Moridin

[i]I would like to take a look around you at this auspicious moment, the world has been set right and the victory conditions have been achieved today on 08th February 2010. A moment you may tell your grand kids about. Yes, that's right, IRON has fallen below 36.00 score, an achievement I'm sure they will join you all in celebrating.[/i] Really though, what? I get that this thread is supposed to be funny, but why MK and why 25.00? This milestone really isn't special in any way, shape, or form.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='08 February 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1265676465' post='2169408'] But the point where the MK-NpO treaty should have become active was in the first phase of the war, when FOK and Stickmen attacked them. [/quote] Even if you disagree with the wording over who was the aggressor, the NpO did [i]not ask MK for support[/i]. The treaty only becomes active if someone activates it.

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='08 February 2010 - 04:00 AM' timestamp='1265630407' post='2168579'] I have been paging through the Surrenders thread and I have noticed a trend, The overwhelming majority of surrenders posted there are from nations with 20 posts or less on these forums. This leads me to conclude that surrender terms are mostly effective on new or politically inactive nations, and that as a nation becomes more active in whatever alliance that they are affiliated with the odds of them surrendering as an individual significantly drops. This would further lead me to doubt the effectiveness of individual surrender terms for limiting the damage caused to the alliance that offers them by the new or disinterested nations that accept them. Since so few people accept them compared to the overall number of people involved in the war and that those who accept them are mostly new nations who's capacity to cause harm is limited at best and easily rebuilt. [/quote] You may be mixing up cause and effect here. If someone wanted to do harm through exploiting individual surrender terms (i.e. escaping to peace mode and re-entering the war), relatively light surrender terms make that more appealing while harsh surrender terms discourage that. The nations that surrender to harsh individual terms will be surrendering regardless, while the active nations you mentioned by and large do not surrender - so, harsh terms simply prevent dishonest people from using surrender terms as a temporary ceasefire to get out of anarchy and re-declare.

Copied from the [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Happiness"]wiki[/url]: [list][*]-4.00 or less - Your Population is Furious[*]-3.99 to 5.99 - Your Population is Very Unhappy[*]6.00 to 9.99 - Your Population is Happy[*]10.00 to 12.99 - Your Population is Very Happy[*]13.00 to 16.99 - Your Population Adores You[*]17.00 and above - Your Population is in Love With You[/list]

Nearly at 2.5 million, a million of those from this war.

[quote name='Micheal Malone' date='08 February 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1265617072' post='2168479'] This discussion is still going on? Shouldn't you be more worried about things other than the senate? Like your hemorrhaging NS? One might also begin thinking about your PR stance, as your membership has been crying about the # of alliances on them. Perhaps there's a reason so many were eager to hit you? [/quote] That's ridiculous. Just because they're at war - even if they're losing - doesn't mean they have to immediately drop all other concerns they have. It is entirely possible to concern oneself with multiple issues without the universe imploding.

The two FOK guys (Cananefatia and Tiradentes) I fought with in January were great, it was interesting fighting against people who coordinated and always attacked when I was asleep due to timezone differences. Bdiah and Krugar from VE, I'll be sad to see this war end tomorrow, it's been great fun. My pilots, though, won't be sad that they don't have to run bombing runs over Bdiah, who always seems to shot them down even when he's only got 10 F22s left

[quote name='Saber' date='07 February 2010 - 06:56 PM' timestamp='1265597805' post='2167894'] I really am struggling to find a plausible explanation for all Grub's actions in this war. Crymson's yes, Archon's yes, Ivan's yes, but Grubs, hell no. It really warrants an scholarly investigation of sorts. [/quote] The best explanation is that there is no explanation. There is no method to the madness.

[quote name='The AUT' date='07 February 2010 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1265588666' post='2167686'] This shows the intention to cancel the future treaty with both MK and GR however honoring the requests of MK. So MK cares for Polaris? Hardly. [/quote] No, it shows intention to cancel the GR treaty. It seems your prefrontal lobe has betrayed you once again.

[quote name='The AUT' date='07 February 2010 - 03:51 PM' timestamp='1265586672' post='2167651'] Well it needs to be done, but it takes no toll on the alliance actually negotiating the peace. It doesn't cost them anything. I mean we saw some MK people such as Tamerlane saying they wanted death to Polaris after their attack on GOD, and then turn around and ask Polaris for help. MK doesn't care about Polaris, it's very apparent. If they did, I don't think Grub would've canceled the treaty or had MK ask them to declare war on TOP. Saying, "we'll help you negotiate peace if you help us attack an alliance" is trading actual worth for a diplomatic back-channel talk that will be resolved one way or another without any cost to the mediators involved. [/quote] Was the Polar-MK treaty canceled when I wasn't looking? And don't think I'm defending MK here, I'm merely saying that at this point diplomatic help is better than military help.

[quote name='The AUT' date='07 February 2010 - 03:45 PM' timestamp='1265586311' post='2167643'] Working diplomatically to help an alliance risks you nothing. It's very basic stuff that doesn't hurt you, it only makes people think that you actually care. So MK negotiates peace for NpO, so what? It's merely to save face if they do it. They don't [i]actually [/i] care about the well being of Polaris. Helping someone, "negotiate peace" may need to be done but negotiating on behalf of someone costs you nothing and makes you look like a hero. Not surprising Archon does a lot of this, when you think about it. [/quote] Polar needs all the help they can get in the peace negotiations department. All in all, that's probably more valuable than the limited military support MK could provide with all 10 of their war mode, non-anarchied nations.

[quote name='Alonicus' date='07 February 2010 - 04:29 AM' timestamp='1265545746' post='2166724'] When GRL goes over 40 (44.15 as I type this.... does anyone know what the record is ?) When Anarchy as a government type is nearly 1000 higher than the next nearest choice. When no one can quite work out how we got from the first (relatively straightforward) declaration, into this utter mess. When GPA is the only significant alliance left not fighting. [/quote] The GRL peaked around 50 in the Karma War, I believe, so this war is well on its way to setting a record in that department.

[quote name='Hymenbreach' date='07 February 2010 - 03:14 AM' timestamp='1265541267' post='2166682'] tried that (first) get this [/quote] You're linking to the flickr page that contains the image. You need to use a direct link to the image itself: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4336590555_b4f2f8fd35.jpg

[quote name='Hymenbreach' date='07 February 2010 - 03:09 AM' timestamp='1265540975' post='2166677'] stuff[/quote] You need to encode it with bbcode, not html. So, [code][img]puttheURLhere[/img][/code]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='07 February 2010 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1265540690' post='2166672'] Indeed, Thats why they sat waiting and ready for the impending attack they were made aware of. [/quote] I agree, contingency plans are a terrible idea and MK would never employ them.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 February 2010 - 12:03 AM' timestamp='1265529816' post='2166540'] I don't buy the whole "reps lead to resentment" nonsense. It's drama and personalities. If not taking reps made an alliance popular, Invicta would be viewed much more kindly - we've taken less reps than just about anyone else who's ever won an alliance war. (Specifically, we took 300 tech once, for which we paid 6M.) And yet, we are often cited as being one of the worst alliances out there. We've had a couple exoduses of government members who left under clouds, and not coincidentally became closely tied to people who now hate us. This is how it spreads. [/quote] Just because you don't take reps doesn't make you instantly likeable, and it doesn't make people ignore everything they dislike about you. But, not taking reps does make the losing alliance tend to view you more favorably, especially if it is in contrast to other surrenders in the same war where reps are demanded. To take an example, during the War of the Coalition, Grämlins paid for all their tech reparations from Polar (I believe at a rate of 3m/100, correct me if I'm wrong), and as a result they were generally viewed more favorably by Polars from what I could tell. I'm not sure how many more examples there are of something like that in CN history (STA giving white peace in the GATO-1V war comes to mind), but I'd say you'll generally find that members of an alliance will look more favorably on alliances that don't ask for reps when others are demanding payment.

[quote name='wickedj' date='06 February 2010 - 11:30 PM' timestamp='1265527832' post='2166485'] Yaknow what *I* want to see? How the hell is NpO going to get out of this war. Polar is fighting for MK(C&G) and against GOD(SF)...VietPolar? [/quote] However it happens, it will be interesting to say the least.

Watching you two banter is more painful than gouging out my own eyes with a rusty spork.

[quote name='The AUT' date='06 February 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1265518007' post='2166014'] Attacking your own alliance is against the rules iirc. [/quote] Man, that was clever! It was almost on par with the classic "I'm rubber you're glue" comeback.

[quote name='FreddieMercury' date='06 February 2010 - 08:34 PM' timestamp='1265517281' post='2166004'] Just curious, weren't you Polar gov? [/quote] Yes.

[quote name='cookavich' date='06 February 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1265516702' post='2165984'] We'll follow you into hell, Grub. [/quote] Excellent, because that's exactly where he's leading you.

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='06 February 2010 - 07:51 PM' timestamp='1265514683' post='2165921'] No actually it was less than 2 hours, actually it was about 45 minutes later. [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441"]TOP Dec[/url] Posted 28 January 2010 - 11:47 PM [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79454"]NpO peace[/url] Posted 29 January 2010 - 12:33 AM If you tell time like the rest of us, that is 46 minutes later. Nice try though. [/quote] I'm not disputing when peace was declared on the \m/ front relative to when war was declared on the C&G front. Polar informed TOP and IRON that it would not honor its MK treaty if TOP/Duckroll were to attack them roughly a day before the actual attack occurred, which means that, thanks to your extraordinary ability to tell time, part one of the 'summary' did indeed happen about a day before peace was declared. [quote name='Lord Brendan' date='06 February 2010 - 07:56 PM' timestamp='1265514980' post='2165930'] Grub has been claiming all along that he was trying to prevent exclamation. He had a choice between fighting a slightly uphill (certainly winnable) battle on his own or escalating the war and hoping the odds improved. The statement is therefore a lie. Grub had no problem with escalation, or he wouldn't have asked you to join in. [/quote] I believe what Grub is trying to convey is that while he did not wish for the war to escalate, he did so out of necessity. We may disagree about just how uphill the battle was or would have been, but saying he was lying when his point was that he took no pleasure in escalating the war is a misrepresentation.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='06 February 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1265514257' post='2165916'] 18M vs 21M is way better than 110M vs 200M. [/quote] Polar topped off around 15M before the plunge; it certainly was never 18M. At any rate if Polar hadn't taken peace and kept its allies (STA, NV, etc) on their original side, the war would be reasonably close in terms of total NS, I'd say as close or closer than Polar vs \m/, PC, FOK, and Stickmen.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='06 February 2010 - 07:38 PM' timestamp='1265513908' post='2165905'] Seems kind of stupid to me. They had a choice between fighting a roughly 1:1 war (which I think they would have won in the end), or asking you to join, causing a very predictable escalation ultimately leading to the current 3:2 sides. [/quote] Stickmen declared war on Polar the same night NSO declared war on FOK; had NSO not entered, the odds would have been against Polar, especially with the number of recruits PC was getting from various sympathetic alliances.

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='06 February 2010 - 07:15 PM' timestamp='1265512517' post='2165864'] Your time line is a bit off more like "2 hours later" then "NpO: We surrender lol. Bye TOP." [/quote] It was one day later. Also, the 'summary' is incorrect in that Polar never surrendered to \m/. \m/ accepted the terms Polar had proposed, not the other way around.