Lack of declarations against RoK

[Arrnea]

Now, from my observations of the declarations of war issued at the last update against Athens, GOD and \m/, they have more or less unilaterally called the CB against TPF to be false, thus from their point of view, TPF is on the defensive (causing Mutual Defence clauses to activate).

Now, by the same logic, the alliance of Ragnarok has 'attacked' TPF, and thus mutual defense clauses with TPF automatically activate and those alliances are treaty-bound to declare on Ragnarok for their attack on TPF.

Yet, I do not see this happening.

I realise there are motivations behind not doing so, but the treaties held by TPF leave little room for interpretation on the matter of mutual defence.

Anyone care to elaborate?

[Sandwich Controversy]

It, like putting all their nations in peace mode and declaring fewer wars than I can count on one hand, is another brilliant strategy by the "Coincidence Coalition".

[michaeru]

Ragnarok isn't just going to go away on it's own, people. Sooner or later, you will just have to man up and do it, before they do it to you. :V

[Canik]

Now, from my observations of the declarations of war issued at the last update against Athens, GOD and \m/, they have more or less unilaterally called the CB against TPF to be false, thus from their point of view, TPF is on the defensive (causing Mutual Defence clauses to activate).

Now, by the same logic, the alliance of Ragnarok has 'attacked' TPF, and thus mutual defense clauses with TPF automatically activate and those alliances are treaty-bound to declare on Ragnarok for their attack on TPF.

Yet, I do not see this happening.

I realise there are motivations behind not doing so, but the treaties held by TPF leave little room for interpretation on the matter of mutual defence.

Anyone care to elaborate?

TPF wanted RoK all for themselves. It's so obvious.

[Arrnea]

TPF wanted RoK all for themselves. It's so obvious.

TPF called for assistance from all their allies against their attackers from very early in this conflict and as such, their allies are treaty-bound to attack Ragnarok.

Who the CC does and does not want entering the war on the Supercomplaints side is completely irrelevant to the treaties they are bound by.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Arrnea

[Stefano Palmieri]

Rok-NpO MDoAP my have scared some of them off

EDIT: or There be greater forces at play, as in someone else will declare on RoK

Edited January 2, 2010 by Stefano Palmieri

[von Metternich]

Nvm.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Famzy

[Arrnea]

Rok-NpO MDoAP my have scared some of them off

I am fully aware of that as a motivator for them not to declare, but it doesn't make a whit of difference with regard to treaties.

The treaties are not to the effect of "defend the attacked alliance against all aggressors that aren't treatied to the Big Bad Blue Meanie", they are to the effect of "defend the attacked alliance against the aggressors". These alliances are not defending TPF against RoK.

EDIT: or There be greater forces at play, as in someone else will declare on RoK

And yet most, if not all of the alliances that did declare declared unilaterally on all of Athens, GOD and \m/. Not one of them hit RoK.

There were plenty of ways they could have split up to take Athens, GOD and \m/ individually, but they each hit them all.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Arrnea

[King Wally]

thank god CC didn't declare on us... i dont think RoK could have withstood the 5 to 6 wars we would have received...

[rsoxbronco1]

It's just a coincidence.

[Jack Diorno]

The only logical conclusion I can see is if they are trying to not activate the NpO-ROK MDoAP, but at the end of the day it's going to be NpO's choice to activate the treaty whether they declare on RoK or not.

[Canik]

TPF called for assistance from all their allies against their attackers from very early in this conflict and as such, their allies are treaty-bound to attack Ragnarok.

Who the CC does and does not want entering the war on the Supercomplaints side is completely irrelevant to the treaties they are bound by.

I am honoring TPF's wishes, do you honestly doubt that? C'mon now.

[Van Hoo III]

thank god CC didn't declare on us... i dont think RoK could have withstood the 5 to 6 wars we would have received...

I know a lot of other alliances are doing it, but (fun propaganda aside) we don't really goad other alliances in times of war. I doubt they just forgot us, Wally.

[Hiro Nakara]

No it really is not a misstake or they have been missed out, the group of people hitting athens/god/\m/ and co realise that if they hit RoK they then have other large allies to deal with namely polaris to name 1, this is conicidental it was planned so that it avoids them getting really hurt by others. they would drag in others against them which would put a strain on there attacks, which is why they are avoiding hitting RoK or DoWing on them atm. but im sure if they thought they could get away with it without being scared of other inteventions they would have.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Hiro Nakara

[lazaraus45]

are you suggesting that every one of TPF's allies should declare on every one of its attackers and that the same should also happen in every other war?

[Arrnea]

The only logical conclusion I can see is if they are trying to not activate the NpO-ROK MDoAP, but at the end of the day it's going to be NpO's choice to activate the treaty whether they declare on RoK or not.

That's what I thought to. Not to mention that NpO has other ways to get into the war (like their treaty with MK) if that is what they want to do.

[Arrnea]

are you suggesting that every one of TPF's allies should declare on every one of its attackers and that the same should also happen in every other war?

I'm suggesting that a coalition supposedly made to defend TPF on the basis of the member alliance's treaties with TPF should at least cover all the bases.

In this scenario, where the alliances that have declared have largely (read: nearly all of them) declared on all of TPF's attackers EXCEPT Ragnarok, then yes, they should have declared on Ragnarok as well as dictated by their treaties with Ragnarok.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Arrnea

[Hiro Nakara]

are you suggesting that every one of TPF's allies should declare on every one of its attackers and that the same should also happen in every other war?

Dont sit there and try to prove me wrong, when I was present in the irc room when they were discussing it. lol factor 10 young man.

[Kalabac]

NpO wouldn't put a dent in CC's massive numbers/NS advantage...

[Arrnea]

NpO wouldn't put a dent in CC's massive numbers/NS advantage...

It's actually not that massive, at least not yet. They only outnumber the existing Supercomplaints forces (that is, only those forces that were part of the original declarations on TPF) by 3.5 to 1 in nations, about 3 to 1 in NS and slightly less than 3 to 1 in nukes. So yes, Polar could put a significant dent in it.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Arrnea

[lazaraus45]

why?

the main part of a treaty in my opinion is that it is followed, not how it is followed,

so long as that is carried out then there can be as much interpretation of mutual defence as needs be for whatever suits the treaty holders interests

[WorkingClassRuler]

Yet another part of the joke that is this Coalition.

[Kalabac]

It's actually not that massive, at least not yet. They only outnumber the existing Supercomplaints forces by 3.5 to 1 in nations, about 3 to 1 in NS and slightly less than 3 to 1 in nukes. So yes, Polar could put a significant dent in it.

maybe a dent, but it would not by any means turn the tides, or even cause alarm.

[Arrnea]

why?

the main part of a treaty in my opinion is that it is followed, not how it is followed,

so long as that is carried out then there can be as much interpretation of mutual defence as needs be for whatever suits the treaty holders interests

Chain of events, with regard to RoK and treaties with TPF:

Ragnarok attacks TPF.

Mutual defense clauses with TPF activate.

Alliances with said clauses are treaty-bound to attack Ragnarok.

It's really quite simple.

[Arrnea]

maybe a dent, but it would not by any means turn the tides, or even cause alarm.

You're heavily underestimating Polar's military/economic power and influence here.

The addition of Polar alone to the side of Supercomplaints would close the nation advantage to merely 2 to 1, the NS advantage to about 1.6 to 1 and the nuke advantage to about 1.3 to 1. There are also many more alliances ready to come in on the side of Supercomplaints.

CC's 'advantage' doesn't look so indomitable now, does it?

Edited January 2, 2010 by Arrnea