Announcement

**Harovan** · July 29, 2003, 01:53

We shouldn't ***** and whine at all. So GoW broke a treaty? How is this news? It was expected, that they would, after this record of broken promises. We knew from the beginning, that it wouldn't last the whole 30 turns.

**Aeson** · July 29, 2003, 03:44

Definitely let them bring up the NAP first, just so they can be the ones to break that part of the agreement too. I agree there should be no whining.

**Octavian X** · July 29, 2003, 04:32

I wouldn't bring it up, just in case other teams believe GoW's arguments on how we were in breach of the NAP.

Otherwise, just play along. Our current hands-off strat seems to be working...

**Shiber** · July 29, 2003, 05:45

We can play the "GoW won't respect an agreement once they no longer benefit from it" card.

**DeepO** · July 29, 2003, 07:25

Agree on not being the first to mention the NAP. However, GoW is going to use the justification they sent us in public as well, in which case we don't whine, but have to keep our souls clean.

so:
1. GoW breaks treaties if they can benefit from it. Example: doctored screenshot, not landing in Stormia.
2. GoW was outmaneuvered diplomatically, after trying the same on us: first ask for a NAP, to keep us on their side of the ND-GoW backstab that they know is going to happen, then asking us to join on the RP gangbang for free (quite insulting to us), then being insulted when we play the same trick on them (using our NAP to protect RP)

1. , together with some "riders are so powerfull, they go to Valhalla 3 times as quick as an MI" stuff at first glance, 2. in case they keep attacking us. We have to keep Lego and Vox on our side for as long as possible (This can also be done in private, though). Nothing more, and certainly no line-by-line refutation of their comments, even if we would be totally in our right.

BTW, if we make them angry enough, they will start to do foolish things in-game too, I'm sure of that. Over-stretching an attack seems so GoW that it is scary...

DeepO

**Shiber** · July 29, 2003, 07:40

NYE, you want to write something up in advance in case GoW goes public with the NAP violation story?
Edit: I agree with DeepO's points.

**Aeson** · July 29, 2003, 08:00

How about we offer them to nullify the NAP? Throw the fear of God into them... bypass the damn public fiasco any "agreement" discussion becomes, and just get on with the killing.

GoW doesn't want the NAP, we don't want the NAP... so throw it out. Let GoW 'off the hook'... and into the fire.

If we really want to have some fun, plead for a 1 turn NAP removal cease fire, where no troops will advance into territory of the other party. Make them think they can hit Toledo before we can get there... make them act faster than they might want...

Drive GoW into a murderous rage....

-----------------------

Glory of War,

The rantings of an insane man about broken treaties holds no water. The fact remains that GS has not acted against GoW. GoW is now demanding that GS honor not only it's agreements with GoW, but GoW's agreements to ND? This is completely unacceptable. GS cannot be held responsible for the agreements that GoW enters into, or GoW's (in)ability to honor those agreements. This is what GoW's accusations boil down to: "GS is not allowing GoW to pass through GS territory so GoW may fulfill a contract." The other arguments are contrived at best, and laughable in some cases. GS does not exist to facillitate GoW's military ambitions at the cost of GS' wellbeing, and neither does the NAP.

The NAP is still in effect in GS' estimation.

It becomes clear the NAP is not what GoW wishes. It is not what GS wishes either. Both parties signed an agreement without fully understanding the limitations it would place on them in the very near future. We wish to help rectify this situation for both teams. To allow both teams to keep their honor, and refrain from either being subject to the spectacle of uninformed opinion that public debates become.

GS offers to agree to a mutual cancellation of the NAP if GoW reciprocates. GS asks one condition, a single turn of respite from being attacked or having units moved further into (or through) GS territory. GS will reciprocate in kind. GoW has moved into position to raze a city of GS while under the cover of a NAP, and GS would hope GoW has the honor to at least give GS one turn to prepare for the coming assault.

This is an offer that GoW may retain it's honor, while still having full right to act against GS to fulfill contracts. The single turn cease fire item may be negotiated, or others added, but the offer is off the table if GoW were to attack GS or move further into (or through) GS territory before an agreement is reached.

That is all,

Gathering Storm

**DeepO** · July 29, 2003, 08:10

I like it, with one minor point: you say "It is not what GS wishes either"... that would be a admittance of guilt, that we deliberately try them to break the NAP. I would rather say "The situation has changed for GS too, we wouldn't mind not having to obey a NAP"

If this gets sent, it has to be send fast, before GoW attacks us in-game.

DeepO

**Aeson** · July 29, 2003, 08:18

like it, with one minor point: you say "It is not what GS wishes either"

Ok. I was trying for something along the lines of "come and get some, we're ready"... but it doesn't need to be so strongly worded.

It's certainly the stickiest point in the whole thing.

How about:

"Correspondence with the GoW ambassador appointed to GS makes it clear the NAP is not what GoW wishes, and that it will not be respected. GS is agreeable to allow the NAP to be nullified."

**vulture** · July 29, 2003, 08:20

I share DeepO's reservations about the "It is not what GS wishes either" sentence. I think we would rather have the NAP, and have them continue to observe it, but if they are going to attack we might as well cancel the NAP 'amicably' and avoid the public arguments. And I don't see any real harm in saying that to GoW in as many words.

**Aeson** · July 29, 2003, 08:22

Maybe it would be best to just use the last two paragraphs, with a small lead in?

**DeepO** · July 29, 2003, 08:34

well, I liked the rest of the alinea, it's just we have to avoid that we say: Hey, we know we're breaking a treaty, so let's cancel it. This is not what is going on, they are breaking a treaty, one that we wouldn't mind being broken.

I would even go so far that if they don't agree with the 1 turn delay (we could e.g. ask if they would at least have the honor of ending this treaty from without our territory), we could accept a fine for cancelling the treaty in gold... now that would certainly make them angry

DeepO

**Aeson** · July 29, 2003, 08:37

Good idea on the fine

**Shiber** · July 29, 2003, 08:40

GoW can't attack us this turn anyway (unless they go for Bilbao, which is next to worthless). If we're going to offer them an exit out of the NAP, let us offer to end the NAP on turn 132, during GoW's turn.

Announcement

Wag the Dog

Wag the Dog

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment