Daimos

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1303287282' post='2694478'] It's one thing to silently judge, it's another to take it out in the open. Because if you just do it for yourself, you always have the option to correct mistakes in your judgement due to new information. If you just burst out with the first thing that comes to your head, you end up looking like an idiot because you have no knowledge about the subject at hand. [/quote] I am confident on my assumption that the treaty between TOP and MK was a matter of convenience primarily. So I have no problem stating it in public. Will it develop to a long lasting friendship? Time will tell.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303264008' post='2694164'] Well the fact that they launched the attack says a lot. [/quote] The fact that TOP attacked MK unprovoked says alot of what? Are you trying to tell me that the act was a positive reflection of TOP on MK hence the treaty?

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1303239345' post='2693786'] I was just trying to bring across that its not up to you to make the judgement about our allies. We're not judging yours, are we? [/quote] Who is we? People judge, human nature.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303237893' post='2693759'] That they were stuck-up infra-huggers. And the amount that we really thought that was overblown by a few loud members. A lot of MK had mildly positive feelings about TOP, neither party went into that war hating the other. [/quote] Well it's always wise strategy as the aggressor to not hold back. What would be the point of launching an attack half ass.

[quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1303236346' post='2693735'] A spike in diplomatic activity ? You must not know our activity level in TOP then. Why now ? We're mature enough to put the past behind us. Its not like we hated MK back then, our attack on MK and C&G was a strategic hit, nothing more nothing less. If we didn't hit them they would have hit us when we entered the war in BPW. As far as the trust issue goes, I trust them 100%, the same as I trust the rest of my allies 100%. Not knowing what your ally will do next ? Its called communication, yes I know the NPO doesn't know of it because from what i've heard you completely shut off communication with allies in this war that came in to fight for you. Yes i've already been informed that they will be cancelling on you after this war. [/quote] Yes I believe you. You do not hate MK, it was a strategic hit base on your (assumption or fact?) that they will going to hit you. You did what you did to protect your alliance. You failed, You could not beat them so you joined them. Next best thing I guess.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303235355' post='2693718'] As close as C&G? Probably not, given the history behind C&G. But in terms of everything else we were and are a good match for each other, high activity, competence, alliance build, and general attitude. MK and TOP members in Bipolar had a lot of fun fighting each other, the most skilled opponents either alliance had ever faced. It destroyed a lot of misconceptions both alliances had about the other. The build-up to the treaty in terms of communication and interaction was probably the most for MK that we've had with any ally. As for buying time and security, not really. Do you remember the drama with GOD cancelling on GOONS over it? [/quote] Not sure what kind of misconceptions it destroyed. I mean it is an alliance that attacked you out of the blue. How can that project anything positive from your members is beyond me.

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303235652' post='2693724'] It's based on friendship. It was actually very inconvenient having to send all those diplos back and forth. [/quote] That is very well what you believe. It does not make it so. If I was MK, I would not trust your alliance given the fact you pre-empt them.

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1303235406' post='2693719'] Who trusts anyone at this point. I mean hell, i have fought NPO, allied NPO and fought NPO again. I was an ally, an enemy and an ally again of MK. Could go on with and for every alliance in this universe. Do we trust them right at the moment? Yeah. Unlike NpO, MK carry their animosity in the open. Dont see any. When I was in Gre and allied to NPO we received logs of someone in NPO or assorted alliances wishing for our death at least once every month. [/quote] I personally trust our treaty with TPF and Invicta. You can probably say the same with your long time ally IRON. Yes trusting an alliance 100% in this game is possible.

[quote name='Carl the Conqueror' timestamp='1303235173' post='2693714'] I wasn't aware that when I put in my vote for the TOP-MK treaty that our memberships hadn't actually grown very close to each other. I just wanted to keep my infra safe. Thanks for the clarification. [/quote] I admit it is all assumption from me. I do not claim it to be facts. It is what I would have done given your situation. It is not to save infra but to provide security to my alliance. Now maybe down the road your so called friendship will develop into true friendship but that remains to be seen. Right now the treaty is not base on true friendship but convenience.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303234117' post='2693697'] One of the main reasons that everyone "knew about it for months!" was because the forum presence on each other's boards, with dozens of diplomats going both ways, was obvious. [/quote] Sure a spike of diplomatic activity can be construed that we like to be friends with you. Question is why now? Why after a devastating war between the two alliance. Can you honestly say that TOP and MK trust each other 100 percent? You can argue the reason for the treaty is because of mistrust. Of not knowing what the other will do next. A treaty like yours buys you time and security. You cannot really say this is a treaty of friendship. Certainly not at the level as MK treaty with her C&G allies or NPO's treaty with TPF, Invicta and the rest of it's allies.

[quote name='Richard Rahl' timestamp='1303232978' post='2693681'] I love all these people that were not there for the months that we built up friendship with MK before signing telling us the real reason for our treaty. [/quote] It is a valid assumption. We will see down the road when the two alliance do not need each other anymore. It is a matter of who is quick enough to stab each other in the back.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1303231853' post='2693658'] It took 21 alliances + 1 alliance of multis to take down The Order of the Paradox in what is commonly referred to as the BiPolar War. We paid reps to alittle less than half that number after the war concluded. Seven months after we surrender to those 22 alliance we sign a treaty with 1 of them and somehow we're in "Stockholm Syndrome." You people really amaze me with your stupidity. [/quote] You are right. It is a treaty of convenience not friendship. Out of the 22 alliance MK was clearly the one alliance that can guarantee your security while you rebuild. In MK's case, war was inevitible with NPO. They cannot have a alliance like TOP who they just beat up be out there not knowing what they might do. Answer, sign a treaty with them. It removes a wild card out of the equation.

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1303221742' post='2693555'] I just find it surprising they went from an alliance you guys disliked and didn't want Citadel having any ties, that you were willing to declare on along with the rest of CnG in the last war, to an alliance you now consider to be close and trustworthey allies after they gave you record breaking reps at the conclusion of the last war after using underhanded tactics to manipulate a lot of their allies and other alliances into trying to turn into a different war as the reason not to give you guys peace without getting massive reps. Now in this war they did pretty much the same thing they criticized you guys for doing in the last war, with you guys giving them full support and now acting like MK are your best friends ever since they had you pay all those reps. Many alliances that were allied to MK burned up a lot of political capital with everyone else in order to please MK in the last war, like NpO and STA, now they are being rolled in a war MK seems to consider the same as their war they declared on NPO. Other than you guys being useful for them right now, I don't think they care about the wellbeing of TOP very much. You guys can do what you want though, just odd that them forcing you pay huge reps suddenly made TOP go from disliking MK to considering them your closest ally. [/quote] For TOP I think it is a case of Stockholm syndrome. For MK, it is a case of fear and respect. They got beat up so much by TOP last time they want assurance TOP will not waylay them again in the near future. Hence, the treaty. For either, probably a case of keep your friends close and your enemies closer. My take anyways.

[quote name='HellAngel' timestamp='1303228093' post='2693602'] I understand. It's just painful to see an old Citadel ally hating on us (imo, undeserved, but that is debatable). Maybe i just dont get the whole fuss again. I guess people saw a TOP announcement and were happy to provide some drama. I dont think we even knew about peace negotiations taking place... but even if, when MK has the impression legion is unnecessarily prolonging the negotiations, it is in their right to call in more allies. It's still a war, after all. Those 6 wars we declared wont do that much in terms of damage. At least not enough to justify a 25 pages thread about how ebil we are (once again). Maybe im also too old to care. [/quote] C'mon you are a long time CN player. You should know by now a announcement like this coming from a major alliance will cause drama. It is as much fun for your alliance getting this much attention as it is for others who have nothing better to do. Bad or good, it is a confirmation of your relevancy as an alliance.

This DOW is a win for both sides who favored continued warfare.

Interesting. Goodluck RoK.

Enjoyed the read! MK why so serious? Your alliance has not been the same since after the Armageddon war. You guys use to have a sense of humor. At least that is how I remembered it. A pity really.

This is not about the term being “reasonable”. To accept it is to encourage this kind of behavior towards us in the future. Eternal war is a better alternative to this Pacifican soldier and the response from the Body Republic, I am not alone in this course of action.

I enjoyed the read but the time for justifications has passed. Both sides are firm in their reasoning and issued statements that neither can retract. To do so would otherwise signal defeat from one side and non relevancy for the other. Let us see this through and let faith decide the outcome. Pacifican soldier

[quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1300998805' post='2674979'] NADC gov came to me directly to discuss surrender terms, so we went ahead and set up a meeting, they were going to receive white peace from ALL of us. TOP/MK/UMBRELLA. At the end of the meeting NADC gov declined our terms. We told them we'd give them a 3 day extension to reconsider our offer and they declined again. [/quote] I assumed NADC decline the terms because they did not want to leave their allies behind. That is to be commended not ridiculed. Much respect to them.

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1301025207' post='2675610'] We're going to start stealing individuals and eventually whole classes of people a la the Borg, apparently. [/quote] Hope RV has the same effect on GOONS as did Picard did with the Borg ha!

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300976069' post='2674675'] Really? Because half the thread is dedicated to whining about how you have no reason to trust us. And no, immediate white peace is out of the question. [/quote] Well I personally believe you will honor the terms not to do so is political suicide. Than continued war it is.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300940327' post='2674371'] NPO has nothing to fear about us honoring our end of the bargain, I would stake the entire sum of GOONS expected reparations on it. [/quote] Fear of not honoring your term is not the issue. The issue is THE TERM itself. White peace to all or continued warfare.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300914282' post='2673972'] Well maybe ya'll should have been smart enough to not make those enemies? If you make the enemies, how about be smart enough to at least stick with the original reason and white peace them now that the war is over. A little honey is sometimes better than a ton of vinegar. Face it, you keep NPO/Co at war for no damn reason other than your own paranoia and you make potential enemies out of many other alliances as well as ensuring that NPO/co are going to be gunning for you. You give them white peace (them=NPO/co including those fighting GOONS) and you would slow down if not halt the creation of all those other potential enemies, which would mean even if NPO/Co still wanted to gun for ya'll, they would no longer have others doing the same. If this is to decrease the threat towards DH, it is only doing the opposite. Giving white peace would decrease the threat to DH. [/quote] I have a similar line of thought. The general public does not sympathize with NPO they are concern of the action of DH which they view as hegemonic tendencies. Granting their opponents white peace would quell even eradicate these thoughts.

[quote name='Iceknave' timestamp='1300923030' post='2674087'] Not really that hard to understand, though it's inconsistent with pretty much all your earlier speeches and stuff on the subject. The main justification for war against NPO was pre-emp'ing NPO's entry into the VE-NpO war with pretty much no intel on whether NPO was going to enter or not. Fine, it's reasonable to assume that as one of the larger, not so neutral alliances not directly involved in the VE-NpO conflict that sooner or later NPO would be dragged into the war (probably via a convoluted tangled mess of chaining treaties), and therefore, pre-emp'ing NPO would shift the momentum/advantage to your side. Totally justifiable even if a bit beyond paranoid, considering NPO's been sitting around trying not to piss anybody off for about a year (this, in spite of various "diplomatic incidents", which would include the Red Raiding Safari, MK-NPO relations breaking down with closing of embassies, VE-NPO explosion over the sending over sethb to NPO's forums and expecting a warm reception, etc.). Remember, as part of the Karma terms, NPO suffered severe damage to upper tier tech levels and even after nearly a year, it's insufficient to really match other alliances who have ALSO been pumping up their tech levels without having to suffer such damages and building a strong upper tier is very time consuming and expensive (building 1 strong upper tier nation takes more than a year to do so, especially considering the 1 wonder per 30 day limitation). The argument could be made that NPO should have done more FA wise to ensure better relations with the other side of the treaty web. HOWEVER, diplomatic relationships goes both ways. Remember, with NPO's loss in the Karma War, politically, we had little to nothing to offer another alliance not already tied to us due to our shared experiences fighting in Karma. Would it have been prudent to dump ALL the allies that stood by us during Karma? Perhaps, BUT that would be even MORE isolationist than signing treaties with those comrades that fought beside us. Furthermore, would it be reasonable to assume that alliances that had fought on the other side of NPO be eager to even start friendly relations with NPO? Rationally speaking, there's little reason for them to consider friendly relations at all. As "victors" and "destroyers" of the previous Hegemony that held the world, there would be a sense of invulnerability and pride due in part to having finally taken down the "unbeatable". Compound that with the enormous amount of political capital held in their hands, it's very possible that dismissing NPO as politically worthless and not even worth their attention to happen. This would led to a rebuffing of ANY attempt for a resuming of political discussions. This rebuffing has further consequences for other alliances as well. As the main power dismisses NPO as a potential political candidate, less powerful alliances would, in turn, also seriously consider dismissing NPO as well for 2 reasons: fear of the main power and the potential consequences of tying themselves even marginally to NPO. What does that leave NPO to work with politically? It leaves other alliances that are either already tied to NPO due to fighting together during Karma and those alliances that were never involved in Karma, even marginally and have no relations at all with the main power. This isolationist attitude would, in turn, fuel paranoia and worries regarding NPO's regrowth and reemergence as a potential world power, especially seeing the fairly rapid rise up the sanction ranks. Without this dialogue (minimal that it might be), there is nothing to support the idea that NPO would be peaceful, despite a change in Emperor (even if that Emperor was less well known than some of the other possible candidates for the position and comes from a very different background than the previous Emperor). Fine, fast forward to now. Your argument is that the current reason for war is a mix between NPO's upper tier staying in peace mode and not "fighting" and that peace mode is not a "valid tactic" to use. First Point: NPO's upper tier staying in peace mode and not "fighting". Logically, as others have already pointed out, it would not be in NPO's best interest to send their upper tier to the slaughter. NPO's upper tier would be fighting a minimal of 3 staggered nuclear wars at the same time, dealing a mere fraction of the damage to their opponents for a number of reasons (1, the NPO nation would have at most 25 nukes with a max regain of 2 nukes per day, firing at least 3, generally more due to SDI's, while the NPO nation's opponents would have 75 nukes between them with a max regain of 6 nukes per day, firing at least 1, generally more due to SDI's. Because of SDI, odds greatly favor the NPO nation running out of nukes before their 3 opponents would run out). Compound that with being guaranteed to be out of range of the other side's upper tier with 1 to 2 rounds, it ensures that the damage NPO's upper tier would inflict would be marginally worth less and less as they fall in size. Furthermore, considering that NPO does use banks, there is no reason to assume that ALL of their upper tier are nations with the ability or the skill to fight (I'm treating anything above 50k NS as upper tier, even though it may not necessarily be the definition some would use). As most people should know, peace mode bankers generally do not fight on the battlefield. Instead, their "fight" is after the dust settles. Their challenge is logistics, the movement of aid and resources to ensure steady and rapid regrowth of the alliance after the conflict. Considering that as an alliance, NPO has lost well over half their NS now (even if it's NS stemming primarily from infra, it'll cost money to rebuild nations up into the upper levels of infra), your main goals of preventing NPO from entering the VE-NpO conflict and ensuring that NPO would be less of a threat were both successful due to a number of reasons. Compared to the highest tech alliance at this time, MHA standing at ~922k tech, NPO has ~394k tech left, roughly 40% of what MHA has, and around half of what Umbrella has and ~60% of what MK has. From the tech perspective, it's clear NPO is not much of a threat as it would take considerable time to rebuild NPO's mid tier and start building them up into strong upper tier nations. From the average nation strength perspective, NPO is ranked 128th about the same as NpO at ~131th. Compared to MK ranked at 37th and Umbrella at number 2, NPO is not much of a threat at all. Second Point: Peace mode is not a "valid tactic". Peace mode is a choice people make for whatever reason. Questioning its validity as a war tactic is absurd. If one does not have even a moderate chance of being successful in winning a conflict in a specific area, what is the best option then? *HINT* It's not going off and getting slaughtered. [/quote] Well put comrade. I enjoyed the read.