Jaiar

(Re)created nation and joining the AA. This looks interesting.

Forming an alliance, growing it, managing it...it has to seem like a full time job. Much respect. You tried something, had fun along the way, made an impact, and earned a salute. o/ Legacy

[quote name='Lukapaka' timestamp='1340334783' post='2992361'] Perhaps, but we do learn! Last war gave us a lesson in trusting allies to do the right thing, and why you never should. [/quote] You should clarify but I know who you are talking about but the same thing could be said about Fark and not doing the right thing last war.

[quote name='Mephala' timestamp='1340318925' post='2992189'] So you're willing to fight as long as you get special treatment? Has MK guaranteed any of its other opponents white peace? [/quote] Flogyou called me a war dodger/deserter. I offered to prove that I am not. I have no alliance at the moment. I don't care, white peace or $3mil/100 tech deals or something...I'll have to rebuild my nation with tech deals anyway so why not.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1340316313' post='2992154'] lol it takes far longer than 4 months to strip 10k tech. when the infra goes, the only nations who can attack these 10k tech nations have 2-3 themselves. you really have no experience in war planning and i can see why no one listened to you. [/quote] You're right if a war is fought conventionally the way it is being done now. Their goal is to destroy MK. The conventional way will not get it done. Perhaps you are right that I am suggesting a perfect coalition deployment of nations. My suggestion is rosy and delusional as someone just said. I would send all nuke capable coalition nations into peace mode. Only leaving those in war mode that would blitz MK. After the first wars expire, only enough nations would be brought out throughout the coalition to keep MK nations staggered and nuked. Rinse repeat. Yes, I know that as these nations come out they would be countered by MK allies. I don't care. No risk, no reward. I don't care if coalition wide nations would be in peace mode for months waiting there turn to strike, at least there would be no Non Grata like pre-empts. There would be plenty of nations in a coalition to do this, not just SF nations. This would be my plan. You're right Banksy, it's deployment and execution would be impossible because there is no resolve to do it from your enemies. So, the curb stomps will continue until they actually form a larger coalition, if they ever do.

[quote name='FlogYou' timestamp='1340313212' post='2992101'] you were in NPL, right? lol, nice dodge of the war just like HELLAS, and just like SPARTA, and MHA. And let me guess this was coming for months, right? You leaving to spread your wings, BAWWWWW, lol!!! BURN BABY BURN! [/quote] War dodge? No. Want me to prove it? I'll fight on my own made up AA tonight and declare wars on MK or MK allies (where I can find a slot or two) with the caveat that when the war is over, I get my own white peace. No reps imposed on me or anything. Nations I'm fighting send or accept peace with me when the war is over and that is it. Archon, Leet, MK Gov, MK allies/coalition...deal? I'm no war deserter, FlogYou.

[quote name='smurthwaite' timestamp='1340304107' post='2991993'] Jaiar, your inability to not speak when you are not in the know is why you are in your current situation. [/quote][quote name='Lord Boris' timestamp='1340305472' post='2992004'] And what exactly, pray tell, is his current situation? From where most of us are sitting, he's in a better spot currently than NPL and the rest of SF are. [/quote] My situation: In MK surrender terms topic I said, "Go $%&@ Yourselves". Smurthwaite punished me for that post with a 24 hour OWF ban. I disagreed with his application of NPL posting rules and informed him that I would not abide by the ban. Kem even said the post was not bad and was willing to overturn it if I admitted wrongdoing. I'm stubborn obviously and won't admit wrong doing where there is none. I was booted from NPL. It's fine; they can do what they want with their OWF posting rules and I don't have to accept. That is my situation. [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1340310536' post='2992064'] Oh I was just linked to this post. While it does show initiative, it wouldn't actually have worked out the way you think because of a few misconceptions you've made (I don't know if you've had a large nation before so this properly isn't your fault). When large nations get knocked down to ~4k infra they have tiny bills compared to where they used to and their 1B+ warchests can last for months. The people they will be fighting will be 20-30k NS nations who have tiny warchests comparatively. Because of the tech difference, they get slaughtered and tend to turtle, nuking and sending CMs. In the end, the people 'winning' have a worse time of it because they actually have to be active etc. Besides, tearing down MK nations to 500 tech, while it would take well over half a year on some (we have a large number of 10k+ tech nations), wouldn't be that effective. As we've been hearing [i]ad nauseum[/i] on these boards, "mk is a terrible alliance at war who have been propped up by their allies." While it's obviously not true, it does highlight the fact that we do have some rather excellent allies. If you're not attacking them (and remember, you can't because they've hugely dominant right now) then at the end of this war, we'll still be allied to them. In addition to this, we have no incentive to go for peace with your guys. Going "VietSF" or whatever is all very well before the war starts, but it's a two way deal and you have to match us. We've consistently proven that we are probably the most active alliance on the planet (we still regularly have over half the alliance on irc at the same time during war, ~70 which I doubt anyone else could beat by numbers and almost no one could beat by percentage) and we are in a far better position to deal with an extended war than you are because we've had two of them post-karma. So really, any VietSF attempt is futile and fundamentally flawed because you forget that you're dealing with mk who are rather good at this war and politics thing and you clearly aren't (because it appears that no one wants you in their coalition channels). [/quote] I do know 10 digit war chests make fighting easy for large nations once they get knocked down so the war in regards to my plan would be difficult but it is at least different than what is currently happening. The goal would be to shred MK tech levels as much as possible. Perhaps I assumed too much from what was my coalition, but I think it could be done if it was coordinated properly. How much tech would a 10k tech nation lose per day fighting 3 enemies? Conservatively...100 tech/day loss? 700 tech/week? 2800 tech/month? 4 months wipes out that 10k tech. YES, I know those are very rosy hopes and expectations. I would rather try this plan rather than continue the conventional plan that led in the past war to defeat and is leading to another defeat. The VietSF is the term I used to describe their plan when I heard it; it is not my plan (Banksy, you said I forget. No. [i]They[/i] forget). My plan would inflict more real damage to at least one AA compared to very little damage being inflicted to several AAs. Their plan is to destroy the lower tiers with nations that get knocked down and out of range of higher tier enemy nations and force attrition and war fatigue to the point that enemy nations 20k and below will be begging or demanding that their leadership bring the war to an end. Those smaller 20k and below nations may be easy to destroy but just as easy as they are to destroy, they will just as easily be rebuilt. Meaning that the long VietSF war they plan to fight will be pointless. There point is not to win the war, however, they do believe all they have to do is not lose and they think they can accomplish not losing with this, as I call it, VietSF war plan. I still like my plan better. The 20k nations their plan destroys will be rebuilt in 3-4 months, destroying MK tech levels if done with "zeal" (hey Heft ) could take much more time to rebuild perhaps as long as a year or more. Banksy, I don't care if they don't want me in their coalition channels. They don't listen anyway. Proof is in this conventional war they are rolling out. NATO and Sparta join the war to do what? I assume they joined the war on MK to do damage. How can damage be done on an alliance using good peace mode tactics and that has many slots full already making declaring wars difficult. I surely would have advised against NATO and Sparta going in. This is where wars are lost. Piss poor planning. It would be similar if ODN and International declared on CSN. What would be the point? This is why your coalition wins because you roll out to war properly and your opposition fails because they roll out just to roll out and have no clear objective. I may not be as respected or whatever regarding military tactics and war planning, but I think I have more of a clue than those leading this failed coalition.

[quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1340289261' post='2991813'] I really, [i]really[/i] hope this is their plan. [/quote] I have logs, unfortunately, about the "war plan" being implemented which amounts to just sit there getting wrecked so top tier enemy nations our out of range leaving the fight to smaller tier nations where a numerical advantage supposedly exists. Attrition and nations begging their leadership to end the war...I came up with VietSuperFriends because it will be basically like VietFan only self imposed. You fungi are lucky no one listens to me or that the opposition is led by stat huggers and cowards. If an entire coalition were on board I would do a VietFungi and just tear you guys down for months even if it meant all coalition nations would be in peace mode and only coming out when it was there turn to fight to keep you well staggered and nuked. I wouldn't be afraid of your 70k+ nations. I would tear all MK nations down to well under 500 tech. MK crushed would be good even though it would lead to an eventual coalition defeat and the sacrifice of the coalition's top tiers. What other option is there? The current war plan sucks and building a bigger coalition to actually win a conventional war is years away if it ever happens at all. No risk, no reward. This no risk business gets them rolled anyway, might as well do something different and effective while you're at it.

[quote name='Farrin Xies' timestamp='1340253201' post='2991309'] Having some difficulty actually launching those wars, it would seem. [/quote] [quote name='King Death II' timestamp='1340253323' post='2991327'] What an impressive blitz! Only 1 nation to take down all of MK? Wow Sparta, you guys must really be something awesome edit: rsox, beating me to my own post [/quote] There are no slots available because CSN and R&R filled most of what was and NATO filled a few tonight. NATO and Sparta have made a huge mistake entering with MK slot availability being what it is. Now, they will get countered and slaughtered and they themselves will do zero damage to MK. People don't listen. Years of experience gets them what? The most ineffective war plan ever devised. The goal to severely damage MK is not there because of good peace mode tactics by MK. What they should have done is pre-empt an MK ally with solid targets (50k+) nations and beat that alliance to a pulp. Instead, they fear if they do that they will get harsh reps or severely damaged themselves. You cannot win or cause damage to your enemy without taking risks and without getting damaged yourself. Next war is a no brainer. As peace comes, roll out again and get as many enemy nations specifically MK and war them and keep them at war for as long as possible. Use peace mode coalition wide and only bring out nations as necessary to keep all MK nations at war for months. Sure, those nations coming out would get hit by MK allies but like I said, if you have a goal of beating MK you have to take the risk and take damage yourself. Otherwise, a conventional war plan waiting only to counter here and there will get you beat every time. My war plan may be !@#$ but it would bring much more satisfaction in demolishing MK, than what this current drivel of a war plan will bring about. VietSuperFriends is the war plan. "Win" the lower tiers as nations are brought down and force attrition and enemy nations to "beg" their leadership to make peace. Sounds great in theory, but the same attrition and war fatigue will hit the SF coalition. @Potato - somewhere you said something about competent opposition. It's too damn bad that you are right.

I am glad NATO is in, however, I don't see the point of it and exposing 100 of your nations to a counter. MK has 80 in war and 64 in peace. You will not have many slots to fill; you're leaving your war nations wide open for a counter that will neutralize your firepower. You should have stayed out or jointly pre-empted an MK ally just as they have been doing in this war.

My previous alliance was the Nuclear Proliferation League. You can speak with me or NPL government about the reasons for my departure. Personally, I trust Kem to speak the truth about my departure - IRC #NPL ~Kem[NPL] I am not a war deserter. You can find me on #NPL, #NSA, #Polaris, [url="http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=441189"]My Nation[/url], or PM me here on the CN forums.

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1340213049' post='2990200'] Reps aside... for me, the apology nonsense is enough of a valid CB. [/quote] A CB is a CB, I don't argue validity. "I don't like you" is valid because it is the reason for the war. Some people like to argue CB's must be justified or just or valid. That's nonsense and sparks an endless debate. My point is that stalling the DoW would at least keep IRON at peace and not have them wasting time on LSF. I'm sure IRON has greater interests than rolling LSF and can put their resources to better use elsewhere be it growth or in the other current conflict if needed.

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1340212345' post='2990165'] >MFW "no reps" Logs from our private channel: [/quote] [b][size="3"][11:22:12] <@Sabcat> and MCRABT's either not around or ignoring me[/size][/b] Hereno, what time zone are you in? With these logs and the attempt by Sabcat...this DoW should be stalled.

[quote name='Laslo Kenez' timestamp='1340172181' post='2989835'] Remember when everyone laughed at SF for letting you in? This is why. [/quote] Everyone is still laughing that C&G let GATO in. Be sure to last more than a round or two, please.

[quote name='Examus' timestamp='1340170832' post='2989822'] We are gonna hit it were we want, and until the leaders of the AA's come to represent their alliances on the battlefield, nothing will change. Why so peace mode Liz? [/quote] Bring all of MK out of peace mode now. You will get a fight. Until then shut the $%&@ up. You're not giving us enough targets.

Go. $%&@. Yourselves.

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1340084117' post='2988610'] Hardly comparable situations. NpO attacking \m/ to kick off a war is hardly the same as TLR and GATO attacking RnR for attacking MK in support of CSN. [/quote] You're right, they're hardly the same. The difference is your consistency. There is none. Hypocrisy.

[quote name='Trace' timestamp='1264054463' post='2120802'] An ally who attacks your ally. That's a real good friend there. [/quote] MK does not approve. [quote name='Ayatollah Bromeini' timestamp='1330916846' post='2933619'] We would do whatever it takes to defend our allies as we always have. No matter what, or who they may be. That's all I'm gonna say on the matter. [/quote] Oh, really? Not so much this past week.

[quote name='Comrade Mao' timestamp='1340075350' post='2988279'] I'm sorry it came to this [/quote] Are you really sorry? If your alliance had any strength it could have said no to this. Did you say no? So either you allowed it and you're a lousy ally or your wishes are being ignored by your bloc mates because your alliance does not matter and carries no influence within the bloc. You chose poorly.

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1339993257' post='2987175'] It's not just about LSF, and if you do a bit of digging, you'll find out why. [/quote] Why don't you just spill all the details instead of doing all this foreplay.

If you want a war with C&G, just go and declare it.

[quote name='Matthew Conrad' timestamp='1339989655' post='2987098'] I'm not entirely sure any announcement could make me happier than this one. [/quote] Glad you're admitting that you're not entirely sure. Your subconscious thoughts betray you.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1339986391' post='2987027'] This means that Invicta is free to fight MK without worries of being countered. I respect this policy BFF, well done. [/quote] NG is about the only alliance that won't be scared off by this. If NG goes in, I would expect GOONS to follow. We'll have to wait and see how they go about this. [quote name='Jacapo Saladin' timestamp='1339986467' post='2987031'] Does it. Does it really? [/quote] You can do it tonight. Why wait.

redacted, carry on.

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1339985179' post='2986961'] Definitely agree, its interesting to watch. MK has the distinct advantage of having the top nations with the ability to massively aid drop down, which will make this an interesting battle in the lower tiers for sure. I'm excited :3 [/quote] Aid drop down? You mean if they bring their nations out of peace mode to be able to send foreign aid or when they send a second wave or allies helping them out?