Thorns - Universe 43


 
HomeRegisterLog in
Log in
Username:
Password:
Log in automatically: 
:: I forgot my password
Who is online?
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 1 Guest

None

Most users ever online was 13 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 1:01 pm

Share | 
 

 War and Peace

Go down 
AuthorMessage
mars1982
Diplomat
avatar

Posts : 181
Join date : 2010-04-07
Age : 36

PostSubject: War and Peace   Sat May 01, 2010 1:48 pm

Hey and one more question where do we stand on Allies, NAP, ..... Wars ??

My personal opinion is more NAP (with high ranked Alliances or players* the better) I think there are more than enuf Inactive and alliances we don't know to raid that a few more NAP would be a bonus.

* I talk to Nosebleed not high Alliance rank but there are only 2 people in it and both top 500
so not want to limit lower point Alliances for that reason

I think we could use 1 more Allie but one like Crazy that I know would help us out in a War I don't think TJO is that bunch. but they are a good bunch to keep on a NAP

Odiously I don't think we should pursue any wars (except with HH if they where even worth calling a war) But if it came up I don't think we should back down either. TJO is in a war (MKD) and it seem's to be helping there alliance more active people more ships and defence being built. and not to much actuale damage being done from the sounds of things we can worry about wars later let me know how you stand of peace and Allies

I was thinking we could start a poll about it after this new one runs it's corse.

Thanks
Back to top Go down
schadenfreud
Knight
avatar

Posts : 139
Join date : 2010-04-09

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Sat May 01, 2010 10:20 pm

not too many. two to four good ones. else you're just removing potential targets
Back to top Go down
silentk
Grand Master


Posts : 395
Join date : 2010-04-08
Age : 32

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Sun May 02, 2010 2:46 am

i've always been a bit split on these things.

everything have to be evaluated, with pro's and cons, the higher ranking alliances, that we might not have full blown force to attack anyway, and which covers like 5% of the total player base, would most likely give us the best protection, at minimum cost in raid targets (granted we would never get an agreement with all those no matter what). regarding real allies, it woul dhave to be someone we got some kind of relation with, no matter what. rather have less allies, then some that we're not sure we can trust.

but yarr. dunno who the worst hunters are of our alliance, but those few most represented alliances would ofcourse be nice to have a deal with. all those we dont see much off, doesnt realy make much of a difference, other then limiting our fleeters
Back to top Go down
Sir Morton
Grand Master
avatar

Posts : 602
Join date : 2010-04-07

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Sun May 02, 2010 4:50 am

Size 2 - 5 people alliances? I'd rather ask them to join us, than form alliances with them.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Sun May 02, 2010 5:28 am

I dont think my opinion is important, but if yes, I'm for as much NAPs as possible and @$%@ the alliances (because we are peaceful and we don't want to be inflicted in someone's war)
Back to top Go down
KK2020
Grand Master
avatar

Posts : 481
Join date : 2010-04-06

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Sun May 02, 2010 7:45 am

everyones opinion is important, plus its nice you have something to say on the matter mgun Smile

we should definitely limit our number of allies i think, to minimise the chance of getting dragged into a war. i've noticed some of the other top alliances have a limit of 2 allies, so maybe we should do something simnilar.

as for NAPs, im all for pursuing them with alliances/players that are near 'thorns clusters' in the galaxy, like TJO. i definitely feel more relaxed knowing galaxy 9 has less threats in it now. i dont think we should try and organise NAPs just for the sake of it, as it will be a bit awkward to break them in future if we decide we have too many, and with the larger alliances that takes too many targets away from our fleeters.

as for smaller elite alliances like nosebleed/adasta, i think we should try and NAP with them. that doesnt take too many targets away, and these kinds of alliances will almost definitely help in a war if there is profit to be made in it. so far as i know with adasta anyway. as these players usually know their stuff well, much better to have 10 NAPs with alliances of 2-3 members than have 1 with an alliance with 30 members i say. of course if they do want to join us they would be welcome, but i expect they are in a small alliance for a reason.

i'm all for the hippy lets-all-get-along way of life for now, but i dont have much of a fleet to be attacking with yet so im hardly going to be screaming for blood Razz

but for future reference, what kind of actions would result in us declaring war against a player/alliance? from what i know defense bashing is one thing we dont tolerate, along with general dumbf**k-ery as displayed by -HH-, but what would it take for a full-on declaration of war to be made by Thorns on the ogame board?

i know we are fairly lenient towards proft attackers, mainly cos we see it is up to the player to be unprofitable, and hell, making profit is what keeps people playing in the universe.

and as for -HH-, you will noticed the 'wars' part of the external pages states 'none worth mentioning'. i thought that was pretty accurate Wink
Back to top Go down
Jaecyn
Diplomat
avatar

Posts : 58
Join date : 2010-04-07
Age : 34

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Tue May 04, 2010 5:25 pm

I'm not sure I understand the idea of having 'too many alliances'. Or, to be more precise why this could be percieved as something negative.

Even if we're allied with 75% of the player base, you still have a full quarter to go and attack. It's not like that's going to be all that small a pool to play in boys and girls.

Perhaps I'm viewing this with a bit of bias towards a preffered play-type, and the fact that I'm not a trigger-happy fleeter running around picking fights should in and of itself be pointed out as with regards to this topic. The people who tend to be the most vocal on this matter (and I could be wrong, so weigh in if you're not) seem to be the fleeters of the Alliance. That makes a certain amount of sense as miners are by nature an insular and conservative bunch, however, the more other people see the name THORNS show up in their combat reports the bigger the target that is painted on everyone; including Miner's through no fault of their own. Miner's like having lots of treaties because then they're left alone to get things done. From what I understand, Fleeter's like fewer treaties because having an excessively large target base is their preffered cup of tea.

I truly feel that these views can and should be reconciled. Why not divide and conquer? Make alliances or non-aggression treaties with everybody you can, which will almost certainly never include even half the other players in the game leaving plenty of options. The goal of course is to alienate your targets. Then, those persons will have a much harder time building coalitions to mount retaliatory counter attacks and/or engage in prolonged wars with us. I see this as making all of our lives easier.

All of this being said, I strongly suggest that foreign relations should always be cleared through a central persona. We need a designated one, or maybe two close working people to be in charge of monitoring treaties, maintaining diplomatic alerts to our members in order to avoid confusion and lapses of memory, and to of course be the spokesperson, negotiator, and mediator amongst or neighbors for Thorns. Not saying people shouldn't reach out to friendlier neighbors, but that if there is a connection and things like NAP and MPT's come up in conversation that the 'diplomat' should be called in to help moderate. This may even be seen by others as a sign of strength and that we in fact have our proverbial shit together. Is this person Farscape?

On another but related topic. As far as myself and the current international community are concerned, a non-aggression pact (or treaty) is a simple statement along the lines of "you stay there, and I'll stay here and we won't shoot at each other" A real world example would be say Nairobi and Mexico. The two have pledged not to go to war with one another, respect each other's sovereignty and play nice a the dinner table at the U.N.

They most certainly will not go to war for one another either. That is what a Mutual Protection Agreement is. That's the one that runs something like "Hey buddy! Some jerk comes along and bombs you? I'm going to mess that punk-ass up like whoa." Like the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands, or that shit-storm that started the First World War.

Of course I could be completely wrong here in Ogame. I'm not even sure what NAP stands for as you guys are using it for that matter, I don't think I've ever actually seen the words spelled out. If there isn't this distinction in this game however, maybe we should start making it very clear with our alliances for whom we will or will not fight for; and exactly what kind of treaty we've established there.

Wow, um.... yeah so that message sort of got away from me there. SEE! This is why I limit my forum time! I just keep going and... I'm still doing it aren't I? <sigh>
Back to top Go down
Laysen Bildrow
Knight
avatar

Posts : 97
Join date : 2010-04-09

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Tue May 04, 2010 8:23 pm

Back to top Go down
Jaecyn
Diplomat
avatar

Posts : 58
Join date : 2010-04-07
Age : 34

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Wed May 05, 2010 9:11 am

Where the heck did you find that?
Back to top Go down
KK2020
Grand Master
avatar

Posts : 481
Join date : 2010-04-06

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Wed May 05, 2010 9:48 am

NAP is a non-agression pact, which should effectively make us invisible to any alliance we have one with as it takes us off their target list. Ally status is used currently to refer to alliances we would combine arms with in times of war declared against one of us.

I have a similar point of view, being a miner i'm not too fussed about having many NAPs etc for similar reasons. I also feel that any alliance that it would be nice to have an NAP with is the kind of alliance it wouldnt be wise to prey on anyway, ie Avalanch. As i have said somewhere I like the idea of as many NAP's as possible with the higher ranking/elite alliance, but I dont feel we should have too many Allies as each one we have increases the likelihood of us getting involved in a war. Although, assuming any Allies we have will definitely fight with us, I could be convinced more full Ally treaties are a good thing.

Will have to wait and see what (if!) anyone else has to say. I imagine some of our fleeters will have issues with NAPs etc with other alliances, so hopefully they will share their thoughts on the subject.

As far as I am aware you (Jaecyn) and Mars are the 'central diplomatic persona' of Thorns and will be handling all that business between you, referring to the grand masters/everyone on the forum for any issues that need it I suppose. Thats what I think is going on now anyway Wink

And as for the image macro, the tubes are full of them. You not seen that one before?
Back to top Go down
canada ehhhhh
Knight
avatar

Posts : 214
Join date : 2010-04-07

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Wed May 05, 2010 3:46 pm

we should just get a NAP with the top alliances in gal 9 and dont worry about the other systems even tho were all over the place
Back to top Go down
kingustin
Padawan
avatar

Posts : 68
Join date : 2010-04-07

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Wed May 05, 2010 6:43 pm

i agree with canada. i actually have my rez center in gal 1, but i'm starting to build defenses in gal 9 to make one there. It would be neat to be able to gather rez there without spending much on defenses, thus having a safe house to ship my rez if i run into trouble in gal 1.
as for the other ones. burn them all!! Razz
just kidding, but just as romans had troubles controlling their soldiers, we have to keep our fleeters satisfied. after all, they're the ones bringing the fires of retribution Smile
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Thu May 06, 2010 2:04 am

As a Wing/Acadamy Alliance, our core list of NAPs & Allies should mirror those of our Core Alliance, with more freedom to take on additional NAPs. In an ideal world, should our Core Alliance declare War, as part of the negotiations of the declaration, Wing Alliances should, in theory, be declared safe & invalid targets.

In terms of us declaring war on Alliances ourselves, we need to factor in our membership's game set, eiher miner, fleeter & those yet to make up their minds (I tend to not to of decided until I'm capable of producing everything shy of a Deathstar)
Back to top Go down
Sir Morton
Grand Master
avatar

Posts : 602
Join date : 2010-04-07

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Thu May 06, 2010 3:33 am

I agree kaislee. Wars are declared after negotiating terms. Main alliance wars should not reflect on Academy. In theory at least... tongue
Back to top Go down
Bitty
Knight
avatar

Posts : 489
Join date : 2010-04-06

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Thu May 06, 2010 11:24 am

well i guess if a war happens that there wouldnt be any hits at the academy cause i see that our academy members still get probed sometimes by some players who are in a lot weaker alliance then we are,so that means they dont really know that we are connected with the main...
i guess maybe the same thing happened with that TJO member attacking one of our members,cause he didnt know that we are connected....and that would be the only logical explanation,besides them betraying us and i hope im not mistaking....
Back to top Go down
mars1982
Diplomat
avatar

Posts : 181
Join date : 2010-04-07
Age : 36

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Thu May 06, 2010 5:26 pm

I agree with you guys But if we go to war our enemies would most likely attack Academy members just to get at us. I agree with kaislee and think the academy should also look for lower ranked Alliances to get NAP with that would not necessarily reflect the main alliance.
Back to top Go down
canada ehhhhh
Knight
avatar

Posts : 214
Join date : 2010-04-07

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Thu May 06, 2010 7:58 pm

does TJO have a wing department, if so we should set up our wing with there wing, that being said i think we should make our NAPs like that, we form alliances with the main and the wings form alliances
Back to top Go down
Moros
Forum Admin
avatar

Posts : 164
Join date : 2010-04-10
Age : 29

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Thu May 06, 2010 11:39 pm

Whenever we do a NAPS or ALLIANCE with other Alliances. We should really try to get the same deal with their wing if they have one.
Back to top Go down
Jaecyn
Diplomat
avatar

Posts : 58
Join date : 2010-04-07
Age : 34

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Thu May 06, 2010 11:49 pm

Moros wrote:
Whenever we do a NAPS or ALLIANCE with other Alliances. We should really try to get the same deal with their wing if they have one.

I'm inclined to agree with Moros, that seems the most prudent move.
Back to top Go down
Moros
Forum Admin
avatar

Posts : 164
Join date : 2010-04-10
Age : 29

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Fri May 07, 2010 12:07 am

It only make's sense. If you are allied with the main. Why shouldn't we be allied with wing. They are all in the same alliance aren't they.
Back to top Go down
Sir Morton
Grand Master
avatar

Posts : 602
Join date : 2010-04-07

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Fri May 07, 2010 2:59 am

yes
Back to top Go down
Bitty
Knight
avatar

Posts : 489
Join date : 2010-04-06

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Fri May 07, 2010 3:05 am

Well then our diplomatic team should be informed about it so that the same things like that TJO member attacking one of our members wouldnt repeat....cause i guess he didnt know about the academy,and so is the possibility that some of our members attack someone for who he doesnt know is an ally with us,things like that could happen i guess...
Back to top Go down
Archeryman

avatar

Posts : 15
Join date : 2010-12-08
Age : 56

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Mon Dec 20, 2010 1:16 am

Quote: from GNN Reporter:

http://board.ogame.org/board684-ogame-org/board688-gnn-the-galaxy-news-network/board80-gnn-reports/676745-uni-43-november-2010-report/#post8883393

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

Another interesting month for war. One that started and ended in between reports was K.o.D's standard war against THORNS. Accusations about THORNS using spies to infiltrate K.o.D alliance were the cause of it all, but this was a war which divided the uni. We all watched with interest as Miners left their own alliance to join in the fun. Ancients joined THORNS....his departure was closely followed by Hitsquad and CBBK, who both joined K.o.D. Bunsky also joined K.o.D, and OutNChiTown joined THORNS from _VA_.
The war came to a close when K.o.D leader Mandarus found himself on a "contact me" ban. In his absence, Agronomifly took control of K.o.D and agreed to boot Fatality from the alliance to end the war. Hitsquad and CBBK returned to Miners, OutNChiTown returned to _VA_, and Bunsky joined KTA.....Ancients has remained with THORNS, perhaps my alleged "troll" of the war thread was closer to the truth than the uni seen at the time.
Mandarus (Luci) has since joined Terror alliance, and Fatality now hides in v-mode under the name of Makedon.
Standard War: K.o.D vs THORNS
CRs only: K.o.D vs THORNS
Back to top Go down
Baron_Oxnard

avatar

Posts : 27
Join date : 2010-12-01

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Mon Dec 20, 2010 9:19 am

Wings should work their own diplomacy, with leadership permissions and full updates. This way they can learn all aspects of the game. NAPS should cover the wings but the wings need to represent as well.
Back to top Go down
EuroTrash

avatar

Posts : 2
Join date : 2011-05-01

PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   Sun May 01, 2011 5:02 pm

Although noobs like myself may take some of the sharp edge of an alliance fueled war, I would personally do everything I could to make sure Thorns stands its ground.

Having said this, I fully endorse the peaceful approach outlined by the members of this group earlier in this thread. But if things got ugly, us academy boys would make sure that we were doing our part.

E.T.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: War and Peace   

Back to top Go down
 
War and Peace
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
-
» TENTANG "TOYOL" AKA CUSTOM CVT
» The Honorable James David Manning - The blood of Jesus (Obama Nobel Peace Prize)
» Mario Matous: 1947–2013 A Real Chess Hero Rests in Peace.
» What should I name my Peace Bear?
» Eric Lin (Dark_wizzie) is Banned!!!!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Thorns - Universe 43 :: Thorn's Shared Forums :: Diplomacy and Recruitment-
Jump to: