Jump to content
Johnny Apocalypse

Roll NPO? Also hello again

Recommended Posts

A strange morbid curiosity has brought me back here to see what you're all doing (all 3000 of you) in this graveyard

 

So who's the current underdog? Is there an active community somewhere of old old old old guard players?

 

Or like me have they mostly grown up and become more pre-occupied with jobs and not starving?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some old players are spread across Planet Bob holding watch during the end times.   I have no idea who the underdog is or if one exists.  I am just here to make sure the bad guys win.  Welcome back to a Plant Bob where at one time NPO, GATO and Legion had more members combined than every nation left combined.  I do not even know who  to troll anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Big Bad said:

Some old players are spread across Planet Bob holding watch during the end times.   I have no idea who the underdog is or if one exists.  I am just here to make sure the bad guys win.  Welcome back to a Plant Bob where at one time NPO, GATO and Legion had more members combined than every nation left combined.  I do not even know who  to troll anymore. 

 

At first glance it looks like the bad guys have won, sitting on their big pile of stats at the top of the list and doing very little apart from stomping on tiny dissenters.

 

So by that logic that makes anyone willing to challenge the current order the 'bad guys'

 

It's awfully quiet around these forums, which makes it even harder to troll anyone I'd imagine. To be honest I was surprised to find anyone active.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Big Bad said:

Some old players are spread across Planet Bob holding watch during the end times.   I have no idea who the underdog is or if one exists.  I am just here to make sure the bad guys win.  Welcome back to a Plant Bob where at one time NPO, GATO and Legion had more members combined than every nation left combined.  I do not even know who  to troll anymore. 

 

If there is an underdog, they're the proles, that or the remnants of moralist sphere. The game has lacked global conflict for several years now, so I think it's safe to say that our NWO from the Templarian folk won. Since I've been allied to them the entire time, as have the majority of all remaining playerbase, I guess we "all won" but must live with the dissatisfaction that the game will die without more global conflict or a truly resolute narrative ending. This could of course change, but it depends on how long the game runs and whether people intentionally kill themselves (a la Kash/Cobra and co. right now) or if they try to strive toward some sort of goal.

Edited by Tevron
somehow wrote undergod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Tevron said:

 

If there is an underdog, they're the proles, that or the remnants of moralist sphere. The game has lacked global conflict for several years now, so I think it's safe to say that our NWO from the Templarian folk won. Since I've been allied to them the entire time, as have the majority of all remaining playerbase, I guess we "all won" but must live with the dissatisfaction that the game will die without more global conflict or a truly resolute narrative ending. This could of course change, but it depends on how long the game runs and whether people intentionally kill themselves (a la Kash/Cobra and co. right now) or if they try to strive toward some sort of goal.

 

I mean, I wouldn't say the goal is to intentionally suicide. It's more along the lines of doing more than logging in to buy tech, pay bills and collect taxes every 20 days.

 

Actually playing war is more entertaining than playing de facto peace mode with the top alliances who are so inflated with stats that they cannot squish the tiny ants themselves.

 

Stop being friends and start a bar fight with each other.

Edited by Johnny Apocalypse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:

 

I mean, I wouldn't say the goal is to intentionally suicide. It's more along the lines of doing more than logging in to buy tech, pay bills and collect taxes every 20 days.

 

Actually playing war is more entertaining than playing de facto peace mode with the top alliances who are so inflated with stats that they cannot squish the tiny ants themselves.

 

Stop being friends and start a bar fight with each other.

This is just my insight, but I'll let you know how I feel about global politics.

I sympathize with the idea that we need something better or stronger, but I don't see how you can point to the top alliances and blaming the whole group. Let's look at political action in the top 20:


Of the top twenty: MHA, VE, DT, GPA, KoRT, FAN, Fark, NATO, Sparta, and GLoF have opted for a complete status quo for at least the last two years. These are the alliances you should be pointing to when it comes to "starting a fight", because (once we strike out Sparta, KoRT and GPA) they are reserve NS that are only in play if any of the bigger alliances call them in. They are passive actors. NATO/Fark/MHA/ all have direct ties to Oculus, which innately means they will 99% of the time defend and/or support their allies if called upon. The aforementioned but unlisted politically active nations are also directly tied to Oculus, which means they are also going to support and defend their allies. This means we can only look to Oculus members for action with regard to fracturing the political state and creating the global disorder you want to see. It (Oculus) has a supremacy clause though, so you would need to see it fully dissolved and individual treaties dropped for them to take action. This also includes VE/DT/GloF, who could theoretically pursue relations elsewhere and drop and potentially create spheres or whatever. In order to see such a drop, you would need to witness a very powerful political decision fracturing the bloc and ridding it of its "win button" capabilities, which seems unlikely to impossible. NPO IRON and Polaris hold a lot of power as the chief political actors of Oculus, but they have no reason to fracture relations with one another, from what I can tell externally. Why all the focus on Oculus, you ask?

 

We can see Oculus's innate effect to prevent global war already in the war at hand, where Polaris was totally comfortable entering and activating Oculus on behalf of Kashmir (it appears, or they posture in this manner) while IRON has respectfully avoided tripping it out of respect for Polaris. Perhaps Polaris also has privately or publicly pledged to not activate Oculus in this way, but it isn't apparent to the other political actors on the field (None of which who want the war to expand anyway), that they have this position. If Oculus itself as a bloc had declared neutrality at the start of this minor conflict or any other in the last few years, I believe we would see regional/sub-global wars. We do not see this because of fear of the complete and utter annihilation of our own alliances by our own allies. Take for example, when I was just a lowly GA member in GATO. CoTM was attacked by (I believe) Umbrella and Sengoku rather arbitrarily over aid deals. I opposed this and pressured my government to defend CoTM, but we were assured that Oculus would respond to any direct attacks on itself. We could not defend our ally without fear of our own allies (in Pacifica and Non Grata) from rolling us, and were assured that the swiftest peace for our allies could be earned through diplomacy... This is what I presume has been the historical situation in every Oculus-based war, and it is to be expected out of a monopolar world. I have no qualms with this, and actually am overall supportive of the sort of peace we currently have in the game. I simply do not concur with other players in shifting the blame to non-oculus or directly to Oculus though. Non-Oculus have the ability to attempt to fracture the bloc (which I believe COBRA is attempting with this nonsense war, but failed to do, which is why I now view the war as suicide) and Oculus members have the ability to suspend their supremacy clause and/or declare neutrality at any given conflict or juncture.

The most vital political actors are NPO, IRON, and Polaris; these actors power hinges on their own strengths as alliances but not only on the individual level --- it is the requirement that their partners enter alongside them that solidifies this position as beyond anyone. Even if we disclude the non-political actors, treaty ties and all that jazz -- they are together 615 nations with over 68 million NS -- Committed to only their own side of any given conflict, at war with all the other alliances in the game, they would likely win... If we add their other Oculus partners, it reaches 739 nations with a total of over 80 million NS. Should this supremacy clause alone not exist, I believe we would see more global wars, but who do they benefit? Surely not the communities that are active in the top twenty, and wars wouldn't even benefit the inactive ones either. You could point your finger to earlier and say "what about XX time when this happened" but Oculus had an even larger share of high tier nations and active NS at those times. We live in a monopolar world, and it is up to the dynamics in this bloc to determine global peace or global warfare. I made peace with this over time, and I think the majority of the world has as well. I do think it is possible that we see another global war through other means, but I don't see its aftermath as any positive development. In theory, we can blame the passive actors for doing nothing, the non-oculus political actors for not fracturing Oculus, and the Oculus political actors for not declaring neutrality, when it comes to why we no longer see global wars. However, is this a bad thing?

Tl;dr peace is good and is unlikely to change unless Oculus fractures or people just decide to hurt themselves. The alliance you're in is suicidal. Is peace all that bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:

 

I mean, I wouldn't say the goal is to intentionally suicide. It's more along the lines of doing more than logging in to buy tech, pay bills and collect taxes every 20 days.

 

Actually playing war is more entertaining than playing de facto peace mode with the top alliances who are so inflated with stats that they cannot squish the tiny ants themselves.

 

Stop being friends and start a bar fight with each other.

Except most of these inflated alliances have super low activity and offensives require people to do stuff proactively rather than just getting hit and nuking back so they have very little proportionally to commit. Unless they are ready to disband and rogue out, which they aren't, it doesn't really make sense. If people were willing to log in to fight regularly and were agitating for war, you'd see either people leaving to rogue more often or ghosting for other alliances and/or pressuring alliance leaders to change things rather than having to be begged to show up with that usually not working.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Tevron said:

This is just my insight, but I'll let you know how I feel about global politics.

I sympathize with the idea that we need something better or stronger, but I don't see how you can point to the top alliances and blaming the whole group. Let's look at political action in the top 20:


Of the top twenty: MHA, VE, DT, GPA, KoRT, FAN, Fark, NATO, Sparta, and GLoF have opted for a complete status quo for at least the last two years. These are the alliances you should be pointing to when it comes to "starting a fight", because (once we strike out Sparta, KoRT and GPA) they are reserve NS that are only in play if any of the bigger alliances call them in. They are passive actors. NATO/Fark/MHA/ all have direct ties to Oculus, which innately means they will 99% of the time defend and/or support their allies if called upon. The aforementioned but unlisted politically active nations are also directly tied to Oculus, which means they are also going to support and defend their allies. This means we can only look to Oculus members for action with regard to fracturing the political state and creating the global disorder you want to see. It (Oculus) has a supremacy clause though, so you would need to see it fully dissolved and individual treaties dropped for them to take action. This also includes VE/DT/GloF, who could theoretically pursue relations elsewhere and drop and potentially create spheres or whatever. In order to see such a drop, you would need to witness a very powerful political decision fracturing the bloc and ridding it of its "win button" capabilities, which seems unlikely to impossible. NPO IRON and Polaris hold a lot of power as the chief political actors of Oculus, but they have no reason to fracture relations with one another, from what I can tell externally. Why all the focus on Oculus, you ask?

You're giving them way too much credit here. Those alliances simply do not have the activity or interest level to do anything. To speak of VE/DT/GLoF in terms of being serious players is a hugely inaccurate depiction and they could disband tomorrow and nothing would change. MHA couldn't even keep its name and still hasn't taken it back, despite it being vacated over a week ago and has been in terminal decline for years. GPA claimed to be a in process of contemplating disbandment and effectively never did things. KoRT does not use modern communication mediums. With FAN, it has never really been super active since its heyday long long long ago and they freely admit they aren't interested in active playing.  NATO alluded to disbandment in a declaration two years ago but for some reason didn't happen and has been dormant for a long long time. With the top 3, they're the most active but even then, they aren't really super active and any war would come down to lower tier fighting once people get knocked out of the top 250.  Lower tiers are less than enthusiastic about perma-war and that's all an Oculus fracture will have to offer with one alliance having far more regenerative capacity than the other two based on people willing to give up tech for free.

39 minutes ago, Tevron said:

 

We can see Oculus's innate effect to prevent global war already in the war at hand, where Polaris was totally comfortable entering and activating Oculus on behalf of Kashmir (it appears, or they posture in this manner) while IRON has respectfully avoided tripping it out of respect for Polaris. Perhaps Polaris also has privately or publicly pledged to not activate Oculus in this way, but it isn't apparent to the other political actors on the field (None of which who want the war to expand anyway), that they have this position. If Oculus itself as a bloc had declared neutrality at the start of this minor conflict or any other in the last few years, I believe we would see regional/sub-global wars. We do not see this because of fear of the complete and utter annihilation of our own alliances by our own allies. Take for example, when I was just a lowly GA member in GATO. CoTM was attacked by (I believe) Umbrella and Sengoku rather arbitrarily over aid deals. I opposed this and pressured my government to defend CoTM, but we were assured that Oculus would respond to any direct attacks on itself. We could not defend our ally without fear of our own allies (in Pacifica and Non Grata) from rolling us, and were assured that the swiftest peace for our allies could be earned through diplomacy... This is what I presume has been the historical situation in every Oculus-based war, and it is to be expected out of a monopolar world. I have no qualms with this, and actually am overall supportive of the sort of peace we currently have in the game. I simply do not concur with other players in shifting the blame to non-oculus or directly to Oculus though. Non-Oculus have the ability to attempt to fracture the bloc (which I believe COBRA is attempting with this nonsense war, but failed to do, which is why I now view the war as suicide) and Oculus members have the ability to suspend their supremacy clause and/or declare neutrality at any given conflict or juncture.


The most vital political actors are NPO, IRON, and Polaris; these actors power hinges on their own strengths as alliances but not only on the individual level --- it is the requirement that their partners enter alongside them that solidifies this position as beyond anyone. Even if we disclude the non-political actors, treaty ties and all that jazz -- they are together 615 nations with over 68 million NS -- Committed to only their own side of any given conflict, at war with all the other alliances in the game, they would likely win... If we add their other Oculus partners, it reaches 739 nations with a total of over 80 million NS. Should this supremacy clause alone not exist, I believe we would see more global wars, but who do they benefit? Surely not the communities that are active in the top twenty, and wars wouldn't even benefit the inactive ones either. You could point your finger to earlier and say "what about XX time when this happened" but Oculus had an even larger share of high tier nations and active NS at those times. We live in a monopolar world, and it is up to the dynamics in this bloc to determine global peace or global warfare. I made peace with this over time, and I think the majority of the world has as well. I do think it is possible that we see another global war through other means, but I don't see its aftermath as any positive development. In theory, we can blame the passive actors for doing nothing, the non-oculus political actors for not fracturing Oculus, and the Oculus political actors for not declaring neutrality, when it comes to why we no longer see global wars. However, is this a bad thing?

Tl;dr peace is good and is unlikely to change unless Oculus fractures or people just decide to hurt themselves. The alliance you're in is suicidal. Is peace all that bad?

The context of the CoTM war was the wider conflict which revolved around a group of alliances claiming to want to dominate Maroon. Many people were upset with CoTM over their voting choices and due to their overall economic practices and wanted to take action and boot them off black and the remaining vocal members had been agitating for it for months. I knew this wasn't a practical course of action and had no expectations of our allies being enthusiastic about a long-term low tier war to boot an alliance off a color they are not on. So when one of the GATO allies implored me to hit CoTM, it presented the opportunity to sate the bloodlust by knocking them out of range in a short war that was tied to the wider conflicts and I waited for the slightest pretext to do so.   A contained war is obviously easier to speed up peace, but it wasn't a random conflict that it would have made sense for them to be neutral towards.

 

I don't really attribute a moral quality to peace or war but you have a point in that presents the path of least effort which most alliances see as good as they are no longer interested in activity, but for most of the alliances not in the top 5 or so, there is little to lose so if they are dissatisfied there's no reason to wait on the big boys unless they just want to keep their retirement communities going forever while complaining. The administrative burden of trying to round up players to actively declare and shake them out of their comfortable inactivity and prospect of long-term low tier warfare precludes the big alliances from having war as something they should want to do unless they don't want prop up those nations anymore and are suicidal. There's always been a group of people actively complaining throughout the game that do think peace is bad so they could organize themselves into a low tier league of sorts, form new alliances, and fight other alliances interested in fighting. COBRA and Kashmir have made their own fun over the past 3-4 years by doing smaller conflicts that the big boys have little interest in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You're giving them way too much credit here. Those alliances simply do not have the activity or interest level to do anything. To speak of VE/DT/GLoF in terms of being serious players is a hugely inaccurate depiction and they could disband tomorrow and nothing would change. MHA couldn't even keep its name and still hasn't taken it back, despite it being vacated over a week ago and has been in terminal decline for years. GPA claimed to be a in process of contemplating disbandment and effectively never did things. KoRT does not use modern communication mediums. With FAN, it has never really been super active since its heyday long long long ago and they freely admit they aren't interested in active playing.  NATO alluded to disbandment in a declaration two years ago but for some reason didn't happen and has been dormant for a long long time. With the top 3, they're the most active but even then, they aren't really super active and any war would come down to lower tier fighting once people get knocked out of the top 250.  Lower tiers are less than enthusiastic about perma-war and that's all an Oculus fracture will have to offer with one alliance having far more regenerative capacity than the other two based on people willing to give up tech for free.

This was basically my point though. These alliances that were listed are non-political actors with huge NS values. Who knows how many would actually fight, but regardless their side is clear in ANY conflict. I also stressed that the big 3 in Oculus have the power alone to fight the entire rest of the game, as far as I can tell. This is what gives them about 1/3 of the responsibility in our lack of global wars.
 

Quote

The context of the CoTM war was the wider conflict which revolved around a group of alliances claiming to want to dominate Maroon. Many people were upset with CoTM over their voting choices and due to their overall economic practices and wanted to take action and boot them off black and the remaining vocal members had been agitating for it for months. I knew this wasn't a practical course of action and had no expectations of our allies being enthusiastic about a long-term low tier war to boot an alliance off a color they are not on. So when one of the GATO allies implored me to hit CoTM, it presented the opportunity to sate the bloodlust by knocking them out of range in a short war that was tied to the wider conflicts and I waited for the slightest pretext to do so.   A contained war is obviously easier to speed up peace, but it wasn't a random conflict that it would have made sense for them to be neutral towards.


I agree that there is greater context here, but the justification at the time was due to aid sent to specific nations, and it only later was attributed to senate disagreements. This is of course from my perspective as (at the time) a regular GA member. There may be more info to be had out there, but I'm sure you'll see a common trend here in other conflicts against Oculus. Non-chaining treaties also contribute to the lack of global wars i'm sure, but great fear of being rolled into nothingness is hardly new to most alliances out there. I wasn't trying to say it was a "random conflict", just that this conflict is an example (a random example from me) where I saw how Oculus could harm/hinder global conflict. If Oculus was neutral when Sengoku (and i guess umb?) went to war, maybe we would've seen a global war or at least a bigger war. I'm certain we woulda got rekt by you guys, but I'm saying it is a factor in why these wars didn't happen.

 

Quote

I don't really attribute a moral quality to peace or war but you have a point in that presents the path of least effort which most alliances see as good as they are no longer interested in activity, but for most of the alliances not in the top 5 or so, there is little to lose so if they are dissatisfied there's no reason to wait on the big boys unless they just want to keep their retirement communities going forever while complaining. The administrative burden of trying to round up players to actively declare and shake them out of their comfortable inactivity and prospect of long-term low tier warfare precludes the big alliances from having war as something they should want to do unless they don't want prop up those nations anymore and are suicidal. There's always been a group of people actively complaining throughout the game that do think peace is bad so they could organize themselves into a low tier league of sorts, form new alliances, and fight other alliances interested in fighting. COBRA and Kashmir have made their own fun over the past 3-4 years by doing smaller conflicts that the big boys have little interest in.

Fair enough.  My overall point was that if you point your finger at the top twenty, you are right for the three reasons I had laid out. However, your point here makes sense too, and I agree with it. The low tier warlovers could all break into smaller alliances and have their own wars, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Master Hakai said:

the game is dead minus cobra wars and tevron critiquing cobra wars

I'm in the right place then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:

I'm in the right place then.

We're in the end game now boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Johnny Apocalypse said:

It's more along the lines of doing more than logging in to buy tech, pay bills and collect taxes every 20 days

 

It would help if people cared enough to do basic things like those...

 

Within the past 30 days 1097 nations have sent at least one slot of aid, of which 633 sent at least 4 slots. 359 nations sent 4-7 slots and 274 nations sent 8+ slots.

 

gexRCAW.png

 

If we take it out further to within the past 6 months 1736 nations have sent at least one slot of aid, of which 631 sent at least 24 slots. 434 nations sent 24-47 slots and 197 nations sent 48+ slots.

 

b6TKxEw.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord of Darkness said:

Within the past 30 days 1097 nations have sent at least one slot of aid, of which 633 sent at least 4 slots. 359 nations sent 4-7 slots and 274 nations sent 8+ slots.

 

If we take it out further to within the past 6 months 1736 nations have sent at least one slot of aid, of which 631 sent at least 24 slots. 434 nations sent 24-47 slots and 197 nations sent 48+ slots.

 

Just those lines mostly sum it up. I didn't post the received version of that but it's very similar. Only about 600 (20%) of all nations have at least somewhat decent or better economic participation via aid slots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 10:07 AM, Johnny Apocalypse said:

It's more along the lines of doing more than logging in to buy tech, pay bills and collect taxes every 20 days.

 

On 4/21/2019 at 8:50 PM, Lord of Darkness said:

It would help if people cared enough to do basic things like those...

 

Probably, but not this guy.

 

Also, hi LoDark. Congrats on getting the big chair. I haven't checked how much the system has changed over these last several years, but I'm still going to take credit for at least some of that aid slot efficiency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/24/2019 at 1:41 AM, bakamitai said:

Also, hi LoDark. Congrats on getting the big chair. I haven't checked how much the system has changed over these last several years, but I'm still going to take credit for at least some of that aid slot efficiency.

 

Thanks. Check your private messages on here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 11:37 PM, Lord of Darkness said:

 

Just those lines mostly sum it up. I didn't post the received version of that but it's very similar. Only about 600 (20%) of all nations have at least somewhat decent or better economic participation via aid slots.

 

I’m also assuming the vast majority of m these are NPO nations. They seem to be the only fairly active alliance left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2019 at 11:22 AM, kerschbs said:

I’m also assuming the vast majority of m these are NPO nations. They seem to be the only fairly active alliance left. 

There are (depending on your definition of "active") a handful of other alliances that fit the description, but NPO is the only one with a strong, consistent focus on slot efficiency as far as I know.

Edited by Edward I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 7:02 PM, Monster said:

GPA claimed to be a in process of contemplating disbandment and effectively never did things.

The GPA used to never meddle in the affairs of others, but it did things. That was a lot of time ago though.

We considered disbandment but in the end we voted against it. The alliance's activity was already almost nonexistent and since then it only got smaller. Having disbanded or not does not make any practical difference any more, at least on any matter that I know of.

 

 

As for the global situation: neutrality and peace - which, if we had bothered, were what we would have been recommending all the time - won. Even if most people (that still care enough to think about CN) wouldn't consider their attitude to be neutral or peaceful, actions (or lack of) count much more than words or thoughts.

(#theneutralmenace)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2019 at 10:02 AM, Monster said:

You're giving them way too much credit here. Those alliances simply do not have the activity or interest level to do anything. To speak of VE/DT/GLoF in terms of being serious players is a hugely inaccurate depiction and they could disband tomorrow and nothing would change.

 

I have mentally disbanded. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jerdge said:

The GPA used to never meddle in the affairs of others, but it did things. That was a lot of time ago though.

We considered disbandment but in the end we voted against it. The alliance's activity was already almost nonexistent and since then it only got smaller. Having disbanded or not does not make any practical difference any more, at least on any matter that I know of.

It lets you end things on your own terms, or at least on terms that you acknowledge. It's a chance to memorialize your alliance, share some memories, and transition the community's infrastructure (forums, Discord, IRC channels) into a gathering place for former members who want to come back and walk down memory lane every now and then.

 

18 hours ago, jerdge said:

As for the global situation: neutrality and peace - which, if we had bothered, were what we would have been recommending all the time - won. Even if most people (that still care enough to think about CN) wouldn't consider their attitude to be neutral or peaceful, actions (or lack of) count much more than words or thoughts. 

(#theneutralmenace)

Other alliances have gone out of their way to celebrate peace. NPO and its allies touted it as a sign of their success in years past, for instance.

 

And GPA was always an advocate of deliberate neutrality, not apathy or inactivity. People who create a nation and never log back in are model community members by the standard you outlined here.

 

My advice is to disband. If GPA has no desire to play CN anymore, there's no point in maintaining a formal, comatose presence. Anyone who cares about their nation would do better in a more active alliance; anyone who doesn't could still visit GPA's forums or Discord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2019 at 1:27 AM, Tevron said:

We can see Oculus's innate effect to prevent global war already in the war at hand, where Polaris was totally comfortable entering and activating Oculus on behalf of Kashmir (it appears, or they posture in this manner) while IRON has respectfully avoided tripping it out of respect for Polaris. Perhaps Polaris also has privately or publicly pledged to not activate Oculus in this way, but it isn't apparent to the other political actors on the field (None of which who want the war to expand anyway), that they have this position. If Oculus itself as a bloc had declared neutrality at the start of this minor conflict or any other in the last few years, I believe we would see regional/sub-global wars. We do not see this because of fear of the complete and utter annihilation of our own alliances by our own allies.

 

Comrade, be extremely clear, I wasn't posturing.  I have always done what I believe is right (or wrong) with great sense of occasion.  I have communicated clearly our position in relation to a collective of semi-rigid alliances beating the crap out of our friends.  Whilst they are enjoying it, have fun.  When the time comes for peace, do it without being knobs.  You were granted a limited license nothing more or less.  If I decide that you have gone too far I will say so, give you a chance to rectify and then take whatever action is appropriate.

 

All this nonsense about Oculus is merely that, nonsense.  Oculus has no responsibility to declare anything to anyone, it also has no part in this ''war''.  The discussions we had were between your alliance and mine, nothing more or less.  Polar is still alive and well and we will react when called on to do so, it is very hard to constantly be the aggressor in every war, so perhaps now you have tried it, you might like to try again.  You know where we are if you so desire, you are on my list of alliances that I need to roll for old times sake.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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...