Iron and Blood - Game Thread

[kiwitt]

FYI, California spied on me, so I think the Treaty of London was already violated if you count espionage as a violation.

GM: These have now been made public - i.e. in the newspapers, as opposed to in the diplomatic channels (I&B Social Group) or PMs etc. These will have negative impacts on the stability of nations involved populace.

 

[arya126]

Hawaii would be willing to such an espionage agreement....as long as those spies do not stray into any other field or area or topic during their missions, in which case they will be treated as hostile.

This no longer applies, due to the Swazi admission of his guilt.

I would like to point out that you are directly helping an enemy of the UNA, Hawaii (ME), which in turn harms the UNA and should therefore be considered as an act of hostility.

We would like California to note that nothing is certain in war, and therefore we LAUGH at your supposed certain results of the upcoming battles.

Swaziland- You violated an international treaty, and are using us as your proxy war to distract the UNA, albeit only one member of the UNA, but part of the UNA nonetheless. Or do you deny that these war plans/advice and 'economic' aid would in any way contribute to the harm of california in this conflict?

We are quite capable of defending ourselves without your help. We are not a weakling like france, who cant take on a small, relatively low level industrial state without marshaling its two biggest and most powerful allies.

You say I am petty and do not deserve to survive? I am the only one here so far with enough integrity to respect an internationally recognized document that is keeping the peace and preventing a world war enough to reveal such a blatant violation of it. Hawaii will not be a part of your crimes Swazi.

Will you need France and Saorise to help you this time too, when you come for me?

NOTE: You cannot attack until next turn. DoW deadline is passed.

 

[BSmith1068]

NOTE: You cannot attack until next turn. DoW deadline is passed.

There is no guilt. Show me where exactly I violated the treaty. And if you actually read my post you would see that fully understand the game mechanics…

 

[BSmith1068]

NOTE: You cannot attack until next turn. DoW deadline is passed.

There is no guilt. Show me where exactly I violated the treaty. And if you actually read my post you would see that fully understand the game mechanics…

EDIT: And let's take this pointless conversation out of the game thread.

 

[Tecknojock]

Well, I was told by Kiwitt that aiding Britain (Not that it would have helped since he was crushed in one round) would have been a violation of the treaty, so ya, you did violate the treaty as well.

 

[arya126]

No you do NOT understand the game mechanics. Due to logistics, I can only support 12 units. You had me in your orders supporting FAR more than that.

Not only that, but I cannot purchase TWO major upgrades in a single turn, which is where you messed up on the naval orders, suggesting apparently that i should buy both ironclads and TBDs THIS turn. So you have no grasp on Researching tech and upgrades either...


Okay I will point it out to you. The first two clauses in the treaty. You agree to end hostilities against the UNA in the first, and agree to an NAP in the second. Both are violated in this act.

1. Hostilities...:
1. The state of being hostile; antagonism or enmity. See Synonyms at enmity.
2.
a. A hostile act.
b. hostilities Acts of war; overt warfare.

And i think we can all agree that both militarily and economically supporting a country hostile to the UNA is a hostile act against them. After all, in the line, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, we can deduce anything that helps a country who is at war with another country will hurt the country they are at war with,l thereby being hostile.

2. The NAP. A None-Agression Pact. You will not commit any acts against the recipient countries, who right now are any current members of the UNA, that may be interpreted as 'hostile' or aggressive'. I would say this action, once revealed, can constitute both. Hostile is explained above, and I will explain aggression here.
Aggression. Does this move not show that the Swazis, and possibly the Accord if they show their support for his actions, consider the UNA to be their enemy, so they wish to help and supply its enemies, which right now is basically Hawaii? I think it does. Supporting the enemy of your enemy is most certainly an act of aggression.

Now what action does this series of events require? What is the stance of the Accord on its member's transgressions?

 

[BSmith1068]

The only thing I gave you is advice. I fail to see how that is aggressive. I gave you no money. I gave you no military aid. I gave you nothing but a few words. Stop trying to make this into something more than it is.

 

[arya126]

You gave me 'military advice'. That basically translates to what Britain did to Hawaii, by sending military advisors to the island. Giving a nation advice on how to 'best' as you claim, defeat the enemy is certainly hostile, if not aggressive as well to the nation on the receiving end of this harm that the advice may cause if it is used.

You also offered aid, presumably in the form of IC as you said 'economic aid', which would be used against california directly, whether through factories, or more troops and supplies from the current industries. That is most certainly hostile, which you did not even TRY to deny. And dont you think that a hostile act towards a target nation could, and should, be interpreted as AGGRESSION?

 

[BSmith1068]

There was one rather large caveat to that aid… you surviving. And by no means was it accepted anyway.

Regardless, as California has already noted, the advice is mostly harmless as it likely wouldn’t affect the outcome of the next turn even if it was taken.

To California: Perhaps we could come to an agreement over the usefulness of this advice and if you construe it as a violation (however mild) of our NAP?

 

[GamezRule]

Since Swaziland was acting outside the Accord, I quite frankly don't care.

 

[arya126]

Well, I was told by Kiwitt that aiding Britain (Not that it would have helped since he was crushed in one round) would have been a violation of the treaty, so ya, you did violate the treaty as well.

This clear enough for you Swazi? If I were you, i would think this was a pretty clear indication that he thinks it is a violation, and it was verified by the GM to be true that if it is true, which it is, it would be a violation.

Since Swaziland was acting outside the Accord, I quite frankly don't care.

Since you are an ally of the Swazis, it affects you as well (OOC: See the rules discussion in the SG).

 

[Tecknojock]

It however, was an offer of aid that was never acted on and offering useless advice to an enemy does not seem worth a war, even if it was a minor violation. However if they did to Hawaii something like you did as Britain, we would have declared war in a heartbeat. I would have had Hawaii that round if not for you.

California, however, does request a Formal Apology on the part of Swaziland.

 

[kiwitt]

GM: Commentary on Recent Public Events

Spoiler :

The worlds media is afire with stories of diplomatic deals between major nations, secret missions and other related stories. Diplomacy usually happens behind closed doors (social groups, PM and VMs) and the results of which are then published as a treaty.

It would seem that the major nations have decided to take their conflicts to the worlds papers. Which are now causing stirrings in the nations populations as to why this is happening and many are concerned.

See possible impacts

 

[GamezRule]

However if they did to Hawaii something like you did as Britain, we would have declared war in a heartbeat. I would have had Hawaii that round if not for you.

Please say this in an easier to understand way.

 

[BSmith1068]

It however, was an offer of aid that was never acted on and offering useless advice to an enemy does not seem worth a war, even if it was a minor violation. However if they did to Hawaii something like you did as Britain, we would have declared war in a heartbeat. I would have had Hawaii that round if not for you.

California, however, does request a Formal Apology on the part of Swaziland.

The Kingdom of Swaziland apologizes for antagonizing an already tense situation. Perhaps a small token of our appreciation of your view of this matter would be in order? I can have my emissaries send over a payment of 7IC if this would settle this matter once and for all.

 

[Tecknojock]

This would do nicely. We thank you for your gift Swaziland.

 

[Tecknojock]

The Pacific War
California declared war on Hawaii, based on the fact it did not support Canadian's War for Independence. Alaska then decided to support its ally, who was then declared war on by Librulstan and Tawantinsuyo. Meanwhile Hawaii sold its holdings in Micronesia to Australia, to support its defence should it survive its first onslaught.

With the North East Pacific secured, California's invasion of Hawaii could now commence. Unbeknownst to California, Hawaii called on the services of British Advisers to boost its defence.

Hawaiian armies were able to hold out valiantly and sent the invaders packing

This is what I was talking about. I'd of declared war on Britain the next turn for this.

If not for those warplans provided by Britain, I'd of had Hawaii.

 

[GamezRule]

Would the UNA care to explain how Britain got that extra money, or shall I?

 

[Tecknojock]

Australia bought Micronesia (Under another players orders) and Peru and I paid Britain for not going after Hawaii and that transfered.

I'm fully aware.

 

[BSmith1068]

This would do nicely. We thank you for your gift Swaziland.

Orders Updated