Jump to content

Mr Vicarious

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    288

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mr Vicarious

  1. Mr Vicarious
    Best post of any Tywin related thread, hands down.
  2. Mr Vicarious
    I think IRON, Fark, and Polar spheres here are inflated. Easiest way to deal with your double counting error for alliances is to scale each number by the number of spheres you are including each alliance in for a given sphere. For example, I imagine Fark counts for Polar's sphere, R&R's sphere and for IRON's sphere. You would scale Fark's numbers by 4 and use that in your sum. Ideally you'd weight OD vs. MD as well, but every alliance considers those to have different value. Naively, I'd think TOP doesn't share it's power base with nearly as many other spheres based on my memory of the treaty web.
  3. Mr Vicarious
    Congrats to our allies in IRON, I can't imagine this was easy to broker. Good luck to all going forward.
  4. Mr Vicarious
    Part of the reason NPO ended up in the situation they are currently in is because Brehon chose to promise everything to everyone. When everyone started talking and realized that the promises were contradictory, that's when the fun in eQ really began.
  5. Mr Vicarious
    So, if we get to a point where the leadership of your alliance and the other alliances fighting NoR and NG decides that an admission of defeat is good enough, then the losers will have dictated terms to the victors, by virtue of the fact that the losing alliances have less to lose than the winning alliances did by continuing the war.
  6. Mr Vicarious
    So, in your mind if NoR doesn't ever accept your terms than you haven't beat them?
  7. Mr Vicarious
    I'm merely pointing out that "winning" a war doesn't automatically force an alliance to accept the terms that you set forth for them or give you any leverage against the "losing" alliance. Until you convince them that not being at war is better for them than being at war, they have no reason to take peace. Everyone on that front seems to be surprised that NoR is refusing to surrender. Why would they surrender given their current FA situation and their current activity levels compared to their prewar activity levels? Being at war, even on a losing side, is way more fun for the majority of alliance members than tech dealing at peace is.
  8. Mr Vicarious
    I don't think you do. The person who sets the terms is the person who has the most amount of resolve and will to continue fighting. The person who cares more about ending the war is the one who accepts the terms. Fark accepted terms from NPO et al at the end of Grudge/Our Unholy War because we made a decision that backing our allies and going after MK in future conflicts was more important to us than continuing with the war. I don't really know what would have happened if NPO had tried to force FAN to surrender to them, as the admission of defeat was almost a poison pill for that peace. You have to have leverage to dictate peace terms. While the side that "wins" usually has that leverage, you are now seeing a counter example. NoR has no ties to Pacifica. NoR has no ties to anyone aside from NG. NoR has not activity outside of war time. Supposedly their community was all but dead before this war kicked off. They've already offered to let NG leave the war without them. What leverage do you have that they care about?
  9. Mr Vicarious
    Good to see peace for all here. Congrats to our allies in AI and our friends everywhere else on getting peace.
  10. Mr Vicarious
    This sentiment comes up a lot. People seem to forget that some alliances on Bob prefer to be at war. While I don't really care if NoR and NG take peace, those of you complaining that a "losing alliance" has the audacity to decide it's own fate forget that sometimes fighting is more fun than endless tech buying. If both sides of a war prefer to keep a war going, why complain that they continue to have fun? NoR has no allies at peace who will be relying on them post war. They have no FA other than NG. They were completely inactive until this war and hemorrhaging members. If NG and NoR want to keep ankle biting for their own enjoyment, you will never be able to force a surrender from them.
  11. Mr Vicarious
    You are underestimating the power of apathy.
  12. Mr Vicarious
    You know who else refused to surrender at the end of a losing war?
  13. Mr Vicarious
    Hi, I declared war on these two nations: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=392843 and http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=364611 this morning at ~8:15 AM server time. Their nuke screen shows that I can nuke them, despite less than 12 hours at war let alone 24 hours at war. I'm wondering if this may have something to do with the fact that I was at war with these nations previously. I have attached screen shots of my war and battles page showing the time of declaration and screen shots of the nuke screen giving me the option of nuking. I can not nuke my other target, who I declared on at the same time. [attachment=90:Screen shot 2013-12-05 at 5.53.27 PM.png] [attachment=91:Screen shot 2013-12-05 at 5.53.41 PM.png] edit: won't let me attach the 3rd screen shot, I can send it in PM if it is needed. Edit #2: I now see that someone else has had this issue, thanks for your time.
  14. Mr Vicarious
    If NG were the true target instead of NSO, as was claimed, then there would have been no reason to hit NSO. NoR would have been a clean way to either remove some NS from NG's support or draw NG into a war with no other complications. As you said, things are more complicated and NG wasn't a main target of said war.
  15. Mr Vicarious
    NoR would have been the easiest way to get to NG. I can assure you that hitting NG, while a bonus for many in the coalition, was not the purpose of this war. While everyone may have a different dog in this fight, our one and only goal was backing Polar against NSO. NSO put themselves in their current position with their own stupidity, and it's unfortunate that so many good alliances are being dragged to your defense.
  16. Mr Vicarious
    Sad to see allies at war with each other. Good luck to both of you.
  17. Mr Vicarious
    What a Kashmirrelephant might look like:
  18. Mr Vicarious
    There are many things you said while in RoK, yet very few of them proved truthful. Having been allied to both RoK under your leadership and Polar now, I'd rather have Polar at my side any day of the week.
  19. Mr Vicarious
    You've been on both sides of that now, multiple times.
  20. Mr Vicarious
    Unless you guys ended up with a contact high of something that induces competence, I don't think any of the nations that were once on the Deinos AA will be doing any rolling of anything. Say what you will about NG, they at least know how to fight. Good luck out there, to everyone.
  21. Mr Vicarious
    Your request for peace was turned down, in a diplomatic way. TDO did not ask us to let those nations go, and thus they remained at war. As we told you, any nation at war with us initially from the MQ aa is welcome to seek peace for themselves. You are, of course, welcome to sell off some of that sweet sweet infra so you can attack our nations over this diplomatic breakdown.
  22. Mr Vicarious
    You seem to be under the impression that DBDC's state of existence somehow changes the situation in our eyes. You also seem to be assuming that we are somehow upset about the current situation and want it to change. Let me disabuse you of those opinions, as neither are true.
  23. Mr Vicarious
    DBDC didn't exist as anything more than three super tier nations who split off from various alliances during the last big war until MQ nations started fleeing the aa. DBDC knows where to find us if they desire peace and diplomacy.
  24. Mr Vicarious
    And yet their continues to be no DBDC declaration of war on Fark. If your quarrel is with Fark, perhaps you should speak to us about it.
  25. Mr Vicarious
    Did this ever get answered?
×
×
  • Create New...