Dark Fist DoW 2.0

[magicninja]

No.

Don't worry I'll wait.

[Gryphon]

If you're going to bandwagon, then at least use a treaty.

If they were just bandwagoning, they would have used a treaty. As it is, they're attacking on the front where their help is actually useful instead.

[Sande]

This is not bandwagoning in their eyes. It is picking a side and fighting for it. And honourable since you do not back out of the war after making your one enemy surrender.

Let's take this situation: a 50.00 score alliance enters the war with a MDP to declare against a 10.00 score alliance. The sides are now equal 150.00 to 150.00. The 10.00 alliance surrenders, therefore the 50.00 alliance gets peace again. Now, the sides are 100 to 140. Side 2 wins because the 50.00 alliance got peace and decided not to fight. Then this allaince will be rolled after the forst war is ocver, by the rest of side 2.

Also, Why do you always have to do it "right" i.e. fill all the papers and go through the bureocratic stuff when you can do it much faster and efficiently just DOING it?

I see booth ways right in this light here.

If you have a CB to be on one side, you have a CB to fight whoever you want on the other side just to help all of the fronts out in the war. This is more efficient and gives you a strategic advantage.

[Haflinger]

If you have a CB to be on one side, you have a CB to fight whoever you want on the other side just to help all of the fronts out in the war. This is more efficient and gives you a strategic advantage.

So if Invicta had wanted to, we could have DoWed say FCO despite not having a treaty with anyone they were at war with?

Fascinating.

Myself I can't wait for the first time one of these insane conflagrations lasts 3 or 4 months or so. If this logic is upheld, you'll see some really crazy declarations.

[Xepherian]

hai guyz. i am peaceful nation that trades tech, do not hurt me

[Gryphon]

So if Invicta had wanted to, we could have DoWed say FCO despite not having a treaty with anyone they were at war with?

Fascinating.

If you felt that you had friends who needed help against FCO, then yes. I seem to remember that a small alliance jumped in to defend NPO early on without a treaty, and I have complete respect for that decision.

Let's take this situation: a 50.00 score alliance enters the war with a MDP to declare against a 10.00 score alliance. The sides are now equal 150.00 to 150.00. The 10.00 alliance surrenders, therefore the 50.00 alliance gets peace again. Now, the sides are 100 to 140. Side 2 wins because the 50.00 alliance got peace and decided not to fight. Then this allaince will be rolled after the forst war is ocver, by the rest of side 2.

Actually, that example works even better than the way you explained it because, even if the 50-score and 10-score alliances did not withdraw from the war, the 50-score alliance is not helping against the other 140-score on side 2. The rest of side 1 will get crushed if the 50-score alliance does not "bandwagon" by attacking another alliance on side 2.

Edited May 9, 2009 by Gryphon

[KingSuck]

Interesting stance DF. Somehow I think that if a Hegemony alliance pulled the same stunt they'd be crucified but I guess that's just the way of the world.

[Gryphon]

Interesting stance DF. Somehow I think that if a Hegemony alliance pulled the same stunt they'd be crucified but I guess that's just the way of the world.

A Hegemony alliance did pull something somewhat similar to this.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54901

Look at the nasty, unfair responses from Karma members.

o/o/ IDC

May you be lauded for your bravery

Wow, someone on the other side with actual guts.

Bravo to you guys.

etc.

[Haflinger]

If you felt that you had friends who needed help against FCO, then yes. I seem to remember that a small alliance jumped in to defend NPO early on without a treaty, and I have complete respect for that decision.

Actually, good.

I do in fact support this logic, as I say in this blog from quite a while ago.

I just don't support the "you need a treaty to get involved and then you can bandwagon anywhere you feel like it" approach that appears to be being advocated in this thread. But I think I'm gonna keep this thread in my list of interesting links to reference in the future. Most definitely.

[KingSuck]

A Hegemony alliance did pull something somewhat similar to this.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=54901

Look at the nasty, unfair responses from Karma members.

etc.

Very very different scenarios. If you can't see that already then I'm not going to bother explaining it to you.

[Haflinger]

Very very different scenarios. If you can't see that already then I'm not going to bother explaining it to you.

Aw c'mon KingSuck, can't you see that NEW is in fact a greater threat than the 40M or so NS attacking NPO?

[Gryphon]

Actually, good.

I do in fact support this logic, as I say in this blog from quite a while ago.

I just don't support the "you need a treaty to get involved and then you can bandwagon anywhere you feel like it" approach that appears to be being advocated in this thread. But I think I'm gonna keep this thread in my list of interesting links to reference in the future. Most definitely.

I see where you're coming from, there. It isn't really the fact that Dark Fist was already involved in the war that makes this acceptable and honorable, and more the facts that they have friends fighting NEW, and NEW is doing a lot of damage. If someone randomly attacked NPO at this point, I'd consider it shameless bandwagoning whether or not they were already involved on a different front via treaty because NPO isn't causing any problems for the alliances at war with them.

KingSuck, I realize that IDC entered on the side that is vastly outnumbered and DF is on the side with an advantage. However, NEW is causing a lot of trouble for the alliances fighting them, so DF's help is useful rather than redundant, and I expect that DF will not have an easy time against NEW. As I just said, it would be different if they attacked NPO. Besides, helping the side that is bigger doesn't make an alliance dishonorable. As a long-time member of the Hegemony, I'd expect you to understand that.

[whatevefr]

To War!

[JoshuaR]

Whether you like it or not the New Polar Order does not support this war, therefore we choose no side. We refuse to wear your silly hat, we will not wave your silly flag and in general, your agendas remain your own. Any perception that we have joined your side is seriously misplaced. Doesn't mean we don't like you, doesn't mean we don't agree with some of what is happening but conversely it doesn't mean I support alliances getting the life bled out of them clinically (and by clinically I mean surgery as performed by a psychopath who has his victim strapped to the operating table, slowly removing the victims skin in order to make a pretty hat)

Please try not the mention us again thanks... unless I do something.

As an outside observer, if an alliance joins to defend an ally against a tiny protectorate that was declared on by said ally (not the other way around), I'm going to say your morals lie with Karma, and that you are on their side. If you are concerned, I do not lump all of the alliances on the Karma side as being associated to any wars in which they, in particular, are not fighting. For example, I do not link the NpO to this war because they are not fighting NEW. As such, any fighting, surrendering, or terms will not reflect upon those Karma alliances not fighting on this particular front. You need not worry that I will judge you for the actions of others, only for what you do. And what you have done is join this giant war on the Karma side, even as your presence on the other front is less necessary than that of Dark Fist's is here.

I apologize for mentioning you here again; it's just the fact that the something that you did was reply to my post, and so I feel a desire to, as you have done, clarify my own view.

Any perception that we have joined your side is seriously misplaced.

I am not in this war, nor on any side. MFO has absolutely zero MDPs. I have ODPs to all the NOIR alliances, yes, but in my mind, because this is a war of two sides and none of the alliances I hold a treaty with on the Karma side were attacked aggressively (NPO attacked OV, to which I am not aligned with in any manner, and some NOIR alliances, eventually, went on down to defend OV's honor), I do not move to defend them. Beyond that, it's already a curbstomp, and I have no desire to be associated with one of those.

As far as this front in particular, I find it quite unfortunate that Dark Fist joined in this manner, but I applaud their honesty and forthrightness in explaining particularly why they did it. In addition, I congratulate NEW in fighting so well as to warrant this entry.

[Starcraftmazter]

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."

I didn't say treaties be dammed. My logic is simple. Treaties are an obligation, the rest of time everything is optional and you have a choice. We've made ours.

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.....

Given that it's been explained countless times that this is an action decided upon and committed by DF and not Karma, and you say such a ridiculous thing, in combination with the rest of your overall silliness and inability to comprehend facts, I think it is safe to ignore you.

So if Invicta had wanted to, we could have DoWed say FCO despite not having a treaty with anyone they were at war with?

Of course you could - there's nothing stopping you. The difference is, are you willing to roll the hard six?

I would for one support you if you did that (as much as I love the FCO).

Interesting stance DF. Somehow I think that if a Hegemony alliance pulled the same stunt they'd be crucified but I guess that's just the way of the world.

I think not.

I just don't support the "you need a treaty to get involved and then you can bandwagon anywhere you feel like it" approach that appears to be being advocated in this thread.

That's funny, I thought we advocating the opposite of this? If we were bandwagonning with a treaty, we could have attacked NPO or IRON. Instead, we decide to attack where we were actually needed.

[gantanX]

hai guyz. i am peaceful nation that trades tech, do not hurt me

hai, you're in Dark Fist and Dark Fist just declared war on us.. so, don't blame us for taking your lunch

or you could join our PoW Camp, we used to have 4 members on our PoW Camp but Chuck Norris set them free

[Daikos]

hai, you're in Dark Fist and Dark Fist just declared war on us.. so, don't blame us for taking your lunch

or you could join our PoW Camp, we used to have 4 members on our PoW Camp but Chuck Norris set them free

After this war you should sit down with me and I will explain a thing or two about lulz to you.

[gantanX]

After this war you should sit down with me and I will explain a thing or two about lulz to you.

why wait ?

[flyangel]

i dont understand. .

NEW Just declared on CCC

n what the meaning of ODP?? are we declared on TDE?

[Daikos]

why wait ?

Can't sit down with the enemy, you might try to poison my clam chowder.

[gantanX]

Can't sit down with the enemy, you might try to poison my clam chowder.

dang it, i just notice your nation sit on my defensive slot

well, i don't like clam chowder, it stinks

[suryanto tan]

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.

How is coming into the war at the last minute to collect the victory which does not belong to you is not opportunistic?

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.

I suggest that so that you can earn your own victory. The one that you truly deserved. Come on, have some pride.

The way we see it, your action is unwarranted agression against us. This is not part of the same war, and should not be treated as such.

If not, then I endeavour you to explain otherwise.

You said couple of times that you will play it your way. Now, if you want to see my interpretation of CN politics, let me attempt.

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.

I will not dispute your claim of victory over NATO. But you should not walk into the war at the last day, and claim to have the victory the minute they surrender.

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.

If you can kindly point out which part of my question is clearly seeking private information, that will be nice. I did not post your part of the conversation, so you should be ok.

You keep saying that you could have declared on IRON or NPO and come out in better shape than if you declared against us, well, please stop glorifying us. Everybody know how it likes to fight against 4 opponents, and CCC, CD, GR, and TDE are not just any random alliances.

Edit: Have some pride!

Edited May 10, 2009 by suryanto tan

[Mack Truck]

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.

In GW3 it was very common for people in WUT or Aegis to attack alliances on the other side even if their alliances hadn't formally had a DoW against them. Precedence right there.

You're the one with the retarded hang up about treaties, don't expect everyone else to be a slave to the status quo. If people had only played in " the spirit of the game as it's been played for the last three years" then we wouldn't even be nuking each other right now. Hell, I remember when I first striked last war and a couple of my targets had a good "Bawwww" like you are right now.

[facetten]

You said couple of times that you will play it your way. Now, if you want to see my interpretation of CN politics, let me attempt.

I will not dispute your claim of victory over NATO. But you should not walk into the war at the last day, and claim to have the victory the minute they surrender.

i can't speak on my alliance's behalf, i don't know how people would interpret this, but do you think it would be ok if all we want is just take the pounding for our friends, not to claim the victory? cuz that's basically what we're doing.

The way we see it, your action is unwarranted agression against us. This is not part of the same war, and should not be treated as such.

we're coordinating our attacks with all the participants, so it doesn't matter how you view/twist our intents, this is the same war

Edited May 10, 2009 by facetten

[foxodi]

Unless of course we all agree that treaties are meaningless. Then hey I'm all for it. Would make things real interesting around war time. That's just not how it is though. Not if you have any integrity.

You seem to support breaking the status quo but yet you do not support the precedent. Though as Mack Truck just pointed out; this is not even the precedent.

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

You seem to fail to understand that we are here to help protect our friends. As stated several times in this thread we have nothing personal against you, so I see no reason why we would fight after our friends have left the war.

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.

Yes; we declared on an alliance that (at the time) had over 500 nuclear weapons - just so we could claim victory over you. We are here for friends and nothing more; You first claimed this was just an opportunistic attack to gain spoils of war, and when you realized we had no intention of seeking reps you then claim we did it just so we could claim to be victorious in another war. No one would risk so much just for a name on a surrender; we risk so much for friends only.

Bottom line is they could've done things right. They chose to look like cheap bandwagoners. Why? Who knows? It was a stupid move. I don;t mind playing without treaties.

We choose to look like "cheap bandwagoners" to those who do not pay full attention to the situation. We care not for gaining the favor of the ignorant. It was a bold move. Also I'm glad you don't mind playing without treaties but then continue to complain anyway.

If you think these actions won't have diplomatic consequences in the future you need to re-think your approach man.

I'm sure it will - as most alliance actions will change how they are perceived by many. In this case it'll be easy for us to determine who is willing to take bold moves for their friends and who aren't. I see this as an advantage.