Accepting the Consequenses of War

[MCRABT]

[quote name='wickedj' date='02 March 2010 - 09:13 PM' timestamp='1267564643' post='2211658']
Pssst, you attacked them. dont attack someone if you cant pay for it
[/quote]

Can't and Won't are two completely different things.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Tushar Dhoot' date='03 March 2010 - 04:46 AM' timestamp='1267548621' post='2211400']
According to our stats (taken from UE), TOP/IRON/TOOL/TORN has dished out:

916,838 tech damage and;
4,899,110 infra damage

While taking:

709,061 tech damage and;
3,771,445 infra damage
[/quote]

My stats say that TOP and IRON alone have had 791,513 tech destroyed. C&G meanwhile has lost 571,738 tech.

[Franz Ferdinand]

[quote name='Alterego' date='02 March 2010 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1267565144' post='2211667']
Keep fighting until you run out of money, tech and nukes. Then they cant make any demands for tech and cash.
[/quote]
In theory, they could still make the demands nevertheless, being in a comatose state would not be enough to remove the terms, I sense.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Ryuzaki' date='02 March 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1267565355' post='2211670']
My stats say that TOP and IRON alone have had 791,513 tech destroyed. C&G meanwhile has lost 571,738 tech.
[/quote]

You say that like 571,738 tech (and growing) isn't a horrible price to pay to make sure two alliances don't have the gall to [b]perhaps[/b] some day be part of a [b]hypothetical[/b] bloc that doesn't exist yet that [b]may[/b] attack you...theoretically.

Remember when this game was fun to play?

Seems like all the alliances that peaced out white/beige/vanilla/eggshell still do...

Just sayin'.

[Lord Stark]

[quote name='Hyperbad' date='02 March 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1267564821' post='2211660']
If you're taking into account only damage received prior to talk of peace by your opponents then or damage received prior to the original NpO-\m/ wars being peaced out then I can see this as being a valid argument. Afer that it becomes a bit difficult. The initial fronts of a war typically lead others to feel there's nothing left to fight over and it can be argued your opponents felt that way. Likewise a desire your opponents may have felt in wanting to end the war previously had your side taken up this offer would have prevented a lot of damage from ever being inflicted upon your nations.

The problem comes in with the damage you've taken since your side stated peace wouldn't yet be offered but a desire to knock your opponents down a few pegs before terms are discussed is desired. Damage you've taken during that time is no ones fault but your own for your unwillingness (right or wrong) to see a conclusion to this conflict. You've effectively gone on the offensive and have given your opponents little choice but to fight much like you were at the start.

If the NpO-\m/ war seeing peace is used as the line then the proposed terms are most probably far too high. If the statements of your opponents receiving no peace yet are the reference point then the terms might even be too low to pay for all the damage they caused. I think this one of the many areas of concern in the debate over reparations.
[/quote]

If we had peaced out say after one week (which is I think what you are saying we should have done?) We would have been in an even worse strategic position. CnG suffered their greatest losses in that first week because we were fighting TOP at al. mostly alone (because our allies were busy on other fronts). Even with the terms now proposed TOP would have soundly defeated us because their War Chests would have allowed every member to fully re-build and their losses would have been significantly less then ours on a whole. They would have taken an even bigger lead on us in the upper ranks which would have threatened the safety of CnG.

I think it is important to remember that unlike many terms that have been offered in previous wars we are allowing our enemies to pay half of their tech reps by purchasing tech from outside nations. This is a little harder to organize perhaps (though we know tech organization is one of TOPs specialties so I think they could handle it), it does show that though we would like to bring TOP a little bit closer to our level so they aren't in such a commanding position to threaten is in the future. However, by allowing them to purchase half of the reps from outside alliances it is clear that CnG isn't attempting to completely flatten TOP by making them pay back all of the damage that they have done. We simply want them to pay for what they have done and bring them a little bit closer to our level and then we are allowing the remainder of our losses to be provided by outside sources which can very easily be purchased with their war chests.

It is also important to note that the point at which you are saying that we could have ended this war TOP was insisting that nothing except for white peace would have been acceptable. That would have been impossible for us to accept mostly for the reasons pointed out in the first paragraph of this post. Even with these terms TOP still has advantages over CnG mostly because of their huge war chest and the statistics that were shown earlier that indicates TOP has lost far less then they have dealt out in damages.

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='der_ko' date='02 March 2010 - 04:47 AM' timestamp='1267527066' post='2211179']
I don't really care either way. Our terms will not change, only your ability to pay them will and the longer you resist the harder it will be for you.
[/quote]

You ask an exorbitant amount and say you will not change them. If that's the path you wish to take then good job. I can see why NPO pounded you guys for so long. It's because you are the exact same as NPO. You are the same ilk as those you trashed for so long. Also, the tech amount asked for is ridiculous especially considering only half is payable by external tech.

Edited March 2, 2010 by DogeWilliam

[Franz Ferdinand]

[quote name='DogeWilliam' date='02 March 2010 - 09:57 PM' timestamp='1267567289' post='2211727']
You ask an exorbitant amount and say you will not change them. If that's the path you wish to take then good job. I can see why NPO pounded you guys for so long. It's because you are the exact same as NPO. You are the same ilk as those you trashed for so long. Also, the tech amount asked for is ridiculous especially considering only half is payable by external tech.
[/quote]
I find it funny that you mention Pacifica because didn't those guys help build up the Order of the Paradox while at the same time, you guys followed them through every war they were in with the exception of the Karma War and taking as much of the spoils in each of these conflicts as possible?

[TonytheTiger]

Comparing CnG/TOP conflict to NPO/beatdown wars is an unfair insult to how the NPO operated back then. The NPO was never greedy with demanding huge amounts of reps from defeated alliances, and the NPO actually beat those alliances before asking for reps.

[northstars]

This is really cute seeing as how it is TOP and co. [s]pleading[/s] [s]begging[/s] grovelling prostrate before CnG for white peace in every other thread on the boards.

Voted keep fighting just so we can keep feasting on your tears.

Edited March 2, 2010 by MNNorthStars

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010 - 05:08 PM' timestamp='1267567925' post='2211742']
Comparing CnG/TOP conflict to NPO/beatdown wars is an unfair insult to how the NPO operated back then. [b]The NPO was never greedy with demanding huge amounts of reps from defeated alliances[/b], and the NPO actually beat those alliances before asking for reps.
[/quote]
What happened to you Tony? I don't remember you sticking up for the GPA beatdown around the time it happened.

[Bob]

[quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010 - 05:08 PM' timestamp='1267567925' post='2211742']
Comparing CnG/TOP conflict to NPO/beatdown wars is an unfair insult to how the NPO operated back then. The NPO was never greedy with demanding huge amounts of reps from defeated alliances, and the NPO actually beat those alliances before asking for reps.
[/quote]
What the hell kind of..oh. You started a thread with quite possibly one the most biased polls possible. You clearly aren't an example of who we should look to for answers.

Also, jesus christ your history /sucks/.

I voted for neither, as both are untrue and quite pathetic.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Hyperbad]

[quote name='Lord Stark' date='02 March 2010 - 04:57 PM' timestamp='1267567247' post='2211721']
If we had peaced out say after one week (which is I think what you are saying we should have done?) We would have been in an even worse strategic position. CnG suffered their greatest losses in that first week because we were fighting TOP at al. mostly alone (because our allies were busy on other fronts). Even with the terms now proposed TOP would have soundly defeated us because their War Chests would have allowed every member to fully re-build and their losses would have been significantly less then ours on a whole. They would have taken an even bigger lead on us in the upper ranks which would have threatened the safety of CnG.

I think it is important to remember that unlike many terms that have been offered in previous wars we are allowing our enemies to pay half of their tech reps by purchasing tech from outside nations. This is a little harder to organize perhaps (though we know tech organization is one of TOPs specialties so I think they could handle it), it does show that though we would like to bring TOP a little bit closer to our level so they aren't in such a commanding position to threaten is in the future. However, by allowing them to purchase half of the reps from outside alliances it is clear that CnG isn't attempting to completely flatten TOP by making them pay back all of the damage that they have done. We simply want them to pay for what they have done and bring them a little bit closer to our level and then we are allowing the remainder of our losses to be provided by outside sources which can very easily be purchased with their war chests.

It is also important to note that the point at which you are saying that we could have ended this war TOP was insisting that nothing except for white peace would have been acceptable. That would have been impossible for us to accept mostly for the reasons pointed out in the first paragraph of this post. Even with these terms TOP still has advantages over CnG mostly because of their huge war chest and the statistics that were shown earlier that indicates TOP has lost far less then they have dealt out in damages.
[/quote]
I wasn't trying to assert that it was in C&G's best interest to get an earlier peace and apologize if I came off suggesting they should have peaced out earlier. Rather I'm discussing the citations of damage received throughout the war as reason for severe reparations when peace was an option for some time. I see there being legitimacy in the argument that your opponents should not be faulted when there is a swap of positions to them wishing for peace but you to continue the conflict and they perhaps should not be punished for defending themselves from that point on. Before that point is another story where you have a strong case. I don't know the specific dates of most relevance to this though besides when the NpO - \m/ conflict/front (reader choose your term) ended so again, it's possible the terms are simply reasonable.

[Steve Buscemi]

I voted for the 2nd option since TOP's pound is coming from a kitten's paw....or shall I say turtle's paw.

Edit: The TOP bawing in this thread is hilarious. The fact that TOP seems to be so quick to forget is THEY ATTACKED CnG. If they couldn't take the heat they shouldn't have attacked CnG, TOP.

I know this has been said to TOP [i]over and over[/i], but please make accurate comparisons. When you aggressively attack an entire bloc you should get very high reps. IMO, the reps amounts being thrown out are still pretty low. But this is what I expected from a aggressive alliance who demanded white peace after attacking CnG.

Now if CnG had attacked IRON/TOP/etc THEN the reps would be too high. I know TOP has a thick skull, but not even you are that stupid to not realize this.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Steve Buscemi

[Branimir]

I said in another thread, that generally speaking, until the fighting capability of an alliance isn't drained their will to surrender or surrender under harsh terms, is low.

In modern day and age, fighting capability is mostly based on warchest numbers, among other things.

Of course its a quite general and somewhat simplistic statement, but it points out a important factor in the entire picture. Especially with TOP.
So I am quite sure that in general, will to surrender in TOP is low. Surrender under harsh terms-- almost non existent. White peace, only acceptable but that is out of the question due to the other side.

Now, there is another factor here, only one countering above mentioned one, and that are alliances fighting on TOP's side which can not hold on as long as TOP can.

As TOP has still a lot of fight left in them, I am not foreseeing any kind of peace anytime soon. Is that something that the other side can live with (seeing as how they could end it all with "weakish" terms), its their decision.

[Franz Ferdinand]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' date='02 March 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1267568570' post='2211761']
I voted for the 2nd option since TOP's pound is coming from a kitten's paw....or shall I say turtle's paw.
[/quote]
It'd be more like a Sloth's Paw as Kittens are cute and Turtles are well... they can only be found exclusively at the Killer Turtle Brigade. Nevertheless, Paradoxia, just sit back and enjoy the ride.

[center][img]http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/2321/altontowersoblivion.jpg[/img][/center]

[DogeWilliam]

[quote name='Jack Diorno' date='02 March 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1267564149' post='2211651']
Hahahahaha

It hardly matters if you surrender anymore, I am enjoying slowly pulling out your claws one by one.
[/quote]

CG supports torture you heard it hear.

[Franz Ferdinand]

[quote name='DogeWilliam' date='02 March 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1267568973' post='2211774']
CG supports torture you heard it hear.
[/quote]
Just ignore him, his tools are rubber as we can't trust him with proper ones... still, he could be deadly with a Rubber Mallet... I might just need to take that off him.

[Lord Stark]

[quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1267567925' post='2211742']
Comparing CnG/TOP conflict to NPO/beatdown wars is an unfair insult to how the NPO operated back then. The NPO was never greedy with demanding huge amounts of reps from defeated alliances, and the NPO actually beat those alliances before asking for reps.
[/quote]

You aren't seeing the bigger picture. In the comparison TOP is NPO, not the alliances that got beat down. Only this beat down didn't work.

TOP is the alliance who acted like NPO. You declared an offensive war for no clear reason... that I think you expected to win. And now you will pay for it. Also as you've said it isn't a clear defeat. If we continue fighting for a few months like you seem to want to maybe it will be. I don't know. Bottom line - you tried to operate like NPO did back then and it didn't work out. And now the alliances who have been beat down and paid reps many times for no reason are in a position to increase the safety of our alliances.

You're blind if you think the biggest threat to the safety of CnG and our allies since NPO will be let off in a good enough position to hit us again in a few months. Reap what you sow.

[D34th]

I heard from some TOP members that you guys are winning so why bother to ask that?

Your question should be:

Would we give surrender terms for CnG or continue to pound them?

[Trace]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='02 March 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1267559333' post='2211574']
Good question which I hope to see some answers to, and I also have one for you if you don't mind. Even if said terms were lenient:

If MK were giving these terms, would you accept or decline? Or a better one, lets use a figurative alliance so we can avoid people speaking on behalf of official alliances as I'd like your personal view rather than MK's.

Theoretically speaking, say you are the benevolent dictator of an alliance called The Dawgz, which you were offered these terms, would you accept them or decline?
[/quote]

Well I'm glad at least someone answered the question, sorta (I mean, as best you can).

Asking MK if we'd take these terms is a little weird. I mean, we did pay somewhere in excess of 50% of our tech after the noCB war. Here we're just asking for 20% of their tech directly (which I'm going to assume is their main problem). It's a little over 10% of the tech they started with. While the numbers seem huge, there are factors to it, including the fact that they attacked us and lost, and inflation in CN. TOP can afford it, they know that, its the principle behind it I guess.

I personally, while I wouldn't be happy about it, would do what I felt is best for my alliances future. After the noCB war, most of our alliance was up in arms that we accepted those terms. However, we just decided to use it as an opportunity to show everyone how badass we were besides militarily, and get it done. Was it easy to swallow? Not at all, it hurt the pride. But we had those terms paid off in 3 months, and that wasn't even using all of our slot percentage (iirc, after the first week or two I was only contributing 3 slots/round, as were many others to fund the tech from our smaller nations). If TOP were to use 100 of their nations to send tech, they could (with 100% efficiency, which I admit is somewhat hard to achieve, but TOP is as active as us, so its doable) they could have the direct tech paid off in 5 rounds. Spread it out a bit more, and you could have it done in less. Funding the outside tech takes even less time.

Is it bad? Sure, is it the end of the world? No. I'm more than content to keep fighting, cause I know that not nearly as many folks of TOP have warchest sizes that Tony does/thinks they do. While I know C&G is willing to compromise a bit, I also know we're not willing to be talked down too much. We were attacked in clear violation of commonly accepted practices, and they failed in their attempt. We plan on having some compensation for those actions. While I do wish TOP would accept so I can begin raiding the crap out of everything, as I haven't been at this low a NS in ages, I'm more than happy to continue dropping nukes on them as well.

[Hymenbreach]

TOP should continue to teach C&G the meaning of Pyrric Victory.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Lord Stark' date='02 March 2010 - 11:27 PM' timestamp='1267569079' post='2211778']You're blind if you think the biggest threat to the safety of CnG and our allies since NPO will be let off in a good enough position to hit us again in a few months. Reap what you sow.[/quote]
I know how Mk members wanted to say how TOP members were paranoid without a reason in their perception of the level of danger CandG presented to them, but if that is so, man you are beyond paranoid.

Yes, our implied probable strength of 13mil and acute tech depravation will totally steamroll CandG and SF

[quote]We plan on having some compensation for those actions. While I do wish TOP would accept so I can begin raiding the crap out of everything, as I haven't been at this low a NS in ages, I'm more than happy to continue dropping nukes on them as well.[/quote]
Yeah, the war will continue.

[Trace]

[quote name='Branimir' date='02 March 2010 - 05:37 PM' timestamp='1267569643' post='2211797']
I know how Mk members wanted to say how TOP members were paranoid without a reason in their perception of the level of danger CandG presented to them, but if that is so, man you are beyond paranoid.

Yes, our implied probable strength of 13mil and acute tech depravation will totally steamroll CandG and SF


Yeah, the war will continue.
[/quote]

I think you misread, he said that TOP was our biggest threat since you guys (implying after karma).

[Jared]

[quote name='Alterego' date='02 March 2010 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1267565144' post='2211667']
Keep fighting until you run out of money, tech and nukes. Then they cant make any demands for tech and cash.
[/quote]
Funny you should mention that, that is one of their plans going vietTOP rather than pay us one cent in tech.
Not sure how well that plan is going to work out for them, but it sounded interesting.

[lebubu]

[quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010 - 11:08 PM' timestamp='1267567925' post='2211742']
and the NPO actually beat those alliances before asking for reps.
[/quote]

Then perhaps we should stop discussing terms, no?