The Three Admirals Treaty PvP1

[CeltiberoCaesar]

Why is this topic still opened? The treaty was signed and Americans has nothing to say nor discuss. Like we had nothing to say with the odd treaty dutch-french-swedish-danish signed.

Alex is totally right on his analysis of the current situation. It has been proven that Spain has been fighting against multiple nations, with more PvP players each, in multiple fronts, with little help from our allies and a lot of headache for their enemies... Then exploits were allowed and we gave up. I don't think any honest player with some honor would deny that we have been the best nation of all.

Pd: too many off topic and too few treaty discussion

Edited August 16, 2016 by CeltiberoCaesar

[Grundgemunkey]

Why is this topic still opened? The treaty was signed and Americans has nothing to say nor discuss. Like we had nothing to say with the odd treaty dutch-french-swedish-danish signed.

Alex is totally right on his analysis of the current situation. It has been proven that Spain has been fighting against multiple nations, with more PvP players each, in multiple fronts, with little help from our allies and a lot of headache for their enemies... Then exploits were allowed and we gave up. I don't think any honest player with some honor would deny that we have been the most deluded nation of all.

Pd: too many off topic and too less treaty discussion

 

agreed

[JollyRoger1516]

Why is this topic still opened? The treaty was signed and Americans has nothing to say nor discuss. Like we had nothing to say with the odd treaty dutch-french-swedish-danish signed.

Alex is totally right on his analysis of the current situation. It has been proven that Spain has been fighting against multiple nations, with more PvP players each, in multiple fronts, with little help from our allies and a lot of headache for their enemies... Then exploits were allowed and we gave up. I don't think any honest player with some honor would deny that we have been the best nation of all.

Pd: too many off topic and too less treaty discussion

Wouldn't agree to the exploits, wouldn't agree to you being the best nation - you have a bunch of very good and fun capitains and I too would like this thread closed - it gets mroe toxic and vile by the minute.

Edited August 16, 2016 by JollyRoger1516

[Grundgemunkey]

But some british players and clans seem to want to win at all costs, dont remember Spain  backing off when the usa were down to a few ports

-

. AND WE AS A NATION REFUSED TO PROVIDE YOU MORE FUN.

We did not lose our players in one night or five days. Simply we told everyone to stop going to the harbor defenses to cause not to be fun for you.You can understand it or not..... do you think we care ...plenty of  fun to be had on other areas of the map ...at least the danes fight in a port battle instead of playing who can run around the edge of the circle the fastest..  the reasons  i suspect you made your post is that no one has bothered with spain  for a couple of weeks and your getting lonely

 

 

 Our base player was healthier than ever playing in Santiago,every day there were new players wishing to join and participate (which was among other reasons cause of the undeniable defeat that night). But the point is that you could not win alone, you could not win with ducth   funny how you seem to forget the french, dane and pirate help you had or does that not count ..

 

On the treaty I must say that me and other pvp fans did not like it. But the lack of content and activity linked to the holiday began to cause many people to leave the game until September. hang on a minute you said  We did not lose our players in one night or five days. Simply we told everyone to stop going to the harbor defenses to cause not to be fun for you      your sounding like a pirate with your contradictory excuses

 

we have dedicated ourselves to trolling   we know we read your posts

 

i was going to comment on the rest but cannot be bothered ... the first thing someone says when been accused of been racist is .." i cant be i have friends and work colleagues who are from that nation ......but "

 

 

 

  From now on I restraint my role playing for the Spanish section and I will make my insignificant contributions to the game in the appropriate section. what makes you feel the need to tell us this ...are you so arrogant to think we are missing you ....no one is really bothered

[celtiberoGil]

You want arrogance? - Here goes: Spain on its own would not be able to compete and take the map! - You'd be stomped into the ground and sit on the forums and cry like you already do just with a bunch of ports given to you even though you don't deserve them or have earned them! - That is not only arrogance but also somewhat realistic - also don't bitch about things that were happily done to the British until we managed to fight back but when it happens to you it's all unfair - open your eyes and change your bloody attitude because I can tell you none of us British captains wants to cut you guys any slack anymore - not with this shitty attitude!

 

You dont understand the meaning of my post. I only tried yo explain why the answer Tortugas and Cayo Vacas are not negotiable because are american Territory not is a valid argument. May be my fault for my lacks in english languje. Im not crying. My first post talk about the dutch helped USA to take Baja and this was a break in the treaty. Then USA began to say more things and now we are talking about what we want for a treaty of between USA and Spain. I only says that USA are so inflexible Whith no reason. Thats all. I expect used the rights words to explain my opinión.

Edited August 16, 2016 by celtiberoGil

[Bramborough]

I'm new to the PvP1 server.  I didn't participate in the recent war between Spain and Britain/VP.  Nor any of the previous wars/alliances - just a little of the current fighting between Denmark/Britain.   I have little understanding and no direct experience of the history here.  I freely admit that I'm in no way qualified to comment on what has occurred in the past.  So no doubt some of you (with some validity) would instinctively dismiss what I have to say about the matter.

 

I'm also, however, still an objective outsider, and much more concerned with the future than the past.  The new alliance mechanics are upon us.  In my view, they present an opportunity to resolve many of (perhaps almost all) of the territorial/playerbase concerns involved.

 

Hypothetically...look at the benefits of a US/Spain/Britain alliance.

 

- The specific port color on map would become irrelevant; allied ports function like own-nation ports.  Who cares if Cuyo or Sant Iago or any other individual intra-alliance port happens to be Spanish/US/Brit?  They're all shared.

- Spanish and US mutual (and antithetical) concerns over status of the Florida Keys and north Cuba ports resolved.

- British concern about Cayman/south Cuba ports resolved.

- All three nations' capital security concerns resolved. (well, to the extent that US would have any concern about Charleston in the first place).

- Gulf of Mexico becomes a reasonably-secure vast trade/craft/carebear lake for those of all our playerbases so inclined. (and I don't mean "carebear" pejoratively.  I like to trade and shipbuild too, am a carebear about half the time).

 

Bigger picture, the game could look like this: a "Western" bloc (US/Spain/Britain) vs an "Eastern" bloc (VP/France/Danmark-Norge/Sweden).

 

- Plenty of secure "carebear" rear area for all those inclined.

- Plenty of PvP hot zone for all those inclined, along a relatively predictable area running roughly through Panama/Colombia, Hispaniola, and the southern Bahamas.

- Enough RvR-focused players on both side of the fence to keep things roughly balanced, without wiping nations (and their playerbases) out.

 

There's just one problem:  the players have sufficiently angered one another now that I just don't see how the US/Spain/Britain playerbases could feasibly vote such a "Western bloc" into existence.

 

Consider this, however:  the "Eastern bloc" I mentioned above is probably more realistic.  Not at all "inevitable", but at least within the realm of possibility.  I think US/Spanish/British captains (i.e., "voters") ought to think a little about this.  Project how nations' playerbases are likely to vote over the first 2-3 rounds...what do you think the alliance balance will look like?

 

Standing by for the inevitable flames...

Edited August 16, 2016 by Bramborough

[Johny Reb]

You dont understand the meaning of my post. I only tried yo explain why the answer Tortugas and Cayo Vacas are not negotiable because are american Territory not is a valid argument. May be my fault for my lacks in english languje. Im not crying. My first post talk about the dutch helped USA to take Baja and this was a break in the treaty. Then USA began to say more things and now we are talking about what we want for a treaty of between USA and Spain. I only says that USA are so inflexible Whith no reason. Thats all. I expect used the rights words to explain my opinión.

Here is why we go round and round about the same thing with the same biases over and over again.

 

The truth of the matter is that there are really no "true" home ports other than capitals. The game is a war game and all property is up for grabs. At the end of the day, the US has no more right to the Keys then the Spanish. It becomes property to only those who can capture it through stregnth or negotiate it through treaty.

 

There is though a sense of national integrity. A "safe" place for our ships to congregate in, level up in, trade in, and expand from. For this reasons, all of the nations looked toward securing what they would see as "their rightful territory", or "manifest destiny", or "home waters". For each nation, these areas are areas they would be eternally at war over, if need be, because they see it as either an area that secures national stability or it guards it.

So for the US, it is the keys. It is the gateway to their entire nation. For the Spanish it has been Conttoy and Mugueres because that is their gateway into Northern Cuba and the gulf. For the Brits, the Cayman Islands. I'm sure the other nations have their choke points as well.

 

Now CeltiboroGil,

     If thats not a good enough reason for why the US will fight for the Keys then I don't know what is. If you are posting here for any other reason then being a troll, if you actually would desire an agreement with the US. If you think the actions of the Spanish in their breaking of our previous agreement was a mistake and you would be interested in returning to our previous arrangement or one similar to it then we need to put the rhetoric aside. I would also suggest that you attempt to see how such a treaty would be considered by the other side and why it submits certain requirements. Its not hard to see why the US asks for what it does. None of the US's requests are a gain from previously agreed upon borders. The strange thing is why the US doesn't ask for more.

 

    Also, be honest about stuff and everyone can make headway. The Dutch broke nothing in the treaty. All can see that because the treaty is posted for all to see. At best, they may have broken the "spirit" of the treaty but that is not breaking the treaty and can be solved by further negotiations with them in hopes of an amendment to it. If that doesn't take place than Spain can respectfully withdraw from the treaty. There is no need to point fingers and claim betrayal or any other such rhetorical words.

 

Of course this is all a mute point if you are simply a troll trying to roll play.

[celtiberoGil]

Here is why we go round and round about the same thing with the same biases over and over again.

 

The truth of the matter is that there are really no "true" home ports other than capitals. The game is a war game and all property is up for grabs. At the end of the day, the US has no more right to the Keys then the Spanish. It becomes property to only those who can capture it through stregnth or negotiate it through treaty.

 

There is though a sense of national integrity. A "safe" place for our ships to congregate in, level up in, trade in, and expand from. For this reasons, all of the nations looked toward securing what they would see as "their rightful territory", or "manifest destiny", or "home waters". For each nation, these areas are areas they would be eternally at war over, if need be, because they see it as either an area that secures national stability or it guards it.

So for the US, it is the keys. It is the gateway to their entire nation. For the Spanish it has been Conttoy and Mugueres because that is their gateway into Northern Cuba and the gulf. For the Brits, the Cayman Islands. I'm sure the other nations have their choke points as well.

 

Now CeltiboroGil,

     If thats not a good enough reason for why the US will fight for the Keys then I don't know what is. If you are posting here for any other reason then being a troll, if you actually would desire an agreement with the US. If you think the actions of the Spanish in their breaking of our previous agreement was a mistake and you would be interested in returning to our previous arrangement or one similar to it then we need to put the rhetoric aside. I would also suggest that you attempt to see how such a treaty would be considered by the other side and why it submits certain requirements. Its not hard to see why the US asks for what it does. None of the US's requests are a gain from previously agreed upon borders. The strange thing is why the US doesn't ask for more.

 

    Also, be honest about stuff and everyone can make headway. The Dutch broke nothing in the treaty. All can see that because the treaty is posted for all to see. At best, they may have broken the "spirit" of the treaty but that is not breaking the treaty and can be solved by further negotiations with them in hopes of an amendment to it. If that doesn't take place than Spain can respectfully withdraw from the treaty. There is no need to point fingers and claim betrayal or any other such rhetorical words.

 

Of course this is all a mute point if you are simply a troll trying to roll play.

 

I nerver have been called troll. But i want explain my posture again first i will post why i think dutch dont apply the treaty:

 

G )    Open world Pvp between the 3 signee nations is available in every portion of the map. Blockade fleets are not PVP thas was the justify of ducth to declare war against spain.

 

 

 

I )    The line which connects the Spanish ports of Santa Maria, Cocodrillo, and Corrientes, and all other ports in Cuba which sit north of it, are de- facto Spanish territories. The port of Trinidad will revert to Spanish control per this agreement. Baja its in north of Cuba and Dutch fleet helped US to take it.

 

 

 

Second i am trying undestrand the reason of the USA to not negotiate Tortugas and Cayo Vacas. You explined well why we want Conttoy and Mugeres these are the same reason to need Tortuga and Cayo Vacas.

 

I want you think in this: What hapend if spain attack from those harbours. Can we get any harbour near your capital city where begin to play all newers players? Not we can take only la Florida harbours. How many players sails those waters? I think West La Florida is as important for you as for us the yucatan. Yes we want those ports but thosen´t matter if we lost any of them. We can try to retake them later. What whould happend is some day any nation take Beaufort o Georgetown beside your capital city, will you prefer west La Florida or the harbour near Charleston? You dont know whats mean be targeted in a trade every day when you are arraiving home. You dont know whats mean your harbours arround your become to play this game arent a secure área. USA can attack and even take all the ports arround La Havana. Its that possibility equal to take La Florida? I think it isn´t. but of course this is my opinión. As you can note i didn´t talk about manifest destiny or national terrytories. We need a secure área to level for the begginers. Actually there are no player who can do a mission without fear to be ganked if he go alone or in small groups. Exist the same trouble in yours waters near Charleston?

 

Again my apologies for my bad english.

Edited August 16, 2016 by celtiberoGil

[Eldberg]

I nerver have been called troll. But i want explain my posture again first i will post why i think dutch dont apply the treaty:

 

G )    Open world Pvp between the 3 signee nations is available in every portion of the map. Blockade fleets are not PVP thas was the justify of ducth to declare war against spain.

 

 

 

I )    The line which connects the Spanish ports of Santa Maria, Cocodrillo, and Corrientes, and all other ports in Cuba which sit north of it, are de- facto Spanish territories. The port of Trinidad will revert to Spanish control per this agreement. Baja its in north of Cuba and Dutch fleet helped US to take it.

 

 

 

Second i am trying undestrand the reason of the USA to not negotiate Tortugas and Cayo Vacas. You explined well why we want Conttoy and Mugeres these are the same reason to need Tortuga and Cayo Vacas.

 

I want you think in this: What hapend if spain attack from those harbours. Can we get any harbour near your capital city where begin to play all newers players? Not we can take only la Florida harbours. How many players sails those waters? I think West La Florida is as important for you as for us the yucatan. Yes we want those ports but thosen´t matter if we lost any of them. We can try to retake them later. What whould happend is some day any nation take Beaufort o Georgetown beside your capital city, will you prefer west La Florida or the harbour near Charleston? You dont know whats mean be targeted in a trade every day when you are arraiving home. You dont know whats mean your harbours arround your become to play this game arent a secure área. USA can attack and even take all the ports arround La Havana. Its that possibility equal to take La Florida? I think it isn´t. but of course this is my opinión. As you can note i didn´t talk about manifest destiny or national terrytories. We need a secure área to level for the begginers. Actually there are no player who can do a mission without fear to be ganked if he go alone or in small groups. Exist the same trouble in yours waters near Charleston?

 

Again my apologies for my bad english.

 

CeltiberoGil, first I will say please stop apologising for your English. You are doing a very good job, it is much better than my Spanish! 

 

I can understand your concerns, but with or without these ports, we could still attack your capital and attack your new players via Key West or other US ports in the local area. Really, we try not to attack new players. It is like when you catch a small fish, you put it back in to the ocean, to grow bigger, so you can catch it again.

We actually have a lot of attacks up and down our eastern coast line. Pirates, Danish, Spanish, French... All of these on a regular basis sail up and down our coast line, attacking ANY player, not just large ships. Only this week did I have to help a new player who lost his Cerberus to a SPANISH fleet of several Trincomalee's and a Rattlesnake by gifting him a new ship and giving him some money.

If you want a secure area to level up new players, something could worked in to an agreement to protect your newer players.

 

 

 

G )    Open world Pvp between the 3 signee nations is available in every portion of the map. Blockade fleets are not PVP thas was the justify of ducth to declare war against spain.

 

No where does it say that blockade fleets or screening fleets are not allowed.

 

I )    The line which connects the Spanish ports of Santa Maria, Cocodrillo, and Corrientes, and all other ports in Cuba which sit north of it, are de- facto Spanish territories. The port of Trinidad will revert to Spanish control per this agreement. Baja its in north of Cuba and Dutch fleet helped US to take it.

 

I am not sure how this has any impact on the US nation? We were not included in this agreement so do not need to respect the territorial division of ports outlined here. I refer to my above comment, no where in the treaty does it say that the Dutch/British cannot blockade or screen for the US assaults against Spanish ports.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Stephen_Decatur

[GrapeShot]

Second i am trying undestrand the reason of the USA to not negotiate Tortugas and Cayo Vacas.

Again, I am not a diplomat (spit), I am but a Yankee captain. That said ...

You attempted to isolate us by barring the US from the negotiating table. Further, in the map that originally accompanied the first post in this thread, you had the Spanish boarder bulging up and including all of the Florida keys.

We have not just fallen off the back of a turnip truck. Your diplomatic mechanations are transparent. You wanted to isolate us from our allies and de facto claim the keys.

Didn't work.

We also well remember your perfidity when you broke our previous alliance and sided with the Pirates attacking us. We remember all of it and expect concessions, not demands, if you entertain any thought of repairing your shattered reputation.

Edited August 16, 2016 by GrapeShot

[celtiberoGil]

Im not saying anything about US attacks. They are legitme because we are at war.

 

I have just expressed our displeasure with the actions of the Dutch faction that signed the treaty itself. Of course I regret not having pictures of his blockading fleet. We hope that a similar situation does not occur.
I ask representatives of the American nation to evaluate my arguments and think of some way of negotiation. Thanks.

 

 

​To GrapeShot:

 

​That's one of the reasons for our diplomatic problems. You claim to know our intentions and sometimes you are wrong. For example the action of an independent but influential and numerous clan you thought was the action of the whole faction and so you think we are all traitors. Your response caused the reaction of all clans and war there. Misunderstandings and mistakes that cost us correct of course. With regard to question our loyalty to the French. The difficulty will have a similar complicity between us, at least for now.

Edited August 16, 2016 by celtiberoGil

[Vernon Merrill]

CeltiberoGil, a suggestion. If you desire a PvP safe zone for your newer players, why don't you gauge the level of support in your council and come to us with a proposal. It could be completely separate from the Port Battles and other things. If nothing else, it may open the doors to more productive ways to find a mutually acceptable agreement.

[Eldberg]

Of course I regret not having pictures of his blockading fleet. We hope that a similar situation does not occur.

 

It does not matter if it does, or it doesn't. This treaty in no way says that you cannot be blockaded by the British/Dutch.

 

 

​That's one of the reasons for our diplomatic problems. You claim to know our intentions and sometimes you are wrong. For example the action of an independent but influential and numerous clan you thought was the action of the whole faction and so you think we are all traitors. Your response caused the reaction of all clans and war there. Misunderstandings and mistakes that cost us correct of course. With regard to question our loyalty to the French. The difficulty will have a similar complicity between us, at least for now.

 

This is not the reason as to why we paint you all with the same brush. This is what happened.

1. US and Spain had an agreement, we were considered friendly with a clear defined division of ports.

2. Pirates capture US Ports.

3. Pirates offer them to Spanish council, the council says no.

4. Pirates offer them to RAE, currently a rogue clan. RAE accept.

5. Spanish diplomat promises ports to be returned to US.

6. RAE refuses to change times to hand over ports.

7. US attack ports, RAE defend along with a handful of other Spanish players from other clans.

8. RAE gains support, more non-RAE clans defend ports.

9. Spanish Council make alliance with Pirates.

10. Spain dissolves all treaties with the US, declares war.

Now this is a very brief TL:DR version of events. There are lots of other little bits and pieces that added to the fire, change of Spanish diplomats, influence form outside parties etc... But as far as it goes, this is how it appeared to have happened to the US players. THIS is why we say you stabbed us in the back. On one hand you show us friendship, promising the return of ports, then in the other hand you hold the dagger ready to strike once you saw the best moment.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Stephen_Decatur

[ZenTex]

Pah, enugh of this nonsense I say. Why don't we all call of this treaty if the spanish don't want it, given their stance, they'd rather fight, get annihalated and reduced to a single port before they finally realise they were being let off the hook by this treaty.

 

The Dutch blockading Spanish ports, whether or not to support the US is, albeit not to the spirit, is in the letter of the agreement. And whether their actions are to support the US or not is not even certain. Either way, they're not breaking the agreement.

 

Either way, the spanish lot are not in a very good position right now, they have no real allies bar the Pirates maybe, no one likes them and they have the reputation of being untrustworthy turncoats and arrogant to boot. It would do the spanish a lot of good to just accept the treaty, stop complaining and try to get on good terms with any other nation and fix at least some of the damage done.

[Snoopy]

Spanish ..turncoats?

[Johny Reb]

Im not saying anything about US attacks. They are legitme because we are at war.

 

I have just expressed our displeasure with the actions of the Dutch faction that signed the treaty itself. Of course I regret not having pictures of his blockading fleet. We hope that a similar situation does not occur.

I ask representatives of the American nation to evaluate my arguments and think of some way of negotiation. Thanks.

celtiberoGil, a few questions...

 

1. Are you a diplomat with the Spanish council? Do you have any influence with them? (If no to both, then our discussion is meaningless)

2. If you are, then how about we have a conversation on TS or through private chat. What do you say?(Forum diplomacy is not the proper place to hash out ideas)

The following are rhetorical questions, meaning I know the answers to them

1. Do you realize the US has held the keys from the first Spanish war in January to the present?

2. Do you realize that when the Spanish refused to come to the table during that war and their players were shed like a honeymooner's clothes, the US simply chose to stop fighting in order to not drive away the remnant of the Spanish nation?

3. Do you realize the US fought a long struggle to convince the Spanish nation that it would be best for our two countries to cooperate?

4. Did you know that when we finally made an agreement we NEVER violated it, was very transparent about our rogue clans, never got in your way of your war with the brits and we encouraged you to take back the ports from the rogues according to our treaty.

 

The keys in our possession has been the status quo from the beginning. We have never violated your trust during that time. On the other hand you have violated ours. You have nothing to fear by us owning the keys as shown by our behavior up to now. As long as the same power structure persists in the US nation you have no fear for the future. We on the other hand have every cause to be concerned about you. Because you(the spanish) are the only ones in this relationship to prove untrustworthy. Your nation leadership has not changed. It still is led by the same clans or individuals that were responsible for the loss of trust to begin with.

 

Your right in that it is easier for us to reach and harass your capital but not by much. We operate our hunters out of Key West. You could just as easily put yours in Sunbury an equal distance from our capital or better yet Cabo Canaveral which is more of a Capital to us than Charleston. If you owned all of the ports in the keys you still could not prevent us hunting your waters around the capital so the ports in the keys have nothing to do with hunting noobs in Havana. It has everything to do with pulling flags and with regards to that you have nothing to fear from us during peace or an active treaty but we have everything to fear from you.

[victor]

 

 

I am not sure how this has any impact on the US nation? We were not included in this agreement so do not need to respect the territorial division of ports outlined here. I refer to my above comment, no where in the treaty does it say that the Dutch/British cannot blockade or screen for the US assaults against Spanish ports.

 

In another thread the dutches answered to a direct question I did and said that, due to their alliance with US, they had the right to defend US territory from attacks but this did not imply also the obligation to help US attacking ports in the territory of Spain.

 

So, it seems that your point is that they are not obliged to help you attacking Cuba, but they can do it if they want.

 

But you are wrong my Sir: according to the three admirals treaty Dutches should not attack west Cuba since it is defined there as a de facto spanish territory according to the three admirals treaty that is binding also for the dutches (and the concept of "not attacking" a certain territory of course includes also the concept of not helpling other in attacking the same territory).

 

And here comes the substantial correctness of the spanish accusations also against the Brits: since the three admirals treaty was signed by the british and accepted by the dutches, the Brits should tell the dutch to refrain from helping US in attack to west cuba ports. But here we read another story, since brits ignore a blatant breach of the treaty and prefer attacking spainiards in this forum.

 

So, basically, what Spain - in my oprinon LEGITIMATELY - claims is just that Brits and Dutches fulfil the three admirals treaty instead of giving support to the US in its attacks on north western cuba (and this goes for Dutches) and instead of remaining silent in front of a clear breach of the treaty committed by the Dutches (and this is for the Brits). 

 

I hope I was clear enough.

Edited August 17, 2016 by victor

[Cragger]

In another thread the dutches answered to a direct question I did and said that, due to their alliance with US, they had the right to defend US territory from attacks but this did not imply also the obligation to help US attacking ports in the territory of Spain.

 

So, it seems that your point is that they are not obliged to help you attacking Cuba, but they can do it if they want.

 

But you are wrong my Sir: according to the three admirals treaty Dutches should not attack west Cuba since it is defined there as a de facto spanish territory according to the three admirals treaty that is binding also for the dutches (and the concept of "not attacking" a certain territory of course includes also the concept of not helpling other in attacking the same territory).

 

And here comes the substantial correctness of the spanish accusations also against the Brits: since the three admirals treaty was signed by the british and accepted by the dutches, the Brits should tell the dutch to refrain from helping US in attack to west cuba ports. But here we read another story, since brits ignore a blatant breach of the treaty and prefer attacking spainiards in this forum.

 

So, basically, what Spain - in my oprinon LEGITIMATELY - claims is just that Brits and Dutches fulfil the three admirals treaty instead of giving support to the US in its attacks on north western cuba (and this goes for Dutches) and instead of remaining silent in front of a clear breach of the treaty committed by the Dutches (and this is for the Brits). 

 

I hope I was clear enough.

 

Not sure where this Spanish claim is coming from anyway of Dutch or British screening for U.S. offensive flag pulls. Cuyo was done by U.S. players alone, reclaiming Vacas U.S. players alone, maybe at Baja there where some, I was not present at that one so I can't say. 

 

Regardless politics is here and as we can clearly see those involved in this treaty are not the national majorities and now national opinion is setting up things quite differently.

[Gooneybird]

 

So, basically, what Spain - in my oprinon LEGITIMATELY - claims is just that Brits and Dutches fulfil the three admirals treaty instead of giving support to the US in its attacks on north western cuba (and this goes for Dutches) and instead of remaining silent in front of a clear breach of the treaty committed by the Dutches (and this is for the Brits). 

 

I hope I was clear enough.

 

Wrong - read the treaty: the word ATTACK is not even being used in that treaty, let alone screening. But regardless, the treaty ends in about 38 hours from now unless all parties agree otherwise.

[fremen]

Wrong - read the treaty: the word ATTACK is not even being used in that treaty, let alone screening. But regardless, the treaty ends in about 38 hours from now unless all parties agree otherwise.

 

He, he, he. Always the same hypocresy from british. Stop to useless words, you and your companions are very impatient to wipe out the spanish from the server. Do it. 

 

My only doubt is who is next in the british black list. French? Danes? 

[victor]

Wrong - read the treaty: the word ATTACK is not even being used in that treaty, let alone screening. But regardless, the treaty ends in about 38 hours from now unless all parties agree otherwise.

 

Oh oh, bingo!

 

So Sir, if this is really the interpretation of the treaty, the whole thing was nothing more than a enormous fake.

 

Thanks at least for having finally admitted it.

Edited August 18, 2016 by victor

[Jonathan Arlington]

I am so bored of spaniards, turning words over words, mixing it up and coming to the very end that of course everything is blamed to the british. Everything was just hypocrite and nothing we did was because we care about behaviour among all factions. I am so bored about that.

Youdo not agree with our politics and the outcome in this treaty? Fine. But flaming it with turning words just to hear what you want to hear.... Bah.... I am so bored.

[victor]

I am so bored of spaniards, turning words over words, mixing it up and coming to the very end that of course everything is blamed to the british. Everything was just hypocrite and nothing we did was because we care about behaviour among all factions. I am so bored about that.

Youdo not agree with our politics and the outcome in this treaty? Fine. But flaming it with turning words just to hear what you want to hear.... Bah.... I am so bored.

 

In order to shake your boredom, let me suggest then how real diplomacy could have worked: Brits write on the forums a sort of generic "call to all the factions to respect the spirit of the treaty", Dutches answer that "of course we do, it was just a misunderstanding due to some rogue clans" and ... abracadabra ... Spaniards really could not play anylonger the part of the victim. 

[Jonathan Arlington]

I agree with that. But, in deed, I think Gooney wrote something like that in here. He also spents very much breath in Teamspeak holding back the ones who wanted to break the treaty. Even when the danes broked the Three-Day-Casefire on the very third day, attacking two (!) britain ports he hold us back attacking the danes, with the argument that no matter what we will respect this one day, not attacking danish ports (no attack against danes right now, maybe they missunderstood something of the points of our Casefire. I just wanted to make clear that Gooneybird is acting realy diplomatic in my guess). So in fact he is doing a good job. So calling him hypocrat is just unfair.

[Johny Reb]

In order to shake your boredom, let me suggest then how real diplomacy could have worked: Brits write on the forums a sort of generic "call to all the factions to respect the spirit of the treaty", Dutches answer that "of course we do, it was just a misunderstanding due to some rogue clans" and ... abracadabra ... Spaniards really could not play anylonger the part of the victim. 

How real diplomacy could have worked is simpler than that. Honor the WORDS in the treaty and if something comes up, as in this case, amend it. Instead the Spaniards just want to flame here instead.