Royal Order of Confederate Kingdoms Announcement

[Smooth Pancakes]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='15 February 2010 - 03:44 AM' timestamp='1266223451' post='2182626']
its always easier to come to an allies defense when they are on the side with statistical advantages.

With that said, your DoW makes no sense. Its funny that you consider TFD attacking back against RoK to be "hurting" them. Its laughable really, to consider the exercise of their right to defend themselves from attacks as an attack against RoK. And your nuclear policy, stupid, one nuke means you can nuke all of your opponents? So if your at war against multiple alliances, you get one rogue nuke and hit them all?

I lol'd. Impressive all around, you certainly are.
[/quote]

I'm sure some parts of the DoW might not be quite as clear logically. The reason that would be is due to the fact that I was the only Defense official on during the time everything happened yesterday, meaning all of my attention was on putting together target packages for our members who would be fighting. Typing up our DoW was a secondary item and something I did literally minutes before I posted it. However, overall, the point does get put across. We were requested by Ragnarok to battle TFD and relieve some pressure from RoK's many fronts that they are fighting on in this war, and we responded.

And about the nuclear policy, again, being written in haste has caused one or two errors. As I am in control of R.O.C.K.'s nuclear ordinance, I will only authorize nuclear attacks against those who nuke us first. As for "one nuke means you can nuke all of your opponents", in The Foreign Division's case, then yes, I will authorize release at will for those fighting TFD nations. As far as any other alliances, if nations from other alliances attack us, then our nuclear policy as to their nations is something I will look at at the time such a thing occurs.

In a game where one nation can potentially cause a boatload of issues for alliances by a simple action with their nation against another and nations these days seem to be constant representatives of their alliances no matter what or where they are, then I consider one nation of TFD to be a constant representative of their alliance, and a simple action by them can result in action taken against the alliance as a whole. Heck, that's how half of these wars anymore seem to get started for.

R.O.C.K. nations are not permitted to release a single nuke without my direct, explicit authorization. Our members have control and can exercise that control. Therefore, as long as no TFD nation first strike nukes a R.O.C.K. nation, no TFD nations will have to worry about being hit by nukes from R.O.C.K. nations. We as an alliance have no issues with fighting this war in purely conventional warfare methods, therefore no nukes. But if TFD decides to take this war to a nuclear level, then we also have no issues with doing the same, and will do exactly that. So it's purely up to TFD and their nations as to if this becomes a nuclear war or not between our alliances.


[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' date='15 February 2010 - 08:20 AM' timestamp='1266240048' post='2182854']
I don't think that is the reason R.O.C.K joins in. I know that if RoK fought the world, they wouldn't fight it alone because of R.O.C.K
[/quote]

This. SpiderJerusalem gets it 100%. It would not have mattered to me if RoK really was fighting the world, RoK versus every single other alliance in existence. We still would respond and fight by their side, even if it meant the absolute, guaranteed death of our nations. We will go to hell and back for RoK, no matter the circumstances. That is something RoK, and I know for a fact others, recognize. We don't join wars because they are in our favor to win, we join wars because our brothers in arms request our help, and we answer. That is why our treaty with RoK has survived without any danger whatsoever of collapse for all these years. That is why our treaty with RoK will continue to survive for as long as both of our alliances exist.

[Obiwan]

may yellow forever prosper with a fine alliance such as you inhabiting it right beside us

[paulpig]

The first nation to nuke Smooth gets 20 billion!

JK. Good luck ROCK. you's!

[memoryproblems]

[quote name='sethb' date='15 February 2010 - 04:11 AM' timestamp='1266228709' post='2182700']
So you would have them not assist their ally just because they happen to be on the winning side of the war?

I find it quite hilarious that a member of Echelon is insinuating that an alliance is being oppourtunistic.
[/quote]

[quote name='SpiderJerusalem' date='15 February 2010 - 07:20 AM' timestamp='1266240048' post='2182854']
I don't think that is the reason R.O.C.K joins in. I know that if RoK fought the world, they wouldn't fight it alone because of R.O.C.K
[/quote]

Alot of alliances say that they would stand against the world if they have to, but talk is cheap. Alot of alliances think like that during good times and are nowhere to be found during the hard times. I'm not saying that R.O.C.K. is like that, however I highly doubt that many alliances would activate an oA provision of a treaty if they knew they we're going to get heavily beaten, particularly when their activity is a problem. Have fun in the war, but know that alliances actions are not judged by their behavior in good times, but rather in poor times.

And sethb, I'm glad that i could be of comedic assistance, but oppertunism is largely based on your activity in good times compared to your activity in bad times. Have you observed any reluctance on Echelon's behalf over the past year or so to enter a war that we weren't going to win? I haven't.

[circlewood]

Oh don't you worry, you'll be glowing green in no time at all.

[Smooth Pancakes]

[quote name='circlewood' date='15 February 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1266268714' post='2183449']
Oh don't you worry, you'll be glowing green in no time at all.
[/quote]

Looking forward to it. My nation hasn't glowed green since taking on IRON back in the Karma War last April. It's been too long since I ate a nuke.

[Tautology]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='15 February 2010 - 09:17 PM' timestamp='1266268659' post='2183447']
Alot of alliances say that they would stand against the world if they have to, but talk is cheap. Alot of alliances think like that during good times and are nowhere to be found during the hard times. I'm not saying that R.O.C.K. is like that, however I highly doubt that many alliances would activate an oA provision of a treaty if they knew they we're going to get heavily beaten, particularly when their activity is a problem.[/quote]
History supports your fair-weather friends argument. A lot (2 words please; sorry, pet peeve) of alliances wouldn't activate an oA provision if the odds were against them.

RoK would. R.O.C.K. would.

o/ strong allies
o/ R.O.C.K.

[Kowalski]

Looking forward to fighting alongside you guys.

[Joe Stupid]

[quote name='Smooth Pancakes' date='15 February 2010 - 02:04 PM' timestamp='1266260696' post='2183257']
I'm sure some parts of the DoW might not be quite as clear logically. The reason that would be is due to the fact that I was the only Defense official on during the time everything happened yesterday, meaning all of my attention was on putting together target packages for our members who would be fighting. Typing up our DoW was a secondary item and something I did literally minutes before I posted it. However, overall, the point does get put across. We were requested by Ragnarok to battle TFD and relieve some pressure from RoK's many fronts that they are fighting on in this war, and we responded.

And about the nuclear policy, again, being written in haste has caused one or two errors. As I am in control of R.O.C.K.'s nuclear ordinance, I will only authorize nuclear attacks against those who nuke us first. As for "one nuke means you can nuke all of your opponents", in The Foreign Division's case, then yes, I will authorize release at will for those fighting TFD nations. As far as any other alliances, if nations from other alliances attack us, then our nuclear policy as to their nations is something I will look at at the time such a thing occurs.

In a game where one nation can potentially cause a boatload of issues for alliances by a simple action with their nation against another and nations these days seem to be constant representatives of their alliances no matter what or where they are, then I consider one nation of TFD to be a constant representative of their alliance, and a simple action by them can result in action taken against the alliance as a whole. Heck, that's how half of these wars anymore seem to get started for.

R.O.C.K. nations are not permitted to release a single nuke without my direct, explicit authorization. Our members have control and can exercise that control. Therefore, as long as no TFD nation first strike nukes a R.O.C.K. nation, no TFD nations will have to worry about being hit by nukes from R.O.C.K. nations. We as an alliance have no issues with fighting this war in purely conventional warfare methods, therefore no nukes. But if TFD decides to take this war to a nuclear level, then we also have no issues with doing the same, and will do exactly that. So it's purely up to TFD and their nations as to if this becomes a nuclear war or not between our alliances.




This. SpiderJerusalem gets it 100%. It would not have mattered to me if RoK really was fighting the world, RoK versus every single other alliance in existence. We still would respond and fight by their side, even if it meant the absolute, guaranteed death of our nations. We will go to hell and back for RoK, no matter the circumstances. That is something RoK, and I know for a fact others, recognize. We don't join wars because they are in our favor to win, we join wars because our brothers in arms request our help, and we answer. That is why our treaty with RoK has survived without any danger whatsoever of collapse for all these years. That is why our treaty with RoK will continue to survive for as long as both of our alliances exist.
[/quote]


I promised myself I wouldn't cry, thanks for making it tough <3

[San Fiera]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='15 February 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1266268659' post='2183447']Alot of alliances say that they would stand against the world if they have to, but talk is cheap.[/quote]
I can understand people saying these things when they see a tiny alliance "protecting" their much larger allies in an unbalanced war in their favor, especially if this particular tiny alliance has never had a chance to prove their real commitment yet, especially when people don't know what it is like to r.o.c.k. But I hope you won't have any [i]memoryproblems[/i] on the day Rok has to stand against the world. (Sorry I just had to use that)

[quote]Alot of alliances think like that during good times and are nowhere to be found during the hard times. I'm not saying that R.O.C.K. is like that, however I highly doubt that many alliances would activate an oA provision of a treaty if they knew they we're going to get heavily beaten, particularly when their activity is a problem. Have fun in the war, but know that alliances actions are not judged by their behavior in good times, but rather in poor times.[/quote]
Well, we have struggled with our activity for the past 3 years, so I don't think little action every now and then would hurt us. Well, of course this kind of action [i]hurts[/i] but... oh well, you know what I'm trying to say Actually I don't think any of our members even knew what we would be facing this time. Not even Mr. Pancakes when he responded to the call of Rok. Involving and keeping up with global politics and recent happenings out there has never been one of our strengths. R.O.C.K. has its fair share of everything: warmongers, pacifists, gun nuts, hippies, idiots, jackasses, (OoC: Canadians), and pancakes, but one thing is common: if/when we have to fight against insurmountable odds, our members are all too lazy to find themselves a new alliance or move into POW camps so they just have to keep on dying no matter if they wanted to or not And yes, we would be dying in the first place because our head honcho in charge of those things is too much of a warmonger, idiot, jackass and a pancake to actually say "No!" when it'd be a clever choice Another thing is that a great portion of our nations are too old (and big, for now) to just let them die. So what does it mean for our members? Sticking to R.O.C.K. until the end of the world (idiots even beyond).

[Smooth Pancakes]

[quote name='RadonaTor' date='16 February 2010 - 04:57 AM' timestamp='1266314265' post='2185331']
And yes, we would be dying in the first place because our head honcho in charge of those things is too much of a warmonger, idiot, jackass and a pancake to actually say "No!" when it'd be a clever choice.
[/quote]

Damn skippy! And I feel sorry for whoever we would face in that situation, because I'd make sure that if R.O.C.K. had to go out in one last great battle, it'd be the greatest and most glorious war/exit by one alliance ever in CN history!