MrMuz

[quote name='Ostrogothi' timestamp='1340809838' post='2998374'] If everyone agrees that A's actions are offensive, that includes C too right? [/quote] Everyone agrees that A's actions [b]on B[/b] are offensive. Question is whether B's MDoAP attacks on A put A on the defensive.

[quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1340810150' post='2998378'] Yeah Sard and Dom got together and said "Let's make this so-far simple and enjoyable war uncomfortable and complex." [/quote] Well it was getting boring. Now it's SF's turn to play their cards Seriously, though, this was quite expected. I mean, I thought there'd be like a 70% chance of VE fighting for the other coalition, because of the GOONS tie, tugged by the Umbrella/Deinos unchained ties, combined with somewhat decreased love for GOD and the present Viridian administration. But it was pretty clear that GOD stayed out last to play the VE card, and that it was the reason that nobody really hit GOD directly. SF did not move in because they wanted the MK coalition to hit them first to activate the defensive treaties. GOD pushed just enough pressure on NG that they would have to call in backup. NPO, due to their history with GOD, would have been eager to hit GOD, even on a ODP. And seeing VE's.. distrust/history with NPO, it would've been very likely for them to counter. NPO knew this. Their counter offensive showed that they were ready. It is according to GOD/SF's plan, or at least meets expectations perfectly. But I don't really see the benefit here, because NPO and friends could just roll over VE, and VE doesn't have any major ties to pull into the fight in the case of a counter.

None of the above. It's too easily interpreted as either. If you want to make it clear, write a clause down specifically to address such a situation. I'd put it as the following... If it would decrease the chances of Alliance A [b]losing[/b] the war or getting white peace from a guaranteed defeat, it is a defensive move. If it would increase the chances of Alliance A [b]winning or getting white peace[/b], it is an offensive move. It's incredibly complicated because wars are always done as a coalition, the treaties are just there for dibs on who's in what coalition.

I've said it before.. Taking reps gives no economic bonus, but paying reps deals double the economic damage. In fact, you might even get an economic disadvantage to receiving reps, because of slot inefficiency. Without reps there are no winners, only losers. With reps, there are still no winners, but at least the losers lose a little more. In a full, short nuclear war, both sides take nearly as much damage, even when turtling. In an extended war, the losing side does devastating economic damage by destroying the lower tiers of the 'winning' alliance. White peace may be more honorable, but should not happen if there is a good CB for the war. Ally defense should end in white peace. War on insults should end in white peace. War because the other party inflicted actual damage on your alliance shouldn't end in white peace. It should have some kind of condition attached, even if it isn't reps. I like the 'no rebuilding in 2 months' clauses as an alternative to reps.

Wars: Hard to start, hard to end.

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1340677356' post='2996383'] And why they did that, I will never understand. [/quote] For NS, no doubt.

Looks fake, but nice mk.txt.

And so it begins. admin have mercy on us all.

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1340642053' post='2995945'] GOD isn't only honoring a MDP clause here. He's preaching and trying to indict a world he massively helped create. [/quote] So this is being repeated throughout the thread here, about GOD being just as guilty as MK. And people just keep repeating this line. But I'm not familiar of what goes on in the back channels, so could you or someone else please list down GOD's crimes so that it the discussion here becomes a little more than 'no u'. tia.

There's in game morality and honor too. Similar to Risk or Mafia or whatever. There's a degree of trust involved, you'll lose tons of in-game credibility with some betrayal. And like any proper war-political game, there is a moral high ground. For example, hitting GPA would be viewed as highly immoral, like shooting cows for sport and anyone who commits immoral acts will be subject to vengeance. I guess there's also OOC morality like not running people out of the game, but that's a different story.

I demand at least a blog DoW or recognition of hostilities.

World's going to war right now. What kind of alliance do you want?

Got some more work cut out for you now

[quote name='Jonathan Brookbank' timestamp='1340599562' post='2995354'] Can't forget he's flying the old Poison Clan flag, either... [/quote] uh, I'm flying the old PC flag as well

I keep Notepad++ pinned on my taskbar just for this reason, makes it easier to write walls of text.

Someone hasn't gone to war in a long time

[quote name='Icewolf' timestamp='1340463520' post='2993566'] To what extent do people believe that there is currently an implied "don't act stupid" term in all treaties? [/quote] Too vague. Sign anything above an OADP and there is no "don't act stupid". Almost every defensive war was starts because someone acted stupid - aided a rogue, slow on reps, insulted someone important, verbally threatened someone in a private embassy, raided a protectorate that wasn't mentioned on the wiki, etc. So, I'd argue that a MDP is really a "we'll defend you even if you act stupid" treaty. Don't like it? Sign ODPs like CoJ does.

I thought it was some advanced war strategy. Then turns out that tR's allies are mostly on the other side. So, I'd consider this roguery. Really doubt it'd defeat NPL, but helps the MK coalition to some extent. But would agree. It's one thing for someone to not defend some allies because it would end up hurting their friends (ala C&G), it's entirely another for them to suddenly just switch sides.

[quote name='King Death II' timestamp='1340427985' post='2993270'] Its probably the most even war Ive seen in a looooonnngg time [/quote] Not at all. Remove your top tier and NPL has an advantage here, in nukes, tech, mil wonders, war experience, etc. There's no way you could win this one on one, unless NPL are short on warchests.

admin broke the poll too

[quote name='longnameislonger' timestamp='1340310989' post='2992074'] Presenting a potential explanation does not remove the competing explanation that peace mode is an excellent way for cowards to avoid attack. Saying that it is a military strategy and therefore an unreasonable insult is a false generalization that ignores the obvious incentive to avoid having to fight. The fact that a nation simulator has a peace mode is kind of bizarre, honestly, but some people seem attached to it. [/quote] To be fair, it's not really much of a nation simulator. It's like a nation themed RPG or something, you know, the kind with tanks and DPSes. It is definitely a military strategy. It's sort of like heading into cover in a gunfight. Or at worst, sitting in a castle, locking everyone else out of the gates, waiting for the besiegers to lose interest or lose morale. It's not always cowardly to want to survive or avoid damage. Sometimes it's smart. Well, yeah, there's plenty of times where it is indeed cowardly, but peace mode jokes often hit the ones who are utilizing it strategically more than hitting the ones who are actually just staying out of trouble. On the other hand, peace mode jokes are a strategy as well, used to pull opponents out of peace mode and put them at a strategic disadvantage. Valid, but either way, it's all very annoying.

[quote name='Dr Beefstupid' timestamp='1340384409' post='2992763'] People cyber in CN? What the hell? It's a game where you click 3 buttons a day and then wait. [/quote] Well, you've got to do something while you wait for the next day

Farewell AvT.

Like all memes, funny at first, then got old when people overused and exaggerated it.

Basically this. It's not like we've been quiet on the issue. People do it because there's a percieved in-game advantage to it, similar to why politicians like to point out affairs, personality flaws, wasteful personal spending, etc on opposition politicians. Logically, it shouldn't have anything to do with how things work, but psychologically it can be powerful. That incident did cause significant in-game damage to Ragnarok, far more than it should have. On the other side, OOC can be used 'positively', like an alliance leader may buy a game for another alliance leader, and this OOC friendship affects IC friendship. We can't really say no to that either.