[Weekstrom]The accusations against me and the treaty
Day 2,610, 03:55
•
Published in Netherlands 
•
by
•
by Weekstrom
There is a lot going on in the media. Looking at the latest congress update even congress is kept busy with it. About the treaty and about me as a commander and perhaps even as a person or who knows what they came up with in congress. So it’s about time I react in an article so everyone is able to read it and respond. Contrary to the forum which a lot of players never visit and therefore is more a world of its own.
So I urge everyone with an opinion about it to speak up here!
First on the accusations
I am accused by a few players of doing dirty politics and acting against orders. Most notably however by one player.
About politics
As long as I play this game I don’t choose a political side. Al sides do have their pro’s and con’s as do all players. I look at what’s best for eNL in the role I have. Most notably having been my term as MoF of 20 consecutive months and my role as (2nd) Commander of DAF for over 2½ years now. If I state something it’s for the best at that position. So in my time as MoF I had to be very careful about our spending as our income dropped month after month due to the declining global economy. On top of that we had some disastrous CP terms before I became MoF that made our reserves vanish to a very large extend. Due to that I have always been on the money and prevented all our gov’s back then to overspend. No matter the party the CP came from. I didn’t and still don’t care as long as the CP acts as a leader (not a manager, not a dictator) and focusses on eNL’s best interest.
As a commander that meant informing soldiers about where we were heading and why we fought certain battles. At least that was the case until the end of the era of M. de Ruyter as I always knew what he was trying to do. After that the information from gov became less and less even up to the point we don’t even had a list of countries to fight for let alone information about where politics is (trying to) aim for. Apart from that I always made certain soldiers were able to fight for their nation and to combine their actions as much as possible. Something really important to all relatively young players that are D1, 2 but even D3 benefits. Doing DO set on an eNL battle not only provides you with a bazooka young players need to rank fast, and an EB they need later on to score a BH. It also gives you an increase in TP score that provided players with extra gold they need to get their Training Grounds up. Every soldier wants to fight for their home soil so it’s the responsibility of Captains, Commanders and MoD to provide them that possibility as that’s best for the development of our soldiers and therefore eNL’s military strength. The justification for this approach is clear if you look at how well our lower divisions perform nowadays.
About acting against orders
Up until now I never acted against orders. If orders were given I followed them, whether I liked them or not. Most certainly as a commander. That does not mean I as a person would fight hard against a nation I don’t think we should fight against. Nor will I follow them blindly. If something is unclear I'll ask for an explanation. For several CP's or MoD's that was hard. Perhaps because they didn't have one or they knew it wasn't just. I don't care about the reason, but if something is asked I want to know why and our soldiers have the right to know as well. And of course it's possible it can not be told to the soldiers yet due to risks off leaking. (2nd) Commanders, certainly of DAF, however ALWAYS have the right to know imo.
An example? As most know we had a few campaigns against Norway in order to help UK. DAF was ordered to fight against Norway. Orders were set, but I didn’t fight hard there. I did the DO to get an EB, but no extra’s as there was no plan nor a clear vision nor a clear outlook on what it would gain us. Until the moment we were pushed back that is. The moment Norway attacked our home soil naturally I stepped up but I didn’t want to be part of an attack on friends caused by hatred towards M. de Ruyter and the false promise it would get us into an alliance. And if you look back you’ll notice it indeed gave us nothing. We lost friends and a lot of resources, but that’s all. Is it politics on my part? Of course not. Looking at the situation it was clear we had nothing to gain. Recent history already showed we wouldn’t benefit. That’s no politics, that’s common sense. The latter often being the opposite of the first.
Is it disobeying orders on my part? No it ain’t. Orders were given, DO’s were set, soldiers informed and I even did the DO. That’s all that was asked and so I did. Sure as the person Weekstrom I could have done more and waste resources on the fight, but the Commander Weekstrom did what he should.If the person Weekstrom is needed to do more a clear plan and vision would have to be presented and despite asking for it in my role as Commander several times a response never came.
Second on the treaty
I am disappointed on it. As a person and as a commander.
First as a person
Garmr is known to me as a man with short, strong, statements. In the past he did do so on treaties with Poland and several other matters. However being in charge now the first thing he did was sign a treaty that is worse than the treaties we had with Poland. Under the Polish treaty we had two regions and our taxes refunded. We lacked compensation for lost congress gold and production of our players. I urged for that when MoF and later as well. Especially when the introduction of the determination bonus made it harder for Poland to keep up their large territory a more justifying treaty would have been right. Sadly those extra paragraphs never made it. Not under M. de Ruyter, nor under any gov that followed.
With Poland being pushed back we now face Hungary. A nation way less powerful as Poland was. Still we won’t be able to hold them back. Which is no reason for the lame response the majority of politicians showed. I’ve hardly seen them fight. Showing you can be more than an ant easy to crush would make a deal to sign easier to negotiate. The treaty that now seems to be signed (haven’t read it as due to the openness of our gov it’s only published on forum which I don’t visit anymore) however is worse in several aspects;
- We gave up 3 instead of 2 regions and therefore 30 instead of 20 CM (150 instead of 100 gold)
- We keep getting the tax so that’s equal.
- We are disallowed to organize a RW, which is equal.
- We are disallowed to fight should an RW occur which is worse as with Poland we were disallowed to support it as gov but soldiers were still allowed to fight, score TP/BH as long as we wouldn’t try to win the RW.
- We are disallowed to set DO which is worse as with Poland we were free to do so as long as we wouldn’t try to win the RW.
- We still have no rent to compensate the loss of gold and resources but especially to compensate for the feeling we have to give up our nation for 75% now.
- I doubt there is a statement about releasing one or more regions should Hungary conquer a region with the same resource elsewhere.
- I doubt there is a statement about (temporary) freeing an extra region to get at least 20 CM.
As the person Weekstrom, in respect to the big words and power talks Garmr uses that’s a big disappointment. All he came up with was an even worse agreement against a less powerful opponent while at the start of his term it was already clear the intention of Hungary was to make a deal. So as a person I’m very disappointed in the CP and his MoFA team regarding this performance. That, again, ain’t political but is a result of the facts in the game that gave us a better negotiation position as we ever had with Poland combined with the big mouth our CP shows regularly that caused me to have higher expectations. You may call me naïve on that but someone often bragging about his powers in-game has caused that.
Than as a commander
Our soldiers need to be able to fight for our nation. The majority of DAF soldiers only fights when an eNL battle is on. They will do so whether or not DO is set or not. There is nothing gov can do about it as long as the feeling stays we are given away by politicians. Therefore as a commander I am very opposed off an agreement that forbids our soldiers to fight and our MU’s to set DO on our RW. Of course; As long as we have a treaty like the politicians saw fit (whether I agree or not) the orders for our soldiers need to be clear they should not try to win the campaign. Something that will alwys be communicated in the DAF feed alongside the DO that will be set. Not only is trying to win if a treaty is in place unwise, above all it will be waste of resources for our soldiers which they should safe for moments they need them on a battle that matters. And it would cause an unnecessary and unwanted decrease in X/S as well.
But the right to fight for your nation should ALWAYS be safe. It’s the core of a soldiers reason to exist. Every politician that’s trying to prevent that will find Commander Weekstrom on his path to defend that soldiers right!
Weekstrom
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
I'm against not being able to set a DO, I do understand it's "lost damage" from a certain point of view.
However can't we make a deal where all D1 players who can win easy TP medals are allowed to have a DO set on RW's?
This way we secure aditional income for our young players to upgrade their training grouds.
"Something is better than nothing", words of our CP.
Nice article, it's always good to hear a point of view instead of direct laster.
Facts are provided to the people who don't read the forum.
I agree, we are right behind you commander Weekstrom.
I think you should see the treaty yourself, so you know every detail. I think it is important to see the whole picture. It is only on the forum so foreigners can't see all the details.
That doesn't mean I don't agree with you. I think a treaty is needed, because we can't fight them infinitely. But on the DO setting part and RW part of the treaty is very bad I think.
Although I agree with you as a person, I think you as commander should just keep following the instructions of the government, even if you don't agree at all. As commander of the state MU you are part of the government, and have to follow the orders no matter your own opinion. After all the CP is the supreme commander of DAF and will probably replace the commander of DAF when he doesn't do what he has to do.
That's what I did as commander Spir Tus. The whole thing however seems to have started with a certain individual in eNL that thought I wasn't following orders when Belgium started their RW. As we had no gov at that point it was not even possible to give orders. And the surrogate gov installed at that point didn't give orders to their commanders. Or they forgot to include me. Nor did they act on the upcoming invasion of Hungary.
You, among all other DAF players, know the orders and warnings given within DAF at that point so judge for yourself.
The one accusing me is not even part of DAF so has no knowledge of the facts that were present.
You followed the orders in the past, the only thing I hope is that you also will follow the orders in the future. It looks like you are saying in the last paragraph that you are going to disobey the orders of the government.
I appreciate the article you have written and I appreciate you explaining your point of view to the public in an article instead on the forum. Voted!
You are just absolutely unwilling to even try to see my reasoning, and not having read the treaty because it is on the forum is your fault, it's perfectly available if you want to.
I recall you have very often complained about the expenses I made when I narrowly lost a campaign against Poland during the first stages of that occupation. Yet now you side with those who believe we should disregard money and fight a war that cannot be won?
Saying that the Polish treaty was better (something which was negotiated by MaartenW and myself, by the way) doesn't hold, as the situation is absolutely different. Poland didn't need fish. Hungary does.
Try to see your reasoning? Well for starters start explaining. Not simple statements like your used to, but explain.
Explain to us why with a weaker opponent we have an even worse treaty than we had with Poland? A treaty with Poland started under MaartenW and finished under M. de R indeed. With delays as we thought it wasn't the best of treaties. As I mentioned earlier it didn't take into account the loss of congress gold nor the loss of resource production we face let alone the loss of our pride. But it was to late already to get that fixed.
Nevertheless I always defended the treaty as you damn well know.
And no I haven't read the current treaty. You yourself pointed towards the core of the treaty. What else is there to know? If there were extra things we should know of or where you would be proud of you would have mentioned it.
Where did I state we should spend money to free ourselves? Don't bend my words. I never did and never will against this kind of opponents. Also I don't recall complaining about expenses from you against Poland. I can't even imagine as this is the first time you're CP ever since I was MoF. The thing I did comment on was Garmr V that costed us about 1.5 mil cc due to idiotic MM transactions that were not discussed well with congress as information was held back at the time. As you know I don't visit forum any more but given the media coverage at the moment I sense a form of deja-vu here.
And as I already stated in the article; Obviously the Polish treaty was better. The fact the Hun also need fish and wood doesn't change that fact. And I do support a treaty but it has to be just. This one simply ain't. If only you had consulted other players in key positions or congress in stead of you're limited group (if even) of players it would have been prevented and just in the first place. I fear this one will never hold.
You were the SS MoF during Garmr V.
I am fully aware there are downsides to the treaty, but that doesn't mean that can be changed.
Would you elaborate why Hungary is a weaker opponent by the way? I can't really see any foundation for it. Besides that, it doesn't matter if you're outnumbered 10 to 1 or 20 to 1.
P.S. vS took 3 weeks and did not change any point of the treaty, only rewording of 1 point into 2 points that were more elaborately written.
Yeah, I was sMoF. And to my great regret was naive in thinking I could talk things over with Auggy about what he was planning on. In stead I should have contacted congress about it to inform them. But I'm not one to put the dirty laundry outside a team. I was still learning the game, had no clue yet on how the forum game worked. Had I known I would have gone full blown towards congress. Instead I only explained my view and why I thought it very unwise with Auggy. He claimed however it was talked over with you and was wise. I'm pretty he also said things like; Your new and don't understand the game.
Hungary is far weaker than Poland was back then. They have way less resources (no direct lines to several an not all resources accounted for) Also they had about three times as many players back then as the Hun have now. And to conclude with Poland had a player base with an even much bigger delta from the global average level (+4 or 5) then Hungary has (+1) so on average the players had a higher strength as well. So they outnumbered us by a bigger factor and had stronger players.
And yes I know vS took a long time. He's, among other things, not one to give up fast nor . But I never stated I was happy about the result did I? What caused it we can start a whole new discussion about but lets focus at the treaty at hand shall we?
this idea of a war we cannot win is getting out of hand.. we could go for allies.. we could also fight to strengthen our position at the negotiating table.. (or just to appease your eCitizents & create some national pride!) every time hungry fights against us it makes them weaker on other fronts.. so there are many ways to make a war worth while.. and many ways to declare it a win.. its doesn't have to be made in such black and white terms.. and if that was a case we would be giving up against just about every country in the eRepublik because our population is so small.. and only getting smaller when our so called 'representatives' are in a race to see who can roll over and play dead first!
honestly its disgraceful! we used to be a proud nation who fought for what we believed in.. now we are a small group of cowards hiding behind closed doors!
Weekstrom .. just wanted to say well done on expressing your position here on the gaming platform.. Cheers!
"every time hungry fights against us it makes them weaker on other fronts.. so there are many ways to make a war worth while.. '
Exactly. Their opponents would love it if we drained them, but they would never actually want us to be free.
Sorry. I have scant interest in doing even the DO under the current conditions.
More, this is another reason I'm in the Chilean Army these days--along with being unwilling to hang a tabard on my profile image. More, I attack Hungary whenever a battle against them comes up that looks even vaguely winnable. I intend to whittle them down, and if eNL has a problem with that, well ....
Very well spoken Weekstrom, seems to me we got screwed on a major way.
read all, voted, and agreed.