Quote:
Originally Posted by Influence
The whole stipulation is funny as shit because ND is a CR/BS alliance in itself (or at least most members opted for CR/BS this round).
I personally will never accept clauses that limit who my alliance can or can't work with when it is not an obvious and direct enemy of both allies. Considering the deal between rainbows and ND started before PT100, there was no such thiing as an obvious and direct enemy.
Furthermore, as a FR ally, if you wanted to hamper other FR allies, hitting them before broadswords became common would have been the way to go. Which voids even the tactical reasoning behind this stipulation.
|
Well it seems obvious to me that ND had some sort of masterplan on how to play politics this round(according to the famous pastebin), and that they had allready decided to stick with BF for longterm relations, wich made it reasonable to agree to some agreement where a alliance they wernt sure they would cooporate with back in terms of value/political freedome.
Influencing the political options your "enemies" got is a part of the whole political scheme.
But the clause for no CR/BS allie NAPs was agreed on after pt200 iirc btw.