Prime minister Johns Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='06 February 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1265439330' post='2163702'] When alliances attack you because they hate you, do you tend to react with kindness? [/quote] No I am just saying that such tactics have a price, the NPO used them routinely and look what happened there. If you repeat the procedure you will replicate the results, it's just simple logic there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Seerow' date='06 February 2010 - 04:58 PM' timestamp='1265439504' post='2163720'] How many times was the NPO attacked aggressively? I honestly can't think of a case, they always siezed the initiative and declared on those whom they had an issue with. If anything TOP is taking more notes from NPO than we are. But wanting to maintain the upper hand for our own safety over an alliance that has stated outright they consider us a threat and want to harm us is a far cry from wanting to disband them. [/quote] I think spying on another alliance constitutes an aggresive move. As for this situation, it would be very simple to connect treaties from TOP/IRON to NSO and NpO, while on the other side, from PC to CnG. No reason? Keep telling that to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='06 February 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1265439701' post='2163748'] The "ur worse than NPO!!!!" argument is getting kinda tame now that NPO is neutral and all their evils have faded from our memories. They need to disband an alliance or something, just a small one would do. [/quote] It's not us saying it. It's your own people insinuating it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='The AUT' date='06 February 2010 - 02:00 AM' timestamp='1265439658' post='2163742'] As if CnG never sought the destruction of alliances themselves. That stunt you guys pulled with TPF was what? Did they take reps? Did they ask for reps? They simple took white peace and went about their business. Unless you supported the Athens CB, then that's another matter entirely. [/quote] When did CnG disband an alliance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunstar Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Chaoshawk' date='06 February 2010 - 01:56 AM' timestamp='1265439391' post='2163704'] I don't know what to say, this is an interesting move Grub. I look forward to Penguin taking he reigns [/quote] Chaoshawk my friend, its reins (as in horse reins) not reigns. Pingu would be most displeased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='R3nowned' date='06 February 2010 - 08:02 AM' timestamp='1265439759' post='2163751'] As for this situation, it would be very simple to connect treaties from TOP/IRON to NSO and NpO [/quote] Yeah that makes sense. Except for the fact that cng weren't engaged on any front at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR678Diablo Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 Grub #1 wut are u smokin #2 can i have some Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terveis Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [OOC]I like it, how when ever there is peace on planet bob, people complain about it, they say they want war, and that they love war, but when war comes, they start talking stuff like "we need to make sure they arent a threat again, so they cant attack us in the future! harsh reps, destroy them until they are ZI!". That attitude is imho somewhat ruining the game, well atleast it did in the NPO era. I have always tried to make it so, that there would lots of even, fun wars. that would last some weeks, and then wp, and maybe repeat in couple of months when the tensions rise again. I really hope TOP and other alliances have learned this too, if no one will ever accept stupid draconian terms, then they wont be given. [/OOC] Oh, but talking about peace here at this time? The war hasnt even started yet, there has not been single (Well i hope:P) forced 20+ day collection, MK has been losing until now, why should they stop now, when they are just starting to grind on TOP:s upper tier? We (well, those in charge) should be having this conversation in 6-8 weeks, not just when we are starting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Heft' date='06 February 2010 - 02:00 AM' timestamp='1265439628' post='2163736'] Well right now we're fighting for MK's desire for a statistical advantage. Let me rephrase, none of what happened occurred in the way those two stated it occurred. Such revisionism is now being employed in order to justify a war that, as you've come close to stating, really has no cause whatsoever for either party (or any parties, perhaps) and should be over already. [/quote] YOUR ALLIES STARTED THE WAR TO GAIN A STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE! Really blaming C&G for not giving peace is stupid. TOP and IRON could offer reps to C&G to end it as well but you don't see that happening. [quote name='The AUT' date='06 February 2010 - 02:00 AM' timestamp='1265439658' post='2163742'] As if CnG never sought the destruction of alliances themselves. That stunt you guys pulled with TPF was what? Did they take reps? Did they ask for reps? They simple took white peace and went about their business. Unless you supported the Athens CB, then that's another matter entirely. [/quote] Actually, they tried to ask for reps until mhawk got on and took the white peace. And I agreed with the CB, just not the way it was handled. [quote name='Desperado' date='06 February 2010 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1265439673' post='2163743'] See Seerow's comments thus far. That is just scraping the surface. [/quote] Seerow is not gov in MK. When you see people in MK gov speaking these things you claim to believe that is when you should worry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='06 February 2010 - 02:02 AM' timestamp='1265439749' post='2163750'] No I am just saying that such tactics have a price, the NPO used them routinely and look what happened there. If you repeat the procedure you will replicate the results, it's just simple logic there. [/quote] NPO was never attacked for no good reason except hatred there was always something there. No grounds for comparison. [quote name='R3nowned' date='06 February 2010 - 02:03 AM' timestamp='1265439828' post='2163754'] It's not us saying it. It's your own people insinuating it. [/quote] You are trying to pull it from our words. Its amusing at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='The AUT' date='06 February 2010 - 02:00 AM' timestamp='1265439658' post='2163742'] As if CnG never sought the destruction of alliances themselves. That stunt you guys pulled with TPF was what? Did they take reps? Did they ask for reps? They simple took white peace and went about their business. Unless you supported the Athens CB, then that's another matter entirely. [/quote] Are you seriously claiming that TPF's disbandment was a goal of that war? Umm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='AirMe' date='06 February 2010 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1265439925' post='2163766'] YOUR ALLIES STARTED THE WAR TO GAIN A STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE! Really blaming C&G for not giving peace is stupid. TOP and IRON could offer reps to C&G to end it as well but you don't see that happening. [/quote] No, they didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Desperado' date='06 February 2010 - 02:01 AM' timestamp='1265439673' post='2163743'] See Seerow's posts in this thread alone. That is just scraping the surface. [/quote] Please read my posts in context before trying to paint it as if we're going to be committing some heinous act. But here, I'll summarize it all right here for you: -Right now should MK peace out, we end up the loser in the war regardless of what anyone says, as in the long term game, we come out behind. Why would we peace out while winning if it's going to make us lose? -As such to peace out RIGHT NOW terms would have to make it such that we are winning. This would imply the sorts of crushing terms previously mentioned. -That said, we have no intention of peacing out right now. The longer the war goes on, the more the advantage will shift. As time goes on what will be required for us to have come out ahead will lessen. While to peace out right now we would need to impose crushing terms, in 2 weeks that may not be the case. I don't really think this is such a hard concept to understand, but people like deliberately misreading what others post to make it sound like they're being a monster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='neneko' date='06 February 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1265439882' post='2163762'] Yeah that makes sense. Except for the fact that cng weren't engaged on any front at all. [/quote] So you guys weren't going to honor your treaty with PC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainImpavid Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 some people, when they want to retire, go nuke rogue on a few nations. some people, however, BURN DOWN THE WORLD. /godspeed, Grub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kulomascovia Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 This situation is perpetuating itself. TOP thought that CnG was a danger to its existence so it attacks CnG. Now, CnG is using the same argument to keep TOP at war (or give them harsh reps), thus fulfilling TOP's fears. I'm glad I'm not involved in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Aurion' date='06 February 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1265439944' post='2163769'] Are you seriously claiming that TPF's disbandment was a goal of that war? Umm... [/quote] In that war, I don't think Archon ever tried to press a situation in which that would occur. That can be put to rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='R3nowned' date='06 February 2010 - 02:06 AM' timestamp='1265439964' post='2163773'] So you guys weren't going to honor your treaty with PC? [/quote] MK has no treaty with PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 (edited) [quote name='neneko' date='06 February 2010 - 01:49 AM' timestamp='1265438983' post='2163674'] We have not claimed to want to remove iron and top from the picture. They have stated they wish to remove us though. Once again we did not start this war. We're fighting a defensive war here not a agressive one. The fact that we're winning doesn't change that. [/quote] You think you're winning yet you requested NpO declare on TOP while they are already at war with many alliances, ensuring they get put in a situation they lose either way by fighting both sides... If NpO requests assistance from MK against some of those alliances that declared on them, you guys will help them? Or was this treaty activation request just an attempt to screw NpO over rather than just cancel on them? Very sneaky tactics you got there... Edited February 6, 2010 by Methrage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='05 February 2010 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1265439591' post='2163728'] Yes. I also plan to take hostages. [/quote] Psh. NPO would have killed the hostages for their own erotic satisfaction. You guys will never match up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='kulomascovia' date='06 February 2010 - 02:06 AM' timestamp='1265439998' post='2163775'] This situation is perpetuating itself. TOP thought that CnG was a danger to its existence so it attacks CnG. Now, CnG is using the same argument to keep TOP at war (or give them harsh reps), thus fulfilling TOP's fears. I'm glad I'm not involved in this. [/quote] You are correct. By attacking us, they have CREATED the danger to their existence, and shown us that they are a danger to ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='06 February 2010 - 05:07 PM' timestamp='1265440026' post='2163777'] MK has no treaty with PC. [/quote] I was under the impression that CnG was a MDAP bloc. If I'm wrong, please excuse my ignorance of that fact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Sal Paradise' date='06 February 2010 - 02:07 AM' timestamp='1265440041' post='2163780'] Psh. NPO would have killed the hostages for their own erotic satisfaction. You guys will never match up. [/quote] I will try harder master. If you give me the strategies, I will become one with my inner NPO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Heft' date='06 February 2010 - 02:05 AM' timestamp='1265439956' post='2163770'] No, they didn't. [/quote] And I quote [quote]For our part, however, much our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves.[/quote] Care to tell me what that passage means? Because I am pretty sure I have interpreted correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted February 6, 2010 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 [quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='06 February 2010 - 01:59 AM' timestamp='1265439591' post='2163728'] Yes. I also plan to take hostages. [/quote] I guess if you are into that sort of thing...personally I never pictured you for a bondage fan. Takes all kinds I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts