Authur
-
Posts
539 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Authur
-
-
It can't a trap.
If it was, Polar just hung NSO to dry, since they are obligated to defend IRON (unless it's non-chaining, which I don't believe it to be, and even if it is, they can still just invoke the Moldavi doctrine). NSO was the first alliance to declare in defense of the NpO, and Ivan admits that he was very confused as to the peace that NpO just brokered. (Though that in itself could be part of the trap).
I'm almost certain it was an agreement between the four alliances to watch TOP/IRON get killed.
EDIT:
Well that answers that.
From what I can tell, based on information here and else where the main leaders of Polaris, NSO, etc knew of TOP/IRON/etc's decision to enter the war in the manner they did. It was a power play on duckroll's part to engage CnG directly instead of allowing them to get picked apart when they entered the war through existing treaties. CnG leadership it would seem knew this was coming and wisely had \m/ accept the peace deal that has been on the table since day one just moments after the declarations. If there was a "trap" it was \m/ holding out until duckroll entered. Either way this was poorly handled and executed. No cease fire (We have actually not accepted peace yet) should have been granted until everyone was informed.
As far as I'm aware we are working to get everyone out of this war including TOP, IRON, and TORN.
-
It's not their fault that IRON and TOP decided to attack us, for no reason.
There was a reason. They assumed you were going to hit them when they entered the war via treaties they had with nations already in the war and wanted to get the drop on you. Like wise your side was aware of this plan when they ramped up efforts to get \m/ to accept the peace terms on the table from day one. They went to checkmate you and your guys turned the table, good for you, but don't act like this was some unexpected or disgusting act on their part.
-
The separate war already happened. Parties uninvolved in the prior conflict aggressively declared on other uninvolved parties in said prior conflict.
*fixed spelling
While I understand that there was clearly a breach in standard protocol if these actions were planed prior to peace with alliances involved in the current conflict then I think it should be considered the same war. I hope that any alliance leaders with prior knowledge of these actions (which occurred only due to a delay in getting the word out) will help resolve this situation. It just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
-
/me facepalms.
There was no trap. TOP and company bungled things completely on their own.
I'm not sold on the trap notion myself but now that the war is ending and TOP and company entered the war only due to a delay in getting that information should they not get the same treatment (white peace) if requested? Now that the heart of the craziness is resolved lets just end this. If you want a seperate war it will happen eventually.
-
Haven't you heard iamthey?, TOP's war is seperate because e-lawyers say we need a treaty in what has been called "a war of Coalitions"
In recent wars there have been quite a few instances of alliances hitting others when there was no direct treaty. I'm pretty sure it happened in the Karama war several times.
If the plans to hit CnG were discussed and planned with the governments of nations involved in the war then this should be considered the same war. Since the trend here is white peace then TOP/IRON/TORN should get the same if desired. Archon has apprently worked hard to end this war, to his credit. To stop now, or try to say these are two separate wars would really be telling.
-
He did. He informed STA, NSO, and NV immediately. We were going to be disseminating the information down the chains.
How long in advance did anyone know that TOP and IRON were going to attack?
Plus now that this happened I think everyone should be allowed to peace out if desired.
-
I'm not sure I approve of what just happened here. I'll hold off judgment until we get more details though.
-
The war for peace mode nations is because NPO since the first day has been having nations go into peace mode whenever they get the opportunity.
I don't see the reparations as removing a threat as much as punishment and some amount of restitution. I agree that they won't be a threat in the near future, though long term there's a possibility of them resurging and having more luck on the political front. Since the terms themselves only set NPO back at most 2-3 months compared to what a white peace would do I don't see it helping much in that respect but it helps some. I think the coeLUEition comparison is off.
If it is simply about punishment, restitution for past behavior, then I don't see why the stipulation is needed. Destroying them for two weeks helps no one and I can understand the concern some have expressed that it might be a ruse (I don't think you guys would do that but I'm not in their situation). Wouldn't a better solution be raising the reps accordingly and putting the aid to good use? Since these terms seem to be punishment for all of the NPO's sins why not include aid packages to past victims. GATO, GPA, FAN, etc who are not directly fighting the NPO have suffered as much or more at their hands so why not offer them restitution instead of simply nuking away the NPO's resources?
If done in a manner that allows the NPO to rebuild and not turn them into an eternal tech farm I think this would not only force the NPO to make amends for their perceived crimes but it could also lead to a change in direction for the NPO which is really what is needed.
Well the thing about most leaders is they care more about the alliance as a whole than their own nation. You can't really punish an alliance as a whole without punishing most or all of its nations.I understand your point. Your correct it is a more effective punishment for the leaders but excessively punishing one person to harm another seems a bit wrong. The average NPO member had less involvement in the decision making process then the leaders of some of their past and present allies, some of whom have received far more lenient terms if any. Many people, myself included, have blood on our hands.
They are just lucky that those fighting them aren't doing what they did to GPA and raising the reps because they didn't immediately accept.What happened to the GPA, GATO, Legion, etc are practices that no respectable alliance should impose on another. Even the alliance that set the precedent, deserving though they me be.
-
War is about statistics. Reps are about statistics. When someone says that wars and reps are designed to destroy an alliance, it therefore means statistically destroy it.
The problem is your economic leaders seem to be stuck in a 2007 mindset about banks starting with lots of infra being the end all and be all of banking when that hasn't been true in a long time.
Sitting in peace mode for a year is more harmful than two rounds of war.
Your logic is also very circular. Your opponents want you dead and the terms show it, the terms must be written in a way that will kill you because your opponents want you dead. I know most of your opponents, they want to see you hurt, they don't want to see you dead.
The terms are hard and and are designed to set you back a notch and keep you from rebuilding full steam for a couple of months, but they won't and aren't designed to kill you. Ultimately you'll be far better off accepting terms and taking that temporary setback in order to be able to start moving forward again afterword, because in your current state you're never going to move forward and will just fall further and further behind everyone else who is.
Azaghul your a level headed and good guy. I've liked you since our days in the GPA together. What I can't quite understand here, and perhaps you can be the one to explain it to me, is why the statical force of the NPO has to be diminished in this manner when the numbers of one's forces has won more wars then the strength or skill of it's individual nations.
Even if white peace were given right now to the NPO and they managed to rebuild to pre-war form and attack in a years time they lack the strength in numbers to pose a real threat. They could not win this war at full strength with multiple powerful allies what indications are there that they can accomplish it in the near future? If you take their ability to be a realistic threat in the future out of the equation then this stipulation of attacking their banks makes even less sense to me.
Also, and I think this is an important issue that gets overlooked, bear in mind that this alliance is made of many people who's only guilt was being a member, loving one's alliance, and following orders. Their guilt is no more and in some cases less that then of other alliances and their government members who partisipated in many of the crimes the NPO is now being punished for. While I completely agree with the notion that an alliance is represented by the government, I think we as rational individuals need to keep in mind when dishing out terms that not everyone is equally to blame. Perhaps a compromise is in order where only those that had a government role, who at least had more input into the direction of the alliance, might be subjected to additional punishment instead of all their statically strong nations.
-
My main issue with this is: who do you think you are to sit in your ivory tower and tell people what terms they should give? (And yes, I appreciate the irony
.) Why do you think you can solve a problem that the alliances on the NPO front cannot?The other issue is that it is much harder to police than a fixed rep amount. With an alliance the size of the NPO, it is tricky to keep track of all the aid that could happen while off AA, and even if that was made a term violation, people would still try it. Also, it seems like a back door route to getting much lower reps, since most nations will be able to grow naturally without aid and then there will be almost zero reps. The reps are important to rebuild Karma alliances, not just to keep Pacifica's growth under control.
The point is to not leave NPO with a threatening top tier, which they retain by hiding it in peace mode.
I keep seeing people basing their opinions of the terms on fear.
Anyone who has been around for a spell knows what wins major wars and I'll give you a hint, it's not large nations. The NPO even with the help of some of the biggest alliances in this world still lost becuase they were significantly outnumbered. Allies are more important then internal military strength and you know it. In that area the NPO has been crippled. They have only a couple allies left and no one will be eager to join them now. Crushing their top nations is unnecessary to keep them down. You broke their legs kicking in their skull to keep them down is just cruel.
I know what the NPO has done. I hated them with a passion at times and even while allied with them I longed for their reality check. An eye for an eye vengence is not the way to go though. Pick a figure, the largest in history, and offer it to them. Asking them to allow you to kick them in the head for two weeks after they surrender is stooping to their tactics and excuse me for expecting something better from the alliances involved.
-
Actually I would prefer that you not disband. Take that how you will, it is the truth.
And speaking for myself, I would not have had a problem with Karma dropping the demand for an additional two weeks of warfare, were it not for the propaganda campaign that you've engaged in in place of negotiations. I was never a fan of that particular term. Thus, if you had shown any signs of contrition I would have said increase the reps and let them go. But the unbelievable amount of lies, slander and distortions that have been hurled against Karma have convinced me that reparations alone will not be enough.
One of the things that puzzles me is that contrition is demanded from Pacifica. Why must it factor into their peace terms in such a dramatic way? They have lost, clearly and definitively been defeated. While it would be nice to see them change that should not be forced upon them. Forcing someone to change with a sword to their throat rarely works and many of the alliances who engaged the NPO in battle know this better then most. Forcing hollow admissions of guilt. Attempts at altering the ideology of alliances to suit personal agendas. Those are practices the NPO has been condemned for in the past. Don't travel down that same path. Once this war has ended they will go through a personal reflection period and if they decide not to change and be politicaaly isolated that is their choice. Their punishment should not be increased due to it.
-
This is a simple enough concept for you to follow, the NPO is a vital part of the dynamic of this world, it is simple to dismiss them as villans when the reality is they have contributed much to the world. They too in counter balance have done things that they rightly deserve to be held accountable for. So hold them accountable but do so in a manner which allows the dynamic of this world to continue and de-escalates the spiraling costs of reps and of war in general. War is Peace, enjoy war, but leave your opponent alive to fight again another day... unless your fear is that great that you believe 600 isolated nations pose that much of a threat to you.
This is a sediment I expressed even before this war was a realistic possibility. We as a community need to stop imposing terms designed to cripple or destroy an alliances ability to succeed. Fear of reprisal should not be a factor in peace terms. Sadly it is and has been for far too long.
Karma needs to stop fearing a destroyed Pacifica, give them reasonable terms, and move on. Just end this already. Drag it out and the animosity will only grow.
-
They've never been found.
We believe a long-time member had been framed. Whether it was an admin or who it was, it can't be for certain.
Either way, I don't see the relevance.
It has relevance if true because it sets a precedence which appears to be why it was mentioned in the first place.
Ordinarily I would not have given it much thought but after it was brought up by numerous individuals at different times in this thread without response it seemed a bit suspicious. Given your response though there doesn't appear to be much merit to those suspicions.
Carry on...
-
I'm slightly curious as to why the subject of the Vox spy has gone unmentioned by MHA gov. One would think given such a serious accusation they would at least give a simple denial.
So, unless I missed it, MHA gov do you know the identity of the Vox spy and if so what punishement, if any, did they recieve?
-
I know, but I don't have to pay attention to all of this stuff when I know what will happen.
In 6-12 months, NPO will have regrown, stronger and less $@ier, then they will rise up and kill everyone AGAIN because they were all too dumb to do the one thing that would keep NPO down forever.
While I can understand the fear some have of things going back to the way they were I really disagree with the notion that any alliance should be "kept down forever". This game needs competition and when it finally gets some many of you want to oppress the old ruling class.
I said this when the very notion of the NPO not being on top seemed impossible and I will say it again in today's new environment, we need to stop proactively eliminating the fun out of this game. Stop forming large coalitions, stop eliminating potential threats, and stop using terms to significantly delay an alliances chance to compete. In this new era I am hopeful the mistakes of old won't be repeated but comments like these do worry me.
You want revenge, fine. You want to punish the NPO for past mistakes, that's your right. Eliminating them from ever being able to compete again or preventing it for a significant period though is the wrong way to play this game and you know this. Do not let fear stop you from doing the right thing.
Anyway that said enjoy your break from the game.
-
Article 5
http://www.cybernations.net/search_aid.asp...;search=Echelon
IRON nation aiding other alliances in wars with Karma after this was posted...
OOC: Looking at the nation Bio it's clear the man is insane.
-
Your reading comprehension could do with a little bit of work.
First off, I never said we needed reps to rebuild. Reps help to quicken the rebuilding process. Two, reps weren't the reason for the war. You know the reasons just as well as I know the reasons. However, to the winner goes the spoils. Just because reps aren't the reason for war doesn't mean they can't be the perks. Third, if you don't think reps slow an alliance's growth down you are crazy. Reps (especially these ones) are not going to keep an alliance down long provided they're reasonable, but they will keep them from rebuilding as quickly as they would with white peace. Unless IRON customarily leaves lots of aid slots open during peace time, in that case I suppose their growth will be the same.
What about the allegations that you asked for extremely high reps and intentionally delayed the peace process? Obviously something has angered some of your allies. If true it makes me wonder why getting a "reward" for winning was so important that you prolonged the war to obtain a high amount. To continue to pound on an alliance trying to surrender simply to get more reps out of them seems wrong to me.
-
Yeah, that's the right attitude. You beat their asses, as indicated by your comrade claiming you needed the reps to rebuild.
Yeah they "beat them" with the help of many other alliances. Alliances who apparently can rebuild just fine without reps. That's fine though, ROK can enjoy their money. I'd rather make a new friend of IRON's caliber over reps any day.
-
As for making a war "worth it", I repeat, what is the point of war if the winner is left devastated as well? Reparations are the award that the winners receive plain and simple.
So winning just isn't enough? Also what entitles you to so much more then the other alliances? Obviously many did a very honorable thing by not requesting any but had each requested the same amount you got that would have been excessive in almost everyone's book. Asking for large reps just because you can is part of the mind set I hope this war will end.
Lets be honest here, this isn't just about getting a reward for winning. It's punishing IRON for their past which makes me really wonder why ROK, who has fought along side the NPO and to my knowledge never been wronged by IRON deserve to receive those reps. A better solution would be to spread them out among the alliances recently stomped by IRON as they, not you, have suffered in the past.
That said my respect for the rest of the allainces who gave peace, esspecally those who waved the right for reps, as IRON has done in the past, have gained much respect in my eye's.
-
"Pumped up" to push a few buttons in a text based game? A first person shooter, fine, perhaps even an action heavy stratagy game but CN?
Some of you guys..........I don't know about.
-
IRON were actually responsible for at least two stagger breaks in the Polar war I think it's inevitable with large alliances that you will get over-zealous inexperienced nations declaring where they shouldn't.
Whether this is true or not has little relevance to staggering. Correct application of assigned targets, whether done manually or by machine, will result in correct staggers. The trouble comes when individual nations choose their targets and don't know to check the war slots (or two nations choose the same target at the same time), and no automated target assignment system will avoid that.
Every allaince blows staggers, don't get me wrong, hell I personally blew a stagger during this war. Some just seem to do it more often for what ever reason be it due to a lack of military training, emphasis on the importance of it, or because one of the crazy old government members isn't threatening them with tables
-
If I am not mistaken did not NPO share their little program with IRON that is responsible for their targeting? Kind of makes it silly to point fingers at others whom do not use such to gain that advantage.
Targeting from my understanding was past down in a group effort to all attacking alliances. Each had their share of the pie so to speak. That also has nothing to do with staggering.
I'm not "pointing fingers" in a really negative way. It was just something that we laughed at seeing the same alliances always having issues. Kind of like watching your young child constantly trip over a toy. You don't want to see it happen but since they are not getting hurt it's rather amusing.
-
Yes, I understand Gramlins's lack of coverage over the entire NS spectrum. I cannot say the same for all. But keeping staggers over everything is not very easy. We do however have jokes about one alliance that always messes up the staggers, whether you fight with or against them.
Let me guess MHA?
They and RoK constantly blew staggers and stole targets in past wars. I know it's hard to control a large group of nations but IRON and the NPO combined had less mistakes then either of these two in each war. There were other offenders to be sure but they stood out to me.
As for the OP I know you guys want to rub it in but seriously try taking the high road here. They are lossing the war, kicking dirt in their wounds and insulting their mothers might make you feel better but it's unneccessary.
-
You know, at some point you guys were supposed to step forward and say enough is enough right? That is what your opponents would probably say. What you are saying is that those that stepped forward and actually said enough should be punished for what they did before saying enough is enough? It's not as if there was a deadline or a prophecied date of Armageddon that would later be termed the Karma wars.
I am NOT saying that those who were fed up before this war should face punishment. What I am saying is that those who stayed are paying for their "crimes" and when this war is over I would like to see people treat them as well as those who walked away right before then end. They didn't "see the light" until it was too late but they are "serving their time" so when it's over I'd like to see the community acknowledge it.
.) Why do you think you can solve a problem that the alliances on the NPO front cannot?
Polaris White Peaced.
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted · Edited by Authur
You fought because you "wanted to" and suddenly decided to accept peace that night? It was such a heated issue and we didn't even get through a round of battle.
As for your second comment "approved of" was the wrong term to use but I think they knew and didn't stop them.