[PvP1] France joins the war against Sweden

[Twig]

Hey Plerrick,

the part of that agreement "to not interfere with in the war" came from your "official" diplomate. I've got two other people form my nation which can testify.

So, no that part of your statement is wrong.

Well now lets look at the rest: You can not call the biggest clan of another Nation "rogue" thats not how this game works(Further this clan is the mayority of the PVP-Players). And even than, look at the map and tell me that the flag was not spottet, nor was able to get intercepted from those "mayority" clans of the Danes. Do you know how long it takes for the flag until she gets to the port?  40 Minutes on a traders Lynx. These distance has to be driven almost fully on the danes coastline.

Fort Baai and Marigot belong to the Swedish homewater. We handed them over to the Danes as a sign of trust. So we did not attacked any Dane port too if I follow your argumentation. Further we didn't declared war to them. If you have read our announcement, you would know that we only took our rightfull ports back as a consequence of the danish behavior and wanted to wait for more negotiations.

These negotiations never happend cause the Danes declared war to us.

So here for your information cause it seems you did not know about it:
https://sverige.ninja/threads/public-announcement-swedish-danish-nk-relations.172/
http://www.justisdepartementet.org/content/casus-belli-sweden

Edited May 18, 2016 by Twig

[Belize]

@Plerrick

 

I was also in the talkings about Basse-Terre and St. George hand back to the french as a point that they stay out of the war. And despite all the french accuses against Drunk, the St. Pavel Accident(and from what ive heard you even got a St. Pavel back for this) was the only PvP related attack in French Waters from Drunk, since our Clan joined the Swedish Council. Since those period Drunk didnt made any Group PvP actions in French waters, but french still accused us of attack trader ships (without any evidence via. Screenshots).

 

Also Eric and the other Diplomat DEMANDED that we have to change our Clan name, that was really the most arrogant thing i ever saw in this game. next point "no Pvp in homewaters"...there is NO down written Stuff about this point. Even when Drunk joined the council we didnt got this Information that PvP with the French is forbitten in homewaters.

 

a lot has changed in the DRUNK Clan since Drunkensloth left to the brits, but in my eyes the french dont want to see it.

 

 

@war stuff

 

Twig allready explained why we took Ft. Baai back...in the weeks before the PB, we got more and more reports of Danish players attacking our New players and Traderships in Swedish waters. I think everyone should understand that this cant be tolerated since we had a treaty with Danes "no Trader Attacks". I guess every other nation would have reacted the same if they had this.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Belize

[Lytse Pier]

The Dutch position has been made clear. It is up to the French and Swedes to get into talks of peace, so we can perhaps go back to an earlier status quo. So far, judging from what I see, there is still a way to go.

 

Fighting the Swedes and pulling in our forces as a response is playing into the hands of lawlesness and chaos that the ever expanding pirate threat brings to the West Indies, mes amis.

 

Our current sole interest is to fight off and bring back the lawless ports that hurt the trading efforts of all civilized nations. Sofar both the Dutch and the Swedes had to abandon that cause partly due to this situation. The British and the US are fighting the pirates valiantly and are facing the full force of chaos and lawlesness now almost all on their own. I know there are quarrels, I know there is animosity, I know there are differences, but as civilized people we cannot have a rampant black flag waving at so many ports. I don't know how it works in France, but in Europe our Staten-Generaal and the Stadtholder is growing impatient with the little results we have to show for against the pirates and ever dwindling trading income because of it.

[Nonolem]

I am just a random French player who doesn't know what was really said by our diplomats, but what I see from my perspective follows :

We have constantly made gestures of good wills to the Swedish, giving them ports, tolerating permanent aggression from a rogue clan (was it so rogue, in fine?), and finally according them free PvP in our waters (!!!!).

What we have in return is constant demands for more, more, and more, and finally attacks on our allies.

I was against a war with Sweden, and was one of those who tried to calm down players who didn't have my patience. But there is a point where enough is enough.

That Holland enters in war to defend a so called small nation attacked by bigger ones seems very strange to me. What I see from my perspective is either an English ally which tried to weak us by every means, or a Nation of childish players.

 

aka SlipEnTitane.

[Nonolem]

I will add something more :

 

Maybe Swedish diplomats will argue about a war which has not been formally declared, etc... I don't know if this is true. But the war was there because most of French players were not controlled by our diplomats any more, for the reasons exposed above... Our diplomats were only following the motion, not initiating it.

[Bommel]

Sweden was not allied with Britain. They simply had the same enemy - pirates. 

And what exactly are the demands you are talking about?

[praefect]

 

... the war was there because most of French players were not controlled by our diplomats any more ... Our diplomats were only following the motion. What I see from my perspective is a Nation of childish players

I think in that way ur post would make more sense.

 

Dutch are no ally of the british nor we disrespected the french in any case. If the french would like to end/better their situation we are more than willing to listen to your proposals. From my Point of view it´s a danish-swedish conflict, where two more factions got involved cos ot their treaties. At the same time it´s a crucial point for all the sides to choose wisley their future allies.

Edited May 18, 2016 by praefect

[Lytse Pier]

That Holland enters in war to defend a so called small nation attacked by bigger ones seems very strange to me. What I see from my perspective is either an English ally which tried to weak us by every means, or a Nation of childish players.

 

As was already published at the 21st of April in the Year of our Lord 1716:

 

Defensive treaty between the Vereenigde Provincien and Sweden:

http://dutch-nation.clansweb.com/public-news/swedish-crown-and-verenigde-provincien-announce-defence-treaty-1818091

 

Actions always have consequences, even the ones that sometimes have to be taken with a heavy heart.

[Buns of Steel]

I find it interesting to hear that some of the four parties are not looking for a war, yet they seem to be doing everything in their power to let it prolong, can someone maybe explain that to me?

Edited May 18, 2016 by Buns of Steel

[Lytse Pier]

I find it interesting to hear that some of the four parties are not looking for a war, yet they seem to be doing everything in their power to let it prolong, can someone maybe explain that to me?

 

One word: Politics. 

[Bommel]

I find it interesting to hear that some of the four parties are not looking for a war, yet they seem to be doing everything in their power to let it prolong, can someone maybe explain that to me?

Nations are not unified, they are simply a bunch of player that have to get along with each other because they chose the same nation. So the "opinions" of diplomats do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the average players.

 

That´s one of the main problems I see with this game, you have to chose a nation and have no real possibilty to check who you are going to have to bear with, it´s not like you join a clan and can leave if you feel you don´t fit in there.

[charognard666]

In France nobody really want war with Swe or Dutch, I can say 99% of french players in clans would like see them as allie and friends... I hope we'll find a way to reach it. We re in the same map sector, and i think we need to work together. Dane, Swe, Dutch French must find some diplomatic and ways to live in peace. 

[Guest]

In France nobody really want war with Swe or Dutch, I can say 99% of french players in clans would like see them as allie and friends... I hope we'll find a way to reach it. We re in the same map sector, and i think we need to work together. Dane, Swe, Dutch French must find some diplomatic and ways to live in peace. 

 

Fully agree, though as we are now experiencing, having a vested interest in either side of the Brit-Pirate conflict undermines it. The only real way to achieve it would be to form an eastern alliance separate from that conflict, and while the Danes appear too far gone with the pirates to be swayed, there was and still is hope for the French.

 

A man can dream.

 

[edit] At least with the teleportation changes people will hopefully be more keen on fighting further away from the homewaters, wouldn't surprise me if some of these conflicts spark up simply out of laziness.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Guest

[Thonar]

To get some facts in here:

First and foremost:

Sweden had a truce with the Danes, that allowed open-world PvP except for mission jumping and attacking player traders, port-attacks were not allowed at all.

France and Sweden were at peace with eachother, despite several French clans raiding Swedish waters nearly constantly... while DRUNK actually stopped their raids.

Now to the timeline: Sweden supported the Dutch against the Pirates (allies of the French) who attacked several Dutch cities, which caused Sweden and the Dutch to fight in the Haiti-Area solely against the Pirates, while some cooperation with the Britsh had to be done to keep the neutral stance.

France threatened Sweden to not fight the Pirates (without any word about their allies attacking their other allies) and the Danes even threatened the Dutch and Swedes to at least stay out of the southern-Haiti area, so that the Danes could fight the British better.

The Dutch, supported by the Swedish no matter their decision, denied the Danish threat towards them to stay in the Haiti-area to fight a foe who was raiding Dutch home-waters.

The French threat towards Sweden remained unanswered by Sweden, a reaction by the French didn't happened.

Instead of the Danes attacking the Southern-Haiti-Ports they gave Road-Town to the Pirates to allow them to attack Swedish-Homewaters (which they did), a proxy-war started by the Danes against Sweden.

Road-Town was thus taken by the Swedish forces and the start of negotiations with the Danish were expected. Instead the Danes attacked the now Swedish controlled port without warning nor negotiations.

Sweden thus took Fort-Baai with the same(!) reasoning the Danes gave regarding Roadtown.

What followed was the Danish declaration of war against Sweden.

They threatened us first, they fought a proxy-war against us, they took and attacked first Swedish ports... but Sweden is the aggressor? Nope.

Simulataneously:

French "rogue"-clans took Saint-George and Basse-Terre, something that was said shouldn't have happened and the ports were given back to Sweden without big problems.

Afterwards the CSNF demanded both ports back, which was o.K. for Sweden under the condition to give the Swedish players 1 day time to bring ships out of these ports and to shift ressources, that the CSNF will have to pay the players a certain amount of gold to be determined for shifting outposts and mines AND for the French staying out of any conflict that may happen between Sweden and the Danes. Condition that seemed to be o.K. with the French because they took their ports back without any other counter-offer.

War escalated with the Danes and the French joined 3(!) days later against the Swedish, backstabbing the agreement regarding Saint-George and Basse-Terre, with the point of helping their allies against "aggressive Swedes" (it is the opposite as can be seen above) and because of DRUNK raiding French players (while French rogue-clans could easily take Swedish ports, without a big outcry on Swedish side, with Drunk not raiding the French for weeks before the war, except for a single time that was dealt with).

And Sweden is now the aggressor?

Let's face it:

The French council can't control their clans and players and needed a war due to no enemies close-by to fight. They have chosen the weakest one and are now thinking that Sweden will ever trust them again?

You do not fight us for honorable reasons, you didn't betrayed us for your allies (hell, you even wanted to betray them for two ports and didn't even declare war on us for 3 full fighting days after the wr started), you are only fighting to try to keep your nation together and for some selfish reasons.

Betrayal, treason and lies are something that are not forgotten.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Thonar

[Rigge1988]

May I ask why "noble" nations make alliances with filthy pirates?

[Belize]

In France nobody really want war with Swe or Dutch, I can say 99% of french players in clans would like see them as allie and friends... I hope we'll find a way to reach it. We re in the same map sector, and i think we need to work together. Dane, Swe, Dutch French must find some diplomatic and ways to live in peace. 

 

You really think there will be PEACE or even an Alliance in the near future with you? Wake up...your actions putted you out of this possibilty for the next few years...

[Nordtman]

From the very first day of the Creation of the clan DRUNK: The Danes been the major target for us, as the result of "Black friday" treaty.

It was also based on the Historical fact that Swedish nation and Danish nation where arch-enemies until the final defeat of the Danes 1814.

 

Current GAME events, does not make this fundation true anymore.

 

We in DRUNK might even agree with a Peace and a treaty with the Danes.

 

But we will NEVER, EVER agree with a Peace with the French nation.

 

France backstabed us (nation of sweden) as we where agreeing in most of their demands.

WE could not agree in the demand that was put forward: To force DRUNK-clan to change its name/clan-tag 

 

The war with FRANCE is now total and will never end. Not even with a map-wipe in the future.

There will never be any diplomatic talks with FRANCE as they have no DIPLOMATIC hounor and has no way to recover it.

(and yes, you might write mile after mile in this forum , defending your actions, it will not help you)

Danish "Black friday" was a result of a war, that we lost.

The French sneakattack was rightout treason. A "Pearl harbour", A Hazard played with trust, that was lost forever.

 

(In the same moment I am very grateful that the FRENCH treason has done something that could never been done:

To unit Sweden as a nation)

 

 

Read very clear these words "Mene mene tekel ufasin"

 

We will Gank you, attack your traders and your ports. We will sink and capture every French ship on sight.

We will raid your Waters and your misson areas. We will make sure that your traders and rates can not move without Escorts, in your own waters.

And we will not stop until the day your total surrender is delivered in front of the Swedish nation.

 

With other Words this is: TOTAL WAR

 

And I am sure that the written Words above has the support from every single Swedish clan represented in the Swedish council.

 

No more talks, bring it on, let the GAME begin!

[Kloothommel]

We in DRUNK might even agree with a Peace and a treaty with the Danes.

 

 

 

I thought I'd never see the day...

[Lancella Dutch de Wildt]

To get some facts in here:

First and foremost:

Sweden had a truce with the Danes, that allowed open-world PvP except for mission jumping and attacking player traders, port-attacks were not allowed at all.

France and Sweden were at peace with eachother, despite several French clans raiding Swedish waters nearly constantly... while DRUNK actually stopped their raids.

Now to the timeline: Sweden supported the Dutch against the Pirates (allies of the French) who attacked several Dutch cities, which caused Sweden and the Dutch to fight in the Haiti-Area solely against the Pirates, while some cooperation with the Britsh had to be done to keep the neutral stance.

France threatened Sweden to not fight the Pirates (without any word about their allies attacking their other allies) and the Danes even threatened the Dutch and Swedes to at least stay out of the southern-Haiti area, so that the Danes could fight the British better.

The Dutch, supported by the Swedish no matter their decision, denied the Danish threat towards them to stay in the Haiti-area to fight a foe who was raiding Dutch home-waters.

The French threat towards Sweden remained unanswered by Sweden, a reaction by the French didn't happened.

etc etc

Now that looks more like the story from my perspective, amen

Edited May 19, 2016 by Dutch Langella

[Nash]

The French sneakattack was rightout treason. A "Pearl harbour", A Hazard played with trust, that was lost forever.

 

(In the same moment I am very grateful that the FRENCH treason has done something that could never been done:

To unit Sweden as a nation)

 

good for guys!

and Im glad that I can sail together with meatballs!!!!!!

Edited May 19, 2016 by Nash

[Twig]

I am so sad to see that the Nation section is open again...

 

A lot of senseless discussions like this one are in our future.

 

With all the "I say you say"... nobody who wasn't in those discussion can't verify it. Or maybe you should start recording them?

Well at least we were able to see how the French statements condict with each other.

So this discussion wasn't totaly senseless.

[Anolytic]

Lots of statements have been made here regarding Denmark-Norway, and I would address a few of them.

 

1. Road Town was not handed to the pirates. It was attacked around 4 am server time, and there was hardly anyone online to even attempt to defend. Sweden and Denmark-Norway is in the same time-zone, and I have sailed past Gustavia in my Le Grosse Ventre a couple of times at 4 am server time, and there was no players online there either. 

2. Denmark-Norway did not threaten Dutch or Sweden, but expressed our displeasure at what we considered unfriendly behaviour in the Dutch helping Britain take our ports around Ile-a-Vache, then having them swapped to Dutch via the pirates taking them from Britain, and then the Dutch holding them while knowingly blocking Danish access to conquest and port battles. This is not the friendly behaviour of an ally. 

3. Fort Baai and Marigot was not Swedish ports lent to Denmark-Norway. They were conquered during Black Friday and kept when all other ports captured from Sweden was generously handed back shortly after the conquest. They were spoils of the war, kept mainly because many players in Denmark-Norway did not trust Sweden to honor the truce. Those of us who trusted the Swedes recently initiated talks with Sweden to gift both ports as a sign of good faith and to improve relations between Sweden and Denmark-Norway. Those talks were cut short when Sweden decided to attack us and take the ports by force. In hindsight our trust was optimistic.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Anolytic

[Thonar]

Lots of statements have been made here regarding Denmark-Norway, and I would address a few of them.

1. Road Town was not handed to the pirates. It was attacked around 4 am server time, and there was hardly anyone online to even attempt to defend. Sweden and Denmark-Norway is in the same time-zone, and I have sailed past Gustavia in my Le Grosse Ventre a couple of times at 4 am server time, and there was no players online there either.

2. Denmark-Norway did not threaten Dutch or Sweden, but expressed our displeasure at what we considered unfriendly behaviour in the Dutch helping Britain take our ports around Ile-a-Vache, then having them swapped to Dutch via the pirates taking them from Britain, and then the Dutch holding them while knowingly blocking Danish access to conquest and port battles. This is not the friendly behaviour of an ally.

3. Fort Baai and Marigot was not Swedish ports lent to Denmark-Norway. They were conquered during Black Friday and kept when all other ports captured from Sweden was generously handed back shortly after the conquest. They were spoils of the war, kept mainly because many players in Denmark-Norway did not trust Sweden to honor the truce. Those of us who trusted the Swedes recently initiated talks with Sweden to gift both ports as a sign of good faith and to improve relations between Sweden and Denmark-Norway. Those talks were cut short when Sweden decided to attack us and take the ports by force. In hindsight our trust was optimistic.

Let me answer this pretty straight forward:

2. Wrong. This is the official note: https://www.evernote.com/shard/s1/sh/a7ff84eb-09f8-4295-bc85-99a3f1bee0a5/2f618b98b5b12c36

The diplomat who handed us this note over also set up a kind of ultimatum on the 4th of may: Either Sweden exchanges Les Cayes against Marigot (which was not possible as Les Cayes, as communicated with the Dutch, belonged to the Verenigde Province), or Sweden joins the war against the British and might(!) get Fort Baai and Marigot back or Denmark will take Les Cayes by force without being able to assure us that the war might not swap over into our homewaters.

Which is an obvious threat.

1. Everyone who is able to read the link above should see that it is obvious that the Danes and Pirates cooperate with eachother, thus every statement that Road-Town was attacked and not given by the Danes towards the pirates is unbelievable.

As a matter of fact: As we Swedes attacked Road-Town and intercepted the Flag-Carrier of the Danish, this flag-carrier joined just a day later the RUS-Clan who we see as responsible for the giving of the Port towards the Pirates. Of course, some explanation for this clan-change of that certain player were already given, but these statements are unbelievable when the Swedish screening-fleet reported to us that the Flag-Carrier could have easily deployed the flag on Road-Town before their arrival and even after he escaped the screening fleet once. That's why the story of "Road Town was not given to the pirates" is unbelievable and only two options actually remain: A) Road-Town was given to the Pirates, and you guys are simply lieing to defend your proxy war or B ) The strongest clan, who for most of the time controlled the Danish diplomacy, is suddenly a rogue clan with the other clans not being able to compete with them. This would mean nothing less than Denmark being a failed state that caused attacks on Swedish Homewaters and everything you guys are further telling here has no meaning as even if your words can be trusted you do not have the power to assure anything of what you say, which renders you words meaningless.

I don't know which option is actually more scarry.

3. Wrong. The idea of Fort Baai and Marigot belonging to Denmark only came up rather recently in the last two weeks as a kind of rumour. Fact is: Fort Baai and Marigot were kept as Bargain while all(!) other Swedish Homewater(!) ports were given back to Sweden for the truce. Fort Baai and Marigot were kept first to assure the Swedish will not enter the war against the Danes again (due to a good position of these ports against Sweden) and later as a safety zone because of some rogue clans. All understandable reasons. After both reasons fell away and Fort Baai and Marigot became instead ports that threatened the newer Swedish players and from which constant treaty breakings by the Danes against the Swedish were commited, talks were initiated to give back the Ports that belonged rightfully to Sweden but were under Danish control for safety reasons. Nevertheless they always belonged to Sweden in the understanding of every meeting between Swedish and Danish representatives when these ports were a matter of discussions. That's why reasons for Denmark to keep these ports were always given like: Rogue clans threatening Denmark, Ressources (a lie actually) or to assure the safety of the truce (at first)... it was never said "they belong rightfully to Denmark" as it was never the case and never argued by Denmark. Thus the Danish diplomats themselves agreed silently that these ports doesn't belong to Denmark but Denmark having a reason for controlling these ports, reasons that were not given anymore since DRUNK joined the Swedish council.

Otherwise Road-Town would have been a Swedish port by the same reasons and the Danes would have started the aggression first by attacking this port.

The reasoning for taking Fort Baai are the same as the reasoning of taking Road-Town, thus the attack on Fort-Baai by the Danes would have been the first aggression of the war.

No matter how you turn it, the result stays the same.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Thonar

[Kloothommel]

Obviously Thonar is trying the "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth" tactic. And he will refute this and call me a liar. All part of his lies.

Well, Roadtown was a port no DN player wanted gone. And certainly not in pirate hands.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Kloothommel

[Twig]

Obviously Thonar is trying the "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth" tactic. And he will refute this and call me a liar. All part of his lies.

Well, Roadtown was a port no DN player wanted gone. And certainly not in pirate hands.

Sad that you think so, but still he just repeats the truth and actualy can even prove it.

It seems like you have nothing compared to that - Which just gets us to a point where we can not take you serious.

You think we liked that we had to let you hold Fort Baai?

I do have a screenshot from a Dane player saying in the global chat:

"There goes our Pirate Embassy" btw...

Edit: funny that you directly switched from RDNN to DN

Edited May 19, 2016 by Twig