Jump to content

Lord Stark

Members
  • Posts

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Lord Stark

  1. Closest to Liberal, Furthest from Conservative. Curious how the Canadians will be voting and whether you generally find you will be voting for who you're closest to on the compass? If not, why not?
  2. [quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010 - 10:08 PM' timestamp='1267567925' post='2211742'] Comparing CnG/TOP conflict to NPO/beatdown wars is an unfair insult to how the NPO operated back then. The NPO was never greedy with demanding huge amounts of reps from defeated alliances, and the NPO actually beat those alliances before asking for reps. [/quote] You aren't seeing the bigger picture. In the comparison TOP is NPO, not the alliances that got beat down. Only this beat down didn't work. TOP is the alliance who acted like NPO. You declared an offensive war for no clear reason... that I think you expected to win. And now you will pay for it. Also as you've said it isn't a clear defeat. If we continue fighting for a few months like you seem to want to maybe it will be. I don't know. Bottom line - you tried to operate like NPO did back then and it didn't work out. And now the alliances who have been beat down and paid reps many times for no reason are in a position to increase the safety of our alliances. You're blind if you think the biggest threat to the safety of CnG and our allies since NPO will be let off in a good enough position to hit us again in a few months. Reap what you sow.
  3. [quote name='Hyperbad' date='02 March 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1267564821' post='2211660'] If you're taking into account only damage received prior to talk of peace by your opponents then or damage received prior to the original NpO-\m/ wars being peaced out then I can see this as being a valid argument. Afer that it becomes a bit difficult. The initial fronts of a war typically lead others to feel there's nothing left to fight over and it can be argued your opponents felt that way. Likewise a desire your opponents may have felt in wanting to end the war previously had your side taken up this offer would have prevented a lot of damage from ever being inflicted upon your nations. The problem comes in with the damage you've taken since your side stated peace wouldn't yet be offered but a desire to knock your opponents down a few pegs before terms are discussed is desired. Damage you've taken during that time is no ones fault but your own for your unwillingness (right or wrong) to see a conclusion to this conflict. You've effectively gone on the offensive and have given your opponents little choice but to fight much like you were at the start. If the NpO-\m/ war seeing peace is used as the line then the proposed terms are most probably far too high. If the statements of your opponents receiving no peace yet are the reference point then the terms might even be too low to pay for all the damage they caused. I think this one of the many areas of concern in the debate over reparations. [/quote] If we had peaced out say after one week (which is I think what you are saying we should have done?) We would have been in an even worse strategic position. CnG suffered their greatest losses in that first week because we were fighting TOP at al. mostly alone (because our allies were busy on other fronts). Even with the terms now proposed TOP would have soundly defeated us because their War Chests would have allowed every member to fully re-build and their losses would have been significantly less then ours on a whole. They would have taken an even bigger lead on us in the upper ranks which would have threatened the safety of CnG. I think it is important to remember that unlike many terms that have been offered in previous wars we are allowing our enemies to pay half of their tech reps by purchasing tech from outside nations. This is a little harder to organize perhaps (though we know tech organization is one of TOPs specialties so I think they could handle it), it does show that though we would like to bring TOP a little bit closer to our level so they aren't in such a commanding position to threaten is in the future. However, by allowing them to purchase half of the reps from outside alliances it is clear that CnG isn't attempting to completely flatten TOP by making them pay back all of the damage that they have done. We simply want them to pay for what they have done and bring them a little bit closer to our level and then we are allowing the remainder of our losses to be provided by outside sources which can very easily be purchased with their war chests. It is also important to note that the point at which you are saying that we could have ended this war TOP was insisting that nothing except for white peace would have been acceptable. That would have been impossible for us to accept mostly for the reasons pointed out in the first paragraph of this post. Even with these terms TOP still has advantages over CnG mostly because of their huge war chest and the statistics that were shown earlier that indicates TOP has lost far less then they have dealt out in damages.
  4. Couldn't vote because neither option is correct. The bottom line is that the reps are just asking for what has been lost by CnG et al. as a result of the aggressive actions by TOP. They are higher then reps in the past but more has also been lost in this war then wars in the past. We didn't declare this war we just want to be compensated for our loss as a result of the war of aggression launched by TOP. With the said I'll happily keep fighting. As TonytheTiger points out TOP has bigger war chests and more nations in the 10k infra + then CnG does. Since we have such a numbers advantage though we can continue to deplete TOPs money and infra by spreading it over more nations causing less loss for us. Continue fighting and reps wont go away, but your only advantage will. So quite frankly - Please keep fighting. What we have offered is fair and there is no 'extortion' because we only ask to have returned what we have lost thus far in this horrible war that didn't even need to happen in the first place.
  5. I am of the mindset that an aggressor shouldn't ask for reps - if MK had attacked TOP and co. I wouldn't support us forcing them to pay reps in surrender. We were aggressively attacked with a clear lack of CB though... That does demand serious reps imho. I suppose there's a fine line but I think it's a significant one.
  6. So you attacked their allies? Congratulations - your argument just more far more logical! Edit: Attacked their allies aggressively who were not involved in the conflict and because of our treaty never would have been at war with Polaris even if we had been involved in the previous conflict at some point. And as it turns out we never were involved in the Polaris conflict because peace was reached before we were needed. No, you tried to take advantage of a war, unrelated to this one, to settle your vendetta against CnG - don't insult the idea of friends > infra. This had nothing to do with friends and if anything was to try and preserve your infra (because you thought you would be able to crush us while our allies were involved in another conflict). You should use the tagline 'Out of self interest' nothing more.
  7. So you entered this conflict to defend your friends? The whole opportunistic lack of a CB was a lie?!? Because friends > infra can only really be used when you go into a war FOR your friends...
  8. Attacking alliances for no apparent reason is honorable? I clearly didn't get the memo...
  9. Archon o/ Grub o/ Everyone else involved o/ Glad that this is over so we can deal with the aggressors in TOP and IRON. Epic topic.
  10. Always glad to see our friends make new friends. Great lookin' treaty guys!
  11. Pretty sure you won that award already Grub...
  12. NSO: 51 Wars – 184 members Stickmen: 104 Wars – 203 Members There were more targets NSO could have hit. The success of update blitzes really reflect on the quality of leadership tbqh. And that's not even considering the fact that NSO launched with what... 30 mins until update? lolol.
  13. So the fact that MK was on the losing side of multiple wars before Karma makes us stat collectors? I don't follow your logic.
  14. I believe Ivan has managed to accuse MK of being stat collectors and being without resolve. I don't think it is MK that has a problem with the history books...
  15. Stickmen o/ Your blitz's owned NSO's. Just sayin. Give 'em Hell
  16. oh !@#$, that's their master plan! Kill the rulers of all our nations! Quick, stop reading posts by Iron!
  17. I recall in the last war for a little while even paper wasn't enough for your alliance to support your allies. I mean, you changed your mind. But you've clearly demonstrated that you're wiling to break treaties, I wouldn't have much faith in anythign with Iron.
  18. also is this picture supposed to symbolize you guys hiding from NpO in some way? What I was really trying to say though is that it doesn't make much sense that if you are going to... strategically ignore? an alliance... you probably shouldn't try and use that alliances actions in an attempt to legitimize you war. Because if that's really how you feel, Rok should have been the first alliance you attacked. Instead you're saying "Rok are evil spies, curse you for attacking TPF" - followed by a DoW on every other alliance that attacked TPF.
×
×
  • Create New...