Tulafaras

goodbye EW

What kind of analogy is that supposed to be? It takes two to tango is true for many different situations but for a war declaration that is absurd. As soon as one side has declared the war exists no matter what the other side wishes. Maybe some alliances wanted this war to happen, but the fact remains we did not start it. I've read this entire thread but so far i haven't seen a single convincing argument why you should not pay reps. You've coasted along under the NPO's protection for a long time now, you have never stood up and tried to distance yourselve so now you've made your bed have the grace to lie in it.

do you honestly think you are doing yourselve any favors by posting this?

unless the NPO sends more nations back into the war they cannot loose more than 2mill NS from now on. Even then most of those 2mill are in tech, which is far harder to destroy than infra. basically the only way they could loose their sanction is if they either commit another wave or loose 200 people or so. Neither of which is terribly likely anytime soon.

to be honest even in the alliances who were consistent in their demands the amount of reps can be heavily contested before a final figure is agreed on. The Iron figure which is being thrown around here is most definitly not the final amount a specific alliance has demanded (quite simply because it was still internal, if it had been a final amount it would have been sent on to the other side). I don't see Iron in the same league as the NPO, but they definitly were a key member of the Hegemony, so if i had anything to say about it (which i don't) i'd impose reps on them. They might not have profited as much as their allies did, but they were part of the establishment which made the extortion possible. And yes, i know that the same can be said for some alliances who are on "my" side in this war (or even close allies of my alliance), but those alliances decided that enough was enough and started to change. IRON did not, and now they are involved in this war. Ps: While IRON might have lost a lot in absolute numbers and score, i'll still bet heavily that they will recover far faster than the MCXA who were let off with practically white peace. (edit, changed a very confusing phrase)

no nukes on the first day obviously. and most of the NPO nations have been nuked during the entire first week. The first drop we might see should be around day 38 of the war.

in all honesty i have never agreed with EZI and while some people might want to see it used to make an ironic statement i won't agree with it. PZI is a slightly lesser punishment and something i might agree with (meaning forcing someone to reroll) but it is still a VERY harsh punishment. Aside from infra and tech which can be replaced our nations also have time invested (best represented by our wonders) and you'd need to make a conflict very personal to make me desire total destruction of a nation. Note to the rather clueless person who used Nazi Germany as an example as much as i dislike Moo for his arrogance i won't accept ANY comparison of hegemony leaders with the NS regime. The crimes that regime commited cannot be done in CN for which i am obviously gratefull. If you want to use an ooc example stick to world war 1 if you have to, that is more applicable.

are you even reading what we are posting? We first notified GDA that a number of nations was not in compliance over a week ago. (at that point we had not compiled a list, just check alliance stats and noticed that number of tanks and certain improvements was far too high). 5 days later the first complete list of violators was compiled and then sent on to GDA. Then after another 48h went by a new list was made and they were attacked. What more do you want us to do?

okay first of all your post is so disjointed that i have absolutly no idea what the first 10 screenshots are supposed to mean. Second of all, i compiled lists of term offenders three times in the last 2 weeks. all lists were forwarded to your goverment so that you could message your members to get em to comply, even though that would have been YOUR responsibility not mine on paper. None of the nations on the list i compiled had CMs but if you want me to i can gladly post the 57 nations who were breaking the terms on sunday including what their offence was. Now if you want to turn this in a PR campaign let me ask you a honest question, i've been asking myself since last friday: How inept is your goverment that you cannot even get the ratio of complying nations up to 80%? In regards to the nation with CMs while i do not see the benefit of having CMs up they are allowed to you, so they were not included. The nation of novichok was on the list for improvements, the attacker is supposed to take a screenshot before declaring war so if you insist i will go and hunt down that screenshot since mine is from friday. (quick edit) the screenshot before attack would be GoD procedure, i am unsure if CSN has the same policy

it's not as if she had a point. She had a tinfoil hat worthy conspiracy about KaitlinK leading xiph around by his strings which is quite funny to those in the know, combined with a medium length rant about the unfairness of our actions, followed up by a rather funny accusation since we haven't done a "tech raid" as she described it in our entire existence.

errr Lady Gaga might i offer you a clue: We have never declared a "tech raid" as you phrased it as an alliance. AB attacked us not the other way, so it was our decision when to give them peace.

interesting interpretation mine would be rather different, but then i guess that is the point we are arguing about. Quite honestly i think we have strayed rather far from the initial topic, but i don't think i can convince you and am quite certain you can't convince me so i'll simply let this argument be.

How do you count fronts in a Global War? Do you honestly think that for Echelon to surrender they now have to beg for peace from every seperate alliance attacking the NPO? Usually it's either defined in the DoW or the front becomes clear by ingame action. And honestly that side-facet of this mess has little to do with this peace settlement does it? If you want to discuss it any longer i'll gladly take this to another thread or pm.

i ain't saying the were wrong to enter the war, frankly i am far less moral than many other players in this game. If they had simply posted: "we want to have a war have at it" i'd be perfectly fine with it. Echelon's dec was pretty ripe for confusion all around, you could either consider them at war with all alliances (8 at that point i believe) or you could take it as we understood it, that they agreed to back the NPO against all enemies and were attacking whoever they were attacking. Anyway, it's a pretty moot point which doesn't have a lot to do with the peace agreement itself. I wish AB well in rebuilding and hope they choose their side more carefully next time. (edit to include Doitzel's last post which wasn't up when wrote this) As i said Echelon's declaration was VERY confusing. You could (and obviously you specifically do so) read it as declaring war on all attackers of the NPO, our interpretation was more of a broad declaration of support. They started ingame attacks a few days later and obviously at that point we considered ourselves at war with them. Now to reply to your "legality" bullcrap, you seem to be under some missconceptions, AB declared an offensive war against us, knowing full well that there was some bad blood between the Superfriends and themselves now why in the world would we need any legal arguments to fight them? What were we supposed to do, simply defend ourselves and offer white peace every day? I have no idea what you are fishing for in your posts. You asked a question and i answered with my interpretation of the answer (which is obviously subjective).

echelon attacked a number of alliances in their initial attack but we were not among them. As i said, we didn't consider Echelon our front and were quite happy with attacking the GDA and the NPO then suddenly AB attacked us citing a treaty with an alliance we had no wars with, but who had a number of wars with different alliances. Yes with the somewhat strange declaration by Echelon it was difficult to say who they were at war with, but we simply assumed that those they declared on were those they want to wage war with.

yep and at the time they declared on us GOD was at war with the NPO and the GDA in defence of the NPO (something about "violating the NPO" if i remember the Declaration right). We were not at war with Echelon either on paper or in real wars until a few days later, which is why their declaration was mocked when it happened.

it might have something to do with declaring via an oA clause from an alliance who wasn't at war with us at that point. (though they joined our front a few days later when GDA withdrew).

I beg to disagree. I know my alliance and our closest allies (meaning the Superfriends in this case) fairly well. We might not have liked NPO much, but we wouldn't have declared an offensive war against them without a very valid reason (same as with any other alliance, unless a truly valid CB is given we won't come gunning for you). I know your side has been trying to sell this point for a while (with little success) using a number of different arguments to try to back up your point, but the fact remains that offensive wars without a CB are VERY rare, and so far have ONLY been started by your side. If you mean that the conflict was at some point inevtiable, then i might even agree. It was obvious that the political situation was changing for a while, but that does not strictly imply war. It meant primarily that your diplomatic corps should have been working overtime since February to reshuffle the cards. Instead the so called Hegemony drew closer together and followed the NPO into a war. Could you have won this war? I honestly don't know, from the way it went so far i can confidently say that some part of IRON and NPO were not the fighters i expected them to be. NS is only a part of your nations true value in battle, improvements, wonders and your warchest play a much more important role, and a fair number of Hegemony alliances have obviously been VERY lax in their preparations. Was it close? We were actually preparing to BE curbstomped over the weekend while the peace talks were under way. It was clear from the start that the Superfriends and VE would stand with OV, but aside from that we were very unsure how the lines would look. (At least to the general membership, maybe the goverment had more information but i somehow doubt that).

they obviously have quite a few skills, but so far their performance in this war has been lackluster at best. They didn't send out coordinated waves to hit back at specific enemies, their propaganda has failed (compared to earlier wars) and their diplomacy has obviously failed at some point during the last year. Do not get me wrong, they were #1 for a reason, but there was obviously quite some fat on that body which is now being burned off. Maybe they will come out of this as a lean fighting machine, maybe they won't that is something the future will show, but for now they lost. Ps: If your interested sort their alliance by seniority you'll see a fascinating development over the last 21 days (that being roughly 300 nations have joined them since the war began and almost all were below 10k NS) Pps: only post on that topic i'll make since this is definitly not the thread to discuss specific performance of an alliance at length.

mrcalkin: you have the right to think whatever you want, but we also have the right to be angry with your actions. Now don't get me wrong, i won't come in here to flame you, because frankly i have no cause to. You have no obligations to us, so you can give whatever terms you want. On the other hand, i can safely think you are either hopelessly naive or completly uninformed. This war was meant to bring Karma down on the Hegemony, frankly letting someone off scot free (and that is what these terms do) does not in anyway represent my idea of Karma for Valhalla.

actually your wrong. The central military command you suspect of existing only went so far as to say: "alliance X declares on alliance Y". We did not have coordinated target lists, which led to a load of messed up hits/staggers especielly against the NPO. On the other fronts the alliances got together pretty fast and coordinated but there are simply too many alliances involved against the NPO to make coordination feasible. I'll give you an example, currently i am drawing up 3 lists of open echelon slots a day for our members, why? because by the time update rolls around at least 10 new nations from different alliances have declared and taken slots that were open after the previous update. On the topic of peace mode etc. could we please stop this discussion? Peace mode is a valid tactic, it isn't a very brave thing to do (note i am referring to the approx 75 peace mode nations in the NPO who have yet to fire a single shot in this war, not the approx 120 who managed to get into peace because staggers were messed up or attacker slots ran out) but it is a valid tactic. If it wasn't meant to be used it wouldn't be possible to stay in forever, if they want to accept the penalty (which combined with GRL hurts at the moment) they can stay in for all i care. Just as i know that surrender negotiations won't really get under way as long as they remain in peace.

Haflinger, your ideas are nice in theory and would hold some weight if there was actual truth to any of them. I've been monitoring target slots among the top 200 of the NPO for nearly 2 weeks now, and in that time a grand total of 11 nations was "cycled" into war mode. Everyone else stays in peace. It's obvious by now that they have no intention of coming out until this war is done, there were a number of points in this conflict where a coordinated second wave would have been felt by their enemies. It might not have been enough to turn the conflict around, but it sure as hell couldn't have hurt. Instead they stayed in peace. So please stop talking about "waves", "military tactic" or anything similar. The only tactic their peacemode nations are currently employing is "hide under the bed until the bad man have gone home"

i can't believe we are arguing this point again.... Any way, since i am too lazy to look for the past posts on this point let me repeat what i and other said there: Standard mode of operation for negotiations on IRC: Person A and person B meet in a room, sometimes with mediator C added. In 2 different channels the people from alliance A and B sit with their negotiator and discuss proposals by the other side in peace, without giving away any information. Sometimes more than one person represents an alliance, but usually you either let one guy talk or you even have only one guy in the channel. Now when person A disconnects one of 3 things usually happens: 1) Alliance A sends another negotiator 2) Person A reconnects and rejoins the channel where the negotiations are going on 3) Alliance A sends a message that talks are postponed since the guy who is offline has all the power. Those would be the standard responses to such a situation (which is rather common). What did Moo do? He did one of 3 things: 1) he had left instructions that if he disced they were to declare war (in which case the negotiations were not done in good faith). 2) he rejoined their internal channel (but not the negotiation channel) and ordered an attack. 3) someone from Pacifica decided to assume a lot (remember that saying about making an $@! out of you and me?) and declared war without orders (very very very very very unlikely). Since no one from the NPO has stepped forward and accepted responsibility for option 3, we are left only with option 1 and 2. So please could you finally accept that this chain of events was idiotic on their side and shut the hell up?

TTK is still at war with echelon so they are not out of this war either.

frankly i have seldom seen a more idiotic post than yours. Seriously the PR machine your side is running currently is so bad i don't know wether to laugh or cry. There is a wide gulf between the perception of some ideal and reality, yes that is always the case, but you are completly missing the point of what karma stands for in the mind of the general populace. Most people on the side of Karma want a change in the way CN operates on a global level. They do not want to spend all their time watching over their shoulder in fear that the big bad alliance on top will decide they are too dangerous and that they need to be curbstomped. That is the motivation for most of us. There are a number of policies specific alliances on the Karma side abhor, and those will almost certainly be abolished now (e.g. PZI) but aside from those most alliances do not have a problem with reparations after a lost war. Decent terms have always been a part of the game and most alliances have had to pay some at one point or another. We do not expect to be granted white peace when we loose a war so why should we be expected to grant it when we win one? Seriously, please take your whining somewhere else and come back when you have gotten a clue.