Question to Poison Clan

[Aurion]

That is fairly standard. They'll probably work to negotiate reps for California before closing the matter. Nothing wrong with that.

That's not the point he was making bigwoody, and I strongly suspect you know it.

The point is that using the war screen to "prove" that one party hasn't offered peace is quite frankly stupid. Since it takes both parties offering peace for "Peace Declared" to show up on their alliance war screen and all

Edited May 22, 2009 by Aurion

[HeinousOne]

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.

When such happens I would expect to be standing side by side with allies and those we protect. That way there can be no excuses and no whining about secret nation rebuilders getting hit on the side during the hostilities. I am not government but yes I am saying if such was to happen I personally would expect our SINGLE protectorate to step up. How many of TPF's stepped up?

We know California opted out of defending TPF. If this is all about honor then how honorable is that?

[ditchboy00]

All this is, is proof that some alliances sign way too many protectorates. They think that their name alone should grant the protected micro alliance immunity from attacks. Well when you sign a protectorate it is all about being able to protect them from attacks, if all you have are insults on a forum to protect them with then you Fail and you seriously need to look over your treaty signing policies. You are way too overextended TPF and insults do not count as defense.

Still waiting to see some responsibility claimed by TPF for foolish treaty signing policies. Oh yeah...that's right you dont mind the damage done to the microalliance because its giving you awesome PR against PC. California is treatied only with TPF right? That basically makes them an extension. I do not know why PC didnt just declare on them pre-emptively. It wouldnt be the first such declaration during this war.

I have a feeling we wont see any responsibility shown from the hegemony side of this as this is just too good of a chance to snag some much needed PR. Look at all the guys trying to take shots at Karma over this. Very obvious folks, very obvious.

i am sure PC would have raided California a month ago.

so basically no one should sign any protectorates because when your on the losing side of a war you wont be able to defend them?

[fant0m]

They staggered most of their targets already

That was my point.

We have not purposely staggered any members of California. Not much point staggering a target when they have a pending peace offer that you sent.

[bbrownso]

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.

You sir are a fool. Most protectorates don't require the protected alliance to come to the aid of the protector. You might be wondering why that is. Probably because the protector doesn't want the protected alliance to get stomped in a war.

As originally conceived by Slayer, a general's protectorate was typically granted for new alliances, which typically can have activity issues. Heck, I remember quite a few not having forums or IRC channels. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve protection or some help from a more experience alliance.

[HeinousOne]

i am sure PC would have raided California a month ago.

so basically no one should sign any protectorates because when your on the losing side of a war you wont be able to defend them?

So everyone should have such a massive web of protectorates that they need to designate three different distinctions? Seriously? Does the world really need that many microalliances? If TPF was so gung ho on making sure these little alliances are protected wouldnt they instead ask some of their many treaty partners and friends to watch over some of them? No, because its not about protecting them its about all the tech that they were easily able to buy from them during the days of the Q hegemony. An alliance does not put together a massive web like that merely for honorable intentions.

[HeinousOne]

You sir are a fool. Most protectorates don't require the protected alliance to come to the aid of the protector. You might be wondering why that is. Probably because the protector doesn't want the protected alliance to get stomped in a war.

As originally conceived by Slayer, a general's protectorate was typically granted for new alliances, which typically can have activity issues. Heck, I remember quite a few not having forums or IRC channels. That doesn't mean they didn't deserve protection or some help from a more experience alliance.

A general's protectorship with an optional defense measure drawn into it. Considering they only have one defensive measure and that is with TPF shouldn't have California come to their aid considering all the months of protection offered to them by TPF? If that protectorship was never meant to have California come to the aid of TPF then why bother with that optional defense measure? Is that only for when the odds are in TPF favor thus they wont lose their tech and money farm?

Is this where I call you a fool in order to try to get one up on you?

[Thom98]

So everyone should have such a massive web of protectorates that they need to designate three different distinctions? Seriously? Does the world really need that many microalliances? If TPF was so gung ho on making sure these little alliances are protected wouldnt they instead ask some of their many treaty partners and friends to watch over some of them? No, because its not about protecting them its about all the tech that they were easily able to buy from them during the days of the Q hegemony. An alliance does not put together a massive web like that merely for honorable intentions.

isn't that just what karma did?

[Alterego]

We have not purposely staggered any members of California. Not much point staggering a target when they have a pending peace offer that you sent.

You would only stagger a raid if there was no intention of letting them peace out. Its a war with no DoW, even your protectorate is getting in on the war.

[HeinousOne]

isn't that just what karma did?

What? Did you even read what I posted or are you just making sure that in every post you make you put in the word Karma while the words surrounding Karma don't really matter that much?

[ditchboy00]

So everyone should have such a massive web of protectorates that they need to designate three different distinctions? Seriously? Does the world really need that many microalliances? If TPF was so gung ho on making sure these little alliances are protected wouldnt they instead ask some of their many treaty partners and friends to watch over some of them? No, because its not about protecting them its about all the tech that they were easily able to buy from them during the days of the Q hegemony. An alliance does not put together a massive web like that merely for honorable intentions.

yeah you are right i am sure TPF was buying a lot of tech from those California nations. I dont remember many TPF nations buying tech from TSI, and if you actually go look at California they have 2 small nations that would be tech sellers.

Basically what you said is dont sign a protectorate if you cant protect them at all times. Well I dont think anyone can guarantee 100% safety at all times, if you know of a way please let us know.

[Felix von Agnu]

A general's protectorship with an optional defense measure drawn into it. Considering they only have one defensive measure and that is with TPF shouldn't have California come to their aid considering all the months of protection offered to them by TPF? If that protectorship was never meant to have California come to the aid of TPF then why bother with that optional defense measure? Is that only for when the odds are in TPF favor thus they wont lose their tech and money farm?

Is this where I call you a fool in order to try to get one up on you?

Have you ever even seen a GP announced? All we say is "X Alliance is under the protection of TPF." No where do we say anything about "But they can protect us if we get hit, and they want to."

[fant0m]

You would only stagger a raid if there was no intention of letting them peace out. Its a war with no DoW, even your protectorate is getting in on the war.

Which is exactly why we haven't staggered them. Why don't the people claiming that this isn't a raid and really a conspiracy to destroy California actually try asking California if we have sent peace offers. I'm pretty sure TPF know that we all sent peace offers after we attacked.

[HeinousOne]

yeah you are right i am sure TPF was buying a lot of tech from those California nations. I dont remember many TPF nations buying tech from TSI, and if you actually go look at California they have 2 small nations that would be tech sellers.

Basically what you said is dont sign a protectorate if you cant protect them at all times. Well I dont think anyone can guarantee 100% safety at all times, if you know of a way please let us know.

You cannot guarantee safety. You can guarantee you will be there for them though. I see that doesn't either way between TPF and California.

Have you ever even seen a GP announced? All we say is "X Alliance is under the protection of TPF." No where do we say anything about "But they can protect us if we get hit, and they want to."

But X Alliance is unable to be protected by TPF if TPF is being hammered by everyone. I am sure that if you massed all of your protectorates together to help you, that it would definately help you be able to protect them in the near future rather then in the distant future.

[Haflinger]

We know California opted out of defending TPF. If this is all about honor then how honorable is that?

Are you questioning California's honour or TPF's here?

[Merrie Melodies]

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.

Indeed, we would be there in a heart beat, no questions asked.

[ditchboy00]

You cannot guarantee safety. You can guarantee you will be there for them though. I see that doesn't either way between TPF and California.

But X Alliance is unable to be protected by TPF if TPF is being hammered by everyone. I am sure that if you massed all of your protectorates together to help you, that it would definately help you be able to protect them in the near future rather then in the distant future.

and you know TPF isnt there for California how?

[Bernkastel]

I guess you must have activated your MDAP w/ Dark Templar? California is really giving you that much trouble?

If only I had aid slots to give to California to help them. :<

[HeinousOne]

and you know TPF isnt there for California how?

Do you considering this thread "being" there for them?

[Velocity111]

You would only stagger a raid if there was no intention of letting them peace out. Its a war with no DoW, even your protectorate is getting in on the war.

1) Your statement is invalid, because peace has in fact been sent. It is not us who are not sending peace, it is they who are not accepting peace. If they want to keep the raid going for 7 days, sure, we can raid them for 7 days, if that's what they desire. But they have peace offers waiting for them, which they can accept whenever they want.

2) To all you people saying we're "destroying" their alliance, we've done two ground attacks and sent peace. No cruise missiles, aircraft, navy attacks, or nukes were used. If we really wanted to destroy their alliance, it would be a lot easier to use those as opposed to using ground attacks and sending peace only.

3) Some post in this thread said something about us being hypocritical because of the Bus Doctrine. Nope, Bus Doctrine specifically says that we won't tolerate the use of cruise missiles, aircraft, navy, or nukes in raids. We haven't broken that.

4) @Merrie Moodles, if the required persons approved a raid on your alliance, then yes, we would be allowed to raid your alliance. However, there are two problems with that. 1) The required persons would not approve said raid because your alliance actually has functioning treaties. 2) Why would we raid an alliance if we didn't think that it would be profitable? (Granted, I have raided nuclear nations and been nuked in raids, so that wasn't profitable. It might not have been the best decision on my part, but whatever, a game is a game)

5) The stagger means nothing. Only 2 nations in PC declared before update. The rest were busy sleeping or something, and then declared whenever they woke up. Seriously, why stagger if you send peace? Defeats the purpose entirely.

6) "You wouldn't have attacked California if TPF still had open war slots". This is absolutely true. Why? Because we'd be in anarchy, and we'd be busy fighting TPF. So we'd have no time to raid California. If the game mechanics allowed us to attack nations while in anarchy, then perhaps we would have attacked California despite fighting TPF. As I previously stated, I started raiding again as soon as I got out of anarchy. And no, we're not specifically targeting California because we hate them and TPF. We're doing it because it's a raid, and if a ton of people are attacking, by simply checking war's in our alliance, you can easily find a raid. Sadly, many of us are too lazy to raid unless we're handed the target (I know I've handed out 9 targets other than California in the last four days ). I've raided 5 nations other than and before the California nations I am currently raiding.

7) This has nothing to do with Karma. At all. Get over it.

8) Not only is TPF not protecting them, they are telling them not to accept peace. Woo.

[ditchboy00]

Do you considering this thread "being" there for them?

please tell me what more they can do? answer my question how can they guarantee them 100% safety? They are on the losing side of this war.

Poison Clan sat by and watched their own protectorates get stomped on for 10 days, and they were on the winning side. What is it you expect TPF to do?

[Roadie]

PC are an honorable, mature and just alliance. It's a tech raid. Nothing more.

When this war is over eveyone will see that this is indeed a tech raid and learn to appreciate PC for the high caliber character they bring to the game.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say nobody will ever remember this raid after it's over. It'll be forgotten and there's no chance it will ever be remembered by anyone in a position to exact some revenge. Never ever.

Edit: Wrong word fail is fail.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Roadie

[Alterego]

edit, never mind

Edited May 23, 2009 by Alterego

[Masterof9puppets]

I guess you must have activated your MDAP w/ Dark Templar? California is really giving you that much trouble?

If only I had aid slots to give to California to help them. :<

Yes, Poison Clan activated their MDAP w/ DT because they couldn't handle the full out obliteration war that they declared on California. You're right on. I actually couldn't tell you how correct you are right now.

Wait, really?

Edited May 23, 2009 by Masterof9puppets

[HeinousOne]

please tell me what more they can do? answer my question how can they guarantee them 100% safety? They are on the losing side of this war.

Poison Clan sat by and watched their own protectorates get stomped on for 10 days, and they were on the winning side. What is it you expect TPF to do?

I do believe I just stated that no one can guarantee 100% safety. NPO proved that. What one Can guarantee is that you will be there for those you sign treaties with no matter what. That does not include "opting out" of an optional defensive treaty. Someone earlier said something about California being too big to sell tech to TPF. I dont think I ever said anything just about tech. In fact I used the word dongs. That would mean I was insinuating that California was meant to send cash to TPF after the war for rebuilding. Perhaps the knowledge of such keeps TPF fighting hard knowing that their web of protectorates will protect them afterwards with growth cash.

If PC would want to end this war then they would have to end that TPF belief that no matter what damage they take they will have plenty of backing afterwards to rebuild with. Now maybe PC should have declared war but what would the CB be? Perhaps folks dont like that they raided during the war but the relationship between Protector and Raiders is one of power. If the protector(s) have no power to stop the raider(s) then the protectors have failed. Yes, the reason for this failure is the massive war but if everyone else is taking massive damage I do not see why micro alliances should not prepare to defend themselves as their protectors cannot protect them.

If California came to the aid of TPF their slots would already be taken up and there would be no raids. In fact it would probably be the same players filling those slots. The moral here is, either way during a Great War the hostilities are going to spread. Its just the way the dominoes go down. When all an alliance has left is to declare the attackers as dishonorable then its time to say we cannot maintain our previous policies.

PC are an honorable, mature and just alliance. It's a tech raid. Nothing more.

When this war is over eveyone will see that this is indeed a tech raid and learn to appreciate PC for the high caliber character they bring to the game.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say nobody will ever remember this raid after it's over. It'll be forgotten and there's no chance it will ever be remembered by anyone in a position to exact some revenge. Never ever.

I really have never had the impression that PC was about showing the world what high calibre is all about. They are about doing it their way and that has been pretty obvious. They are making a statement that if TPF does not come out from under their shells that they will just go back to raiding and their targets of choice will be those that are going to prop TPF back up after the war.

It is war people.

Edit: sorry, grammar

Edited May 23, 2009 by HeinousOne