HeinousOne Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 You guys choose first to attack molon labe, knowing ful well their relations with another SNOW alliance. You can try to paint this as us forcing you to do something because of treaty obligations, however the way things played out that would originate back to the NPO OV declaration and the rest as they would say was in admin's hands. Once again, have you defended everyone in this war that you hold defensive treaties with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 (edited) Once again, have you defended everyone in this war that you hold defensive treaties with? When ya can't defend'em all, which ones to defend? A: Those you have the best relationship with B: Whichever one is tails on the coin toss C: Whichever ones are on the biggest side D: The ones who troll and insult you All wars eventually end and the only thing that needs to be known to make that decision is who is going to be there for you when the war is over. Molon Labe! Edited May 2, 2009 by Roadie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 When ya can't defend'em all, which ones to defend?A: Those you have the best relationship with B: Whichever one is tails on the coin toss C: Whichever ones are on the biggest side D: The ones who troll and insult you All wars eventually end and the only thing that needs to be known to make that decision is who is going to be there for you when the war is over. Molon Labe! My point exactly. I do not question why you chose Molon Labe, the point is that you actually choose which of your defensive treaty partners you actually defend. We have not yet made choices in such, we have defended all of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 (edited) My point exactly. I do not question why you chose Molon Labe, the point is that you actually choose which of your defensive treaty partners you actually defend. We have not yet made choices in such, we have defended all of them. I'm not sure I understand the point of telling us that. Obviously it's important as you've been making that point for a cupla pages now, but the purpose is going over my head. You don't seem the type to say just to say you're better than us, so you're being lenient with us perhaps is what you're saying? Edit: My spelling is Teh Suck Edited May 2, 2009 by Roadie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 I'm not sure I understand the point of telling us that. Obviously it's important as you've been making that point for a cupla pages now, but the purpose is going over my head. You don't seem the type to say just to say you're better than us, so you're being lenient with us perhaps is what you're saying?Edit: My spelling is Teh Suck The point he is going for is that STA treaty honor > TPF treaty honor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 My point exactly. I do not question why you chose Molon Labe, the point is that you actually choose which of your defensive treaty partners you actually defend. We have not yet made choices in such, we have defended all of them. Uhm, how many do you have anyway?? Since almost everyone is in the war, it seems you have NSO, and NpO by your arguements. Not exactly sure how many we have, but we are doing the best we can under the circumstances. Of Course, if it was a very low number, we could defend them all too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Uhm, how many do you have anyway?? Since almost everyone is in the war, it seems you have NSO, and NpO by your arguements. Not exactly sure how many we have, but we are doing the best we can under the circumstances. Of Course, if it was a very low number, we could defend them all too. Ahh! My point exactly good sir.....finally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Admin speed, Mhawk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deathcat Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 (edited) Ahh! My point exactly good sir.....finally. Talk about comparing apples to nukes... We will honor our treatise to the best of our abilities.. As I know STA will honor theirs.. ML.. We love you guys.. save us some beer for when this is over.. I'm making Applewood smoked Ribs and my Slowcooked 9 Bean and Smoked Sausage Chili.. I'll have to do it in my new Radiation Containment units though.. someone nuked my BBQ Pit to Hell.. or was it all the way to China?? oo/ Edited May 2, 2009 by deathcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Uhm, how many do you have anyway?? Since almost everyone is in the war, it seems you have NSO, and NpO by your arguements. Not exactly sure how many we have, but we are doing the best we can under the circumstances. Of Course, if it was a very low number, we could defend them all too. TPF's Minister of War is unaware to how many treaties they as an alliance hold and how many of them are involved in the war? That's quite dissapointing, and a true sign of how ridiculous and asinine the MDP Web has become... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 TPF's Minister of War is unaware to how many treaties they as an alliance hold and how many of them are involved in the war?That's quite dissapointing, and a true sign of how ridiculous and asinine the MDP Web has become... Uhm, yeah I don't know. I only care in as much as those are alliances I can't attack. Minister of WAR, not FA. I leave FA to FA and they leave War to me. *goes to look up Kronos...hmm, seems a possibility Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Also, for clarification, we have other defensive treaties but as far as I know none of them were declared upon. They all did the declaring except for Mushroom Kingdom and NSO. Hence why we have made declarations against the two alliances that have done the declaring. It's pretty simple stuff. Treaties are followed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaBuc Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Since it doesn't appear anyone has shared them with you, I'll go ahead and do it I read them... and I'm scratching my head. It's undeniably clear that TPF was already planning to defend NPO at the time of this discussion. I won't lie, those logs do not reflect well at all on several alliances. But TPF makes it very clear at the beginning that they are going to honor Q. I don't see why TPF is being bashed for those logs. -Bama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilkenny Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I read them... and I'm scratching my head. It's undeniably clear that TPF was already planning to defend NPO at the time of this discussion. I won't lie, those logs do not reflect well at all on several alliances. But TPF makes it very clear at the beginning that they are going to honor Q. I don't see why TPF is being bashed for those logs.-Bama Because it is convienent to do so. Any opportunity in a storm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 (edited) Uhm, yeah I don't know. I only care in as much as those are alliances I can't attack. Minister of WAR, not FA. I leave FA to FA and they leave War to me.*goes to look up Kronos...hmm, seems a possibility I've served in 3 alliances in my life - some as just a member, some as the head of IA, and some as the leader - but no matter what position I held or how much time I was dedicating to the alliance, I always knew who my allies were. From the lowest ToA to the closest MDAP. For someone in what was once a prestigeous and sanctioned alliance to serve as a Government official and not know who his allies are tells me that that alliance has far too many treaties. EDIT: IC/OOC mixup Edited May 4, 2009 by HeraclesTheGreat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midkn1ght Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Uhm, yeah I don't know. I only care in as much as those are alliances I can't attack. Minister of WAR, not FA. I leave FA to FA and they leave War to me. Knowing who your allies are, who'll stand and go to ZI with you, is probably one of the top 3 most important parts of being able to be an effective War leader/Trium. Wars aren't fought without allies, and not considering them at every step is a grave tactical mistake. If you don't know who your own allies are, then obviously, the treaty was signed for butt coverage, not friendship, and it's doomed to fail. Not to mention all the failed potential there is in not considering your allies in war planning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.