Varkonia: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
(Updated Varkonian History: the Initial Varkonian Response to the NATO-Mir War) |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 170:
This put Varkonia in a very difficult position. While Mir and members of NATO, such as [[HJE]], were old, established nations with large world border vaults of 20+ rings, Varkonia was still relatively new and its vault was still in the very early phases of construction, having only 4 rings and minimal defenses. Varkonia's military, while suited for expeditions and offensive deployments, was simply not prepared for a prolonged war necessitating around-the-clock defense. Furthermore, Varkonia's relatively strong military compared to the other members of the UNC granted it influence within the UNC, however this also meant Varkonia did not have many reliable military allies to call upon, and that Varkonia and Nyasaland would have to be responsible for the defense of the rest of the UNC, which would have spread Varkonia's resources dangerously thin.
Emergency discussions were held in the Senate along two lines of thought:
Emergency discussions were held in the Senate along two lines of thought: 1. PvP-oriented players such as S4NTA and Magier advocated for Varkonia joining the war on Mir's side and combining forces to rapidly defeat NATO. NATO had a large number of fighters, but their quality was poor. Mir had an elite military, but lacked the numbers to successfully siege and dismantle the primary NATO vaults. It was argued that Varkonia's support would solve that problem and bring a quicker end to the war, minimizing the need for defensive infrastructure. 2. Civ-oriented players such as BritishWanderer, and other high-profile figures in Varkonia, such as Baron Van Batavanos (Flushmore), argued for neutrality. This argument was supported by the hassle of prior involvement in MTA and the relative unpreparedness of Varkonia at the time, as well as the daunting prospect of having to protect its far-flung allies against a sizeable opposing alliance bloc.▼
▲
# Civ-oriented players such as BritishWanderer, and other high-profile figures in Varkonia, such as Baron Van Batavanos (Flushmore), argued for neutrality. This argument was supported by the hassle of prior involvement in MTA and the relative unpreparedness of Varkonia at the time, as well as the daunting prospect of having to protect its far-flung allies against a sizeable opposing alliance bloc.
In one of the most difficult decisions faced by Varkonia, the Red Duke removed Senators with ties to Mir from the Varkonian Senate. The remaining Senators voted in favor of neutrality and passed measures forbidding involvement in the war, under penalty of losing Varkonian citizenship and having belongings seized by the state. This law was furthermore retroactively enforced on the Vakronian-Mirian dual-citizens involved in the war. The Red Duke, after receiving multiple questions from nations around the region, made a public announcement of these measures and Varkonia's commitment to neutrality<ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/civclassics/comments/am3exb/clearing_up_varkonias_position/</ref> on the first of February. The announcement was received positively by the UNC and NATO-aligned parties, and was received negatively by Mir.
| |||