Daimos

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1305063554' post='2709753'] If they did I would personally smack all of their leadership in the back of the head with my open hand...IRL. No, the campaign was well executed by DH. The political capital that has been burned has been caused by the peace negotiation/terms for ending it, which at various points early on were laughably out of line with reality. As it stands now no one is probably going to remember that GOONS got money they didn't deserve, mostly because the amount wasn't particularly large by today's standards. What will get remembered is the "firing squad for NPO" or "war, part 2" that happened as a result of the "peace" treaty and that could be very problematic for DH in the future. We'll see. [/quote] A pre-emptive strike is mostly design to end the war quickly. Clearly that objective did not happen. Part of the reason this war has gone this long is because of the manner NPO was attacked. A scenario where NPO and it’s allies were involve in the VE-NpO war. NPO would have been more likely to lay their arms down at the conclusion of that war.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1305063115' post='2709748'] It would depend entirely on timing and who hit who triggering defense treaties and preventing others from acting because of conflicting ones. Also any oA clauses and MADPs that got triggered. But the worst case would have had DH entering into the fray and unable to target specific alliances in an effort to knock them out of the war early. The whole war bogs down quickly as the upper and middle tiers of many alliances get locked into nuke anarchy. From there a significant portion of the world's NS is locked into months of war and no side able to gain any sort of decisive victory and peace negotiations drag on. At some point the remaining major neutral alliances pile in on one side or the other and since this is the "worst case scenario" they pile in on DH and The Orders win a marginal victory with mostly white peace all around. DH was never going to be decisively defeated. They could count on too much support from other alliances for that to happen. [/quote] Regardless of timing, if NPO entered the VE-NpO war DH would have the green light to lay the hammer down. The war would have ended as soon as VE and NpO came to terms. There would have been no DH-NPO theater. DH over thought here. They were simply paranoid that NPO would somehow pull out a rabbit out of the hat and come out with a plan that would win us the war. The fact is, NPO does not have the political and military capacity to do so. DH placed much emphasis on the military aspect and not the political one which is more of a valuable commodity in this world. The aggressive action of DH has force Planet Bob to look at MK in a differently light. It shined the brightest in the Armageddon war. It is no longer the case.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1305054097' post='2709692'] Not really, no. [/quote] I would like to hear the worst case scenario for DH if NPO chose to enter the VE-NpO war.

My opinion, the pre-emptive strike against NPO was a poor strategic move for DH. The amount of political capital lost is not worth what little militarily a pre-emptive strike had achieved. A counter attack on NPO entry to the VE-NpO war would had zero political risk and would have spared DH a lot of headache defending their actions. If DH could do it over again, I am willing to bet they would have done it differently.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1304733414' post='2707834'] Since I apparently need to state the obvious, here are the reasons why we would not have engaged in permanent war: - The FAN war proves that it doesn't work. You can't destroy an alliance with permanent war that is determined to exist in this world. - We don't support the idea. We may dislike some people and may want to wreck their nations in war, but we aren't out to destroy communities. This has been stated plenty of times. - We've never tried to disband or held anyone in perpetual war. It's been years since anyone outside of GOD (who have been yelled at by almost everyone else for it) has tried to do that. - The PR would be absolutely horrible. The "old hegemony" comparisons would be rampant and would be justified, as that's the most extreme thing people tended to hold against the old hegemony. We'd have almost no support in it. At best we'd do as bad as y'all did against FAN, at worse end up like the Gremlins. - It's not in our best interest to have permanent war in our lower tiers. Especially for GOONS which is majority lower tier and for everyone who buys tech from them. [/quote] Funny, these are the reasons why I was against ending the war short of a white peace agreement. NPO and our allies let you off the hook.

Bloc is a sleeping giant. Would be interesting to see what it will do when it awakens.

Personally, I am saddened to see the war is coming to an end. I am enjoying fighting the invaders. Glad to see some of our upper tier finally set loose. Also, casualty arguments are lame.

RoK doing their thing. Admirable. Grats on the treaty.

When Gabbert fell, I thought the Redskins were going to pick him. Glad they did not. Happy to see them trade down to get a much needed extra 2nd round pick. Was not sure about Kerrigan but the more I heard about him the more I liked the pick. Hope they get two more quality picks in the 2nd round.

Moralism is a obstacle to the activity of the one’s who seeks to abuse their power. I personally am enjoying the game right now. More so than the pre-Karma days.

This is the kind of post I look for whenever I check the forums. This is pure gold. I was entertained and intrigue. I thought it was very thought provoking. Kudos to the author. Now we know why MK is paranoid of NPO. Just look at what they have been reading. Got anymore of these?

If I were Washington, I'd trade back to land a QB. Shanahan likes mobile QBs though, and I could see them reaching for Locker at #10. Locker in later draft is fine not worth the 10th pick though. If the Redskins decides to keep the pick I like defensive end Robert Quinn. He has big potential to be a dominant player. Doubt he will still be available by the 10th pick though. They can go with offensive lineman Mike Pouncey. A bit high for the pick but I think he is going to be a solid player for a long long time.

Redskins needs a QB but after Gabbert and Newton, no one is worth their 10th pick. If those two are gone, I hope they trade down, get additional pick and draft a QB later down the draft.

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303330099' post='2694819'] You must have an extremely loose definition of the word competence. [/quote] And you must have an extremely narrow definition of the word. Alliances big or small, politically motivated or not are competent in their own right. If the members are satisfied in what their respective alliances provides them. In my mind, they have achieved competency. Who are you and I to judge them that they are not. Do do so is an insult to what they have accomplished. [quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303330099' post='2694819'] What's it based on? No competent alliance (of which there are only a handful) wanted to sign a treaty with either NPO or Legion, so you treatied each other. Is it based on mutual loneliness? It's most likely based on NPO needing a meat shield, there is zero foundation of friendship there, and of course you don't trust them because you fought them before (see I can use the same "argument" you are using).[/quote] Legion and the few alliances that have sign a treaty with NPO after the Armageddon war has my full respect. NPO was beaten, vilified, ostracized and constantly threaten of an attack. As someone said, we were the leper of planet bob. Yet these brave souls still choose to roll with us. Why would NPO not sign with them? To my eyes, that is a rare attribute these days.

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303326701' post='2694786'] At first, I thought your inquiries were genuine, but this question makes me feel otherwise. Are you honestly saying that the only reason a friendship between alliances can exist is due to a "unique commonality?" What's you unique commonality with Legion? At first I was going to say it was having forced them to have a Viceroy, but that was not unique to Legion. Maybe it was rolling them in battle. Again, not unique. So where is this special quality that allows you and Legion, with your shared history, to have a friendship, but not TOP and MK? Your entire line of thought is preposterous. Also, you say that MK and TOP cannot trust each other because we have previously fought. By your own definition, you cannot trust Legion, and are just using them. Yours is a relationship of convenience that lacks friendship as a basis. Am I doing it right? You want to know what unique commonality TOP based its friendship with MK on? It was competence. There are a handful of competent alliances, and MK and TOP are two of them. Unlike your relationship with Legion, that's actually unique quality. No other alliance was as worthy in battle, as prepared, as active, as deft at politics. We saw ourselves in MK and realized that with work we could forge a strong, long relationship. Thus the Unholy Alliance was born. [/quote] Competence? Hardly unique. A lot of competent alliance out there. I doubt you will sign a treaty with all of them. MK and TOP is a treaty to pacify a threat from each other. NPO and Legion treaty is not base on that.

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1303323713' post='2694747'] snip [/quote]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303323284' post='2694743'] The fact that when we started talking to them a lot, we discovered that we have a lot in common and would make good allies for each other. While those that they likely might ally with against us have screwed them over on more than one occasion. [/quote] What would be that unique commonality that your alliances share between in each other that you have suddenly discovered after all this years?

[quote name='Ojiras Ajeridas' timestamp='1303323276' post='2694742'] Following your logic, MK and NPO should be treatied too.... but they aren't. [/quote] snip

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303321314' post='2694725'] We knew TOP was a threat before they hit us. And yes, we probably would have ended up hitting them had they entered in. [/quote] You knew they were a threat but did not know how much of a threat until they actually hit you.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1303320873' post='2694721'] Lets say that MK and TOP do not have a treaty. What makes you think we would have went to war on the side of the NPO? The most we would had ever done was declare neutrality. You would have gotten no help from us. [/quote] TOP entered the BiPolar war on the side of NpO, an alliance you historically do not like. What guarantee does MK have that you will not pull something like that again? Solution for MK, sign a treaty with TOP.

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303316548' post='2694682'] TOP attacked MK for a variety of reasons, one of which was misunderstanding. We corrected that through diplomacy. Not just having their diplos come over to our forums, but by intensive, months long communication. But I don't blame you for your assumptions. You weren't involved in the process and literally have no idea what went, or is, going on. I agree with what I assume is your basic premise that continual work is needed to ensure the viability of any relationship. But that would be necessary for any treaty partners, not just TOP and MK, which makes me wonder why it is such a big deal to you. [/quote] TOP and MK are major players in this game. Your actions can tip the balance of power. It is worth taking notice. Hence a “big deal”. Would be interesting how these treaty will develop. Would it suffer the same faith as the MK and NpO treaty? I bet you they thought they could trust each other when they signed it.

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303310350' post='2694624'] Why would we dismiss what happened during BiPolar? It was specifically because of what happened in BiPolar that we formed our friendship. I trust MK. [/quote] What I meant is you cannot dismiss the reason why TOP attacked MK. You did not trust them than why now? Anyone can go to your diplomatic forum and say what you want to hear it does not mean they are sincere. Action speaks louder than words and so far I do not see any action that would warrant that trust. Atleast nothing at the level that would allow me to sleep well at night. That is if I was in the position of leadership for both sides.

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303310350' post='2694624'] I trust MK. [/quote] For your alliance sake you better hope they feel the same about you. I would shake my former enemies hand but I would not turn my back on them.

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303308353' post='2694607'] I like your persistence. [/quote] The foundation of friendship is not there. You cannot just dismiss what happened during the BiPolar war. To fully trust an alliance that was your enemy just less than a year ago is dangerous. I am sure your leadership knows that. TOP claims the attack on MK was a “strategic” move. So is your current treaty with them. Nothing wrong with that.

[quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1303303593' post='2694549'] The hit on MK and C&G last war was a strategic hit thats it. If we didn't hit them they would have hit us. TOP and MK are both mature enough to be able to put the war behind us. With all of our Q&A's we had on each others forums we found out we're not that much different. [/quote] I think TOP hit on MK opened their eyes that TOP is a threat to MK. MK cannot act on NPO with TOP out there not knowing what they would do. So how do you pacify TOP? Sign a treaty with them. With that out of the way MK was free to act on NPO. You keep saying if TOP did not hit MK, they would have hit you first. Does MK share this assumption/fact?