avernite

We were busy fighting, sorry. I can also add In Hoc Signo Vinces, Johan Vult, and all that, but frankly... Fighting is more fun.

If this is what it appears like on first glance, I must congratulate you on a game well played. If it isn't, well, then we will see what the future brings.

Well, we threw off the shackles of the treaty web, that is good. Now to see how the war goes.

amad: actually, I fully agree with you, except for one thing: some alliances know how much money they have, and it reinforces your point; Matt Miller showed after karma just how meaningless the loss of infrastructure is with upper-tier warchests, and at this point in time warchests are on average only bigger. However, the loss of cash due to nuclear anarchy collections is hardly so critical; at a rough cost in upper tiers of 10 million per day for such collection, that's not all that huge (essentially you lose an extra day of bills), and will indeed take weeks if not months to start counting for something. Even so, it's still the best strategy there is for putting your enemies out of action, and those nations without adequate warchests will suffer VERY harshly.

That last sentence I've heard in every war since the UjW... I am not yet convinced. But who knows, if the big guns that are still out join up, we might reach 10 intelligent posters on each side. Would be fun.

I dunno, despite never techraiding TOP did fine in its first war.

The only problem is, of course, that adding the word imperialist makes the term even LESS neutral, showing an apaprent dislike of the activity in our current vocabulary. To change that would require coming up with two terms for the same thing, one positive and one negative, or a more a-priori neutral term; moralist is such, except it has another meaning too.

Moralists: The guys with the largest amount of previously unaligned alliances on their side. The term is used to try to change this in favour of the side using the Moralist name. Usually fails. See also the Karma war and the Unjust War.

Bipolar war It is busy shifting us back from multipolarity to bipolarity, it started with the NpO, it is sort of a second of the same war, and lots of people on both sides reverse their opinion on various issues based on who does it. (the propagandist in me says one side does it more than the other, but frankly, everyone does it... that's politics)

I'd say TOP is mostly lawful neutral with lawful good and true neutral tendencies. my character is mostly lawful good.

If it wasn't for the loss of seniority, I'd hide off the TOP AA

Only since 2007... Also, bye FOK

UFO 2.0? Also congrats and such

Maybe Bilrow did that, but even so he used a joke of an alliance (well, it wasn't yet at that point, but on the road there according to your argument) and managed to use it to kill VE (using his allies, maybe, but that too requires skill). Also, I never noticed the continuity of spirit between VE1 and 2, some general trend as with NAAC and GR maybe. But well, that's an outsider looking in and all.

Ah don't, it was a very good move for us

Well, it definately was a great time to be TOP. GATO nations nearly all had worse airforces, worse warchests, and more useless tech compared to useful infra. We could cut through them quite quick, but in essence we were VERY rapidly overextending ourselves. The fact that GATO surrendered just when we started to worry about that was great... and the way they did it was even more fun

The post above yours expands the point. I am saying one side had a better chance to win. I am not saying which side, as it would end up creating another tangential discussion. I do however believe that the side which had the better chance of victory was cowardly by accepting white peace, while the other side was quite justified in doing so as it created the best possible solution given that said side would have lost the war.

Yes; the obvious conclusion is that one side actually had a better hand, and was cowardly for not fighting. After all, one side said TPF was evil and the other said attacking TPF over such a bad CB was evil. So fighting was logical, unless the outcome of fighting was ensuring the evil you saw would be perpetuated.

Actually, cowardice implies there's somesort of hope of victory that you botch by being a coward, IE the so-called cowards would have a chance if only they stood and fought. It would be bravery to stand and fight when you seemingly have no hope, and normal to consider flight. So, yes, accepting white peace makes perfect sense when you have a worse hand.

I think your first paragraph is more critical. Our side knew victory would be nearly impossible. The other side knew victory would be extremely costly. When they offered peace, our side obviously accepted. The question is, is the war as inevitable as it seems, and if so, which side gains from this?

Then again, at the same time those others can easily push Athens, \m/ and GOD down. The question is, is sacrificing those alliances worth crushing TPF? Probably not, so declaring on RoK is rather unnecessary.

WoTC, Karma... It's the first time in maybe 3/4th of a year since there's not been a major war for that time. Now, as to if Karma is the new Hegemony? No, because those names were just war-time coalitions. Supercomplaints is using some tactics that the karma war supposedly fought against, but only the most wide-eyed idealist needed this war to be convinced that was NOT the point of Karma. The point was apparently more to defeat their enemies (gosh) and the fact that a multi-polar world developed is mostly down to how much was needed to defeat the 'Hegemony', namely a combination of 4 equally powerful blocs and hangers-on.

Somehow, if we achieve that, I would not be too unhappy. If truely every single other upper tier in this war gets wiped out I would be quite happy, and I think it would have quite some effect on the entire war.

If you had said Supercomplaints was the new Hegemony, you'd have gotten more 'yes' votes, IMO. And, yes.

Karma is a group of alliances, commonly associated with C&G and SF as the central blocs of that coalition. However, I suppose calling you Supercomplaints would also be fitting, given this thread. In which case magically the other side isn't the Hegemony anymore. Apart from my lack of desire to actually trust you: Supercomplaints is indeed acting in a bad fashion, and so all YOUR bashing of the Hegemony back in the day was just you bashing yourselves by transitivity. It was really painfull to watch, so please stop. You, sir, are talking nonsense. The primary goal of an ally is NOT to die along with you. It is to help you win your war. Given the utter crap used as a CB out of the blue, not to mention the size of the coalition apparently assembled against TPF, it may take longer to organise a victorious response than normal... but then again, Karma was organising from the moment NPO first approached OV and that also took several days. So, in short, you're having everyone wasting his time because your opposition doesn't do what you want? Well, boohoo! This thread and those like it are what damages braincells, not people waiting a few days before giving you what you want.