FOK Declaration of War

[TBRaiders]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1266965523' post='2199870']
Re the aiding issue: in my opinion, aiding coalition allies once you're all in the war is fair game. In Karma, we had aid sent all over the coalition, across fronts etc. FOK and MHA both chose to enter the war on the side that they did, and had to expect coalition aid to reach their targets.
[/quote]

I am going to have a little fun with this Bob, and I agree. TOP chose to aggressively enter into the opposite coalition as FOK. FOK is now just aiding their coalition mates, amirite?



[quote name='renegade4box' date='23 February 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1266960852' post='2199642']
Yea, FOK scum. Who taught you that defended unjustly attacked allies is honorable?

I much prefer the TOP version: aggressive attacks without a treaty, even if the target is a close ally of many of your best friends.
[/quote]

...and don't forget that best friend happens to be fighting on the "other side" of the conflict where you are planning to kill those standing by them (or who you assume will come to defend them) during that same war. TOP chose to agressively enter this war on opposite sides of FOK. To anyone who thinks it okay to kill the guy standing in the trenches with me, who is covering my flank and allow the enemy to hit me harder because you removed a threat to them, you either have no clue on tactics or just a twisted view of what friendship really is.

/FOK

[Divi Filius]

[quote name='ajaxpenny' date='24 February 2010 - 12:35 AM' timestamp='1266968320' post='2199985']
For one, I recognize this DoW as what it is. While we at TOP should be surprised at this declaration by a former friend, times change and it is only honorable for an alliance to follow up on it's treaty obligations. While one can be disgruntled by the way TOP and FOK moved apart, there should be no malice towards this action by FOK.

MK does need FOK to bring down some of our upper tiers. That is a statistical fact. And the fact is, FOK is allied to MK, not TOP. Treaty obligations are important still for most alliances.[/quote]


Posts and members such as these is why I still love TOP

You are awesome, ajaxpenny

[AnCapistan]

So how many alliances are on TOP now?

[Vladimir Stukov II]

Wow, this one hurts.

I'm just glad we didn't give into your ultimatum and chose to stick with IRON.

[Bob]

[quote name='Divi Filius' date='23 February 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1266968992' post='2200003']
Posts and members such as these is why I still love TOP

You are awesome, ajaxpenny
[/quote]
Posts and members like that are why I have given up my hate for TOP D:

You are a jerk, ajaxpenny :hate:

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 06:23 PM' timestamp='1266967610' post='2199961']
Fixed that for you. FOK have been put in an impossible position (like Polar) by MK, who could easily have asked for FOK's assistance on other fronts which weren't FOK's long time allies, but chose not to do so.
[/quote]

As with NpO, you had the power to say 'no' and chose not to do so. Don't go noble, it is unearned.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='23 February 2010 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1266969682' post='2200025']
As with NpO, you had the power to say 'no' and chose not to do so. Don't go noble, it is unearned.
[/quote]

Umm, they had MDPs...TOP declared on MK.

[Yir Yoronti]

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='24 February 2010 - 12:34 AM' timestamp='1266968273' post='2199981']

If TOP didn't treat FOK as dirt the last couple of months, FOK and TOP would still be allies which would lead to 2,3 and 4 not taking place (probably, hopefully).
[/quote]

No, we would have been allies if we had canceled the treaty with IRON when FOK asked us to.

[AirMe]

[quote name='DougZ37' date='23 February 2010 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1266961501' post='2199681']
That this is in fact the case doesn't really help build the position that FOK was really needed in this war at all. If there are hardly any slots available how can you justifiably argue that FOK [b]needed[/b] to come in against us in order to fulfill your needs to defend MK? This reminds me a lot of Syzgyz's end of the world thread. This is about anything but defending an allie, theres nothing 'defensive' about this.
[/quote]

So basically what you just said here is, C&G should roll over and take the whooping that you guys want to give with that? You know what? They took a whipping for 18 months. I don't think they want to return to being CN's punching bag. So you should expect them to do what it takes to take you down after you kicked them in the kahones.

[Bob Janova]

Hal, it's a big black mark to be explicitly asked by an MDP partner to assist and say no. You can't really fault FOK – or NpO – for the side they chose to betray when MK put them in a position where they had to choose one.

TBR, sending financial aid and declaring war are a whole different level. TOP would never have declared war on FOK or any of their other recent ex-allies, and are justifiably upset that FOK have done so, particularly considering the support (political and financial) that's been given throughout FOK's existence. Should TOP have sent aid to nations fighting against FOK (this happened from the posts in this thread)? No, probably not. But that's not on the same level as declaring war on them.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='23 February 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1266969877' post='2200033']
Umm, they had MDPs...TOP declared on MK.
[/quote]

A lot of people have declared a lot of new fronts in this war, some with treaty, some without, some picking and choosing the treaties they decided to honor. While FOK can claim that they are fulfilling a technical requirement, the "sad lion" routine is not impressive, not when they by their own admission are declaring on closer friends in the process.

[chefjoe]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1266967881' post='2199969']
So, we shouldn't request assistance on the target we need the most help with? And as per the third mark's explanation, I hope you read that and understand their mindset.
[/quote]

After all your guys crap and whinning regarding previous 'curbstomps' that have gone down here on planet bob you sure look a fool to any intelligent person watching you guys justify one now.


Also before you try and whine about me and how ive participated in aforementioned 'curbstomps' both now and in the past on BOTH sides of the equation realize im not judging if 'curbstomps' are good or bad. Im just pointing out the 180 degree change in PR and stance being shown.


Only other thing I have to say is FOK in the past have used 'treaties' or 'friendships' in the past when figuring out targeting. Those times in the past FOK chose to decline hitting any folks of that nature. Certainly ive seen them decline to hit people with FAR far less history of friendship and help then TOP. Guess things change eh? Sad to see this happen for so many reasons. It really is...

[Roadie]

[quote name='AirMe' date='23 February 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1266969926' post='2200037']
So basically what you just said here is, C&G should roll over and take the whooping that you guys want to give with that? You know what? They took a whipping for 18 months.
[/quote]

Which war was that?

[Bob]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='23 February 2010 - 07:05 PM' timestamp='1266970165' post='2200050']
After all your guys crap and whinning regarding previous 'curbstomps' that have gone down here on planet bob you sure look a fool to any intelligent person watching you guys justify one now.
[/quote]
I think that its not a curbstomp when you are attacked by the people who are losing the war currently, but hey, that's just me.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1266970010' post='2200041']
Hal, it's a big black mark to be explicitly asked by an MDP partner to assist and say no. You can't really fault FOK – or NpO – for the side they chose to betray when MK put them in a position where they had to choose one.
[/quote]

Then Valhalla should expect a DoW from Monos Archein on NoV, \m/, and DT tonight just before update, thanks for clarifying that for me.

[mattski133]

Welcome to the fight brothers. o/ FOK!


On a sidebar, all this talk about 21 alliances fighting 1 is sort of misleading considering we're all pretty much fighting multiple other alliances as well. It seems like the top 10 or 20 nations of the 21 alliances are fighting TOP, outside of those directly attacked like MK. TOP could not have been defeated in any other way, and everyone allied to C&G knew it was either that or wait for their turn to be run over once C&G was cooked, and TOP's allies needed their help.

Those who pride themselves on knowledge of the game like TOP can and do realize this, and yet make themselves appear shocked and appalled that this strategy could be used against them; propaganda, reassurance of their actions, I don't know, I don't care. How could it not be the strategy of choice?

And this declaration isn't anything dishonorable; FOK served TOP notice of the differences of the paths you were treading and it seems like TOP went ahead and continued along it anyway. It is what it is.

I can't say I do enjoy the Orange violence either, though it's been clear the divisions were there and cracks had formed and the future is unclear.

-ski

[Bob Janova]

Being or not being a stomping has nothing to do with who attacked who, though it's unusual for someone to jump into an obviously losing situation. Someone like IAA in the GATO-1V war would be an example of an alliance which chose to enter and got stomped. 20 alliances on 5 is a good example of one, too.

[Roadie]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 06:08 PM' timestamp='1266970319' post='2200055']
I think that its not a curbstomp when you are attacked by the people who are losing the war currently, but hey, that's just me.
[/quote]

He has a point there. Hardly a days go by when MKers aren't registering a complaint of some sort about their being on the losing side of the WotC for 12 days yet continually support the months long stompings of other alliances like in Karma and this war.

I think I would do the same myself to be honest, but I do think that it's dishonest. As is the case with most good politics, I suppose.

[WalkerNinja]

Alert: TOP-member making non-BAAAAW post

Written agreements trump verbal agreements. Period. You had a written agreement with MK to defend them, and a verbal agreement to be our friends. It's a non-issue.

I, and all other Paradoxians, should be basking in the glow of the 21 alliances it apparently takes to put us on an even playing field.

Welcome to the fray, #21.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Roadie' date='23 February 2010 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1266970642' post='2200067']
He has a point there. Hardly a days go by when MKers aren't registering a complaint of some sort about their being on the losing side of the WotC for 12 days yet continually support the months long stompings of other alliances like in Karma and this war.

I think I would do the same myself to be honest, but I do think that it's dishonest. As is the case with most good politics, I suppose.
[/quote]
Just thought I'd refresh your memory, we were willing to give terms to TPF a week into Karma but mhawk decided to wait until August because he has a martyr complex. Supporting wars for months, yes indeed.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='AirMe' date='23 February 2010 - 06:01 PM' timestamp='1266969926' post='2200037']
So basically what you just said here is, C&G should roll over and take the whooping that you guys want to give with that? You know what? They took a whipping for 18 months. I don't think they want to return to being CN's punching bag. So you should expect them to do what it takes to take you down after you kicked them in the kahones.
[/quote]
I don't hold it against them and if I take away my personal relationship with #22 out of the equation then I would be flattered that CnG needs more alliances to take us down. We've been fighting for about a month now and it seems we're still giving you alot of problems. I like that.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Mussolandia' date='23 February 2010 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1266964978' post='2199849']
The faux sense of contrition is what's appalling here. Isn't it just better to declare war and tell your former friend something like "die in a fire"? That's the way we used to do things back in the day. It's more honest and it saves us a lot of tears.
[/quote]

Is it not ok to defend a current friend from attack? Seriously if the friendship meant so much to TOP they would have maintained the relationship more and not let it get to a point. TOP lacked the foresight to get at least a PIAT with FOK that would have prevented FOK from entering against them. I don't know about you but if I like an alliance, I don't throw them or their allies under a bus.

This goes back to the Polar \m/ situation too. If you were such a good friend you wouldn't put them in crappy positions to begin with.

[TBRaiders]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 06:03 PM' timestamp='1266970010' post='2200041']
Hal, it's a big black mark to be explicitly asked by an MDP partner to assist and say no. You can't really fault FOK – or NpO – for the side they chose to betray when MK put them in a position where they had to choose one.

TBR, sending financial aid and declaring war are a whole different level. TOP would never have declared war on FOK or any of their other recent ex-allies, and are justifiably upset that FOK have done so, particularly considering the support (political and financial) that's been given throughout FOK's existence. Should TOP have sent aid to nations fighting against FOK (this happened from the posts in this thread)? No, probably not. But that's not on the same level as declaring war on them.
[/quote]

Why do you get to continue to define what is allowed and not allowed or what is right and not right? They can send monetary aid to nations and enable the nukes to keep flying, but can't send the nukes themselves? It's okay for TOP to hit FOK's treaty partners, but not okay for FOK to honor their treaty to defend those partners? Isn't the point of war to win? Didn't TOP enter this war as part of a greater coalition on the opposite side of FOK? Had TOP won all their fronts, where would that leave FOK today as alliances on that front were allowed to focus on FOK?



What ever happened to this post Bob?:
[quote name='Bob Janova' date='29 January 2010 - 06:58 AM' timestamp='1264769896' post='2141086']
I have to say that I'm generally a fan of the coalition v coalition approach to war – i.e. if you enter a coalition war you can enter at any point on the opposing side. However, unless I'm missing something, C&G was not a part of the war, and in fact had strong ties to both sides making its entrance less than inevitable.

If you'd jumped on a combatant, say FOK or even Superfriends as a bloc, then this would be justified. However, it seems to me like you hve effectively done a GATO in GW2 and brought in a whole group of alliances which were not previously engaged.

It's unfortunate that you've been shafted by Polar's peace declaration (I bet you wish you'd delayed this another hour or two now!) but you've brought a lot of the trouble upon yourselves.

Enjoy the war, as I'm sure you will, and I hope to see you come intact out of the other end soon enough!
[/quote]
It would have been okay for TOP to enter against FOK according to what you posted just weeks ago.

[Bob]

WalkerNinja, I couldn't find anything wrong with your post.

So, I will just comment that according to Feanor its #22, not #21:

[AirMe]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='23 February 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1266970792' post='2200071']
I don't hold it against them and if I take away my personal relationship with #22 out of the equation then I would be flattered that CnG needs more alliances to take us down. We've been fighting for about a month now and it seems we're still giving you alot of problems. I like that.
[/quote]

Well if you guys had fought in wars that weren't heavily in favor of yourselves in the last 4 years you wouldn't have 60+ nations that were leaps and bounds above everyone else. Sure you can claim it is superior nation building but you guys haven't fought anything that could be considered a destructive war since GW3, while the alliances that you targeted in your initial blitz have fought wars that were decimating to them about every 6 months since the UJW. Compound that with reps and you will see that to get the necessary strategic coverage you need to bring in nations that can do effective damage against those 60+ nations.

So as you can see kids, running from anything that can do damage to you for 3 years does pay off when you want to preemptively strike alliances that currently had no military involvement in the current conflict. Cowardice pays.

EDIT: Clarity.

Edited February 24, 2010 by AirMe