Thrash Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 psh Valhalla, never change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 That's because Polaris likes explosions. Something we can agree with.Yeah I'll pay that. I don't recall NG ever being infra huggers either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 Yeah I'll pay that. I don't recall NG ever being infra huggers either. Confirmed. Having now fought alongside both alliances, neither seems to be the pixel hugging type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes the wise Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 I didn't realize until recently just hot useless treaties really are, especially MDP+. Having treaties on both "sides" of a war does not relieve your alliance of its treaty obligations. The fact that some people think that makes me sad. Seeing comments like "well they have more treaties on this side or that side therefore why should they help you?" Is ridiculous, that isn't how treaties work. Well, unfortunately this day and age that is how they work but that is not how they should work. Especially when you consider that the war started with no CB, just because. Sadly, treaty conflicts like this have become the norm, even quietly sought after, because everyone knows they if they tread carefully enough they can get away with it and everyone will forget it happened in a couple months time. Everyone throws up their hands when it's over and says " welp that's just how it works, that's coalition war" and they go back their merry ways plotting schemes which will inevitably screw over another ally, knowing they will get away with it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 I didn't realize until recently just hot useless treaties really are, especially MDP+. Having treaties on both "sides" of a war does not relieve your alliance of its treaty obligations. The fact that some people think that makes me sad. Seeing comments like "well they have more treaties on this side or that side therefore why should they help you?" Is ridiculous, that isn't how treaties work. Well, unfortunately this day and age that is how they work but that is not how they should work. Especially when you consider that the war started with no CB, just because.Sadly, treaty conflicts like this have become the norm, even quietly sought after, because everyone knows they if they tread carefully enough they can get away with it and everyone will forget it happened in a couple months time. Everyone throws up their hands when it's over and says " welp that's just how it works, that's coalition war" and they go back their merry ways plotting schemes which will inevitably screw over another ally, knowing they will get away with it again. NG had conflicting treaties in EQ & early said we would enter for whichever side activated us first.TLR activated us first. The rest is history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurunin Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 I didn't realize until recently just hot useless treaties really are, especially MDP+. Having treaties on both "sides" of a war does not relieve your alliance of its treaty obligations. The fact that some people think that makes me sad. Seeing comments like "well they have more treaties on this side or that side therefore why should they help you?" Is ridiculous, that isn't how treaties work. Well, unfortunately this day and age that is how they work but that is not how they should work. Especially when you consider that the war started with no CB, just because. Sadly, treaty conflicts like this have become the norm, even quietly sought after, because everyone knows they if they tread carefully enough they can get away with it and everyone will forget it happened in a couple months time. Everyone throws up their hands when it's over and says " welp that's just how it works, that's coalition war" and they go back their merry ways plotting schemes which will inevitably screw over another ally, knowing they will get away with it again. Unfortunately people only like to activate certain mandatory treaties as they feel like it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 And those people should sign ODPs or PIATs so it's clear what they are actually obliged to do. Global politics is all about protecting infra or tech, at some level. Nation stats are the physical manifestation of power, and everyone wants power, if only to be able to protect their own alliance. Some alliances understand better than others that in order to preserve as much infra and tech in the future, you have to be prepared to put it on the line: if your infra is only there for hugging, it won't count as real power, and eventually you're likely to lose it as a result. That's always been the case (to use a historical case, remember the 'paper tiger' of 2007 Legion) and it's always been true that which alliances are worth allying to is dependent on whether they understand that sometimes power must be used for it to still be powerful. I'm not making any comment about any modern alliances with this post, before someone accuses me of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ying Yang Mafia Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 NG had conflicting treaties in EQ & early said we would enter for whichever side activated us first. TLR activated us first. The rest is history. It was all downhill from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 I didn't realize until recently just hot useless treaties really are, especially MDP+. Having treaties on both "sides" of a war does not relieve your alliance of its treaty obligations. The fact that some people think that makes me sad. Seeing comments like "well they have more treaties on this side or that side therefore why should they help you?" Is ridiculous, that isn't how treaties work. Well, unfortunately this day and age that is how they work but that is not how they should work. Especially when you consider that the war started with no CB, just because. Sadly, treaty conflicts like this have become the norm, even quietly sought after, because everyone knows they if they tread carefully enough they can get away with it and everyone will forget it happened in a couple months time. Everyone throws up their hands when it's over and says " welp that's just how it works, that's coalition war" and they go back their merry ways plotting schemes which will inevitably screw over another ally, knowing they will get away with it again. There is always a price Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 You are right Londo. Christ the current world of bob are pansies.... There is only one Pansy, Mister, and he is allergic to infra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted December 22, 2014 Report Share Posted December 22, 2014 This "global politics" business seems to mostly center around protecting something called "infrastructure", but vehemently denying that this is the case at every opportunity, from what I can tell. Here at SNX, we can't seam to give it away fast enough :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Hoo III Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 This "global politics" business seems to mostly center around protecting something called "infrastructure", but vehemently denying that this is the case at every opportunity, from what I can tell. Hmph. Back in my day, folks were eager to rid themselves of infra and it's loss was a badge of honor. Kids today. I blame pop music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) Is topics like these and the replies from your allies that explains why this world is dying so fast. You signed a ton of treaties leading up to Disorder and didn't have the balls to cancel any. That's on you, not your allies on opposing sides. If we could force people to honor all their MDP treaties Planet Bob would be a lot better. Edited December 23, 2014 by Steve Buscemi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 This "global politics" business seems to mostly center around protecting something called "infrastructure", but vehemently denying that this is the case at every opportunity, from what I can tell. More people need to quit and then come back. It tends to cure that little fixation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keysariyt Hanssen Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 More people need to quit and then come back. It tends to cure that little fixation. The fixation that does not exist, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) That's because Polaris likes explosions. Something we can agree with. If there is one thing Polar and NG find a common ground in...it is definitely blowing stuff up. I didn't realize until recently just hot useless treaties really are, especially MDP+. Having treaties on both "sides" of a war does not relieve your alliance of its treaty obligations. The fact that some people think that makes me sad. Seeing comments like "well they have more treaties on this side or that side therefore why should they help you?" Is ridiculous, that isn't how treaties work. Well, unfortunately this day and age that is how they work but that is not how they should work. Especially when you consider that the war started with no CB, just because. Sadly, treaty conflicts like this have become the norm, even quietly sought after, because everyone knows they if they tread carefully enough they can get away with it and everyone will forget it happened in a couple months time. Everyone throws up their hands when it's over and says " welp that's just how it works, that's coalition war" and they go back their merry ways plotting schemes which will inevitably screw over another ally, knowing they will get away with it again. Good post, Wes. NG had conflicting treaties in EQ & early said we would enter for whichever side activated us first.TLR activated us first. The rest is history. That is a good way to do it. Is topics like these and the replies from your allies that explains why this world is dying so fast. You signed a ton of treaties leading up to Disorder and didn't have the balls to cancel any. That's on you, not your allies on opposing sides. If we could force people to honor all their MDP treaties Planet Bob would be a lot better.I agree. That would be very entertaining. Edited December 23, 2014 by Starfox101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hormones74 Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 I guess it's better than that no nuking deal you had last time around I agree, that was pretty shady of Valhalla. It was also the reason we canceled on them. CJ talked a good game back then to help gain our treaty then when the time to fight came along, their balls locked up. I honestly feel sorry for anyone who considers Valhalla a valuable ally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) I didn't realize until recently just hot useless treaties really are, especially MDP+. Having treaties on both "sides" of a war does not relieve your alliance of its treaty obligations. The fact that some people think that makes me sad. Seeing comments like "well they have more treaties on this side or that side therefore why should they help you?" Is ridiculous, that isn't how treaties work. Well, unfortunately this day and age that is how they work but that is not how they should work. Especially when you consider that the war started with no CB, just because.Sadly, treaty conflicts like this have become the norm, even quietly sought after, because everyone knows they if they tread carefully enough they can get away with it and everyone will forget it happened in a couple months time. Everyone throws up their hands when it's over and says " welp that's just how it works, that's coalition war" and they go back their merry ways plotting schemes which will inevitably screw over another ally, knowing they will get away with it again. Wes... I'm still waiting to eat you. Come declare on me, you know you want to come out of peace mode. After all, infra and tech aren't important.. being on my buffet is. I think I can guarantee you top 7 standing on smallest nation gains. How am I ever going to make 5 million casualties with all my fellow Christians hiding from persecution? Edited December 23, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Is topics like these and the replies from your allies that explains why this world is dying so fast. You signed a ton of treaties leading up to Disorder and didn't have the balls to cancel any. That's on you, not your allies on opposing sides. If we could force people to honor all their MDP treaties Planet Bob would be a lot better. How about non-chaining clauses? Should everyone honor non-chaining clauses regardless? Because if so, this war would look a whole lot different. Similar goes treaties that do chain, but honoring them would violate multiple MD level treaties elsewhere. How many treaties is it permissible to break to honor a single treaty? 1? 3? More? I don't disagree that alliances should look at their treaty set regularly and make sure that it is coherent and works with the FA goals established by the alliance leadership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 How about non-chaining clauses? Should everyone honor non-chaining clauses regardless? Because if so, this war would look a whole lot different. Similar goes treaties that do chain, but honoring them would violate multiple MD level treaties elsewhere. How many treaties is it permissible to break to honor a single treaty? 1? 3? More? I don't disagree that alliances should look at their treaty set regularly and make sure that it is coherent and works with the FA goals established by the alliance leadership. Personally, I think people should only sign treaties that they can 100% adhere to or the treaty should be immediately canceled. I know every alliance (including my own) does not follow that, but that is the world we should live in. And I know that if a stricter adherance to treaties became the thing to do, people would simply sign temporary treaties and other such stupid games to end with the same result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 Wes... I'm still waiting to eat you. Come declare on me, you know you want to come out of peace mode. After all, infra and tech aren't important.. being on my buffet is. I think I can guarantee you top 7 standing on smallest nation gains. How am I ever going to make 5 million casualties with all my fellow Christians hiding from persecution? How are you that large and old and have so few casualties? My guess is you shouldn't chide others for using peace mode. How about non-chaining clauses? Should everyone honor non-chaining clauses regardless? Because if so, this war would look a whole lot different. Similar goes treaties that do chain, but honoring them would violate multiple MD level treaties elsewhere. How many treaties is it permissible to break to honor a single treaty? 1? 3? More? I don't disagree that alliances should look at their treaty set regularly and make sure that it is coherent and works with the FA goals established by the alliance leadership. What is the FA goals set by Valhalla? Isolate themselves from everyone? Very questionable moves in 3 straight wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 How about non-chaining clauses? Should everyone honor non-chaining clauses regardless? Because if so, this war would look a whole lot different.Non-chaining clauses typically make a treaty optional, so I'm not really sure what you mean by 'honouring' them. Optional treaties have always seemed ridiculous to me, but the FA rules of the world require you to have a 'valid chain' to enter the war (as a Valhallan you absolutely know that in the context of this war!) so alliances sign optional treaties and non-chaining MDPs in order to fulfil that requirement and expand their options in case of their ally ending up in a war. Similar goes treaties that do chain, but honoring them would violate multiple MD level treaties elsewhere. How many treaties is it permissible to break to honor a single treaty? 1? 3? More?0 ... if this answer isn't obvious to you then perhaps there's something wrong with your alliance. Attacking your treaty partners, or their mandatory defence partners such that they can't avoid engagement, is a clear breach of the non-aggression clause in any treaty, and planning to attack their allies or the coalition of their allies is a pretty clear breach of the intelligence clause of any PIAT or similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 How are you that large and old and have so few casualties?My guess is you shouldn't chide others for using peace modePossibly not, but I don't have many more casualties and I've only used peace mode sparingly for tactical reasons, so it is possible if you spend most of your time either not at war or out of range of your enemies. (I think I got a lot of them fighting for VE, so it would be even lower if it wasn't for that.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 (edited) How are you that large and old and have so few casualties? My guess is you shouldn't chide others for using peace mode. What is the FA goals set by Valhalla? Isolate themselves from everyone? Very questionable moves in 3 straight wars. I literally only got this large within the last year. I've been growing at a rate of roughly 2k tech a month since the end of the last war. Keep in mind I joined in 08.. just prior to Pacifica's chain of defeats. You could say my growth was suppressed for a while. There is no use of peace mode here, my war record shows I have fought in every war and have well over 100 some wars under my belt. So yes, I do chide others for using peace mode, most notably, when I'm hungry.. which is always. For me there is only two, nah, 3 justifications for using peace. 1. Restocking nukes. 2. Permanent dedication as a nation-building neutral who is here on bob for another purpose other than to compete. 3. A few banks for each alliance. (Not over half an aa's worth of banks.) And Fox.. I hope one day I can fight you, I really despise those that attempt to tarnish my perfect record as a ravenous carnivore who gladly burns for my creator and I'd love to stand in front of your flamethrower to prove it. Problem is.. only one person in polar is able to fight me and you are not them. Trust me, I've become very aware of who I can and cannot eat and their war status of late. I have yet to go over 9k infra yet. I'm just that much of a fanatic. Also, have you considered maybe they're so low because others are making excessive use of peace rendering me without food, just like they are now? Your coalition's paltry performance might actually see me finally break my glass ceiling on my infra.. which saddens me.. I'd rather break the 5M ceiling on casualties. Edited December 23, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted December 23, 2014 Report Share Posted December 23, 2014 I literally only got this large within the last year. I've been growing at a rate of roughly 2k tech a month since the end of the last war. Keep in mind I joined in 08.. just prior to Pacifica's chain of defeats. You could say my growth was suppressed for a while. There is no use of peace mode here, my war record shows I have fought in every war and have well over 100 some wars under my belt. So yes, I do chide others for using peace mode, most notably, when I'm hungry.. which is always. For me there is only two justifications for using peace. 1. Restocking nukes. 2. Permanent dedication as a nation-building neutral who is here on bob for another purpose other than to compete. 3. A few banks for each alliance. (Not over half an aa's worth of banks.) And Fox.. I hope one day I can fight you, I really despise those that attempt to tarnish my perfect record as a ravenous carnivore who gladly burns for my creator. I have yet to go over 9k infra yet. Also, have you considered maybe they're so low because others are making excessive use of peace rendering me without food, just like they are now? Doesn't look like dragons are very tough at all :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts