Vhalen

It was designed to prevent dangerous wars. Ones with guaranteed victory, on the other hand... (Yeah, I see your other post that covered this in more detail, now.) That's easy to explain, for any competent conspiracy theorist. OG's actions were necessary to throw people off the scent. They valiantly sacrificed that the plot might never be uncovered.

What sort of timetable comes into play on this? I only ask because it didn't seem to apply for the first 23 months or so. Seriously, though, you might just wanna let this one go. I don't see much of anyone who hasn't already bought the party line likely to be convinced that it was all in the works before eerie voices on the forums began suggesting NPO might do well to get the same treatment. Too many coincidences lately.

That seems likely. VE was right at the tippy top, as I recall. It was quite a feat, really. I'd be more interested to see the %age who've been in PM the entire war, actually. Not interested enough to check the charts for all their PM nations, though. If you look hard enough, you can find wisdom in any thread.

I think the bolded part of your comment is the one people question most. How is it not newsworthy? Actually, this makes me curious. What, in your opinion, is required for something to be newsworthy? It's the lack of pictures, isn't it? I'm sure we can get some obliging soul to help.

Just a note for the sake of clarification: The fact that they're only running one candidate means they can't get "full control" of the senate.

I think they're all just ticked because someone took their hats.

You know, I hope that the "financial/tech reps only to defending parties" thing catches on. I've always thought that if you're the aggressor in a war, you shouldn't be charging your opponent for defending themselves, and you should've been in the war for some reason beyond loot. Congrats all on achieving peace.

It's not intentional? I think they're hiding: I don't really agree with this, but not for the mechanical reasons you state. The strength of NPO, in particular, is significantly based on the appearance of strength. If they're reduced to a bunch of battered hulks and a "fair amount of nations" with no infra, but those wonders and liquid cash, the appearance of strength is shattered. Damage or no damage, breakable or not, they would become a hollow, irrelevant shell at that point. Also, mechanically, I feel obligated to point out that their target list gets smaller and smaller each day, as well, when defeat alerts, CMs, nukes, etc reduce their tech, land, and NS, not to mention their monetary supply. I'm too lazy to do the math, but I suspect your numbers are a bit off, if you haven't taken that into account.

Well, I think quite a few saw it as "loose coalition" or "more of the same, which is intolerable," and took what they could get. I'll leave that alone, though. It's all subjective, after all. Well, I'd say the primary agenda was military victory. Secondary agendas seem to be another issue altogether. From what I've gathered, many expected this to be a much more even conflict, and probably anticipated large peace talks at some point, with quite a few major parties involved, or something along those lines. Though I tend to think well of your posts, Grub, I'm not sure this is a good argument. Once victory became clear, and moreso when it grew increasingly obvious, people began to express individual opinions much more publicly, and to stretch their arms and legs in the new room provided by the ruins everywhere. The bolded section, especially, I disagree with. Who determines the greater good? NPO would argue that the greater good was OV getting ganked. Evidently, one or two people disagreed. The fact that this war was won before it got rolling, as you put it, speaks volumes in and of itself. I suspect that, given a more even battlefield, organization would tend to grow rather than diminish. I freely admit that this is speculation, though, and I won't argue about whether some people are playing "prevent" defense (American football reference, for those who went "huh?" -- bend but don't break kind of thing, the joke being it "prevents" you from winning), because I haven't been, and don't intend to be, checking their wars. Suffice it to say that the military aspect is hardly the issue facing the side pretty much unanimously considered the victor. As always, it's politics where the confusion lies.

Sounds like what many had been saying about power-structure hangers-on for quite a while. I can't say I'm surprised if we see some new people seizing opportunity when it passes their way for the first time in several years. If I've learned anything from these forums, the answer to that is "basically forever." The past doesn't go away, especially when it's a painful memory for someone else. And yes, they're watching. Tyga, it's simple. A lot of alliances who've become embroiled in this massive undertaking don't have the same drive or the same goals as those who got the ball rolling. Fact is, there are going to be people who don't like whatever terms get handed down, for each and every alliance. "Why didn't X get Y term?" "Why would you force X to do Y? They're not really the same alliance they were, anyway." And so forth. The thing is, if Karma wanted to control terms for "core Hegemony alliances," they needed to make that clear to the combatants up front. That's the primary issue you're facng, I think. (As for me, I don't think everyone will get white peace, nor do I think crippling reps and draconian terms are the way to go. I suspect I'm far from alone in this opinion, and probably, in general, in agreement with you.) I think some of them will learn from it, reform, and be better for it. Some won't, but they'll know they're under scrutiny, and that grudges aren't magically disappearing. Either they'll act like they've changed (which, it could be argued, is the same thing as actually changing), or there'll be conflict, but I think it'll be much less ridiculous conflict than the massive gangbangings of the recent past. Clearly that sort of thing makes people unhappy enough to rise up en masse.

You should probably realize that it's not complimentary that you had "three pages of attention paid to you." People can't help but look at a car crash.

A show of uncommon wisdom. Who are you people, and what have you done with the real forums?

Yeah, they're so close at the moment that it's liable to switch back and forth when people buy tanks and such.

Apparently I was wrong when I said I was done with this thread. One last comment, I suppose: Maybe DT's golden boy should raid this guy, and we can watch the whole issue settle itself in astoundingly quick fashion. Edit: Added the because I was worried this might not appear as lighthearted as intended.

And much more reason to be embarrassed. I'm thankful I'm not associated with him. Somehow, I think that now this has become a giant uproar, it's going to be solved rather quickly all the sudden, so I'm done with this thread.

Well, I can hardly be blamed for that. I never got an invite. Heh. Well, we'll just call it a wash.

I'm pretty sure he volunteered/offered to be attacked (see the top two quotes). I don't know how you guys run things, and I'm not going to run around and sort through documents to look it up, but I'd expect someone who acts like an jackass on the forums, volunteers himself for retribution, and then gets attacked (mind you, by someone who ISN'T at a massive NS advantage) to pretty much be on his own as far as that goes. He wanted a war, he got one, and, in his words, he should "Put up or shut up." To his credit, I don't see him whining about the attack. Oh, and as for declaring not being a solution, it seems like nothing was done until the declaration, so it appears that it is a very effective way to solve the problem. Edit: I'm just not going to bother. Chron's said everything I did, first. (OOC) I guess we can tell which of us is watching TV while writing their post, and which isn't.(/OOC)

Good for you, but you seem to be the exception. I checked the last 30 days on quite a few of the top PM nations (until I got bored with getting the same results 90% of the time, and quit), and they have very little NS change over that period. I can't say this is really all that surprising, given that Karma has proven it isn't exactly the most coordinated group. However, a large portion of the PM group has been there since before the starter's pistol ever fired. That sounds nice on the surface, but I imagine these talks were between people involved in the fighting, instead of a random selection of membership. That makes it a skewed subset (combat participants) and therefore faulty data. Conduct the same conversations between a randomly selected group from the top 10% or so of NPO, and the results will be quite different, I'm sure. (Though, I do admit that's also somewhat faulty, since most of the fighters have probably fallen out of the top 10% by now.)

Gosh, you think that might be why this came up?

Well, to be fair, they're probably in the top 5 pages because they're in peace mode.

I note that since the war began, they've picked up well over 100 new members, mostly new (2-3 week old) nations in a smattering of various colors, and largely under 1k NS. Seems like they'd be well over 928 nations if the "they haven't really had any deserters" thing were true. Could it be a plan to avoid the appearance of losses? (Edit: And yes, I understand that a few of these nations are rejoins and such, but the vast majority are not.)

So I figured I'd see if I couldn't get something decent assembled, instead of having to replace one after another. Yeah, this is a bit of a latecomer, but it beats not trying, I guess. Pretty flexible as of now, either 3, 5, or 8BR, and I'm willing to switch colors if that's what it takes for trade stability. I figure I'll see what we can accomplish best, once a few people express interest. Either let me know here, or in-game. I'll edit this post to list the goal circle once I've made some progress toward it.

I suppose you'd have had them fight on both sides? Also, I'm not alone in thinking they made an effort to ensure OG didn't get pounded terribly long. I'm inclined to agree with you here, but I'll leave this one post hanging out here anyway, since I've yet to interject here. I suppose this is where someone should bring up the OoO and how much NPO values treaties when they're inconvenient? Okay, I'll bite.

Neat to see these numbers all together like this, I suppose. Not sure I'd want to see it all enacted, though. I'm not a huge fan of massive aid reps.

I want reps!