Dark Fist DoW 2.0

[magicninja]

So when NPO attacked GPA, if an alliance helped them without a treaty because NPO were being warmongering aggressors, you would actually label that as dishonourable?

Well that's your opinion, and it's different to ours.

I wouldn't. I also don't care for the staus quo of things. Never have. I only do what I believe is right - to hell with everything else. If that's not your style, that's okey. But if you're going to insult us over ours, quite frankly, you can't expect us to care.

It's almost different if the alliance was getting demolished and had 0 chance of winning but again I would probably have to tell them how full of crap they are. You on the other hand jumped in on an alliance that had no hope of victory. Are they tough? Yes. Will they fight for as long as they can? Yes. Were they gonna win this war? No. Your situation is completely different than the scenario you gave.

It's not an opinion. It's fact backed up by precedent.

It's most defiantly not my style to attack a beaten alliance without treaty ties. If it's yours I pity you.

[Starcraftmazter]

It's almost different if the alliance was getting demolished and had 0 chance of winning but again I would probably have to tell them how full of crap they are. You on the other hand jumped in on an alliance that had no hope of victory. Are they tough? Yes. Will they fight for as long as they can? Yes. Were they gonna win this war? No. Your situation is completely different than the scenario you gave.

Yes, it is completely different, I just wanted to establish how full of baloney you are.

As for whether NEW was always going to win or not, well yeh...perhaps the Allies shouldn't have helped the Soviet Union in WW2. I mean...they'd win anyway, it's just that half their population would be dead by the end of the war. Yeh, makes no sense at all to help them - right?

I hope you understand the analogy and how it applies to us not wanting those alliances that are fighting with NEW to get pounded. We are quite happy to take that pounding for them, and if that's dishonourable...well - I've already established you're full of baloney.

In regards to odds, lol. It's unfortunate you don't know DF and our more elaborate plans in regards to certain scenarios in how this war played out...

Regardless, everyone in DF who's ever fought in a war, fought against massive odds. In particular all the senior nations in DF are veterans of the UJW and we all fought your lot to ZI. So please, don't lecture us on odds and odds mattering to us.

It's most defiantly not my style to attack a beaten alliance without treaty ties. If it's yours I pity you.

Pity us all you want, won't change our ideology one bit. Won't change the fact that every single alliance knows that we will stand up for what's right regardless of anything. Whether they interpret it that way is rather irrelevant, as anyone who means anything to us will see this for what it is, at least in one sense or another. You or anyone in your mindset is totally irrelevant to us.

[Haflinger]

Ah yes SCM, picking and choosing which parts of the status quo he likes once again I see.

I also don't care for the staus quo of things. Never have. I only do what I believe is right - to hell with everything else. If that's not your style, that's okey. But if you're going to insult us over ours, quite frankly, you can't expect us to care.

Mhmm. Your version of "what I believe is right" has lined up pretty well with "Nobody better tell me what to do, I'll do whatever I want" pretty nicely in the past.

That's not the way it works. Although I can't claim to know the future, the most likely scenario is that you will surrender to everyone (CCC, GR, CD, TDE AND DF) at the same time, simultaneously.

I never asked you to surrender - when you decide to surrender is completely up to you, and we don't care. We will grant you peace at any time you wish, providing the rest of the alliances at war with you do so as well. Any surrender you make, will not be specifically to us, but to the combined forces of all the alliances fighting you. Again, while I can't claim to know this 100%, there is a 99% chance that this is the way it will work.

I can see you are new to CN warfare/politics - but that's not how it works, sorry. The only exception is if an alliance or group of alliances enters the war separately to everything else in a very particular fashion. This is kind of hard to describe, it's best to give an example - like NSO. This has to do with the intentions of the alliance rather than the way in which they enter.

NSO have explicitly said they're trying to change the way warfare works on Planet Bob, and have obeyed their principles of limited warfare in this engagement. You haven't, but rather strike me as engaging in opportunistic logic.

When the other alliances at war with NEW decide to go to peace with them is up to them and NEW. They are sovereign. People so often forget this.

So when NPO attacked GPA, if an alliance helped them without a treaty because NPO were being warmongering aggressors, you would actually label that as dishonourable?

Yes, if Illuminati had followed through on their plans to attack their allies in defense of GPA I would have called that dishonourable, yes.

[suryanto tan]

So when NPO attacked GPA, if an alliance helped them without a treaty because NPO were being warmongering aggressors, you would actually label that as dishonourable?

Are we?

That's not the way it works. Although I can't claim to know the future, the most likely scenario is that you will surrender to everyone (CCC, GR, CD, TDE AND DF) at the same time, simultaneously.

I am sure if you asked to be excluded from the peace talk, they will allow you. And we won't mind.

I never asked you to surrender - when you decide to surrender is completely up to you, and we don't care. We will grant you peace at any time you wish, providing the rest of the alliances at war with you do so as well. Any surrender you make, will not be specifically to us, but to the combined forces of all the alliances fighting you. Again, while I can't claim to know this 100%, there is a 99% chance that this is the way it will work.

We have obligation for our member as well. Our members won't have problem with surrendering to CCC, GR, CD, and TDE. They have fought hard and sacrifice enough to warrant them the right to collect the victory.

I can see you are new to CN warfare/politics - but that's not how it works, sorry. The only exception is if an alliance or group of alliances enters the war separately to everything else in a very particular fashion. This is kind of hard to describe, it's best to give an example - like NSO. This has to do with the intentions of the alliance rather than the way in which they enter.

Yes, I am new to CN politics. Are you sure you understand it right?

I disagree, as we plainly described it in the original post, and countless times afterwards in this thread. Again, there is no secret motive behind this war - it's very simple. Why you cannot comprehend this, I will never know.

What I see now is a poor attempt to act as honorable alliance. You claim honor by citing that you sacrifice your infra by fighting us, and helping friends, but it occur to me that you come in to collect the victory at the last minute. And after this war, you can proudly say, you fought NEW and NATO, and won both. And of course, you graciously granted them white peace.

I'm not going to comment on a private conversation in public. As I have already told you, if you want to follow up a private conversation, you should do so in public. Thanks for disrespecting my wishes for you to do so again.

You accused me of seeking information which are clearly private. How can I prove that it is not the case? That the question I ask are actually relevant, and not like you said, "private".

Edited May 9, 2009 by suryanto tan

[angryraccoon]

The Dark Evolution does have a Optional Defence Treaty signed with DF. So people are saying that because this piece of paper only says "Defence" that they are prohibited from helping their allies? Are not treaties just stating what is excpected of the signatores? Can your allies not go above and beyond what it says?

[TitoXV]

The Dark Evolution does have a Optional Defence Treaty signed with DF. So people are saying that because this piece of paper only says "Defence" that they are prohibited from helping their allies? Are not treaties just stating what is excpected of the signatores? Can your allies not go above and beyond what it says?

"Defence" is surely veeeeeeeeeeeeeery different with "offense"

can you guys stop underestimating the meaning of a piece of paper called treaty?

edit: wording & spelling

Edited May 9, 2009 by TitoXV

[aming]

i just curious only.... this is KARMA side fighting for?? is DF really in KARMA SIDE?? i just curious only

[Starcraftmazter]

Mhmm. Your version of "what I believe is right" has lined up pretty well with "Nobody better tell me what to do, I'll do whatever I want" pretty nicely in the past.

Isn't that the case for everyone, as everyone must individually decide what is right by them, for otherwise they would be just another sheep in the flock? I am quite happy to be individualistic, I am quite happy for our alliance to be individualistic. So far I know the alliances and nations that matter to us are liking what we are doing, and thus we are pleased with our actions.

NSO have explicitly said they're trying to change the way warfare works on Planet Bob, and have obeyed their principles of limited warfare in this engagement. You haven't, but rather strike me as engaging in opportunistic logic.

First of all, at no time did I claim DF is like NSO.

Second of all, I have already argued against the claim that our target is opportunistic. If you would care to disagree, I encourage you to rebut those points - however saying it over and over is generally a pretty bad tactic.

Are we?

This doesn't relate to NEW, I was simply demonstrating that magicninja has a very skewed perception of reality, as seen by many.

I am sure if you asked to be excluded from the peace talk, they will allow you. And we won't mind.

I don't know why you suggest we would do that, however we will not. We co-operate with everyone necessary in order to achieve the most efficient resolution to war.

Yes, I am new to CN politics. Are you sure you understand it right?

If not, then I endeavour you to explain otherwise.

What I see now is a poor attempt to act as honorable alliance. You claim honor by citing that you sacrifice your infra by fighting us, and helping friends, but it occur to me that you come in to collect the victory at the last minute.

As mentioned previously, we have already "collected" a victory. Not that victories matter to us - they certainly haven't in the past. I've participated in the losing of 3 wars as I've mentioned before, and it did not affect my willingness to fight for what I believe is right. The same can be said for those in DF who have fought previous wars.

And after this war, you can proudly say, you fought NEW and NATO, and won both. And of course, you graciously granted them white peace.

If it turns out that way, then why can't we say that? How is it false?

Once again, we are not ones to fight for victory, as I have noted - we have all been on the losing side of many wars. Clearly, you should get to know us better before making such ridiculous accusations, which are once again quite insulting. Will your alliance ever cease it's disrespect towards us? You continuously say you care about our long-term relationship, yet somehow your actions demonstrate a different desire.

You accused me of seeking information which are clearly private. How can I prove that it is not the case? That the question I ask are actually relevant, and not like you said, "private".

I only replied to your earlier post, where you accused me of not providing you answers to questions. If I consider something secret relevant to your position, I shall not provide an answer for that question. Once again, any time you want to pursue private discussions in private would be nice.

i just curious only.... this is KARMA side fighting for?? is DF really in KARMA SIDE?? i just curious only

Dark Fist is a member of the war coalition known as Karma.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Starcraftmazter

[magicninja]

The Dark Evolution does have a Optional Defence Treaty signed with DF. So people are saying that because this piece of paper only says "Defence" that they are prohibited from helping their allies? Are not treaties just stating what is excpected of the signatores? Can your allies not go above and beyond what it says?

Didn't you know that SCM doesn't even thing NOIR has anything to do with war or politics?

SCM isn't even trying to justify it to us anymore. He's trying to justify it to himself.

All you've accomplished is completely cheapening CCC, GR, CD, and DE's victory in this battle. They foguht a hard earned, honorable war and you jump on and make it a slaughter? That isn't the right thing man. It really isn't but if you wanna believe it is go for it. I'm actually done here.

[Starcraftmazter]

Didn't you know that SCM doesn't even thing NOIR has anything to do with war or politics?

To say we are allies does not necessitate NOIR to be a political entity.

SCM isn't even trying to justify it to us anymore. He's trying to justify it to himself.

Pot calling the kettle back, really.

All you've accomplished is completely cheapening CCC, GR, CD, and DE's victory in this battle. They foguht a hard earned, honorable war and you jump on and make it a slaughter? That isn't the right thing man. It really isn't but if you wanna believe it is go for it. I'm actually done here.

I lol'd. Have a talk with them and see if they agree with your viewpoint. Especially CCC/CD

PS. Can I ask, do you actually agree with the stuff you say? Or do you just say it for the sake of saying it?

Edited May 9, 2009 by Starcraftmazter

[angryraccoon]

I still would not call it a slaughter. NEW has some/a lot of great fighters. They are still ramping up their attacks. If needed I am sure that they coule go for a few more weeks at least. NEW has my respect and I have made a few friends over there.

[Sande]

oh my god, magicninja...

I do not see what the problem really is to you - the fact that they are not doing it by ALL the rules out there OR the fact you hate SCM...

1) GR is in many wars. We are not really able to fight every alliance we are in war with, with our maximum strength. Of course we will need help. CCC and CD don't have enough large nations, I'm afraid. DE is not enough either.

2) Dark Fist had already fought on Karma's side. It had killed it's own targets. Why should it not help others in the war?

Let's take WWII. If USA had only fought the japanese and not help UK organise the D-day, it would not looked so good on the western front, making Germany also win on the eastern front which would have led to Germany actually winning it's goal onconquering Europe. Now, DF is in the USA's position.

I just do not understand you. DF is not bandwagonning. They are already fighting the war. They just jumped from one front to another. They have a CB to be on Karma's side. It is just that their initial enemy is dead. They are still in the war so they can pick another target.

Please stop whatever you are doing.

A war is a war. Slaughter or not. If you want a good clean one-on-one fight, go to the boxing ring. This is not a boxing ring, this is a war (simulation).

There are over 3 times more people fighting on Karma's side according to CN wiki. Should 2/3 of our members just wait until their friends finish their wars with the Hegemony nations so they could do a one-on-one round with them?

This is what you are trying to say. You want to say that Karma should NOT use it's advantage against the Hegem,ony alliances just to make the fight fair. This is bull. If this was used in the NoCB war, I would be a much larger nation at the moment.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Sande

[magicninja]

oh my god, magicninja...

I do not see what the problem really is to you - the fact that they are not doing it by ALL the rules out there OR the fact you hate SCM...

1) GR is in many wars. We are not really able to fight every alliance we are in war with, with our maximum strength. Of course we will need help. CCC and CD don't have enough large nations, I'm afraid. DE is not enough either.

2) Dark Fist had already fought on Karma's side. It had killed it's own targets. Why should it not help others in the war?

Let's take WWII. If USA had only fought the japanese and not help UK organise the D-day, it would not looked so good on the western front, making Germany also win on the eastern front which would have led to Germany actually winning it's goal onconquering Europe. Now, DF is in the USA's position.

I just do not understand you. DF is not bandwagonning. They are already fighting the war. They just jumped from one front to another. They have a CB to be on Karma's side. It is just that their initial enemy is dead. They are still in the war so they can pick another target.

Please stop whatever you are doing.

A war is a war. Slaughter or not. If you want a good clean one-on-one fight, go to the boxing ring. This is not a boxing ring, this is a war (simulation).

There are over 3 times more people fighting on Karma's side according to CN wiki. Should 2/3 of our members just wait until their friends finish their wars with the Hegemony nations so they could do a one-on-one round with them?

This is what you are trying to say. You want to say that Karma should NOT use it's advantage against the Hegem,ony alliances just to make the fight fair. This is bull. If this was used in the NoCB war, I would be a much larger nation at the moment.

Damn I hate going against my own word....

(OOC)Who cares about OOC scenarios. As far as "magicninja" is concerned "WWII" and "USA" and "Japan" (Though probably PB nations ) Don't exist and your analgy don't count.(OOC)

Where in all of PB history have people just moved to a "new front" without any treaties? If people have been doing this throughout all of history then fine I'll shut up and remember it for next time.

Why shouldn't a coalition called "Karma" fight with honor without having to resort to these kind of BS tactics to win? Gee let me think for a minute.....

[Sande]

So, the meaning of "Honour" is to fight within the bureocratic borders even if it means your destruction?

That is just plain stupid. You know, some people DO hate formalities. Everyone really knows that they are up for good and it would be OK when the formalities had been made 5 minutes before the DoW. So why bother?

The strength of a war side is to move it's forces freely through the whole world at war, finding the best nations to declare on enemies and move them somewhere else when needed.

In your point of view, all the sides should make temporary (wartime) MDAP treaties with each other for this to work. This is not rational. Just be informal and refer to you having one initial CB to enter the war and you are through to pick your next targets.

Or every member of one alliance joins another one to fight with the right enemy they have the best chances at. This is going on everywhere, informally. Why not let the whole alliance just join in like that? It is happening anyway and you can't stop it. At least this way you can clearly see what is happening.

[magicninja]

So, the meaning of "Honour" is to fight within the bureocratic borders even if it means your destruction?

That is just plain stupid. You know, some people DO hate formalities. Everyone really knows that they are up for good and it would be OK when the formalities had been made 5 minutes before the DoW. So why bother?

The strength of a war side is to move it's forces freely through the whole world at war, finding the best nations to declare on enemies and move them somewhere else when needed.

In your point of view, all the sides should make temporary (wartime) MDAP treaties with each other for this to work. This is not rational. Just be informal and refer to you having one initial CB to enter the war and you are through to pick your next targets.

Or every member of one alliance joins another one to fight with the right enemy they have the best chances at. This is going on everywhere, informally. Why not let the whole alliance just join in like that? It is happening anyway and you can't stop it. At least this way you can clearly see what is happening.

Call me a purist but I'm not up for devolving the game in to a free for all every time a war breaks out. Takes all the fun and real strategy out of the game. If that's the way it's going to be then again you should Drop out of every bloc and treaty you are a part of and say the hell with it. It just doesn't jive with the spirit of the game as it's been played for the last three years. If this is what it takes to win from your side then fine do what you gotta do I guess. Just no !@#$%*ing in the future when it happens to you.

[Sande]

Wait, what?

I didn't say it is a free for all for all the alliances. You must have treaties for this to work. At least for this to start.

It was clearly stated in my post that the nation MUST have a valid CB to enter the war first and THEN pick their real targets for the war.

In my eyes, it is the equivalent of geography in CN. You have your allies, you have the enemies, you have a CB. Now you pick the enemy that you can / want to attack for whatever reason there is. Maybe the enemy is too good fighter and needs to be taken care of first, maybe some alliance is the moral priority to attack.

This improvement of DoWs actually balances the situation between all the alliances fighting the wars. At the moment, NPO nations should have all their war slots filled whereas their attackers have a lot of free slots. Just not enough room for them. In the same time, we have tens of free slots on NEW that are just waiting to be filled. Therefore, everyone who can on one side, will be fighting.

(The in-game wars strategy)

Strategy wins the wars, not honour and bureocracy. And there is less strategy in bureocracy.

NPO knew that and made MADP webs. This way, anyone who declares on one of their allies, will have to fight all of them. MDPs are a bit more dangerous here. But if there is a world-wide war, these papers should not mean so much to us.

Now, should we let NPO win by following our less weaker pieces of paper (MDPs)? Meaning we can't declare on everyone we want to. (Plus the Dark Fist case, I think I explained this already) If you say yes, I have to say your IQ is low enough to name you with a bad word.

The pacts and wars situation must be reconsidered. After all, anything that is old enough will eventuallyh start to fall apart. NPO for instance. Why shouldn't the treaties?

Edited May 9, 2009 by Sande

[magicninja]

Wait, what?

I didn't say it is a free for all for all the alliances. You must have treaties for this to work. At least for this to start.

It was clearly stated in my post that the nation MUST have a valid CB to enter the war first and THEN pick their real targets for the war.

In my eyes, it is the equivalent of geography in CN. You have your allies, you have the enemies, you have a CB. Now you pick the enemy that you can / want to attack for whatever reason there is. Maybe the enemy is too good fighter and needs to be taken care of first, maybe some alliance is the moral priority to attack.

This improvement of DoWs actually balances the situation between all the alliances fighting the wars. At the moment, NPO nations should have all their war slots filled whereas their attackers have a lot of free slots. Just not enough room for them. In the same time, we have tens of free slots on NEW that are just waiting to be filled. Therefore, everyone who can on one side, will be fighting.

Strategy wins the wars, not honour and bureocracy. And there is less strategy in bureocracy.

NPO knew that and made MADP webs. This way, anyone who declares on one of their allies, will have to fight all of them. MDPs are a bit more dangerous here. But if there is a world-wide war, these papers should not mean so much to us.

Now, should we let NPO win by following our less weaker pieces of paper (MDPs)? Meaning we can't declare on everyone we want to. (Plus the Dark Fist case, I think I explained this already) If you say yes, I have to say your IQ is low enough to name you with a bad word.

The pacts and wars situation must be reconsidered. After all, anything that is old enough will eventuallyh start to fall apart. NPO for instance. Why shouldn't the treaties?

Yeah Karma sold out their honor and integrity long before this. At least your willing to admit it now.

Up til now yeah I would expect people to follow their treaties and line up where they fall. It seems to be the whole point of the game.

Now if you all really wanted to do what your saying why not just round up all the Karma alliances who want to fight a broader war than their treaties allow and sign a wartime MADP bloc that expires once all the wars are peaced out? That I would respect and even tip my hat to as a good strategy. Just doing it out of the blue in one case however seems a bit dodgy to me. Now I'm not picking on DF here just to pick on them. If it were NPO and Co. pulling this I would still be shouting it down. Anything worth doing is worth doing right imo and this just wasn't done right no matter how you twist it.

Edited May 9, 2009 by magicninja

[Haflinger]

Wait, what?

I didn't say it is a free for all for all the alliances. You must have treaties for this to work. At least for this to start.

It was clearly stated in my post that the nation MUST have a valid CB to enter the war first and THEN pick their real targets for the war.

In my eyes, it is the equivalent of geography in CN. You have your allies, you have the enemies, you have a CB. Now you pick the enemy that you can / want to attack for whatever reason there is. Maybe the enemy is too good fighter and needs to be taken care of first, maybe some alliance is the moral priority to attack.

Uhh.... What?

At least SCM was being logically consistent. Either you need a treaty to declare war or you just need a good reason. What you seem to be proposing is having one treaty gives you a license to bandwagon.

[magicninja]

Uhh.... What?

At least SCM was being logically consistent. Either you need a treaty to declare war or you just need a good reason. What you seem to be proposing is having one treaty gives you a license to bandwagon.

That is basically SCM's reasoning too. Look at the op. "We're on this side and your on that side so that gives us the right to declare on you. Treaties be damned."

[facetten]

Up til now yeah I would expect people to follow their treaties and line up where they fall. It seems to be the whole point of the game.

lol, how many alliances dropped their treaties during the war? by your logic, the whole point of the game seems to be ditching your friends when they're in trouble.

[WarriorConcept]

Call me a purist but I'm not up for devolving the game in to a free for all every time a war breaks out. Takes all the fun and real strategy out of the game. If that's the way it's going to be then again you should Drop out of every bloc and treaty you are a part of and say the hell with it. It just doesn't jive with the spirit of the game as it's been played for the last three years. If this is what it takes to win from your side then fine do what you gotta do I guess. Just no !@#$%*ing in the future when it happens to you.

Much like you're doing now?

[magicninja]

lol, how many alliances dropped their treaties during the war? by your logic, the whole point of the game seems to be ditching your friends when they're in trouble.

What? Read my post again and read yours and tell me how much sense you just made.

@WC Blah Blah Blah Make a real point or move on.

[WarriorConcept]

What? Read my post again and read yours and tell me how much sense you just made.

@WC Blah Blah Blah Make a real point or move on.

After you.

[magicninja]

After you.

That all you got?

Really?

[WarriorConcept]

That all you got?

Really?

No.