FOK Declaration of War

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1266971079' post='2200079']
WalkerNinja, I couldn't find anything wrong with your post.

So, I will just comment that according to Feanor its #22, not #21:
[/quote]
Twenty two alliances have currently declared war on us, however, we are currently fighting twenty one alliances because number eleven decided to declare peace with us for whatever reason. Nevertheless, his alliance remains on the board.

Hope this clears things up.

[Divi Filius]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='24 February 2010 - 01:14 AM' timestamp='1266970700' post='2200068']
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.
[/quote]

What I said to AjaxPenny also applies here. I'm really glad to see some TOP members are still able to understand where we come from instead of immediately branding us as traitors and such.

WN

Oh, and I believe Feanor mentioned somewhere that we were #22
edit : And he's just done it again

Edited February 24, 2010 by Divi Filius

[necAnt]

i stoped reading after page 3, so should something important have hapend there, plz drop me an line,
however, i hoped that we could have evaded this little FOKKERS, too bad it wasn´t able.
enjoy the war, and thank you for securing us another stat, as you now just handed us the "at war with most allies in cn history" stat on an silver tablet, thx for this guys, hope we can keep the war clean, and i´d like to appologice for my brothers who came in here, angry.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 07:12 PM' timestamp='1266970589' post='2200064']
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.
[/quote]

Going to try and sound relevant here: CSN and USN did too!

The fact is that the whole "FOK is a terrible ally" is a terrible argument because by that logic, every single alliance in this war are terrible allies. This war messed up the treaty web beyond comprehension; this is exactly why people were grumbling about how extensive it was even before this war. In Karma it became apparent that the treaty web was an issue, but this war put it over the edge.

Bad circumstances came about from this and this is a matter of strategy being used. TOP has a ton of nations in the upper tier and it's hard to compete with that. Anyone who says that TOP is hopelessly outnumbered is a freaking moron. TOP has a stronghold in the upper tiers and taking them down will take a very long time. They have no extensive mid and lower tier, so most of the alliances that declared on them only have a handful of slots (so really 22 alliances makes sense because no one has the number of upper tier nations like TOP).

TOP played the [OOC:game] beautifully and their strengths are clearly expressed by this war. LiquidMercy even stated he didn't expect this back lash, but that isn't a fault to their nation's capabilities, but rather battle forecasting.


[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]

As I said above, you guys played beautifully and this is how it is paying off. No one would be able to take TOP 1 on 1, save for (maybe) Gramlins or another alliance I can think of. Your larger nations can't be touched by many alliances at this point, so [i]someone[/i] needs to come in and help out. FOK hasn't taken as much damage in the upper register, or so I'm told, so this works out for the sake of our psuedocoalition.

The situation sucks that you two have to fight, being former friends (or perhaps still friends?), but that's how bad this war has messed up the treaty web.

[RustyNail]

This disgusts me and I for one, wash my hands of FOK. I truly thought better of you all.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='AirMe' date='23 February 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1266971082' post='2200081']
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.
[/quote]
You seem touchy on this subject. We must have irked you in the past our something. Want to jump into the ring to work some of that hate out?

Edited February 24, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Roadie]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='23 February 2010 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1266970779' post='2200069']
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.
[/quote]

It wasn't TPF I was speaking about. If we except TOPORNIRON on the grounds that they addended the Tech War by attacking MK, if MK didn't like curbstomps, then they should still be complaining about the current state of war against NSO and indeed the last war against NPO, but not a word was heard about the later and yet a word has been muttered about the former.

[Yankees Empire]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='23 February 2010 - 07:14 PM' timestamp='1266970700' post='2200068']
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.
[/quote]

And a ray of sense shines through.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]What ever happened to this post Bob?[/quote]
I thought it went without saying that you didn't jump on your friends. As I said there, 'if you enter a coalition war you can enter at any point on the opposing side' – i.e. there were a [i]lot[/i] of ways for FOK to enter without having to hit TOP.

[quote]It would have been okay for TOP to enter against FOK according to what you posted just weeks ago[/quote]
Sure ... except they have the class not to do so (and their allies the class not to force them to).

[quote]Isn't the point of war to win?[/quote]
Now that is a deep question. In order to 'win', you must first define 'victory'. If FOK define 'victory' as crushing the alliance that made them sanctioned, then there is something very wrong. (This is why you typically don't engage your friends – damaging them is rarely in line for what 'winning' means. An exception would be something like the IRON front in Karma where you take a friend on for the better interests of your coalition, but get them out quickly.)

Since the primary dispute behind this war is over, there really is no point any more. What is 'winning' when NpO and \m/ have come to a resolution? Whatever 'winning' is, for FOK, it shouldn't involve TOP being killed even more than they already were.

Edit:
[quote]TOP has a ton of nations in the upper tier and it's hard to compete with that[/quote]
If it's hurting too much, there is a peace offer open

Edited February 24, 2010 by Bob Janova

[Gurney Halleck]

I agree with my esteemed colleague, Mr. Walker Ninja.

See you out there, Fokkers.

[Bob]

[quote name='Roadie' date='23 February 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1266971421' post='2200098']
It wasn't TPF I was speaking about. If we except TOPORNIRON on the grounds that they addended the Tech War by attacking MK, if MK didn't like curbstomps, then they should still be complaining about the current state of war against NSO and indeed the last war against NPO, but not a word was heard about the later and yet a word has been muttered about the former.
[/quote]
NPO declared an offensive war and got screwed for it, I feel no pity for them. I view this through terribly biased glasses, and I know it.

NSO has been offered terms I view as reasonable, I have pity for them. My pity comes from that they entered this war very honorably, and its sad to see they aren't out yet. Hopefully, someone on either their side or Fark's will come to their sentences and realize a beer term isn't worth fighting over, although both sides would appear to think so right now.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[AirMe]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='23 February 2010 - 07:26 PM' timestamp='1266971403' post='2200095']
You seem touchy on this subject. We must have irked you in the past our something. Want to jump into the ring to work some of that hate out?
[/quote]

I am not at war with TOP, we are at war with TSO. And now that I am back from my other worldly travels you will see me "jumping in the ring" so to speak. As to irking me in the past, I directed MK FA for almost 2 years. 2 years TOP was at least passively making our lives a living hell and spreading untrue rumors about some of the actions. And all we really wanted in those 2 years were for you guys to open your ears and give us a shot like some of your allies at the time were asking you.

So yes, I am a little irked at you guys. However, until this war, I have always respected you guys because of your relations with the Gremlins and the Gremlins are an alliance I have always held in high regard. And it pains me that the prominent Gremlins members from those times are now in TOP and supporting these courses of action.

[Roadie]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 06:29 PM' timestamp='1266971590' post='2200105']
NPO declared an offensive war and got screwed for it, I feel no pity for them. I view this through terribly biased glasses, and I know it.

NSO has been offered terms I view as reasonable, I have pity for them. My pity comes from that they entered this war very honorably, and its sad to see they aren't out yet. Hopefully, someone on either their side or Fark's will come to their sentences and realize a beer term isn't worth fighting over, although both sides would appear to think so right now.
[/quote]

At least you admit your bias. That's about as honest as a person can expect.

And the stomping of IRON, TORN, TOP and whoever else completed that addendum (if any others - I never even tried to keep track of that)? You feel the same toward them as you did NPO, I presume?

[AirMe]

[quote name='Roadie' date='23 February 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1266971836' post='2200114']
At least you admit your bias. That's about as honest as a person can expect.

And the stomping of IRON, TORN, TOP and whoever else completed that addendum (if any others - I never even tried to keep track of that)? You feel the same toward them as you did NPO, I presume?
[/quote]

You realize that IRON, TORN, TOP and co. started this war to stomp someone right?

[Bob]

[quote name='Roadie' date='23 February 2010 - 07:33 PM' timestamp='1266971836' post='2200114']
At least you admit your bias. That's about as honest as a person can expect.

And the stomping of IRON, TORN, TOP and whoever else completed that addendum (if any others - I never even tried to keep track of that)? You feel the same toward them as you did NPO, I presume?
[/quote]
Nope. They attacked us directly, and should pay to us for that.

Looking at the NPO situation objectively, I think the reparations should have been paid to OV, and OV alone. Whoever is attacked deserves the reparations, not those that join in. However, I realize that my logic is not that of the Cyberverse for the most part, and I accept that.

I don't like IRON or TOP, but TORN I actually consider to be a quite good alliance and I am saddened to see them at war against us.

[Roadie]

[quote name='AirMe' date='23 February 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1266971910' post='2200117']
You realize that IRON, TORN, TOP and co. started this war to stomp someone right?
[/quote]

And stomping an alliance (or thinking they were gonna and tried) is cause for stomping?

[AirMe]

[quote name='Roadie' date='23 February 2010 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1266972061' post='2200122']
And stomping an alliance (or thinking they were gonna and tried) is cause for stomping?
[/quote]

So wait....C&G should have waived the white flag and called them over for tea?

[chefjoe]

[quote name='AirMe' date='23 February 2010 - 04:38 PM' timestamp='1266972119' post='2200123']
So wait....C&G should have waived the white flag and called them over for tea?
[/quote]

Yes, and dont forget the finger sandwiches.

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='AirMe' date='23 February 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1266972119' post='2200123']
So wait....C&G should have waived the white flag and called them over for tea?
[/quote]

If, and only if, the men of TOP and the wives of MK got together and made crumpets could this be possible.

Edited February 24, 2010 by SpacingOutMan

[Bob]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='23 February 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1266972242' post='2200128']
Yes, and dont forget the finger sandwiches.
[/quote]
chefjoe..do you want to have a tea party with CnG? You can just ask if that's the case, Valhalla is more then welcome

Also, FOK

Edited February 24, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[AirMe]

[quote name='chefjoe' date='23 February 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1266972242' post='2200128']
Yes, and dont forget the finger sandwiches.
[/quote]

Ham and cheese ok? I think there are some scones laying around here some where.

On Topic: Sorry you had to be in this position FOK. Make the best of it if you can.

[Dylan Lusk]

It's a shame to see so many TOP people acting childish in this thread.

Good luck FOK. We know this was a hard decision. Thanks for standing up for what you believe is right and defending your ally.

[TBRaiders]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 06:28 PM' timestamp='1266971529' post='2200101']
I thought it went without saying that you didn't jump on your friends. As I said there, 'if you enter a coalition war you can enter at any point on the opposing side' – i.e. there were a [i]lot[/i] of ways for FOK to enter without having to hit TOP.


Sure ... except they have the class not to do so (and their allies the class not to force them to).
[/quote]
I noticed you ignored the rest of your words. But anyway, you are the one who suggested hitting FOK would have been a smarter avenue of approach and I am only quoting you. I think you give them too much credit calling it class. The truth probably lies closer to the fact that it wasn't the most advantageous move.

[quote]
Now that is a deep question. In order to 'win', you must first define 'victory'.
[/quote]
Getting them to surrender and agree to terms that make both sides feel like the terms are acceptable. That's my definition.

[quote]
Since the primary dispute behind this war is over, there really is no point any more. What is 'winning' when NpO and \m/ have come to a resolution?
[/quote]
Seriously, quit spinning this in every thread. There are literally dozens of replies in dozens of threads talking about how they said we were a threat, now we see them as a threat, yada yada. Do you really have to continue to post this same line of argument in every thread even though it's been refuted over and over again?

[Saber]

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 01:21 AM' timestamp='1266971082' post='2200081']
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.
[/quote]
Actually you are mistaken. I think that our high NS advantage was mainly through quality of our community which brought many ex government leaders and prominent members from other alliances into our own. From Gremlins, FOK, Valhalla, NPO, IRON, ODN, VE, ONOS, FAN, GOONS, Umbrella, ... Many people joined TOP after their alliances were disbanded and/or curbstomped. Strong development projects and quality of community is reason our nations were that strong.

Cowardice? Not our fault our opponents were incompetent and we soundly defeated them all. That is until this war which took two betrayals and backstabs, lot of dirty tricks and 22 alliances on us and our allies. And we still are not down.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]You realize that IRON, TORN, TOP and co. started this war to stomp someone right?[/quote]
You're going to need to back that up. At worst their intention was to defeat C&G. Senior figures in TOP these days are the Grämlins who were involved in the Codex (which has a no stomping ethos).

Edit: TBR, it hasn't been refuted, primarily because it's true. This front is a direct result of the NpO-\m/ war, and while the target selection was partly down to unrelated mutual dislike, the purpose of this front was to win the others. Even if you want to claim you're just punching each other because you see each other as a threat, that's [i]still[/i] a pointless war.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Bob Janova