My opinion on the war, the CB, and assorted other things.

[Ivan V]

what do you think of the CB, let us discuss

Sorry for being a little late, lol.

What I think of the CB is that it probably has a few too many holes to be solid, not to mention that it includes some super-botched plan that didn't end up harming them anyways. ZH ended this on their own accord before TPF was about to get peace, and it's not like TPF could tell them that they can't do that (i.e. TPF acknowledged the plan to be over once ZH halted it). Diplomacy should have been used first in regards to this.

Since Athens did find out only days before they declared war, they should have grilled TPF's government on it in diplomacy and ask for concessions considering it involved an incident months before during the Karma War; that the plan really came to naught so diplomacy was warranted and reps and a sort of apology for the scheme would have been in order rather than an instant DoW. If mhawk and TPF gov refused to take the steps to apologize and amend the situation over the little conspiracy they had talked about, then Athens could threaten them with war, of course. Athens could have DoWed on TPF with evidence that mhawk defied them in diplomatic talks concerning this little incident if things went that path; it would have made a brand-new CB that would be all the more concrete and less !@#$%^&* IMO. If diplomatic talks were used before concerning ZH, though, I doubt war would have happened and TPF might have apologized and offered reps or some other concession to those that felt that they were wronged.

Also, the fact that ZH didn't present this information on the supposed TPF discussion of the plan when they signed a protectorate with Athens makes ZH look a little shady in themselves, and Athens probably should have questioned them as well for not bringing this up earlier. I wouldn't trust a protectorate if they held back on this sort of information until well after I signed a protectorate with them.

That's my personal thoughts on it anyway.

[angryraccoon]

Sorry for being a little late, lol.

What I think of the CB is that it probably has a few too many holes to be solid, not to mention that it includes some super-botched plan that didn't end up harming them anyways. ZH ended this on their own accord before TPF was about to get peace, and it's not like TPF could tell them that they can't do that (i.e. TPF acknowledged the plan to be over once ZH halted it). Diplomacy should have been used first in regards to this.

Since Athens did find out only days before they declared war, they should have grilled TPF's government on it in diplomacy and ask for concessions considering it involved an incident months before during the Karma War; that the plan really came to naught so diplomacy was warranted and reps and a sort of apology for the scheme would have been in order rather than an instant DoW. If mhawk and TPF gov refused to take the steps to apologize and amend the situation over the little conspiracy they had talked about, then Athens could threaten them with war, of course. Athens could have DoWed on TPF with evidence that mhawk defied them in diplomatic talks concerning this little incident if things went that path; it would have made a brand-new CB that would be all the more concrete and less !@#$%^&* IMO. If diplomatic talks were used before concerning ZH, though, I doubt war would have happened and TPF might have apologized and offered reps or some other concession to those that felt that they were wronged.

Also, the fact that ZH didn't present this information on the supposed TPF discussion of the plan when they signed a protectorate with Athens makes ZH look a little shady in themselves, and Athens probably should have questioned them as well for not bringing this up earlier. I wouldn't trust a protectorate if they held back on this sort of information until well after I signed a protectorate with them.

That's my personal thoughts on it anyway.

I respect your opinion even though I may not fully agree. It is nice that you acknowledge that MHawk and ZH planned it as the logs and evidence clearly show.

This is something that TPF and MHawk wont even do.

[Bob Janova]

Using a legitimate in game tactic is totally different from spying on another alliances forums.

EZI is in game. Signing a treaty is not in game. I don't think that is a very good way of determining what is acceptable. (OOC: as long as it doesn't involve OOC attacks like DoS or password hacking on a forum.)

[bros]

Sorry for being a little late, lol.

What I think of the CB is that it probably has a few too many holes to be solid, not to mention that it includes some super-botched plan that didn't end up harming them anyways. ZH ended this on their own accord before TPF was about to get peace, and it's not like TPF could tell them that they can't do that (i.e. TPF acknowledged the plan to be over once ZH halted it). Diplomacy should have been used first in regards to this.

Since Athens did find out only days before they declared war, they should have grilled TPF's government on it in diplomacy and ask for concessions considering it involved an incident months before during the Karma War; that the plan really came to naught so diplomacy was warranted and reps and a sort of apology for the scheme would have been in order rather than an instant DoW. If mhawk and TPF gov refused to take the steps to apologize and amend the situation over the little conspiracy they had talked about, then Athens could threaten them with war, of course. Athens could have DoWed on TPF with evidence that mhawk defied them in diplomatic talks concerning this little incident if things went that path; it would have made a brand-new CB that would be all the more concrete and less !@#$%^&* IMO. If diplomatic talks were used before concerning ZH, though, I doubt war would have happened and TPF might have apologized and offered reps or some other concession to those that felt that they were wronged.

Also, the fact that ZH didn't present this information on the supposed TPF discussion of the plan when they signed a protectorate with Athens makes ZH look a little shady in themselves, and Athens probably should have questioned them as well for not bringing this up earlier. I wouldn't trust a protectorate if they held back on this sort of information until well after I signed a protectorate with them.

That's my personal thoughts on it anyway.

The CB is a bit flimsy, but it is better than some in CN. Such as the one on FARK in GW2 "we don't like you so lets kill your alliance"

EZI is in game. Signing a treaty is not in game. I don't think that is a very good way of determining what is acceptable. (OOC: as long as it doesn't involve OOC attacks like DoS or password hacking on a forum.)

Now you are just taking my argument and applying it as if it is not flexible in any way, shape or form.

[Bob Janova]

I am pointing out that the bolded part of your argument is effectively meaningless. What makes one tactic 'legitimate' and another not is nothing to do with whether it's possible to do it from your nation screen.

[Sir Paul]

For a fact, I know that TPF breathed Athen's air. That clearly makes them the agressors.

[NoFish]

It wasn't started over NPO nuking VE either, but that didn't stop NPO getting peace after nuking VE, and not being rolled for nuking VE 6 months later. Or if you're going to play the 'but that's out in the open' card, it wasn't started over IRON spying away Ragnarok's nukes, but that didn't stop it from happening or IRON from getting peace. Acts of war committed during a war are not then later used for a CB to open a new war – except in this case by Athens, RoK and GOD.

Being at war does not excuse you for acts against alliances you're not at war with. If that were the case I could just go around nuking anyone I felt like until the war was over.

Edited January 3, 2010 by NoFish

[bros]

For a fact, I know that TPF breathed Athen's air. That clearly makes them the agressors.

my god.

[wickedj]

Being at war does not excuse you for acts against alliances you're not at war with. If that were the case I could just go around nuking anyone I felt like until the war was over.

We arent suppose to do that? DAMMIT i got lied to

[Branimir]

Being at war does not excuse you for acts against alliances you're not at war with. If that were the case I could just go around nuking anyone I felt like until the war was over.

I hate to repeat my self, but what can one do against broken records,...

This is something I posted in a similar argument:

"Karma" alliances were assigned who to hit by who can they hit the best. Because assessment who is the best choice to hit TPF was as such, for all intends and purposes they were (as we were) in a war with all of you as you were a side united in taking us down coordinating your efforts the way you did. TPF went for the core of your "coagulation".

Victorious "karma" leaders were kind to, since the end of that war half a year ago, elaborate more on to how they operated.

It seems that, that "coagulation" ( ) formed with a uniting goal coordinated on a common board and irc chans aimed at destruction of the side they called "hegemony", where TPF was.

How those "karma" alliances deemed fit to deploy their forces to best hit certain parts of the "hegemony" was since then, explained. That is a tactical issue. What matters is that the side of "karma" united in their goal of destruction of "hegemony"was in its entire entity at war with the side of "hegemony".

One small example how unified "karma" side is unified-- NPOs reps got spread out to MK, for "historical injustices", but not to,..ehmm, FAN or GPA, etc. (also "historical injustices" cited against the NPO from the "karma" side) since obviously enough--- they weren't a part of this "karma" side.

Though you can repeat whatever nonsense you deem fit to try to save your hilarious CB.

Edited January 3, 2010 by Branimir

[Bob Janova]

Being at war does not excuse you for acts against alliances you're not at war with

This has really been the central core of the argument – whether you take a strict DoW-only view of wars in a global war, or whether you acknowledge the truth that it is a coalition v coalition affair and your argument is, at best, a technicality. Representatives of Athens were in the joint coordination channels and forums that managed all the fronts, along with the rest of us – and I'm sure that the Hegemony did the same thing. (We all saw the logs on the first day.)

At least in the BLEU war, in game wars, spy ops and intel were all shared around across 'front lines'. In Karma, DoWs were more tightly controlled, but I expect that spy ops and intel were shared between alliances.

[HellAngel]

Thanks bros, i totally agree with you. I also dont think the CB is a lie, it's just a pretty !@#$%* reason to go to war over. In all other occassions this would have ended in paying some reps and be done with it.

Please remind me to not look funny at Athens, they might think im trying to spy.

[bros]

This has really been the central core of the argument – whether you take a strict DoW-only view of wars in a global war, or whether you acknowledge the truth that it is a coalition v coalition affair and your argument is, at best, a technicality. Representatives of Athens were in the joint coordination channels and forums that managed all the fronts, along with the rest of us – and I'm sure that the Hegemony did the same thing. (We all saw the logs on the first day.)

At least in the BLEU war, in game wars, spy ops and intel were all shared around across 'front lines'. In Karma, DoWs were more tightly controlled, but I expect that spy ops and intel were shared between alliances.

There were two fronts to the coalition, the front that fought NPO and the front that MK was a part of. Neither had a part in each others peace talks

[Haflinger]

You are once again mistaken. President Magee joined Ragnarok sometime before November 3rd 2008 and remained there for the entire time Rish was a Triumvir.

On or before July 1st 2008, Rishnokof was Ragnarok Lord of Information.

Or do you have to be triumvir/emperor to be considered government in Ragnarok?

[Cobalt]

On or before July 1st 2008, Rishnokof was Ragnarok Lord of Information.

Or do you have to be triumvir/emperor to be considered government in Ragnarok?

The horse. It died. Stop beating it.

[Haflinger]

The horse. It died. Stop beating it.

I would, but people keep on "correcting" me.

[Cortath]

The horsemeat doesn't get really tender unless you beat it a lot.

[bros]

The horsemeat doesn't get really tender unless you beat it a lot.

But if you beat the meat too much, something may tear

[Learz]

Preventing derailment by responding in this thread

you were gov on the other side. just because you are gov does not mean you are not biased. Hoo and others on SG's side stated that the intention of the war was never to draw anyone else in, though it was taken into concern that others would be drawn in. i trust your word when it comes to ya'lls side but honestly, the fact that you did not state the simple fact that this war was fought because Athens/RoK felt they had been attacked by TPF and thus GOD and \m/ joined to help them out, shows that you are biased at least when it comes to SG's side.

Hoo and others on SG's side stated that the intention of the war was never to draw anyone else in, though it was taken into concern that others would be drawn in.

I said it somewhere else, but if you attack someone, you should expect to be fighting their treaty partners. Given that those 4 alliances jumped in swinging, it was their clear intention to NOT have a diplomatic resolution but to start a mid-to-large scale war. This, combined with the fact of not only them but their immediate allies (who were mobilized and waiting for the word to attack) continued to mock TPF's allies for not defending them. If they didn't want it to escalate, they should have 1) not attacked 2) not attacked with overwhelming firepower and numbers, ensuring a response, and 3) not goaded TPF's allies into attacking.

As to the enternal debate over whether TPF's were considered "aggression" or not, I leave to others.

[Dochartaigh]

Preventing derailment by responding in this thread

I said it somewhere else, but if you attack someone, you should expect to be fighting their treaty partners. Given that those 4 alliances jumped in swinging, it was their clear intention to NOT have a diplomatic resolution but to start a mid-to-large scale war. This, combined with the fact of not only them but their immediate allies (who were mobilized and waiting for the word to attack) continued to mock TPF's allies for not defending them. If they didn't want it to escalate, they should have 1) not attacked 2) not attacked with overwhelming firepower and numbers, ensuring a response, and 3) not goaded TPF's allies into attacking.

As to the enternal debate over whether TPF's were considered "aggression" or not, I leave to others.

1) you can attack someone with the full intention of attacking only that person. but again, just because they took TPF's allies into account does not mean that they wished to start a mid to large scale war. they wanted justice for wrongs that were never addressed due to TPF's own lack of diplomacy.

2) You realize that had they not attacked as such, they could have easily been overwhelmed by TPF's allies, who i doubt would have used any restraint and gone for overwhelming firepower and sheer numbers. the only way to counter a counter-attack is to go in with overwhelming firepower and numbers to thin the ranks of the enemy as much as possible while assuring that your own 2nd wave will be able to overwhelm the counter-attack. to ignore this is to simply either show some ignorance in regards to how to war or just attempting to provide some evidence for a smear campaign.

3) frankly, mocking the CC was quite easy. while TPF may have been fine with being pounded on for 6 days, it shows that their allies did care very little for them. i highly doubt that any of IAA's allies would wait 6 days for a single person, even admin himself, before counter-attacking. the fact that CC seemed fully content to do this provided much insight into their characters and loyalty. frankly, if IAA were to attempt to pull that on any of our allies, i and possibly others, would either call for some heads in our gov to be rolled or simply leave and join our ally being rolled to provide whatever aid we could. but then again, i doubt IAA would wait 6 days for any single person as we have several people with the military know-how to conduct wars on our side and so it is not contingent on any one person.

4) the fact that our side was waiting to roll at a moment's notice shows how we feel about our allies. we will not leave them to be rolled for 6 days for one person. trust me, i know LM's skill and he is a friend, but i would be damned if he came out with that request to our side and we said yes. i also doubt he would have taken any great offense at ya'll stating, "sorry mate, we can't leave TPF to be pounded like that. we will find someone or a group of people to take your place." i mean LM is good but !@#$, there are others out there as good or almost as good as he is.

so us goading them was simple, it happens in every war. war is fun for most and thus to not expect goading after ya'll sat out of the war for 2-3 days should have been expected regardless of whether we wanted to crush the Remnants prior to Pacifica coming outta terms. for most, that was never a factor, in fact i have no clue when Pacifica is due out of terms nor do i care. i don't like Pacifica much so i simply ignore them for the most part. much like i ignore many alliances on ya'lls side. i think many do the same for the most part. just like ya'll ignore alliances on our side. shoot, personally i ignore alliances on this side of the fence as i have no love for them.

[Haflinger]

4) the fact that our side was waiting to roll at a moment's notice shows how we feel about our allies. we will not leave them to be rolled for 6 days for one person.

That wasn't what we were waiting for.

We were trying to organize to get a chance. Let me outline the rough progression here.

Dec 27th - Attacks begin. A few TPF allies are online, and start going wtf - what's going on?

Dec 28th - Most TPF allied governments have at least some members who have logged in. Many are still out on Christmas vacation, but a rough grouping has formed.

Dec 29th - The plan is agreed on.

Dec 30th - We try to get our nations ready to implement the plan; we fail, due to large numbers of them being still on vacation as well.

Dec 31st - We think momentarily about launching attacks, but then kinda laugh it off due to New Year's.

After that you know.

Before Karma, the side that defended OV knew the attacks were coming. OV had in fact agreed to a compromise with NPO to avoid a large-scale war before being told by Superfriends to refuse the agreement.

This was a surprise attack.

[Dochartaigh]

That wasn't what we were waiting for.

We were trying to organize to get a chance. Let me outline the rough progression here.

Dec 27th - Attacks begin. A few TPF allies are online, and start going wtf - what's going on?

Dec 28th - Most TPF allied governments have at least some members who have logged in. Many are still out on Christmas vacation, but a rough grouping has formed.

Dec 29th - The plan is agreed on.

Dec 30th - We try to get our nations ready to implement the plan; we fail, due to large numbers of them being still on vacation as well.

Dec 31st - We think momentarily about launching attacks, but then kinda laugh it off due to New Year's.

After that you know.

Before Karma, the side that defended OV knew the attacks were coming. OV had in fact agreed to a compromise with NPO to avoid a large-scale war before being told by Superfriends to refuse the agreement.

This was a surprise attack.

Surprise attack or not Haf, our side was ready to go regardless of Christmas. not to mention, you had people online long enough to switch to peace mode in mass numbers and thus, could have had them hit instead. to state that large numbers of your members were missing is untrue as many, if not all alliances on CC's side had 70-80% of their member slip into peace mode during the time you speak of. not to mention, LM already stated that his not being their was one of the main factors which to my knowledge was never disputed by any of CC's leadership until now.

[Haflinger]

Surprise attack or not Haf, our side was ready to go regardless of Christmas. not to mention, you had people online long enough to switch to peace mode in mass numbers and thus, could have had them hit instead. to state that large numbers of your members were missing is untrue as many, if not all alliances on CC's side had 70-80% of their member slip into peace mode during the time you speak of. not to mention, LM already stated that his not being their was one of the main factors which to my knowledge was never disputed by any of CC's leadership until now.

Actually, no we didn't. By December 30th, our peace mode numbers were much too low to make the tactic usable. Most of our alliances were in the 20-50% range of dove at that point; even TOP wasn't anywhere near close to 70-80% of the whole alliance. They had 81% of their sub-85K nations in dove, and of course they have a significant number of nations above 85K, which is why the tactic was put in place.

I'm not going to argue with LM, he's speaking honestly from his perspective, but this is the sequence of events as I experienced it.

The order was just the sub-85K nations were going to dove; in that range, Invicta was at 67% on December 30th, and we were one of the higher alliances. IRON was at 68%. FEAR had 75%. NATO had 50%. Plenty of other alliances didn't want to discuss their dove situation because the numbers were way too far off of LM's requirements.

[Learz]

1) you can attack someone with the full intention of attacking only that person. but again, just because they took TPF's allies into account does not mean that they wished to start a mid to large scale war. they wanted justice for wrongs that were never addressed due to TPF's own lack of diplomacy.

I'll grant you that point; but generally, the whole point of signing treaties is such that when you're attacked, you have backup, meaning it is almost impossible to attack anyone without escalation.

2) You realize that had they not attacked as such, they could have easily been overwhelmed by TPF's allies, who i doubt would have used any restraint and gone for overwhelming firepower and sheer numbers. the only way to counter a counter-attack is to go in with overwhelming firepower and numbers to thin the ranks of the enemy as much as possible while assuring that your own 2nd wave will be able to overwhelm the counter-attack. to ignore this is to simply either show some ignorance in regards to how to war or just attempting to provide some evidence for a smear campaign.

IMO, the more you attack with just means the larger the counter attack will be. In addition, by attacking with such large numbers, TPF allies were given two choices: either attack with everything, or "suspend" their treaties with TPF and eating crow for the next 6 months for being dishonorable.

3) frankly, mocking the CC was quite easy. while TPF may have been fine with being pounded on for 6 days, it shows that their allies did care very little for them. i highly doubt that any of IAA's allies would wait 6 days for a single person, even admin himself, before counter-attacking. the fact that CC seemed fully content to do this provided much insight into their characters and loyalty. frankly, if IAA were to attempt to pull that on any of our allies, i and possibly others, would either call for some heads in our gov to be rolled or simply leave and join our ally being rolled to provide whatever aid we could. but then again, i doubt IAA would wait 6 days for any single person as we have several people with the military know-how to conduct wars on our side and so it is not contingent on any one person.

Haf kinda covered this, but again it was a combination of factors, namely the allegations at the time, holidays, the overwhelming attack with no warning, the fact ZH was getting off with no problems, CB being 6 months old, reinforcements joining every day, etc. It was a hectic time.

But again, if they didn't want escalation, goading TPF's allies into showing their "honor" by jumping into the fight is NOT the way to do it.

so us goading them was simple, it happens in every war. war is fun for most and thus to not expect goading after ya'll sat out of the war for 2-3 days should have been expected regardless of whether we wanted to crush the Remnants prior to Pacifica coming outta terms. for most, that was never a factor, in fact i have no clue when Pacifica is due out of terms nor do i care. i don't like Pacifica much so i simply ignore them for the most part. much like i ignore many alliances on ya'lls side. i think many do the same for the most part. just like ya'll ignore alliances on our side. shoot, personally i ignore alliances on this side of the fence as i have no love for them.

You are quite correct here I agree with you on everything.

[Dochartaigh]

Actually, no we didn't. By December 30th, our peace mode numbers were much too low to make the tactic usable. Most of our alliances were in the 20-50% range of dove at that point; even TOP wasn't anywhere near close to 70-80% of the whole alliance. They had 81% of their sub-85K nations in dove, and of course they have a significant number of nations above 85K, which is why the tactic was put in place.

I'm not going to argue with LM, he's speaking honestly from his perspective, but this is the sequence of events as I experienced it.

The order was just the sub-85K nations were going to dove; in that range, Invicta was at 67% on December 30th, and we were one of the higher alliances. IRON was at 68%. FEAR had 75%. NATO had 50%. Plenty of other alliances didn't want to discuss their dove situation because the numbers were way too far off of LM's requirements.

ok, so you are saying that the majority of most alliances were online long enough to dive into peace mode? thank you for providing me with evidence that i was correct in my assumption albeit incorrect on the numbers (the percentages got mentioned in another thread and i went off of those).

either way, you had stated that the majority of alliance members were away but then state that the majority of alliance members were online enough to get orders to dive into peace mode.....

I'll grant you that point; but generally, the whole point of signing treaties is such that when you're attacked, you have backup, meaning it is almost impossible to attack anyone without escalation.

pretty much yes. unless the alliance is politically isolated you must always consider their allies.

IMO, the more you attack with just means the larger the counter attack will be. In addition, by attacking with such large numbers, TPF allies were given two choices: either attack with everything, or "suspend" their treaties with TPF and eating crow for the next 6 months for being dishonorable.

true and false. for one, had it just been Athens/RoK, ya'll could have still counter-attacked with the same amount of alliances (something like 14-18 iirc) they would have just been able to wreck Athens/RoK had they attacked in full scale versus what they did. with GOD/\m/ added into the mix, that means that those alliances are now more diffused and the wrecking that much harder.

add in the fact that, ya'll could have always attacked with fewer alliances than ya'll did regardless of whether it was 2 alliances or 4 alliances and the factors basically become quite numerous as to how things could go down.

Haf kinda covered this, but again it was a combination of factors, namely the allegations at the time, holidays, the overwhelming attack with no warning, the fact ZH was getting off with no problems, CB being 6 months old, reinforcements joining every day, etc. It was a hectic time.

But again, if they didn't want escalation, goading TPF's allies into showing their "honor" by jumping into the fight is NOT the way to do it.

most of what you gave except for the holiday issue, is something that only reinforces the idea that ya'll should have been in a lot sooner than you were. from everything i read, ya'll had much issues with ZH getting off as well as the CB being 4.75 months old (not 6 as it ended on Aug. 2nd and not June 2nd). as for reinforcements joining every day, that would give ya'll more people for other waves. your first wave could have still gone out regardless of receiving more alliances later on.

You are quite correct here I agree with you on everything.

yarly.