The Glory of Manifestos

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
We will, and we greatly appreciate your kind words of encouragement, most noble one. I wish all the members of GS warm and fuzzy feelings even your naughty doggie, Shiber, too.

Thanks. I'll relay that.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by nbarclay
It is possible that GS should have anticipated the GoW/ND alliance, but the reality is that the majority considered it too unlikely that ND would allow Riders to move through their territory to set up the attack. (Edit: Not to mention how corrupt RP's territory would be for GoW, undercutting the value of such an alliance.) And even if we had anticipated that that's how the sides would shape up, a legitimate NAP would have given us just as much right to conquer RP lands in the upcoming war as GoW had. GoW's expectations for our behavior went far beyond the boundaries of a NAP.

We didn't expect much from GS, Nathan. All we expected was for your team to not hinder our war effort. We were willing to respect your interests on Bob and our communication before this manifesto is proof we planned on respecting your cities on Bob if you simply allowed passage of our troops. You cannot deny this or claim they are lies since we have the evidence logged.

The tripwire was the RoP. The moment you did not allow that is the moment we considered GS's actions a hostile act. If you had agreed on the RoP Bilbao would remain standing, giving you a port on Bob, and our troops would be doing what they were meant to do, kicking midget ass.

[nbarclay]

By the time we had those cities, you'd already destroyed any sembalance of reciprocity by siding with ND against us in their demands that we stay off Bob. Had you taken the position that whether or not we could stay on Bob was strictly between us and ND, and, under the terms of the NAP, none of your business, your desires for us not to take actions that undercut your rape of RP would have fallen on far more sympathetic ears.

[notyoueither]

Oh. Now an NAP entitles GoW to demand an RoP, or it is hostility. But an MPP does not include an NAP?

We have 4 stones, but we do not have 2 stones, and in fact our 4 stones equal 8 stones when it suits us.
From the Book of Grudges

[Hot_Enamel]

Just to be clear ... as the message does not seem to be getting through

GS knowingly selected cities directly in the path or our Riders.
GS knowingly selected cities that denied us strategic military invasion points
GS utilised our NAP agreement to hamper our military movements against RP

and the last straw...as we tried to negotiate.

GS refused a request for free movement through the territory while claiming they were neutral in the war.


GoW has already made it clear, that all of these factors combined, was a breach of our NAP of "no hostile action"



GS has already indicated that they define "no hostile action" as attacking GoW units.
GoW believe that the "no hostile action" definition should not be so narrow.



P.S.
I still get a laugh when anyone tries to say a MPP is a NAP

[nbarclay]

We don't define it that narrowly. As I've said before, if GoW troops had been actively engaged in combat with their lives directly at stake depending on our choices, the situation would have been different. But there was no immediate danger to your troops in our actions. Further, the long-term dangers to your troops if we slowed you down a little were not clearly greater than the long-term dangers to our own troops if we let you and ND overwhelm RP before our troops could intervene against ND. Given the absence of immediate danger to your troops and the fact that cooperating with your plans would have placed our own troops in greater danger, our actions have ample explanation independent of accusations of hostile intent.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel

I still get a laugh when anyone tries to say a MPP is a NAP

How about if we fire up a SP game and see what happens to a civ's reputation when it attacks a MPP partner? Unless I completely misunderstand the mechanics, Civ 3's standard rules treat a MPP as also being a NAP. Thus, the logical interpretation would be that a MP MPP would also include a NAP unless otherwise stated.

[notyoueither]

Just to be clear ... as the message does not seem to be getting through

GoW has failed to keep a single agreement with GS. Every single one has been broken.
GoW entered into one last agreement with GS with the intent to twist the agreement to their advantage. We would be welcome to send troops to kill RP and then we could bugger off.
GoW attempted to twist an NAP into things which it is not, such as an RoP.
GoW is seriously shocked when the patience in GS for GoW and their 'tricks' has been exhausted and we tell them where to get off when they make demands in a... less than diplomatic tone.

I still get a laugh when GoW tries to point fingers in this. What the hell do they know about honouring agreements when they've never met one they wouldn't break?

[WhiteBandit]

Being a member of RP and having a first hand account of the proceedings going on between our two nations, I would like to clear up some misconceptions.

GS knowingly selected cities directly in the path or our Riders.

Nay! In fact, the conversation went something like this:
RP: HEY! We're feeling pretty generous today. We want to give you Bilboa. Yes! That's right, you can have it, no strings attached!
GS: Whoa!@ You guys are rad! We'll accept it next turn...
(next turn)
GS: HEY! #@$#@@ You didn't say there were riders next to it!
RP: DOH! I *knew* we forgot to mention something. :smacks forehead: It's cool though right? I mean you and GoW are friends?
GS: Oh yeah, we're like this :does the fingers crossed thing:

GS knowingly selected cities that denied us strategic military invasion points

We covered this point too.
RP: Say... You think GoW might be mad at you now? I mean... that city could be of... :laughing: strategic value...
GS: :laughing: Hah, right. What kind of value is a city of 1 that you guys founded in a CRAPPY LOCATION and probably has horrible corruption??
RP: :whiping tears out of eyes: You are totally right GS, totally right!
GS: I mean only a fool would think it is of strategic importance!
RP: Haha! YEAH! It's so funny too, you guys accepted it.
GS: :laughing stops:
RP: ew. my bad....

GS utilised our NAP agreement to hamper our military movements against RP

Yup, we even covered this topic too!! Quite a chat we had with those GS fellows...
RP: Wait wait, show me again. You and GoW are like what?
GS: We're like this :does the funky fingers crossed thing again
RP: Haha! That is so rad. We are too. Totally. :more laughing:
GS: Oh yeah. And for gifting us that piece of crap city, we want you to DIE. BUT, you're lucky we're neutral bastards. And we're honorable.
RP:

GS refused a request for free movement through the territory while claiming they were neutral in the war.

Yada yada.
RP: So... like you're still neutral right?? You're not going to let them march through your territory?
GS: Right. Still neutral!
RP: Awesome! So like, can we march through your territory so we can KICK SOME GOW ASS?!?
GS: Umm. No. We said we're neutral.
RP: Oh right. Us too.

There you have it. My team will probably be mad that I posted these uber-secret transcripts. My apologies to the fellows at Gathering Storm and Roleplay. The truth had to be known

[Shiber]

Originally posted by Hot_Enamel
GS has already indicated that they define "no hostile action" as attacking GoW units.
GoW believe that the "no hostile action" definition should not be so narrow.

P.S.
I still get a laugh when anyone tries to say a MPP is a NAP

How can you make those two statements in the same post and keep a straight face?

[DeepO]

He didn't, Shiber. GoW knows all too well this is all a joke, and they are having fun with us, especially because we take it seriously... don't let them get to you! They're just trying to see how much they can bend the thruth, pick stuff out of context, or simply lie (blatant lies even ) to get to our nerves. And it's working, at least sometimes. If it wouldn't hurt our reputation, this would not be so bad...

DeepO

[GhengisFarb™]

DeepO, Shiber's post was seriously a lie, and GS members know it and admitted it. However since the multitude of proofs were from chats GS forced me to edit them from the post so that the proof was no longer public info.

However, GoW and GS know they comments made by Shiber were lies and that's really all that's important.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
DeepO, Shiber's post was seriously a lie, and GS members know it and admitted it.

We have?
Mind pointing me to the post where we have?

However since the multitude of proofs were from chats GS forced me to edit them from the post so that the proof was no longer public info.

The multitude of logs that were put out of context have proven nothing.
If you REALLY want to know whether we were surprised to see what you dragged us into, ask Trip and he'll tell you what kinds of reactions he saw in our private forum.

However, GoW and GS know they comments made by Shiber were lies and that's really all that's important.

Cut the crap.

[DeepO]

GF, I wouldn't know... so much has happened in the mean time, I forgot in which order everything happened. I do know how I experienced everything, which was close to what Shiber said. And I do know that it's quite easy to grab some chat logs, cut and paste them into the public forum, and 'proof' that the other party is lieing. Without the complete context, that isn't near proof, and you (GoW, not only GF) know it. Much can be explained afterwards by crafting evidence, and I have to say, you have a history of doing it. Whether it is doing some patch work on logs, or on screenshots, you have lost most of your believability. At least in my eyes. But I still can appreciate the joke, as it is one big joke what you want to proof

Plus, I fully support Aeson's comment: GS will not quote diplomatic contacts in public, and neither should any other team. Already, too much 'private' information has
leaked This has nothing to do with keeping information hidden, but everything with decency: those chats and contacts were made under the impression that they would remain secret, so you don't simply publish them without mutual consent.

DeepO

[UnOrthOdOx]

Dear lord,

I take a weekend off from poly and this bastard is still at the top of the forum?

Give it a rest.

We disagree, sort out the details on the battle field...

The Victors write the history after all.

Geeze.

[Panzer32]

Just a point to make about some not deeming those cities to be of 'strategic value' to GoW: please count the number of turns it would take to reach RP cities without going through those cities' territory. The number is quite large, and we do not like to betray allies by making them fight alone.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Panzer32
..., and we do not like to betray allies ...

[Darekill]

I think I make a statement here too.

As all of you know there was and is an alliance between ND and the GOW. When we were presented by a city that suddendly was flying GS colors but not spanish anymore. We took action and took it taking the risk of war with two Nations. We expectet to do GoW the same and take bilbao.

We had not known of the NAP between the GS and GoW so we saw no problem in that and when we realised that GoW did not take Bilbao instantly we were quite a bit upset. We were not willing to fight this war without allys on our side and with the risk that the ally might choose to switch sides. So we did put presure at GoW to finaly act.

This reaction was not so unlikely as that no one would have reconed with it. Of cours GS and RP did know that this pressure was due to happen.

You can call this an act of cleverness. It is indeed but that did leave GoW with little else to do but break at least one Pact. Either one with a close ally who tried to hold on to pacts not only by it's wording but by its meaning or to do it with an fickle friend that obviously played nasty tricks on them.

Legaly seen GoW did break it's NAP with GS. I see this. but I see the reason behind it and I see how hard they were pushed to do it also. So it can not be mentioned too often that in my Opinion the Glory of War did act truely honest to our nation. They never once tried to play a cheap trick on us unlike other Nations we meet in this game.

[DeepO]

Darekill, I can imagine that for your team GoW was honorable, but just wait what will happen next... of all the treaties we ever had with GoW, none of them were followed through... they broke every single treaty we ever had, not only of intent, but also to the letter. I'm not mentioning this as rectification of us doing the same with them, as we didn't break anything (BTW, AFAIK we did not say to RP that we had a NAP with GoW), it's just a warning amongst friends. Watch your back...

DeepO

[Harovan]

Not to mention, that for GoW the NAP had the sole purpose to backstab ND in the end. Or why else would one want a 30 turns NAP for, when attacking a pretty helpless civ with 2 different fastmover UU's? To cover the own back in this case 10 or at most 15 turns would suffice. But if one intents afterwards to attack an ally, who's army is gone, from 2 sides at the same time without having to fear an intervention, it suddenly begins to make sense.

[UnOrthOdOx]

30 turns was to make sure we did not have to fight you as well during our GA, actually.

The whole purpose of the NAP as I wrote it up was to prevent exactly what has happened, and keep us from fighting RP and GS. Oh well, things change.

Did we break the NAP? Technically, yes, it was us who broke it. Happy?

I do find it curious that Lego saw their NAP would prevent them from receiving cities from RP where as GS did not.

Does any of it matter? No.

Want to know GoW?

We said from the beginning that we were mercenaries. As far as I can see, we have played as we said from the beginning.

The NAP ceased to be profitable, simple as that. It has also had the effect of making relations with ND MORE profitable. At least for now. I am sure there might be some situation somewhere somehow that would make relations with ND cease to be profitable as well. We will decide that as mercenaries when the time comes. But, for the foreseeable future, it is in our best interest to protect our mutual homeland from invaders, together.

[Shiber]

I don't get it.
UnOrthOdOx said to GS himself that the NAP is really meant to guard GoW from a backstab from ND.
So GoW attacking RP while they had an MPP which RP wanted to sign in case ND attacked them is OK, but GS "attacking" (according to GoW's statements) GoW while they have an agreement to guard against treason from ND is not OK?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Shiber
I don't get it.
UnOrthOdOx said to GS himself that the NAP is really meant to guard GoW from a backstab from ND.
So GoW attacking RP while they had an MPP which RP wanted to sign in case ND attacked them is OK, but GS "attacking" (according to GoW's statements) GoW while they have an agreement to guard against treason from ND is not OK?

No,

I said I wanted you on the island at the end of the war to protect against a ND backstab, for what better time for ND to backstab us than after RP was dealt with and the GoW army was in the south? This deal never came to pass for RP made a better offer, apparantly.

The NAP was to protect against GS joining the war against us. A moot point now (to borrow GF's favorite new word 'moot')

If you're going to quote me, do it correctly please.

[Darekill]

I'm not stupid. I can imagin that plans for a backstab attack from GoW against ND exited and may still exist. The point is, as long as it is for GoW better to fight with us then against us we feel fine. We hope to keep it that way. How we do this is our Problem.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Darekill
I'm not stupid. I can imagin that plans for a backstab attack from GoW against ND exited and may still exist. The point is, as long as it is for GoW better to fight with us then against us we feel fine. We hope to keep it that way. How we do this is our Problem.

That about sums up how I feel about ND as well. About nearly every team, really.

[Panzer32]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

btw, I said we do not like to.

[Shiber]

Darekill, you have my respect for your honesty.

[Shiber]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I do find it curious that Lego saw their NAP would prevent them from receiving cities from RP where as GS did not.

Don't fool yourself, Lego is incapable of actively and efficiently warring with GoW on Bob until Astronomy.
I also find it curious... that Lego let themselves be bullied into a NAP in the first place.

[Panzer32]

good job Shiber

lets badmouth legos because we know they can't attack us now.

[Shiber]

No, I very much appreciate and respect the way that both Lego and ND have played this game thus far, and I wouldn't say a bad word about either teams.
But since you and some of your teammates think that this is all a big circus and you ought to put up a show to convince Lego that they should attack us (or whatever Master Zen's latest "evil plan" dictates), I'm not surprised that you try to interpret my words in a way that would be offensive towards Lego.