Jump to content

iamthey

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,604

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by iamthey

  2. SITTINGDUCK GARDENPOND aka doombird doomcave

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by iamthey

    ooc: CT please take a break. Get off your computer and take a nap, go to the mall, lift some weights, boot up your favorite game other than cn, read a book - do something for two or three hours and then if you're inclined to return, do so. Right now you're coming undone and everyone can see it. A one man circus is hard work, pleasing the masses is hard work, you have to keep some mental distance! Have a coffee, take a break, come back when you're refreshed.

    It's a matter of personal health and wellbeing. Good talk. :)

  7. why isnt 9mil/100 tech deal the standard

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by iamthey

    Your position is too individualistic, bob is more of a communal activity. Large/small nations need not related to one another as better/inferior- they can work together for the advantage of their alliance. A small nation in today's world has a better chance at relative advantage if they choose to stay small, develop wonders, and hone themselves to dominate in their range. They gain a further advantage by supplying existing large nations with free tech generated by their self sufficient infra holdings. The larger nations in their AA that they supply can then hone themselves to fulfill their role in an optimal manner. You misperceive the goal as being one where nations seek to be quantitatively larger than their peers- this isn't necessary or honestly even rational (given how large the largest are). Instead people should just try to be the best at what they are- rather than mediocre at what they aren't.

    Alliances that can coordinate in this way, have an advantage- those caught up in older approaches do not. In short 6m/100 is too much, everyone should give freely of what they have where it makes the most sense to do so: large nations have no use for money, small ones have no use for tech. I would think free transfer of both would be possible where collective optimals prevail.

  10. A question of a platypus nature

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by iamthey

    If IRON has a plan and is reserving its forces I suppose I can't really take issue with that. I imagine even having much of the upper tier in PM between what they have out, NEW, FTW, and VE they have what they need to cover us. It's odd timing for sure, but I'm not going to lecture the other side about how to conduct their campaign.

  12. A question of a platypus nature

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by iamthey

    Shah/icewolf, I understand that you all have a vested interest in the ~TOP Peace Mode~ narrative, be it for the purposes of self gratification, or because you foresee it having an impact, but the war isn't over. The reflexive responses between you all as you bump each other with variations of the same talking points makes you look like try hards.

    Dcrews gets a pass, at least he's just defending you guys.

    You'd be served well reflecting on what a normal/reasonable reaction might look like. Hint:
     

    Personally, I do not have an issue with alliances utilizing excessive usage of peace modes as long as their intents are tactical, strategic, or to a lesser extent, avoidance. TOP's lucky to have allies that have no issues with TOP not deploying its upper tiers as far as I can tell. That may change, seeing that the war is not yet over so it is premature to conclude whether TOP will utilize its upper tiers or not.
     
    I would like to note that NATO sacrificed most or all of its upper tiers  at Doombird Doomcave during the MQ's Jihad. That act demonstrates that NATO is not afraid to use its upper tiers against odds. That also applies to Random Insanity Alliance and New Polar Order. Those alliances have certainly earned my respect.

     
     

    I'm okay with TOP's upper tier in PM despite that resulting in a paucity of targets in range of me. I think Keshav was right insofar as better timing of Polar and friends' upper tiers entering but it is what it is. TOP can enter as fresh legs at some point in the future once some DBDC et a.l have been worn down, but I'm not sure how tenable a strategy that is since a lot of us aren't sustaining any damage. For example, my GDA target hasn't attacked back at all or tried to rebuild since, presumably, he is away and unable to respond. I won't presume as to what the end-game here is for Polar, but there are only so few options remaining.  Just food for thought. :v:

  13. I can't think of a topic title to post so here it is!

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted · Edited by iamthey

    Giving terms is quite simply getting even. More people are more interested in warm and fuzzies, its why the political climate on Planet Bob is so Admin-Awful. Everyone wants to act like genuine dislike, grudges, vengeance are things to shy away from , I simply do no subscribe that philosophy.


    It's a small world, usually the people you're in a position to impose upon are also those you may need at some point in the future. War politics today often revolve around maneuvering for the next war, and making sure the controversies and grudges land on others instead of yourself. Sometimes that means a muted accommodating tone on the part of a victor, other times it means pointing the finger for things you yourself are responsible for. Regardless, its all the same, ensuring things like lack of courtesy, or resentment, don't obstruct what you're actually after. You shouldn't be surprised, it isn't a lack of will or cowardice that has changed the world, just its scope and with it the cost of such efforts. No one here deserves criticism for their settlement decision, they were wise to prioritize politics over self gratification.

  15. Producers vs Parasites 2: Types of Nations

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    I get that the TOP/NpO treaty was one born of convenience and mutual benefit given the fact that you wanted to take shots at the NPO/NG sphere. I fully believe that to be the case. Everyone at the time knew what it was. My point was that whether you admit it or not, signing any treaty is on some level a way to preserve pixels.
     
    You continually claim that the only reason DBDC and IRON signed a treaty is because we didn't want our top tiers getting damaged. I'm telling you that that wasn't the motivating factor behind the signing. Of course you won't recognize that there actually might have been another reason for us because it doesn't suit your agenda.



    I mean I think most would agree that an alliance's resources exist to serve a purpose- to inflict damage. Preserving them as a matter of course thus makes a degree of sense not only to the alliance in question but also from the standpoint of those connected to it. Allies have a mutual stake in one another's internal health so that they'll be effective partners in war. That being said [ooc]pixels[/ooc] are a means to an end, as treaties themselves often are. They function in tangent with a strategy to protect oneself and pursue overlapping interests where they exist.

    I'm willing to accept that TOP and Polar signed a treaty for the purposes of pursuing a common goal. At that time to achieve a winning war and to leverage that war into a dominant position shared with a group of core alliances. It was a gamble and a risk that ultimately didn't pay out, but it was attempted. Despite that we shared over a year together and I'd like to think we developed an amicable relationship in doing so.

    As for DBDC-IRON, I think its clear and fair to say, that the two giants saw overlapping interests, and shared goals. That they were stronger together than apart. Could one have dominated the other, perhaps, but to what end and why? I think both groups were smart enough to see through the rivalry and indeed they prospered by doing so. I don't know enough about their mutual interactions to say whether there are substantial ties of friendship there- but I'm willing to venture there probably are, and if there isn't then who really cares, in so far as they can make it work. It's ultimately their affair, as polar-TOP is ours.

  16. A question of a platypus nature

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted · Edited by iamthey

    I don't see why I for one should care about the top tier at all, now that the parasites reign. What TOP decides to do with its top tier does not impact the long war. If I had a top tier nation I would drop down and kick ass, but not everyone is active enough to deal with that long term.

    Polar did not even call in every ally to help, so why on earth you think TOP's upper tier troubles us is beyond me. Me thinks you are just butthurt your side can't blow up their upper tier.


    The consistent trend for people like berbers is to simply select an alliance arbitrarily and proceed with the baseline of hostility. NATO has never been genuinely aggrieved by TOP, and berbers has never been subjected to punitive or vindictive measure on our part. He proceeds as he does because he requires the fixture of an enemy, and TOP is for him simply a convenient obsession. Without us he wouldn't have much of a purpose, and would lack direction: seeing as how his accomplishments are sparse and his natural adversaries few. Psychologically it makes sense, retrospectively its unfortunate.

    There are parties with legitimate and intelligible reasons not to like us, Non-Grata notably comes to mind. With IRON we have shared in mutual cycles of recrimination, we have both believed and acted as if the other were harboring macabre dreams of ourselves, and it is reasonable that hostility would exist. With berbers such explanations, whether they be tragic or well grounded, do not exist. Responding to him is simply a meaningless exertion, as the only logical response should and for my part always has been, bewilderment.

    Regardless, it does give one pause. For this brief hour, and however long it may last, we are to him an orienting star. An axis around which his universe turns, and by which he navigates the course of his journey. That we could be that, for at least one person, is perhaps- inspirational.

  18. A question of a platypus nature

    in World Affairs (IC)

    Posted

    Except that you are completely wrong. During Disorder, granted, I was in PM the whole war. We also had a total of nations who were in PM the whole war. Out of a pre-war total of 97 nations.  Of those 12, only 8 of them were 75K+.. when you consider  alongside that , that we began the war with 15 nations over 100K, it becomes quite clear that we did not engage in a preservationist strategy, and to suggest otherwise, quite frankly, is foolish.


    I'm glad we can agree on how wrong lowsten generally is. Always wrong. :)

  22. To the concerned parties

    in Alliance Announcements (IC)

    Posted

    Hmmm. Valhalla used to be the type of alliance to fight on both sides if they didn't commit.... Maybe I'm just getting old....


    The sort of move that doesn't help anyone, least of all your allies. Time and again this time around I'm left wondering why people seem to so abhor the matured politics of war. There is little honorable in stupidity.
×
×
  • Create New...