Otherworld Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 The possibility of actually going to war and needing to enforce treaties must always be considered when signing them. Cleary, TPF has too many treaties if they cannot enforce them. Well sure, that should go through every alliances minds "Hey we can't sign this, as over a year from now we may be attacked by about 8 different alliances making it impossible to enforce it". So you are basically saying...nobody should ever sign a protectorate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chairman Cao Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 so you went for an easy target? Sure doesn't sound like the usual PC bravado and swagger. Leads me to two conclusions or a mixture of the two. 1. PC is hurting and needed a nice easy target. 2. PC is so consumed with hatred for TPF that they felt the need to taunt and mock TPF by attacking California. It's a raid so indeed I will choose an easy target when there are many available - raids are meant to be profitable. If my target wishes to fight back I'm already in a nuclear war with 2 other nations so he shouldn't have too hard a time. Many people here are simply interested in attacking our tech raiding itself. While you're perfectly free to do this, it's a separate issue and not what this thread was about. If our actions towards California were anything more than a raid we wouldn't have limited attacks to GAs and offered peace immediately. This should be evident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingzog Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Well sure, that should go through every alliances minds "Hey we can't sign this, as over a year from now we may be attacked by about 8 different alliances making it impossible to enforce it".So you are basically saying...nobody should ever sign a protectorate? Maybe it's just me, but a year-and-a-half-long protectorate seems a bit much. At some point a protected alliance either needs to grow up and walk on its own or admit they're going nowhere and disband. A war involving one's protector should help to speed up that process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Magicninja, you've been doing a lot of whining on the forums as of late, isn't it about time you learned about the wonders of the personal messaging system, or the internet relay chat? I recommend them highly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malazar Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Maybe it's just me, but a year-and-a-half-long protectorate seems a bit much. At some point a protected alliance either needs to grow up and walk on its own or admit they're going nowhere and disband. Why? Some alliances don't have aspirations to be large. There's nothing wrong with being a perpetual protectorate in those circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffey Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) and crap like this makes me glad Avalon is at war with PC right now. You guys have no honor, attacking an alliance just because their protector is already busy fighting is the pinnacle of dishonor. Edited May 22, 2009 by Guffey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Oh noes PC is techraiding! I know there isn't much war drama on owf at the moment but not even on the slowest newsday do PC techraiding count as shocking news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoindotnler Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Brilliant political move! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimaera Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Magicninja, you've been doing a lot of whining on the forums as of late, isn't it about time you learned about the wonders of the personal messaging system, or the internet relay chat? I recommend them highly. Whining and legitimate questions are the same things now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Well who's going to stop them?*Looks over at Karma So is your Coalition going to support an attack on a nation not allied to TPF due to obligation and had no intention of going to war and just to help rebuild TPF to get hit? You don't have to act, just accept you let PC raid an entire alliance similiarily to how NPO raided CIS back in the day. Let's see if you break the chain or repeat history. *Leaves the ball behind in Karma's court Dude... just... no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 its probably just a giant raid... get over it i suggest anyone willing to get on/already on the drama llama leave and never come back, all it will do is make more drama and drama makes the game suck, and id prefer to have fun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 I think raiding alliances is bad. That's really all I have to say about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Karma is not Poison Clan's mother (nor California's). It's not our job to protect TPF's protectorate. How convenient, where is the cry of injustice? thugs and thieves indeed. this will come back to bite you PC Very true, I'm glad we have no formal association with PC to drag us down when karma comes calling for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thom98 Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 I ask the "powers at be" with karma, Is this not exactly the type of actions that you used to justify your war? Yet now that one of your allied nations are doing, that which you so many times have stated you were fighting against (protecting the little guy from the big bully) karma your inaction speaks for you, your tolerance for that which you so many times said you fought against. All of this is acceptable because pc is a alliance that fought for you? Why is it acceptable now, when it was not before? Is it that you really do not have the values you claim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thom98 Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 I think raiding alliances is bad. That's really all I have to say about that. but acceptable when it is done by karma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 I ask the "powers at be" with karma,Is this not exactly the type of actions that you used to justify your war? Yet now that one of your allied nations are doing, that which you so many times have stated you were fighting against (protecting the little guy from the big bully) karma your inaction speaks for you, your tolerance for that which you so many times said you fought against. All of this is acceptable because pc is a alliance that fought for you? Why is it acceptable now, when it was not before? Is it that you really do not have the values you claim? NO the actions that justified this war were treaties and do not forget it. This war was started by the New Pacific Order when they aggressively attacked Ordo Verde. I do not agree with what PC did here but seeing as though no one has treaties to pull them into war with PC I do not see how this situation is at all comparable to the current war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Nobody is claiming that this is acceptable because it's a Karma-affiliated alliance doing it. People are offering their opinions independent from the larger conflict because this action is entirely independent. I think it's crap. Others think it's fine. What does Karma have to do with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeeooh Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Quite frankly this thread is hilarious and I applaud Poison Clan on their ability to generate drama. Furthermore a lot of people in this thread act a lot more butthurt than usual in regards to raiding strategy, and I wonder whether when the last time was they have raided. Poison Clan is rapidly ascending via the Unjust Path. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toto Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 drama makes the game suck I...um wait, what? Did you just say drama makes the game LESS fun? If the game were drama free nothing would happen. Could you imagine CN without alliances and war(the sources of 99% of drama)? Also raiding alliances is bad on its own, without the added bonus of raiding a non-agressive protectorate of someone you are at war with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 its called going to war with your protector, and in this war if you fought for 3-4 days small alliances are guaranteed white peace. Because thats what terra prime and TSI got from you guys right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
extraduty Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Nice classy and safe move jumping a protectorate in war time while their protector is fully engaged....but this seems to be a habit for you. Any threats sent to them about ZI if they attack back??? that is usually the next step. Of course will be interested in seeing what the reps will be for them to get out of the war/raid. For a war about change there doesn't seem to be any....except the names. Fully engaged? Looks like TPF has 62 nations in peace mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Because thats what terra prime and TSI got from you guys right? They fought for more than 4 days and therefore do not apply to this rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 They fought for more than 4 days and therefore do not apply to this rule. So because TSI and TP were better prepared, they didn't get white peace? Or were you sad that they actually damaged your pixels, and wanted a free ride back to where you started off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Nobody is claiming that this is acceptable because it's a Karma-affiliated alliance doing it. People are offering their opinions independent from the larger conflict because this action is entirely independent.I think it's crap. Others think it's fine. What does Karma have to do with it? this stop crying "ITS ALL KARMA's FAULT!" when something happens... im not entirely sure if it is part of the war or just a raid, but one thing is clear, PC's raids have nothing to do with Karma, nor have the ever been nor will they ever... a key fact that the hegemony and the drama llama's are forgetting... Karma isnt an official bloc, entity, or anything of that matter, its just a coalition that assembled when people got tired of NPO's tactics and decided to strike back, so STOP blaming them... seriously Edited May 22, 2009 by Fort Pitt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thom98 Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 as quoted from Karma Viewpoint "as karma is the philosophy that right and wrong actions will be rewarded or punished with positive or negative actions taken against the committer of these actions in the future" (typo's included) I ask the nations of karma to put up or shut up, or is the karma philosophy merely convenient words to suit the cause of the moment or are you true to your words? This has been my question all along. If karma is true to their beliefs then they can not just sit by and watch one of "their" nations slander that which they claim to hold so dear. 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.