NAP avec les TGT

This problem was waited...
You can invite them to visit our forum to discuss of the problem!

They aren't in our nap list because i have never receive write answer from TGT to our proposition of nap. In these conditions (they are allied to AA), i can't give infos before attacks. But if they considere us like naped (?), it's impossible to refuse that we attack our ennemies.

They can pm me the nap confirmation and i will update alliance pannel. But they can't refuse that we defend (and defend is always decrease production of ennemy and help friends ) against our ennemies. More, all planets that we have take at this time was retaked by Minada. Minada was on every planets before that AA attack him. If they are naped with BLA, they have accepted that AA come and kill there allies??? Very bad... But the gentlemens Orks are in and come to help pauer sheeps, only on the goal that TGT members conserve there dear neighbors!

Impossible to think that we have bad intentions! We are green like Robin-Hood!

For my part, you can "quote" all this post on TGT forum. I have wait answer 1 week on forum without receive 1 answer to my post... They can be polite for this time and pm me if they have a problem with my actions. (That can be also present in "quote"! )

For the rest, i hope that we will have an happy collaboration like in Beta 8 -> G2

I forget: Salutations tall TGT members

I think the best is to stay in good terms with them... If we enter in war with them in more than AA, we'll not stay alive a long time!

Please, yin and otteson, can you go both of you on TGT forum to clear the situation? They are apparently angry and we have nothing to defend against them if they attack us...

Please calm down the situation!!!

i have already registered there but guess what´s not working
the activation

isn´t that funny ?

i know that we are not in a good position right now
hopefully they don´t know that

would like to know if yin really has promised what they assert

ok

they want planet on 3 of us system for sign the nap
they just accept it
and i have accept they take planet in 2

Quote :

g0didam
OK, here's what I think we have agreed to:

Quote :

ID : 2016 | Beta Deneb Algiedi(-66/-32)
ID Owner Tag
1 SergioV BONO
2 SergioV BONO
3 TGT
4 TGT
5 yinchekhsia BONO
6 TGT
7 TGT
8 TGT
9 TGT
10 BONO
11 BONO
12 BONO

Quote :

Planets at Beta Hatysa [1846] (-64/-4Cool
ID Pop (growth) Starbase Owner Alliance ATC
1 0 (0) 0 Free Planet | <--TGT
2 3 (2) 0 Otteson [BONO] |
3 8 (0) 0 VonBismarck | <--TGT
4 8 (0) 0 VonBismarck | <--TGT
5 7 (0) 0 Otteson [BONO] |
6 8 (0) 0 VonBismarck | <--TGT
7 0 (0) 0 Free Planet | <--TGT
8 6 (1) 0 zottestef [BONO] |
9 5 (1) 0 encalme [BONO] |
10 0 (0) 0 Free Planet |
11 8 (0) 0 VonBismarck | <--TGT
12 0 (0) 0 Free Planet |

Quote :

Planets at Beta Tyl [1847] (-62/-50)
ID Pop (growth) Starbase Owner Alliance ATC
1 6 (0) 0 Demon | <---TGT
2 9 (0) 0 metch [BONO] |
3 6 (0) 0 Demon |
4 8 (1) 0 encalme [BONO] |
5 10 (0) 0 encalme [BONO] |
6 9 (0) 0 Otteson [BONO] |
7 11 (1) 0 Otteson [BONO] |
8 12 (0) 0 Otteson [BONO] |
9 11 (0) 0 Otteson [BONO] |
10 12 (0) 0 Otteson [BONO] |
11 13 (0) 2 Otteson [BONO] |
12 12 (1) 0 Otteson [BONO] |

Is this agreeable? that way we don't have to PM back and forth about fleets coming in, we have set targets.

Quote :

yinchekhsia2

ok for Beta Deneb Algiedi and Beta Hatysa [1846]
not for Beta Tyl [1847]

we can't take planet of vonbismark because we are napped

i have talked to james and muscle at msn but they are not willing to accept there fault in sending fleets without prior notice.

that is not the game play i´m in with
if they are continue that way i´m not gonna play anymore, sorry

you must have acces know to the bono ambassy on their forum
it's auch my fault
i don't post here the planet i accept to give to tgt

187james wrote:

Ok lets start from the top.

One of your diplomats Yin came to us and asked for a NAP , we were afraid of NAP'ing your alliance b/c we have NAP'ed almost all the other alliances in the area.

Your diplomat agreed to give us some planets (12 of them) as an act of good will.

This was the reason we accepted your NAP offer , we never really wanted to fight BONO , but we were running out of room , these planet gifts your alliance offered was the key to the NAP.

I guess someone didnt tell Otteson about the planets , and we crashed into him when we took one of the planets.

We were surprised to see your alliance enterinto one of our players home systems without notice to attack AA , but since we assumed we were NAP'ed with your alliance we didnt think it was a hostil action.

We also understand that you werent going to tell us before you attacked , it wouldnt have been smart on your part.

As for AA/XXX:

We have had an Eternal NAP with them since beta 8 , and the only terms are that they wont attack us and we wont attack them.

So even though we dont like the fact that they are coming into our systems to attack BLA/COP , we cant stop them.

I have told both BLA and COP of this situation , since they are NAP'ed with us.

AA/XXX already knows that we wont give them any airports , and every system that they have attacked BLA/COP in , they have done so on their own without any help of TGT.

We remain neutral in their war.

Since your alliance has joined the war , i must tell you that we will remain neutral aswell.

Otteson:

He seems to not be happy about the planets we were given , so i dont expect much from him in the way of happyness.....but i assume he will follow what the alliance votes on.


Are we still doing this NAP?

We have added you to our list already , please send me a PM on your answer and any terms of the NAP you want added (although you must understand about our situation with AA , and we must remain neutral)


187james[TGT] Chief Diplomat , TGT leadership

Hello,

Thank's for you pm. I have a beter understanding of situation now. I have play some round in collaboration with your alliance, but don't know that you have permanent nap with AA. :wink:
For me an habitual nap is right:

There will be no attacks between the alliance members until the end of the round.
If a system has already been colonized by one aliance, the other alliance must ask permission of the first alliance to colonize there. Sieges are not regulated by this clause. System when alliance ennemies are present are not regulated by this clause at condition to use only of ennemy planets
This is just a NAP (Non Aggression Pact), so no alliance is neither forced to defend the other in case of being attacked nor to join an attack of the other alliance.
No info gifting over ally.

I think that's all. (if you want more or other, say me... )
You are now also in our nap list.
All conditions negociated by one of our member (yin here) are always right for all. I post this message on our forum to clarify situation and give the exact conditiond to all our members! :wink:

Saluations from Orks and have a funny G7!

pierrovitch

Otteson wrote:

i have talked to james and muscle at msn but they are not willing to accept there fault in sending fleets without prior notice.

that is not the game play i´m in with
if they are continue that way i´m not gonna play anymore, sorry

They made a mistake, but we did one with them too. (we didn't warn them about our plan on Haris and Mothallah...)

I know it's very difficult to loose all the fleet you producd since the beginning, but I stay on my position, please, calm down!!!

The biggest mistake was from us (yin) by not putting the agreement with TGT... yin is of course forgiven, it happens when you make diplomatic work... Now we know it and I hope you'll continue with us!!! We need you!

EDIT :

I'm happy to see the situation is now cleared and that we finally got the nap with TGT! Good news in our war against AA!

187james wrote:

This is what your diplomat (yinchekhsia) gave us as part of the NAP agreement.


Planets at Beta Hatysa [1846] (-64/-4Cool
ID Pop (growth) Starbase Owner Alliance ATC
1 0 (0) 0 Free Planet | <--TGT
2 3 (2) 0 Otteson [BONO] |
3 8 (0) 0 VonBismarck | <--TGT
4 8 (0) 0 VonBismarck | <--TGT
5 7 (0) 0 Otteson [BONO] |
6 8 (0) 0 VonBismarck | <--TGT
7 0 (0) 0 Free Planet | <--TGT
8 6 (1) 0 zottestef [BONO] |
9 5 (1) 0 encalme [BONO] |
10 0 (0) 0 Free Planet |
11 8 (0) 0 VonBismarck | <--TGT
12 0 (0) 0 Free Planet |

ID : 2016 | Beta Deneb Algiedi(-66/-32)
ID Owner Tag
1 SergioV BONO
2 SergioV BONO
3 TGT
4 TGT
5 yinchekhsia BONO
6 TGT
7 TGT
8 TGT
9 TGT
10 BONO
11 BONO
12 BONO


If there is a problem with this send your diplomat back to our site.

187james[TGT] Chief Diplomat

Yin you really write this plan??

Quote :

From: encalme
To: 187james
Posted: 19 Feb 2007 08:36
Subject: Re: TGT NAP
Sure we'll talk with our diplomat about that!
Also when 2 alliances are napped, nobody need to take a huge fleet to colonize planet on a friend system... you well know what you do with your fleets.
For now I don't think that we can trust TGT about NAP, It look like a tactic move for your friends AA.

yes i really do
it's write on this post page 2 or 3

yinchekhsia wrote:

yes i really do
it's write on this post page 2 or 3

So Otteson loose his fleet because of you and your strange decision.
As I understand we give all unknow planet to TGT, maybe we can also lick their balls...


@ Otte : put your move on hatysa topic to avoid any crash, as I see you will take id10, don't try to attack them now, we will wait when system will be close.

@ Metch : where you want to go now?

encalme wrote:

yinchekhsia wrote:

yes i really do
it's write on this post page 2 or 3

So Otteson loose his fleet because of you and your strange decision.
As I understand we give all unknow planet to TGT, maybe we can also lick their balls...


@ Otte : put your move on hatysa topic to avoid any crash, as I see you will take id10, don't try to attack them now, we will wait when system will be close.

@ Metch : where you want to go now?

If you want some planets, Encalme

Make a fleet and join us to the fight

Yink try to do his best to make a cooperation between us and other alliance

You want maybe the war against Tgt?

encalme wrote:

So Otteson loose his fleet because of you and your strange decision.
As I understand we give all unknow planet to TGT, maybe we can also lick their balls...

I don't think that you can influence the decision of TGT with power of your fleet
yin have make a good diplomatic work and a good fight work. He permiss us to kick AA out of 2 systems without have problem with TGT present on these 2 systems. He have take risc to give us jump with his speed and is always ready to give time, money...
I totaly agree his intelligent decision in a decissive time.

If it's a problem of communication that you want show, it's an other problem. I think that all of us are welcome on TGT forum and can see negociation in real time. It's of course beter to post here fast to give infos to all before action.

observation: otteson have lost 1/2 of his fleet against ancre, a solo player...

Quote :

ID : 2016 | Beta Deneb Algiedi(-66/-32)
ID Owner Tag
1 SergioV BONO
2 SergioV BONO
3 TGT
4 TGT
5 yinchekhsia BONO
6 TGT
7 TGT
8 TGT
9 TGT
10 BONO
11 BONO
12 BONO

I do NOT agree with this

This is the second time I need to give a system without even being warned!!!
I don't want to fight for the moment, so I took a remote system, and now you want me to give it again? Can you provide me another one, or just 'read the forum and follow the attacks' ?

They can take

Quote :

Planets at Beta No Pasaran (-68/-27)
ID Population Starbase Owner
1 0 0 Free Planet
2 1 0 sopas14
3 0 0 Free Planet
4 0 0 Free Planet
5 1 0 darioshox
6 0 0 Free Planet
7 0 0 Free Planet
8 1 0 Santinocross
9 0 0 Free Planet
10 0 0 Free Planet
11 1 0 ibnkhaldun
12 0 0 Free Planet

Thank you!

alors je répond en français car j'ai plus facile..

je suis sur le cul!

ça me rapelle la G4 chez les SpIn et la diplomatie à la wiel,qui avait parlementé avec une autre alliance afin de leur céder la home de trielemental en vue d'une NAP...

quand ils ont eu bien bouffé tout le système de ce pauvre gars,malgré la révolte des autres SpIn,ils ont jamais acceptés la NAP mais bien continué à envahir et détruire d'autre systèmes SpIn..

je pense que c'est tactiquement très risqué et rien ne les obligera à signer la NAP avec nous une fois bien installés sur leur petits systèmes bien au chaud...

dois je rapeller qu'ils sont bon potes avec les AA qui nous attaquent en ce moment?vous l'avez pas oublié?

enfin bref il me semble que ce genre de trucs se discutent APRèS une NAP surtout quand il s'agit de PARTAGER des systèmes..

et puis surtout ce genre de chose ça se met au point dans la "TEAM"avant de le proposer aux autres...Pourquoi Yin nous a rien demandé avant de s'engager de la sorte??

on se connait tous depuis assez longtemps,je pense que ça se respecte..
Domage,on avait un beau début de partie avant que...

metch wrote:

je pense que c'est tactiquement très risqué et rien ne les obligera à signer la NAP avec nous une fois bien installés sur leur petits systèmes bien au chaud...

dois je rapeller qu'ils sont bon potes avec les AA qui nous attaquent en ce moment?vous l'avez pas oublié?

enfin bref il me semble que ce genre de trucs se discutent APRèS une NAP surtout quand il s'agit de PARTAGER des systèmes..

et puis surtout ce genre de chose ça se met au point dans la "TEAM"avant de le proposer aux autres...Pourquoi Yin nous a rien demandé avant de s'engager de la sorte??

on se connait tous depuis assez longtemps,je pense que ça se respecte..
Domage,on avait un beau début de partie avant que...

1 Le nap est déjà signé, c'est écrit sur cette même page

2 Le champ libre a été laissé à yin parcequ'il a été le seul à se casser le cul pour la négociation avec TGT.

3 Si je lis bien, 6 votes pour le nap, 2 qui s'en foutent. Question: la contestation vient-elle de ceux qui s'en foutent (dans ce cas, ils auraient mieux fait de s'intéresser) ou de ceux qui était pour (dans ce cas, ils auraient pu participer à la discussion, puisque yin a posté le lien du forum TGT en espérant vous y voir)???

4 Que ceux qui préfère que TGT fournisse l'aide nécéssaire à AA contre nous que de s'assurer leur neutralité dans le conflit pour conserver 6 planètes lèvent la main. Et quand il auront levé la main, qu'il me montre comment il vont participer à une guerre contre une coalition AA+TGT. Je vois quand-même que défendre contre 88 ds est hors de vos possibilités pour le moment, ça mérite réflexion...

stef et moi, on vient de raser 9 planètes AA en 2 jours grâce à cette négociation. Si tout le monde faisait pareil, vous ne chercheriez pas des planètes à l'heure qu'il est.
issu d'une discussion avec ragna :

Ragna wrote:

Et si vous pouviez laisser les rankers en vie jusqu'au CD pour voir à quelle vitesse on y arrive ça serait marrant (mais bon je suis pas en position de force pour demander ça, j'en suis conscient ^^ )

sergio, je suis désolé mais il ne s'agit pas d'un simple don, il s'agit de notre survie à tous dans un conflit. TGT est 100% fighter et si vous avez pris le temps de lire mon post ou je répondais à james, vous aurez compris que leur position près de AA n'est pas un hasard et que seuls les conflits en cours on permis à yin de négocier cette neutralité
a prix raisonnable.
Personne n'est exclu du travail diplomatique, mais quand personne ne bouge, celui qui bouge a raison.
Mais puisque vous voulez de la démocratie, je post un poll.

i´m sorry that all this discussions and irritations happened and i really think that yin did his best to give us the nap with tgt

and yes i lost my "xp-gaining fleet", the only one i had that time, against a solo player but that fleet was not very big and a solo-player is also allowed to have some fleet, isn´t he ?
i´m not angry about that lost that was an accident and can always happen

but i´m pissed off about that behavior from tgt to launch fleet to take our sieged planets without any prior notice
and i´m pissed off as well about not beeing informed that we have to give away all that predeveloped planets without asking me first!

and now please let´s forget about that and stay ALL together and let´s try to work out what we can as an ALLIANCE

Otteson wrote:

but i´m pissed off about that behavior from tgt to launch fleet to take our sieged planets without any prior notice
and i´m pissed off as well about not beeing informed that we have to give away all that predeveloped planets without asking me first!

I understand totaly. Organisation is not really our best quality.
I have attacked 2 TGT system without prevent them also... it's in part why i can understand these launch before the end of negociation.

Otteson wrote:

and now please let´s forget about that and stay ALL together and let´s try to work out what we can as an ALLIANCE

The best words I heard since the last 2 days!

Sorry, being too ork-ish

You're doing a nice job Yin Thanks!

I'm too much on the beach, it seems

21:19:47 - Feb 19 Attention !!! We have evidence of an incoming fleet around that time.
5 Transports
88 Destroyer
going to attack Beta Tyl [1847] 2!
We suppose its the Fleet of ic3wolf.
20:14:01 - Feb 19 warning: 1 failed logins
19:54:07 - Feb 19 The population decreased by 2 at Beta Tyl 1.
19:54:05 - Feb 19 Your defending fleet was defeated by ic3wolf at Beta Tyl 1. You killed about 11%.
13:46:28 - Feb 19 SergioV offered you a trade agreement.
Accept / Decline.


comme vous pouvez le constater pas de warning pour la première attaque,c'était une ghost et moin d'1heure 30 après il attérissait déjà sur l'autre...

je ne sais pas qui aurait pu contrer une attque comme celle là meme que avec 88DS....

à moin d'avoir sa flotte sur le système déjà,biensur,quasi improbable...