Christendom Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 Just now, Havelock said: I think were talking past each other. I understand the OP as "everything above this line is US homewaters, dont attack it", which implies the US should own it and nobody is allowed to contest it (ofc you could give regions to allies, but what would be the point of that?). A general agreement of defining homewaters doesnt have to do anything with the current situation. Imagine a fully neutral map, and then some not selfish thinking diplomats sit down and agree on a few regions for every nation that secure their economy and are in no situation allowed to be contested by any other nation. And in that case, 39 ports is way over the top. Your thougts seem to be based on the current map. Even if the OP wasnt meant serious, the idea to agree on non-RvR ports is something which could take a lot of salt out of this game. The proposal to have ports as off limits was brought up by both sides once or twice, didn't really get much traction either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christendom Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Havelock said: Go for it, surprise me with an constructive answer. Until then, have a nice day. Was Chijohn's alternative facts answer constructive enough for you? Edited March 1, 2017 by Christendom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havelock Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 2 minutes ago, Christendom said: Was Chijohn's alternative facts answer constructive enough for you? Yes i understood what he was going for with his post, the one before with the vids linked was kinda mazy. The alternative facts thing was just meant as a funny little wink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christendom Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 4 hours ago, Lord Vicious said: Feel free to proof i am wrong, and test your mighty usa fleet maybe saturday when both usa and russians can be on fore more and more late so you can meet. I wonder how is that every time we organize a multile pb assault, your fleet always go for the secondary targets where we know the enemy coalition is not going to field their main fleet. (see puerto plata) while you always refuse to attack in firstrate vs the main danes fleet,(santo domingo even if you where able to field a full fleet at that timer since both ports they where almost the same) but instead tell the brits to go there. So lets make like this we go for puerto plata or another secondary port, and you go for santo domingo vs the rus fleet, so you can proof how strong you are RIGHT? Just saw your edit on here. The RUS/RDNN clan will back me up in saying this, the US has been used as diversion targets quite a number of times against them. We're ok with it. Santa Domingo also had more US players in it than brit. Your alternative facts again are wrong. Stop trying to drive a non existent wedge between our 2 nations for your own benefit. It's not gonna happen. PS - I was presented with this interesting screenshot today. SORRY fleet utterly destroyed by US players at Salinas Point. http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/495771087097070304/3DA54DF67670A2EECAFC87261BCCDEC2133263C8/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chijohnaok Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 1 hour ago, Havelock said: I think were talking past each other. I understand the OP as "everything above this line is US homewaters, dont attack it", which implies the US should own it and nobody is allowed to contest it (ofc you could give regions to allies, but what would be the point of that?). A general agreement of defining homewaters doesnt have to do anything with the current situation. Imagine a fully neutral map, and then some not selfish thinking diplomats sit down and agree on a few regions for every nation that secure their economy and are in no situation allowed to be contested by any other nation. And in that case, 39 ports is way over the top. Your thougts seem to be based on the current map. Even if the OP wasnt meant serious, the idea to agree on non-RvR ports is something which could take a lot of salt out of this game. Posting in response only to your last comment which begins "...the idea that to agree on....". Did you take issue with the "Three Admirals Treaty" which had non RvR provisions? (IIRC that treaty specifically spelled out a small border "RvR" region where RvR between Britain and Spain was allowed and provided for no RvR between Britain and Spain in any other regions). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chijohnaok Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, Christendom said: Just saw your edit on here. The RUS/RDNN clan will back me up in saying this, the US has been used as diversion targets quite a number of times against them. We're ok with it. Santa Domingo also had more US players in it than brit. Your alternative facts again are wrong. Stop trying to drive a non existent wedge between our 2 nations for your own benefit. It's not gonna happen. PS - I was presented with this interesting screenshot today. SORRY fleet utterly destroyed by US players at Salinas Point. http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/495771087097070304/3DA54DF67670A2EECAFC87261BCCDEC2133263C8/ Christendom, that PB only had 21 SORRY members in it. LV can't be held responsible for the poor performance and impact on the PB fleet of the 4 non-SORRY players. ;-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christendom Posted March 2, 2017 Author Share Posted March 2, 2017 Just now, Chijohnaok said: Christendom, that PB only had 21 SORRY members in it. LV can't be held responsible for the poor performance and impact on the PB fleet of the 4 non-SORRY players. ;-) True. Another loss LV can shrug off as "not his fault" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havelock Posted March 2, 2017 Share Posted March 2, 2017 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Christendom said: PS - I was presented with this interesting screenshot today. SORRY fleet utterly destroyed by US players at Salinas Point. Long live Martello Tower 3. HUZZAH 38 minutes ago, Chijohnaok said: Posting in response only to your last comment which begins "...the idea that to agree on....". Did you take issue with the "Three Admirals Treaty" which had non RvR provisions? (IIRC that treaty specifically spelled out a small border "RvR" region where RvR between Britain and Spain was allowed and provided for no RvR between Britain and Spain in any other regions). Yes, i had something like this in mind. Edited March 2, 2017 by Havelock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts