Jump to content

iamthey

Members
  • Content Count

    3,570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About iamthey

  • Rank
    Crypto-Parasitic Contratywinist

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Swiss Empire
  • Alliance Name
    The Order of the Paradox
  • Resource 1
    Fish
  • Resource 2
    Uranium
  • CN:TE Nation Name
    lolmisfits
  • CN:TE Alliance Name
    PLANET TOKYO /)^3^(\

Recent Profile Visitors

1,164 profile views
  1. What is wrong with being a girl dragon?
  2. You can laugh, but your colleagues were the ones lambasting ftw for needing to call in allies, so yeah.
  3. I don’t really hold any personal animosity towards you all, but this is kind of a tired cliche from wars past. There isn’t a whole lot for nations/rulers to do these days, why wouldn’t we jump in on this? I’ve been on the otherside of plenty of lopsided fights that lasted months and those were uneven for the same reason this one is: it is not an embarrasment to use resources wisely. FTW could take you on their own sure, but why should they, and why is that outcome desirable to those they are allied to? We would prefer to spread the pain and keep FTW relatively more healthy.
  4. Generally speaking I think there is a strong case to be made for the mechanics argument people have offered. That to rebuild and to grow a little more requires roughly 6-8 months. Long wars are often similarly explained in terms of time it takes to make a meaningful impact (mostly the time it takes to really damage a warchest and reduce tech levels). I think there's also a strong case to be made for just the timescale of our politics. We've had longer stretches between major conflicts, but overall it's a balance between the risk of going too early and the risk of waiting too long. Wars are important times of transition when consensus is built (or destroyed) and alliances assess who they want to work with and who they don't. Usually the target of the next war is also staged during a current one. If you wait too long to act on that previous work you risk that consensus going stale. Essentially you signal to your friends that "you don't want this war", and you introduce uncertainty into the structure of your allies. When everyone knows who is getting rolled, they can feel confident and certain that it's not themselves, when no such presumption exists the political model starts to fall apart and people begin to look around for safe bets (which might not include you). If you go to early you expend energy organizing people for a war they aren't necessarily 'ready' for, you waste political capital, perhaps you alienate people, and you have to invest yourself into then locking down the war after that. Managing these risks seems to be what drives the cycle of war and peace here. This assumes of course that you're one of the few alliances that has a real say in when a war starts though. On the other side of the coin, alliances that participate in wars but don't really manage them: the game is more about finding safe harbors, not making yourself a target, and lobbying up the food chain to ensure you're on the right side and not left out to dry. Alliances in this position usually also don't want war to be more frequent as its transitional nature leaves them more vulnerable. So we usually end up waiting a while between wars. Hoping for a new era where they are shorter and more frequent (or balanced) is honestly not worth the energy- wars are too costly not to do a thorough job, and they're too risky to be 'fair'. The goal isn't to settle a disagreement, but to cripple your opponent and put a nice lead between them and yourself. You can't make wars short and proportional to an offense if the offense doesn't matter, and the war must be total if it's fought like it is: purely to maintain advantage or out of spite. In so far CB's are just an excuse to get things going, it's hard to imagine an enemy not coming for you unless you break them first.
  5. iamthey

    The 'C' word

    Best wishes, on your surgery, and whatever else may follow as you work through this. Having cancer survivors in the family, it can be a rough ride, but the right support makes all the difference. You'll be in my thoughts, and I hope to hear of your success in beating it.
  6. "Treaty chess" and tighter coalition warfare are a byproduct of the limited shared interest of not losing (or losing as badly) by controlling the unfolding of the war and responding to the other side's attempt to exercise such control. As with anything political alliances that participate in coalitions and cooperate with them should evaluate what is asked of them and determine whether or not such requests are reasonable or serve their best interest. As others have said, one has no real obligation to a coalition, its an open political association, but failing to collaborate (and simply "letting the chips fall as they may") might also make your participation mechanical and predictable such that the opposition in turn gains the opportunity to control your involvement. There may be a fine line between following a sound strategy and being a pawn, but refusing to participate in the politics of war doesn't necessarily safeguard you from either.
  7. Your statement was vague so I'll do my best to respond to it. IRON's diplomatic missteps were their own to make and they are responsible for them. Their incompetence during that war has little to do with the rest of us- nor should it reflect poorly on the rest of the participants. In terms of targeting, IRON volunteered for the CnG front, they refused GATO as a target, and TLR was settled on at their preference. That IRON took flack for this was not part of our calculation, or something we particularly cared about. It was IRON's job to consider such things and IRON apparently didn't. That they didn't follow through in that front and allowed 90% of your alliance to get to peace also reflects poorly on them and further contributed to the flack they got form our side (mainly from the people that were fighting along side them). So here I would affirm your false alternative yes IRON in this instance was either staffed by fools, or was completely duplicitous (to honesty both sides of the war). In either case they were not set up to fail, they chose to fail. In terms of LoSS again this was a matter of helping an alliance affiliated with the coalition to avoid an uncomfortable diplomatic situation. The problem was raised for discussion it floated around and ultimately it was executed without a real go ahead. IRON's characteristic absence on IRC ended up screwing them here as they failed to contribute to the discussion- they failed to make their own particular interests well known and they failed to weigh in. IRON's response was impulsive, it was rightly criticized, but it blew over after they had reaffirmed their affiliation. They were not here set up to fail, they were simply not around, and because of that the state of their unique situation was not part of the conversation. IRON was one alliance among many, each with their own treaties and each with their own interests to balance, that IRON failed to be attentive and make their challenges known is something they themselves are to blame for. You said it yourself several years ago before EQ: IRON as an alliance is systematically incapable of taking responsibility for their mistakes, they are pathologically reactive, and they blame others before examining themselves. You were right then, and I was wrong. Their behavior in that war, and their narrative after are simply one more item in that catalog you started.
  8. TLR wasn't the alliance IRON was originally supposed to fight. They were supposed to fight GATO but threw a fit over the prospect of fighting GATO's upper tier. TLR was a compromise that IRON chose and insisted upon. LoSS was rushed in because they were concerned they would end up getting pulled in by the otherside. The decision to put them on NG was made spur of the moment by people who had little to do with the macro-management of the coalition itself. IRON's response (threatening to counter LoSS) was handled and resolved through a negotiation where NG mad an ass of itself and IRON ultimately opted to continue to prefer its allies among the coalition and its commitment to the coalition. To broadly respond to your point though, you're giving way too much credit to the architects of that coalition. It was as surprising and baffling to us that IRON fared so badly in the war as it probably was to IRON. You're of course free to reject this, but know that I myself would much prefer to believe it was a huge conspiracy and have little to gain at this point from blowing smoke up anyone's ass. History is just never quite that interesting.
  9. It wasn't so much a set up as it was IRON preferring one set of its allies over the other and making a conscious choice. Valhalla and VE were both invested in the coalition, and IRON had just burned its bridge with NPO. NG was probably then seen as the unfortunate alliance who just didn't quite fit into a largely workable group. IRON was well received and I don't think the negative !@#$ really began until the war itself started and bickering over distribution of forces and coverage began. I don't think IRON really anticipated planb making the choice they did, and I don't think they expected NG to react as vehemently as they proved to. I imagine IRON thought they would slide through the war quietly without an incident as historically they haven't been a great nexus of public attention. That IRON came out of that war in such poor shape is more attributable to key resignations in their government (prior to the war), and just plain mishandling of certain key moments. In short a very bad accident. By the end of the war I think IRON basically felt they had nothing to lose and this fueled a cycle of bad decision making that culminated in the almost side change. That being said, I think the error you make in your assessment of them is to attribute their success to diplomatic handiwork on their part when in fact it has more to do with the strategic thinking of those who ultimately chose to keep their ties to IRON. Non-Grata and GloF both deserve credit for their thoughtful decision to maintain a treaty, and for their foresight in betting long on IRON rather than short. Where IRON is really due credit is in the strength of their macro. IRON's internals are and have always been extremely impressive, this year it was their stats that saved them, and for that they owe most of their current fortune to people like samus.
×
×
  • Create New...