Matthijs

Yes, we've been hearing a lot of this: by winning the war, Karma will ruin everything, the world will be a engulfed in chaos with all the evil alliances being resurrected, such horrible concepts as "lulz" and tech raiding, etc. Just like in the bad old days, before the noble, good alliances died for our sins by cynically isolating and backstabbing their own allies one by one. Enough of this. The "hegemony" has been around for a long time, and done a good job, but apparently people want to try something new now. A bit more dignity in defeat would be appropriate.

Maybe you should not have gone public with this. It's only negative attention for all sides in this. But here we are. My NPO membership was a long time ago, but I've had nothing but good memories from it. Of course, things may have changed since then. But when I read the posts of someone like Loucifer, if all the leadership is like that, it can't be bad at all. I'm not a big fan of the mentality of "you should follow all orders, even unreasonable ones, or you're a traitor" or whatever. But I find it hard to take this seriously.

Funny that NSO are being criticised for doing the exact opposite of the treaty web and bloc formation that causes world wars in the first place. I'd rather have a close alliance with only an optional defence/aggression clause, than an MADP ally who bails on me as soon as things get too hot. Something which many alliances on the "hegemony" side of things are famous for, incidentally. Some people suggest that a win for Karma would lead to either anarchic chaos or jackbooted fascism (or both, that's called doublespeak) in international relations. But it seems more likely that there will be a more voluntary level of cooperation. Or, as an old Hollandian saying goes: "Rather a good neighbour than a distant friend." Happened before.

He's a good objectivist, if he can wriggle his way out of this war, it means that he's better than us peasants... moreso! Anyway, just fight it out and wait for surrender terms like the rest of us plebs.

Why do people even care about hitting "prominent" people like Dilber? Zomg, Dilber lost NS, let's all laugh at Dilber. I'm on the other side this time, but Dilber has always been one of the most decent people in CN. Which is more than many can say. Have some damn respect. I also agree with peterson's sig:

Yes, but he was also the leader of one of those aforementioned 5-member alliances. I don't exactly remember what had happened, but things certainly didn't progress after I basically snubbed him in a PM, saying that we didn't care enough to have extensive talks.

Would you believe me if I said that I remember you too? Lots of cool people were in \m/, many are still around, which is great.

Well, the biggest obstacles to a merger were the biggest egos: myself and that Lunar guy. I'm not sure if the latter stuck around for the merger, but I certainly didn't, and maybe that just cleared the condition for it to go through. As for my plans, well, I'm enjoying the alliance I'm in now. So I'll just stick it out, build my nation, do some tech dealing, etc.

Well, wasn't Popular Front the one where all the left alliances were supposed to have merger discussions and the like? I didn't mind the idea itself at the time, but I wanted the alliances to have proportionate representation, so that our plans would not be halted by 5-member alliances. But in retrospect, it was naive to think that I could monopolise the left. Most of the ICP's members didn't want to be a monopoly, they wanted to be reunited with their comrades, regardless of whether that would put them on the anti-NPO side or in a neutral position. So at that point, I bowed out and joined the NPO, just in time to get my butt kicked in GW1. Strangely enough, I don't remember that one. Couldn't stand the both of you, though.

There is nothing wrong with grudges in game, just like there's nothing wrong with any emotion derived from any game. If you get your kicks out of that one moment where you have cleared all the conditions that are needed to finally mastermind a decisive blow against some sort of coward or opportunist, that's fine. There are, of course, also times when you need to take a step back. When you look for pictures or real life information on people to make fun of them in the game, that sort of thing. I'm not even talking about the kids who post porn on the forums or something, trolling is a different game altogether after all. But you do have to wonder about people who wish to ruin another person by beating them in a game, especially when that person likely doesn't care. And if you use information about people such as jobs, handicaps, sexual assault history, etc., just for an online game, there's a serious problem.

I almost forgot, but as of two days ago, I've been in this game for 3 years. I've never built up a particularly strong nation, or made it very high up, but I've certainly always had a lot of fun at it. Things seem less interesting now, but maybe that's just a matter of viewing the past through rose-tinted glasses. I'm a lot less active now, but who knows what's to come next? In any case, I've thoroughly enjoyed it. From getting started in the ICSN, where I quickly learned how petty politicking worked, which led me to form the ICP, which was briefly sanctioned. This is often forgotten, as the ICP is seen as a bit of a sad joke nowadays, with ill-considered participations in war, and several reincarnations created by opportunists. But long before that happened, I had already left for the NPO, where I remained for GWI and the cold war leading up to GW2. Just before that, I joined \m/, where I had the most fun. Went into retirement in the summer of 2007, came out of it briefly last year, and now I'm at RAD. What next?

You guys still exist? Awesome, I didn't know. Congratulations!

Congratulations! An interesting life on CN, to say the least. Personally, I dread the 23rd of March, when I have my own 3-year anniversary. What am I going to say???

It might very well be. A good argument against talking about your battle prowess on the forums.

With the NPO for the GPW. Didn't exactly go out in a blaze of glory. I had no idea how to fight properly, and I mostly just joined NPO to take revenge on some guy in a CoaLUEtion alliance. So I deployed lots of soldiers and tanks, and then just attacked. I was really surprised when almost all my soldiers died in the first attack and the guy anarchied me. :lol: I then basically went on the defensive when LUE nations also joined in on the party. My nation was already underdeveloped and crap anyway, so rebuilding after the war was done with one aid package. In GW2, I was with >_<, which was later named \m/ of course. I remember the first day being a little chaotic, because we were supposed to attack a specific alliance, but unsure which. So in the end it was like: "Okay, just attack LUE then." By then, there was some sort of mechanism in the game where if you deployed a very specific amount of soldiers (a certain percentage of the opponent's defenders, IIRC), then you'd basically always win. I remember this war fondly, because we kicked so much $@!. I made some dumb mistakes, but I had a lot of fun, especially because of this way of attacking (which our enemies didn't seem to know) and complete air superiority (we knew how to clear out enemy fighters properly, and that only a few bombers were needed to do maximum damage). Still with \m/ in GW3. We were asked to attack GATO this time, which went well. I think this was the war where I fought against Esau of Isaac, whom I believe had some sort of position in GATO, and also usually made pretty good forum posts, so there was some mutual respect. I think I anarchied him quickly, but he would keep popping back up just when I was fighting other people. The war was more drawn-out, and less light-hearted because there were lots of betrayals, strong contempt for some alliances (GATO were the "Worst Alliance Ever" and Legion were "meat shields") and some disgusting incidents. Yeah, I saw some of it. Not pretty. I remember you, I was wondering if you still played. I think we once tag-teamed some poor !@#$%^&, but I'm not sure. If we did, it probably wasn't enjoyable for them. Refresh my memory, what did he do again?

Not joining, but this is an excellent idea for an alliance. Can't think of a good quote, unfortunately.

Umm, what? I don't think it's a very good idea to bring that one up. That little incident wasn't exactly the most glorious moment. Or is this about some later moment, when this member said something untoward, something that was more than just a criticism of cricket's actions? Hymen: I didn't specifically refer to the Legion in what I said, it's more a general statement. It's not so much that the Legion "grovelled", they just got rid of their incompetent leadership and swallowed harsh terms. But it's clear to me that CN is full of alliances who were once hell-bent on ending teh evil NPO's dominance, but are now perfectly fine with it because the relations between alliances are now such that starting a major global war is rarely in anyone's interests. It used to be that most major wars had heroes and villains to identify with, but now the politics of opportunism rule the day. Of course, you made the right decision to put aside old hatreds. After all, you need to ensure the best possible future for your members. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. It's just not to my completely subjective taste. What I liked in \m/ is that we did what we wanted, first with a lot of powerful backers, but also when that became less. \m/ didn't suddenly start scoffing at those horrible, evil techraiders as soon as the public opinion turned that way, nor write endless essays about how it's wrong to play CN "for the lulz". To paraphrase, people need someone like that so they can point their fingers and say: that's the bad guy. Okay, I'm glad that's clear. Because I heard someone else suggest that \m/ were cowards for disbanding at the first sign of adversity.

I don't think I've ever used this feature in all my time on CN. Which is strange, because there've been plenty of people who made me go "shut up, shut up, SHUT UP!!!" inside. But the most bothersome people always contacted me by MSN, and I guess blocking them doesn't really count. There was always a sort of "mental" ignore list. There have always been people who have no idea what they're talking about, but keep rattling on with all sorts of non-arguments, just because they're in alliance X. Of course, propaganda is inevitable, but most people at least feign some sort of belief in the idea that an opportunistic declaration of war is actually the right thing to do, or pretend that their doomed alliance in a global war was actually doing fine. But some others were just utterly cynical. The most remarkable and annoying ones were often in global wars, actually. Legion members in GW3 who said that their drop in nation strength was just "TI (sic) trolls playing with statistics". People who said that "WUT are finished now that Old Guard are entering the war, because they have really big and strong nations!" But also small annoyances, like people who mindlessly "hail" everything just to get a higher post count. Or complete strangers in commie alliances who sometimes popped up to call me a "traitor". Oh, and Soviet Sindorin. Honestly, looking back, I'm surprised I've never used this function. Maybe it just didn't exist on the old boards.

Hey Margrave, just let them scoff all they like. It's their job, as part of the current hegemonic bloc. Just half a year before, things were different and \m/ were the ones doing the attacking, and Swampy was being called "Shakespeare" because of the faint suggestion that he had "faked" logs. Long before that, I could never understand why people complained about Philosopher's "propaganda", or the "WUT troll squad". It's just politics. Whatever can be said about \m/, we can be proud of the fact that we participated in some very even wars, and still won. Not all alliances can say that for themselves. It's not worth getting upset over. It may not be a just situation now, but things can always change. History never sits still. If someone goes too far, there will always be a backlash. I must say that I was not there for the disbandment of \m/, but it seems to me that it was faced with multiple misfortunes and betrayals in a short period. When I read the names of some of the people who were leaders in that period, I can't help but facepalm. \m/ unfortunately doesn't exist anymore, but some interesting things can be learned from this fact. \m/ weren't the ones to beg and grovel just for the sake of survival, that's true. But more importantly, the most basic principles of the alliance are so disgusting to a lot of people, that it has been decided that \m/ must always be kept down, never allowed to return. Any coward can try to restart some old alliance, grovel and get a NAP with former bitter enemies and the powers that be, and survive. But \m/ has left a mark, and a lot of people still get up in arms whenever its name is mentioned. Only a few other alliances have that honour. If an alliance like the NPO ever goes down, which I doubt, the same will happen to it. But who will be concerned about what happens to the Legions and GATOs of this world? Anyway, I really should get back on-topic. Interesting historical series, as always. I wasn't around when these particular events happened, but these certainly help in studying what has happened in CN. Much more than in the past, alliance leaderships change rapidly, and there's a much bigger chance of a former or current leader coming clean and giving us a look inside.

Take it easy, mein Führer. I'll happily admit to being a "Bolshevik", as well as that my nostalgic dribble is uninteresting even to others who were around at the time. But at least it has some kind of foundation in reality.

Sure there can be change, just probably not in the short term. The status quo we have is not enforced by military might, like before, but maintained voluntarily by people with an interest in peace and order. It's a shame, I like a volatile atmosphere much better as well. Blasting meatbags can be thoroughly enjoyable (although I realise that we now have a mod who would make similar remarks). But a major change can't occur now for lack of conflict and contradictions.

Never been much of a fan of the Legion. Their longevity isn't exactly thanks to their loyalty, steadfastness and fighting abilities. But I think it's unfair to single them out in this one. Whenever I read these forums, I always see several people who are now in pro-NPO alliances, but once fancied themselves as brave fighters against teh evil imperializms. Often, this even goes for their alliances as a whole. I suppose if these new Legionnaires want to honour the legacy of their incompetent ancestors, more power to them, they're not the only ones. Happy birthday!

Haha, wow, that's a blast from the past. If that's true, he must have been in there for 3 years or so. That is, assuming we're talking about one of the original spies who caused the NPO/LUE-ICSN war. I did always wonder what happened to the second spy. If I recall correcly, the NPO ended the war against the ICSN claiming that all the spies had been ferretted out. More nostalgia. Nice to see Comrade Tiki still going strong. Are you an anachronism as well, Tom? Maybe one of those weirdo anti-bolshevik crusaders from that time? Der Fuhrer? The Racially Pure? Anyway, I suggest you take a time machine back to March 2006. Your posts are irrelevant now.

You can't really predict dates. GW2 started on just another dreary January day, GW3 in March. Both of them also started over some very concrete events. Some kind of direct cause, a defence of some proxy, or some spying incident, stuff like that. Even when there are already deeper-lying reasons for war. But it doesn't happen that there are "tensions" for a long time, and then suddenly everyone declares war. There also needs to be some sort of pay-off before a major war starts. An alliance won't start a war for the hell of it. But they might do it if they are confident that they can decisively beat the enemy, when they have sufficient allies, etc. I.e. when the potential benefits are greater than the costs.