Jump to content

Announcement from VE, PC, Fok, iFOK, MN, and NpO


Recommended Posts

[quote name='mmansfield68' timestamp='1300239782' post='2666020']
Sponge has forgotten more about this game than you will ever know. Please drop the Samaratin mask - it couldn't look more obvious if it had chin-straps.
[/quote]

No he hasn't.

[quote]
I'm sure that if your generous offerings are deemed acceptable, they'll get up with you. I have a sneeking suspicion that the NpO, Electron Sponge and his compadres might have a rebuilding plan that does not include YOU.[/quote]

Like I said, if they're too proud to accept my help, that's fine. Their loss. I'll keep that tech right here in VE, where it will power the next nuclear weapon to be fired into a Polaris nation.

[quote]
With friends like you, who needs enemas?
[/quote]

What? What are you going on about here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 487
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300240160' post='2666025']
I disagree that it would have made a difference. Any damage in the window between NPO entering and being countered would not have altered the result, some of the swing alliances on NpO's side might still have switched sides to attack NPO, and NPO would likely have been countered by a larger group of alliances entering due to treaty chains (rather than only those alliances in your coalition that ended up attacking NPO). Nonetheless, the point is moot given that it is purely hypothetical and cannot be proven.
[/quote]

If it was handled properly, it would have done some damage, like I mentioned NPO and allies have had an advantage now in a certain NS range where our side was weak against NpO. It wouldn't have altered the overall result, but it would have made victory costlier(that's the goal when you're on the losing side, making victory for the other side costlier) if an all out offensive had taken place. Having everyone in causes more damage and makes it harder to keep the war up. Most of the other alliances were already tied up at the time, so they wouldn't have been able to counter NPO if they entered late. I don't think that many would have jumped that weren't already on the fence because most knew they would be potentially on the same side as NPO.

Basically, if the NPO wasn't going to enter, I'd think they were out of their minds since it was the best shot they were ever going to get with most people hating them. It would have helped Polar some, but I just can't see how staying out would be good for NPO itself which is why it's hard to believe they wouldn't enter at all, because they would be easy to pick off not too long after. Bottom line: if NPO wanted to sit it out, they could have just posted a Declaration of Neutrality if they were worried about getting hit at the time. Your alliance did something like it during the NEW-DF war.


[quote]I referred to the DoW because I presumed that was the official explanation for why you, well, declared war. The subsequent explanation still does not support the characterisation of the Doomhouse/NPO war as "preemptive". It still depends purely on Doomhouse's [i]assumptions[/i] regarding NPO's actual intentions with regard to the PB/NpO war, i.e. NPO's lack of action was entirely consistent with an intention not to enter the war. As for TPF beefing up, Kilkenny provided a perfectly rational explanation above, and attacking one alliance on the basis of the actions of its ally is hardly preemption (notwithstanding your public contempt for following treaty chains).

Ultimately, if the Doomhouse attack was preemptive, then you are left with no reason to be at war with NPO now that NpO has exited. The fact that you are still at war suggests that your intention is to neutralise NPO as a potential future threat (again, based purely on your assumptions regarding its intentions). That is preventative, not preemptive.
[/quote]

Like I said, it's been misinterpreted and what you see as the official explanation never was. It never said anyone thought that the NPO would not enter and that was the explanation you were saying was given. Not really assumptions. We knew NSO would be entering at some point and was trying to organize its allies and sign last minute treaties, for example. Most of that has been out for a while and is old news as I previously mentioned. Enough of NPO's allies were going to be in or could be pulled in.

Once you get past the point of attacking, you can have reasons for staying there that go beyond the strategic dynamic for declaring. For example, Ragnarok wanted to stay in the war regardless of Polar peacing out because they didn't want to surrender. Ultimately, it makes zero sense for us to give peace to the NPO at this time because they've dodged the war more or less and neutralizing them as a threat is a goal regardless of the strategic reasons for attacking. Giving the NPO peace at this juncture is unacceptable consequently. This would be the likely outcome even if the NPO had entered conventionally.


With regards to treaty chains, my opinion is this: I don't think their non-existence should prevent people from getting help. I wouldn't have liked it if for example no one was willing to help FAN out after Valhalla countered them in the last war. A lot of people have talked about how you don't need treaties to defend someone and I see that as the case.

I'm kind of tired of arguing the whole thing since I've already done it exhaustively and no one is going to change their minds, so I'll quit.

Edited by Antoine Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300240160' post='2666025']As for TPF beefing up, Kilkenny provided a perfectly rational explanation above, and attacking one alliance on the basis of the actions of its ally is hardly preemption (notwithstanding your public contempt for following treaty chains)..
[/quote]

Maybe I'm missing something here, I admit I may be thinking of a different part of the war's timeline than y'all are, but could TPF have been beefing up to defend STA in the purely NpO theater?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ragashingo' timestamp='1300241618' post='2666050']
Maybe I'm missing something here, I admit I may be thinking of a different part of the war's timeline than y'all are, but could TPF have been beefing up to defend STA in the purely NpO theater?
[/quote]

At the time, the possibility was there that they'd help STA or MCXA(who were countered around that time).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Electron Sponge' timestamp='1300242645' post='2666063']
I'll actually agree with you there. I don't forget much.
[/quote]

Luckily, you're not in a position to do anything about it. Your threats don't mean much to me when they're made in the very thread that was created to surrender to me. Try getting up off your knees before you talk to me like that again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1300243525' post='2666072']
Luckily, you're not in a position to do anything about it. Your threats don't mean much to me when they're made in the very thread that was created to surrender to me. Try getting up off your knees before you talk to me like that again.
[/quote]
You're bad for your alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1300243525' post='2666072']
Luckily, you're not in a position to do anything about it. Your threats don't mean much to me when they're made in the very thread that was created to surrender to me. Try getting up off your knees before you talk to me like that again.
[/quote]

I like how you used the word me instead of us, get off your damn high horse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1300243899' post='2666078']
:smug: Make [s]me[/s] us. :smug:
[/quote]

Unfortunately I just infra jumped out of your range, over wise I would of taken the offer up.

If you jump into my range, feel free to engage me to see what happens then hey. (Without backing of AA's respectfully)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1300243525' post='2666072']
Luckily, you're not in a position to do anything about it. Your threats don't mean much to me when they're made in the very thread that was created to surrender to me. Try getting up off your knees before you talk to me like that again.
[/quote]
hahahaha
haaaahaaahahaha

what

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1300246754' post='2666121']
Did you hear that Penkala is in charge of VE now? He defeated us single-handedly, and is in no way running his mouth on the back of the work of others.
[/quote]

Where did I ever say that?

It was a team effort and everyone contributed to your destruction :smug:

[quote]hahaha[/quote]

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99845&st=0

Do you see that post? That would be you surrendering to my alliance. I would think you would be used to the concept by now. And I would think that making comments about what you'll be doing to me, in the very thread where you surrender to myself and my friends, is pretty hilarious.

Edited by Penkala
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penguin' timestamp='1300221624' post='2665764']
Someone built a dam under the bridge into my nation. Demolition crews estimate it will take at least a month before the fish can flow back in.
[/quote]

I wish I could of said that was me, but I was the group of 10 guys running around your minefield like drunken idiots...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1300240762' post='2666035']
I'll keep that tech right here in VE, where it will power the next nuclear weapon to be fired into a Polaris nation.
[/quote]

ill take that action. :smug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[color=#1C2837][size=4][quote]Once you get past the point of attacking, you can have reasons for staying there that go beyond the strategic dynamic for declaring. For example, Ragnarok wanted to stay in the war regardless of Polar peacing out because they didn't want to surrender. Ultimately, it makes zero sense for us to give peace to the NPO at this time because they've dodged the war more or less and neutralizing them as a threat is a goal regardless of the strategic reasons for attacking. Giving the NPO peace at this juncture is unacceptable consequently. This would be the likely outcome even if the NPO had entered conventionally.[/quote][/size][/color]
[color=#1C2837][size=4]
[/size][/color]
Does it make you happy to use big words , when ganking will do the trick just as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1300246915' post='2666123']
Where did I ever say that?

It was a team effort and everyone contributed to your destruction :smug:
[/quote]

I don't see our disbandment announcement.

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1300246915' post='2666123']
http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=99845&st=0

Do you see that post? That would be you surrendering to my alliance. I would think you would be used to the concept by now. And I would think that making comments about what you'll be doing to me, in the very thread where you surrender to myself and my friends, is pretty hilarious.
[/quote]

I can't let that misuse of "myself" go unrecognized. I don't know why people think "myself" is more formal or proper than me, but it's not. As for the rest: we seem to be a pretty good position, especially in light of the rhetoric from you people at the start of the war. What should I be concerned about?

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...