenses for why they were involving themselves in the first place.  People were denounced as rogues, then denied safe haven, then others were overzealously pursued and punished.  On the other side tons of nations became just as big of rogues hitting the original mushqaeda guys in the name of justice for TDO.  Fact is, the community is accepting of neutrality, but not the need to protect it.  

 

tl'dr - your reference is horribly outdated and downright ignorant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will be that before or after their second raid on GPA?

Times DBDC has raided GPA = 0

Times Valhalla has raided GPA = 1

 

We've never had to make up or hide behind a fake CB, have never charged reps to any alliance, and have never had to build a coalition of 3100 nations to hit 700 nations.

 

Woodstock Massacre

Total Attacking NS: 50,434,562
GPA defending NS: 13,244,514
 
You normally have better things to whine about.  I admire your selective memory, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't about GPA it's much more personal.
 
Polar's boys got a stern talking to now were just waiting for Jerdge to get that same conversation from his handlers.


They did? Not by me!

Some polar members expressed their opinions which they have every right to do. If they have said less since, it's because they chose to say less. Edited by Dajobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it would mean that if you tried to roll one, the others would come to their defense, just as the nations within a neutral alliance defend each other.  It has been done before actually, though typically the alliance making the guarantee wasn't another neutral.  Neutral doesn't mean no treaties, ever. GPA and OBR signed treaties with other alliances in the past in order to have their neutrality recognized.
 
Neutrality as we knew it is dead.  That doesn't mean that neutral alliances have to wade into the pig pen of the treaty web however.

 
The GPA had this discussion in 2007-08. It resulted in a large amount of good people leaving - and not just those who formed Old Guard.
 
Basically, the GPA and other neutral alliances will never agree to mutual defence because it compromises their neutrality. We should not mistake their neutrality for indifference - as I'm sure all neutral alliances are worrying at the moment - but we should call it for what it really is and that's isolationism.
 
If there was more to be gained from the war system, which at the moment makes war materially ("pixelly") unbeneficial the second the nukes start flying around, then all the neutrals would be rolled within a month of any such war system changes. Edited by Ch33kY
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can do you call 1 million NS loss to NS gain from DBDC not being rolled. 

 

We all know why Dulra won't get attacked, and its not because of the tech. 

 

 

If I get your reference right, yeah no kidding.

 

 

Edited for clarity. :smug:

 

 

They're scared if they did that they'd be more zealously targetted, and they may be right.. and they can't afford to be targetted because Infra > Everything to the neutrals. They will only fight to defend their own Infra. They care about nothing else. They will never lift a finger to help anyone else, not even a brother in neutrality.

 

 

 Good Big Ego

 

^ That does seem odd typing that.

Since the OBR has twice defended its ally as requested in two world wars you may need to revise your definition of who "neutral" is. Besides for us "neutrals" TECH > INFRA :)

 

 As for the others I really would like to here more about this cloak of protection I have. Cuba had no problem testing it and frankly it hurt alot when he did. So feel free to expound on the knowledge you have that is so hidden even I do not know about it.

 

Respectfully

Dame Hime Themis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted Artigo, because I owe him one.  I would need wingmen, however, and it's going to be painful!  Volunteers? :P

 

This isn't about GPA it's much more personal.

 

Polar's boys got a stern talking to now were just waiting for Jerdge to get that same conversation from his handlers.

You're like my older DBDC brother, Artigo, someone I hope to be as ruthless and efficent as when it comes to war one day.

 

But when it comes to "some polar members" - I'm going to have to agree with Dajobo.  They do chose to say less. 

 

Those who believe they have the ethical highground don't stop saying so unless someone else can convince them it's for a higher ethical principal and/or they believe that someone else can represent their position more effectively.   My guess is that's what has taken place - i.e. nice to see you Prodigal Moon :D

Edited by White Chocolate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly the reason they won't ever go for your idea and precisely the same reason why DBDC's hit on Pax Corvus didn't include allies like DT/IRON/UMB/SPATR who may have wanted to help us with Optional Aggression (not that we ever asked).  We didn't bring a coalition, because a coalition wasn't needed.  As much as you particularly (as well as a few other posters on this page) want to see ungodly numbers stacked upon DBDC, I can't imagine you think us so shortsighted to not consider the implications of our actions.  If the major neutrals cared as much about their pixels as you assume they do, they'd have signed such an imaginary treaty long ago and made many a defensive pact to preserve their beautiful pristine casualty counts.  If you would listen to their public statements you would glean that they care about their neutrality more than their stats and signing any form of treaty such as you suggest would violate the core of their beliefs.

 

Bottom line is, if they're going to stack NS against attackers, you just bring more attackers.  You're not solving a problem, you're guaranteeing it's going to be a bigger problem.

 

Just to clarify, that "we" that I used was an alternate history we, in which the efforts of myself and some others back in 2011/2012 (e.g., http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/109633-the-bamako-conference/) were successful. Were that the case, I'd probably still be in CoJ and would be a part of the "we" that would have responded when TDO was attacked. 

 

I find it really entertaining though that I hear so much tough guy challenging from your members, but when Hal brings up the one turn of events that could counter your hegemony in the upper tier, your response is "Oh no, you don't want to do that, that wouldn't work, it's against their beliefs." I'm sure you'll do just fine in your War on Pax. But against the combined forces of GPA/WTF/Pax/TDO/GOP? It would be too damaging, even if you brought all your satellites with you. If you won - which you probably would - we're in a multi-Polar world here, and after your victory you'd be weakened enough for all the enemies you've made over the past year to take their shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Good Big Ego

 

^ That does seem odd typing that.

Since the OBR has twice defended its ally as requested in two world wars you may need to revise your definition of who "neutral" is. Besides for us "neutrals" TECH > INFRA :)

 

 As for the others I really would like to here more about this cloak of protection I have. Cuba had no problem testing it and frankly it hurt alot when he did. So feel free to expound on the knowledge you have that is so hidden even I do not know about it.

 

Respectfully

Dame Hime Themis

Actually, I do not disdain soft neutrals much at all. FEAR itself only has ODP ties to the treaty web at the moment. I was just speaking hypothetically about hard neutrals.

Which, was a little off-topic I suppose. So apologies for that, I got swept up in the drama. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it would mean that if you tried to roll one, the others would come to their defense, just as the nations within a neutral alliance defend each other.  It has been done before actually, though typically the alliance making the guarantee wasn't another neutral.  Neutral doesn't mean no treaties, ever. GPA and OBR signed treaties with other alliances in the past in order to have their neutrality recognized.

 

Neutrality as we knew it is dead.  That doesn't mean that neutral alliances have to wade into the pig pen of the treaty web however.

Then they're not neutral. That's why they don't do it, or I assume. I agree with you in that it's what I would do, but hey, we're both in non-neutral alliances for a reason.

Edited by Gibsonator21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted Artigo, because I owe him one.  I would need wingmen, however, and it's going to be painful!  Volunteers? :P

You're like my older DBDC brother, Artigo, someone I hope to be as ruthless and efficent as when it comes to war one day.

 

But when it comes to "some polar members" - I'm going to have to agree with Dajobo.  They do chose to say less. 

 

Those who believe they have the ethical highground don't stop saying so unless someone else can convince them it's for a higher ethical principal and/or they believe that someone else can represent their position more effectively.   My guess is that's what has taken place - i.e. nice to see you Prodigal Moon :D

 

Oh WC <3 you're always welcome to raid me :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Times DBDC has raided GPA = 0

Times Valhalla has raided GPA = 1

 

We've never had to make up or hide behind a fake CB, have never charged reps to any alliance, and have never had to build a coalition of 3100 nations to hit 700 nations.

 

Woodstock Massacre

Total Attacking NS: 50,434,562
GPA defending NS: 13,244,514
 
You normally have better things to whine about.  I admire your selective memory, though.

 

Actually there was a declaration of war involved in Valhalla's case (assuming you are talking about the infamous Woodstock Massacre), thus it was not a raid.

 

If you are trying to claim to be actually noble here, I'm sorry but you are missing your calling.  You really need to get out to L.A. and start a career as a stand up comedian, because that is the funniest shit I've heard all week.

 

 
The GPA had this discussion in 2007-08. It resulted in a large amount of good people leaving - and not just those who formed Old Guard.
 
Basically, the GPA and other neutral alliances will never agree to mutual defence because it compromises their neutrality. We should not mistake their neutrality for indifference - as I'm sure all neutral alliances are worrying at the moment - but we should call it for what it really is and that's isolationism.
 
If there was more to be gained from the war system, which at the moment makes war materially ("pixelly") unbeneficial the second the nukes start flying around, then all the neutrals would be rolled within a month of any such war system changes.

I would submit that whether they are indifferent or not, their fate will be the same unless they learn to think differently and redefine neutrality.  Any number of people have come to these forums and sneered at those who insist on going it alone and not joining an alliance or getting a protectorate and suddenly find themselves being raided off Planet Bob.

 

You also underestimate the lengths to which people will go to end their boredom.  Attacking a neutral alliance has gotten to be a habit with certain parties, and there is no indication that they intend to stop.

 

Then they're not neutral. That's why they don't do it, or I assume. I agree with you in that it's what I would do, but hey, we're both in non-neutral alliances for a reason.

Neutrals associating exclusive with neutrals and foregoing treaties with other alliances except perhaps NAPs or recognition of neutrality agreements would not be a route I would want to go, nor you either, precisely because we seek a path that leads to a more aggressive stance in the world.  What I am suggesting is a middle ground that doesn't compromise their principles.  They are of course free to feel otherwise, but they do so at their own peril.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:facepalm: "freedom from external control" :facepalm:

 

You have to be willing and able to defend that sovereignty; since you neutrals are allowing DBDC to steamroll over each of your alliances one by one, you aren't going to maintain that sovereignty. But the wider issue that also affects us non-neutrals is that DBDC does not follow civilized norms like publishing a Casus Belli, establishing war as a process of conflict resolution between alliance sovereigns, and otherwise respecting the sovereignty of alliances (i.e. negotiating with government rather than targeting individuals). This is what separates civilized alliances from rogues. The only reason why DBDC has not been stomped like most rogues is a current weakness in upper tier physics.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its true everybody, we've secretly been behind every single major world event since the Karma war, you caught us :blush:

 

Manipulating your way around wars and encouraging the culturally disruptive "friends > infra" foolishness perpetuated by MK is not the same as engineering wars.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be willing and able to defend that sovereignty; since you neutrals are allowing DBDC to steamroll over each of your alliances one by one, you aren't going to maintain that sovereignty. But the wider issue that also affects us non-neutrals is that DBDC does not follow civilized norms like publishing a Casus Belli, establishing war as a process of conflict resolution between alliance sovereigns, and otherwise respecting the sovereignty of alliances (i.e. negotiating with government rather than targeting individuals). This is what separates civilized alliances from rogues. The only reason why DBDC has not been stomped like most rogues is a current weakness in upper tier physics.

I think you misunderstood the Shaka. What I stated, was not referencing the warrior Doombirds. It was in reference to your comment concerning the Genocide placed on my people and alliance mates. A forced change of the charter is a direct hit on sovereignty. So no, Mister gold turds, you are not correct and the Zulu tribe would appreciate more respect than that. The Shaka will speak no more on this as it does not serve any purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...