Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    38
  • comments
    428
  • views
    42,734

Why War means Peace: How NPO is preventing peace talks

The Zigur

2,788 views

484828_677974805576455_1135853998_n.jpg

Over the last couple weeks, NSO coalition has raised objections over the fact that Polar coalition desires to achieve total victory. Indeed, NSO coalition was defeated before the war ever began. While the coalition was lead to an overwhelming military victory, several political developments have occured. Pacifica has established themselves as the true power and intelligence behind NSO, and has assumed a leadership role amongst their "coalition." This has extended to hiding behind their meatshields:

NSO has suffered a 60% score reduction, 66% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 1500 tech

NG has suffered a 60% score reduction, 69% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 2500 tech*

TLR has suffered a 50% score reduction, 66% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 1866 tech

NPO has only suffered a 40% score reduction, 50% NS reduction, and average tech per member sits at 2100 tech

*NG began the war with a much higher ave NS and tech, and also lost 40 members such as Franz Ferdinand

NPO has suffered the least of the core NSO aligned alliances. For NPO to be reduced tech-wise to NSO's comparable level, for example, it would need to lose roughly 180,000 more tech; to suffer a comparable score loss as either NSO or NG, it would have to lose ten more points. As one NPO member also noted, much of NPO's actual NS loss was really infra being rebuilt for nuclear warfare, which renders NS loss alone a useless figure.

This has led to an interesting dilemma. Most alliances (besides the obvious ODN) have bled more than their friends in NPO. This is, as Dajobo noted, NPO's usual tactic, employed in the Equilibrium war. With NPO's meatshields taking the damage, it is clear NPO desires a political victory by trying to force Polar coalition to allow a simultaneous surrender before reductions have been completed. This is achieved by leveraging all their direct and indirect allies into continuing the war despite lenient terms being offered and the precedent set by TPF.

So we enter into something of a paradox. Polar coalition cannot allow NPO to go unreduced, and NPO will place pressure on their allies. This leaves the ball in NPO's court. They could chose to:

1. Allow their allies to surrender, and submit to terms when the time is appropriate.

2. Engage their peacemode nations into the war and lose some of that hidden tech.

3. Drag on the war in the hopes Polar tires first.

Obviously, only the first two actually help their allies, while the third benefits NPO and their political machinations. Fortunately, all three options, including the third still works for Polar coalition.

If NSO coalition continues in their obstinacy, this conflict will stretch into the long war. This would have several unique benefits. Aside from AZTEC, there exists three primary power spheres: Polarsphere, Platysphere and Pacifica. The longer this war is waged, the more the coalition will be viewed as a single political entity. The spirit of war will again become engrained into the mentality of the average player, and new players joining the game will be introduced to the energy and vigor of war culture. Especially in the eyes of the new player, war will become the normal state of affairs.

As warfare becomes continuous, it also becomes less dangerous. With both Polarsphere and Platysphere united by war, there is little reason for people to fear: there are already global victors and losers. Indeed, it may be in the interests of the major world powers for war to continue, as the war would indefinitely preserve the new power structure. The war, being continuous, would turn into a peace mode siege in which members of the coalition would come under occasional attack from terrorists, but a new normalcy would set in.

The sooner NPO and their cohorts realize that they cannot win politically, the sooner we can have peace. But should they not, well war really isnt so bad is it?



73 Comments


Recommended Comments



Has it perhaps passed your mind that our allies are here because they want to be, not because the NPO is forcing them to?

We are not preventing anyone from ending or leaving the war. The Polar coalition is, by trying to cripple the alliance our allies are fighting to protect. The idea of "well, if you just give in and die there will be nothing left for your allies to protect" is silly.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Nobody wants NPO to die, least of all me. Is NSO or NG dead? Of course not, yet NPO hasnt even been reduced to that level and you are being dramatic.

You could always just lead pages worth of pm nations into glory like IAA did. I did that even knowing we would never get peace. NPO wont be disbanded or EZId. What is there to be afraid of?

Allow your men to fight with honor Letum.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Sorry, I wasn't aware that 9m of NS damage was caused by men that fought without honor.

This war continues because the Polar coalition is targeting us, not because our allies want to defend us from damage (which is the entire point of an alliance - if people should just give in and "accept a damage quota", then there would be no point in calling in allies in the first place since the damage quota would be achieved faster without them.)

Then again, for a coalition that publicly beats up its own alliances like Valhalla that question their decisions, I guess the concept of allies defending us out of their own free will and being free to make their own decisions at anytime they want might be a bit difficult to understand.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I see alot of NPO in here. I was once a Pacifican myself, but over the years NPO lost their philosophical foundation. I encourage you to read Vladimir's works, although I dont know if that is encouraged by todays leadership.

Don't pretend to know us.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Yeah, it's funny to see not only TL but others on the NpO/TOP side suggesting that NPO is forcing its allies to continue the fight. I have no inside knowledge, but if NPO (or NSO) was my ally, I'd be going all out for them and wouldn't consider giving up until we both agreed upon an agreeable exit.

Then again, propaganda is just that -- propaganda. I'm just never convinced that propaganda is all that useful in situations like this in CN. It seems that most everyone has either picked a side OR can look on at the events unfolding from a neutral, clear-headed standpoint, such as my AZTEC cohorts and other uninvolved entities (and as such are not swayed by pliable stats or unfounded assertions -- not that it'd matter even if they were because they're neutral and/or uninvolved).

I suppose, though, there's always the hope of being able to render one's enemy dispirited to the point of wanting out at all costs.

Share this comment


Link to comment

last I checked the conversation with the polar leadership with pacifica was everyone else gets peace that is at war on pacifica's side and then there will be a chance for pacifica to talk terms.. not actually get peace.. but to start to talk terms... what type of BS is that anyways???

Share this comment


Link to comment

Sorry, I wasn't aware that 9m of NS damage was caused by men that fought without honor.

This war continues because the Polar coalition is targeting us, not because our allies want to defend us from damage (which is the entire point of an alliance - if people should just give in and "accept a damage quota", then there would be no point in calling in allies in the first place since the damage quota would be achieved faster without them.)

Then again, for a coalition that publicly beats up its own alliances like Valhalla that question their decisions, I guess the concept of allies defending us out of their own free will and being free to make their own decisions at anytime they want might be a bit difficult to understand.

As I discussed in my blog post, NS is not relevant, especially since much of it is cheap infra rebuilt for nuking.

But seriously, find new material. Of course NPO is being targeted, but the reasons why are obvious. NPO is shirking the damage and hiding their top nations in peace mode, while their allies burn. Why try to spin up some elaborate plot to destroy the NPO when it's obvious?

I could just as easily spin a tale of how NPO wants permawar as part of a grand Francoist experiment.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Ivan Moldavi? Is that you, my Lord?

Unlike you, Tywin, I do not suffer from the urge to cling to my past ego. Look at all the memorable things you have done! Are you a wizard?

Share this comment


Link to comment

Unlike you, Tywin, I do not suffer from the urge to cling to my past ego. Look at all the memorable things you have done! Are you a wizard?

I hope you realize I was joking.

Share this comment


Link to comment

If Twyin is Ivan, he's a sad shadow of his past.

I credit TOP, the group he belongs to.. with two things..

1. Being fairly good at indirect warfare and getting others to do their dirty work, managing their pacing in warfare.

2. Being to cowardly to fight on even terms and still losing when they do allow a reasonably even conflict in which they are directly involved.

Share this comment


Link to comment
I credit TOP, the group he belongs to.. with two things..

I'd just as happily use the Polaris symbol, but people would notice the change. I wish there was a way to implement a formal coalition pip or symbol.

Share this comment


Link to comment

This wasn't well thought out for three reasons

1. NPO's allies have already been told we can leave without any ramifications. We are here because we want to be, not because we are meatshields.

2. Larger/More Competent Alliances lose NS slower for obvious reasons. Ignoring this makes your analysis faulty.

3. There is no rational for why NPO is being targetted given beyond they used peace mode a lot. I don't see NpO whining about TOP's use of peace mode and yet when its NPO its a crime.

Share this comment


Link to comment

"1. Allow their allies to surrender, and submit to terms when the time is appropriate."

You just made my point for me we've already told our allies if it's in their best interests to bow out to do so, TPF did, the absolute bumbling your coalition has done to engage our coalition, and really pressure us and our allies to even consider any terms at all has strengthened the resolve of the coalition and pulled in more periphery alliances like R&R

Was talking about this on IRC, when someone is rallying the troops and says in their speech "Any man who doesn't want to fight can go home," do you think anyone will actually go home?

Share this comment


Link to comment

This wasn't well thought out for three reasons

1. NPO's allies have already been told we can leave without any ramifications. We are here because we want to be, not because we are meatshields.

2. Larger/More Competent Alliances lose NS slower for obvious reasons. Ignoring this makes your analysis faulty.

3. There is no rational for why NPO is being targetted given beyond they used peace mode a lot. I don't see NpO whining about TOP's use of peace mode and yet when its NPO its a crime.

I didn't include ODN in the blog post because (a) ODN isn't allied to NSO and didnt take part in the conspiracy and (b) most of your nations are in peace mode.

That aside, I explained that NS is not a useful indicator, and which is why i went into score and tech reduction.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Was talking about this on IRC, when someone is rallying the troops and says in their speech "Any man who doesn't want to fight can go home," do you think anyone will actually go home?

My point is we were already in the position your coalition wants us to end up in this war in the DH/NPO War where we had to fight against a much superior coalition with no support from allies. Since then we have developed relationships in FA that actually matter and have formed alliances based on those relationships of trust which have been solidified on the battlefield in past wars.

That being the case our friends and allies are not willing to allow what happened to us in DH/NPO happen again, because we are allies and we support each other. So your side insisting we're playing puppetmaster and holding our allies "hostage" in this war just isn't the case and has been proven by TPF's actions and the rest of our allies' actions.

At least in DH/NPO they were honest and simply said "We Hate You" for their CB it's at least honest.

And again I ask... Where did the "This war is about NSO not NPO" rhetoric go?

Share this comment


Link to comment

The fact that you are building "meaningful relationships" is of even more concern, because that just means more problems down the road and an inevitable repeat of the same doomed scheming that started this war. A good war is about neutralizing a threat via reduction. If an enemy is a threat, it hasnt been reduced enough.

"Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content.

But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life." Sun Tzu

Share this comment


Link to comment

Your whining about us not taking enough damage isn't really doing much and admittedly from your own coalition, talking with nations I am currently fighting, your coalition is doing an atrocious job of keeping up the fight and truly pressing your advantage. Personally up until yesterday I hadn't had a defensive war for over a month. It really is rather pathetic how little actual fighting we're seeing from your coalition on our front of this war.

Edit for spelling.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Trust me, I understand the grunts perspective, but strategy is partially about distributing resources correctly. Why waste energy on defeated shells of nations considering the real problems are in PM. Theres no need to grind pebbles into sand. Regardless of Pacifican fantasies, your meaningful nations are completely beseiged.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Was talking about this on IRC, when someone is rallying the troops and says in their speech "Any man who doesn't want to fight can go home," do you think anyone will actually go home?

So, when someone is rallying the troops and doesn't use coercion, but rather appeals to their honour and camraderie, to stay and fight, this is morally wrong? You know, some people like to have meaningful relations with allies, that go beyond mere practicality.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Trust me, I understand the grunts perspective, but strategy is partially about distributing resources correctly. Why waste energy on defeated shells of nations considering the real problems are in PM. Theres no need to grind pebbles into sand. Regardless of Pacifican fantasies, your meaningful nations are completely beseiged.

I'm a little more than just a "grunt" but you keep thinking I'm just that that's fine. I'm explaining to you how the last time these sort of demands were placed on us, Pacifica, in DH/NPO. At the time we had to accept the terms because absolutely no one was supporting us in the war it was us against DH, FAN, and NoR. We actually build our nations to fight those sort of wars because we have regularly found ourselves fighting in major conflicts with people shouting down the ebil NPO whether it's for the way we treated other alliances, or how we choose to play CN (ie our use of banks).

Since DH we've been able to build relationships with other alliances so that we wouldn't be forced into the same position, and yet still at this point your coalition is still trying to force us into a similar position with NPO having actual allies who we've fought alongside and supported, and who we support and go to war alongside in return, as we are doing for NSO in this war.

So now by "besieging" our "meaningful" nations you're going to war us like we warred FAN before Karma? Last time I checked we already paid for in Karma and the reps that followed. Once again a reason why our allies choose to fight alongside us because it's ridiculous, and you're making yourself look more laughable in the process by trying to make an argument that doesn't hold water on your terms.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...