Cobalt

questions to ask yourself before you start your own alliance: -Do you have the time? Running an alliance is a lot of work, and while it can be fun initially it will turn into real work later on. -Do you have a good core group to start with? If you're starting from scratch by yourself, you're going to find yourself having to promote people who you don't know if you can trust and who you don't know the capabilities of into leadership positions. Before you even consider doing all the work to get an alliance off the ground you should know who's going to be your leader(s), who's going to handle FA, who's going to handle the military, who's going to do IA, and who's going to do recruitment. If too many of those jobs fall on the same shoulders your alliance will more than likely flame out quickly. -Are you going to do / be something that makes you different from all other alliances out there? And no, a new theme doesn't count. -What will your new alliance have that your current/former alliances doesn't? -What are the goals of your new alliance? It seems most alliances are founded for one of a short list of reasons: 1)A group of capable friends want to do their own thing 2)A group is dissatisfied with their current alliance and thinks they can do better, 3)A group wants to break from the status quo and do things their own unique way 4)A group wants to re-orient themselves politically 5)A group of ranking members break off due to an internal schism or power struggle 6)A group of players who didn't have power want to have power 1 through 5 have a chance at making it if the alliance can maintain its starting momentum and can really develop its own culture / style. Number 6 nearly always fails or becomes a pathetic shell of an alliance after a couple weeks/months.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1303270828' post='2694245'] Many might join the cause of a NAAC reformation, but many, many more would ridicule and criticize it. And it'd never capture the same magic. The continued rest of NAAC only adds to its mystique. [/quote] I seem to remember someone trying to re-form the NAAC a couple years ago, only to have it publicly shot down by all the former NAAC members.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1303346723' post='2695027'] So please do not come at me with "you know nothing" when it is quite clear that I know something. You may not like what I know or that I know it, but I do. I am quite capable of drawing logical conclusions such as the above. Your attempts at spin and what not fail hardcore. [/quote] You seem to know something, but I'm not convinced its what you're talking about. From what I can tell, you might know apples but to claim you know oranges just because they're both fruit is a bit of a stretch. You claim the DH/NPO war and this Thriller/AcTi conflict are similar, and to oppose one while condoning the other is hypocrisy. You claim DH/PB are the big tough bad guys who push attack weaker foes ("taking advantage of alliances that wield very little power and cannot match the military of DH/PB/allies"). In the Thriller/AcTi conflict, the attacker (Thriller) has around 1m NS and 18 members, vs AcTi's 1.7m NS and 42 members. Seems to me the smaller group here is pushing around the larger. Continuing, you say that both are aggressive and over past actions. Sure, the DH conflict seems to revolve around that, though the war seems to be more over the lingering animosity/rivalry spawned from those past actions than the actions themselves. DH isn't fighting because of something specific NPO did, they're fighting because they still don't like them for what they did and even years later that hasn't changed. Even if it was over something specific from the past, NPO should be used to that logic, considering they used it themselves (One Vision/GATO & Co.). Meanwhile, the AcTi conflict seems to be more out of boredom on the part of this new Thriller group and a general failure on AcTi's part to be competent or protect themselves. The only water the comparison holds is that both declared aggressively without being specifically provoked. And as we both know, they're not the first to do so and more than likely will not be the last. Beyond that, using the peacemode stuff as a tool of comparison is like using the fact that both AcTi and NPO are alliances to equate their struggles. Every time one side of a war goes into peacemode to hide from destruction the other side chastises them for it. This is nothing new or unique to either conflict. So yeah, I get it. You don't like DH/PB. Now you see a group of people being attacked by a group of people who are more in the DH/PB camp than not and you want to come in and white knight all over the place. However, you decided to take it further and equate two of your perceived evils, throw around fun words like shame, hypocrisy and double-standards in some conclusions which seem to be far from logical, all under the guise that what you knew about apples [i]must[/i] pertain to these oranges.

quite the turnout for an ODP

[quote name='Sithis' timestamp='1302060172' post='2685241'] If Doom House is evil, THEN WHO WAS PHONE? [/quote] Who not?

Those graphics just remind me of Azure Mantle. Great guy.

[quote name='Satsukage' timestamp='1301247363' post='2678345'] Anyone else think of Avatar: the Last Airbender? The 4 elements (5 here) theme bla bla bla [/quote] Jurassic 5, Bruce Willis, Gary Oldman, Milla Jovovich, and Chris Tucker would like a word with you.

[quote name='Guffey' timestamp='1301082401' post='2676253'] Thing is, you cant just leave a war until you are finished in the war. Untill your objectives are complete, or you cannot fight anymore. Obviously NADC was not ready to leave when they were interested to see what terms you were offering. It could have just been curiosity since Goons was asking for reps from everyone else. [/quote] So they asked for terms to see if they could launch a "OMG HUGE REPS" moral outrage PR campaign?

Most of the action in this game revolves around wars, whether its the maneuvering and posturing leading up to it, the actual fighting or the aftermath/rebuild. If you want first hand accounts of how things went down, your best bet is probably to go on the wiki, read about the war, then go on IRC and find someone who was around/there/involved and ask them about it. The more specific you can be with your questions, the better. In general, asking for a full history of CN is like asking how to build a reactor. The answer is long and complicated, and there aren't a lot of people out there who can do it justice.

Yes. Wanting more of the enemy to come out of peacemode and join the fight is clearly a sign that you're losing. Also, paying reps to the enemy is now a sign of victory. Cary on.

ITT: Peace is reached without reps or harsh terms, people from both sides are generally nice to each other, and HeroofTime55 grasps at straws

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1299959019' post='2661721'] aided mainly by a small european woman [/quote] I didn't know goldie was involved

confirming that you're awful.

[quote name='Teddyyo' timestamp='1297035875' post='2622865'] Made a new signature that relates to the war. [img]http://i726.photobucket.com/albums/ww268/Teddyyo/sig7.jpg[/img] [/quote] Seriously dude... what's with the boat thing?

[quote name='The MVP' timestamp='1296230711' post='2607486'] I was [...] an admitted opportunistic coward who acted out of cowardice [...] Oh wait, this thread is [...]bad [...] Yup. [/quote] About as in-context as the OP.

Nice work. Gato falls soon unless Legion declares tommorow.

[quote name='kulomascovia' timestamp='1296072962' post='2603146'] I'm not entirely convinced of the premise that the majority of players stick around for conflict. Major wars have almost always cause a great number of nations to vanish. I believe during Karma about 4000+ nations were deleted. The fact that wars destroy nations faster than what you termed as periods of "peaceful stagnation" doesn't quite show that the majority of nations are interested in conflict. You claim that war drives the game and yet we lose more nations because of war than anything else. [/quote] CN is a PVP game, which astoundingly has a player-created option of avoiding the PVP content (GPA/Neutral alliances) - if 4000+ nations made the choice of joining militarily and politically active alliances and then deleted when both political and military action showed up on their doorstep - I don't see a loss. I would be willing to bet 90% of the nations that left during Karma had never posted on these forums, joined an IRC channel, or held any sort of position in their alliance. On the other hand, wars make the game fun and interesting for those who choose to actively play it - keeping players who have been here for years involved. This has always been a game run by the vocal and involved majority, and it has never taken kindly to apathy and inaction. The most successful alliances have been and always will be those with high levels of member activity and participation. Alliances which are content to allow nations to join and then never hear from them again are setting themselves up for problems. So this begs the question; who should the game's environment cater itself too? Those who spend the time every day reading and posting on forums, filling positions in their alliances, chatting on IRC channels, organizing tech deals and doing other in-game tasks... or should make sure the guy who collects taxes every 10-20 days is as happy as possible? I know my answer.

Page one handjob? [quote name='Rudolph' timestamp='1295936446' post='2599139'] Great read, Schatt. Honestly captured the same feelings I have [/quote] Stroke [quote name='Kevanovia' timestamp='1295936506' post='2599149'] Beautifully written. You're not alone Schatt, you're not alone. [/quote] Stroke [quote name='Left_Behind' timestamp='1295936964' post='2599196'] Schatt, I've always enjoyed your topics and I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you have to say. A lot of us allowed yourselves to be fooled by MK. Like someone said before me, "the only thing that changes in CN are the names". [/quote] Stroke [quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1295937160' post='2599211'] Well said and eloquent as always, Schatt. [/quote] Stroke [quote name='DracoDark' timestamp='1295937380' post='2599226'] great read, and i agree with what you said :/ [/quote] Stroke [quote name='Guffey' timestamp='1295937767' post='2599261'] well said schattenmann, well said. I hope you never leave this game. You bring such a great contribution through your words and actions. [/quote] Stroke [quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1295936597' post='2599157'] I will never look at CN the same way again. [/quote] And boom goes the dynamite.

ITT: Alliances not in PB don't obey PB internal policy. More at 11.

I apologize in advance for the half assed work. This war really hasn't produced anything too propaganda worthy yet (as far as I've seen). [img]http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6213/algoreb.png[/img] [img]http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/787/asscover.png[/img] [img]http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/7872/polarasscover.png[/img] "Yay us" stuff: [img]http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/9348/viridianoriginal2.png[/img] [img]http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/6513/sig6z.png[/img] [img]http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/4566/sig5n.png[/img] [img]http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/7527/sig4k.png[/img] [img]http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/2426/sig3g.png[/img] [img]http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/7503/sig2t.png[/img] [img]http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/4423/sig1uf.png[/img]

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1295363085' post='2581341'] The answer to this question is obvious: his actions gave the VE the CB on the Polars they were looking for. Either they knew about it beforehand and he was on assignment or they didn't and they're just happy he told them what he'd been up to. [/quote] By the cigar of Red Auerbach, I agree with Haflinger. This whole situation comes down to the individual and whether they believe the simple solution (NpO .gov was involved in spying on VE), or the paranoid/conspiracy theory solution (NpO .gov was involved in spying on VE, but the entire thing was orchestrated by VE in order to get the valid CB ). Beyond that its a known fact that the Entente likes going to war and that we've butted heads with NpO for years. Given a valid reason, you can probably expect the Entente to take that chance. It doesn't stem from any sort of hate, malice, or ill will towards the Polar Order, but because they have the same history of tensions with us as we have with them and a good slugfest with Polaris always produces the kind of drama and fanfare that fuels the community. In short, its fun. So, hail NpO - Thanks for the CB and I'll see you on the battlefield, I know it will be a good fight. If I had my way I'd have an offer of white peace waiting in the wings for everyone after we're all nice and bloodied up.

I think the OP is making the wrong connections. Experience is a product of many things, one of which is time spent playing the game. More experience with the game on political, organizational and mechanical levels are likely factors in producing a successful leader. Nation Strength is also tied to time spent in game, time being one of its factors. However, to equate the success of a nation with that nation's ruler's aptitude to lead a successful alliance is like saying 15 and 12 are equal because they both have 3 as a factor. Yes, the metaphor is horrendously oversimplified - but with a subject (leadership) involving so many intangibles a more complex one would just break down in a more spectacular fashion.

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1294816654' post='2572926'] I really want to know why anyone would want to keep their sanction after they have their flag. Collecting as many ~caspers~ as possible for meatshields, I guess. [/quote] Ghosts: confusing enemy target list makers and winning wars since 2006. Yeah, not really.

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1294791770' post='2572415'] It is an excellent piece I must confess. My head on any propaganda makes it much easier on the eyes. It's funny that this comes from NSO though. Where was NSO when FEAR was being attacked? Oops, did I spoil the secret? [/quote] Knowing NSO they were probably drawing target lists. Love them or hate them, NSO is always down for a fight. Respect!

[quote name='Karl Peters' timestamp='1294797319' post='2572492'] Hmmm. All that coming from some guy who really doesn't have a clue who I am. Before you go off posting crap about someone, and the public learn a little bit about the people. Second, learn a little bit about CN, politics, and foreign affairs. Everything that was given as terms were so easy, achievable, and actually not burdening-some that only a fool would decline them. Now since I have seen you make yourself look like an idiot for oh about a year now, I can officially say you have no clue on how to be even remotely diplomatic. So once again try, and not make yourself look like a complete moron for a few days there buddy. Good luck with that! [/quote] I too, have no clue who you are. RV, we should start a club.