OberstKrieger Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Ragnarok declares war on The Phoenix Federation. Two dawns of Planet Bob have passed and not a single ally has declared war in support of The Phoenix Federation. This disturbs me on a personal level, but I digress; this is not about morality, nor is it about my personal opinion on whether they should or should not declare war. Allies of The Phoenix Federation, as I see it, you have three options. Let us break them down for the moment. Option number 1 is to remain silent throughout the remainder of the war, and allow your allies, your friends, to be beaten into oblivion. Option number 2 is to declare war on those attacking The Phoenix Federation. This would likely end up in a loss as far as battlefield victory. Option number 3 is to publicly denounce the actions of The Phoenix Federation, and leave them to be "reprimanded" by society at large for what they have done. I foresee the results of each as follows: Option number 1 would result in the worst possible outcome. Not only did you not support your allies, you remained silent. You gave no reasons, you simply sat back and let them get beaten because your allegiance to them was not worth a possible loss. Option number 2 would incur heavy, heavy battlefield losses, very likely involve large amounts of reparations to be paid, and overall would be incredibly devastating to your nations. Option number 3 would not be quite as bad as option 1. You would save the loss to your nations, while still somewhat saving face. However, what many of you seem to fail to realize is that this is horrible for your public image. While many of you will take the arrogant "I don't give a rat's about my public image, if you don't like me go screw yourself" approach, this is extraordinarily, frankly, stupid. If your public image is damaged, this prevents you from gaining possible allies in the future, and leaves you politically isolated. In the long run, this option is much worse. In the future, you will be known as cowards, and everyone will remember you for backing down instead of supporting your allies. If you sacrifice yourselves now, others will sacrifice themselves for you in the future. And if not, you will be publicly ridiculed and hated, you will not be trusted, and your allies will leave with a cold, bitter (and rather bloody) taste in their mouths. The choice is yours: honour, loyalty, allegiance, and friendship; or cowardice, selfishness (which, ironically, is worse for you), and damage to your reputation. That being said, I do not support The Phoenix Federation's actions. However, if Nueva Vida was allied to The Phoenix Federation you could be damn sure I would be pressing for us to defend our allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Ryan Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Just be legit I guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sup4l33t3ki11a Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 MDoAP partners being treated like this over an ancient CB???? I would have rolled immediately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OberstKrieger Posted December 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Just be legit I guess I'm glad I could add to your postcount. Also, you seem to be heavily invested in the word legit. I'm not sure whether or not you actually read the post, but you hit the nail on the head. Legitimate allies defend their friends, instead of backing down when times get rough. Fair weather friends are no friends at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Ryan Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I try : ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Perhaps they have talked with TPF and are told to standby while TPF and Athens come up with a peaceful resolution? Or perhaps TPF has told them not to bother? Who knows. Personally, I favor the former. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Stupid Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 I just hope i get a target really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkarian Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Its possible that TPF ordered their allies to stand down. They accept that they have failed and that they where wrong. They will never admit it to us, but they may be willing to face what its being dished out. It minimizes the damage done. However you are right those that are pushing for all out warfare will be watching TPF allies like a hawk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) Patience... Edited December 29, 2009 by The Reccesion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Why is everyone instantly assuming TPF's treaty partners abandoned them. Were that the case, doesn't anyone think TPF would have something to say about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBone Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Why is everyone instantly assuming TPF's treaty partners abandoned them. Were that the case, doesn't anyone think TPF would have something to say about it? Perhaps we have said all we need to say, privately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Perhaps we have said all we need to say, privately. They're deep in consultation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baden-Württemberg Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 That's interesting. Yesterday everyone was like...uuum they don't need to enter, uuum it was an aggressive act Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Perhaps they have talked with TPF and are told to standby while TPF and Athens come up with a peaceful resolution? Or perhaps TPF has told them not to bother? Who knows. Personally, I favor the former. Perhaps you could actually read the thread mhwak made stating that TPF requests all diplomatic and military support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 Well, TPF isn't getting particularly hammered by Athens and co at the moment. I guess they are just 'sounding out' as many alliances as possible. Speaking from the ODN's POV- options 1 and 3 suck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorrodders Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 As far as I can see, option 2 is the only option avalible for decent alliances. Option 2 will be the most popular choice I feel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeybum Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 A lot of the behind the scenes problem here is that the treaty web is a super mess, with many alliances facing a tough choice, that could land them on either side of the conflict. This is making it really hard for leaders to make any kind of planning, not knowing who is going to join in for whom.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorrodders Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 It is difficult I grant you, but it is becoming clearer about what we can and cannot do. Im going to state the obvious now, and say "Stick with whom your closest to" Thank you for listening to my pointless drivel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 A lot of the behind the scenes problem here is that the treaty web is a super mess, with many alliances facing a tough choice, that could land them on either side of the conflict. This is making it really hard for leaders to make any kind of planning, not knowing who is going to join in for whom.. If they didn't think of those kind of things when the treaties were originally signed, they are no kind of leaders anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 If you're that bored, you should go ahead and declare on us right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike717 Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 i posted this earlier, but it bears repeating...... Here's a thought: you could leave the issue of how TPF's treaties will be honored between TPF and her treaty partners. The only people i see getting all bent out of shape about TPF's allies not honoring thier treaties are TPF's enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 If you're that bored, you should go ahead and declare on us right now. lets not go thro the RIA-NSO dril.....you challenged...we accept....then someone goes for a vote...3rd party steps in....6th party says no..blah blah... that is far more boring as compared to making this topic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorrodders Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 i posted this earlier, but it bears repeating......Here's a thought: you could leave the issue of how TPF's treaties will be honored between TPF and her treaty partners. The only people i see getting all bent out of shape about TPF's allies not honoring thier treaties are TPF's enemies. It is a good point. I think all they want is a good fight rather than to win, which is rather odd.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 lets not go thro the RIA-NSO dril.....you challenged...we accept....then someone goes for a vote...3rd party steps in....6th party says no..blah blah...that is far more boring as compared to making this topic No, that wasn't what I was suggesting. The RIA-NSO drill was for a 1v1. I'm not suggesting anyone go for anything like that, just that if you're going to whine about treaty activations, you should go ahead and activate some more optional aggression clauses of your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raasaa Posted December 29, 2009 Report Share Posted December 29, 2009 No, that wasn't what I was suggesting. The RIA-NSO drill was for a 1v1. I'm not suggesting anyone go for anything like that, just that if you're going to whine about treaty activations, you should go ahead and activate some more optional aggression clauses of your own. we dont have much of a choice there...none of our MDoAP partners are fighting....on whichever side they fall... 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.