Samwise Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 When I was running War Doves, I told them every round to expect to be hit with all spy operations and blockades. Why? Because when you expect to be hit with them, you plan accordingly and you're also not suprised/offended when it happens to you. Now, I never encouraged War Doves to perform these ops, but you better believe that if you downdeclared me, my alliance or I felt that your alliance was going to continue to come after us later in the round, I was going to hit you with everything I had in my arsenal. That's war. I wasn't taking anything personally, but rather attempting to eliminate a threat. As far as friendly wars/gentlemen's agreements, I never liked them. Not because I enjoy running these ops, but because it's just a pain in the ass when someone breaks it. I'd say that this happens most of the time friendly wars are agreed upon. And it's not really anyone's fault except the guy who ran the op, and more often than not, it was a mistake. He forgot to read an announcement or his messages got pushed to the bottom of his inbox from battle reports, and now I'm stuck having to find someone on irc trying to resolve the issue. Who needs that kind of stress in their life? That being said, despite my own reservations, I never turned a friendly war down. If you come to me expressing that you'd like to keep certain ops off the table, I will always agree, and I will always inform my AA the terms we agreed upon. Bottom line: I disagree that any ops are "dirty". I believe they all serve a strategical purpose. I expect you to use them on me. But if I'm messaged about a friendly war, I will oblige. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted January 17, 2016 Report Share Posted January 17, 2016 I thought TE was about war...what the fuck is dirty ops. War is war. Pull your big boy pants on and enjoy the ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RahulHP Posted January 18, 2016 Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 I thought TE was about war...what the $%&@ is dirty ops. War is war. Pull your big boy pants on and enjoy the ride. Bilrow is such a wizard with words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick GhostWolf Posted January 18, 2016 Report Share Posted January 18, 2016 (edited) don't you think you are tipping the balance a bit too much though? glance the aa page and total ns for D1 has already been almost halved. We do. Peace talks are underway, lots of people are already peacing out wars including myself. I thought TE was about war...what the $%&@ is dirty ops. War is war. Pull your big boy pants on and enjoy the ride. Dirty ops harm economy, not military. There is a time limit in TE for how long we have to build up, it is not unlimited like the other side of the fence. Furthermore nations whose economy is so ruined they are bill locked, are essentially out of the game unless they re-roll. Alliances can aid each other militarily by having each others backs but we can't aid them financially. Because we can't take care of our comrades in that regard, an agreement to fair play benefits everyone who abides by it. we can't just make a TE wide agreement and force all new AAS or old ones to sign up. my list sums it up. dirty ops borderline dirty ops with some war use category 1 and 2. then blockades. In the early 30s The Avengers started a non first strike/revenge policy in regards to dirty ops. essentially we wouldn't use them unless a NATION used them against us. Then in return that nation would be aimed with spy ops. disuasion was our strategy. Over those rounds it was your alliance in particular that seemed to use this as motivation to further utilise across the board these dirty ops. Force wouldn't need to be used. Those alliances who've signed the agreement would be making a decision that they're going to play the game fair, and would result in a list of which alliances don't use blockades or dirty ops. It's not a typical treaty like over on the other planet, where non-aggression or chaining comes in. I'd fully expect alliances in this treaty to war each other, but under friendly war terms with the expectation that any other alliance on the treaty would also give them the standard week out of war before attacking them. This would probably result in alliances choosing friendly wars with other parties to the treaty, and the results would be attractive to non-signatory AA's, so the treaty's signatory list would grow through both attraction and promotion. It would outline the fair-play guidelines, and stipulate that signatory AA's would be protected from one another in that regard. It would also theoretically provide a framework for members using those ops out of ignorance or rogue intent to be handled so that it doesn't blow up and suddenly everyone in a war's launching those ops. Any AA not party to said treaty would receive none of the protections. They wouldn't be forced to sign but no signature, no benefits. Edited January 18, 2016 by Nick GhostWolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilrow Posted January 19, 2016 Report Share Posted January 19, 2016 Dirty ops harm economy, not military. There is a time limit in TE for how long we have to build up, it is not unlimited like the other side of the fence. Furthermore nations whose economy is so ruined they are bill locked, are essentially out of the game unless they re-roll. Alliances can aid each other militarily by having each others backs but we can't aid them financially. Because we can't take care of our comrades in that regard, an agreement to fair play benefits everyone who abides by it. Exactly military use is suppose to affect economy. There should be nothing off the table as far as options in war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick GhostWolf Posted January 26, 2016 Report Share Posted January 26, 2016 Exactly military use is suppose to affect economy. There should be nothing off the table as far as options in war. If that's how you want to do things then that's how you'll do them. Just understand that there may be consequences for it that you don't like. There are many, many people who are perfectly fine hitting you until you start squealing about how it's "unfair you're getting attacked all the time". That's the ironic part of choosing to use dirty spyops, those who do invariably get all huffy and mad when they're subjected to dirty tactics in retaliation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RahulHP Posted February 13, 2016 Report Share Posted February 13, 2016 Bump.Before the next round starts, can we reach a consensus among all major alliances? 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.