Tromp

You sound mad bro. Also, the 'following treaties' argument is hilariously stupid. You can't make an argument in favor of coalition warfare and then simultaneously hold the position that alliances should honor their treaties, which I've seen you doing more then once.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1322759544' post='2858250'] while i may do agree with you on this being a multipolar world... that's not the issue here. That would be a better argument if you were talking about someone using non-chaining clauses to avoid joining a war that started three or four chains ago over something they dont care about. However, in a situation like this... Polar's direct allies have no excuse to not come in (note: i've no idea if RIA is planning to not honor commitments or are just slow as heck.) Polar's allies arent disinterested third parties. Nor is this a non-chaining scenario. To be blunt, IMO there are only two reasons for a polar ally not to have entered. 1) Its part of some stupid convoluted strategy and they are planning to enter eventually but are delaying it for some reason 2) they want to preserve pixels. [/quote] I dunno OsRavan, I'm not from RIA. All I was saying is that I reject the idea that coalition warfare is the only sort of warfare possible in CN, especially with the political alignments of various (groups of) alliances these days. In cases like this, I believe independent action and/or neutrality becomes a real option. And in itself, that might also create more exciting political dynamics, as coalitions won't form easily and to the size they used to be in the past, nor will the conclusion of a war be determined after three days or so (or even before the war has started). [quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1322759828' post='2858253'] Counterpoint: FOK supported Doomhouse in its most recent war against the NPO, going as far as to declare on their enemies, however small they may have been. Umbrella and MK were the aggressors there and the people you DoWed on could have easily been handled by just about anybody else. In TOP-IRON's latest escapade to the Arctic Pole, you are supporting the other side, albeit not in a military fashion yet. What is the difference, if not for treaty lines? It's certainly not the [i]validity of the CB[/i]. [/quote] Pre-emption can be a legitimate course of action, and in this specific case, I've always seen the DH war on NPO as part of the bigger conflict that was raging on at the time. Which, surprise surprise, was started by VE, PC, iFOK and FOK. So I'd argue DH came in on 'our side', not the other way around. Second, let me clear this up right away: with regards to you guys, I actually am of the opinion that the CB which TOP+IRON have used is a fair one. I'm just not seeing why I should support either 'side' here. (Those 'sides' defined as Polar and TOP+IRON.) It isn't our war, and we've been very vocal about that, leading to us not giving any of the sides guarantees. Additionally, we made clear to those close to us that we would have liked to see no conflict at all, or perhaps at maximum a limited one (like there is now). Obviously I also have my own opinion on this matter, but the fact is that it's not solely up to me to make a decision in this matter. What I'm having more trouble with, personally speaking, is how some people who profited most from Grub's action, have turned their backs on others out of sheer opportunism. Some may have had additional reasons, but my point is that the change of various relationships put us in a difficult spot. The goal of it all was clear, and now that this war kicked off people jumped at the opportunity to carry out their own agendas, which would always come at the cost of some of our allies, or FOK itself. That kind of behaviour shouldn't be encouraged, let alone be rewarded. In any case, over time, I think FOK has been very consistent. Sure, our surroundings did change, but that's about it.

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1322757826' post='2858235'] The fact of the matter is that several alliances took this new multipolar world as an opportunity to blur the lines a lot more and the blocs are all checking each other into a stalemate because a few alliances have decided to prefer honoring lone treaties rather than understanding treaties are political tools and should reflect an alliance's politics, not its facebook friends list. You can be friends with a lot of people. That doesn't mean you need a treaty with all of them. [/quote] I don't disagree at all with you here. It's a Realist point of view and that has dominated CN for as long as I can remember. Anyone can play that though, it isn't hard. And anyone who doesn't understand the workings of our world should read [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107018&view=findpost&p=2858215]Londo's post here[/url]. (I enjoyed it a lot Londo.) [quote] I don't know the dream world you think you live in but if you think people are really basing their position on an objective analysis of the validity of the CB presented, I think you're definitely not on the same planet. [/quote] Nah, we're on the same planet. One can play a Realist game and still base their position at least partly on the validity of the CB though.

[quote name='Baron Terror' timestamp='1322751465' post='2858191'][...], since now every war seems to be a limited one, with some alliance playing the martyr so there allies can live another day. It seems a lot alliance have pretty much given up playing, and justify this by asking why should they bother indulging the collective bloodlust on our part when they know they have no hope of winning. [/quote] Well, an alternative to this idea is that we're coming more and more close to a true multipolar world. Which means (groups of) alliances are more willing to act independently, taking into account what CB is being used and will judge the merits of said CB before involving themselves in some coalition where various parties are most often only looking after their self-interest. Whatever the case, it's an interesting development for sure.

Congrats fellas!

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1322345109' post='2852898'] The Goon Order of Oppression Negligence and Sadism declares its support for VE declaring support for NG in it's asking of the question in question. [/quote] The FOK! Alliance declares its support for GOONS declaring support for VE declaring support for NG in it's asking of the question in question.

[quote name='grahamkeatley' timestamp='1322306509' post='2852321'] This is exactly how I see it. And exactly how I explain it when the topic ever comes up. I was almost equally as annoyed at the time with the tactics TOP seemed determined to follow in where to deploy as the resulting NpO withdrawal. Neither alliance acted in a way that would of benefited the general war effort. Both of the alliances despite having many allies and indirect allies involved acted selfishly and for their own ends. I dont think I could trust either alliance leadership to act in the best interest of anything but themselves ever again and am quite pleased that they will now punch each other a few times. GK [/quote] Aye, they deserve each other. /me grabs the popcorn

Good show Mia. Can't fault you for this. [quote name='suryanto tan' timestamp='1322302111' post='2852255'] Anyway, good luck with the war and the revenge. You guys deserved it. NpO did screw you guys over in favor of their allies back then, the Mushroom Kingdom. I wonder if the Mushroom Kingdom will do anything to assist NpO. After all, NpO is now being attacked for helping the Mushroom Kingdom in the Bipolar war. They could have just sit idle and refused to help Mushroom Kingdom, but at the end they decided to help anyway and that got them here to this difficult position. [/quote] I wouldn't count on it!

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1320542480' post='2839920'] Ah, yes. How could I forget that VE took part in the very evil act of requiring someone to admit defeat. [/quote] This is pretty funny considering implications of the announcement MK and VE made not too long ago.

Sorry to say, but your post is incoherent and on several occasions not factual. I guess it's a decent attempt at a propaganda piece, but clearly you are no Archon.

It appears power has made some people quite arrogant. Pity, I expected better.

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1317687777' post='2815083'] Spying is bad, but not an attack in of itself. Especially given the quality of the material gained by the spy. [/quote] If we accept the basic principle of equality in legitimacy of sovereign entities (ie. alliances), then Tetris has intruded Legion territory, [i]violated[/i] its sovereignty and therefore Legion has more then enough reason to go to war when a diplomatic resolution couldn't be reached. Whether it was the smart thing to do, is an entirely different question.

Nah, I didn't sell anything. I just never bothered to rebuild after the last global war, so I have been at this level for some time now. You can verify by checking my techlevel. It's bad! I'm eager to see what other tricks you will surprise me with though!

Vlad should send you some money, it appears you won't last long otherwise. And Muz, when are you usually on IRC?

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1315083160' post='2793917'] Tromp, you !@#$%^&, I hate your airforce. Just wait till tomorrow. No hookers for you! You have access nearby you middle European, you! I have to get mine specialty ordered. Oh you'll pay. You'll pay. [/quote] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGiQsM2xmEg]What[/url] is the country you're from then?

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1315082314' post='2793905'] I was busy spending my money on hookers and blow before the true calling found me. [/quote] I hope you still have some of those hookers around. My men need some fun too.

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1315081806' post='2793898'] lol, I fight when the time to fight arrives. Had I gotten an advanced notice, I would have prepared better. But Johan beckons and I follow, for better or worse. [/quote] Well, your nation is older then mine, over 1000 days, yet you have only 4 wonders of which two are for military use (MP and P). Seems to me you have had more then enough time to prepare...

So you wanted to go rogue, but attacked only one nation while having a single nuke, !@#$%* trades, and not even a SDI/CIA? The least you could have done is prepare yourself better. Now you just look like a silly loudmouth.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1314835484' post='2791842'] The fact that being an aggressor has evolved into a long-term unpopular political mode hasn't really changed and has only become more pronounced with the advances of networking and/or fear of large-scale destruction to those who would sit on the sideline. [/quote] Agreed, this is much more of an issue then blocs are. [quote name='RandomInterrupt' timestamp='1314836740' post='2791849'] I'm not entirely clear what you are asking, but Polaris has always considered us as losing GW1, the NoCB war, and the PB-Polar war as indicated on our [url="http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/New_Polar_Order"]wiki entry.[/url] [/quote] Well, I recalled Fallen Fool saying at the time that you guys didn't really want peace but accepted it because PB was insisting on it. Anyway, I wasn't overly serious, hence the smiley. The point wasn't really important to me. And I probably shouldn't have replied to Death, we got in some stupid argument after that. Lesson learned!

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314834103' post='2791829'][s] Yeah I figure the difference, you say he has ball and I say that this is irrelevant. This is like you say "I have hands, I can run!" when you run with your legs, not with your hands. Since the existence or lack of balls are irrelevant when there was no need of it, so what you said was irrelevant and wrong, first because one doesn't need balls to do what he did,[/s] second because Global Political Order hasn't changed, the same groups who were in power before VE declare war on NpO are the same who are still in power now(See PB/DH). [/quote] No. What you see today is nothing but the remainder of what once was SG. It is true that PB/DH are being supported still, and that's because they have the luxury that the other blocs are dependent on them to be able to win a fight. But the longer that situation lasts, the more it becomes a burden. Which is because the basis on which that power rests is already instable, it is fragmented into parts that are hostile towards each other. This situation will only get worse because the 'top dog' also always has to make sure its supporters get their part of the cake, meaning satisfying a desire of them - say destruction of group X/protection from group Y - so that they may continue to count on their support. This essentially means favoring one over another, a situation that is unsustainable and will eventually blow up. That's when the whole house of cards falls apart. [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314834150' post='2791830'] To be fair to you, I did forget that Xiphosis wrecked SuperFriends as a result of the VE-NpO War. [/quote] The endresult wasn't pretty, I'll agree with you on that!

[quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1314833719' post='2791825'] Explain the difference between the political order before Impero's war and after it, apart from the fact that Pandora's Box is annoyed at Superfriends for not lockstepping tightly enough with their agenda. [/quote] Before the war, there was cohesion, cooperation in what was then known as SG. Compare that to today, where you can recognize huge differences in opinion between (former) allies, sometimes to the point of hostility too. This doesn't even involve just PB and SF. And by the way, I'm only an outsider these days, so I don't see why you need me to state the obvious.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314831837' post='2791812'] Excuse me if when you say that he "has balls" I understand this as you saying he has courage since it's the most common meaning for this expression. [/quote] You say: "Impero doesn't need any courage to start a war when [he knows] that [he has] a tremendous vantage at [his] side!" I say: "Impero has balls for starting a war that changed the global political order." (Can) you figure out the difference...?

All you have there is that I say that Impero has balls. Which is not a bad thing at all! Yet your mistake is that you make up a completely new context, which is why I said you should learn to read. In easy terms for you: What I said there was that because of the war Impero started we collectively have entered a new era on Bob, more specifically one that is not dominated by something like SG, Q, or whatever. That comment wasn't in any way related to the 'fairness' (in terms of stats) of the war itself, contrary to what you seem to read in it.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314827557' post='2791776'] And how that changes the fact that you don't need any courage to start a war when you know that you have a tremendous vantage at your side? [/quote] I never made this argument, please learn to read. (And by the way, it'd help you a lot if you'd stick to one story, that of tough guy or of a 'victim', when making this argument. Which is the last I'm going to say about this silly exchange.)

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1314812675' post='2791677'] The solution, as I mentioned above is courage. Not courage in the sense that alliances who sign lots of treaties are cowards, but courage in the sense of self-confidence, motivation, and ambition. Alliances have to stop thinking of themselves in terms of "how do I git into this machine" and think instead in terms of "how can I advance my[b]self[/b]." [/quote] Honestly, I agree with a lot of what you said, especially the above. But then you do this: [quote] Yeah, that war completely altered the entire treaty web, Impero is a visio-- oh, hold on, actually there were no [u]big [/u]changes. Where do you people come up with this stuff? [/quote] Once you yourself argued that there was a SG led hegemony in place; going from that to the current political climate took the last war. This change is more fundamental then you make it look like here and I think you know that. Treaties aren't everything and don't dictate what alliances can nor will do. In fact, most of them are used only as tools to ensure some level of security and in a more broad sense, political capital in times of peace. And as said, when a war actually starts most all treaties lose most of their value, since at the very least the spirit of a lot of treaties is violated thanks to a conflict in interests. [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1314812694' post='2791678'] Since when someone need balls to start a curbstomp? [/quote] Wasn't the Polar line that you weren't at all defeated when you signed that peace?