Topside the Hun

[quote name='cookavich' timestamp='1340294662' post='2991878'] i'm still reeling from the unmitigated power and force brought to bear against my alliance by the brave and mighty spartans [/quote] Spoken like a great warrior. A great warrior with no soldiers, no tanks, no ships, no planes, no tech, no nukes, and no chance.

[quote name='Cortath' timestamp='1327159983' post='2904187'] [Snip] wars are won or lost on the field of battle. [/quote] Wars are won when you have lesened your opponents will to fight and they accept your will. The battlefield means nothing, you have to conquer your oppoents mind. Good luck with that! lol

War is a negotiating tatic one uses to force the other party to accept your terms. You have won when they accept. They have lost when they accept. To say that FAN/FARK have lost this war at this point in time shows ones ignorance. The fact that FAN/FARK show no interest in accepting generous and easy terms shows that they rather enjoy war over peace. Collect taxes once every 20 days or do battle with multiple opponents each and every day. It would appear that FAN/FARK enjoy war and dispise peace. So what does NPO offer them, "PEACE". That's not what they want, they want war. It is clear that the only way to get F/F to accept your peace terms is to deny them what they want. Move all your nations into P/M and stop attacking them. Force peace upon them if that's what you want, for it is clear they don't. I look forward to seeing how this ends as one cannot declare winners and losers until it's over and the fat lady sings.

Now that Sparta is at peace again can we get on to something NEW?

This does pose some interesting questions. There is always a correct solution to every problem so lets look at a few alternate scenario's and determine if the best one was choosen here. 1) MK could have ignored the whole issue and told their members "meh!" dropped trades happen. MK members are then pissed off that their alliance leadership doesn't care or they search their member base and organize a temporary trade to replace the lost one. 2) MK could have gone to NSO and asked if they could attack the former member for his scam. NSO doesn't care so they are happy, MK is happy as they get a little revenge. Scammer gets a beatdown, Meh! 3) Demand a token payment for each trade member (I have to think a lost trade at 20 days of backlogging has got to be worth a lot more than $3mil and 50 Tech.) This annoys NSO and the negotiations strain relations between both alliances. Not really a win for either party. 4) If NSO refuses to pay. Then there two options on MK's part. Accept the refusal and tensions build in both alliances. If War erupts over it no one wins as the losses will be many, many times more than the lost trade revenue. Those not involved pass the popcorn and enjoy some drama. I'm sure there could be variations on this, like if NSO and MK were tight NSO might be more than happy to compensate the MK members who were out some revenue. Lastly MK has now issued their trade policy to the world. Trade with an MK member and your alliance will owe them $3mil/50 tech if you drop the trade. Well alliances can figure out how to deal with that one. I also would assume that if an MK member ever drops a trade with you then you can expect $3mil/50tech compensation. Karma is a wonderful thing and what goes around eventually comes back. It continues to amaze me that with power comes corruption.

So far I can see from this thread that Gramlin's are trying to change some of the game fundamentals. If I understand what they have done by their actions so far it is: 1) It is okay to send and receive aid to nations in an alliance at war , this is represented by their continued aid into and out of Gramlin's to other alliances. 2) It is okay for nations to leave an alliance at war and join another alliance not at war, with the intention of coming back to your original alliance after the war is finished. 3) If you think you have a significant advantage it is okay to make outrageous demands of those you are at war with because, meh, you're not really interested in negotiating peace at this point in time anyways. Given that Gramlin's continues to do tech deals while at war I suppose it is only a matter of time before IRON starts doing tech deals too. I suppose it would be okay if aid was sent to IRON under the banner of "Tech Deal". One could send them $3mil in aid and wait for tech to be returned and if it never was one could say it wasn't a very good "Tech Deal". I don't like what Gramlin's are doing for many reasons, I just hope their continued precedent setting comes back to haunt them, may they reap the benefits of what they sow.

I think everyone should take a careful look at what effect Gramlins position has presented. First you must surrender unconditionally, then if we present you with our terms and you don’t like them, too bad you don’t have any nukes or any defenses so we will now proceed to beat you into submission. Obviously this “Unconditional Surrender” requirement is meant to be rejected. Two, Gramlins has all but withdrawn from the war, one nation of less than 500 NS doesn’t really count. So they can continue to hold this position as long as they desire, they aren’t losing any infra or tech from it. Now why is Gramlins demanding such a ridiculous requirement prior to issuing their terms. Obviously they believe they are entitled to this position. They did after all fight nearly 70 wars with IRON and Company over the last 8 weeks. They made a huge sacrifice by declaring on the average, 9 wars a week, and now they are entitled to reparations. Exactly what they won’t say, my guess is they are trying to add up all the damage from those 70 wars. The allies fighting on the same side as Gramlins, (They are not Gramlin allies, Gramlins doesn’t hold a treaty with anyone but MHA) continue to lose as much NS every week as Gramlins lost in the entire war, probably more. It appears to me that Gramlins wants to ensure that they get a lock on the top nations in CN. They are by their Wiki entry an economic powerhouse and their current war performance shows they have no stomach for battle. What is not obvious is that CnG and everyone else on that side of the war are having serious discussions on how to resolve this issue. This is bound to lead to disagreement on how to resolve the issue. And that my friends is the first step in splintering the allies lined up against IRON and company. This is a historic moment, for no matter how this turns out, Gramlins has managed to instigate the beginnings of discord amongst all the alliances lined up against IRON. I would go further to say that IRON and company can only benefit by Gramlins behaviour and the longer it continues the more IRON has to gain. In fact IRON can just sit back and say to CnG “Well we’re ready to surrender just get your side together.” Then they sit back and watch as CnG and allies argue over what is to be done. Arguments lead to fights and hurt feelings, all the while IRON waits patiently, gathering support. So I don’t see any motivation for IRON to help resolve the issue. This is clearly a situation that favours IRON. Finally, should Gramlins ever find that Harmilns accord canceled I suspect you will see the quickest beat down of any alliance in the entire history of CN and no one will shed a tear.

War, not sure it should be called a war. How about "48 hours of broken spears"

I have found that due to the small size of many of the nations in CM-TE that getting attacked before and just after update provides for an unfair advantage for those who decide to be on-line during update. A nation with 400 infra can be attacked by three nations with 600-700 infra just before update and then again immediately after update. Each attacker can destroy about 50 infra for a loss of 300 infra before the targeted nation realizes they are at war. Now losing 300 out of 400 infra and then trying to return ground attacks results in such low odds of success that in effect the targeted nation is unable to mount any successful offensive ground attack. This in effect rewards those players that choose to be online at update. In order to remedy the situation I offer two proposals. 1) After declaring war nations must wait 24 hours before being able to launch any attacks. 2) After completing a set of attacks nations must wait 12 hours before launching the next set of attacks. Proposal one doesn't eliminate the problem but at least you will have fair warning and can choose to be on at update to defend your nation. It should also be fairly easy to code. It would also have a significant effect on strategy and the way the game is played. Proposal two allows some time for the nation being attacked to retaliate before being totally devastated by multiple attacks. The time delay between attacks could be half the time between updates if more than 1 update were to occur in day.