fant0m Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Would you like us to declare war on you? This raid happened in the first place because TPF are no longer able to fight us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Boris Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 You broke your own rules. No, they didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 It certainly is a sign that signing far too many treaties in the first place is a bad move. Just curious, have you ever counted them all up? Do you sign your treaties with alliances based on your ability to defend them during a global war when your are vastly outnumbered and they are hit in an alliance wide "tech raid" by multiple alliances? I'll save you the time, the answer is no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Yes they have. They used to have a little chart for these types of things (protectorate announcements) for people that have short attention spans. Apparently, it wasn't enough for some. You really shouldn't speak so harshly towards them. Just because they were not able to look at their own charts and realize that if serious hostilities ever broke out that they could not cover everything on the chart, that doesn't mean you should be so rude. You are right though, who would ever have thought Q was going to get hit hard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merrie Melodies Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Try reading our raid rules before you comment?Our raid rules don't say we can't raid alliances over 15 members. They simply state that if the alliances is over 15 members we need the approval of The Toad (CTB) or The Master Killer (Twisted) first. My bad, I apologize for not comprehending your raid rules. Just so I got it straight, for example if your Toad or The Master Killer gave you permission you could raid me and it would be considered a legit raid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Do you sign your treaties with alliances based on your ability to defend them during a global war when your are vastly outnumbered and they are hit in an alliance wide "tech raid" by multiple alliances? I'll save you the time, the answer is no. Do I sign treaties? You could have saved yourself the time by not writing the rest of that pointless garbage because I do not sign treaties. If you would like to compare the amount of TPF treaties and the amount of STA treaties then you will find that one is much more likely to not be able to meet their obligations. Can you guess which one that is? Here is a hint, it is the one that no longer has the 900lb gorilla indirectly protecting its protectorates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyman Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 This raid happened in the first place because TPF are no longer able to fight us. Really? Thanks for proving the point for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Who got rolled? Seriously. Raid commenced with peace offers sent. Everyone needs to just stop with the killing an alliance junk. Not a single peaced war there. You have 24 wars currently. I will give you credit for not messing up the staggers; you only screwed up the stagger on 2 targets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Fidem Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 this is hilarious.. all this for a few little raids. Simper Fidelis PC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbrownso Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 You really shouldn't speak so harshly towards them. Just because they were not able to look at their own charts and realize that if serious hostilities ever broke out that they could not cover everything on the chart, that doesn't mean you should be so rude. You are right though, who would ever have thought Q was going to get hit hard? Actually, I was insinuating that you missed the charts that TPF had. And for your information, the OPP was originally designed as a way for the protectorates to self-protect in this type of situation where TPF is unable to come to a protectorate's defense. However, after OPP attacked STA in the Polar war, the OPP itself now seems to be a target and can't help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Boris Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Not a single peaced war there. You have 24 wars currently. I will give you credit for not messing up the staggers; you only screwed up the stagger on 2 targets. It's a raid, why stagger? Quit interjecting your drivel into every formerly interesting thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Who got rolled? Seriously. Raid commenced with peace offers sent. Everyone needs to just stop with the killing an alliance junk. But-but-but it's so convenient and easy to use to try and make you look "as bad as they are"! Beyond agreeing with this good sir about a few people needing to seriously get a grip about what constitutes "destroying an alliance", I honestly don't have much of an opinion about this. Not a single peaced war there. You have 24 wars currently. I will give you credit for not messing up the staggers; you only screwed up the stagger on 2 targets. If you would so very kindly read the thread, apparently TPF has been instructing California to not take peace. For a war to show up as "Peace Declared", both parties have to send a offer. So... the war screen doesn't really prove much of anything either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Do I sign treaties? You could have saved yourself the time by not writing the rest of that pointless garbage because I do not sign treaties. If you would like to compare the amount of TPF treaties and the amount of STA treaties then you will find that one is much more likely to not be able to meet their obligations. Can you guess which one that is?Here is a hint, it is the one that no longer has the 900lb gorilla indirectly protecting its protectorates. You = your alliance. Could you protect one ally if you were in a large war for a month and vastly outnumbered, remember now you = your alliance. The situation they and California are in has nothing to do with having too many treaties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 You really shouldn't speak so harshly towards them. Just because they were not able to look at their own charts and realize that if serious hostilities ever broke out that they could not cover everything on the chart, that doesn't mean you should be so rude. You are right though, who would ever have thought Q was going to get hit hard? So STA should never sign a protectorate, because they could theoretically be stomped, and unable to protect them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 It's a raid, why stagger? Quit interjecting your drivel into every formerly interesting thread. They staggered most of their targets already That was my point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Not a single peaced war there. You have 24 wars currently. I will give you credit for not messing up the staggers; you only screwed up the stagger on 2 targets. Give me a break. You've read this whole thread. You know TPF told them not to accept peace. Don't play dense to try and gain PR points, it's beneath you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Actually, I was insinuating that you missed the charts that TPF had. And for your information, the OPP was originally designed as a way for the protectorates to self-protect in this type of situation where TPF is unable to come to a protectorate's defense. However, after OPP attacked STA in the Polar war, the OPP itself now seems to be a target and can't help. Wow, you actually thought you got that one over on me? Sorry, guess you didn't catch on to what I did there. I do not care what the OPP was originally designed for. Obviously the design is flawed. The rest of OPP is probably realizing that right now. You can continue to rail on about me not knowing what I am talking about but TPF actions after the war will actually show the opposite. Just watch if you do not believe me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 So STA should never sign a protectorate, because they could theoretically be stomped, and unable to protect them? Actually we did sign a protectorate. A whole overwhelming single protectorate. If we are getting stomped so hard that we cannot help our single protectorate then things surely must be bad but how on earth do you guys expect that you would be able to defend ALL of your treaty partners AND the entire web of protectorates that you hold? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Quick note, California is not in OPP. They are a Generals Protectorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Actually we did sign a protectorate. A whole overwhelming single protectorate. If we are getting stomped so hard that we cannot help our single protectorate then things surely must be bad but how on earth do you guys expect that you would be able to defend ALL of your treaty partners AND the entire web of protectorates that you hold? Because STA can defend every single treaty partner effectively no matter what. Is that what you are saying? Even against half of Bob, STA would put up such an amazing resistance that if their neutral protectorate got raided en masse, they could effectively defend them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Because STA can defend every single treaty partner effectively no matter what. Is that what you are saying? Even against half of Bob, STA would put up such an amazing resistance that if their neutral protectorate got raided en masse, they could effectively defend them. Yes, because STA has half of the world pissed at it and is now cooperating partner in a new bloc that will attempt to control the world so that individual members of the bloc can create oversized webs of protectorates. Good lord, you actually had to make three different distinctions on your protectorate groups. Also, if STA was attacked I personally would assume that our protectorate friends would be there for us as we would indeed be there for them. There wouldnt be a need for this debate as they would be in the fight instead of hanging back to toss dongs at their protector when its all over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Who expects to defend all treaty partners at once? Normally an alliance wouldn't declare on all the OPP and General's Protectorates but would instead accidentally hit one. This treaty argument is ridiculous. As is calling this a "raid." :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Give me a break. You've read this whole thread. You know TPF told them not to accept peace. Don't play dense to try and gain PR points, it's beneath you. That is fairly standard. They'll probably work to negotiate reps for California before closing the matter. Nothing wrong with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Who expects to defend all treaty partners at once? Normally an alliance wouldn't declare on all the OPP and General's Protectorates but would instead accidentally hit one. This treaty argument is ridiculous. As is calling this a "raid." :/ So as an alliance leader you would only take into account what "normally" happens? Yes, that type of thinking has done Q well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 So as an alliance leader you would only take into account what "normally" happens? Yes, that type of thinking has done Q well. Umm, come on. It wasn't that long ago that your alliance DID have half the world land on its door. You should know perfectly well that those types of circumstances make it impossible to succeed in your goals. 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.