Ejayrazz's Blog

And LiquidMercury.

We aren't planning anything. I can safely say that MK is no where near top of the list of alliances we hate right about now. We may have seen you as a threat and an opponent and most of your members agrees they did the same, but we did not hate you.

So why do you even bring up the 'relative advantage' then? Once the war is over it's over and unless you plan on attacking us again the 'relative advantage' doesn't matter.

Given way you are treating this war that could change however.

mmm.. I do love those threats. You guys attacked us out of the blue so what exactly are you threatening to do? Do it again? I sort of count on it.

Well, I'm going to love seeing how you pry anything for our cold dead hands. Not only you won't pry anything but you will lose hundreds of thousands of tech trying. And not get a cent from us. That is unless you stop with unreasonable crippling terms. We are not in a vacuum, while rest of the world grows CnG can try to contain us. I am going to enjoy watching alliances start to dwarf you and your position weaken day by day. All because you could not see that it is in your interest to end the war, end the cycle and try to find a good solution for both sides.

Problem in your equation is that even if we are completely destroyed, including all our tech and infra, we will still have all our wonders and all we will need is 1000 infra (bought for 5million) and some spare cash to buy up nukes. Even a 0 tech nuke does 150 damage and keeps someone in nuclear anarchy. You've seen Aircastle deploy on 3 targets each, now imagine 200 nations did that. Do you really want to make us into your arch-enemy? So we can either find an end to the conflict which won't leave bitter taste in peoples mouths or we can keep this up hurting both of us a lot. You can disperse the damage but the losses are still there.

The prying comment was a reference to a earlier post (not made by you). I'm fully aware that if this war goes on for any prolonged time we're not very likely to gain anything from you. Guess what though. We didn't start this war to gain reps. In fact we didn't start this war at all. You attacked us and you don't get to decide how the war ends. If you want to go vieTOP in stubborn refusal to pay for the damage you did to us then I for one won't shed any tears.

Why do you say the terms are harsh? Why didn't TOP-IRON and their allies thought about this before commencing an unprovoked and aggressive attack?

You pay for what you do!

What shall be CnG's payment then?

It amazes me that people are upset by this. This could be the first time in history that reparations are demanded by the aggrieved party, and not the agressor. The first time in history reparations are actually deserved. Top tried to knock out CnG, failed, and how has to pay for it. How is this anything but not completely fair?

edit: not to mention all alliances mentioned can easily afford them.

What shall be CnG's payment then?

umm.. what exactly was our crime this war? Getting attacked? Not giving the people that attacked us white peace?

No really I don't get what you're going for here.

So why do you even bring up the 'relative advantage' then? Once the war is over it's over and unless you plan on attacking us again the 'relative advantage' doesn't matter.

Sorry to cut in, but if you actually believe that, it would be a very naive view of the world. Every alliance is constantly comparing itself to possible opponents, that does not mean it's intending to fight them. Planning for contingencies is important: if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

For example; the US had "Plan Gold" early last century for a possible war with France, at the time its oldest ally. Obviously there was no intent or desire for such a war, but merely the recognition that political movements (it was an unstable era) allow for a small possibility of conflict, and proper precautions have to be taken.

So yes, the relative advantage does matter, because this is CN, there is a 90% probability of a new war within the next year, and TOP does not have the closest MDP ties to your guys, which makes it more likely that it would be on a different side of such a conflict. That does not bely some intent to fight; merely a recognition of how the world moves. Simple logic.

Sorry to cut in, but if you actually believe that, it would be a very naive view of the world. Every alliance is constantly comparing itself to possible opponents, that does not mean it's intending to fight them. Planning for contingencies is important: if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

So yes, the relative advantage does matter, because this is CN, there is a 90% probability of a new war within the next year, and TOP does not have the closest MDP ties to your guys, which makes it more likely that it would be on a different side of such a conflict. That does not bely some intent to fight; merely a recognition of how the world moves. Simple logic.

The relative advantage only comes into to play if they plan to do something like they did this war and try to hit us when our treaty partners are tied up elsewhere.

The strength we gain from the reps will matter very little to them in some coming war in other cases since there are quite alot of alliances on bob that's not in cng. Now don't get me wrong I don't mind if they stay in this war until ZT when they're all in bill-lock but I think the 'relative' strength they get towards the rest of the world will be much much worse in that scenario.

Sorry to cut in, but if you actually believe that, it would be a very naive view of the world. Every alliance is constantly comparing itself to possible opponents, that does not mean it's intending to fight them. Planning for contingencies is important: if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.

For example; the US had "Plan Gold" early last century for a possible war with France, at the time its oldest ally. Obviously there was no intent or desire for such a war, but merely the recognition that political movements (it was an unstable era) allow for a small possibility of conflict, and proper precautions have to be taken.

So yes, the relative advantage does matter, because this is CN, there is a 90% probability of a new war within the next year, and TOP does not have the closest MDP ties to your guys, which makes it more likely that it would be on a different side of such a conflict. That does not bely some intent to fight; merely a recognition of how the world moves. Simple logic.

So what you're saying is that you should screw everybody and not get what you deserve because you want to be the best? Well !@#$, sorry ODN, you get no reps from this because MK has to be better prepared to fight against you.

nm

Please take back Shardoon of Arient, who is currently hiding in Aloha pretending he was never in TOP.

Former Citadel alliances aren't the only ones that have tools to track TOP nations. Nations that are TOP members attempting to hide on other AA's will be found.

Those of us who attacked IRON shouldn't be requesting reparations, they certainly did not do enough damage by themselves to warrant reps. CnG, of course, deserve reparations but not those who came to defend them. The honorable thing to do, if indeed these alliances want their pound of tech, would be to set up a tech dealing agreement only.

There. I said it.

"Amazingly redundant. So far I have heard "NPO has given worse," well who cares? It doesn't mean these aren't ridiculous just because others have been worse. I have heard this would take at least 100 days to pay off (Someone calculate it), let alone people leaving, not being able to pay, or generally refusing to. I am sure we will be losing some people after this, great, just what this game needs. "I love your tears," I am sure that will be mentioned by one egotistical idiot who adds nothing civil to this discussion, mine as well mention it in the initial post."

Actually, no...the NPO has not given worse.

So is this the kinder, gentler post-Karma world?

Hypocrites, all of you.

Look, offer is 350k to your alliances (meaning 700k net loss for TOP compared to your side). This means that if we accept the terms we will effectively lose all our tech without causing any damage.

Not only that but our slots will be locked with reparation payments for unknown amount of time (depending on how much tech CnG can absorb) and for whole that time we would be completely banned from buying tech for our own growth.

So, tell me, we should give up all of our tech (because by giving 350k to your side we are losing 700k in relative advantage) and cause no damage?

So, you think you'll get off with easy terms after you've used all that tech to cause damage and there's nothing left? If things worked like that, reparations would be pointless because no alliance would ever accept any. Newsflash: tech can be purchased and sent away quite cheaply if you have none. By being zero-teched and then having to pay a crapload of reps you'll be pretty much out of the game for years. Enjoy, I guess?

You forgot MK's massive WRC count. Even GGA barely has the number MK had back then.

Tech counts and WRCs, and infra damage, are irrelevant when MK's strategy was to run NPO nations to 20 day collections and hope that they deleted (which many did).

C&Gers who claim to be welcoming a VietTOP should remember that NPO's treatment of FAN was a major plank in why everyone hated them, even though FAN started it – and with WRCs and MPs, TOP are in a far better position to do serious long term damage, too. Peace is (as it has been since day 2) the best option for both of you, and you need to come up with reasonable terms instead of trying to push overly harsh ones.

As a note, I don't think those total reps even add up to CnG's total tech loss in the war at this point.

Well, that's because C&G decided to roll for a month before talking peace, but again it shows that you should come to peace as soon as possible. If you'd 'let them off' with a termless peace on day 2, you'd be in a better situation today even than if TOP accepted these terms.

Tech counts and WRCs, and infra damage, are irrelevant when MK's strategy was to run NPO nations to 20 day collections and hope that they deleted (which many did).

C&Gers who claim to be welcoming a VietTOP should remember that NPO's treatment of FAN was a major plank in why everyone hated them, even though FAN started it – and with WRCs and MPs, TOP are in a far better position to do serious long term damage, too. Peace is (as it has been since day 2) the best option for both of you, and you need to come up with reasonable terms instead of trying to push overly harsh ones.

1) Didn't the viet-FAN thing start on a minor term breaking event by FAN (edited to FAN, I accidentally had TOP before...)? If so do you really think they deserved what they got? Going rogue on an entire bloc is on a completely different level.

2) TOP has better stats than FAN did back then, but the rest of the people fighting them have better stats than NPO and crew back then. The ratio might not be quite as high but it's more than enough.

I wasn't in MK during the no CB war so I don't know their strategy. I would say that what you mentioned was on their agenda but do you actually think that was all they planned to do? They basically declared on as many nations without SDIs as possible, which was a lot back then. I don't think weak-willed nations were their only, or even primary targets. It was nations that they could do the most damage to in a 1v6 scenario.

"Amazingly redundant. So far I have heard "NPO has given worse," well who cares? It doesn't mean these aren't ridiculous just because others have been worse. I have heard this would take at least 100 days to pay off (Someone calculate it), let alone people leaving, not being able to pay, or generally refusing to. I am sure we will be losing some people after this, great, just what this game needs. "I love your tears," I am sure that will be mentioned by one egotistical idiot who adds nothing civil to this discussion, mine as well mention it in the initial post."

Actually, no...the NPO has not given worse.

So is this the kinder, gentler post-Karma world?

Hypocrites, all of you.

That is in reference to the actual terms given to NPO, not terms NPO have giving..which is another argument for a different blog/thread.

umm.. what exactly was our crime this war? Getting attacked? Not giving the people that attacked us white peace?

No really I don't get what you're going for here.

CnG has committed a great number of transgressions against The Order which were just cause for this war. What then, I ask, shall be CnG's punishment for these grievous acts?

1) Didn't the viet-FAN thing start on a minor term breaking event by FAN (edited to FAN, I accidentally had TOP before...)? If so do you really think they deserved what they got? Going rogue on an entire bloc is on a completely different level.

VietFAN (the first one) started when FAN attacked Nordreich, a NPO protectorate – effectively going rogue on a protectorate of the bloc they were part of. That didn't end until the Unjust War, several months later, and is rolled in with VietFAN II which indeed started by NPO not following the FAN peace terms. But people were complaining about the unjust Initiative still keeping FAN down in the first one.

2) TOP has better stats than FAN did back then, but the rest of the people fighting them have better stats than NPO and crew back then. The ratio might not be quite as high but it's more than enough.

More than enough to roll TOP? Of course. But TOP can keep a lot of nuclear nations at 20k or more NS and make life very unpleasant for the less well prepared C&G nations for a lot longer than FAN could have.

I wasn't in MK during the no CB war so I don't know their strategy. I would say that what you mentioned was on their agenda but do you actually think that was all they planned to do?

Well I know they deployed in several waves to keep nations pinned in nuclear anarchy to deletion, and they were basically the first alliance to push things that far (though it's since become standard).

Why, why, why, is anyone but C&G asking for reps?

VietFAN (the first one) started when FAN attacked Nordreich, a NPO protectorate – effectively going rogue on a protectorate of the bloc they were part of. That didn't end until the Unjust War, several months later, and is rolled in with VietFAN II which indeed started by NPO not following the FAN peace terms. But people were complaining about the unjust Initiative still keeping FAN down in the first one.

But the first one isn't what people refer to when they hate the NPO for it. It's the 2nd one that got dragged on for nearly 2 years for little reasoning.

More than enough to roll TOP? Of course. But TOP can keep a lot of nuclear nations at 20k or more NS and make life very unpleasant for the less well prepared C&G nations for a lot longer than FAN could have.

They won't be fighting under-prepared nations though. We'll decide who faces who.

CnG has committed a great number of transgressions against The Order which were just cause for this war. What then, I ask, shall be CnG's punishment for these grievous acts?

Lol what?

You might need to break out the list of these "transgressions". If nothing else, it'd be interesting to see the definition of the word that you learned...

By the way, random posts from us amounting to "lol TOP" don't count as transgressions. We're not playing for feelings here...

I think the official word on this is "NUTS".

But the first one isn't what people refer to when they hate the NPO for it. It's the 2nd one that got dragged on for nearly 2 years for little reasoning.

You see, you just conflated the two, just like everyone else. It's only 'nearly two years' if you include the whole time from FAN's attack on NoR (June 2007) to the end of VietFAN II (May 2009). People talk of 'VietFAN' and they are referring to the whole concept of FAN being 'kept down by the hegemony'. And people were hating the NPO for it before the second half was started. Keeping people down for a long time, even if it is on the face of it justifiable, quickly becomes a major source of negative PR.

They won't be fighting under-prepared nations though. We'll decide who faces who.

I doubt you can pin 200 nations in the lower-mid tier in war and anarchy continually for very long. People get sick of fighting nuclear turtles pretty quickly. You can keep it up for a while by telling your membership it's a fight against an evil enemy which wants to destroy you, but C&G membership is a lot more OWF-active and informed than the Pacific BR, and they'll see pretty quickly that it's ridiculous to claim that of a force which you outnumber 10:1.

CnG has committed a great number of transgressions against The Order which were just cause for this war. What then, I ask, shall be CnG's punishment for these grievous acts?

Wait, what?

You see, you just conflated the two, just like everyone else. It's only 'nearly two years' if you include the whole time from FAN's attack on NoR (June 2007) to the end of VietFAN II (May 2009). People talk of 'VietFAN' and they are referring to the whole concept of FAN being 'kept down by the hegemony'. And people were hating the NPO for it before the second half was started. Keeping people down for a long time, even if it is on the face of it justifiable, quickly becomes a major source of negative PR.

When did the second half start? I was under the impression it was late 2007 (the part people hated the NPO for). I certainly don't remember a lot of out-of-the-ordinary hate towards NPO for the FAN conflict during June-late 2007 which is when they had a semi-valid reason for attacking them. It was when FAN broke terms (in a very insignificant manner iirc) and NPO attacked them again for it that the hatred arose. If I'm incorrect on my history I apologize, I'm terrible at remembering things that happened more than a year and a half ago in CN.

I doubt you can pin 200 nations in the lower-mid tier in war and anarchy continually for very long. People get sick of fighting nuclear turtles pretty quickly. You can keep it up for a while by telling your membership it's a fight against an evil enemy which wants to destroy you, but C&G membership is a lot more OWF-active and informed than the Pacific BR, and they'll see pretty quickly that it's ridiculous to claim that of a force which you outnumber 10:1.

An evil enemy that wants to destroy us is still an evil enemy that wants to destroy us even if they're outnumbered 10:1. We know how capable TOP is if they have their tech levels. There aren't really any false claims we could be holding in front of our membership's eyes that would make them lose interest. We all see it this way, even if you don't.