SpiderJerusalem

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1303207301' post='2693489'] So... you switch AA and immediately declare war? That's pretty much the textbook definition of a nuke rogue. Now let's see if the teams that Thriller's nations are on have the nerve to issue sanctions. [/quote] I believe you are mistaken good sir. The textbook definition of a nuke rogue is as follows: 1) Fire nukes 2) There is no 2 3) ??? 4) Profit See... Without step one, you are no nuke rogue

I would love to join in on this, but I am currently tonking some other dudes... Oh well, have fun!

I guess you deserve each other...

[quote name='Jens of the desert' timestamp='1302881547' post='2691118'] How many people does it take to make a stupid topic? [/quote] At least one, as opposed to "no one"

[quote name='kamichi' timestamp='1302021895' post='2684716'] from my extensive experience with hosting cn boards, it sounds like a problem with the host maybe you should get a new one [/quote] I miss you Kamichi

Best wishes from me Bob... I know I'll talk to you again

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1301412001' post='2679949'] If the [u]intent[/u] of the treaty is that the signatories could not go to war again within a certain timeframe, then that is what is should have [u]said[/u]. Instead, it [u]said[/u] in no uncertain terms that the signatories were perfectly welcome to honor treaties activated after it was signed. [b]That clearly shows that its [u]intent[/u] was to remove this signatories from the Polaris front, and it did that.[/b] [/quote] About that... [quote name='Cairna' timestamp='1301410777' post='2679934'] What I will say is that [b]we had no original intent to re-enter the war[/b]. We were tread on and we responded using the only option we felt we had at that point. [/quote]

[quote name='Sweeeeet Ronny D' timestamp='1301413815' post='2679968'] Spider are you serious about that? I would think that would make the European legal system a complete train wreck. Who is to decide what the intention is behind the law if it is not properly written out? [/quote] I am serious, yes... And it's not a train wreck, hence the reason we don't have laughable law suits The intention is decided by a thing called common sense from the judges.. It's not hard actually

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1301400752' post='2679878'] "Regardless of the specifics of the paper" Hahaha, [i]WHAT?[/i] The specifics [b]are[/b] the agreement. That's why they're there. People dont' sign treaties, surrenders, trade agreements etc and then go "oh yeah, by the way what this agreement says is not what it means, and it doesnt matter." We write agreements because the agreement means [i]what it says[/i]. As Heft touched on, while people that wub each udder might have some special folksgeist in their treaties taht means they'll go above and beyond what it says, there is no "spirit" in a surrender document. [/quote] Actually, you're partly right, and partly wrong. [OOC]It all depends on what branch of law interpretation you're using. The US way, which is probably the one you know of, is to just read the words, and only the words. The European school of law however, focus more on the intention[/OOC] Just wanted to clear that up

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1301012622' post='2675312'] Of course he is talking about me [/quote] Don't you steal my glory

[quote name='Van Hoo III' timestamp='1301002076' post='2675036'] Having said that, there are people in the game that I like and even call friends who I feel are awful posters. [/quote] Are you referring to me?

Great fight guys

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1300991811' post='2674822'] As far as the general consensus of terrible OWF posting, you're like a little gnat to them. [/quote] I'll take it as a compliment then

[quote name='KainIIIC' timestamp='1300982900' post='2674720'] You're just not important enough. (I have 0 ) [/quote] And HoT and Alterego are? I feel offended

I can't believe I only have 1 nomination so far

[quote name='HHAYD' timestamp='1300840746' post='2673432'] Do keep in mind that there are some fighters that are nuke armed but so badly damaged they get to vomit nukes onto their opposing lower tier fighters. Toss in nukes and the war expense goes off the charts. [/quote] Wait, what? Why does it go of the charts? Turtling for 7 days, hurling some CM's their way, and then after 7 days, accept 6m in aid and you're back up... With 9m to spare.. Then, let the nuclear armed nations of your side, without aid, fight our nuclear armed nations in the same range, that gets aided... Good luck chuck...

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300829231' post='2673314'] Ehh, screw studying. This looks like it'll be more fun.[/quote] Good read, now I'll tell you why you are wrong [quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300829231' post='2673314']The first thing you have to understand is that finance operates in a world of numbers. Math. So the first step down the rabbit hole is to take all the information, all the ideas, all the knowledge you have, and toss it out the window. I’m talking your opinions, your propaganda, your feel-good attitude, your idea that your winning, all that. Throw it all out. We’re just dealing with numbers here. With me? Good. Now that we have numbers, we need to strip those to the essentials. I won’t get into the technical details behind CN economy for simplicities sake. So all you need to know is that warchests, tech, income, militaries, all that: throw it out. It doesn’t mean anything (well, at this point, but it will become clear later). Throw everything out.[/quote] Here we agree, it operates in a world of numbers, so far, so good [quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300829231' post='2673314']We now have aid slots. This is a primary foundation. The aid slot system in CN is antique and outdated, but it’s what we have to work with. There have been a number of good suggestions over the years to improve it (including a novel idea by Seerow), but these have fallen by the wayside. In the end, we have an aid slot system that can transfer fixed amounts over a 10 day period. What does this means? It means *aid flows* are fixed on a per-nation basis. What’s an aid flow? It’s the “aid train” that’s been referred to. Basically, a stream of aid to a nation or group of nations. Ok?[/quote] Agreed [quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300829231' post='2673314']In effective nuclear combat range (1K infra), 1.8mil a day is pennies. Let’s take a look. You have to pay bills (about 400K). Buy a nuke (about 500K). Replace losses (about 1mil). Buy infra back up (about 750K). Rebuy spies (2-4mil). I could keep going, but you get the idea. And this does not take into account navies, or a WRC (which means more expensive units, and two nuke purchases daily). 1.8mil a day simply does not cut it. The best you can do is turtle, and heaven help you if you lose a GA. You’re screwed for the next 10 days at that point. So, with nonstop max aid flows, a nation could expect to simply sit there, and maybe get the occasional nuke off. Now, this is JUST on a 1v1 battle. If the defending nation is outnumbered, there is no hope.[/quote] Ok, listen up sunshine, here is the problem with your train of thought: [list=1] [*]Pay bills = 200k [*]1 mill at replacing losses? What losses? Because the majority of that cost comes from buying airplanes, and due to the heavy tech advantage our nuke nations in that range have, their planes are likely to be better as well. Don't believe me? I've yet to fight someone with higher than level 4 planes, and I have level 8s, and I got there by my own, getting tech from your nations [*]Buy infra back up, really? With improvements, wonders, minimal loss of infra due to tech advantage, really? That's not a feasable number my dear [*]Rebuy spies... Oh my, 2-4 m, every day? Again, I have yet to see any peeps with more spies than 50 in the lower ranks, and when we have 800, you don't lose that many spies [*]navies? With what land? [*]And this is just if you presume that [b]all[/b] your [b]non-funded[/b] nations work at an optimal efficiency... Pro tip: They don't [/list] [quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300829231' post='2673314']Now that we have disabused the notion of aid flows saving the day, let’s take a look at the sending alliance. Back to the aid slots. Assuming Umbrella again with their 600 aid slots, you have to assume that they are willing to donate the entirety of their alliance for 6 months (conservative estimate) to flood aid to you. This means no free aid slots. No tech deals. Umbrella’s growth is effectively zeroed (yes, they can still buy infra, but that’s worthless in a war due to the prevalence of WRC’s). Technology is what matters. It’s why Umbrella isn’t being engaged this war, due to their tech advantage. But if they are willing to stop all tech increases for 6 months, they give up their advantage. While they are sitting there, sending aid flows to GOONS and watching the money get thrown onto the fire, the remaining 20K people on CN are increasing their tech. They gain 6 months on Umbrella. Umbrella is now 6 months weaker. They are 6 months closer to being a target. They simply can’t afford that: no alliance can. Given every aid slot they have to prop up a failing offensive is stupid – or a Pyrrhic victory, like I said.[/quote] If you seriously believe that this will weaken Umbrella's position in CN, you are very mistaken. The only ones that won't use [i]years[/i] to come up to their level is their close allies. And if your low tier nations don't get funded from your peace mode warriors (hint, they won't), they won't be fighting for years, and Umbrella & co can start buying tech again. All this while your small nations are in ruins, or gone, and your high tier nations can't grow because of peace mode penalties [quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300829231' post='2673314']Yes, you can argue that they don’t have to give all their aid slots to the offensive, but I’m sure you’ll agree that ANY decrease in tech efficiency is a terrible fate to fall upon any alliance, much less an alliance that is built upon tech. And if they are willing to give up even half their aid slots, this does not help the war. Remember, in our example GOONS is only get 600/2000 aid slots filled by Umbrella. If Umbrella cut back 50%, that’s only 300/2000, or a .15 efficiency. Who’s picking up the slack? For how long? It’s a flawed idea to think that aid can happen like this. Sigh. [/quote] Here we go again.... Your thesis is built on the thought that [b]all[/b] GOON nations need aid, and that [b]all[/b] their aid has to come from Umbrella. If you take a look at their aid screen, you can see that this theory is wrong. Hell, some GOON nations are even funding [i]other[/i] GOON nations... [quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300829231' post='2673314']If you’ve made it this far, hopefully you can now see that funding GOONS to fight a losing war is a recipe for failure. Granted, you might get a few months of mileage out of it, but it is physically impossible over the long term. And even if you could somehow convince your uppertier nations to forgo all tech deals and, ultimately, sacrifice their alliance’s security, it STILL won’t help you win the war.[/quote] Again, for this to be a valid point, we must assume the following: [list=1] [*]GOONS are fighting a losing war [*][b]All[/b] your nations can fight forever without aid [*]It will sacrifice the security of Umbrella [/list] All these points are wrong however [quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300829231' post='2673314']Spider Jerusalem on my qualifications: Hopefully this post can remove some of the incorrect assumptions you seem to have about financial people. Regarding guerrilla warfare, again, like so many of my points, it has gone clear over your head. When I say ZI’ed, I’m not saying I just sat there. I fought every step of the way, gaining months of experience. Further, if you think NONE and Vox were inefficient in fighting, you’re clueless as to what went on. And “neglible damage”? The damage is not important. The survival aspect is. I dare you to empty your entire warchest, zero your cash on hand, then (by yourself) take on MHA. No aid, no help, no allies, nothing. You fighting MHA. Alone. Oh, and they get to activate their treaties and bring in their allies. Against you. That’s the equivalent of what I did for months at a time (except I had no wonders and almost no improvements). And I was not bill locked once. The point is that effective fighters can go for insanely long periods of time with no aid, and their hundreds (or in my case, thousands) of opponents got nonstop aid flows. It did not change the outcome! Aid flows do not dramatically change the outcome! It can weigh the scale, sure, but has a minimal overall effect. It’s clear you have no experience with this sort of thing. [/quote] Are you even believing this yourself? Seriously? The reason they activated treaties was because you were too small to hit. That's not a good thing...I think you need to take a look in the mirror pal, because you have to realize how wrong you actually are... If you want to survive as a bunch of ankle biting nations forever, go ahead, because that seems to be your only option. And then it won't matter how "good you are" at fighting, because you can't ever grow, and neither can your friends. And if your friends can't grow, they can't damage us. And if you can't damage us, we don't care [i]at all[/i] if you have survived or not.

Thanks for the fighting, it was fun

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1300818594' post='2673241'] The only people winning this portion of the war are those who got peace long ago...or never got involved in the first place. Oh wait... [img]http://www.theforce.net/kids/coruscant/probe_droid/palpatine.jpg[/img] Good...good...continue to bicker and strike at each other again and again...let me feel your hate. [/quote] You're not in it because you're a bunch of cowards! /standard party line I must admit though, I laughed

[quote name='+Zeke+' timestamp='1300817310' post='2673224'] Capiche? [/quote] Notice that point about "we can send aid, you can't, since you're stuck in peace mode"? Of course you can cancel our ability to send aid in some degree, but you're currently not doing it, and that's why your current tactic is a failed one... Another thing... It's hard, I know it, but learn to accept when you need the money, not right away. That way, you don't give your cash to the enemy... (a free advice from me) Capiche?

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300816211' post='2673216'] In a nutshell, DH is trapped. [/quote] Keeping the current status quo isn't necessarily a bad thing for us, but it's catastrophic for you guys [quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300816211' post='2673216']I have personally moved over 100,000 tech between 1500 people from 100+ alliances over the course of 8 months. When I say I know finance, I mean it. Believe me.[/quote] And this should be a testimony to your ability, how? That's not finance, at all... That's the CN equivalent of being the person that drives the van that delivers financial times [quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300816211' post='2673216'][b]I have been ZI'ed 4 times[/b], fought in [b]NONE and Vox[/b], worked with FAN briefly, and have spent about 6-10 months fighting [B]low level guerrilla warfare without getting bill locked once[/b]. I'd like to think I know a little about fighting. I have class in a few minutes, so I can't adequately respond to your handy guide to losing. [b]But a quick view of it indicates you are operating under the mistaken assumptions[/b] of so many people here. I'll see if I can respond to it later on today (probably tonight due to exams). [/quote] And you are operating under the mistaken assumption that any of the bolded things matter. [list=1] [*]Being ZI'd is something [i]every idiot[/i] can, it's avoiding it that's hard [*]Don't even get me started on NONE, yes, they were that bad, but Vox was never about the fighting, it was about the movement. The fighting done by Vox did neglible damage at best. Wow, you're a contributor of neglible damage, bravo! [*]"Low level guerilla warfare without getting bill locked"? Are you kidding me? If you think [b]that's[/b] an accomplishment it's no wonder why we have this discussion. It's really nothing to be proud over, but if you feel it is, let me tell you something... [b]Aid from the high tier nations prevents bill lock[/b]. [/list] Sure, you may know how to push the buttons in the correct order, or how many planes you should send (even if I doubt that as well, considering your alliance). But you're not a visionary, a strategist or a tactician, I can tell you that much

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300813252' post='2673191'] I suppose it's only obvious to those with extensive finance backgrounds, but I stand correct. Several months of aid lifts? Perhaps, if the allies are willing to get boned. A year of aidlifts? With the current stats? Quite literally impossible. And, even if in some mystical parallel universe where such a thing [i]could[/i] occur, no one in their right mind would do so (leads to my point of a Pyrrhic victory).[/quote] I wonder what's so extensive about you financial background when you manage to claim such things...? What is it that makes it so impossible? Please, tell me, I want to be convinced by your "expertise" [quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300813252' post='2673191']See my above point. It's not the aidlifts, or the amount of money, or the warchest standards, or really even about Umbrella. It's basic math in CN. Heck, I bet I've moved more tech for Umbrella then the people involved in this discussion combined; but I digress. Whatever, just ignore me, I'm clearly talking out my arse. I'll take my leave of this thread. [/quote] Ok... Again... What math? What the hell are you talking about? I don't think you understand the basic concept of warfare in the lower tiers or have any knowledge about economics at all. Let me show you in a handy little list: [list=1] [*]Your nations can't make much money in the low tiers, due to the fact that their infra levels and their improvements restricts their ability to do so [*]Our nations have the same problem, of course, since both sides are bound by the income generation rules of CN [*]Our high tier nations are able to send our small tier nations aid, for as long as they want, because money isn't the problem [*]Your high tier nations can't send money to your low tier nations, because peace mode rules restricts this [*]Ergo, our low tier nations are better funded and will [i]on average[/i] have more cash than yours [*]Cash buys fairly important things such as soldiers, tanks, planes, tech, infra, CMs [*]You need those items to win a war [*]Your nations won't get those items, due to lack of money [*]You lose [*]We win [*]???? [*]PROFIT! [/list] Capiche? Let me guess, no?

[quote name='Learz' timestamp='1300804894' post='2673135'] Ok, 1 GOON I can understand thinking that, but now two? Just... wow. Wow. There is no adequate way to respond to that. What else goes on in this private little world of yours? Lol. There's no way I can top that. All I can say is just keep thinking that. [/quote] I guess you don't have the same "rigid" war chest standards as Umbrella and MK then... Because sending 18m every 10 days isn't all that hard... Especially if they can stay out of peace mode, since then, 18m will be earned in a day. You guys on the other hand will have waaay bigger trouble fighting this war, as you can't fund your low tier nations in any feaseble way [quote name='Cairna' timestamp='1300806958' post='2673152'] Until the aid-dropping nations are engaged ( and indeed since they have warchests, much after ) I imagine the aidlifts will continue. It's silly to think otherwise and you're making a fool of yourself not only in front of your enemies, but in front of those with whom you stand. So stop. [/quote] Good to see that there are some rational people on the other side

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' timestamp='1300722520' post='2672285'] Your top tier is only on your first page? That is what you brought up yes? That your top tier has fought. It looks like it has not fought. [/quote] Hiro my dear... You know that I am usually defending and agree with you, but in this instance, you're wrong. Pretty much the entire NSO has fought in this war, so they are not the worst of them, at all Credit is to be given when credit is due, and NSO should really be given credit here, as opposed to most of the rest

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300455051' post='2669054'] actually, they are doing it quite right. again, the odds are heavily in DH's favor if their upper tier fights, which means that it makes more sense for them not to come out of PM and get destroyed since that is where DH/others in this war can do the most damage. [/quote] No, not really. Because we can basically give our low tier nations unlimited aid, while the nations in the NPO low tier will run out of cash and be unable to fight. At the same time, our high tier nations are doing their usual thing, collecting and growing, increasing the gap to the NPO nations even more, because they don't have to face the peace mode penalties. If they stay in PM for too long, they will wither and die, without even firing a single CM