WcaesarD

I have given my all to FAN. As part of this I have recently given my word to many leaders regarding FAN's current and future direction. These were based on conversations I had at the highest levels of FAN Leadership. Unfortunately, I was intentionally mislead. Despite public calls for all spies and gray nations to exit their host alliances and return to FAN there is still widespread officially sanctioned spying taking place by FAN. This past week I gained access to a previously unknown area of our forum (despite my already widespread access to the FAN forum as an Honored member and as a leading diplomat) My mask was changed as part of a spring cleaning and forum reorganization process I am heading up. Clearly, someone Farked up big time with my access. I am simply going to post these screenshots here. They speak for themselves. I wish to apologize specifically to FARK, Athens, MHA, NPO, The Corporation, Ragnarok and all the others who I had in the past given my word that FAN no longer participates or condones spying, for obviously I was talking out of my $@!. Effective immediately, I am resigning from FAN. I will be applying to Fark for admittance. If it's not granted, and I wouldn't blame them if they refused, then I will delete my nation entirely and re-roll in obscurity or fight the good fight on my own. At this point I don't care what FAN does or gets done to it. Apparently common sense is not an offset for rabies. Without anything else to hold us up: [img]http://www.grandbastard.reloadpress.com/upload/14468-15842-agentreportsummary.jpg[/img] Clearly this goes beyond mere spying, this is clearly an attempt to completely take over the leadership of another alliance.

Have fun, Fark, I'm sure you'll do just as well this time around against em.

I don't think it can be considered a bandwagon if you join the side with lower nations, NS and nukes, can it?

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.

Just a little disclaimer: This may not be coherent, it may jump around, and it may take some things I see as basic truths for granted. It's not meant as military advice, just as a commentary and evaluation. On the field of battle, the techniques are constantly evolving, this is as true in the cyberverse as in real life. It used to be that the best tactics involved were to throw your banks into peace mode, and have an all out blitz just before update, a quad ground war attack, and then it was all downhill to the finish. As this war goes on, we see many of the combatants with nearly half their populations either in peace mode or holding back on attacks. These nations are inevitably called cowards or inactive, and mocked, regardless of the fact that this is nearly never why they hold back. With the advent of multi billion dollar warchests, a simple anarchy doesn't even begin to slow the damage output of a nation. We're seeing larger nations, and larger warchests. Now, if you'll allow me a little hypothesizing, we're likely to see a matchup between MK and TOP at some point in this conflict, or some time in the future. Sure, it won't be just those two, but for the sake of argument, let's leave it at that. Both alliances boost impressive nuke counts, activity levels (not the in game statistic) and ANS. However, TOP edges MK in nations and ANS by quite a bit, especially at the very upper tiers. It can be safely assumed that these two alliances, both who are fairly experienced at the whole war thing won't be resorting to the full out tactics of old. The last time it appeared a war would appear we saw lines drawn at the 85k Nation strength line, and peace mode was bountiful on each side. Since we know these alliances both urge, or require large warchest requirements, it seems fairly obvious that this won't be a short conflict where one alliance comes out decisively on top. With all of this in mind, it seems obvious that if you're about to engage an alliance, you're going to want to have at least some people ready to come out of peace mode and provide support in the form of additional declarations, money sent out and second wave capabilities. This can be an issue if you're one of the original alliances in the war, and, if your opponents properly stagger, they gain an advantage not easily overcome, all warchests will expire eventually, no matter the starting size. This is another thing that makes the staggered ENTRY into the war (out of peace mode) so important, to counter the staggerers, to spread the targets and, of course, all the reasons listed earlier. The warfare methods of CN have evolved, it isn't a game where a midnight blitz is the be-all-end-all, we have other, more involved tactics to use and consider now. Now this isn't to say that the old ways are useless, a quad ground attack is still the best option to anarchy a conventional target, a dogfight will help get your bombers through, and yes, dropping a nuke is still the ultimate hit. However, a strategic group in peace mode isn't cowardly, it's a sound method. Just because your enemy doesn't fully expose their weaker nations to you doesn't make them anything other than good planners. Working to pair targets with allies is more important than ever, and still, the stagger is king. The more time you give your enemies to recover during the conflict, the more damage they'll inflict on you, and keeping a target in anarchy and bill lock with one ground war a day is a huge advantage. As always I'll end by saying if I missed anything, or you spot something clearly incorrect, please, bring it to my attention.

First off, nice DoW... second, where can I get one of those nice blame wheels? All you old ASC folk should remember who to blame. Either way, good luck Corp, I know you'll do well.

Nicely done with the war updates, Gopher. I can imagine it's quite a bit of extra work for you, and it is appreciated.

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.

With another global war appearing on the horizon, we'e seeing the usual flurry of last minute treaty signings and cancellations. When are people going to figure out that pieces of e-paper aren't the be-all-end-all of the cyberverse? I mean, look at MHA, the statistic number one alliance in the game, they're treatied directly with Gramlins, who have one formal treaty. One. A treaty can be a wonderful thing to formalize a relationship, and as a way to announce it to the world, if that's your thing, but it isn't always necessary. Think about it, this war started when NpO declared on \m/, in defense, so they say, of any number of alliances they hold no treaties with. Alliances like MK find themselves overtreatied and with hands semi-tied when they find themselves fighting on opposite sides of direct MDP partners. If these treaties were done away with, the game would suddenly become exciting. There wouldn't be simple cut and dried lines before the wars even started. Treaties are nice, but I would much rather have some real friends out there, ones who want to fight by my side, than a group obligated to do so because of a piece of e-paper signed months or years ago by people who probably aren't even there anymore.

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.

o/ GOD o/ The Free World!

I, for one, am glad to see someone supporting thier friends. Well done FOK. o/ The Free World!

If their goal was to get PC to war, it would have been as simple as putting their name next to \m/'s in thier original declaration. If I were in charge of PC, I would probably state that they're fighting a defensive war, with the point being Polaris chose actions that were 100% designed to bring PC in as an offensive combatant. It's e-lawyering at it's finest. I'd say PC is perfectly entitled to all of it's defensive partners and that NpO should deal with it. Edit: Spelling

Actually, as I've noted, their only option is to declare on themselves in defense of both. On a serious note, I can't help but thinking it was a cowardly move by NpO (Yeah, I know they're not cowards, but a cowardly move can also be a strategic one) to not declare on PC to begin with. By allowing PC to enter in defense lowers greatly the chances that they'll bring in treaty partners, lowering the chanes of a global conflict. It also helps a lot on the PR scale. Either way, I find it disappointing.

Now that is blatantly untrue. I saw Grub say peace was up to \m/, well, \m/ wasn't the group that declared war on Polaris, it happened the other way around. Grub says he's offered terms, and \m/ says they've counter-offered, well, it seems as though the burden of peace rests on both alliances there. You know, I'd be willing to bet a good amount of money that Grub offered peace once \m/ agrees not to tech raid any more. I'd love for that to be officially confirmed or denied, and I really hope it's not true, because if that truly is the reason, then I would be ashamed to have respected NpO and Grub. Regardless of all this, props to PC for a proper and prompt response, good luck to you. As for RoK, I hate to see my friends there caught between two warring allies, clearly the best decision is to declare on them both, then fight yourselves in their defense. So, I'd say the whole "It's up to \m/ and PC when they get peace" thing is complete !@#$%^&*, and say that it's up to the man who started this war to end it, and not with terms that attempt to fundamentally change the nature of (a) sovereign alliance/alliances. Also, GL, HF.

I applaud your decision to go to war for something that you believe in.

It seems to me that you're reading those two sentences a little too quickly. I don't see that said anywhere in there. Edit: That part is my point, that is simply a continuation of the apology. a "Yes, they were said, but they weren't serious, and not meant to offend"

I dunno, the apology seemed nice and sincere, not to mention to the point, unlike most of the drivel that gets put up as apologies. I can only applaud the move taken by \m/ here, and say that it's a job well done to apologizing for something that nobody should have to deal with. I don't see what the fuss is, if you carefully read the second paragraph they ACTUALLY say that the actions and words are their own, not their allies. I don't know where you got the "it's your fault if you get offended by it". They say: That to me means "We don't mean to offend anyone, if you get offended, it is by us, not our allies" Once again, I can only applaud this statement and sentiment. In conclusion, I think most of you need to carefully reread the OP. Semi OOC - Edit: of course none of that takes into account that IRC is mostly an OOC tool, and you are all there by choice, in a semi-private "forum" of another group.

I got recruited by my RL friend, recruited my then roommate to play the next day, we've both got nations nearly 1000 days later. I've had 5-10 people join and play for at least 3 months, at least half are still playing. Never recruited anyone from online elsewhere though.

That guy would be "Unsure".

I am most certainly a FAN of this kind of move, grats on your new direction Gramlins.

Seriously, I know people are tired of hearing about it, but the best response is still simply "Do something about it". History has proven that the only effective response is to go to war to create change on Bob. Seriously, all of you in the peanut gallery complain about the fact that people raid, about the fact people don't go to war, and about the fact that there are too many microalliances. Well !@#$, get the $%&@ over it already, if you don't like it, then go pay attention to something else, or try to do something other than whine or be all passive agressive. Holy !@#$, \m/ raided someone! How awful!

A very well written announcement MHA, one of the classiest treaty cancellations I've ever read.

That's why I asked their expectations, not plans.

Well, I was sitting here reading the OWF, noticing nation and alliance anniversary threads, (not to mention the when did you join thread) it occurred to me to wonder how long the average CN player plays for. Now, I'm sure that the average player makes a nation and 20 (or now, 25) days later, it's gone. But the rest of us, those that made it past the first month, are generally here longer. Now people leave all the time and for all sorts of reasons, but as my nation approaches 1000 days, I thought of how long I've played for, and how long I would play. So, to the community at large, how long do you expect to play, is it a time thing, a goal thing, to the end of the world (be it Bob or Earth) or just some random number that has no definition? If there is enough interest, I could add a poll with basic options.