Non-Aligned Alliance Movement

If we may only fight wars against alliances with even numbers in this game then how come H? was involved in so many? They're way ahead of everyone else in size, experience and strategic location. To me it seems the point you're trying to make all the time mostly counts against you.

You mean the ones where H?/Coalition has been outnumbered?  Consone outnumbered Coalition.  So if you were trying to brand H? has hypocrites then it still wouldn't work.  Plus H? didn't form for the purpose of not "being pushed around by large alliances"  

Edited by DeathDealer89 - 29 Oct 2013 at 15:20

Gaius Rufius Tullus wrote: Say you are in a family group, and someone is beating your little sibling. Granted, you may be bigger than the bully - but that should not stop you from helping your younger sibling and stopping the conflict.

before further charges of hypocrisy begin...this is more or less the scenario that got NC into the war on the side of RE.  so at least two heads in this many-headed conflict have used this same rationale.  it should be clear to any who follow it to its natural conclusion that it ends when Elgea runs out of bigger, stronger alliances willing to assist their smaller kin.

it is not a moral failure to ask allies to assist one in time of crisis; it is not a moral failure to seek advantage in an armed conflict; and it is not impossible for a smaller alliance to act in a way that invites "fair" military retribution from a larger one.  where diplomacy is insufficient to settle an argument, there is war.  of ends to that, there are only victory and defeat, and they will occur on the map, not on the forum.

[23 Sep 2012 12:40]<Innoble> a fair fight is a fight both parties are dumb to start, so fair fights are fought by idiots

Tordenkaffen wrote: Gaius Rufius Tullus wrote: ... @Torden - NAAM has prepared, I am not sure in our military capabilities but we have troops.. Does that count?  No. It annoys me to no end that you market yourselves as "the non aligned (neutral)" confederation - strongly implying to your average recruit, that the driving motivation is pacifism, and then drag your members into this war. The fact that they have joined you strongly implies they have NO CLUE about warfare, yet you are placing them in situations far beyond your own control. So no, it doesn't count that they have troops, because everyone else have more. And I find it remarkably indifferent and irresponsible simply to place all those small accounts between yourself and the siege engines. This is bad leadership, plain and simple.

Why not bring NAAM down to a local level? If all the alliances in Middle Kingdom for example come together as a unified body and elect a council made up of one member of each alliance in the area . The council would then discuss trade, military policies etc . That way a select few members of each area can debate if conflict arises in illyriad instead of everyone getting on the forum and having heated discussions that don't solve the conflict and result in it becoming personnel and people form vendetta's in their conflicts. This then leads to the destruction of cities and people leaving the game.