The Big Bad Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Are the odds against them? Who exactly is gunning for TGE? No one, how can you gun for TGE they are pretty much DOA. They are mostly inactives and the few active parts of its government don't talk to each other and spends all its time plotting on each other. FoK should just absorb TGE or at the very least clean out its entire so called government and replace it with its own people until they get something resembling order in that mess. You have to give FoK credit for trying to save TGE the hardest thing to do is to try and save an alliance from itself. Good luck with that guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowman809 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 So what was your point? That someone is out to get TGE? I'm not touching that bet. How about the bet that the next cancellation with either FOK or TGE will request (OOC) a lock as to not have any of this spill over into it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I would like to raise a question. If you have a treaty partner that is giving you no communication, and relations with them have dropped to nothing, then why do you keep the treaty around? Why does something always have to have a hidden meaning or a secret attack behind something? I for one, believe that if you have an empty treaty, it's pointless to keep it around. Actions like keeping empty treaties around are what lead to such sudden breaks before an attack, as some are suggesting. Now maybe I'm out of the loop, but I don't know of anyone gunning for TGE, and don't see NADC running from anything. Therefore, I can see why this was posted, but I don't know why all the NADC bashing is needed. But then again, maybe it's just the trend to keep empty treaties these days. Generally speaking, if you and your treaty partner get to that stage, chances are the treaty shouldn't have been signed to begin with. Treaties should be signed between close friends whose bonds were strong and whose communication was fruitful and pleasant BEFORE any idea of a treaty popped up. Most alliances out there have more than one treaty that I would call empty, and that isn't worth the paper it's written on, and those treaties should be dropped, you're absolutely right. If the treaty is pointless, if it was signed merely to add bodies to your side, any time is a good time to rethink it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I wouldn't say they're jumping in front of the train. It's more like they've got their own train on the same tracks going the opposite way. Except the Continuum train one hundred cars filled with lumber and a cannon in the front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shurukian Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Nothing wrong with dropping dated treaties, the reason NADC is getting bashed in here some is because few give them credit enough to make that decision without being prodded (how many people do you honestly know that audit and cancel ODPs? There's people with MDoAP's on this game that hate each other, for crying out loud). Therefore, most are concluding - however rightly - that NADC is merely fulfilling a back room request to drop an ally.Something not a lot of people are big fans of, apparently. If anything, I would contribute the opinion that any treaty should be audited as such. If you have a treaty, of any level, and it's not worth the paper it's not even on, then why keep it? It's the way I look at my treaties. If I don't have a trustable friendship with the alliance I'm treatied to, then I'm not about to keep that treaty. Now I would like to fancy myself as knowing a bit about NADC since I was almost one of their protectorates, and I would venture to say that they share the same mindset as me. When it comes down to it, I think of myself as an honorable person, and If the other alliance I'm treatied to isn't holding up on their end, then they don't deserve that honor. That's simply how I view treaties, and how I believe treaties should be viewed. And I think NADC is starting to follow along the same viewpoint. They're in a growing and shaping period, and maybe more alliances would realize that honorable treaties are the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphosis Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 If anything, I would contribute the opinion that any treaty should be audited as such. If you have a treaty, of any level, and it's not worth the paper it's not even on, then why keep it? Hey, I agree. I've written papers on this for my blog in the past. I'm just saying I don't think the ideals really apply to the reality of what's up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Except the Continuum train one hundred cars filled with lumber and a cannon in the front. Doesn't really matter how heavy it is if the wheels wobble and cars keep detaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Except the Continuum train one hundred cars filled with lumber and a cannon in the front. Looks like you are up first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Nothing wrong with dropping dated treaties, the reason NADC is getting bashed in here some is because few give them credit enough to make that decision without being prodded (how many people do you honestly know that audit and cancel ODPs? There's people with MDoAP's on this game that hate each other, for crying out loud). Therefore, most are concluding - however rightly - that NADC is merely fulfilling a back room request to drop an ally.Something not a lot of people are big fans of, apparently. I once canceled some PIATs and NAPs due to an audit. What's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I once canceled some PIATs and NAPs due to an audit. What's your point? NADC once cancelled an MDP bloc months after no one else was left in it. What's yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Doesn't really matter how heavy it is if the wheels wobble and cars keep detaching. That is where the train analogy fails as, like I've previously stated, the hegemony regularly sheds undesirable elements and never fails to regroup again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktavia Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I once canceled some PIATs and NAPs due to an audit. What's your point? It's more about the blatantly obvious undertones that stick out. I'm just surprised that TGE is being used as the main catalyst between two growing sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Nothing wrong with dropping dated treaties, the reason NADC is getting bashed in here some is because few give them credit enough to make that decision without being prodded (how many people do you honestly know that audit and cancel ODPs? There's people with MDoAP's on this game that hate each other, for crying out loud). Therefore, most are concluding - however rightly - that NADC is merely fulfilling a back room request to drop an ally.Something not a lot of people are big fans of, apparently. Actually when I was running Defense Confederation we had an ODP with TGE. We made an audit of a few of our treaties and canceled the one with TGE and someone else for these exact reasons. Communication was terrible and friendships were made with people who had long since moved on from the alliance. That is the case with many of TGE's allies and they are merely acting on the instinct to cancel and let it go. EDIT: The cancellations happened occurred in private channels and many months ago. I suppose you could argue it all looks fishy atm, but I think when DefCon/TGE had their issues others were still trying to fix them or had none. We decided to end it there. Edited February 8, 2009 by Zoomzoomzoom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Well, it was nice knowing you TGE. EDIT: Ohohohoh you got me with the "not." Fok is an honorable bunch. Edited February 8, 2009 by MegaAros Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 It's more about the blatantly obvious undertones that stick out. I'm just surprised that TGE is being used as the main catalyst between two growing sides. If TGE is being used as a catalyst, it's because they've either done something to warrant that status, or they desire that status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oktavia Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) If TGE is being used as a catalyst, it's because they've either done something to warrant that status, or they desire that status. Meh, it's CN tradition for big alliances to declare on smaller ones to draw in their rivals. edit: typo Edited February 8, 2009 by Oktavia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 That is where the train analogy fails as, like I've previously stated, the hegemony regularly sheds undesirable elements and never fails to regroup again. It isn't really regrouping if all the replacements are new. You also assume that it's the "hegemony" doing the shedding and that the groups leaving are the "undesirable elements". The groups that have abandoned the Continuum weren't thrown out, they left of their own accord. Nor were the groups that left isolated or disparate--they're all equally well entrenched and have stuck together in their new dwellings outside the hyperbloc. You vastly overestimate the invulnerability of the "hegemony" and underestimate the momentum behind the coming challengers. If we are lucky/unlucky (depending on your POV) we're about to have the pleasure of watching what happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 If TGE is being used as a catalyst, it's because they've either done something to warrant that status, or they desire that status. I remember you when you were in FEAR... You were nicer then... Still pretty cool, but you've lost that touch of "good" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 I remember you when you were in FEAR...You were nicer then... Still pretty cool, but you've lost that touch of "good" At the same time though, when he was in FEAR, he knew a great deal about treaty cancellations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 At the same time though, when he was in FEAR, he knew a great deal about treaty cancellations. Wow... I totally c wut u did thar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovyet Gelibolu Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Well, the funny thing is that the "lack of communication", if the chaotic situation that a couple people described a couple of pages back actually exists, should be more general. It doesn't seem to be; it seems to be confined to certain alliances. Now, if we know the cause to be true, and the effect produced is different from that which is expected, we have to revise our thinking on what cause produces what effect. But that isn't the case. The assumption of the existence of the cause cause is based on reports which may or may not accurately reflect the truth, and which are in any case hotly contested. Is TGE gov't chaotic? Perhaps. I don't know. I'm not a member. However, it does seem that since communication is certainly being kept up between TGE and certain of its allies, that it retains enough order and sense to do this maintenence fairly regularly. I personally doubt the reports of chaos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Wow...I totally c wut u did thar Really? Because I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 Really?Because I don't. I do actually... It's because I r S-M-R-T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Litler Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 It isn't really regrouping if all the replacements are new. You also assume that it's the "hegemony" doing the shedding and that the groups leaving are the "undesirable elements". The groups that have abandoned the Continuum weren't thrown out, they left of their own accord. Nor were the groups that left isolated or disparate--they're all equally well entrenched and have stuck together in their new dwellings outside the hyperbloc.You vastly overestimate the invulnerability of the "hegemony" and underestimate the momentum behind the coming challengers. If we are lucky/unlucky (depending on your POV) we're about to have the pleasure of watching what happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object. Some people, FOK in this case, may choose to stand against the powers that be on their own either because they feel drawn to some sense of honor or see that by avoiding conflict that day they would only be delaying their inevitable turn, or both. The truth is that someone, I suspect TPF because of the heavy arguing in their cancellation topic, wants TGE dead and is working towards doing just that and if FOK will stay and fight or back down does not matter to them. Run? More power to them. Fight? More surrender terms to write up, more technology to plunder, more nations to enslave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted February 8, 2009 Report Share Posted February 8, 2009 (edited) Why was it necessary to post an announcement that you were NOT canceling a treaty? Public declarations of support toward an ally who is going through a tough time are good, thats why. Good show FOK, lets see if anyone goes after TGE now that they aren't just a lame duck. Edited February 8, 2009 by KingSrqt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts