The Crimson King
-
Posts
256 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by The Crimson King
-
-
Let's look at it another way, Ragnarok-PC wasn't a separate war from Polar, but it continued because terms couldn't be agreed upon. That is how I see this.
Terms were offered to RoK at the same time as Polar where-as we were not given the same opportunity and there-by did not have the choice to accept or reject them like RoK did. That is where your analogy completely breaks down
-
The thing is, you're not denying it. You're saying I can't prove it. I think the things that leaked about NSO before the preempt but didn't come out until fairly recently, coupled with later admissions that they were going to enter on the AZTEC front is enough. I'm not saying I have logs of Cortath saying X. I'm saying NPO was going to have to enter once their allies got involved and attacked. You said it wasn't a question of TPF entering, as well. So TCK, are you going to say you were going to keep NPO out? The way you put it was that "NPO would not enter unless one of its allies was hit," meaning you weren't going with the strong "NPO was not going to enter." Is it too much to say "NPO was going to have to enter, but I don't think you should have attacked them like that?"
In any case, the point isn't to prove "NPO was going to enter", it's me saying "we attacked NPO because we thought they were going to enter" as opposed to "out of the blue attack"
Ok, it seems we have to do this dance yet again. I have told you numerous times already that quite unlike yourself, I do not claim to have precognitive abilities or future-sight. I cannot say for sure one way or the other if NPO would have entered. This is not some admission of guilt on our part like you are making it out to be, it is a simple fact. I can list numerous things that would have had to transpire for NPO to enter. UP to the point you attacked NONE of them did. None of them were even close to happening. There was nothing in any of those super-sekret logs that you apparently take so much stock in that even begins to hint that NPO would be entering the war.
Furthermore I never said for NPO to enter an ally would of had to get hit. What I said was a specific chain of events would have to trigger...an ally would have to enter (none were in the war), said ally would have to be countered (This is not a guarantee if your side was attempting to keep NS off that front...see why Oly was not countered in this war as a prime example of what I am talking about), that ally would have to request assistance, and non chaining clauses would have to be waived. No matter how many times you say it, NSO does not equal NPO and one parties entry does not trigger the other.. Case in point..the last tme NSO got hit in a war that was clearly a losing cause they specifically requested all allies stay out. SO in that the case the precedent set by NSO actually runs completely contrary to the action you assumed they would take in this case if/when they entered.
The bottom line is that you are jumping to a conclusion that at minimum 4-5 steps removed from occurring and claiming absolute knowledge of how certain decisions would be made by parties who never had to make them due to your attack. Furthermore the facts of the layout of the war at the time you hit runs totally contrary to the conclusion you derived from them and you have no corroborating evidence whatsoever to support your claim. So no, there is not much difference between saying that you hit "out of the blue" or "because the tea laves told you they were going to enter the war".
-
Given the imminent involvement of their allies, I'd say yes. I don't think anyone from NPO has said that they were going to be neutral. It would make no sense for them not to enter.
And round and round we go. Over a month removed from your initial arguments on this point and you are still asking people to disprove an assertion you are making without providing any proof yourself for the claims made.
It didn't work then, still does not work now.
-
I HATED picking Pitt too. They always seem to get a high seed and ultimately fail early.
Trust me it sucks a lot more when you are a fan of the team...
-
I believe it is my alliance's policy to neither pay nor seek reparations. I nevertheless understand that others do not share this point of view.
As reparations go, however, these are really not all that bad. It seems that most could be completed in one or two aid cycles, and I'm willing to bet that surrendering alliances could probably negotiate the 'dollar reparations' down if they were to convert some of it to tech deals.
Note this response is not aimed directly at you, but rather that you are the last of a few posts stating something to the effect that these terms are reasonable.
There are obviously 2 factors at play here, and while for the most part the opposing side has tried to separate them, they are inexorably tied. It should be obvious that there are certain alliances on this front who are not going to exit until NPO can broker a favorable peace deal. It should also be obvious that should NPO garner favorable terms they are not going to exit and leave 2/3 (for example) of the coalition that came in to defend them still on the field with terms they consider unacceptable. So the terms given to NPO and the terms being presented to the other alliances here are very much tied hand in hand if we are trying to draw this conflict to a close. You cannot look at the cash terms, or tech terms or peace mode terms as separate offers. They are all part of one lump sum deal regardless if the other side chooses to see it that way or not.
As it has been pointed out the requested peace mode terms from NPO and the percentages therein are not even realistically attainable by a mass member alliance. This basically renders the remainder of the deal (such as the cash reps etc) a moot point
-
TPF is calling the shots on their end and a result has probably caused the most damage to GOONS.
Once again I think you overestimate the level on control I/TPF has over 15 or so assorted alliances on this side (Take the fact that this blog is even here as an example of my point...)
Either way it is standard procedure for us to not even bother talking about our reps until the ally we came in to defend has secured terms they are comfortable with. At this point is may be a while before we get to have the argument about what we are being taxed and why.
-
As long as you have Pitt winning you are golden
-
This made we want to listen to Aqualung...
Economics and the Price of Peace
in Hero's Soapbox
A blog by HeroofTime55 in General
Posted
I have been over this before but we will do it again
The only ally we had in was STA. STA was hit by 3 alliances prior to your attack on NPO
wF hit them first and were countered by NV thus negating our need to enter on them
Brig was the the 2nd to hit them. They were also MDoAP with TOOL at the time, which basically negated out ability to counter due to our unwillingness to put tool in that position. (A problem, as should be noted, that NSO did not have..thus their more urgent conversation about entering)
Argent was the 3rd counter.At the same time they entered we also got word that your pre-emptive attack was coming and we were in getting ready on our end for that eventuality.
Furthermore TPF (or basically anyone else still fighting this war) were never in Polar milcom chans or were involved in any way shape or form with the planning and entry points for alliances on that front. This should run contrary to any standard thoughts or warning flags you would have about our entry taking place.
So basically no, you are wrong.
I am not even sure where to start with this it is so twisted. First off I have wondered for a while now if the intel you are relying on was presented to you in the exact same fashion that your agent provocateur leaked it onto the forums. That was a cut and paste job of epic proportions from various logs and covos that occurred in no way even remotely close to the linear timeline they were presented in in that post in world affairs. The NPO cannot move out now line that you seem to put so much stock in came fom a conversation that took place the night it was found out Polar was going to be hit...BEFORE VE even attacked them. So of course it was not time for them to move out...the damn war had not even started yet. This was not some super sekret long reaching mil-com strategy, it was the feelings of one individual (who does not have the power to make the final calls for their alliance) on the eve of the opening of the polar front, that if and when the war escalated, NPO and it's friends did not deserve to get roped and chained into fighting a war over Polar, an alliance they had no ties to or working relationships with. That is all it was and all it ever was.
As far as Terra Cotta goes, i have no idea how bringing them up is even remotely related to the topic at hand. The remaining signatories are not even remotely tied to NPO in any other way aside from the NSO treaty. Once again, if you have some sort of logs between NSO and NPO gov saying that NSO is entering on a certain front, requesting back-up should they be countered, and NPO agreeing, then I would say you have the beginnings of a valid claim. We both know you do not have anything close to this. Which once again makes the point made in regards to the RoK war valid. The point had nothing to do with NSO having control ofer getting hit in that war (which obviously they did not) but rather exercising the chaining clauses in their treaties and requesting they not be brought into a losing war on the behalf of a decision they made. This once again would have been a very similar situation given, as you mentioned, the lack of formal paper between nso and sta.
Basically what you are doing here is selective data mining. You started with a foregone conclusion and have consistently done nothing aside from try to pick out certain pieces of data that support the conclusion you had already arrived at. It is why a 2 sentence log taken totally out of context and timeframe from a conversation happening before this war even kicked off can be twisted and used as reasoning for a grand military strategy by NPO. If you had the rest of those logs then you would know damn well what the discussion was entailing, and therefore you are purposefully editing down the content to try to use it in a context that was never there. The other option is that someone did pass you along a 2 sentence snippet from a convo, and rather that vetting the information in any way shape or form, you took it as some kind of sign from the gods that your pre-conceived notions were correct. There are no other options here aside form those 2 and neither reflect all that well on you, so I still do not see why you continue to bring this subject up.
Once again, you are wrong. I know it is convenient for you to peddle this line as well, but your talks and planning on pre-empting NPO took place well before we started bulking up. In fact they are the exact reason we did start bulking up rather than being caught with our pants down.