ChairmanHal Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='King Death II' timestamp='1295624295' post='2589164'] What is this I dont even.... also sweet jesus you are over thinking this, just sit back and enjoy the fireworks [/quote] Actually Methrage has it right, though quite clearly RIA seems more interested in lulz than strategic concerns. Have fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trash Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295626411' post='2589200'] Actually Methrage has it right, though quite clearly RIA seems more interested in lulz than strategic concerns. Have fun. [/quote] Yes, that's totally why we're doing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Fingolfin Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Well this is...interesting O/ RIA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1295626909' post='2589206'] Yes, that's totally why we're doing this. [/quote] Either you're doing it for the lulz or are honestly just that torn about which side to ride with. Either way, if you can make an argument why this is in your strategic interest expect perhaps from a PR perspective (e.g. RIA always keeps their treaties, no matter what!), I'd love to hear it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix von Agnu Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295628839' post='2589238'] Either you're doing it for the lulz or are honestly just that torn about which side to ride with. Either way, if you can make an argument why this is in your strategic interest expect perhaps from a PR perspective (e.g. RIA always keeps their treaties, no matter what!), I'd love to hear it. [/quote] No matter what, they are on the winning side! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295628839' post='2589238'] Either you're doing it for the lulz or are honestly just that torn about which side to ride with. Either way, if you can make an argument why this is in your strategic interest expect perhaps from a PR perspective (e.g. RIA always keeps their treaties, no matter what!), I'd love to hear it. [/quote] To say I'm doing this for the lulz is to say that I'm doing this simply because I think it's funny. To say I'm doing it because I was torn about which side to join implies this decision was remotely difficult to arrive at. Neither of these things are true. Strategy needs to be applied according to what you want to accomplish. Anyone who doesn't think this is a sound decision doesn't understand what motivates me to do anything at all and very likely doesn't share my goals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earth Shaker Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Are those rabbits violating those turtles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Earth Shaker' timestamp='1295631796' post='2589304'] Are those rabbits violating those turtles? [/quote] It's entirely consensual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Felix von Agnu' timestamp='1295629078' post='2589241'] No matter what, they are on the winning side! [/quote] Also the losing side. Whatever the case, it's RIA's infra/tech/land/and cash on the line and they may freely spend it as they see fit. The consequences will hopefully be something they can stomach when this is all at an end. Delta1212: I don't wish you ill-will, just seems strategically a bad move. But as I say, we'll see in the end and perhaps in the end I'll agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Goby Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295632058' post='2589310'] Also the losing side. Whatever the case, it's RIA's infra/tech/land/and cash on the line and they may freely spend it as they see fit. The consequences will hopefully be something they can stomach when this is all at an end. Delta1212: I don't wish you ill-will, just seems strategically a bad move. But as I say, we'll see in the end and perhaps in the end I'll agree with you. [/quote] I think it was a strategically sound move. [img]http://images1.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/4933092/Im-Just-Saiyan.jpg?imageSize=Medium&generatorName=Raditz[/img] Edited January 21, 2011 by Comrade Goby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Slayer Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295628839' post='2589238'] Either you're doing it for the lulz or are honestly just that torn about which side to ride with. Either way, if you can make an argument why this is in your strategic interest expect perhaps from a PR perspective (e.g. RIA always keeps their treaties, no matter what!), I'd love to hear it. [/quote] I bet you would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dontasemebro Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Hey guys, this seems pretty random...perhaps insane. Explain how this strategically benefited you otherwise I don't understand why you'd do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercoolyellow Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Kevin McDonald' timestamp='1295584858' post='2587927'] Boo RIA. You should be on our side. Yay RIA! You're on our side! I knew you would be! [/quote] I read the first line, became puzzled, went to the effort of checking your nation AA, came back even more confused, and only then, read the second line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Really wish I had time to actually build up a nation before all this crap blew up. Oh well, Viva la RIA and let's kick some ass! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 You spelled cum wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1295632058' post='2589310'] Also the losing side. Whatever the case, it's RIA's infra/tech/land/and cash on the line and they may freely spend it as they see fit. The consequences will hopefully be something they can stomach when this is all at an end. Delta1212: I don't wish you ill-will, just seems strategically a bad move. But as I say, we'll see in the end and perhaps in the end I'll agree with you. [/quote] You $%&@ with VE you $%&@ with us, You $%&@ with RoK you $%&@ with us even harder. There was really no other course of action we could take. We chose our friends before the war started and that doesn't change based on who is winning. Edited January 21, 2011 by King Srqt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) If you want to sustain the most damage as possible without either side feeling like you're really helping them much, then this seems like the way to do it. Didn't work well for NpO in the BiPolar War when they tried it, so I'm interested to see how you guys will pull it off with a different result. NpO ended up having both alliances they declared on both sides to technically honor their treaties cancel on them between that war and this one (MK and NSO), as I don't think either appreciated the halfheartedness of NpO's support very much, which eventually withered away to nothing for the losing side. I think its good your defending RoK, but IAA wasn't even at war with VE, so saying you had to do this is kind of strange. I still like you guys despite your seemingly random actions here, so I hope you guys come out of this alright. Good luck helping RoK out despite the distractions, although seems odd you would choose IAA to hit as well considering they are responding to fight in the same war as RoK and haven't hit your allies that I'm aware of. Maybe you guys can correct me if I'm wrong on IAA fighting VE, I thought they were only fighting iFOK? Edit: Now I see where VE declared on IAA, seems it was bunched into their DoW against STA and I missed it. I would hardly consider that IAA messing with VE though, seems the other way around to me. :\ Edited January 21, 2011 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1295636447' post='2589388'] If you want to sustain the most damage as possible without either side feeling like you're really helping them much, then this seems like the way to do it. Didn't work well for NpO in the BiPolar War when they tried it, so I'm interested to see how you guys will pull it off with a different result. NpO ended up having both alliances they declared on both sides to technically honor their treaties cancel on them between that war and this one (MK and NSO), as I don't think either appreciated the halfheartedness of NpO's support very much, which eventually withered away to nothing for the losing side. [/quote] Except everyone had plenty of advance notice from us that this was what we were doing. This wasn't a slapdash operation that was put together at the last second, nor did we join one side, switch sides and then join both. I think it is generally forgotten that almost everyone was already extremely upset with Polar before they wound up fighting for both sides simultaneously. Grub was doing so in an attempt to correct his earlier mistakes that had caused everyone to become upset in the first place, but since everyone is going to focus on the fact that you are helping the other side at least as much if not more than the fact that you are helping theirs, it's not a great way to rebuild bridges. On the other hand, I'm not trying to make up for anything. I'm doing this because I think it's the best option that I have available to me. There are probably people out there who don't appreciate it, but if anybody can't live with this decision, it's not because I screwed up somewhere along the way. The fallout has the potential to be worse than if we had just picked one side, but it also has the potential to be better, so on the whole I'm of the opinion that it averages out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branimir Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Ok. I am giving up on fallowing the sides of this any longer, will just wait for the possible high profile DoWs and eventual surrender instruments. Its not just coz of this DoW, but in general,...who is suppose to fallow this all or know of this all treaties? U all pplz r nuts. I can only name like 15 alliance in CN,... Anyway, have fun y'all. Edited January 21, 2011 by Branimir Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Octavious Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Yeah!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [b]It seems only VE's pride matters when dealing with their treaty partners, but by their own definition of how treaties should work, if one of their allies declared on RIA or Superfriends, the best move would be for them to stay neutral as you guys get rolled, the same they would expect of you guys if VE attacks your treaty partners.[/b] So how much is your VE treaty worth when its expected you don't honor other treaties for them if they decide to roll an ally of yours (exactly the reason they were mad at RoK)? Seems like the treaty is more of a curse restricting you than a mutually beneficial treaty you have with VE, you could still try negotiating white peace on the IAA/GATO front if you don't want to fight both sides to preserve that kind of relationship with VE and instead have a better relationship with those fighting to stick up for their allies regardless of facing hard odds by fighting alongside RoK and those on the same side as them. Although if this is your choice and you are going to stick with it I won't argue more, but you guys can PM me if you want to discuss further. I hate to see an alliance I like get wrecked pointlessly fighting on both sides of a war like this due to some underhanded treaty manipulation of an ally with misplaced trust in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wickedj Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 [quote name='supercoolyellow' timestamp='1295633820' post='2589335'] I read the first line, became puzzled, went to the effort of checking your nation AA, came back even more confused, and only then, read the second line [/quote] Kev has always been confusing. you learn to love him for it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulmar Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 Really though, the picture at the beginning of the thread should have been [url="http://i.imgur.com/SPdR8.jpg"]this.[/url] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadshot Posted January 21, 2011 Report Share Posted January 21, 2011 I like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.