Rush Sykes Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Sadly that's what this coalition is all about, war without reason because they can. I'll enjoy the future watching many of the alliances supporting it now complaining and trying to distance themselves from it when the chickens come home to roost. The potential of a DoW on is an actual Dow on all... they just evolved your strategy! Also, I have no clue whats going on here, but my explanation sounded plausible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexio15 Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 It appears Schat decided to stop paying attention to CN over the past few months. More than likely he seems to have forgotten who you are at war with. We might have to stick him in the retirement home sooner then we planned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Avalanche has been targetted as a result of being allied to Polaris.This is not random nor war for the sake of war - Polaris and all her supporting allies will pay the price for her actions. There is ever a cost in fighting for sovereignty and freedom. At least the tyrants hide not their nature here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jalap Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Avalanche has been targetted as a result of being allied to Polaris. This is not random nor war for the sake of war - Polaris and all her supporting allies will pay the price for her actions. That is a bit over simplified. The formula would be more like (IF alliance is allied to NpO AND alliance is NOT allied to our side) OR (IF alliance is allied to NpO's allies AND alliance is NOT allied to our side) OR IF alliance is deemed inactive THEN wars can be declared without DoW. In short, I think Dajobo's formula was closer. He did forget to mention the reason: You're bored! You alliances with strong upper tier have been flocking together so hard that you got isolated with nobody to play with. So next time you forge a coalition, then have the guts to pick a war that also challenges your top tier. That would be good for you, would be good for us and would be good for CN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) I'm pretty sure that MI6 is not supporting Umbrella in this war. Sorry, next time we will politely ask Umbrella not to hit us... I am supporting them? How...? Now from where I am sitting I must have got the wrong impression, because to me it looks like MI6 aren't supporting Umbrella. It appears Schat decided to stop paying attention to CN over the past few months. Hee haw. :v: Mobile version mishap displayed RnR (his tag) over MI6. Edited January 6, 2015 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Avalanche has been targetted as a result of being allied to Polaris. This is not random nor war for the sake of war - Polaris and all her supporting allies will pay the price for her actions. Polaris' crimes aside (for I would argue they've done no more than most, and that they've done has been paid but that is not a topic for here), do you believe in alliance sovereignty, foreign policy aside? That is to say if an alliance chooses to abstain (because they do not agree with their allies mistakes or otherwise), do they not have the right to in your mind? Note that avalanche played no role in what you consider to be polarspheres crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Williambonney Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Polaris' crimes aside (for I would argue they've done no more than most, and that they've done has been paid but that is not a topic for here), do you believe in alliance sovereignty, foreign policy aside? That is to say if an alliance chooses to abstain (because they do not agree with their allies mistakes or otherwise), do they not have the right to in your mind? Note that avalanche played no role in what you consider to be polarspheres crimes. Didn't you know that no one has the right to think or act unless someone else tells them to, and exactly how to? :awesome: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Coulson Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Sadly that's what this coalition is all about, war without reason because they can. I'll enjoy the future watching many of the alliances supporting it now complaining and trying to distance themselves from it when the chickens come home to roost.Your side is just whining because you're losing. You were perfectly happy to take part in curbstomps when it was you doing the stomping. Edited January 6, 2015 by Phil Coulson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Your side is just whining because you're losing. You were perfectly happy to take part in curbstomps when it was you doing the stomping. I imagine you mean to say when it was Polar doing the stomping. That said, when was that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Attacking an alliance that is not involved, without a DoW, is bad.Attacking an alliance that is allied to the main enemy of the war, and claiming that is your CB, without a DoW, is arguably worse. If you're attacking alliances for holding a treaty with Polar then where's the offensive dec on Valhalla and whichever other large but inconvenient alliances that would logically include?Before someone plays the 'why are you supporting them then', I'm just a retired grumpy old man with no say in geopolitics these days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeology Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Avalanche has been targetted as a result of being allied to Polaris. This is not random nor war for the sake of war - Polaris and all her supporting allies will pay the price for her actions. So when you hitting Valhalla? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) So when you hitting Valhalla? When they cancel their Umbrella, IRON, FEAR, VE treaties. Best of luck to Avalanche o/ Edited January 6, 2015 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirchinny Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 We will give it a go. That's all we can do really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirchinny Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Still ridiculous cowardice. Their CB was because they could, no other reason. Classless cowards, end of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarkin Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Sadly that's what this coalition is all about, war without reason because they can. You centered your coalition's grand strategy for this war around delaying the entry of your allies for as long as possible. This could be charitably chalked up as you wanting to keep your allies from excessive harm. More likely, it's a combination of Polar's martyr complex and you wanting to toss fresh bodies at folks who have already spent a month or more at war. Avalanche's treaties, and GDA/Menotah's position in Sentinel, make it abundantly clear where they stand in the treaty web. You spent a solid month crowing about how the war was going to escalate on your terms. You never tired of poking and prodding and mockingly calling for more pre-emptions. Well, is it everything you ever wanted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacingOutMan Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Well, this is fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 I'm amused greatly by the lies in this thread and I thank DT from the bottom of my bowels for making sure the politics over the next few years will be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 (edited) Your side is just whining because you're losing. You were perfectly happy to take part in curbstomps when it was you doing the stomping. Trying to recall any time I can think of when Polaris attacked non-involved allies of targets because they were allies. But considering your lack of sophistication I guess it's too much to ask for anything more complicated than "bandwagon and raid everything." Edited January 6, 2015 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted January 6, 2015 Report Share Posted January 6, 2015 Your side is just whining because you're losing. You were perfectly happy to take part in curbstomps when it was you doing the stomping. Are we still talking about 2008? Who's whining? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Avalanche has been targetted as a result of being allied to Polaris. This is not random nor war for the sake of war - Polaris and all her supporting allies will pay the price for her actions. What actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Avalanche has been targetted as a result of being allied to Polaris. This is not random nor war for the sake of war - Polaris and all her supporting allies will pay the price for her actions. What crimes has Polar committed against DT? We are in a defensive war drawn in by a no-CB attack on our allies. Honestly if you want to paint us as the bad guys you're going to need to do better than this. Besides, this policy does not apply to all of Polars allies. It only applies to the weaker, more exposed ones. Since that is the case, please don't make blanket statements that all of our allies deserve to burn simply because we came in on a Mutual Defense treaty. This isn't a place for logic SCM. What logic was there? Honestly. Don't just blindly support an ally spouting nonsense. Attacking an alliance that is not involved, without a DoW, is bad. Attacking an alliance that is allied to the main enemy of the war, and claiming that is your CB, without a DoW, is arguably worse. If you're attacking alliances for holding a treaty with Polar then where's the offensive dec on Valhalla and whichever other large but inconvenient alliances that would logically include? Before someone plays the 'why are you supporting them then', I'm just a retired grumpy old man with no say in geopolitics these days. Maybe you should get yourself a say. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crownguard Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 I like you. But really? Your AA attacks without warning, without reason and you are "glad they are mad"? Sinking low. Still ridiculous cowardice. Their CB was because they could, no other reason. Classless cowards, end of. Yes. I am Kill. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=114926 They may not have been the lead actor, they may not have been the stem of it, but as was so eloquently stated: "An attack on one is an attack on all" As far as I am concerned, Avalanche can burn. Let them live by their principles and go on the pyre with the rest. I sat and watched them jump the bandwagon with 20 others to get their licks in on my alliance. If you want pity, you won't find it in this direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Hee haw. :v: Mobile version mishap displayed RnR (his tag) over MI6. Uh huh :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 "An attack on one is an attack on all" At the time I was busy storming castles in other realms, but I thought the phrase originally had a defensive meaning, not an aggressive one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 Yes. I am Kill. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=114926 They may not have been the lead actor, they may not have been the stem of it, but as was so eloquently stated: "An attack on one is an attack on all" As far as I am concerned, Avalanche can burn. Let them live by their principles and go on the pyre with the rest. I sat and watched them jump the bandwagon with 20 others to get their licks in on my alliance. If you want pity, you won't find it in this direction. It only applies to alliances not helping you do it though... 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.