Bob Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Everyone needs to stop with all these treaties.TPF has over 20 and I'm sure MHA isn't too far from that. How can we play this war game if we have to constantly think about "well i can't fight this guy because he has too many allies" I'll admit to having a few treaties myself but theres a difference between allying close friends and treatying everyone because you think it's cool or will make you win the game. Anyway, my point is..if we didn't have so many "pacts" this wouldn't be an issue and we'd have one hell of a end-of-the-round war. Hopefully an alliance with a lot of treaties will come to their senses soon and realize that they should start a war, not worrying about who they're treatied to. I'm pretty sure if you have 20 treaties...5 or so alliances will stick up for you when you get pounded on and the rest will worry about infra. I've played CN long enough to realize this. I think I love you. This post, just this. Its just so impossiblely annoying and makes this game as boring as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rude Empire Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 BG did go over the top with treaties. He just wants to protect his alliance if his alliance gets attacked. I only have a treaty with TPF and UW. Thats about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thaisport Posted January 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (FreedomvilleAT @ Jan 22 2009, 12:33 PM) *I'm pretty sure if you have 20 treaties...5 or so alliances will stick up for you when you get pounded on and the rest will worry about infra. I've played CN long enough to realize this. that is pretty sad if what you said is actually the case. it relieves me that NAAW only makes treaties with trusted friends and alliances with good reputation FV actually hit the nail right on the head. It is a sad fact. I can tell you that it happens on both the Alliance levels and intra-alliance levels as well. Small alliances usually less members are much less likely to be worried about infra, where as large sanctioned alliances often have people hiding within their respective AAs because they want to protect infra. My staff and I have personally worked to reduce this infra loving/hiding within MHA. The larger the alliance, the more you deal with issues like this, but all in all the more fun it is as well (well at least I enjoy the management part). Anyway - So far we have some wanting a war like this, others want just open chaos free for all (no team no color no creed just attack anyone and everyone), some like the GWIII idea but prefer longer duration. So if it looks like the general consensus is that people want to fight but everyone want to protect their own interest as well? Should we suggest to ADMIN to remove team panels and AA? Even i such a thing happens (which I doubt would ever happen) what would stop people from forming an alliance anyways? Ideas? *Opens a CNte Virtual Bar and offers everyone free drinks * Thaisport Edited January 22, 2009 by thaisport Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burning Glory Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 Everyone needs to stop with all these treaties.TPF has over 20 and I'm sure MHA isn't too far from that. How can we play this war game if we have to constantly think about "well i can't fight this guy because he has too many allies" I'll admit to having a few treaties myself but theres a difference between allying close friends and treatying everyone because you think it's cool or will make you win the game. Anyway, my point is..if we didn't have so many "pacts" this wouldn't be an issue and we'd have one hell of a end-of-the-round war. Hopefully an alliance with a lot of treaties will come to their senses soon and realize that they should start a war, not worrying about who they're treatied to. I'm pretty sure if you have 20 treaties...5 or so alliances will stick up for you when you get pounded on and the rest will worry about infra. I've played CN long enough to realize this. Well since TPF was mentioned, I'll put my two cents in....TPF doesn't have the most treaties, we are in second place If you care to venture back when you guys were WL you guys had the most treaties of any AA. But it appears its OK for you, just not us. Its not my fault you merged with NAAC and dropped them. Also its pretty obvious of your hatred of TPF as we seem to be the only thing you have to talk about. You don't see me naming AA's and pointing out things, trying to pick faults, or blame anyone.....I would appreciate you leaving us out of it your post. Let me also say that everyone we have treaties with are there for a reason rather it be friendship and MADPs or Mutual respect and NAP's, but either way its not up to you to dictate who we have treaties with, or how many, and why your better than us because you have less. I don't try to run your AA, or pronounce to the rest of planet Steve whats best for it. I simply do what i feel is best for my AA. I will tell you this much.... I have MADPs with AAs that i consider to be my friends, some are my best friends in the game like MHA, GDA, or Ubercon Some are friends from last round carried over like the peeps that formed NVO, also AAS, MI, WAPA and OTAN, while others are new friends to this round, like AZTEC, TUF, DCS, Hammertime, CB, UN and RF. We also have friends we have no treaties with that we put on a do not raid list or you could call it a NAP even.... such as PC, RD, CDT, MASH, LE, BW. I consider all of these AA to be my friends....As i said some are closer than others but none the less friends. I nor TPF is trying to win the game and quite honestly we could care less about infra or pixels. Our friends know where TPF stands, and i believe anyone of them would have our backs as a true friend would. This isn't the last round, 4, 5, 6, and so will come and TPF isn't going anywhere, the ones we count on can count on us for future rounds....Believe that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 (edited) Well since TPF was mentioned, I'll put my two cents in....TPF doesn't have the most treaties, we are in second place If you care to venture back when you guys were WL you guys had the most treaties of any AA. But it appears its OK for you, just not us. Its not my fault you merged with NAAC and dropped them. Also its pretty obvious of your hatred of TPF as we seem to be the only thing you have to talk about. You don't see me naming AA's and pointing out things, trying to pick faults, or blame anyone.....I would appreciate you leaving us out of it your post. Let me also say that everyone we have treaties with are there for a reason rather it be friendship and MADPs or Mutual respect and NAP's, but either way its not up to you to dictate who we have treaties with, or how many, and why your better than us because you have less. I don't try to run your AA, or pronounce to the rest of planet Steve whats best for it. I simply do what i feel is best for my AA. I will tell you this much.... I have MADPs with AAs that i consider to be my friends, some are my best friends in the game like MHA, GDA, or Ubercon Some are friends from last round carried over like the peeps that formed NVO, also AAS, MI, WAPA and OTAN, while others are new friends to this round, like AZTEC, TUF, DCS, Hammertime, CB, UN and RF. We also have friends we have no treaties with that we put on a do not raid list or you could call it a NAP even.... such as PC, RD, CDT, MASH, LE, BW. I consider all of these AA to be my friends....As i said some are closer than others but none the less friends. I nor TPF is trying to win the game and quite honestly we could care less about infra or pixels. Our friends know where TPF stands, and i believe anyone of them would have our backs as a true friend would. This isn't the last round, 4, 5, 6, and so will come and TPF isn't going anywhere, the ones we count on can count on us for future rounds....Believe that! Who has more treaties than you? And you do realize that FV was NAAC before, so she had a grand total of...0 treaties? The hatred of TPF? Dude, you have 23 treaties. Its difficult not to be awed at that, and it is what makes the game boring because no one will attack you or anyone else for that matter out of fear of the web. The only reason you get people saying things like this is the sheer ridiculousness of your game behavior to sign 23 treaties, and while you might not believe this, any treaty you sign is the business of this forum and so people will comment on this and you shouldn't take it as a personal affront, because its not. It is fact. You do what is best for your AA by destroying the ingame experience of everybody else that plays this game, because guess what? This game is not about treaties, its not about politics, its about war, and war is best done in an even way. 23 treaties =/= a fun war, it means a beatdown. You aren't trying to win the game eh? Could have fooled me. Is there some other reason to have 23 treaties? And yes, I do realize you know my nation name etc and I honestly don't care. You would destroy me in a war because I don't raid on a daily basis and haven't since the first month. I want a war that will be fun not a boring beatdown. Going to go ahead and say thanks to thaisport though, that's the attitude this game needs more of. Edited January 23, 2009 by Penlugue Solaris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strykewolf Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 ((chuckles)) No treaty with TPF; jest an understanding. It will be interesting on how this all goes down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arcticllama Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 maybe it should just be a color war :lol: i'ma gonna suck in that case... brown is pretty sparse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strykewolf Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 maybe it should just be a color war :lol: i'ma gonna suck in that case... brown is pretty sparse Like you don't have me... ...rollin....rollin....rollin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain B Bear Posted January 23, 2009 Report Share Posted January 23, 2009 or me...... If there is gonna be a war, then everybody should just shut up about it and do it.. Gen. Patton had it right, "Just give me 2 armies and I'll march right on to Moscow." Look people, if we are to go to war as all of you are proposing then it should just happen. Pick an opponet and give em hell. use your alliance to its fullest abilities. there is no need for all of this talk. either you fight or you dont. remember K.I.S.S., (Keep It Simple Stupid), this should also applie to war. If everybody just talks about it then it will never happen. Lets not Be like the actual United Nations, all they do is talk and waist time and money. Let us do this the old fashioned way. Pick a foe and Kill em. If War is what you want, "just do it." in the Imortal words of the U.S. Army Infantry, "Kill Em All, And Let God Sort Em Out" Former U.S. Army Infantry Soldier. 3rd Platoon, Aco, 3rd Battalion 502nd INF, 101st ABN Division Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owned-You Posted January 24, 2009 Report Share Posted January 24, 2009 I am trying to win the game. Crucify me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts