Jump to content

Lack of declarations against RoK


Arrnea

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<@Haf> He's going to be in charge at TPF

[15:25] <@TheAUT> Alright set him up with an advisor

[15:25] <@TheAUT> Outside of TPF

[15:25] <@TheAUT> And get alliances paired up

[15:25] <@Iskander[NATO]> Seems logical.

[15:25] <@TheAUT> We need favorable situations in every war

[15:25] <@TheAUT> I mean our attack on GOD is going to have to be absolute and precise

[15:25] <@TheAUT> This is going to take a ton of planning

[15:26] <@Shahenshah[iRON]> first we have to decide who we hit

[15:26] <@gantanX> yes, we need target assingment

[15:26] <@Shahenshah[iRON]> We need to delay FB for as long as possible

Read the last line and tell me it wasnt a strategy that they wanted because they feared the outcome of numbers that could sway against them, i have more of that kind of talk but its not fitting to reveal too much.

Edited for clarification for Kalabac, see when you know more make comments, see when you know nothing just avoid posting.

Edited by Hiro Nakara
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of Supergrievances' forces are in the war already. All of them.

Well, I know that CnG considers itself to be at war automatically when one of its number goes to war, but I've yet to see any CnG outside of Athens deliver ingame declarations of war, so we generally consider them not to be 'in the war' yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[15:26] <@Shahenshah[iRON]> We need to delay FB for as long as possible

Read the last line and tell me it wasnt a strategy that they wanted because they feared the outcome of numbers that could sway against them, i have more of that kind of talk but its not fitting to reveal too much.

I know exactly why RoK was not attacked, I'm just calling them out on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strategery.

Oh yes, letting TPF burn for five days, then mustering a massive 15 forum declarations of war against 3 out of the four alliances attacking them, backed by a massive 24 ingame war declarations. Bravo. Excellent strategy. What's next, Maestro?

Y'know, the flood of DoWs on the forums would have actually been impressive if something similar had happened ingame.

At least last time there was a war of this scale, they had the decency to crash the game too.

I'm afraid it's undercooked, Coincidence.

Edited by Arrnea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of Supergrievances' forces are in the war already. All of them.

Except for more than half of Athens... 112 nations out of their 174 nations are in peace mode at this very moment. So I would not say that ALL of SG is in the war.

Edited by Prime minister Johns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Perhaps so, but then again, it would do far greater damage to declare on RoK if it brings Polaris and/or MHA into the fray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know exactly why RoK was not attacked, I'm just calling them out on it.

Oh no, a call out. Now they have to attack RoK!

I would ask why you don't pay attention when its explained that TPF signed off on it...

but we both know you couldn't suck up attention if you did that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps so, but then again, it would do far greater damage to declare on RoK if it brings Polaris and/or MHA into the fray.

Again, not the point.

With TPF's request for assistance against its attackers, those with MDP's or higher with TPF are obligated to attack Ragnarok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would ask why you don't pay attention when its explained that TPF signed off on it...

I would imagine TPF signed off on it because (at least) IRON seemed to think it was necessary to not attack RoK in order to delay Frostbite.

[15:26] <@Shahenshah[iRON]> We need to delay FB for as long as possible
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't aware you had an e-lawyer degree from University of Phoenix!

I don't, but then I don't need one to understand the implication of:

Any declaration of war upon a member of either alliance is considered an act of aggression to the undersigned member alliances.
and
If anyone attempts to trespass on Whiteacre, the joint tenants agree to work together to repel the trespasser.
and
Don't touch my BFF, or we will come for you. And not in the good way.
and
If the black helicopters come for ML, TPF promises to supply the BOBs, with provisions for 72 hours, and vice versa. If the blue helmets show up at one party's door and it's SHTF time, the other party will bug in and help turn the enemy into bullet sponges.
Edited by Arrnea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, not the point.

With TPF's request for assistance against its attackers, those with MDP's or higher with TPF are obligated to attack Ragnarok.

No they're actually not. At the end of the day, it is TPF's decision whether or not it needs help and whether or not they will choose to activate their treaties on certain fronts. TPF is not so stupid as to demand their allies attack ROK, as it could seriously undermine their war effort. Now why don't you go sulk somewhere else about TPF not being imbeciles?

Edited by Hydro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't, but then I don't need one to understand the implication of:

Is there some sort of penalty you are going to assess since you don't believe they are following the treaty? Or is it upsetting this isn't going as planned and you have no clue what their next move will be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there some sort of penalty you are going to assess since you don't believe they are following the treaty? Or is it upsetting this isn't going as planned and you have no clue what their next move will be?

My alliance is not treatied to anyone presently at war, so no. Those that believe these alliances will uphold the word of their treaties however, would best be warned that this is only likely to happen when it suits them.

Also, whatever CC's next move is is irrelevant and not the point of this discussion.

Edited by Arrnea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My alliance is not treatied to anyone presently at war, so no. Those that believe these alliances will uphold the word of their treaties however, would best be warned that this is only likely to happen when it suits them.

Also, whatever CC's next move is is irrelevant and not the point of this discussion.

The alliances you are treatied to would likely never sign with these alliances regardless. Your astounding inability, or reluctance, to admit the actual reason behind this still amazes me. Such a thing happens when you have preconceived feelings on alliances, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your astounding inability, or reluctance, to admit the actual reason behind this still amazes me.

Sorry, but IRON already admitted that they want to delay the entry of Frostbite alliances as much as possible:

[15:26] <@Shahenshah[iRON]> We need to delay FB for as long as possible
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...