Jump to content

Joint announcement from TPE, INT, and Fark


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 288
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1292831483' post='2546204']
So you guys needed 66.45 points worth of stats to take on an 18 point alliance?
[/quote]
They were attacking into a direct ally of two PB alliances without confirmation as to if those alliances would defend NEW.

I mean, if NEW was not connected, I would agree with you, but come now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad to see that the extensive negotiations were for naught.
o/ Fark, TPE, and International! Get 'em good, boys.

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1292832405' post='2546225']That has already been discussed in great detail on whether they were in the right or not, but in the end, there was no official statement from any of these alliances stating their defense in the OP or posts soon after. Instead it was just a line in the disbandment notice stating "don't mess" (not actual quote) with no backing.[/quote]
A government member of an ex-allied alliance saying "Raid and get ZI" is a pretty big hint....

Oh, and to those of you bawing your eyes out over the 'massive curbstomp' coming to NEW, hush. Each of these alliances was treatied with the Dark Fist and obviously still liked them enough to go after their aggressors. Any claims that this side wanted war is simply false if you know the facts.

Edited by Lukapaka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='K1L1On1Mr4' timestamp='1292830215' post='2546175']
And what do you think about attacking already gangbanged alliance without any justified treaty? I'll leave that for you my friend :)
[/quote]

What treaty you talking about?

From what I believe Int and TPE had protection over DF AA, and FARK held a treaty with DF and obviously didn't like it when you attacked their friends!

What you think you deserve a fair fight after such a stupid and low act? You deserved to be curbstomped..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1292834366' post='2546269']
They were attacking into a direct ally of two PB alliances without confirmation as to if those alliances would defend NEW.

I mean, if NEW was not connected, I would agree with you, but come now.
[/quote]

If that is so, than why not hold off an alliance like Fark for back up if the said PB alliances did decide to join. Why would you want to have your allies so spread out if thats the case?

If I was TPE I would want my allies to be more focused on specific alliances that we hit and that decide to enter and not spread thin on all fronts, but come now :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's about time.

Good hunting, INT. ^_^

Edit:
[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1292834738' post='2546276']If that is so, than why not hold off an alliance like Fark for back up if the said PB alliances did decide to join. Why would you want to have your allies so spread out if thats the case?

If I was TPE I would want my allies to be more focused on specific alliances that we hit and that decide to enter and not spread thin on all fronts, but come now :P[/quote]
You realise that INT and TPE alone versus NEW would have been outnumbered and outgunned (in terms of nukes), right? They had to bring someone along to help them get the upper hand and a treaty partner of Dark Fist seems like a sensible choice to me, but come now.

Edited by Arrnea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1292834738' post='2546276']
If that is so, than why not hold off an alliance like Fark for back up if the said PB alliances did decide to join. Why would you want to have your allies so spread out if thats the case?

If I was TPE I would want my allies to be more focused on specific alliances that we hit and that decide to enter and not spread thin on all fronts, but come now :P
[/quote]
Pretty much what Arrnea said.

I do see your point though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1292835092' post='2546284']
Pretty much what Arrnea said.

I do see your point though.
[/quote]
My point was, uneven fight is uneven, and if you are going to say you need the extra support to possibly fight PB, then why don't you keep that support for actually fighting PB -_-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1292836118' post='2546292']My point was, uneven fight is uneven, and if you are going to say you need the extra support to possibly fight PB, then why don't you keep that support for actually fighting PB -_-[/quote]
Except the extra support is needed to fight NEW in the first place, so they called it in.
I would imagine there are plenty more alliances willing to defend INT/Fark/TPE if PB decides to make an issue of it (which, going by the iFOK/PC announcement, is not likely).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Arrnea' timestamp='1292836730' post='2546299']
Except the extra support is needed to fight NEW in the first place, so they called it in.
I would imagine there are plenty more alliances willing to defend INT/Fark/TPE if PB decides to make an issue of it (which, going by the iFOK/PC announcement, is not likely).
[/quote]

How so? INT and TPE combined have more score, tech, better avg. NS, and just as many nations and nukes as NEW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1292837367' post='2546301']
How so? INT and TPE combined have more score, tech, better avg. NS, and just as many nations and nukes as NEW
[/quote]
Fark wanted in on defending their former allies and friends as much as us and TPE did. I can not see them doing anything wrong in that even if it makes the war completely lopsided.

Edited by Finnish Commie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1292837367' post='2546301']How so? INT and TPE combined have more score, tech, better avg. NS, and just as many nations and nukes as NEW[/quote]
Uh no, try again. NEW has more nations and slightly more NS than those two put together, at least when I checked up on it before the war.
Not sure about right now, now that the war has begun, but then that is rather irrelevant.

The only significant stat INT/TPE had the edge in was NS.

Edit: Right now it looks like this...
NEW: 140 nations, 1718 nukes. 4.7m NS.
INT + TPE: 137 nations, 1750 nukes. 5.5m NS.

However, the INT/TPE nuke count has increased since yesterday when I checked it. NEW's has also decreased (spy attacks, I'd guess).
Likewise, NEW's NS has gone down, whereas INT and TPE have either remained steady, or increased (as they militarise).

Now, tell me again with a straight face that they don't have a right to call in someone else.
As for how [b]much[/b] that threw out the balance, well that can't be helped since it's hard enough to find an alliance with an ironclad reason and the desire to go to a war like this, not to mention one that would keep it an "even" fight in the opinions of the peanut gallery.

Edited by Arrnea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Finnish Commie' timestamp='1292837569' post='2546302']
Fark wanted in on defending their former allies and friends as much as us and TPE did. I can not see them doing anything wrong in that even if it makes the war completely lopsided.
[/quote]

Alright, I can see that. All im doing is trying to point out that there are hardly ever even sided wars, and especially the disparity between the sides in this war :v:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think NEW gave up any right to a fair fight when they trespassed on a clearly marked protected AA and rebuffed all attempts at diplomacy. I mean, what did they [i]think[/i] was going to happen? Even if no notices had been posted at all, it's not unreasonable to expect any former ally of a disbanded alliance to defend them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1292834738' post='2546276']
If that is so, than why not hold off an alliance like Fark for back up if the said PB alliances did decide to join. Why would you want to have your allies so spread out if thats the case?

If I was TPE I would want my allies to be more focused on specific alliances that we hit and that decide to enter and not spread thin on all fronts, but come now :P
[/quote]

NEW picked their fight when they proved their own stubborness in negotiations. Quit crying about an unfair fight, when they knew which alliances did not approve of their raid. If NEW deserved a fair fight, they would have sought out something better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Locke' timestamp='1292837808' post='2546307']
I think NEW gave up any right to a fair fight when they trespassed on a clearly marked protected AA and rebuffed all attempts at diplomacy. I mean, what did they [i]think[/i] was going to happen? Even if no notices had been posted at all, it's not unreasonable to expect any former ally of a disbanded alliance to defend them.
[/quote]
Well, there's this too.
NEW's aggression and sheer stupidity in attacking an AA that was clearly protected, after they were told not to, and then rebuffing all attempts at diplomacy (which included another alliance offering to pay their reps, leaving NEW with just the need to apologise to end all of this) has pretty much waived their rights to a "fair fight".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say its clearly protected. I read that thread, and yes it says don't mess, but the OP doesn't say they are protected. I could say its not wise to attack a nation residing on None, but it doesn't mean they are protected. I can't say I know about the diplomatic efforts that took place though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1292838159' post='2546311']
You say its clearly protected. I read that thread, and yes it says don't mess, but the OP doesn't say they are protected. I could say its not wise to attack a nation residing on None, but it doesn't mean they are protected. I can't say I know about the diplomatic efforts that took place though.
[/quote]
There's also the moral grounds that some seem to be throwing around. NEW raided a newly-disbanded alliance mere hours after it posted its disbandment announcement. An alliance that just [b]happened[/b] to have gone to war with them at some point in the past (because of treaty chains during Karma, iirc).
Doesn't that sound a little... off to you?

Edit: Also, NEW admitted that they had read and understood that Dark Fist's AA was protected, or so I hear.

Edited by Arrnea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole situation is just completely dumb, although to be honest there's nothing wrong with the DoW. It's mainly the fact that it should have been entirely avoided and started by NEW making such an idiotically poor error in judgment, twice. I mean I can't really think of a reason they would do something so against common sense unless they have literally never observed the usual proceedings of the disbandment of an alliance with allies. I honestly don't know why they would ever think they could raid DF a day after they disband and nothing would come of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' timestamp='1292840300' post='2546325']
I mean I can't really think of a reason they would do something so against common sense unless they have literally never observed the usual proceedings of the disbandment of an alliance with allies. I honestly don't know why they would ever think they could raid DF a day after they disband and nothing would come of it.
[/quote]
They have, they don't care, they knew. This is NEW we're talking about, they know what they're doing and they know the consequences and people respect that because they don't cry and whinge about pixels and they don't expect their allies to back up their questionable moves. I doubt you'll hear much complaining from NEW about what's going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1292840810' post='2546328']
They have, they don't care, they knew. This is NEW we're talking about, they know what they're doing and they know the consequences and people respect that because they don't cry and whinge about pixels and they don't expect their allies to back up their questionable moves. I doubt you'll hear much complaining from NEW about what's going on.
[/quote]

Being "brave" about pixels (lol) is one thing and being intentionally stupid is another. I doubt they actually knew what they were doing otherwise they wouldn't have posted a clarification in the first place. Regardless of whether they complain or not does not hide the fact that they clearly didn't realize what the consequences were until after the backlash came.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' timestamp='1292841156' post='2546331']
Being "brave" about pixels (lol) is one thing and being intentionally stupid is another. I doubt they actually knew what they were doing otherwise they wouldn't have posted a clarification in the first place. Regardless of whether they complain or not does not hide the fact that they clearly didn't realize what the consequences were until after the backlash came.
[/quote]
Why is that so clear? Because if they had known then they wouldn't have done it? You're basing this on what you would do, not NEW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...