Jump to content

The Easter Sunday Accords


Recommended Posts

[quote name='goldielax25' date='06 April 2010 - 04:35 AM' timestamp='1270524913' post='2249980']
Coming from NSO gov, I answered the question as it would be relevant to his alliance.

If an alliance who surrendered with a term stipulating that they not re-enter were to re-enter, then it would be treated as a violation of terms.
[/quote]

But there are several people who have either not surrendered and are tied to IRON, who surrendered too long ago and terms no longer affect them, or who face no such term (such as TOP).

Hence why I think that it is more important to approach this from the angle of "how do you respond to intervention" rather than "how do you respond to breaking surrender". NSO might be in the latter category, but they aren't the only ones who might think Gramlins are doing something wrong.

Edited by Letum
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 930
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I want to give an honest shout out to all the members of IRON. It takes commitment to hang with your alliance mates when the world seems to be against you and to those who stayed (which I have to be honest is a lot more than I would have figured and seems to be dang near everybody), you have my respect. Not that it's worth much, but you have it just the same.

Same to TOP but I always figured you guys would hang together till the end regardless so I was not surprised by your performance.

Edited by Bad JuJu
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Methrage' date='06 April 2010 - 04:59 AM' timestamp='1270526343' post='2249998']
If Gramlins do get hit though for continuing the war I imagine many will come back to the battlefield to help Gremlins, but many are fed up with this dragging on and don't want to go back to the battlefield to fight for something they don't believe important. On the flip side if this escalated many alliances with good relations with IRON have been rebuilding longer and aren't under any terms whatsoever so they could bring considering help if a new war escalates from this.

Gremlins not holding any treaties means nobody has any obligation to help Gremlins from what results of actions they disapprove of.
[/quote]

Their lack of treaties is simply a matter of approach. They may not have the paper, but they still have the friendships that went behind most of their ties. In the end it's a matter of moral obligation, be it written or verbal.

Admittedly it's easier to weasel out of a paperless situation, but I wouldn't count on that being the case with the people who call Gramlins friends. If you wouldn't discard a treaty because you disprove of certain actions, you wouldn't use it as an excuse to do so in this case either.

That being said, I don't think anybody currently agrees with their stubbornness, and that's pretty evident since everybody decided to peace out and let them do their thing alone. However, since none of us will join Gramlins in beating IRON to a pulp, I'd think it's obvious that we expect the same in return. I'm sure IRON is able to fend for itself against an alliance with little over 60 members, at least to the point of reaching a decent agreement.

Nobody is killing off anybody really, that's the whole point.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='elborrador' date='05 April 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1270522514' post='2249928']
there may have been 23 or so DoW against you guys, but lets be serious only 3 or 4 alliances did all the heavy lifting, not that it matters much at this point.

good luck on cramming your nukes down Gremlins throat IRON
[/quote]
3 or 4 alliances? I'm only 1 guy, and I've fought MK, STA, NpO, Athens, Vanguard, ODN, Sparta, Aircastle, and FOK.

Edited by Carlton the Great
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='elborrador' date='05 April 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1270522514' post='2249928']
there may have been 23 or so DoW against you guys, but lets be serious only 3 or 4 alliances did all the heavy lifting, not that it matters much at this point.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]If that is the case then why are so many alliances getting so much in reparations? If that were the case, then wouldn't only three or four alliances be getting payment for the damage they took?[/color]

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='05 April 2010 - 09:55 PM' timestamp='1270529706' post='2250043']
[color="#0000FF"]If that were the case, then wouldn't only three or four alliances be getting payment for the damage they took?[/color]
[/quote]

Because they're being opportunistic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='delendum' date='06 April 2010 - 09:35 AM' timestamp='1270528528' post='2250026']
That being said, I don't think anybody currently agrees with their stubbornness, and that's pretty evident since everybody decided to peace out and let them do their thing alone. However, since none of us will join Gramlins in beating IRON to a pulp, I'd think it's obvious that we expect the same in return. I'm sure IRON is able to fend for itself against an alliance with little over 60 members, at least to the point of reaching a decent agreement.

Nobody is killing off anybody really, that's the whole point.
[/quote]

You've beaten us to the pulp, and you're enabling Gre to create a scenario where we remain pulpy orange :smug:

Its not simply ~350 members vs 60 members. Look at the NS layout.

To handle Gramlins, we have to deploy the only nations capable of sending reps and ones that can rebuild our alliance, ones that'll take other nations out of bill lock. These nations would be easily mauled by Gramlins.

Alternative would be keep them in peace mode and really do nothing else much, just keep destroying our own improvements and wonders to lower the bills for an unknown duration of conflict where we're stuck under terms and Gre for as long as Gre and its friends want it to be.

You say you dont support such actions but at the same time your actions are precisely the ones that enable Gramlins to do what it is doing. Actions speak louder than words. There is in-effect a scenario that has been imposed similar to 'Get your Peace mode nations out!' before there is final peace.

For sake of discourse, say IRON can handle Gre as it is being portrayed, it would still take months of fighting, and extremely costly battles, and on top of that we have to send out the reps.

[quote]
Ladies and Gentlemen of Bob,

It is time for the Harmlin to enter this fray. IRON and their minions have brought untoward aggression against our friends and the Harmlins shall see our way in to protect them. We are prepared to stand and fight among our many friends as they stand and fight for theirs.

With that said, Harmlins have their towels ready and hereby declare war on IRON.

Signed for MHA:
Jadoo1989 - Triumvir
Draden - Triumvir
Pudge1975 - Triumvir

Signed for GRE:
RamirusMaximus - Judicator
Synth_FG - Executor
Matthew PK - Acting Praetor[/quote]

The CB has expired, the friends are protected and settlements made, half the Harmlins thinks so too, Gre is going beyond its own CB. There is no treaty chaining, there is no CB now and as the precedent has been set, thats a war of aggression. :smug:

Edited by shahenshah
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='06 April 2010 - 12:57 AM' timestamp='1270529839' post='2250044']
Because they're being opportunistic?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]Well, that and the fact that they were also doing some pretty heavy fighting.

I know MK didn't continue to rush back into war. TOP was in nuclear anarchy for the entire duration of this war pretty much, and since those Karma fellows did a decent job staggering, most didn't make it peace mode. So either the wars were divided among many different alliances, negating most of the damage, or some of you are real heroes and decided to take everything for the team. I know that isn't the case. So let's cut the bravado about how it only took three to four alliances to take down TOP. Like it or not, TOP really did a number on them fellows.[/color]

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Smacky' date='05 April 2010 - 10:30 PM' timestamp='1270524594' post='2249974']
It's the same war it has always been, and if an alliance (re)declares after previously surrendering they'll be breaking their surrender terms.
[/quote]

The TOP/CnG war is over. The fact that Gramlins expects IRON to agree to be their slaves is a different war.

Not that I would expect the Gramlins allies to care, either way. If someone hits Gramlins, in order to help IRON/DAWN, I pretty much expect that the Gramlins allies are going to roll them regardless of whether the people attacking Gramlins surrendered in the TOP/CnG war or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[color="#0000FF"]Yes, I really love all the protesting of how bad Gre is in their treatment of IRON from all these SF and associated alliances (I mean you VE). Yet when anyone suggests that they may attempt to do something about it they are reminded of how Gre has friends and how they will not tolerate people hitting their friends. Yes, this is what the NPO often did. When one of their dogs was out of line they would remind people that they did not always agree and they were on their own, but should someone interfere there would be hell to pay. Great job on keeping that spirit alive Karma.[/color]

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='06 April 2010 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1270530066' post='2250048']
[color="#0000FF"]Well, that and the fact that they were also doing some pretty heavy fighting.

I know MK didn't continue to rush back into war. TOP was in nuclear anarchy for the entire duration of this war pretty much, and since those Karma fellows did a decent job staggering, most didn't make it peace mode. So either the wars were divided among many different alliances, negating most of the damage, or some of you are real heroes and decided to take everything for the team. I know that isn't the case. So let's cut the bravado about how it only took three to four alliances to take down TOP. Like it or not, TOP really did a number on them fellows.[/color]
[/quote]
We did battle the 23 alliances and a good 15 were heavily engaged. That said, some people in C&G really did take one for their team by agreeing to declare war against us, even when they had no warchest remaining. Rsox comes to mind but we've seen a good number do it just to prevent us from reaching Peace Mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='06 April 2010 - 01:11 AM' timestamp='1270530645' post='2250058']
We did battle the 23 alliances and a good 15 were heavily engaged. That said, some people in C&G really did take one for their team by agreeing to declare war against us, even when they had no warchest remaining. Rsox comes to mind but we've seen a good number do it just to prevent us from reaching Peace Mode.
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I never said CnG didn't fight, but they sure did have help, and a lot of it. I just want to make sure people don't forget the facts quite yet. It is a little early for revisionism don't you think?[/color]

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='RustyNail' date='05 April 2010 - 05:06 PM' timestamp='1270483542' post='2249195']
Allow me to fan the flames a little:

For all intents and purposes, this war is over. Gre continues to prosecute their own personal agenda that evidence would say, the majority of the world is against. Should we not consider their war a whole new aggressive action against IRON and DAWN? Should the allies of IRON and DAWN that are capable not defend their treaty partners? Afterall, it's not the same war and none of Gre's allies or former comrades in arms support their actions so what would you all say to that course of action? I'm sure MHA would say they would defend Gre no matter that their actions are foolish at best but I really would like the opinion of the greater body to their thoughts on the matter.

Just curious.
[/quote]

I think that is perfectly reasonable. This is not the same war. And for anyone who thinks it is, I certainly hope that you also can see that TOP&CO entering the last war was "part of the same NpO war."


[quote name='CloudGT4' date='05 April 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1270484136' post='2249200']
I was wondering the same thing. The war is over, so GRE is in my view starting a new war. So if IRON's treaty partners rushed to her aid, would they be bad?
[/quote]

That's reasonable.

[quote name='AirMe' date='05 April 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1270484189' post='2249203']
No, but that's just my opinion.
[/quote]

And you probably aren't alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='06 April 2010 - 06:07 AM' timestamp='1270530459' post='2250054']
[color="#0000FF"]Yes, I really love all the protesting of how bad Gre is in their treatment of IRON from all these SF and associated alliances (I mean you VE). Yet when anyone suggests that they may attempt to do something about it they are reminded of how Gre has friends and how they will not tolerate people hitting their friends. Yes, this is what the NPO often did. When one of their dogs was out of line they would remind people that they did not always agree and they were on their own, but should someone interfere there would be hell to pay. Great job on keeping that spirit alive Karma.[/color]
[/quote]
^This

The alliances who are protesting are full of crap and are 100% supporting Gramlins war without end. The war is not over all those alliances who peaced out are still in the war, just not fighting at the moment. They are letting gramlins do this and are using the comically weak e-layer argument that they are powerless to stop Gramlins from their eternal war and powerless to stop them selves attacking any alliance who helps IRON.

Make no mistake the alliances who "peaced" out are not at peace and are still in this war and either want IRON kept in perpetual war or want people to re-enter the war so they can once again say they were not the aggressors. If they really wanted this to end they would withdraw support for Gramlins which would be the logical thing to do if Gramlins really slapped their allies of the moment with this rogue move. I doubt this will happen because C&G & Co are happy with this situation. It keeps alliances that were part of our side split and forces us to watch, powerless to do anything to stop their power trip and attempted humiliation of their vanquished enemy and their allies who can only watch on or be obliterated too should we try to stop this outrage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='CloudGT4' date='06 April 2010 - 05:15 AM' timestamp='1270484136' post='2249200']
The war is over, so GRE is in my view starting a new war.
[/quote]

This makes no sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='06 April 2010 - 06:36 AM' timestamp='1270532162' post='2250083']
This makes no sense.
[/quote]
Saying you are totally against this but will defend it with force makes no sense, some perspective please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='delendum' date='06 April 2010 - 05:35 AM' timestamp='1270528528' post='2250026']
I'm sure IRON is able to fend for itself against an alliance with little over 60 members, at least to the point of reaching a decent agreement.
[/quote]

That is one way to phrase it.

The other way to phrase it is that IRON, a war-weary alliance of 3.4m NS, has to fight off a fresh alliance of 3.9m NS and an immense advantage within a certain rank range. For example, IRON only has 20 nations that are [i]within striking range[/i] of the top 37 of Gramlins. With both a numbers and strength disparity, those nations would be toast.

IRON has no capacity to force a victory in this war, which means that any resolution rests on whether the Gramlins will shift from their position due to public, rather than military, pressure.

Edited by Letum
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Alterego' date='06 April 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1270531946' post='2250077']
^This

The alliances who are protesting are full of crap and are 100% supporting Gramlins war without end. The war is not over all those alliances who peaced out are still in the war, just not fighting at the moment. They are letting gramlins do this and are using the comically weak e-layer argument that they are powerless to stop Gramlins from their eternal war and powerless to stop them selves attacking any alliance who helps IRON.

Make no mistake the alliances who "peaced" out are not at peace and are still in this war and either want IRON kept in perpetual war or want people to re-enter the war so they can once again say they were not the aggressors. If they really wanted this to end they would withdraw support for Gramlins which would be the logical thing to do if Gramlins really slapped their allies of the moment with this rogue move. I doubt this will happen because C&G & Co are happy with this situation. It keeps alliances that were part of our side split and forces us to watch, powerless to do anything to stop their power trip and attempted humiliation of their vanquished enemy and their allies who can only watch on or be obliterated too should we try to stop this outrage.
[/quote]
[i]Everything[/i] is a plot to set up IRON. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/frantic.gif[/img]

Need I remind you again of your comments, just days ago, that were urging all of us to peace out without Gremlins?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Denial' date='06 April 2010 - 06:49 AM' timestamp='1270532932' post='2250103']
[i]Everything[/i] is a plot to set up IRON. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/frantic.gif[/img]

Need I remind you again of your comments, just days ago, that were urging all of us to peace out without Gremlins?
[/quote]
I dont remember saying peace out but keep the threat of force against anyone who tries to help end this outrage. Gramlins have not been left alone C&G/SF are still protecting them in this course of action while pretending to be outraged by it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grämlins obviously have a strength advantage in the upper ties, but they have a great disadvantage in the lower ties. So all in all I consider it a fair match. And we do have quite a number of very small nations with a considerable amount of money left, two months of war and getting nuked is a great reducer of NS :smug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Omas Nams' date='05 April 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1270507706' post='2249643']
I don't want to get dragged into this but ... you cannot call it a hostage situation as that implied there is no way out. You have the ability to get out of the situation you are complaining about, if you don't want to take that option then so be it. But there is still the ability to get out of it.
[/quote]

No. There is no out here. The option you are giving is not an option.
The gRAMlins have been nothing but vague about this situation. The only thing any of you have said is why it is happening and the why is complete crap. Aligning yourself against someone twice and being attacked by someone twice are two completely different things. It is the gRAMlins who have aligned themselves against IRON twice, not the other way around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='omfghi2u2' date='06 April 2010 - 12:24 AM' timestamp='1270531441' post='2250066']
I am still perplexed as to why Sparta is gaining tech from a offensive war on CnG/

-omfg
[/quote]

Sparta is MDoAP'd to Fob and Athens.

All CnG alliances basically have a MADP with each other, but aggression doesn't matter when IRON and TOP attacked the CnG block, thus sparta acted in defense as if it were part of CnG. Thanks for the question, this has been brought up on several occasions publicly and in private. Stop by our IRC chan or our boards if you want further information. Thanks.

Had TOP and IRON just declared on MK, or GR, then you would be on the right track, as we do not hold Defense treaties with them.

Edited by Pearl2
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='The Warrior' date='06 April 2010 - 07:02 AM' timestamp='1270533735' post='2250113']
No. There is no out here. The option you are giving is not an option.
The gRAMlins have been nothing but vague about this situation. The only thing any of you have said is why it is happening and the why is complete crap. Aligning yourself against someone twice and being attacked by someone twice are two completely different things. It is the gRAMlins who have aligned themselves against IRON twice, not the other way around.
[/quote]
They didnt even have a reason to enter against IRON but picked them out of dozens or alliances and now want to keep an eternal war going against them with the backing or their paperless allies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What if IRON were to be allowed to bring one alliance in to assist without others interfering, that would maybe make things more fair without Gremlins getting piled on.

Its the attitude by others that they'll defend Gremlins from any consequences from what they're doing that enables them to continue.

Edited by Methrage
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...