Hyperbad

So does this mean there are two Gramlin alliances now or has my inactivity allowed me to miss the other disbanding?

Non-sense. GPA, Grey Council, TDO, WTF and possibly GOP (not sure if they signed anything) all show you don't require treaties to operate successfully. That might be true however when speaking of an involved FA policy but we don't have any real examples beyond a few scattered war entries when no treaty applied. This would ultimately boil down to it not being the norm so at worst you'd need to be able to stomach it slightly better than most alliances until others recognize you they won't just fold and conform because others demand it. Even if challenged the question of how one measures success here is rather gray as one who operates without treaties clearly wouldn't be as concerned about consolidating political power or influence since it's not being codified like everyone else.

That probably is the single determining factor for how one responds to this entry. For me it would be a meaningful difference, something which sets an alliance apart and makes it feel like it's a different place and they're doing something unique from that of "x, y, and/or z." In my opinion what the community has chosen to focus most of their attention on has largely been theatrics - RP/PR. To me this just illustrates how everyone more or less is a carbon copy of each other. There is no creativity or innovation, no real divergence from the norm and those who do seek it are generally chastized as being "noobs" and recommended to join and already existing alliance so they may learn how to conform to the norms which have existed for five years. The most basic tenets of an alliance's existence are codified, structured and carried out in much the same way regardless of the personalities these entities or those within them have thereby making these personalities rather moot. If you don't act on it but largely according to something else then it just doesn't matter. Part of the reason for this is with how game mechanics have been established and this will always be an issue. Those who don't take the game seriously and aren't structured in most ways then unless you're an elite alliance with veteran membership you just won't be competitive. In the present climate personality adds flavor to the frame work which exists, nothing more.

A different personality does not automatically equate to a difference between the alliances in depth. You'll find many alliances having the same general structure right down to what's included in government documents and teaties. There's also little variation in what alliances do, when, how and what the ultimate goals are for said actions. At best the depth of differences between alliances could probably be counted without even using all of the fingers on ones hand.

Not being funny but I kind of saw this back in '06 more so about policies than any themes. It's rather like the political forums how everyone always beats on the same topics rehashing them time and time again because that's all they ever really see. This issue isn't unique to CN. Just about every alliance in every game is a carbon copy of another. In a world where mechanics are strictly defined for what ones course of action might be it's rather difficult to think outside of the box, let alone getting people to act in such a manner as any thought might lead.

[quote name='Joe Kremlin' timestamp='1304978669' post='2709254'] I think the problem is that you won't really know where you stand politically until the #$%@ hits the fan. Treaties are also a deterrent during peacetime and an easy way to show the world who you support whether or not you choose allies based on principles. They may be overused but that doesn't mean they aren't practical. [/quote] I hadn't yet said treaties were impractical but a necessity of them to do either of the two things I mentioned on their own with no other considerations are weak reasons and does leave serious doubts about how genuine those feelings or positions are. I'll add that treaties aren't a necessity to have the deterrent affect. You just need to make known what your positions are publicly visible. That could be a government documents section of ones forum or a single line on the wiki. There's really no reason as to why one [i]needs[/i] treaties. I don't even see the mas convenient when they might remove options instead of presenting them. About the only thing they have going for them is they're the norm but only because everyone keeps enforcing it by conformity. They're an annoyance which distracts one from good policy or decision making and adds a concern over honoring the letter and spirit of some ultimately pointless legalese document.

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1304705872' post='2707584'] I've always held a certain fondness for going treaty-less, so none.[/quote] ^ This. I'd probably cancel treaties instead and go paperless. If you need one to defend a friend then I question how great friends the parties are. If one needs a treaty to get involved in a cause of principle then I question how committed to said principle one is.

[quote name='Joe Kremlin' timestamp='1304893455' post='2708723'] Because NPO had it coming and then some? The way they played when they were top dog pretty much ensured that when they weren't #1 they'd be in for a world of hurt.[/quote] This is really more of a tangent than an actual reply to you but I find interesting the different perspectives people have. I can certainly see and understand, possibly even agree to an extent, that the way the NPO had behaved was sure to reign in an era of their destruction. Thus in a manner of speaking they did have it coming. On the other hand I feel the era of their dominance was well deserved by the community as a whole for their collective lack of spines and to be quite honest I feel there is little room for people or organizations to complain about said acts if they were supported by them. Regardless some have since found theirs -- even if they'll only be present on an occasion -- but some of which are prone to squandering their cards on petty grudges thus following in the NPO's path instead of actually accomplishing anything. What few seem to have realized is there's a sweet spot between spineless and reckless in behavior.

I first saw this game years ago when browsing for a rival to the Total War franchise. I remember hearing of the scale and the possibilities then waiting eagerly for its arrival. Upon release I ended up purchasing a deluxe version with the ability to download the game and having a physical copy with manual and cards sent to my home. At that point played it a bit before it got shelved due to me becoming distracted. What I had read of its depth would lead me to bringing the manual to work to read on the train to, from and when at work or having nothing to do. When I did eventually start my first battle I didn't get far. I became distracted by other things and the game was eventually shelved. It's been roughly a year since then and by now anything I had learned has left me. That said this is my first real attempt at an AAR of any kind as well. Since this game isn't really a big hit I decided to make this entry strictly about setting up to play and going over the various settings and options. About HistWar: Les Grognards HistWar: Les Grognards is a strategy game by French developers HistWar Games. The game itself is set during the Napoleonic Wars where you may command a side's forces in battle as either the French and the Coalition. Your role is not restricted to that of commander of the army but may instead be that of a corps or regiment commander. The actual scale of battles may reach 500,000 troops -- represented by up to 50,000 actual graphical models -- with maps potentially having an area of over 600 square kilometers. The scale allows real depth of tactics beyond that which smaller armies allow by removing the importance off any single unit thus allowing one to probe or misdirect as one desires. Each army may have up to 11 corps. Each Corps may have up to 24 regiments. Packaged with the game when shipped are ten battles. Additionally there are three editors -- an order of battle editor, which allows you to create armies; a map editor which allows you to create fields of battle; and a doctrine editor, which allows you to modify how the AI reacts. Battles here don't take a mere ten to fifteen minutes but rather hours. Outside of the editors the game allows you to modify a few other things right down to uniforms. I wish to dispel any misconceptions one might have. This game is not about flash and pretty animations but depth of play. The graphics are quite antiquated being reminiscent of the first Medieval total war or perhaps Mount & Blade with the absolute lowest graphical settings. That said if any game would, this is the type which creates thousand yard stares out of players because of the surprises which lay in store for the player. The Launcher When you open the game you get a quick loading launcher the likes of this Most of the options are self explanatory. The top button launches the actual game; the next three are the editors allowing you to make basic modifications or to create battles. Exit quits the game and CreditsSetup is the area with graphical settings. I'd like to play this game with the highest graphical settings even if I won't be viewing much in the way of pretties. I think with how antiquated the graphics are the higher settings might aid me in becoming more immersed with the game. We'll click on Setup to check out the graphical settings. Visuals The options shown along with the background image for the launcher probably gives you an idea how base the graphics are in this game. For a game designed for massive battles without multi-threading support one might understand. Once more the top three options are self-explanatory. I'm not quite sure what LoD is and the manual doesn't say. Perspective view right now says total with the only other option being symbolic. I feel this requires explaining. Symbolic view in a manner of speaking merges the 2D top down map with the 3D feel of the units. Units are not displayed in their normal 3D representation of however many graphical models representing the usual troops but are shrunk down drastically in number and the models themselves enlarged so as to make the map more readable. Additionally the symbolic view exaggerates the contours of terrain. I chose to put the graphical settings at their maximum and with my settings selected it's time to hit okay. Now we may load up the game. The Main Menu The first thing I wish for you to notice in the main menu pictured below is the version I'm running displayed to the bottom right. It's 2.34 which at the time of this post is the latest patch and includes a changed GUI from what was packaged when the game was shipped at release. I don't know anyone who owns this game besides myself and besides that I don't know how often I'll be updating this thus will be doing a single player game. Difficulty Visiting Options you'll notice it isn't difficulty per se which you establish for your battles but how realistic they may be and should give you an idea of what to expect from the game i nterms of gameplay. I decided to at this point briefly review them so one might understand the limitations possible and that which I shall be placing on myself. For reference the left image below illustrates the settings for Conscript (easy) mode and the image on ones right of course illustrating that which Grognard (expert) has. - View - Restricts or permits camera movement with only two possible settings. Either you may move the camera anywhere across the map or your view is restricted to that of your chosen commanding officer. Visibility - There are four means with which enemy units may be detected. Unconditional disables fog of war so that both sides exact positions are always visible to each other. A second setting, Marker displays the units normally if detected. If on the other hand one has not yet been detected find a marker on the map at their last known location or their position at the start of the game. Conditional without delay is the third possibility where by if detected by one of your units, you'll instantly know the detected units location. The last and most difficult setting would be conditional with delay in that it's the same as the one just mentioned but by the time you're capable of reacting they may already be gone. A runner must be sent from the unit which has dictated the enemy unit to you before you know of it. Visibility of allies - Like your opponents units the fog of war may affect your own and may only be selected if either of the two above conditional modes are selected. This one only has two options: unconditional where you may see all of your allies units all of the time or the possibility to enable conditional where markers are placed on their last known coordinates but all detected ones are clearly known. Orders - In most games you've played units both receive orders and respond to them near instantly. This particular option has two possibilities where orders you wish to give may be delivered to the unit desired immediately or with a delay. Any delay has two factors - how far the runner must travel to deliver the orders and not only how competent the commander receiving them is but also how many units are under his command. There's a penalty as well if orders are given to units of a different nationality than the one you're playing. Delay of orders - A subset of the above this determines how long any delay will be. A delay may only take a shot amount of time on limited but set to historical and it can take up to two hours in game time for them to be carried out. Fortunately it is possible to increase game speed to a speed of 1 real second being the equivalent to 10 game seconds and revert back during the course of a battle so in times of low activity you may speed up to where you might be prepared and later slow down so you may properly manage your forces in combat. Interception of Orders - Another subset for orders this one determines whether or not you and your opponent may capture any runners the other side sends. If successful you learn what they were planning or yourself lose the element of surprise. Orders in 3D View - This might be confusing to most in that on the one hand above you may set where your camera may go. On the other this dictates whether or not you may issue orders where the camera is. The local zone setting only allows you to issue orders in a Total War style view if your commander is in the area. Should you wish to issue orders through said view elsewhere then you must move your generals unit. On the other hand with whole map you may do so anywhere at any time. Keep in mind that while issuing orders in this manner may be restricted should you select local zone you will always be able to issues via the 2D top down map display. Information - dictates the precision of information you are given about detected enemy units. Where as on precise you will be given exact numbers, on vague you may be given a general range. Loss of Corps Commander - A corps in game is the basic unit right under the army. Those units under the corps are the regiments. Each corps may have up to 24 regiments assigned to it so the loss of a commander if enabled will be significant. Should it occur an aide de camp will take over but won't be nearly as effective at the task. So the relaying of orders and how well they are carried out will be adversely affected. In addition to that there are two possible impacts on individual regiments, and it will vary from regiment to regiment. Some might be incensed by this loss with higher morale and fighting intensity where as others will become disheartened and more likely to flee. With the impact it has on game play the developers sought fit to restrict each army to one corps commander casualty per battle. The effect it has though is significant and won't be risked by myself in cases where I feel it might be easily avoided. Galvanized units - I have no idea what this does and the manual doesn't say :-s Ammunition - There are only two possibilities for this option, unlimited and historical. The former speaks for itself with the premise being that provisions are constantly flowing to the units. With historical you will only ever have a certain amount of ammunition at your disposal. Fortunately enough the game has day and night cycles for battles and at night your stores are replenished so units who ran low or out entirely of ammunition may be an effective fighting force once more. I want to make some mistakes so I may learn first hand. I also believe under what rules you first play will guide your growth as a player and so for that purpose I won't be starting with the easiest difficulty. On the other hand this is an AAR and on the hardest difficulty just about everything is done via a 2D top down map which isn't going to be fun for anyone which might decide to read this. So what have I chosen? I'm going to go with everything in Grognard except the view, which I shall make full simply so that I may take screen shots of what I'm doing. Battle Selection Command Mode permits one to select which sides forces they command. The game offers several possibilities ranging from an AI vs. AI battle where the player is simply a spectator; a player vs. AI battle where the player may select either side; or commanding both sides which might be useful for testing. Fighting a battle against yourself or watching one unfold would defeat the point in my playing when I wish to learn by brutal experience. Figuring the French will likely be the easier side if for no other reason than because of its commanders I'll select to command a coalition lined up against them. For the purpose of this AAR any battlefield conditions, the map and order of battle will be selected as the ones attached to a given battle as opposed to pulling them from any battle. Selecting a battle through Scenario will make the selections for the player all at once instead of requiring me to go into each and every option manually selecting them. So what battle have I selected to fight? With no mods the options are limited to those prepackaged with the game or added via official patch. The list I have to choose from is as follows: Austerlitz, Borodino, Eylau, Friedland, GrandChamp, Hanau, Haslach, La Berezina, La Rothiere, Montebello, Ratisbonne & Wagram. I immediately narrowed it down by removing battles where coalition forces outnumbered the French thus leaving Borodino, Friedland, Ratisbonne & Wagram. I further narrowed it by scale. Where as I want to be outnumbered I don't wish it to mean automatic loss as I'm sure to make mistakes. This thus eliminates Friedland & Ratisbonne. On the other hand there's also a possibility of there being too many troops on the battlefield and right now for me the battle of Wagram fits into that category so I shall fight the battle of Borodino on the side of the coalition. Everything being decided it's time to jump into the battle and show the Frenchies a thing or two about invading Russia. My objective is simple: win a stellar victory or if defeated make a Pyrrhic victory for the French.

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1304399462' post='2704802'] Should have known going in that we would charge reps to alliances who attack us. Hopefully it won't be such a surprise next time. [/quote] It wasn't a surprise.

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1304319874' post='2703972'] And this is why you don't listen to the rumor mill, or your cult leader.[/quote] Difficult as it may be for you to accept I listen to all parties including those at opposing ends of the spectrum prior to coming to my own conclusion. If you were to shop around my posts you should realize through reading them all that I possess a different perspective or philosophy from our leader and often seek to reserve judgement unless I find something particularly relevant or noteworthy. I suppose I've allowed this deflection go on long enough though. [quote]We decided that we did not want to take part in the other agreement that pertains to Avalon that a few have mentioned here, due to the fact that it pigeon holes and limits options against a party whom has stayed behind closed doors all war, letting them finally partake in the festivities by scoring some juicy rebuilding targets while most people who were in range were back collecting after an aid fall. Letting those collections be made, they basically would get one round of answer for two rounds of war.[/quote] If that's the reason your alliance got a bit huffy then you may want to speak with Someone else. They presented something very different which if true got them a few points with me for their blunt honesty. It can be a very difficult thing, being honest, when you know it could put a negative light on yourself or your side. It's a rare thing to see and 'tis why I do not doubt.

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' timestamp='1304312043' post='2703859'] Hm? We had no interest in the 21 day kiddie play time ball pit that's in the works. Either there is war, or there is peace. They chose peace. [/quote] It's curious you'd say that when apparently it was your alliance which got all in a fit over being attacked by an alliance you declared war on.

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1304307342' post='2703746'] I understood that quite well. I just missed the part where CoJ turned into TPF. As you know very well the first formal declaration of hostilities came from you to MK not the other way around. If random MK nations were hitting random coj people that means your war was justified, not that you didn't declare it. Though honestly, i'm not sure why it really matters. [/quote] I just want to clarify what I'm reading here. Do you believe attacks sanctioned by governments with the intention of expanding ones war to other alliances is not initiating hostilities in your own opinion so long as no formal statement is made?

[quote name='OsRavan' timestamp='1304306316' post='2703722'] Yeah, i'm lying ;:that's sarcasm:: It cant be that we disagree over whether your deceleration of hostility was a dow (I say yes) or a recognition of an already existing war (so says you). [/quote] You believe the Mushroom Kingdom hadn't initiated wars against us prior to the recognition?

[quote name='Twizzler' timestamp='1304302251' post='2703637'] Oh the horror! An apology for spying and other acts we (as the victors) find questionable at best! Harsh terms, ITT. [/quote] Tell ya what I'll write out an apology myself for what acts we did do if ODN writes one themself. You first. Start by apologizing for the declaration of war and follow it up with all the acts of war your alliance has conducted against us right up to and including GAs. [b]Edit[/b] oh yeah and also toss in your saying not nice things to and about us

Great victory there Avalon. Well fought and it took so little.

I must say I do find it humorous how ODN took lessons from Athen's Blue Balls War.

[quote name='itseZe' timestamp='1303590054' post='2697939'] "dissident members"? So that's what someone sent over in the middle of a war to spy is called these days. I remember when they used to be called... spies. And we'll make sure to supply many more (orange) "juicy stories", afterall we aim to please. [/quote] We've actually sent no one over to any other alliances if for no other reason (though other reasons do exist) we simply lack the pool of members with which to seek out recruits from. Sometimes people just act on their own and when they present an opportunity to another party they seize it.

[quote name='darkfox' timestamp='1303349050' post='2695068'] When taking my words out of context yes it could be indeed used in that manner.[/quote] Of course the words were taken out of context of the present scenario which they were then inserted into the context of past scenarios. I'm sure it could even be applied to situations where another party says it but you would find a campaign useful because the terms presented are not of the type you're willing to accept. [quote]I mean geeze NPO could be out of war if they just got curb stomped for a month. That's nothing right? Saying an insincere apology is a lot more harsh than that.[/quote] Good sir, would you please direct me to where I had commented to this effect?

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1303341221' post='2694944'] I see your point, however I can also see and understand why TFE may decide to carry on regardless. If it means sacrificing potential growth to assist an alliance its treaty partner is at war with then from a pragmatic point of view for an alliance the size of TFE it would make much more sense to carry on selling tech rather than oblige your requests (and judging by the brilliant performance dating back a few weeks from HoT on TFE's forums I can see why they may not be sympathetic to your plight)[/quote] I was refraining from making judgement on their chosen course of action and instead chose to comment on the counter point you presented with how it leaves certain aspects open to interpretation depending upon the point of view prefered by the reader. [quote]If your side was participating in tech deals right now I personally would have no issue with it and not just because you'd be in war mode. The reason I wouldn't have an issue with it is because I'd probably do the same thing if I needed to, it would be awfully hypocritical of me to argue against something that I would do myself. I can't speak for everyone else in our coalition regarding tech deals during war but that's my personal take on it and you can hold me to that if you feel it necessary to do so.[/quote] I'm not the [url=http://flamewarriors.com/warriorshtm/archivist.htm]archivist[/url] type so won't be doing that. That said if you're holding us to standards you make effort to hold yourself to then I thank you for that modicum of respect for us. Unfortunately my time here and elsewhere has severely diminished my hope in many others having that same level of integrity so am stuck with the kind of perspective which goes "I'll believe it when I see it." [quote name='darkfox' timestamp='1303347552' post='2695044'] I am just annoyed that CoJ would stoop to such lows as a smear campaign over terms I would have gladly taken in the past. [/quote] When I read this I immediately chose to think of how else it might be applied. I began to picture those alliances who accepted viceroys saying this about those who campaigned against said practice; alliances which had accepted terms requiring document rewrites or changes to government saying this against those who campaigned against said practice; and so on. This incident of course isn't the same in severity as those I had just listed. I just think it goes to show that the statement you made by no means is telling of anything except ones perspective on what might be considered acceptable. [b]Edit:[/b] There's a reason I don't do graffiti. I fail at tags.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' timestamp='1303324307' post='2694749'] On the other hand TFE need that money to grow. I'm sure TFE could easily find another alliance to do tech deals with but what if they don't want to? What if they actually like ODN and would prefer to do business with them? I'm pretty sure if CoJ or any other alliance in that coalition started doing tech deals there wouldn't be any outrage coming from our side about it (probably because that would mean they would have to be in war mode ) [/quote] The problem with casting aside the fact that tech deals with other alliances may be pursued in order to continued their present growth effectively is it throws into question the motive for their participation and whether it's solely for economic reasons. That isn't to say the one sending the shipments to nations at war are doing so with intent to support said war. In fact I can think of a myriad of other reasons but it's now known by them the effect it's having is to support the war and they become a culpable party to any acts by those they are aiding. So if one wishes to argue what you are then it needs to be fleshed out quite a bit more. [quote]Also, how would you respond if an alliance which you'd not had any contact with before approached you and asked you to stop your means of obtaining cash from your ally because it's hindering their war efforts and because of "tradition"?[/quote] In a case like this whether I knew anything of the alliance approaching me would be of no consequence. My decision isn't to be based on personal likes or dislikes but on information surrounding the conflict. After all even the deplorable types may be victimized. The relevant matter would merely be how the war came to be which would be all encompassing of the originating incident, talks and execution. I would have to be convinced that the person requesting a cessation of trade is the victim of aggression or otherwise fighting it. Failing that - or done with a dishonest argument - would see trade continued or resumed. I don't really give a crap about tradition personally and I'd be lying if I said I would under any and every circumstance suspend a tech deal with another party who was at war. On the other hand I myself wouldn't ask someone to stop under circumstances where I would be unwilling to. In this I recognize there are times where my opponents may be swarmed with aid packates giving them a substantial edge on me in war but that's something I can live with if it means peace of mind. Of course I've also been here on and off for nearly five years and when I wasn't here was updated semi-frequently on the flow of politics so have a developed view of the world as opposed to those who are still new to it and absorbing things. Under those cirucmstances I can't rightly say how I would respond. What is of concern to me is with whether what was considered a norm is being over turned here permanently or only because it's of benefit to the winning party. Cause for my concern over it is over a personal desire to resist submitting to double standards. Unfortunately we won't discover which it is until tested multiple times down the road under differing circumstances. In the mean time images are reparable so if there turns out to be no double standard then prove it through attitude and behavior via consistency. [quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' timestamp='1303329059' post='2694806'] If that's true, then I wouldn't have a problem with TFE doing tech deals. However, that would surprise me, since it's a pretty regular thing to try and stop tech deals from going out. If you let tech deals go through, what's to stop me from aiding one of your opponents? I slap on "tech deal 1/3" in the aid text and they're 3M richer (maybe throw in some troops, too .[/quote] In this war I don't doubt his statement as true since a tech deal would as he stated require us to leave peace mode and in turn be ground to dust. The real test for consistency isn't where it works to their benefit but when it works against them. [b]Edit[/b] Please note that I had rephrased my response to the first quotation in this post so as to clarify what I was intending to say.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1302127127' post='2685721'] This war continues because DH wants this war to continue. DH are the aggressors, their sole somewhat valid reason for entering the war has long since passed. [/quote] They are certainly the reason this war came to be but do not hold sole responsibility for the war continuing. Terms were offered by them which if accepted may have very well ended this war. [quote name='Borsche' timestamp='1302127964' post='2685726'] Here we go again. DH has offered terms. Ergo DH wants the war to end. NPO has refused said terms, thus wants the war to continue. [/quote] By that logic the counter offers by our coalition which were rejected by our opponents suggests they want this war to continue. The truth of the matter is negotiations have been going on for some time now. Both sides have presented offers which were declined and followed up with counter offers. Those were declined and said party would then offer counter offers of their own. This has happened multiple times now. It can be said both sides want the war to end but not to such an extent they're willing to do absolutely anything to get out of it be it agree to s status quo ante bellum or the initially offered terms. [b]Edit:[/b] Rephrase of second sentence replying to first quote to clarify.

[quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1302042205' post='2685006'] implying that anyone on this side chose to be involved in this war of aggression[/quote] Those who weren't attacked did choose to become involved. The argument to be made is whether or not the NPO deserved to be attacked which I was under the impression is specifically what Borche was suggesting. Frankly, I don't think either side will be convinced after such a debate so I see it as pointless.

[quote name='Beefspari' timestamp='1301941887' post='2684087'] This has been discussed and answered about sixty quadrillion times. I'm pretty sure it's even been answered to you. The answer, once again, is that the war would be over had they fought in the war. The peace mode strategy is not one that planet Bob can condone or allow to be used in future wars. Thus, we're putting a stop to it now.[/quote] LittleRena wasn't disputing NPO's part in prolonging said conflict but is putting the blame on both parties, with an extra emphasis on this who attacked them. She would be correct to an extent as the conflict was initiated and brought to the NPO by other parties so the war existing isn't their fault at all - it's others who are the actors. Where her post falls is both sides could equally decide to end this war by giving in to what the other wishes and in this shared responsibility personal feelings on the terms are moot. Both sides are dragging it out for their own personally defined reasons. [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1301942286' post='2684091'] Except, I could have sworn that NPO has lost several million NS, which means they did fight in the war. So is that DH lying again or just being retarded again? Also, when did DH think they can speak for all of Planet Bob? We get that you don't like the tactic but from what I can tell, most of Planet Bob does not care one way or the other. So please don't go wannabe messiah on us as it is !@#$%^&* and just another lie from DH. [/quote] It seemed pretty clear to me that Beefspari was speaking not of statistical losses or even necessarily the fight at all but the heart put into it. In a manner of speaking it is true that NPO has fought this war half-assed. Everything isn't going into it after all if nations sit in peace mode. That said, NPO having lost so much NS relative to its starting position does throw into question just what is enough to satisfy. This question gets answered by the terms demanded of them and have been argued near to death on whether they are excessive or not. General Statement: I have no idea what people are arguing about here and never really did. So... what's the topic of discussion now?

I am amused. Thank you OP.