Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think I've ever bothered replying to you in the past, but Roq's DoW certainly makes no mention of declaring this war simply because we "do what we like." Did you look past our sweet war flag and the bolded letters, to the second and third paragraphs explaining the necessity for this action? MI6 created a self-fulfilling prophecy in believing we were out to get them even while we were still allied, thus ruining the relationship. They then made us their enemy after the cancellation, all but forcing us to react. Does it make more sense to give former allies a grace period war after cancellation if that prior ally sees you (instead of its own leadership) as their downfall, blames you, and targets you for revenge? Or is it wiser to do something about a looming threat from the get go?

I really don't know all the internals of your relationship with MI6, but I really hate it when people say their aggression was defensive or "reactive" in nature.  It was done in Disorder as well when clearly it was just because you didn't like NG or NSO and it was politically convenient for you.  The same is going on here.

 

You could say MI6 accurately predicted you'd do this.  That's not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's just an excuse you are using.  You cancelled on them and MI6 didn't force Umbrella to react.  Umbrella acted based on what it felt was the most favorable outcome and MI6 was not apart of that picture.  Lets call a spade a spade.  Umbrella isn't a martyr here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know all the internals of your relationship with MI6, but I really hate it when people say their aggression was defensive or "reactive" in nature.  It was done in Disorder as well when clearly it was just because you didn't like NG or NSO and it was politically convenient for you.  The same is going on here.

 

You could say MI6 accurately predicted you'd do this.  That's not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's just an excuse you are using.  You cancelled on them and MI6 didn't force Umbrella to react.  Umbrella acted based on what it felt was the most favorable outcome and MI6 was not apart of that picture.  Lets call a spade a spade.  Umbrella isn't a martyr here.

 

Thank you steve. A great post I might add.

 

o7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know all the internals of your relationship with MI6, but I really hate it when people say their aggression was defensive or "reactive" in nature.  It was done in Disorder as well when clearly it was just because you didn't like NG or NSO and it was politically convenient for you.  The same is going on here.

 

You could say MI6 accurately predicted you'd do this.  That's not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's just an excuse you are using.  You cancelled on them and MI6 didn't force Umbrella to react.  Umbrella acted based on what it felt was the most favorable outcome and MI6 was not apart of that picture.  Lets call a spade a spade.  Umbrella isn't a martyr here.

 

Heyyy, someone thats not MI6 finally gets it!

 

o/ Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know all the internals of your relationship with MI6, but I really hate it when people say their aggression was defensive or "reactive" in nature.  It was done in Disorder as well when clearly it was just because you didn't like NG or NSO and it was politically convenient for you.  The same is going on here.

 

You could say MI6 accurately predicted you'd do this.  That's not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's just an excuse you are using.  You cancelled on them and MI6 didn't force Umbrella to react.  Umbrella acted based on what it felt was the most favorable outcome and MI6 was not apart of that picture.  Lets call a spade a spade.  Umbrella isn't a martyr here.

 

He said all but forced us to act.

 

We've never pretended this wasn't our decision, but they pretty much asked for it with their active antagonism until they realized it could actually happen. We had other political and military reasons doing this that aren't directly related to the grudge between us as I said in the opening post.  

 

It's clear you are biased here and have shown that throughout the war, Steve. 

 

The conduct of upstanding fellows such as Charles in private has made this all the more a great decision. 

Edited by Monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The audacity of MI6 to question your loyalty while you...sign alliances that...were slated on the other side of an impending conflict. Oh.

While MI6 do themselves no favor PR-wise with the constant taunting, flaunting and all around mischievous !@#$%^&* they get up to (both IC and OOC), Roquentin has had a penchant for !@#$@#$ allies over -- albeit, usually in ~the little things~ -- since Umbrella casually avoided fighting DH-NPO.

Natan was better.

Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The audacity of MI6 to question your loyalty while you...sign alliances that...were slated on the other side of an impending conflict. Oh.

While MI6 do themselves no favor PR-wise with the constant taunting, flaunting and all around mischievous !@#$%^&* they get up to (both IC and OOC), Roquentin has had a penchant for !@#$@#$ allies over -- albeit, usually in ~the little things~ -- since Umbrella casually avoided fighting DH-NPO.

Natan was better.

 

Yeah,  screw those slimy Umbrella bastards for signing that treaty they had been planning on for over year, since you could only be referring to one. The rest had plenty of approval from MI6 when they were signed. Unfortunately, the timeline doesn't really fit your narrative for the most part.

 

 I'm sure he's going to enjoy the charge you've leveled against him in part, as the head of our military in that conflict. Keep repeating dubious claims from almost 4 years ago, though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a "dubious" claim. Whether intentional or not, Umbrella was only doing half sets for their workout. We're talking a lot of weight they should have picked up that they didn't here.

As for the treaties, I haven't cared about getting in to the "inner workings" of politics in any way, shape, or form -- aside from keeping my !@#$%* little micro afloat -- for about 8 months or more. The fact that the treaty was pre-planned is not relevant; it's very easy to say "sorry, that would put our allies in a bad position." You have signed several treaties since Disorder that placed you on the side you are on. If they were planned since the end of last war or so, you are clearly enabling others to hit allies of yours. If they are not recent works, you very easily could have said "maybe after we go to bat for TOP, they'll probably need it."

By signing those treaties, you were positioning yourself. You could have stopped at any point and said "Hey, this could make us look bad or set us up against our older allies." Hell, you could have signed those treaties and sat it out or helped out even with allies on the other side. But that would take burning a bit of your pixels, eh?

Umbrella is a large reason why the current upper tier scheme of the game revolves around allying each other and on occasion taking on one or two alliances of the club -- with the rest firmly in position to risk as little as possible, of course.

Edited by Neo Uruk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a "dubious" claim. Whether intentional or not, Umbrella was only doing half sets for their workout. We're talking a lot of weight they should have picked up that they didn't here.As for the treaties, I haven't cared about getting in to the "inner workings" of politics in any way, shape, or form -- aside from keeping my !@#$%* little micro afloat -- for about 8 months or more. The fact that the treaty was pre-planned is not relevant; it's very easy to say "sorry, that would put our allies in a bad position." You have signed several treaties since Disorder that placed you on the side you are on. If they were planned since the end of last war or so, you are clearly enabling others to hit allies of yours. If they are recent works, you very easily could have said "maybe after we go to bat for TOP, they'll probably need it."By signing those treaties, you were positioning yourself. You could have stopped at any point and said "Hey, this could make us look bad or set us up against our older allies." Hell, you could have signed those treaties and sat it out or helped out even with allies on the other side. But that would take burning a bit of your pixels, eh?Umbrella is a large reason why the current upper tier scheme of the game revolves around allying each other and on occasion taking on one or two alliances of the club -- with the rest firmly in position to risk as little as possible, of course.


Nice post Rey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a "dubious" claim. Whether intentional or not, Umbrella was only doing half sets for their workout. We're talking a lot of weight they should have picked up that they didn't here.

As for the treaties, I haven't cared about getting in to the "inner workings" of politics in any way, shape, or form -- aside from keeping my !@#$%* little micro afloat -- for about 8 months or more. The fact that the treaty was pre-planned is not relevant; it's very easy to say "sorry, that would put our allies in a bad position." You have signed several treaties since Disorder that placed you on the side you are on. If they were planned since the end of last war or so, you are clearly enabling others to hit allies of yours. If they are not recent works, you very easily could have said "maybe after we go to bat for TOP, they'll probably need it."

By signing those treaties, you were positioning yourself. You could have stopped at any point and said "Hey, this could make us look bad or set us up against our older allies." Hell, you could have signed those treaties and sat it out or helped out even with allies on the other side. But that would take burning a bit of your pixels, eh?

Umbrella is a large reason why the current upper tier scheme of the game revolves around allying each other and on occasion taking on one or two alliances of the club -- with the rest firmly in position to risk as little as possible, of course.

 

Again, this makes a lot of big assumptions as to the sides being set when the treaties were signed or that there wasn't a possibility of us having allies on different sides before that. You'll probably disagree on this point, so I don't want to get into it further, but I'd rather address a general theme I'm detecting.

 

Going out of your way to end up on the opposite side of most of your allies due to one ending up being an underdog isn't really the best  way to make a decision. It was a hard lesson I learned at one point years ago when there was a particular war scenario where I had committed to support an ally on the basis of them needing it more and needing to "repay a debt." Needless to say, a good portion of our allies at the time weren't very receptive to the reasoning and it carried some real consequences and could have carried more if it had come to fruition(it certainly came close) and they weren't statistical ones that I was worried about.

 

It's not a matter of simply "going to bat for x" because there are other variables involved including how we get to the point where "going to bat for x" is a possibility. Plenty of alliances involved have allies on the other side.  One of your suggestions actually involves losing less NS than we are now. It all kind of plays into theme of  honor soaking or that of an underdog mentality, which is one people try to force others to have. People don't find underdog mentalities all too sympathetic a lot of the time as I said in the previous paragraph except when it comes to OWF PR and deliberately going out of your way to lose for its own sake isn't always the best way to help people. 

 

That's another really dubious claim because the idea of alliances with concentrations in the same tier allying each other has always existed. The Citadel existed long before I was able to get near a leadership position anywhere.

 

I appreciate you giving a relatively civil and reasoned response.

 

 

 

Couldn't do it without an edit. Please disband

 

 I was thinking about shifting the bolds around and I started without finishing and forgot to revert it back to its original form, which is why the people who checked the DoW didn't detect it until it was posted. :(

 

edited: fixed some mistakes in post

Edited by Monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It isn't a "dubious" claim. Whether intentional or not, Umbrella was only doing half sets for their workout. We're talking a lot of weight they should have picked up that they didn't here.

As for the treaties, I haven't cared about getting in to the "inner workings" of politics in any way, shape, or form -- aside from keeping my !@#$%* little micro afloat -- for about 8 months or more. The fact that the treaty was pre-planned is not relevant; it's very easy to say "sorry, that would put our allies in a bad position." You have signed several treaties since Disorder that placed you on the side you are on. If they were planned since the end of last war or so, you are clearly enabling others to hit allies of yours. If they are not recent works, you very easily could have said "maybe after we go to bat for TOP, they'll probably need it."

By signing those treaties, you were positioning yourself. You could have stopped at any point and said "Hey, this could make us look bad or set us up against our older allies." Hell, you could have signed those treaties and sat it out or helped out even with allies on the other side. But that would take burning a bit of your pixels, eh?

Umbrella is a large reason why the current upper tier scheme of the game revolves around allying each other and on occasion taking on one or two alliances of the club -- with the rest firmly in position to risk as little as possible, of course.

 

I believe I speak for alot of people Rey, when I say "huh?" Look, I have never been, and still am not an Umbrella fan. But I watched as they signed their Aztec ties , they were cheered by the likes of Mi6 and TOP because they thought it was solidifying their position. Their flirtations with NPO had been going on for a really long time, without the trigger actually being pulled on paper. Could they have said "Maybe after we go to  bat for TOP because they will need it." sure they could have. But where was TOP when Mi6 were running around literally ruining every FA avenue, where was TOP to tell Mi6 "you know you guys are literally sealing the deal with getting our sphere rolled." To my knowledge, Umb very vocally asked TOP to lean on Mi6 and shut them up for the sake of the sphere.... and it was not done. What choice did they have but to leave a sphere that took no interest in securing its own future? Roq has always been a realpolitik 1st kind of guy. If he could not improve his position through the sphere they were in, why would they stay? Treaties and the relationships therein are a two way street. Maybe you should be asking TOP what they did to address Umbrella's very legitimate concerns. Granted, I am , as you are, posting from 3rd hand information on the TOP-Umb-Mi6 dynamic, but I trust my sources are more accurate than inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're making some unfounded assumptions Rush but at least you added the 3rd party information caveat.

Either way it's always a sad day when allies fight allies so I wish you both the best of luck and the worst of luck simultaneously. :P

 

Like I said, it's not any assumptions at all (well, except the obvious assumption that nobody in TOP said to anybody in Mi6 "why dont some of you STFU for a little while and stop wrecking our sphere." I make that assumption because it is the impression I get.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did we get realpolitiked? Absolutely.

 

Did we make it much easier than it should have been? Absolutely. 

 

MI6 has some soul searching to do in regards to this one. I didn't learn all of the details until the last day or so, but to say we are blameless in all of this isn't true. Hopefully trading some nukes with Umb will help handle a lot of the vitriol being shown on both sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I speak for alot of people Rey, when I say "huh?" Look, I have never been, and still am not an Umbrella fan. But I watched as they signed their Aztec ties , they were cheered by the likes of Mi6 and TOP because they thought it was solidifying their position. Their flirtations with NPO had been going on for a really long time, without the trigger actually being pulled on paper. Could they have said "Maybe after we go to  bat for TOP because they will need it." sure they could have. But where was TOP when Mi6 were running around literally ruining every FA avenue, where was TOP to tell Mi6 "you know you guys are literally sealing the deal with getting our sphere rolled." To my knowledge, Umb very vocally asked TOP to lean on Mi6 and shut them up for the sake of the sphere.... and it was not done. What choice did they have but to leave a sphere that took no interest in securing its own future? Roq has always been a realpolitik 1st kind of guy. If he could not improve his position through the sphere they were in, why would they stay? Treaties and the relationships therein are a two way street. Maybe you should be asking TOP what they did to address Umbrella's very legitimate concerns. Granted, I am , as you are, posting from 3rd hand information on the TOP-Umb-Mi6 dynamic, but I trust my sources are more accurate than inaccurate.

I think we all trust our sources a little more than we should. In fact, there's a certain spy-themed alliance that would seem to be credible on that matter right now. I understand that at any point TOP or MI6 certainly could have helped themselves. That does not right the wrong that was committed.


Of course MI6 cheered for Umb and AZTEC to buddy up. At the least, they would expect that it would mean AZTEC would be slated to fight on the further side of the war (Aftermath) from them. The more treaties/actions going down the pipeline, however, the more it became clear what was actually going on with the treaties.
 

Again, this makes a lot of big assumptions as to the sides being set when the treaties were signed or that there wasn't a possibility of us having allies on different sides before that. You'll probably disagree on this point, so I don't want to get into it further, but I'd rather address a general theme I'm detecting.
 
Going out of your way to end up on the opposite side of most of your allies due to one ending up being an underdog isn't really the best  way to make a decision. It was a hard lesson I learned at one point years ago when there was a particular war scenario where I had committed to support an ally on the basis of them needing it more and needing to "repay a debt." Needless to say, a good portion of our allies at the time weren't very receptive to the reasoning and it carried some real consequences and could have carried more if it had come to fruition(it certainly came close) and they weren't statistical ones that I was worried about.
 
It's not a matter of simply "going to bat for x" because there are other variables involved including how we get to the point where "going to bat for x" is a possibility. Plenty of alliances involved have allies on the other side.  One of your suggestions actually involves losing less NS than we are now. It all kind of plays into theme of  honor soaking or that of an underdog mentality, which is one people try to force others to have. People don't find underdog mentalities all too sympathetic a lot of the time as I said in the previous paragraph except when it comes to OWF PR and deliberately going out of your way to lose for its own sake isn't always the best way to help people. 
 
That's another really dubious claim because the idea of alliances with concentrations in the same tier allying each other has always existed. The Citadel existed long before I was able to get near a leadership position anywhere.
 
I appreciate you giving a relatively civil and reasoned response.


As to going out of your way to stick with certain allies...how on earth is this anywhere similar to you attempting to stick your neck out for MHA and Sparta (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to here)? There were a lot of verbal commitments there that never really crystallized, sure, but other than that... I'm not seeing how they're very similar.

There's also the fact that in the leadup to the Grudge War, Umbrella didn't sign several treaties conflicting with what was seen as their main ally base (PB/DH at the time, TOP/MI6/GOONS now).

I understand perfectly that Umb could have very realistically been in an unfortunate position because of the treaty set that already existed at the end of Disorder. I do not understand, however, why you would attempt to make a bad situation worse from your allies' perspective. Now, you have shifted the weight that could have existed on your shoulders and placed it squarely on your allies -- specifically when you hit MI6. I am not excusing what MI6 has been saying, but you could have held off n them in some form or another.

True, Citadel etc. existed. But it wasn't one giant conglomerate of the sole owners of the upper tier. Is there any significant upper tier power more than one chain away from Umbrella right now? Although that may not be fair considering most alliances are one chain away from the goddamn neutrals at this point :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all trust our sources a little more than we should. In fact, there's a certain spy-themed alliance that would seem to be credible on that matter right now. I understand that at any point TOP or MI6 certainly could have helped themselves. That does not right the wrong that was committed.


Of course MI6 cheered for Umb and AZTEC to buddy up. At the least, they would expect that it would mean AZTEC would be slated to fight on the further side of the war (Aftermath) from them. The more treaties/actions going down the pipeline, however, the more it became clear what was actually going on with the treaties.
 

As to going out of your way to stick with certain allies...how on earth is this anywhere similar to you attempting to stick your neck out for MHA and Sparta (I'm assuming that's what you're referring to here)? There were a lot of verbal commitments there that never really crystallized, sure, but other than that... I'm not seeing how they're very similar.

There's also the fact that in the leadup to the Grudge War, Umbrella didn't sign several treaties conflicting with what was seen as their main ally base (PB/DH at the time, TOP/MI6/GOONS now).

I understand perfectly that Umb could have very realistically been in an unfortunate position because of the treaty set that already existed at the end of Disorder. I do not understand, however, why you would attempt to make a bad situation worse from your allies' perspective. Now, you have shifted the weight that could have existed on your shoulders and placed it squarely on your allies -- specifically when you hit MI6. I am not excusing what MI6 has been saying, but you could have held off n them in some form or another.

True, Citadel etc. existed. But it wasn't one giant conglomerate of the sole owners of the upper tier. Is there any significant upper tier power more than one chain away from Umbrella right now? Although that may not be fair considering most alliances are one chain away from the goddamn neutrals at this point :P

 

Again, that's not how it actually went down and there was no plot by any of our newer allies to go after some of the others. Incidents occurred which significantly changed the situation and the involved parties are aware of them. 

 

 

That's not what I was referring to, actually. I was referring to the TPF war, where we pledged support to TOP(funny enough), which resulted in a treaty cancellation even though it didn't happen and there were potentially several more that could have happened if the war had fully escalated. That cancellation in particular had some long-term consequences.

 

I'm not going to get into the specifics on the situation, but there wouldn't have been as viable of a counter for MI6 without Umb/VE participation.

 

Re: Citadel combined with its participation in the Continuum, yes. 

 

NPO/IRON/Gre/TOP were the owners of the upper tiers before Karma.

Edited by Monster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't know all the internals of your relationship with MI6, but I really hate it when people say their aggression was defensive or "reactive" in nature.  It was done in Disorder as well when clearly it was just because you didn't like NG or NSO and it was politically convenient for you.  The same is going on here.

 

You could say MI6 accurately predicted you'd do this.  That's not a self-fulfilling prophecy, it's just an excuse you are using.  You cancelled on them and MI6 didn't force Umbrella to react.  Umbrella acted based on what it felt was the most favorable outcome and MI6 was not apart of that picture.  Lets call a spade a spade.  Umbrella isn't a martyr here.

Lusitan probably said it better. MI6 isn't so much a threat as a treat. It's always a treat to hit someone who has it out for you, even if you thought you were friends quite recently.

 

The self-fulfilling prophecy part is real, though. All I wanted was to unite AZTEC/Umbrella/MI6 and company. But then certain parties, MI6 included, decided AZTEC/IRON were a threat, spread rumors to try to isolate and split them, tried to use Umbrella and others against them, and plotted a goliath operation to take them down, our newest allies. So do we keep the older allies in MI6, a treaty vote that barely passed in the first place, was almost voted down after the last war, and was finally annulled given the above cited information and actions? Do they deserve a grace period of one war where we're not allowed to battle them, even though they are part of the root cause of us being on opposing sides?

 

Anyway, given the manner that MI6 took the cancellation as an outright declaration of enmity, we're happy to join forces with our esteemed allies in VE, as some of the most suitable to match up with MI6 at an overall strategic level of play.

 

Also, who are you referring to in this post? I don't even remember hitting NSO. And of course I enjoyed hitting Non Grata. Destroying your nations was certainly more rewarding than seeing the aborted fetuses posted in our embassy on your boards, dated from before MK disbanded and we were still OTPs.

 

It isn't a "dubious" claim. Whether intentional or not, Umbrella was only doing half sets for their workout. We're talking a lot of weight they should have picked up that they didn't here.

As for the treaties, I haven't cared about getting in to the "inner workings" of politics in any way, shape, or form -- aside from keeping my !@#$%* little micro afloat -- for about 8 months or more. The fact that the treaty was pre-planned is not relevant; it's very easy to say "sorry, that would put our allies in a bad position." You have signed several treaties since Disorder that placed you on the side you are on. If they were planned since the end of last war or so, you are clearly enabling others to hit allies of yours. If they are not recent works, you very easily could have said "maybe after we go to bat for TOP, they'll probably need it."

By signing those treaties, you were positioning yourself. You could have stopped at any point and said "Hey, this could make us look bad or set us up against our older allies." Hell, you could have signed those treaties and sat it out or helped out even with allies on the other side. But that would take burning a bit of your pixels, eh?

Umbrella is a large reason why the current upper tier scheme of the game revolves around allying each other and on occasion taking on one or two alliances of the club -- with the rest firmly in position to risk as little as possible, of course.

 

None of us pre-supposed that these spheres would be on opposite sides. It isn't until much later that a revisionist would say a year's worth of slow diplomacy and added treaties constitutes side switching and abandoning allies.

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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...