Shimmer Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 I propose a world-wide Optional Defense Optional Aggression Pact. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...p;#entry1721894 Scroll down to The Destiny Pact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted August 5, 2009 Report Share Posted August 5, 2009 Suddenly I feel the urge to offer TimLee an ODP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shimmer Posted August 6, 2009 Report Share Posted August 6, 2009 Suddenly I feel the urge to offer TimLee an ODP. I am running low on toilet paper. I suppose that treaty paper could tie me over until I make it the store Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chigurh Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 Years ago nuke first strikes were the most immoral thing an alliance could do, even worse than "bandwagoning", until a certain superpower decided that was the best strategy to take out FAN. Hardly a mumur of complaint... As said before the "OMG your bandwagoning!" was/is just a silly house rule to benifit those in power at the time. It will fall as well when convienent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pericles8th Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 It's not about being on the winning side most of the time. It's about having a mutual enemy. Wow, someone who actually thinks before they post. Sir your simplicity is only shared by few on this forum. Congratulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 GWI and GWIII probably saw the highest prevalence of outright bandwagoning of any off the major wars. Most of it was against the Orders. It's not difficult to figure out why it was stamped out by social convention. this is true. At the same time, the Unjust War saw a good amount of bandwagoning against the Unjust Path iirc. Those on the UjP side also complained about the bandwagoning. Thus, to imply that it was solely the Orders who strived to stamp out bandwagoners is quite untrue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted August 8, 2009 Report Share Posted August 8, 2009 Years ago nuke first strikes were the most immoral thing an alliance could do, even worse than "bandwagoning", until a certain superpower decided that was the best strategy to take out FAN. Hardly a mumur of complaint...As said before the "OMG your bandwagoning!" was/is just a silly house rule to benifit those in power at the time. It will fall as well when convienent. Actually, Tyga used a first strike nuke to start GW1. It was not Pacifica who started the "first strike nukes are immoral bit", iirc it was League alliance due to the fact that the Orders and WUT had far more nukes than the League. read my post above about the state of bandwagoning. It is used by both sides in almost every war, not just by the Orders. @CSM/Leviathon- Bandwagoning is about a mutual enemy yes, but only if the mutual enemy was in a position to loose will bandwagoners come out of the woodworks. I do not recall GATO/IAA/CSN/(know i am missing an alliance) gaining any bandwagoners against Pacifica/Polaris/1V during that war, despite 1V being mutual enemies for other alliances. So yes, it is usually both. Bandwagoners will not join the war against a mutual enemy unless they are assured they will win. This is also why if the war lasts longer or the bandwagoners get hit harder than they thought would happen, they also tend to be amongst the first to leave the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammer Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Actually, Tyga used a first strike nuke to start GW1. It was not Pacifica who started the "first strike nukes are immoral bit", iirc it was League alliance due to the fact that the Orders and WUT had far more nukes than the League. I thought it was the other way around, which combined with higher WUt activity and co-ordination despite the numbers gap gave the desire for conventional warfare? *goes to UE stats thread after posting to check Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Actually, Tyga used a first strike nuke to start GW1. It was not Pacifica who started the "first strike nukes are immoral bit", iirc it was League alliance due to the fact that the Orders and WUT had far more nukes than the League. UE has a famous post on that topic here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRA KING Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Bandwagoning is like kicking someone when their on the floor so that you seem as if you did something. Or you just jump on the winning side for the point of not being attacked your self and gaining a good "REP" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzzptm Posted August 9, 2009 Report Share Posted August 9, 2009 Regarding the OP... if allies request aid, we shouldn't call that bandwaggoning. It's an alliance system, and that's what it's for. If an alliance uses a treaty to invite itself to a juicy war and a seat at the negotiating table, that's bandwaggoning... armed robbery may be a better term. If an alliance cancels a treaty to get the hell outta Dodge before the curbstomp hits the fan, that could either be cowardice or at the insistence of the alliance about to get curbstomped, so that its allies don't get sucked down with it. Tricky call there, and we don't always get the full story in the OWF behind such moves. NV recently aided MK in the war against TPF. TPF nations were out of range of MK nations, so we stepped in to plug the gap. We went in with an optional aggression clause and took no tech or cash in our peace terms because of that. We went in to help friends, not grab up tech. I don't think anyone but casualty junkies could call that bandwaggoning. In the case of treaty-less actions... defense should not necessarily require a treaty... that being said, things should be proportional. If a sanctioned alliance suddenly intervened in a microalliance war to pick up a tech farm, I think we'd all call that bandwaggoning. Or armed robbery. If another alliance joined in a fight just to even things up, that would be sticking up for a buddy. Why not? Aggressors have no rights to set the terms of their wars beyond what their own arms can enforce. 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.