bcndwilson Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Wasn't a problem when you lot have done it the last several years. Sucks don't it.Edit: My bad, you guys usually did 5 to 1 at least, sorry for the error. For some reason alot of NPO's actions are being put onto IRON's fault list. Please do not confuse our alliances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Yes so so even.FARK - 397 members Gramilins - 105 MHA - 619 Ragarnok - 472 All equals 1593 IRON - 779 So 1593 against 779. Outnumbered 2 to 1. But go on good sir of you are standing up for prinicple. I mean you wouldnt want peole bandwaggoning, taking over, starting a whole new hegemony, getting curbstomped. No your principles are strong. >_> How many RoK guys actually declared wars on IRON? You declared on them so take that 472 out of the equation and you have 1121 vs 779. Yes that is still outnumbered but do you feel that is a larger difference then some of the wars you have been part of and/or supported while being in tC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tom Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I'm pretty sure everyone in MHA pretty much wants that. There was a lot of unhappiness about being on the opposing side of NATO, NPO, and IRON. We shouldn't wait for the next war for MHA and NATO love, though.Also, for all those complaining, check the first declaration from MHA. We said that we would honor our defense treaty with Rok, among others. IRON attacked RoK, therefore our treaty kicked in. NATO and MHA need to have a party after the war and get are love up and runing again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Archer Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Yes so so even.FARK - 397 members Gramilins - 105 MHA - 619 Ragarnok - 472 All equals 1593 IRON - 779 So 1593 against 779. Outnumbered 2 to 1. But go on good sir of you are standing up for prinicple. I mean you wouldnt want peole bandwaggoning, taking over, starting a whole new hegemony, getting curbstomped. No your principles are strong. >_> What is a Ragarnok? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcndwilson Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 How many RoK guys actually declared wars on IRON? You declared on them so take that 472 out of the equation and you have 1121 vs 779. Yes that is still outnumbered but do you feel that is a larger difference then some of the wars you have been part of and/or supported while being in tC? You know if I had to guess it is about the same outnumbering. You guys have all had your turn to complain and I will rightfully take mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) o/ MHA I approve of this DoW. Edited April 25, 2009 by Tarikmo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 You know if I had to guess it is about the same outnumbering. You guys have all had your turn to complain and I will rightfully take mine. Well for clarity sakes, I hope you are not lumping me in by quoting me and then saying you guys. I was in NPO. I guess since you are rightfully taking yours, then you have begun to understand why they might have complained during previous wars? Karma is a powerful thing as it seems lessons are being learned here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crohl Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 MHA has always been one of the few respectable alliances in this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcndwilson Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Well for clarity sakes, I hope you are not lumping me in by quoting me and then saying you guys. I was in NPO. I guess since you are rightfully taking yours, then you have begun to understand why they might have complained during previous wars? Karma is a powerful thing as it seems lessons are being learned here! Apologies. People will always complain when on the tough end. Moralities and Lessons are for RL, people will never obey to these courtesies here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Yes so so even.FARK - 397 members Gramilins - 105 MHA - 619 Ragarnok - 472 All equals 1593 IRON - 779 So 1593 against 779. Outnumbered 2 to 1. But go on good sir of you are standing up for prinicple. I mean you wouldnt want peole bandwaggoning, taking over, starting a whole new hegemony, getting curbstomped. No your principles are strong. >_> RoK is doing legion and NPO the only ones that is actually declaring on you are FARK - 397 members Gramilins - 105 MHA - 619 IRON - 783 That makes them 1,4 time your numbers. Alot less than most your allies are handling and definitely alot less than you've been outnumbering your opponents in your last wars. Looks like you're tasting a little bit of your own medecine now, it's almost like it's.. karma. All that aside you're only at war with alliances that had treaties with the alliance you attacked. you expected them sit on the sidelines? Go cry me a river. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I love you Crush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Apologies.People will always complain when on the tough end. Moralities and Lessons are for RL, people will never obey to these courtesies here. It would be a boring world if such was obeyed. With that being said though, I think MHA has shown a fine example of how an alliance can follow all those courtesies by first leaving the bloc that empowered the NPO in their actions against OV. They did not break their individual bond with NPO though as it is the power of tC that brought such about, that means you guys bear some of the responsibility. MHA did not try to lump all the responsibility on NPO by breaking their individual treaty in a shared announcement with others. MHA is not doing anything here that they did not state in the beginning that they would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 You know, I do respect MHA, but if you're going to declare neutrality, you should probably stick with it. Otherwise, why declare it? Almost like having a treaty, canceling it, and then coming into the fight anyways right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cncruzore85 Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Or canceling them, then completely switching sides! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Andrew IV Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Crushtania if RON wasn't in enough trouble already....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) The MHA honors its treaties. If you do not respect the facts, then you respect nothing. 1) We did not cancel our treaties at the first sign of "imperial entanglements" like the Coward Coalition did. 2) We defended Pacifica against illegitimate bandwagoners and will continue to do so. 3) We hold defence treaties with Ragnarok, the Gramlins and FARK. Our Ragnarok MDP was triggered by the DoW upon them by IRON, precipitating our entry into the conflict-at-large. 4) For all intents and purposes Tek, once removed from the Continuum, MHA was neither on IRON's side or against them. Please refer to point 4. 5) The MHA did not declare neutrality in this conflict. These are all verifiable facts. You cannot spin them because they are irrefutable. Edited April 25, 2009 by Crushtania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cncruzore85 Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I wasn't referring to MHA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caligula Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I wasn't referring to MHA. then you must be in the wrong thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cncruzore85 Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I had one particular alliance in mind, it wasn't MHA. But while you are at it, just take the statement and watch as it can be broadly applied to a number of other alliances illustrating the utter insignificance of any sort of A/D pact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I had one particular alliance in mind, it wasn't MHA. But while you are at it, just take the statement and watch as it can be broadly applied to a number of other alliances illustrating the utter insignificance of any sort of A/D pact. If you're crying foul over people opting to not enter a war via an optional aggression pact, then I would look for an operational definition of "optional" and study it carefully. Here's one I prepared earlier: If you were to buy a car, brakes are a mandatory component. They are integral to the functioning of the car and is not an option. iPod docking stations are not. They are optional. If you don't think an iPod docking station is right for you, you don't have to have it installed. Getting it yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 (edited) For some reason alot of NPO's actions are being put onto IRON's fault list. Please do not confuse our alliances. I think it has something to do with you being one of the main reasons they've remained in power for so long. I mean, your blind support and all. It just makes RON seem so similar to them... We drooling masses get confused. Sorry. Also, this war is even for IRON. This is their first war that isnt 20:1 ratio in their favor. Edited April 25, 2009 by Stumpy Jung Il Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buds The Man Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I think it has something to do with you being one of the main reasons they've remained in power for so long. I mean, your blind support and all. It just makes RON seem so similar to them... We drooling masses get confused. Sorry.Also, this war is even for IRON. This is their first war that isnt 20:1 ratio in their favor. /me sends out drool rags to the masses please wipe that up its unsightly welcome to the fray MHA but i must wish my allies in IRON the luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cncruzore85 Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 If you're crying foul over people opting to not enter a war via an optional aggression pact, then I would look for an operational definition of "optional" and study it carefully. Here's one I prepared earlier:If you were to buy a car, brakes are a mandatory component. They are integral to the functioning of the car and is not an option. iPod docking stations are not. They are optional. If you don't think an iPod docking station is right for you, you don't have to have it installed. Getting it yet? All pacts are made fundamentally worthless by their interconnectedness with alliances' other pacts, integral or optional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caligula Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 All pacts are made fundamentally worthless by their interconnectedness with alliances' other pacts, integral or optional. Actually, are treaties mean something. I can't speak for anyone elses, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted April 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 All pacts are made fundamentally worthless by their interconnectedness with alliances' other pacts, integral or optional. Changing your tack? Well, I would too if I just got schooled. If all pacts are fundamentally worthless, why bother signing them at all? Why not let Planet Bob descend into anarchy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts