Moridin
-
Posts
4,592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Moridin
-
-
[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1266452728' post='2188370']
I wasn't asking you but anyways. First, I think it went from a defensive war to an offensive once the tide was turned in favor of CnG. Second, claiming that TIFDTT or whatever(really, we need a better name lol) should be reduced to zero tech and whatnot is not justified. At the most I can certainly understand CnG wanting reps but the [i][b]least[/b][/i] that you can do is write up a rough draft and offer it to TIFDTT leadership for consideration.
[/quote]
C&G doesn't turn into the aggressor just because they're winning. I really, truly, honestly, have no idea where in the world you got that idea. -
I prefer things being done in the open, unless they're really boring (see: GLOF/57th issue).
-
[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1266359211' post='2186326']
It's clearly a cover up.
[/quote]
Tyga is actually too large to cover up. -
[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='16 February 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1266323681' post='2185454']
I'm sure Polaris government members were not confused as to the state of peace talks.
[/quote]
Why are you sure of that? -
The SDI is random. There have been tens of thousands of nukes fired just within the past week or two; with that many nukes flying, chances are that even extremely improbable events such as an SDI failing to thwart 6 or 7 nukes in a row, will occur.
-
[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='16 February 2010 - 02:03 AM' timestamp='1266314609' post='2185336']
Poor show, GOD, making NPO go to war just to send reps.
[/quote]
NPO is going to war? Did I miss something?
edit: honest question, I haven't read the whole thread. -
[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='14 February 2010 - 03:51 AM' timestamp='1266148302' post='2180708']
Ivan Moldavi is at ZI.
He can't possible take any damage, unless it becomes possible to send people into negative infra and tech.
If you don't believe me go and see for yourself.
[url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=308533"]http://www.cybernati...ation_ID=308533[/url]
[/quote]
I'm pretty sure that was the point. -
[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='13 February 2010 - 10:21 PM' timestamp='1266128462' post='2180441']
Blackstone Collusion was a joke. Some think it was designed that way by Pacifica. Others suggest that the humor was unintended.
Either way, it had zero effect.
[/quote]
If it was designed by the NPO, then NPO controlled literally every event leading up to their demise in the Karma War. NPO made a lot of tremendous mistakes in that time period, but contrary to popular belief there are people there that aren't complete morons and it's difficult to believe they would have designed their own destruction to that extent.
Either way, it's nothing short of hilarious to see a former Blackstone leader complaining about how their vision of the post-war world did not meet what they wanted, since it was the stated goal of the Blackstone Collusion to [i]replace[/i] the New Pacific Order as the top alliance in the game. An unrealistic goal, but their goal nonetheless. -
Did you try a ground attack beforehand and see how many he had defending? It's possible that he had literally all his troops deployed, and they simply returned home after the nuke.
-
[quote name='Poyplemonkeys' date='12 February 2010 - 06:16 AM' timestamp='1265984201' post='2177543']
So let me get this straight.
Legion never explicitly accepted the peace, otherwise logs would be up here already. They may have been 'seeking peace' or said they 'understand' the terms, but they never said 'Legion accepts peace. Signed X, Y, Z' at any point.
Sparta jumped the gun due to a miscommunications problem.
Sparta blames Legion for going back on their word.
Legion blames Sparta for forging signatures on the document.
Both alliances come out of this looking like dicks when if you both just simply accepted the miscomm issue in the first place there would be no threads, no whining, no stupid threats from non-govt members.
tl;dr, Sparta is a terrible alliance. Legion is too.
[/quote]
I daresay you've hit the nail on the head.
I think I speak for everyone when I say please don't ever do anything like this again; the war is confusing enough as it is. -
[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='11 February 2010 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1265950327' post='2176625']
This sounds really nice except for the fact that NPO basically ZIed the entire alliance and held them there for 3 months because of a 6-month old OOC infraction of year old surrender terms. They didn't take reparations because GATO would have been unable to pay them.
[/quote]
Let's not forget installing Koona as viceroy. I wouldn't wish that upon anyone; it's far worse than paying any amount of reparations. -
[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='11 February 2010 - 03:46 AM' timestamp='1265888771' post='2174519']But on to the meat of your post, I think it's important to remember that [i]Brave New World[/i] is a [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia"]dystopia[/url].[/quote]
It's originally a quote from Shakespeare, with positive rather than negative connotations:
[i]How many goodly creatures are there here! How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world! That has such people in't![/i][indent] [/indent] -
[quote name='PhysicsJunky' date='11 February 2010 - 10:20 AM' timestamp='1265912452' post='2175151']
For the disproportionate amount of talk about how nobody cares about their nations, or loves war, or any permutation of the same machismo there is a heck of a lot of complaints when a war comes around from the losing side, which is not so say it wouldn't come from the other instead if the fortunes were reversed.
For months there were threads about how TOP are stat mongers, filled with TOP members saying they'd be happy at ZI for a good fight. Now a good fight comes along and everybody is screaming for peace for TOP. In the meantime many of TOP's allies the skipped the chest thumping before the war are silently trudging along fighting with no consideration of what's ahead and nobody is talking about how fair or unfair this is for them.
So perhaps we can all take a lesson from the strong silent types speaking with their nations out there. If you love war, and start a war, fight the darned war. Peace and surrender terms are for when the fighting is done. I know I'd be roaring mad if I'm off fighting for somebody and laying waste to my nation if they'd already given up and starting complaining about peace terms.
Then again what do I know.
[/quote]
In fairness to TOP, most if not all of the complaining about the lack of peace terms has been coming from people not actually in TOP. -
[quote name='astronaut jones' date='11 February 2010 - 06:32 AM' timestamp='1265898755' post='2174720']
The only thing that would save them from further comparison to how everyone operated pre-karma, is the fact that TOP and company seem to be doing some significant damage to all parties. It's no beatdown.
Otherwise, it's the same mentality. Exactly the same mentality.
[/quote]
No, it's really not the same mentality.NPO would attack alliances aggressively and not offer peace terms for months, if ever. See the GATO-1V War and the second FAN war for examples. In this situation, C&G is [i]not[/i] the aggressor by any stretch of the imagination, and it's only been two weeks of war and already everyone is whining "You're no better than NPO!" Of course, they've been whining about that since the Karma War ended so I guess no surprises there. Furthermore, we have a different military reality here. For the most part in the pre-Karma days, a couple weeks of war did lasting damage to an alliance, forcing them to spend several months rebuilding. If the current war, on the other hand, were to end today half of TOP could probably rebuild most of their lost infra with the warchests they still have left.
What I really can't believe about this whole situation is that I'm actually defending C&G. C&G for the most part are a bunch of extremely irritating alliances that all in all, I really have no love for at all. Yet, somehow you people manage to throw out such ridiculous accusations that I can't help but call you out on them. -
[quote name='astronaut jones' date='11 February 2010 - 06:20 AM' timestamp='1265898043' post='2174705']
This whole "if we give them white peace, they'll just come back to get us again!" thing is complete !@#$%^&*. Now, I think MK above all others is due reparations for this war, (from TOP and dare I say it, from NpO as well) but holding people to war indefinitely, and that's what it sounds like you're all going to do, is absolutely no better than the pre-karma days. [/quote]
I'm no supporter of keeping an alliance in perpetual war, but C&G has absolutely zero obligation to make a timetable for when they will offer peace terms right now. There is nothing wrong with wanting to take an alliance down a few pegs before offering terms, and just because C&G hasn't yet offered terms doesn't mean they never will. -
[quote name='Baden-Württemberg' date='10 February 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1265840749' post='2173278']
NpO, cause of the diplomatic consequences.
[/quote]
Because the subtitle of this thread clearly says we're talking about non-military consequences. -
[quote name='Lennox' date='10 February 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1265856245' post='2173701']
The OoO will still be in effect.
[/quote]
What the hell? What is with you people? Sure it didn't have a cancellation clause but jesus, that doesn't make it immortal. If an alliance no longer wishes to be party to a treaty, then that's their own choice. It's hilarious to see someone from the NSO, famed for its Moldavi Doctrine that asserts an alliance's sovereign right to do just about whatever it wants, claiming that alliances are bound by their treaties to the grave and can't choose to withdraw from them whenever.
OOC: Take the Warsaw Pact, for example. It had no cancellation or withdrawal clause, but after 20-30 years had to be renewed or it would cease to be in effect. It was renewed around 1985, starting another 20-30 year term, but guess what? After political upheavals at the end of the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact no longer exists, and indeed some of its signatories are now in NATO, which was forbidden by the Warsaw Pact. -
Even if the OoO did still exist, NPO would not be obligated to help Polar. Article II explicitly says military assistance is only required if both Emperors deem it to be a "just" war. Somehow I don't think Cortath or Ivan would be very interested in helping the NpO fight TOP.
-
[quote name='Aeternos Astramora' date='10 February 2010 - 01:15 AM' timestamp='1265793337' post='2172359']
Isn't declaring upward a bad thing? I mean, it makes you look tough, but it's still bad strategy.
[/quote]
It depends. If you declare upward in a nuclear war there's a good chance you will deal more damage in a monetary sense, despite the fact that you'll take more actual infra/tech/land damage. I wouldn't say it's a great idea, but it's not a terrible one in some instances either. -
[quote name='Earogema' date='10 February 2010 - 12:56 AM' timestamp='1265792180' post='2172351']Helping to Found Vox was my best I think.[/quote]
Same. My worst was nearly quitting the game, though that led to the above event. -
Because warchests are, on average, much larger than they have been in previous wars, in order to do serious and lasting damage to an alliance one needs to draw the war out longer than before. One week was all that was needed in the Unjust War, two weeks for the War of the Coalition (excluding Polar), then closer to a month for many alliances in Karma (and the last alliances to surrender taking far longer). Unless something very unexpected happens, I'd expect the TOP/C&G front, for example, to last at very least a month, probably significantly longer. Each side there has warchests built to last over a month of war, and their opponents know it.
-
[quote name='Facade' date='09 February 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1265761150' post='2171488']
Quite personally, I don't understand the point of surrender. If you have beaten a nation to the point of exhaustion, why offer them surrender?
If you continue to destroy their nation or, more feasibly, move on to another nation to destroy, the player seeing their nations hard-earned infrastructure and technology vanish before their eyes should make them ask their leaders to get peace some how. Or at least that's how I see it.
Once a nation has surrendered, they can begin rebuilding and don't have to worry anymore. They are, in all practical purposes, safe. While they are still at war however, they do not have a safe zone, until their nation-strength is too low for anyone in the winning alliance to declare on. These people will either demand for their leadership to get peace, or leave the alliance altogether.
Of course, this is assuming that the two alliances fighting are fighting over a legitimate reason in which Alliance A wishes to punish Alliance B for X Action that Alliance B has made; not the MDP-web nightmare wars that plague Planet Bob.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
[/quote]
Nations don't necessarily surrender only once they are 'exhausted' or bill locked. A number of nations will surrender at the first chance given, allowing the attacking alliance to focus firepower on the nations that are more long-term threats. And the ultimate goal of the war is not necessarily to have the other alliance surrender as quickly as possible; if you deem that the alliance is a threat, you may want to try to damage it heavily before even offering alliance-wide peace terms, and letting individuals surrender can deal a blow to the alliance as a whole. -
It's pretty amusing to watch this exchange. I wonder how many successive posts you guys will make where you tell the other person "you don't even know what a real argument is!"
-
Can we please not pretend this war is at all about ideology or freedom or any of that, except to the extent that it started as a war about tech raiding? This is a war where there are two sides fighting for dominance, it's not TOP wanting to infringe on your free speech or C&G valiantly fighting for the oppressed. Maybe if the winning side does curbstomps on alliances it doesn't like for the next year you can have a nice war about helping out the little man, but this is not it.
The End. It's coming.
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted
[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 04:36 AM' timestamp='1266496563' post='2189552']
Lol ... so much for the infamous non 'draconian terms'. 350k tech for 45 minutes of war before being held there.
[/quote]
It's heartening to know that if I gather a coalition and attack VE and its various allies such as GOD, that I can get white peace right after the initial blitz if it looks like I'm outnumbered.