Lord Boris Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 What is GOD/Nemesis' vested interest in our treaty with AB? They've agreed to surrender and not further partake in this conflict, effectively rendering the treaty inactive for the duration of the war... why force them to cancel it? Xiphosis does things like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Congrats our allies in GOD, and our friends in Nemesis on peace. AB may you rebuild swiftly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Have fun rebuilding Aurora Borealis, good times to look forward to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 That's a really dumb thing to get in a tizzy over considering how many times that happened on Karma's side. it might have something to do with declaring via an oA clause from an alliance who wasn't at war with us at that point. (though they joined our front a few days later when GDA withdrew). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 it might have something to do with declaring via an oA clause from an alliance who wasn't at war with us at that point. (though they joined our front a few days later when GDA withdrew). What? They declared via their treaty with Echelon, I believe, on GOD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heracles the Great Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Congrats to GOD and Nemesis on their victory - glad to see peace terms - Good luck in your other wars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wu Tang Clan Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Peace is good. Good luck to all in the rebuilding process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) Congrats to our allies and friends on finding peace. Admittedly, though, I am a little surprised at you Xiph. I didn't realize you could quote scripture without being struck by lightning. Damn typos... Edited May 18, 2009 by Kevin McDonald Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 What? They declared via their treaty with Echelon, I believe, on GOD? yep and at the time they declared on us GOD was at war with the NPO and the GDA in defence of the NPO (something about "violating the NPO" if i remember the Declaration right). We were not at war with Echelon either on paper or in real wars until a few days later, which is why their declaration was mocked when it happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 yep and at the time they declared on us GOD was at war with the NPO and the GDA in defence of the NPO (something about "violating the NPO" if i remember the Declaration right). We were not at war with Echelon either on paper or in real wars until a few days later, which is why their declaration was mocked when it happened. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...c=54930&hl= As pursuant to Article 4, Section 4.1 of the One Vision Bloc Treaty (below), and waiving Section 4.3 of the same Article, Echelon hereby acknowledges a state of war with all parties currently engaging the New Pacific Order. What? Considering you had acknowledged/declared war with NPO over an hour previous, and considering it was the Echelon treaty activated against GOD, how were they declaring on someone uninvolved again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Pow right in the kisser! What/who is Aurora Borealis?? That's what I said at the beginning of the war. Now AB is that smoking crater over there from which GOD is extracting tech from, somehow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 echelon attacked a number of alliances in their initial attack but we were not among them. As i said, we didn't consider Echelon our front and were quite happy with attacking the GDA and the NPO then suddenly AB attacked us citing a treaty with an alliance we had no wars with, but who had a number of wars with different alliances. Yes with the somewhat strange declaration by Echelon it was difficult to say who they were at war with, but we simply assumed that those they declared on were those they want to wage war with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) I think claiming that ghost DoWs are wrong might come back and bite pretty fast. I can't really see anything wrong with how AB entered the war. A declaration of war is a declaration of war no matter if any actual attacks are launched. Edited May 18, 2009 by neneko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) echelon attacked a number of alliances in their initial attack but we were not among them.As i said, we didn't consider Echelon our front and were quite happy with attacking the GDA and the NPO then suddenly AB attacked us citing a treaty with an alliance we had no wars with, but who had a number of wars with different alliances. Yes with the somewhat strange declaration by Echelon it was difficult to say who they were at war with, but we simply assumed that those they declared on were those they want to wage war with. Nice back-track. No active wars does not mean you are not at war with someone and I'm possibly the last person you'll convince otherwise. You were in a de jure, acknowledged and declared state of war and if you're going to pull the "legality" bullcrap as a means to prolong a war you need to get it right. I suspect there's more to this than you're willing to admit. Why is that? edit: screw you sponge Edited May 18, 2009 by Doitzel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamed Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Xiphosis does things like that. I think the more important question is why you would want to sign with someone like Echelon. Even we coat tail riders and puppets at GR have standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) i ain't saying the were wrong to enter the war, frankly i am far less moral than many other players in this game. If they had simply posted: "we want to have a war have at it" i'd be perfectly fine with it. Echelon's dec was pretty ripe for confusion all around, you could either consider them at war with all alliances (8 at that point i believe) or you could take it as we understood it, that they agreed to back the NPO against all enemies and were attacking whoever they were attacking. Anyway, it's a pretty moot point which doesn't have a lot to do with the peace agreement itself. I wish AB well in rebuilding and hope they choose their side more carefully next time. (edit to include Doitzel's last post which wasn't up when wrote this) As i said Echelon's declaration was VERY confusing. You could (and obviously you specifically do so) read it as declaring war on all attackers of the NPO, our interpretation was more of a broad declaration of support. They started ingame attacks a few days later and obviously at that point we considered ourselves at war with them. Now to reply to your "legality" bullcrap, you seem to be under some missconceptions, AB declared an offensive war against us, knowing full well that there was some bad blood between the Superfriends and themselves now why in the world would we need any legal arguments to fight them? What were we supposed to do, simply defend ourselves and offer white peace every day? I have no idea what you are fishing for in your posts. You asked a question and i answered with my interpretation of the answer (which is obviously subjective). Edited May 18, 2009 by Tulafaras Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 echelon attacked a number of alliances in their initial attack but we were not among them.As i said, we didn't consider Echelon our front and were quite happy with attacking the GDA and the NPO then suddenly AB attacked us citing a treaty with an alliance we had no wars with, but who had a number of wars with different alliances. Yes with the somewhat strange declaration by Echelon it was difficult to say who they were at war with, but we simply assumed that those they declared on were those they want to wage war with. So wait, is it necessary to launch individual wars to validate an alliance DoW now? Yeah I think you'd want to check that rationale out with your MADP partner. The Echelon DoW looks pretty clear to me. It's pretty similar to the STA's DoW from last year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electron Sponge Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 You were in a de facto, acknowledged and declared state of war and if you're going to pull the "legality" bullcrap as a means to prolong a war you need to get it right. That would actually be de iure wouldn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 That would actually be de iure wouldn't it? Shut up I'm not supposed to be awake before noon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 So wait, is it necessary to launch individual wars to validate an alliance DoW now?Yeah I think you'd want to check that rationale out with your MADP partner. The Echelon DoW looks pretty clear to me. It's pretty similar to the STA's DoW from last year. How do you count fronts in a Global War? Do you honestly think that for Echelon to surrender they now have to beg for peace from every seperate alliance attacking the NPO? Usually it's either defined in the DoW or the front becomes clear by ingame action. And honestly that side-facet of this mess has little to do with this peace settlement does it? If you want to discuss it any longer i'll gladly take this to another thread or pm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 I am glad to see this peace for our allies in AB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 How do you count fronts in a Global War? Do you honestly think that for Echelon to surrender they now have to beg for peace from every seperate alliance attacking the NPO? Usually it's either defined in the DoW or the front becomes clear by ingame action.And honestly that side-facet of this mess has little to do with this peace settlement does it? If you want to discuss it any longer i'll gladly take this to another thread or pm. For every alliance they declared war on or from the coalition against them as a whole, yes, I think so. I expect GOD will be most merciful, though, in light of your apparent attitude towards their declaration against you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 How do you count fronts in a Global War? Do you honestly think that for Echelon to surrender they now have to beg for peace from every seperate alliance attacking the NPO? No, just the ones attacking the NPO at the time of their declaration. VE, Athens, GR, R&R, RoK, MOON, INT, Orion, DiCE, Vanguard, IOTA, Avalanche, GOD and GUN, specifically. I suspect that since Orion ceased their attacks on the NPO, Echelon probably would be quite willing to forget about their war declaration. 14 alliances may seem like a lot, but a number of those are involved in blocs or are otherwise close, and so I wouldn't think it would be impossible to arrange. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulafaras Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 interesting interpretation mine would be rather different, but then i guess that is the point we are arguing about. Quite honestly i think we have strayed rather far from the initial topic, but i don't think i can convince you and am quite certain you can't convince me so i'll simply let this argument be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khyber Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Great to see this. Love you AB, and I know you went in this not for the cause, but for a long time debt you owed Echelon. 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.