Where is Aircastle?

[Guffey]

[quote name='Batallion' date='22 May 2010 - 06:22 PM' timestamp='1274574105' post='2308566']
It's very unfortunate that Aircastle deleted the way they did, but there are still at least two other alliances which come close to the organization expertise of Aircastle, and those are Basketball Ninjas and Avalon. Looking forward to those two taking Aircastle's place in about 6 months.
[/quote]

thanks I guess.


[quote name='commander thrawn' date='22 May 2010 - 06:35 PM' timestamp='1274574889' post='2308575']
I just hope they don't disappear
[/quote]


We won't be going anywhere anytime soon. Have alot of work to do in the next few months.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Believland' date='23 May 2010 - 02:41 PM' timestamp='1274578845' post='2308634']
...bandwagoning in a war. [/quote]
<insert comment about MDPs and directly attacking AC's treaty partner here>

/me exits stage right.

[Believland]

[quote name='Banksy' date='22 May 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1274584787' post='2308732']
<insert comment about MDPs and directly attacking AC's treaty partner here>

/me exits stage right.
[/quote]
Really? TOP attacked Dark Fist? Mind linking me to the DoW? I must have missed it.

Good job on the exit though :/

[commander thrawn]

Aircastle was a member of NOIR, so there were several fronts they could have entered on

And they declared in defense of Vanguard if I remember correctly.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='commander thrawn' date='23 May 2010 - 12:23 AM' timestamp='1274588585' post='2308789']
Aircastle was a member of NOIR, so there were several fronts they could have entered on

And they declared in defense of Vanguard if I remember correctly.
[/quote]
Who were, of course, in NOIR.

[JackSkellington]

And now I realize I was looking at the wrong war. 0/2.

3rd Edit: Also, Treaty: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79192

Edited May 23, 2010 by JackSkellington

[Rafael Nadal]

[quote name='Believland' date='22 May 2010 - 05:53 PM' timestamp='1274576004' post='2308591']
Don't worry brother. When you quit, I quit too.


If you wanted to have a sincere discussion you would have done your homework first. I gave you a direction to look at for their warring stats. I didn't give you the direct link to it, because I have no idea what it is. I remember skimming past it two? nights ago while looking for a post in their.

As to who thinks they're great at warring? Well, Aircastle did make a thread about how great they were at war. Which many people backed in the thread. I also remember a Vanguard member say something along the lines that they were the best at war.

As far as TOP being threatened by AC? I doubt they are. I doubt they ever were. When you looked at the stats, AC didn't do much in terms of damage. It was keeping TOP members out of PM which they did, and they did it well too. This is more about getting even, which everyone wants to do in CN. AC, basically flipped *&$( when TOP started some private talks about them. And with AC, having a personal vendetta against TOP for said discussions. Now, this is TOP getting even. TOP also isn't the only ones to do this. Most alliances do, see any NSO/NPO sigs about LUE? Or ever see any posts by CnG and friends about attacking Pacifica? It's all a circle that everyone does, but people cry foul for political gain.

So, I hoped that answered your question and gave you some foundation knowledge for the future.

I hope to see you around AC.
[/quote]
If I recall correctly, they made a post pointing out their wars per member (offensive wars declared, to be more specific, I believe). Aircastle was indeed very helpful in keeping TOP members out of peace mode, and that role ended up being their main one of the war. Perhaps another Vanguard member espoused the virtues of Aircastle, but I personally commented on how well they were performing the role bestowed upon them, and how helpful it was.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='22 May 2010 - 09:49 PM' timestamp='1274590170' post='2308812']
Who were, of course, in NOIR.
[/quote]
Aircastle and Vanguard held an ODP. Vanguard was declared upon by TOP. Our membership in NOIR was not necessary.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Rafael Nadal

[Bob Janova]

Jumping in on an ODP/PIAT has been considered bandwagoning in the past. Considering we're OOC here I don't want to get into a big political debate about it, though.

I should have a record of all the nations in Aircastle from the war and be able to check if any of them went anywhere else, though TOP might have done that already.

Regarding friends and all leaving together, it does seem strange. A lot of the Grämlins nations and particularly the banks were run by RL friends, and many of them followed a particular economic plan, but they disappeared in dribs and drabs and a few of them are still there.

[Daikos]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 May 2010 - 06:47 AM' timestamp='1274611650' post='2308977']
Jumping in on an ODP/PIAT has been considered bandwagoning in the past. Considering we're OOC here I don't want to get into a big political debate about it, though.

I should have a record of all the nations in Aircastle from the war and be able to check if any of them went anywhere else, though TOP might have done that already.

Regarding friends and all leaving together, it does seem strange. A lot of the Grämlins nations and particularly the banks were run by RL friends, and many of them followed a particular economic plan, but they disappeared in dribs and drabs and a few of them are still there.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure this is being argued somewhere else already but ODP != PIAT. Except for those rare few that apparently think they are the same exact thing. Aircastle was not one of said alliances. So tell me, although you're trying to avoid a political debate while making biased political statements, what is the point of having an ODP treaty if it's use will be condemned as bandwagoning?

And I'm sure if Aircastle members were still here they would be tripping over each other to apologize to you for not entering / playing / leaving this game by your standards.

[Bob Janova]

An ODP and a PIAT are pretty much the same thing. Go read an ODP and a PIAT and tell me what the differnce is. (A PIAT's 'assistance' clause always permits military action as an option, and an ODP almost always has an intelligence sharing clause in it.) In fact the treaty in question is listed on Aircastle's wiki as a 'PIAT/oDP'.

Sorry but opinions on the point or otherwise of optional treaties is largely an IC issue, as well as off topic, so I'm not going to bite on the subjective part

[lonewolfe2015]

No... PIATs have to have optional defense in them to be a PIAT/ODP

[Fallen Fool]

No clue why, but I always wanted to get into touch with Aircastle. I suppose that option is no longer available to me since they're gone.

Also, for the record, I think arguing about them now that they're gone is pretty stupid considering they played a really limited role in the grand scheme of things.

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' date='23 May 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1274633890' post='2309177']
No... PIATs have to have optional defense in them to be a PIAT/ODP
[/quote]Any PIAT which makes reference to "voluntary military assistance" under the Assistance section is an ODP.

[Chickenzilla]

I've gotta love the TOP attitude.
Our !@#$ was rocked, so lets try to bash on Aircastle to make ourselves look like we weren't crushed so bad bawwwwwwwwwwwwwww

[Daikos]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 May 2010 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1274633177' post='2309163']
An ODP and a PIAT are pretty much the same thing. Go read an ODP and a PIAT and tell me what the differnce is. (A PIAT's 'assistance' clause always permits military action as an option, and an ODP almost always has an intelligence sharing clause in it.) In fact the treaty in question is listed on Aircastle's wiki as a 'PIAT/oDP'.

Sorry but opinions on the point or otherwise of optional treaties is largely an IC issue, as well as off topic, so I'm not going to bite on the subjective part
[/quote]

Ya sure you don't wanna bite on the subjective part?

I think the ODP / PIAT argument is the most subjective part of this "argument". It really varies from alliance to alliance. Personally, I think there is a world of difference between a PIAT and an ODP. If a treaty has an optional defense clause in it, I think it's an ODP. I have some trouble seeing why this isn't universally agreed upon (outside of using some arguments for IC spinning of facts). Hell, it says optional defense right in the name of the treaty type. If there is an optional defense clause it only makes sense for it to be an ODP. But I have a feeling you won't be agreeing with me on that anytime soon.

[quote name='Fallen_Fool' date='23 May 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1274634118' post='2309179']
No clue why, but I always wanted to get into touch with Aircastle. I suppose that option is no longer available to me since they're gone.
[/quote]

You should have. Aircastle were easily the best allies someone could ask for. And then you could have been in our, apparently very exclusive, club of people who spoke to more than just Jon Ron.

[quote name='Fallen_Fool' date='23 May 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1274634118' post='2309179']
Also, for the record, I think arguing about them now that they're gone is pretty stupid considering they played a really limited role in the grand scheme of things.

Any PIAT which makes reference to "voluntary military assistance" under the Assistance section is an ODP.
[/quote]


[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='23 May 2010 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1274634322' post='2309187']
I've gotta love the TOP attitude.
Our !@#$ was rocked, so lets try to bash on Aircastle to make ourselves look like we weren't crushed so bad bawwwwwwwwwwwwwww
[/quote]

Not only is arguing about them now ridiculous it's also incredibly petty. Now, I'll come right out and say that I haven't talked with any .gov members of TOP regarding their side of this story. I have, though, spoken with Jon Ron on numerous occasions regarding Aircastle and TOPs less than friendly history. And from what I've seen from TOP when it comes to discussing Aircastle, Jon's story certainly seems credible to me. Time and time again we're seeing TOP members (yes I know they aren't necessarily gov members doing it) actively trying to slander Aircastle and tarnish their reputation. Even after their alliance has disbanded and the members have left the game, TOP members continue to make threads which are no more than thinly veiled attempts at character assassination. You claim that Aircastle turtled for the war, that you have stats proving them worthless and that they were a non-factor and yet here we are again with you obsessing over them.

Did the members of Aircastle dislike TOP? Absolutely. And I think it's fairly easy to see why. I find it incredibly hard to imagine that Aircastle kicked off this feuding. Aircastle was practically an isolationist alliance. For almost their entire existence the only treaties they held were NOIR and their MDoAP with Dark Fist. Then, after much consideration and consultation with Dark Fist gov, they decided to expand their foreign affairs to treaty with Vanguard. They were not an alliance of board warriors, which is why most parties knew nobody in the alliance outside of Jon. They kept to themselves and did not step on other alliances toes. This is why I find it so hard to imagine that Aircastle did anything to deserve the constant badgering from TOP members.

Did they play differently from 99% of alliances in CN? Yes, they did. They are number crunchers and stock market nerds. They played the game in a way that they felt would make them successful and, when they became bored of the game, left in a manner which differs from most. Does that mean they should be the target of TOP members continued obsession and attempted character assassination, especially now that none of Aircastle remains to defend their legacy? I certainly don't think so. The continued actions of the individuals who feel that they need to do so is nothing short of pathetic.

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Fallen_Fool' date='23 May 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1274634118' post='2309179']
Any PIAT which makes reference to "voluntary military assistance" under the Assistance section is an ODP.
[/quote]


Yes, but Bob said "An ODP and a PIAT are pretty much the same thing."

We have PIATs with no military clauses.

[Believland]

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='23 May 2010 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1274634322' post='2309187']
I've gotta love the TOP attitude.
Our !@#$ was rocked, so lets try to bash on Aircastle to make ourselves look like we weren't crushed so bad bawwwwwwwwwwwwwww
[/quote]
Didn't we just fight a war over this? It's not TOP's attitude since no one in gov't has said anything about it. Also, try to read the thread next time too. I recall a post by Blue Lightening stated that Aircastle did help in the war. Nice try, though.

[Lord Brendan]

"Optional military assistance" and "Optional defence" are the same thing. Almost all PIATs contain "Optional military assistance" clauses. Asgaard's PIATs do not, but that is rather non-standard. The vast majority of PIATs are exactly the same as ODPs.

[Fallen Fool]

[quote name='Believland' date='23 May 2010 - 01:52 PM' timestamp='1274637105' post='2309230']
Didn't we just fight a war over this? It's not TOP's attitude since no one in gov't has said anything about it. Also, try to read the thread next time too. I recall a post by Blue Lightening stated that Aircastle did help in the war. Nice try, though.
[/quote]TOP's attitude is determined by the membership who elect the gov.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Fallen_Fool

[Johnny Apocalypse]

Clearly the Aircastle saboteurs were the key to a CnG victory in this past war. Everyone else was irrelevant.

[Believland]

[quote name='Daikos' date='23 May 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1274636070' post='2309213']
Not only is arguing about them now ridiculous it's also incredibly petty. Now, I'll come right out and say that I haven't talked with any .gov members of TOP regarding their side of this story. I have, though, spoken with Jon Ron on numerous occasions regarding Aircastle and TOPs less than friendly history. And from what I've seen from TOP when it comes to discussing Aircastle, Jon's story certainly seems credible to me. Time and time again we're seeing TOP members (yes I know they aren't necessarily gov members doing it) actively trying to slander Aircastle and tarnish their reputation. Even after their alliance has disbanded and the members have left the game, TOP members continue to make threads which are no more than thinly veiled attempts at character assassination. You claim that Aircastle turtled for the war, that you have stats proving them worthless and that they were a non-factor and yet here we are again with you obsessing over them.

Did the members of Aircastle dislike TOP? Absolutely. And I think it's fairly easy to see why. I find it incredibly hard to imagine that Aircastle kicked off this feuding. Aircastle was practically an isolationist alliance. For almost their entire existence the only treaties they held were NOIR and their MDoAP with Dark Fist. Then, after much consideration and consultation with Dark Fist gov, they decided to expand their foreign affairs to treaty with Vanguard. They were not an alliance of board warriors, which is why most parties knew nobody in the alliance outside of Jon. They kept to themselves and did not step on other alliances toes. This is why I find it so hard to imagine that Aircastle did anything to deserve the constant badgering from TOP members.

Did they play differently from 99% of alliances in CN? Yes, they did. They are number crunchers and stock market nerds. They played the game in a way that they felt would make them successful and, when they became bored of the game, left in a manner which differs from most. Does that mean they should be the target of TOP members continued obsession and attempted character assassination, especially now that none of Aircastle remains to defend their legacy? I certainly don't think so. The continued actions of the individuals who feel that they need to do so is nothing short of pathetic.
[/quote]
Mind telling Jon Ron's side of the story?

I was a member of TOP when this whole AC thing came to light. We basically saw AC as a Citadel type of alliance. So, we started to wonder about them. I believe there was 2 topics that came up in a 3 week span. In the last one, a member thought they looked like an alliance that merged into the Gremilns. So, that's when TOP decided to take a closer look. I believe the topic was about Umbrella looking at them. TOP didn't want Umbrella's friends to turn out to be like Gromlin's. So we looked into them and Jon Ron somehow found out. Thus starting the feud.

Also, please read the thread. Blue stated that AC did help out in the war. Claiming they didn't is just funny.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Chickenzilla' date='23 May 2010 - 01:05 PM' timestamp='1274634322' post='2309187']
I've gotta love the TOP attitude.
Our !@#$ was rocked, so lets try to bash on Aircastle to make ourselves look like we weren't crushed so bad bawwwwwwwwwwwwwww
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]If my memory is correct TOP was not the only alliance that got rocked. CnG took quite a hit, and they had the entire world hitting TOP for them.

TOP does not need to "bash Aircastle" in order to take pride in how they performed. For all they were up against they did remarkably well. Wish I could say the same about their opponents.[/color]

Edited May 23, 2010 by Rebel Virginia

[Some-Guy]

People who take one person's opinion and then reply as if that opinion is the opinion of a entire alliance are inherently and irredeemably stupid and have a special place reserved for them in the ninth circle of Hell.

Don't do it.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='Some-Guy' date='23 May 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1274640976' post='2309270']
People who take one person's opinion and then reply as if that opinion is the opinion of a entire alliance are inherently and irredeemably stupid and have a special place reserved for them in the ninth circle of Hell.

Don't do it.
[/quote]
The problem with your statement is that it's not just one TOP member. It's all but one or two from TOP that have posted in this thread. And as Fallen Fool said, the opinion and attitude of a democratic alliance is shaped by those that choose the government

[Ejayrazz]

Sorry to be rude, but I have a killer hang over and I really do not wish to read all of this.

1. Did they disband?
2. Did they have multies?
3. Did they quit the game?

sorry for being lazy, hopefully someone understands.

[Ordinator]

Closing this thread since it has by and large served its purpose.