Terms for NAAW

[Dagrr]

I declared on another guy today who seems to be on at update, so perhaps I'll be anarchied today.

Even I can't fight 5 v 1 for very long.

6 v 1 is where the fun's at.

[g-money]

It doesn't look good for me tonight. I never should have spoke up. Oh well anarchy here I come.

[daddyAGW]

Any chance the leaders from each alliance involved could meet for a chat, so we could find a common ground for a truce.

[Smallfrog]

We want them to stop raiding us. That is the objective in this war. When they are reconciled to that there may be common ground.

Or they can keep sulking and getting pounded into the ground.

[popsumpot]

We don't exactly need to anarchy you.. CMs and Bombing runs works just fine.

[Insane By Design]

The way I see things... Since I was attacked 3v1 and those nations were top 2% the longer I stay in my war, the less tech raiding they can do. Which means the less they grow. Lob a couple CM's their way so they lose a little infra. I will probably bring my troop count to 0 so they can not steal any of my tech. Preventing growth to the top 2% nations is alot better than letting a mediocre nation thrive.

As far as my nation is concerned... There is always next round!

P.S. This is TE everybody tech raids, I guess next round we will just have to tech raid as an alliance instead of each nation picking his own target. No DoW, no warning... just a massive alliance coordinated Tech raid (with peace sent afterwards of course, we are not animals after all)

[daddyAGW]

We want them to stop raiding us. That is the objective in this war.

Agree

The smaller Alliances are fighting to defend ourselves against raids by large alliances. Is there not a place in TE where a small alliance can be competitive without having to cower from the mega alliances? I am aware of what I'm fighting for. NAAW folks at this point what is it you want to accomplish with this war?

Except a NAP with MHA, we (Lafayette Escadrille ) have no treaties with other Alliances. The last war with Judgment vrs MI taught me a valuable lesson. This being, it matters what side of right or wrong you are in when it comes time for conflicts within TE.

Being a smaller alliance with no treaties, an alliance such as Lafayette Escadrille must be ready to stand up for ourselves and other alliances if the cause is just. I am not familiar with NAAW, but it was painfully obvious to me that war against Blackwater who is one quarter their size simply is not right. The shame is on NAAW leadership who felt that they could bully alliances around. Didn't Judgment recently display that a bit of humility should be required by all Alliances, even the strongest?

Edited January 6, 2009 by daddyAGW

[darkfox]

You should do the math over again. 130-80= 16? Might be some inactive members in anarchy. I'm sure I'll be in anarchy soon to add to the numbers though.

Perhaps you should reread what he said. "out of the 96 active nations"

[Satsukage]

Perhaps you should reread what he said. "out of the 96 active nations"

thank you darkfox, I was about to say that my math is fine lol

[ditchboy00]

Perhaps you should reread what he said. "out of the 96 active nations"

So there were 0 inactive nations in anarchy at that time? He either fails at math or logic you can decide.

Edited January 6, 2009 by ditchboy00

[Satsukage]

oh so he just doesnt understand logic, but his math is ok. So there were 0 inactive nations in anarchy at that time? He either fails at math or logic you can decide.

I'm aware that some nations that are inactive are in anarchy. I've seen some of them. However I am just estimating the last nations that are not in anarchy. No result is perfect and it seemed easier to just use active nations.

So neither my math or logic are failing

[KingDingaLing]

Agree

The smaller Alliances are fighting to defend ourselves against raids by large alliances. Is there not a place in TE where a small alliance can be competitive without having to cower from the mega alliances? I am aware of what I'm fighting for. NAAW folks at this point what is it you want to accomplish with this war?

Except a NAP with MHA, we (Lafayette Escadrille ) have no treaties with other Alliances. The last war with Judgment vrs MI taught me a valuable lesson. This being, it matters what side of right or wrong you are in when it comes time for conflicts within TE.

Being a smaller alliance with no treaties, an alliance such as Lafayette Escadrille must be ready to stand up for ourselves and other alliances if the cause is just. I am not familiar with NAAW, but it was painfully obvious to me that war against Blackwater who is one quarter their size simply is not right. The shame is on NAAW leadership who felt that they could bully alliances around. Didn't Judgment recently display that a bit of humility should be required by all Alliances, even the strongest?

See this is where your argument fails... We did not bully them, we offered peace terms and they didnt accept. If we wanted to bully them we would have rolled them in the first place before trying to work things out, they have been aggressive in this whole deal.

edit cause I had to go for a sec : And if we were going to be aggressive we would have alos attacked you guys and mash, because we knew that you two were joining in. The only ones that were a semi surprise was Genesis and CDT, we knew more were coming just not who. Guess they have tighter lips

Edited January 7, 2009 by KingDingaLing

[metal]

Agree

The smaller Alliances are fighting to defend ourselves against raids by large alliances. Is there not a place in TE where a small alliance can be competitive without having to cower from the mega alliances? I am aware of what I'm fighting for. NAAW folks at this point what is it you want to accomplish with this war?

Except a NAP with MHA, we (Lafayette Escadrille ) have no treaties with other Alliances. The last war with Judgment vrs MI taught me a valuable lesson. This being, it matters what side of right or wrong you are in when it comes time for conflicts within TE.

Being a smaller alliance with no treaties, an alliance such as Lafayette Escadrille must be ready to stand up for ourselves and other alliances if the cause is just. I am not familiar with NAAW, but it was painfully obvious to me that war against Blackwater who is one quarter their size simply is not right. The shame is on NAAW leadership who felt that they could bully alliances around. Didn't Judgment recently display that a bit of humility should be required by all Alliances, even the strongest?

This sums it all up.

I personally recognize & thank LE for their sacrifice, they did NOT HAVE to. I'm eternally grateful for those individuals that when they see a wrong that needs to be righted, make a stand and do so.

[unruly]

See this is where your argument fails... We did not bully them

raids + nuke + spy = not bullying ... did you do accounting for Enron, too?

[Burnin]

raids + nuke + spy = not bullying ... did you do accounting for Enron, too?

Sadly Sometimes pride gets in the way of honesty and honor. Easier to say we didn't do it than to admit wrong doing.

[Xonnn]

raids + nuke + spy = not bullying ... did you do accounting for Enron, too?

Enron people in CN? That would explain a lot of things now wouldn't it.

[KingDingaLing]

Sadly Sometimes pride gets in the way of honesty and honor. Easier to say we didn't do it than to admit wrong doing.

Considering we apologized and offered peace for the wrongs we did, this statement should be more looked upon your alliance. They had wrong doings in this as well.

[Neo Uruk]

Considering we apologized and offered peace for the wrongs we did, this statement should be more looked upon your alliance. They had wrong doings in this as well.

Despite Blackwater's adoring fans' feelings, this is correct. Blackwater could have accepted peace before any of their party jumped in, and simplified this whole situation. In fact, if they would have stuck to the first round of peace they were given, not a complaint more would have been made on these forums.

[metal]

Despite Blackwater's adoring fans' feelings, this is correct. Blackwater could have accepted peace before any of their party jumped in, and simplified this whole situation. In fact, if they would have stuck to the first round of peace they were given, not a complaint more would have been made on these forums.

Rey, once again, I admire your tenacity.

We definitely could have accepted the "olive branch" white peace deal. If it was simply as stated, I feel the BW leaders would have (we have in the past *shrug*) After this round do me a favor and reflect in and upon yourself how you may/may not react to the following:

1) Allow yourself to have X number of actions taken against you (as we've already went over)

2) Then in turn decide to fight back against the above.

3) Hear that your gonna get "rolled" (at this time it was just BW, no allies even mentioned)

4) Less than 24 hours later hear that alliance you've already gotten engaged with now wants to offer white peace. (conveniently after the rumors started flying of allies coming in)

No need to let me know what any of those answers are, just something to be considered.

As a small edit, it's to be noted that both alliances have rejected peace. It takes two to "go" or "stop".

Edited January 8, 2009 by metal

[Seth Muscarella]

hmm this looks like the perfect time for my first and last propaganda image

entitled "metal"

sorry metal, nothing personal, i was just sad that we had peace and wanted to get this out. ;-P

[metal]

hmm this looks like the perfect time for my first and last propaganda image

entitled "metal"

sorry metal, nothing personal, i was just sad that we had peace and wanted to get this out. ;-P

I would have ate that alive. We both know it.

[metal]

hmm this looks like the perfect time for my first and last propaganda image

entitled "metal"

sorry metal, nothing personal, i was just sad that we had peace and wanted to get this out. ;-P

I would have ate that alive. We both know it.

Also, no suits in BW, more warpaint.

[Seth Muscarella]

I would have ate that alive. We both know it.

Also, no suits in BW, more warpaint.

i thought you'd appreciate it ;-P it made me smile when i made it

[Commander Benji]

raids + nuke + spy = not bullying ... did you do accounting for Enron, too?

Raids + Nuke + Spy = good war tactics.

If you think it's bullying, go read or something...

Edited January 9, 2009 by Commander Benji

[Dochartaigh]

Rey, once again, I admire your tenacity.

We definitely could have accepted the "olive branch" white peace deal. If it was simply as stated, I feel the BW leaders would have (we have in the past *shrug*) After this round do me a favor and reflect in and upon yourself how you may/may not react to the following:

1) Allow yourself to have X number of actions taken against you (as we've already went over)

2) Then in turn decide to fight back against the above.

3) Hear that your gonna get "rolled" (at this time it was just BW, no allies even mentioned)

4) Less than 24 hours later hear that alliance you've already gotten engaged with now wants to offer white peace. (conveniently after the rumors started flying of allies coming in)

No need to let me know what any of those answers are, just something to be considered.

As a small edit, it's to be noted that both alliances have rejected peace. It takes two to "go" or "stop".

hmmmmm..... If ensuring that your alliance is no longer bullied, i would think once white peace was offered (even if it was conveniently after the rumors started flying of allies coming in) then you should have accepted it. The fact that BW continued to bring in their allies and escalate the war even farther by not accepting white peace, seems that they wanted to "bully" NAAW into accepting their peace terms vs actually just standing up to a bully.

Take for example the recent war with FARK and LPE. while it is unknown exactly which side started it, that war was quickly settled and FARK offered white peace to LPE. While we have no allies to bring in, i do believe that if we did, and white peace was issued before those alliances entered, LPE would have accepted it vs continuing with the war. (not saying that FARK is a bully alliance just stating that FARK is far larger than LPE.)

so again, BW uses her allies to basically form a larger alliance against NAAW (i.e. more NS, more nations, and far more nukes) and then basically tells NAAW to accept their white peace, despite NAAW offering white peace the day before.

and i do agree it does take two to "go" or "stop", but i don't blame NAAW for not accepting peace from BW, when BW basically spit upon the terms NAAW offered since they knew they had allies coming in who would stomp NAAW. it seems all the criticism from the BW camp against NAAW and Judgement can be said about BW.

if you truly wished to take the moral high ground against bully alliances, you would not have formed a coalition against NAAW, but simply accepted peace and shown through your actions that bully's can suffer consequences for their actions. it would have been shown through your allies readying themselves for war that smaller alliances can have friends ready and willing to show a larger alliance that they will stand up for themselves.