Epik High

*Checks date*

Warchests last a long time. I think I went rogue approx 4 months ago, and I was ranked in the bottom half of TOP nations. So voted keep fighting.

[quote name='Delta1212' date='27 February 2010 - 12:28 AM' timestamp='1267252333' post='2206107'] It's because they're generally pretty good punches. It's just that once you've been hit by one, you tend to figure out where to look in order to see them coming. @Epik High: [OOC: It was an OOC compliment of his IC character. As aggravating as we sometimes find him IC, a number of us are incredibly entertained by him OOC, even when he's directed at us.] [/quote] Oh, I thought he was trying to get some sort of potshot in because he was upset by Ivan's behavior or something.

[quote name='Jim Bob the Glorious' date='27 February 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1267251635' post='2206070'] After the meeting, Ivan and I shared an aside. Even now, in voluntary retirement, he remains as slippery and clever as ever. [/quote] Just curious, how is he slippery OOC? Isn't your experiences with him solely based on his behavior with regard to political events within this game? Do people really take IC things like surrender negotiations or backroom deals personally?

[quote name='Corinan' date='27 February 2010 - 12:08 AM' timestamp='1267251136' post='2206052'] Keep dreaming. [/quote] I always dreamt of a chance to use that quote.

So this is how NSO dies... With thunderous applause.

MK. They coordinated attacks a couple times, something rarely seen in my NS range (at least in my experience).

Well I know there was a lot of respect for FOK in TOP but hopefully this finally puts the nail on the coffin on whatever perceived friendship. Better to clear it up now when another alliance piling on doesn't really matter than later.

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='15 February 2010 - 11:01 PM' timestamp='1266296472' post='2184612'] That would make sense if we saw you as an active threat before this war. I see what you're trying to say. You (TOP) were afraid of C&G in the sense that some statements from the membership of certain alliances (namely MK) led you to believe we were a threat. We had 0 interest in fighting TOP, however, and made 0 moves against you. So yeah, TOP was paranoid. We'll see you back in the stone age. [/quote] Yeah, I think the TOP is paranoid line has been beaten to death. Anyways I just want to flesh out some of my points, because I think it is an interesting topic, though I get the sense that you're more in it for scoring propaganda points. The main point is that the OP has officially stated that they see TOP as a threat. There are people in this thread who are trying to claim otherwise, that TOP shouldn't be seen that way. They are incorrect, or at least put too much hope in the ability of alliance leaders, who are held responsible for many tons of infra, to trust enemies. There is plenty of reason to see TOP as a threat, their attack on CnG being one of them. Another being the knowledge that TOP will also continue to see CnG as a threat in the event of a white peace. Which leads to the conclusion that there is no good way to stop this vicious cycle. This leads to two policy choices: drawn out wars to crush the enemy's stats, or heavy surrender terms to crush the enemy's stats. Either way, the stats must be destroyed. And that is exactly the pattern we've seen in any wars that were between two rivaling geopolitical powers. NPO and FAN, NpO and GOONS, TOP and NpO, Karma and NPO, etc. There is a third option, trying to be conciliatory and draw the enemy into your sphere of influence. That doesn't work for alliances that operate under the mindset that enemies will continue to harbor ill feelings toward your own alliance. The majority of alliances tend to be those that see enemies today as enemies tomorrow. The question then is whether this will change. One exception to the rule is GWI. This *was* between two central rivals, but did *not* end in long war or high reparations. What I wonder is whether this was simply a mistake... maybe the leaders of LUE&Co just didn't know or care enough about how the game worked to really think about whether giving out white peace would be a good idea. Maybe they were hoping for reconciliation, and were rejected by a vengeful NPO. The interesting thing is, you can make the argument that the people in CnG today are the same type of people who won GWI back then. LUE2.0, ODN, etc etc. People could use this to predict that this war will see the same strategy of reconciliation, etc that really hasn't been seen since GWI, apart from in side-wars between alliances who never really hated each other. I don't place much money on that prediction. I think the white peace in GWI was more of a mistake than thought out strategy to reconcile, and so I don't think the types of people in charge now have any predisposition to follow reconciliation. You can glean from the OP their belief of eliminating threats rather than converting them. (sidenote: obviously, it takes two to tango--TOP probably isn't willing to reconcile either) And so if you're going to try to predict the way planet bob will work in the future, I say it will work the same way it always has. People who thought Karma would lead to a normative change in how alliances operate in an anarchic system were wrong, IMO. Now, a whole other issue is which is the smartest policy? I believe there are two types of conflict: (1) Hatred leading to war (2) War leading to hatred. In situations where hatred leads to war, I don't think reconciliation a viable option. Sometimes ideologies differ so much that they can't really be spanned by the goodwill gesture of light surrender terms. NpO and GOONS in UJW for example. If NpO by some miracle gave white peace to GOONS, GOONS would have taken it and started gearing up to destroy NpO. NpO never offered it in the first place because they wanted to see GOONS destroyed. On the other hand, there are situations where war leads to hatred. For example, the TOP-NpO conflict, arguably. Yes, there was preexisting hatred which sparked war, but I don't think it was so deep that reconciliation was not a valid strategy. The thing is, we saw the heavy reparations create so much more hatred between the two alliances. In NpO-GOONS, the marginal gain in hatred between the two sides from harsh terms would be relatively small, since they hated each other so much and reconciliation was not an option. In TOP-NpO, the marginal gain in hatred might have been relatively high, especially because the opportunity to reconcile was forsaken for reparations. Anyways, I am rambling a bit. How would the theory work in MK-TOP? I don't think reconciliation is possible and the ideological divide is too wide. TOP has historical baggage from being in a position of power--it participated or allowed the cycle of harsh reparations, war, harsh reparations. CnG cannot possibly adhere to lofty principals and give TOP easy peace given TOP's history of behaving in realpolitik terms. And they start the next cycle of harsh reparations, war, harsh reparations. Until some other power comes along and topples CnG, and use CnG's history of harsh reparations to justify another cycle of harsh reparations and war. It's a meta-cycle. I am of the belief that this is the way the planet will work for a long time. The very small minority who actually believed or tried to bring about a normative change (either in the form of "white peace because it is moral" or "white peace because the game is more fun that way") I don't think are at all close to reaching positions of power high enough to make the decision to stop the cycle. And it's probably the case that by the time you reach that position of power, you look back at the sunk costs it took to earn that position and grow more attached to it. Which makes any decision that might risk your power for the sake of principals all that more difficult. tl;dr - TOP is probably unwilling to reconcile with CnG. CnG's least risky response is to pursue threat elimination. lol Karma naiveté.

[quote name='rsoxbronco1' date='15 February 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1266295410' post='2184491'] TOP became a threat when they attacked us without provocation. You can debate, argue, complain, and whine as much as you like, but we wouldn't have attacked you. You over-played your hand and now you compare us to NPO just because we've pushed you all in. [/quote] You should reread my point. To summarize... TOP is a threat to CnG because TOP itself suffers from uncertainty i.e. the security dilemma. CnG is now perfectly justified in seeing TOP as a threat, due to the same security dilemma. NPO was justified to do so in the same way, and I'm not saying that is a bad comparison. I felt NPO was justified back then as well. I felt TOP was justified back in WOTC as well. The only point I am making is that CnG does not live up to the unrealistic expectations of being naive and idealistic like Gramlins. Why would you, it's stupid. Do you get my point now?

CnG has every reason to protract this war for the sake of realpolitik. Every alliance should be expected to act to diminish any threats to it's power. Sure, TOP may not have been grinding their axe for CnG because they hated them; rather, it was probably because TOP felt CnG was doing the same. Classic security dilemma, and now CnG has no way to be 100% sure that TOP will not try to kill them in the future. Thus, TOP is a threat simply by virtue of existing and holding large amounts of power, and CnG I believe is justified in doing what it can to diminish it. It's exactly what NPO would have done, and did in the past. It's what TOP did for NpO's surrender terms. I understood it then, I understand it now. I think a lot of people got caught up in the Karma propaganda and started having expectations that every alliance would become something like the idealistic Gramlins... which was unique in the way it trusted enemies to change and whatnot. Anyways, I hope this war lasts much, much longer. It will probably be more fun that way, and I don't think any surrender terms will really be worth it, by virtue of the threat-diminishing purpose it will have.

[quote name='Katsumi' date='12 February 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1265957557' post='2177187'] So I reckon NPO is about 3 weeks from the top spot in score, at the rate things are going. Which will only increase if/when they rearm. The question is: will they stay neutral, or will they mop up the mess of soon to be ZI nations who beat them down months ago, using their unexpected enormous strength advantage to claim victory? This war is weird enough that this could happen, right? [/quote] NPO's been milked so dry of tech their upper ranks are a joke. Their rebuilding is going to take as much time as the rebuilding of the participants in this war.

I think certain aspects of MK would /love/ to see TOP, IRON, etc destroyed. I don't think all of MK has it out for TOP, but SuperComplaints !@#$posting made their emotions towards TOP clear, as have many of their current leadership through their comments. I did believe before that they did.

[quote name='Urmom(U)' date='11 February 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1265926792' post='2175644'] Ok, I think you are intentionally ignoring what he said to smear his name. Go back and read carefully what he said again, he never denied it. [/quote] Confirmation bias.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='11 February 2010 - 04:02 PM' timestamp='1265925722' post='2175588'] Its more an example of trying to push a stupid position through, even though both sides involved have stated that it happened. Aka, arguing for the sake of being a $%&@wit. I would hate to have to be in those negotiations. Have fun Archon :3 [/quote] If you say so. Though... I'd say trying to push through difficult positions, like getting more favorable terms, might be worth a shot during negotiations.