Jerichoholic

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1265731812' post='2170657'] I don't see how many ways a comment like this from CnG can be interpreted ([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79315"]First Post in Nemesis DoW where the CB given is defense of SLCB, but they are doing it for Vanguard?[/url]), Or comments like these from CnG stating they are on the opposite side well before the DoW by TOP([url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79327"]UPN & INVICTA DoW on R&R[/url]), Although CnG will of course spin this to make themselves out to be the victim and some will believe it as long as its repeated. Although when coupled with GOD's delcaration of war stating this was a coalition war, You can ignore reality and believe whatever you want though, although that CnG picked a side already proved they were a threat to the other side. [/quote]You are making two very big assumptions 1) That simply supporting one side means you are going to attack (even though many alliances/blocs had conflicting treaties and would likely be staying out) 2) If CnG did enter in response to an ally's plight (again, I'm not sure which one you were planning on defending, since the only one I've seen mentioned [NSO] was in wars against 3 SuperFriends), they would be in that coalition. You will remember that during Karma, TOP fought NPO but was not part of the Karma coalition.

[quote name='Methrage' date='09 February 2010 - 10:17 AM' timestamp='1265728635' post='2170578'] Your analogy wasn't a real argument, so it didn't warrant a serious response. However if I understand your analogy correctly your asking if I consider CnG mean for fighting back when TOP delcared, then my answer would be no. I'm sure TOP expected them to fight back. [/quote] Your side keeps saying CnG should give white peace to DAWN/IRON/TOP/TORN (henceforth known as DITT, that side really needs a better name) to prove that CnG isn't a threat to them. Yet DITT attacking CnG without provocation proved they [b]are[/b] a threat to CnG. I'm not aware of any treaties that would have brought CnG in in the event of DITT coming in on defense of NSO (which from what I've read in these discussions is what was going to happen), so it was just a sneak attack on somebody uninvolved in the war because they didn't like CnG. So how does DITT prove to CnG that they aren't a threat to them? They have already attacked without provocation and now only want white peace because they are at a disadvantage. What are the odds DITT would have given white peace if the roles were reversed?

I removed alliances with under 10 nations, so you may see some missing on this chart. If I missed any of them, let me know below.

I finally got around to cleaning this one up a bit

It looks a little different because I stopped combining DOWs on alliances unless it was more than 2. I was running out of colors If I'm missing anything, let me know.

[quote name='avernite' date='07 February 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1265560941' post='2166920'] Hrm, IRON not even in the top 3 losers? Nice work guys [/quote] I don't think losing a point and a quarter is cause for celebration [quote name='ty345' date='07 February 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1265565154' post='2166999'] Apparently Pacifica can be ebil even when neutral [/quote] They are readying their neutral war machine. Then we'll all pay!

Are you still at war with Aloha?

Go get 'em

[quote name='kulomascovia' date='07 February 2010 - 01:48 AM' timestamp='1265525292' post='2166422'] Thanks for the update Mio + Kochers. I wonder if the GRL will get sanctioned. [/quote] It's at 44.15 and I'm sure there have been over 200 people nuked

[quote name='SunnyInc' date='06 February 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1265470469' post='2164548'] Do you understand the concept of a pre-emptive strike? Paradoxia and IRON decided to deprive CnG of the first-strike advantage that they would have otherwise given them if they directly entered in defense of NSO and awaited the counter-attack. [/quote] So let me get this straight. From your point of view this is what would have happened: 1) FOK attacks NpO 2) NSO attacks FOK in defense of NpO 3) R&R, Fark, GOD, Guru Order attack NSO 4) TOP/IRON/etc attack ??? 5) CnG attack TOP/IRON/etc in defense of ??? Now let's look at the alliances which attacked NSO: R&R - SuperFriends/Teen Titans, no treaties with CnG members Fark - SuperFriends/Teen Titans, no treaties with CnG members GOD - SuperFriends/Teen Titans, no treaties with CnG members Guru Order - MDoAP with Fark, no treaties with CnG members How do you get from 3 SuperFriends alliances and Guro Order to CnG?

[quote name='mhawk' date='06 February 2010 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1265468478' post='2164493'] I think this can be answered pretty directly. 1) Your assertion that CnG was sitting there and was randomly attacked is purely propaganda. Are you stating that had TOP and IRON declared on some random SF alliance, CnG would have stayed out? The context of that attack was that CnG had already stated their position to mixed allies in a [b]Global war[/b]. This very same type of attack superfriends did against polar's allies two years ago. Any realistic honest answer would be appreciated instead of "we were just minding our business." 2) We asked our allies to stay out and exercise a complex military operation that would give the best chance for peace. We didn't feel like gratifying the CnG lust for massive war at the expense of all our friends. We acted responsibly with the hard work of our friends instead of pouring it down the drain. You state the grass is greener, but what do we see here? We see CnG abusing their friends by asking them to be put into very politically and ethically bad positions (Polar and STA). They hold no concern for those alliances other than they serve as a shield for CnG because they don't want to peace out. If you state the reason for maintaining the war is the threat of Citadel, well they don't exist. If you can explain how our decision to attempt a strategy with greatest possibility of overall peace is cowardly and lacks integrity, perhaps you can ask how asking Polar to commit suicide so you can avoid slightly more damage instead of peacing out with all parties is honorable? 3) You can argue our allies took forever, but they were following a clear plan, the same as CnG was considering our allies entered the war well before CnG did when Polar was attacked by PC and FOK. Although for a group known as SuperComplaints y'all work hard to keep it up. Always the victim in every circumstance. Personally I'd hate to be known as a bunch of complainers. [/quote] 1) Is it a valid CB to attack the ally of somebody you or your allies are planning to attack? I understand that there have been instances in the past, before my nation came into existence, where preemptive attacks were made in alliance wars, but weren't those mainly because the alliances in question were planning to DoW them? As far I can tell, this was "they might attack an alliance who might attack an alliance CnG is allied to and CnG might come to their aid, so let's skip 4 steps and attack them directly." Or you could take the words from the original DoW which was that CnG didn't like them (TOP/IRON/etc) so they had to go. 2) Wasn't the CC delayed because the only man in the coalition who can plan a war was occupied? There was no "plan" there, it was just a failure of leadership. 3) See #1

[quote name='Hayzell' date='06 February 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1265440232' post='2163796'] The simplest and most effective means of ensuring we would not want to go to war with you again would have been to offer white peace. This would have assuaged all hostilities towards you, and without the grave cost of your nations and allies nations burning. You could have even kept that morale high ground you've worked so hard to attain over the past year. Instead you will attempt to annihilate us, forcing us into a survival position in which those you say you wish to protect will only endure unncessary harm. [size=2] [/size][size=2]Rather than breaking the cycle you have only exacerbated it, and certainly done nothing to make anyone think the perceptions were unfounded.[/size] [/quote] White Peace was given to TPF. Guess which side they are on now.

Preemptive reply, Jack?

NpO gets its own color

You totally just screwed up my war web. Though it does make things more interesting, especially if Polar's allies follow suit. Has there ever been a 3 sided war this big?

I'll just add that you saw a lot of white peaces with no reps because most of the people fighting had no bad feelings towards each other. It was more "unfortunately we're getting dragged into this stupid conflict" rather than something more vicious as we've seen in the past.

CnG's side is about 50% bigger last I checked. It was something like 150mil ns to 100mil ns

[quote name='Cirrus' date='04 February 2010 - 05:38 PM' timestamp='1265323110' post='2159531'] Just a handy way to ID the sides. We don't seem to have cute catch-all names for the coalitions this time around. SuperComplaints does seem to be starting to catch on for the one, but what about the other? What do you mean? [/quote] RoK isn't the same color as the other C&G people. About half the "neutral" people in that chart have now jumped in.

It's getting pretty big

YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH o/ CSN

I'm so jealous Have fun, guys

Yeah, the webbed version was getting to be unmanageable. I'm only counting wars from the second war/second phase of the war/whatever you want to call it

Leave corrections/errors below

Taken from the Wiki, yadda yadda