Seerow

I have no idea where this came from. It was always "Do not attack your own allies allies", in the very beginning it was all about RoK and \m/, yet somehow people got the idea MKers were upset about MKs position. At that point in time the war had not escalated to the point where MK was involved at all, we were merely pointing out how !@#$%* it was to attack an ally's ally, because we had been put in the exact same situation recently, and were sympathetic about it. I actually personally supported the war, along with many others who are now against it, until peace was not signed over the difference between "wrong" and "not appropriate". That sort of semantic argument is not worth dragging out this conflict, nor letting the world burn. That said I have no problem whatsoever getting those we actually care about out of the fight and letting everyone beat on \m/ for the rest of eternity. Somehow I don't see that as happening though. Except nobody would be stupid enough to tech raid them, there is no possible way it would end profitably.

Are you really stupid enough to think we didn't try? Are you really trying to say we just let Grub walk into this, did nothing about it, in some elaborate plot to betray them? I really thought you were smarter than that.

Okay now consider this for a minute: 1) Polar starts the war agressively against \m/. I personally support this because \m/ are scum and deserve to die. Polar at this point says they are not calling in any allies and waive any treaty obligations going so far as to say this includes if the war escalates. (They also assumed it would not escalate past PC but that's their judgement error) 2) PC enters against Polar in defense of \m/, just like Polar wanted. Another retarded move in expanding the war, but not an unexpected one. 3) NpO while negotiating peace terms refuses to end the war because of the difference between "wrong" and "not appropriate", thus prolonging the war. This is the point where NpO lost my support, and many others. There was a golden chance here that was let go over two goddamn words. 4) FOK enters the war through their oA clause from their treaty with PC, thus escalating once again. This was another stupid move, but given how the whole peace talks went I can understand it at this point. 5) NSO attacks FOK. So here we have two alliances we are directly treatied to being attacked, thus both of our defense clauses are active. However NpO has waived their treaty obligations publicly, so we are left with one clear manner of entry into the war as of my posting. FOK had a choice, MK really does not at this point.

Alright does anyone really care enough about PC or \m/ who isn't treatied to them to jump into this war in their defense? Serious question here, if there's people out there I'd like to know.

Wait, to be clear you're saying it's retarded for your people to declare 3 offensive wars because it disregards staggers, and you have defensive considerations, yet NpO is being innefficient by hitting only 95% of slots? Given they had 25 attacks pre-update, that's presumably 25 nations that could have all slots filled. The remaining you would only want filled after tonight's update, to stagger the slots. Given \m/ with 58 nations in war mode that gives you 75 slots from the initial 25, and from the other 33 you have 66 slots, for a total of 141 slots for an optimal deployment/stagger, including those under 5kns. They hit 132 wars. I'd say that's pretty close to optimal slot usage, not quite 100% but damn close. Mind you I haven't gone and actually looked through every nation to see if staggers went off correctly, but right now we're just tossing around numbers anyway. That said I'll give PC the same 24 hours Polar got before judging their deployment too horridly. Remember NpO only got 25 wars off pre update last night, PC got 16, I'd say percentage-wise for the update strike PC actually did come out ahead. We'll see how that keeps up after a day or two.

Unless PC has allies that are willing to come in on an optional aggression clause for this, I don't think you can really classify this as a 'huge war'. And if it does escalate you may yet find a way to weasel yourself in.

OOC: Of course, I've criticized the system itself in the past, but as this is an IC forum I am instead expressing my distaste for the state of the world in an in character fashion. Mostly because I've given up on trying to get anything in this game changed short of me programming my own game, which would take a lot of effort I don't want to put in right now. People have made it immoral to tech raid, once upon a time it was immoral to nuke, what's wrong with trying to IC make it a bad thing to have more than half your nations in peace mode? IC: The strategy in of itself relies on fighting with a fraction of your force. It prolongs the timetable during which you can cause damage, and can cause more long term damage to the warchests of the nations being fought if done right, but in truth you are affecting a smaller part of the alliance, and thus less likely to break their morale. You're also losing those potentially rebought nukes every day you're not launching them, so less infra destroyed. Your one advantage here is getting to pick your targets (speaking of: somehow Grub didn't get hit in this attack. Seriously? If you're going to focus fire on just a few nations at least hit the guy who is causing you the most grief), and cause more long term damage to those targets. If done well this can work in your favor, but I doubt both the ability to execute on behalf of PC, and also doubt the war will go on long enough for this to matter, and will ultimately end with a large subsection of nations being left untouched by the war. I may go on to be proven wrong, and if this war lasts a month or two than having such a large reserve allows you to seriously mess with those handful of nations you choose to target. But last I checked Grub stated peace would be easily reached should you look for it, so any idea of preparing for the worst is hard to believe. tl;dr: This 'strategy' gains little and sacrifices much, and depends on several assumptions that may not be true.

Oh I realize exactly what they're doing, however we are getting to the point in the game where wars are being fought more through peace than war, and I feel the need to criticize the action. Yes, there is valid strategy behind holding nations in peace, but when we're getting to the point where 75%+ of the the nations involved, and a higher percentage of total NS involved is in peace, it's taking it to the extreme and really defeats the point of ever having a war. I have since looked at the actual dispositions rather than just the peace mode numbers from the stats page, and see PC is more evenly distributed than \m/ was, I was assuming that the entire upper rank of PC was going to peace like \m/ did. I'm glad to see I was wrong on that account at least. I do not however retract my statement that I feel at any given time you should have more people warring than not if you're actually at war. Or at least make full use of the nations you do have available in war mode, which PC does not seem to have done (though I'll give them 24 until next update to render final judgement on that. The initial DoW numbers just seemed sadeningly low, and I'm inclined to blame that on most of their active nations being sent to peace mode).

"Hey look at me I can say 'no u', am I trendy yet?"

Except when you do it you're wrong.

There's a point where there is a difference in peace mode as strategy and peace mode as cowardice. This is two wars running where it's been on the side of cowardice rather than strategy. I could see 1/4, even 1/2 of the alliance in peace mode, though that's pushing it pretty rough. But when your reserves are larger than your actual fighting force, you're doing something horribly wrong.

I'll personally be more impressed when 3/4 of your alliance isn't in peace mode. Kinda hard to get to 0 nukes when almost all your nukes are unfirable.

I know, it was great, and I am sorry to take it down, but it had been there for what, 4 months now? Time for a change.g

I've been looking for a replacement sig for a long time. Think I just got one.

And thus the path to the dark side begins. As to Ivan's questions I'll leave that to someone who actually doesn't like NSO. As far as I can tell it's because a lot of your members are pretty !@#$ posters and annoying as !@#$, but to be honest I've long thought MK was more like NSO than several other alliances we are allied to. But don't tell that to the other MKers, they might lynch me if they knew I thought that :x

And then came back after the fact and said they knew all along he wasn't bluffing. Let's not forget that.

I blame \m/ for being horrible enough to make me laugh at Bilrow propaganda.

i c wut u did thar But by your logic we should now be attacking Polar to ensure it doesn't become a pattern, because a stern talking to isn't enough anymore. (btw to the best of my knowledge that action is the furthest thing from MK's mind)

I feel I explained that in my post on the last page. It's not that we care about \m/, it's that many of our members don't like the situation NpO put RoK in because they put MK in that same exact situation about a month ago, it just managed to get resolved peacefully rather than actually going to war. It's becoming a behavioral pattern that most of us would rather not see continued.

To be clear \m/ is no friend of MK. Even those criticizing Polar or defending \m/ as far as I know don't have any particular love for \m/. This isn't a scuffle between friends, this is a friend rolling someone that most of MK really doesn't like. The reason that we have some MK members who are very much not liking Polar's actions here isn't because they like \m/, but rather because \m/ is directly allied to one of NpO's direct allies, RoK, putting RoK in a very difficult situation. Remember not too long ago Grub threatened to put MK in a similar situation as RoK is now, when they threatened Athens over the KoN situation. That case was resolved peacefully, but the threat left a bad taste in many of our mouths. We had hoped that Polar had learned from the experience and would avoid putting allies in difficult situations like that again, then we get this war with the same situation all over again. Personally, I don't care. I don't like \m/, don't particularly care about RoK's feelings, and enjoy seeing for once someone doing something about it. I've got a rather large box of popcorn and am enjoying the show thoroughly. However even though we don't have a direct stake in this conflict besides being a Polar ally, it doesn't mean that our membership can't disagree with Polars actions, because many fear that this will become a pattern, which is something nobody wants.

Oh crap we're re-enacting the UJW? Please no, never again. Never again do I want to face the horrors of trying to coordinate with the \m/ 'military'

Yes that was a bad situation and has long since been resolved. I was pissed about that one at the time too, but seriously this is a pretty different situation.

But they attacked our ally's ally's ally's ally! Polar must hate MK too )):

To be fair I don't buy into any of the moralist BS, I don't like you guys and that's enough of a reason for me. I'm honest about it at least, even if nobody else is

To threaten 30 nations they need two more alliances as backup, get it right. My bets would have been on the alliance they tech raided if GOONS and PC weren't in there with them.