[TOP's Counteroffer: lol what]

These are closer to reasonable than the first offer leaked in Ejay's blog, although the final figure will probably be between them. It's also strange to have a partial nuke decom and protection – with protection you'd normally expect demilitarisation.

Not only that, but if it is a sign of good faith, then protection shouldn't be necessary, especially if it's only nuke decomming.

[Dear Admin Re: Strategic Defense Initiative]

Yeah, previous to this war, mine, which was over a year old, had blocked one nuke. I've done decently this time through, but the randomly generated stuff has got to go.

[Astronaut Jones has trust issues.]

I'm sure there are quite a few honorable alliances out there. You just have to look in the right places for your friends and allies.

[White Peace and Reps]

Reps should be proportional to the grievance, without being petty and underhanded. If you had no problem with the alliance beforehand, let em walk knowing they lost. If you had a slight grievance, ask for a pittance. If you had a major grievance with them before the war, then ask for more, but know that whatever you ask for, whatever you do, will shape the way everyone else looks at your alliance from that point on.

What about after GW1, when no harsh reps were imposed, and then that later came to bight the victors in the $@!? If the opponent is still viewed as a threat, are reps not just another form of warfare, or a way to manage your alliance over theirs?

[White Peace and Reps]

I think reparations should be deserving of the victor in proportion to the deeds done by the loser. If the loser routinely has done bad by them, then it is okay to ask for a little more than normal, in proportion to what they can easily pay. Harsh reps are a thing of the past, you're right, no one will stand for seeing fairly innocent alliances be asked to pay 1/2 their tech, or countless billions of dollars. And, no matter how bad an alliance may seem, or how bad their actions may seem, they're all fairly innocent when compaired to all other alliances. No alliance is ever free of guilt.

Harsh reps simply strengthen an alliance's hatred for the victor. It doesn't help that the victor is often enough an !@#$%^& in victory, either.

I think you also bring up a good point here on the purpose of reps. Is it to prevent rapid rebuilding, allow the victor aid in rebuilding, or is it a punishment for crimes of the past? And in many cases, an alliance in a position to demand overly oppressive reps isn't going to be opposed by many, most likely, so the burden of preventing those harsh reps falls to their allies and fellow victors.

[Political Ramifications of the Techraid War]

Excelent analysis Bob, but I think you're overestimating SF, I don't think they desire becoming a global hegemony. Not beyond a vocal minority anyways.

[Evolution of Warfare, Peace mode, Blitzes and more.]

CN seems to have entered a phase where being the initial attacker is not helpful. A while back, attackers had a huge advantage (particularly in the days of the instant nuke, but even after that with low warchests and anarchies), and we saw a lot of aggressive wars. Now, the only advantage in mid and high tiers to an update blitz is the inability of the opponents to declare more wars if they're in anarchy ... but if you 3v1 them to achieve that, you're going to be eating 3 times the nukes.

The TPF non-war and this war to a lesser extent show that the balance has moved to playing a counter-attacking game, sitting out until the moment is right. We are a week into a global war and yet we've only just touched 4000 in game wars. Even an alliance right at the centre of the storm like FOK are only partially engaged (and using peace mode well beyond the usual banks). STA and NpO are about the only alliances which are fully engaged by the standards of past wars.

I agree with this, the counter-attacks from allies seem to be the new blitz. I think that some of the moves in the Karma war showed that, like the way Fark jumped on IRON. The counter is now as important as the initial.

[A Legalistic View on the Techraid War]

While RoK may have allies on both sides, Polar is the aggressor and \m/ is on the defensive; that fact alone should put Rok's mandatory defensive obligations ahead of their optional aggressive obligations.

I agree, and I'm sure it will, but surely nobody would suggest that RoK violate the peace clause of it's treaty with NpO... They've done exactly what they should, from what I can tell, work for peace, and do their best to ease the fighting on both of their allies. I've seen nothing but upstanding behavior from RoK and her members.

[A Legalistic View on the Techraid War]

I think you're over-simplifying RoK's role in this situation. You mention that they hold an MDoAP with \m/, and that they should rush to their defense... against their OTHER MDoAP treaty partner, NpO. I mean, they're in a very difficult spot. I don't think anyone really believes that NpO ISN'T the aggressor in this war, so I can imagine that if/when it turns into a full out coalition war on both sides, RoK will fight with SF and \m/ against the Polarists, if necessary. But they truly do have friends on both sides here. Calling them out for not declaring war on an MDoAP partner is shortsighted.

Edit: Other than that one point, I like it.