Hob Dobson

Obviously I can't speak for "the client", but not counting deleted war records missing from my warfare data retrievals, UOKMB has dished out about 241,688 NS, while taking 110,430 NS in infra/tech/land damage since Nov. 1, 2013. UOKMB has tended to re-engage nations, such as Lakaria, Batoun, and Highcliffe, a tactic which usually favors the aggressor, so the 2.18:1 damage ratio could be considered with that in mind. By the same token, TTE should have sufficient numerical advantage to saturate UOKMB's defensive war slots and more than offset that, if they chose to do so. For all the recent talk about "runners" in ROMA, UOKMB has, to date, only declared war on Indialand (membership pending, The Democratic Order) and Prospit (new recruit, Knights of the Round Table) with "war runner" given as a reason. Neither nation appears to have attacked or been attacked by UOKMB prior to this. On the other hand, they have NOT engaged The Can (membership pending, Non Grata), which attacked tanglerat on 11/7/2013. One would think that such a nation would be at the top of a target list of "runners", but I cannot say I mind either way in this particular case.

Any alliance, UOKMB included, knows that if they have a problem with nations leaving an alliance that they are attacking, they have a chance to resolve that problem by contacting the receiving alliance or its protectors directly through proper channels. Of course, there is no requirement for you to look or feel bothered by such details as that, just as there is no prohibition against the allies of ROMA's protectors deciding the defense clauses in their treaties to have been sufficiently invoked. It sounds like you would welcome such intervention as a logical consequence of your own actions. I have no more complaint against that than I would have if Mogatopia had attacked Uustonia in the past war over a spy operation that may or may not have happened.

Oh, come now. Rush's points are valid - at least in this case. Slop found one nation with an abysmally low warchest, even by VE's standards (which I myself consider low in places, but I do understand that arbitrarily raising standards does less than nothing to improve compliance or morale.) If our opponents haven't found at least one VE nation with a substandard warchest or other readiness problem, I think most of us can agree it's only because they haven't been looking for that. I can definitely agree that most such nations should be in peace mode unless and until they are ready to fight or rebuild. That said, it's no more reasonable to judge The Last Remnants as a whole by one warchest number than it is to judge Viridian Entente as a while by one poster, at least when taking into consideration neither one is acting on behalf of either government. Whatever for? The war's still young, and there's probably shame enough for all to have before it's over.

It's been a long while since I've crossed swords with anyone from NpO, but I don't recall any of those fights being easy, and I did learn some things while I was at it. I've never fought Umbrella - and yes, I'm biased - but they do love a good hard fight, and will give you a run for the money. With all the political friction between TOP and VE, it's surprising that we haven't fought each other. Having fought alongside a few of their members, TOP's military reputation isn't surprising at all. Your own mileage may vary, but hopefully it will be a memorable trip!

If anything, that war demonstrated that the ability to soundly outnumber an opponent can be as much, if not more, important than bulk NS or tech totals. Having that advantage affords the numerically superior side an opportunity to isolate individual opponents that pose much of a threat, and prevent them from declaring on "softer" targets or coming to the aid of other nations on their side. In such a situation, a lower ratio than 2:1, of attacking nations to target nations, seems likely. How that can be achieved and exploited is something that I am fully confident that IRON is well aware of.

The example that Vol Navy cites has to be one of the more pathological cases of "there's always one that doesn't get the memo" that I've read about in that general range. However, based on my own experience I have a little trouble with the older nation/different standards explanation for low warchests in upper tiers. My nation was one of MCXA's targets during Karma, and I came away from that war with the distinct impression that minimum warchest standards are best ignored as insufficient.

I'd suggest a rematch, but NG has me booked solid this round. There's also the matter of VE and IRON being treatied, but it would still be a good fight (didn't you come out ahead last time?) From what I've seen so far, I can't blame UPN for wanting a chance to dance with NG.

NOW you tell him? o7 Wombats

So have we gotten everyone's Orders?

"always the right move"? Maybe, maybe not. "freakin' hilarious"? Definitely. The OP shows some of the best use of irony I've seen in a long while.

I could have sworn the defensive outweighed the offensive by a greater margin, but unless I've missed somebody, 11 defensive and 10 offensive, with my current engagements 2 and 2. Granted, it's indirect, but I would hope a few resources were directed down instead of up at Umbrella, and not at GOONS or Deinos instead (or TOP, ODN, or MK for that matter) I'm way, way behind that! Not as far behind as I was, but that's how wars work.

Extrapolating from the comments posted by 4 members that VE as a whole is whining about GATO is perhaps equally petty. The comments about our stupidity in standing by our allies, whether they are Umbrella, GOD, or even at one time GATO, do nothing to remedy the pettiness. Efficiency has it's place, true. So do other things one may value, the relative priority of which we may disagree on. While I don't have figures for the whole alliance, my own nation has pretty much stayed in the middle of the pack for the duration. But over 21 completed conflicts, I've averaged 1.85 NS dealt/received. Perhaps the average GATO member has been far more efficient than I have been. But perhaps it's just as well that such things are lost on such as me, because I do not regret having taken an active part in this conflict in support of an ally. In fact, trying to carry on combat with two such radically different approaches as those used by Baron Aaron [IRON] and Timberland [AI] was well worth the price of admission. However, although the topic is properly GATO's experience of the war, not mine, it sounds like I've had a better time of it than you.

That may be where some of the disconnect lies. I'm not sure that a slow release of upper/middle tier nations into a conflict with IRON, AI, NPO (not to ignore PPO, TENE, DB4D, and others) would result in anything but a faster collapse in our badly-outnumbered middle tier. Each wave rolling out would be facing a fresh set of opponents waiting for the chance to triple-team them down. Holding the lower tiers in PM simply leaves the nations falling into those ranges with little or no backup except from other nations in the same situation. This is NOT to say that we've stood alone as an alliance, but one would do well to recognize that it is harder for the individual being triple-teamed to see that. Regarding the lower tiers, you currently have four nations in my range not in peace mode that could come in and relieve me. Two of them look like they'd do a good job of it. One of the other two looks like he came out of PM yesterday and took a nuke today. But that illustrates in part what the nations in the lower-NS tiers would be facing, a dangerously mixed bag of opponents, quite likely still holding a numerical advantage. Ignoring any issue folks have with peace mode operations, I'll agree that it is almost pointless for our folks to complain about the actions of an alliance that probably wasn't supposed to be coming in on our particular front. The benefits would be indirect, and likely not easily observed from a distance.

Talk about a "blast from the past" ... informative, but nicely balanced out with Florida. Here's to more blasts in the future, even if we don't always see eye to eye or keep all the [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Random_Viridian_News"]newspapers[/url] in the same file.

[quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1341562831' post='3004701'] What if the nation who surrenders is out of your range? [/quote] Some of our other nations are smaller than they used to be Edit, after seeing Matt Miller's post: Out of range on the [u]top[/u] end! That's ... unusual. I can appreciate that infrastructure and technology are expensive and slow to build in that range, but LOTS of other folks are down a quarter or more of their NS, on both sides. I'll refrain from further exposition of my opinion on this, as some of the language might be colorful but inappropriate.

[quote name='President Kuse' timestamp='1341553968' post='3004622'] Official Response: No Surrender, my honor will remain intact and on the battlefield. For Glory! For Viridia! [/quote] Oooooookay. To be honest, they are good terms and I'm sure I've read harsher and/or more insulting surrender terms. If anyone asks, why keep it secret? If they want to start catching up on the politics, good for them. If they want to bail out on the people counting on them, good riddance. I guess I'm too pragmatic to assume my honor will forever remain spotless and pure on any given battlefield. Granted, I don't have any intention of taking you all up on the offer, but the effort made isn't lost on me.

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1323935988' post='2878715'] I'm RIA, for one, [/quote] Mea culpa. I was looking at the pip and not the [s]AA text[/s] signature text. It's been one of those days.

[quote name='Mogar' timestamp='1323930019' post='2878582'] This isn't going to happen. [/quote] Just to clarify a bit: Is MHA declaring on VE in support of TUR, or are you reminding us all that the OP just isn't that easily taken down?

[quote name='Zombie Glaucon' timestamp='1300064257' post='2663757'] Where can I contact VE nations that might like to sell me tech? [/quote] If an announcement about that isn't made soon, I'd recommend asking around on #ve, maybe even sending a PM to Bob Janova. If VE sellers are being too slack to jump on a tech deal, Misfit Nations could use the business too. (That should "light a fire" in a few places )

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1300059607' post='2663478'] Well those were some fun two months. Hope to see you again iFOK/FOK. We're destined for each other it seems... [/quote] Being on an iFOK/FOK target list is definitely bad for a nation's health.

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1300056192' post='2663418'] Good luck to my friends in Rok, i know youll do well for yourselves sans VE [/quote] The treaty is being canceled because our alliances are on too divergent a pair of paths, so it's entirely likely they'll do not just well, but better for themselves without VE. To Ragnarok themselves, fair winds and a following sea.

[quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1299880297' post='2660351'] The Siberian Tiger Alliance hereby; surrenders to the forces of Poison Clan, Viridian Entente, Argent, World Federation, The Brigade and Umbrella, and we agree not to; reenter the war on any front. [/quote] o/ STA and our allies for an honorable and well-fought fight. By all accounts I've read, STA lives up to their namesake. [quote name='Tygaland' timestamp='1299880297' post='2660351'] Also, Nueva Vida and World Federation; recognize a state of peace. [/quote] As sad as it is to see our allies at war with each other, one couldn't ask for more from either one or for a better ally than either one. Congratulations on a well-earned peace to both.

[quote name='Penkala' timestamp='1299724577' post='2658176'] If they wanted to do it, you wouldn't have made them mandatory. You would have just done them off the books. It was extortion. [/quote] By that definition, VE extorted USA after that little scuffle a couple of years back. Also, the light-hearted reparations asked by The Brain aren't all that much worse than the civics essay we demanded (I forget the exact topic; Tarikmo3 probably hasn't forgotten), or those our close ally RIA is in the habit of asking for. In any case, from what both The Brain and CSN have said for themselves there was a complete break in communications between the alliances at a time when clear communications were most needed ... as an outside party, I'd say it's as much CSN's fault in not verifying that their requests and notices were getting through to the right people in a timely fashion as it was the The Brain's for not keeping up their end, nonetheless ... that's generally sufficient reason for treaty cancellation. The end result is generally also the same, that both alliances are better off without the canceled treaty for now.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299829071' post='2659733'] Would military decommission be white peace then? It's really just an extension of no re-entry clauses, making it difficult/impossible for an alliance to re-engage properly, but having no adverse long term effects. [/quote] There's some room for debate on that one, as standard military improvement decommission plus troop/tank drawdowns to minimum government support could leave an alliance more open to rogues and raiders than intended. Also, it's practically inevitable that some member nations won't act on stand-down orders in a timely fashion, making compliance a potential issue. While I grant that most alliances would be understanding of these things, and that military decom is a first step towards rebuilding, I think that the fact that the defeated party must take further positive actions for peace, under the active scrutiny of the victor, would put this outside the realm of a gentleman's agreement - which is all even a "no re-entry" clause can amount to. All that said, this is still an well-earned measure of peace for UPN, and I don't begrudge them the right to post notice that their disbandment has been indefinitely postponed.

[quote name='Garrow' timestamp='1299802602' post='2659180'] Over in Gotham, we've been growing and minding our own business for the most part. Things are going wonderfully, activity is good and so are the ladies. [/quote] Congratulations on the milestone and the ladies! From the membership growth, I'd say recruitment is going well too.