Icewolf
-
Posts
6,113 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by Icewolf
-
-
Please. I beg you. Paragraphs. Please separate them with a space or indent on the first line. Otherwise it will not be read. Ok, I doubt it will be read anyway. But at least that way you give your readers a chance.
-
I think PB's prestige at this point isn't over the ability to beat enemies. I think its the fact that if they didn't respond to a request then it reduces the value of their treaties with each other and treaties in the outside world as it sends the message "if the war is politically undesirable we won't fight it." In terms of PR they don't really have a good choice. Curbstomp a micro that has already dessimated one of their members, or have the world see them not answering a treaty call. They get a PR hit whichever, but the one at the moment is far far less.
Kaskus from what I have seen has a similar dillema. If they break, the preserve some strength. However, if they break, then their gung ho fight to the death attitude goes with it, which given that is central to the alliances existence, will cause their alliance to be much weaker. So in the terms of the worst option, giving in is probably it. They have the advantage with it that this decision was taken by them before entering into the war. PB had the decision made for them, which I suspect will hurt moral in the war.
GOONS are kind of similar to Kaskus in that backing down means they lose their hardman rep. Which seeing as they are already losing members would be quite bad, as that seems to be something that holds their members together. The fact that they have had to call in PB already hurts that image, but you have to compare calling in friends (and covering it with technical reasons, although those are a PR figleaf as no-one seems to actually care) to giving in.
To sum up, PB, Kaskus and GOONS are all in a place were there is no obvious good decision, just a choice of a lot of bad ones. For all of them, fighting is the least bad option, so they are fighting. In all cases pragmatism is just as much a motivation as prestige in my eyes.
EDIT: There was an ever so minor typo -
[quote name='LOLman789789' timestamp='1334423756' post='2953197']
This has crossed the line. Seriously, this has. Pandora's Box threw itself in a war where they'll get their @$$es kicked badly. We MUST stop Pandora's Box and Doomhouse from turning this into the next Global War. We have a feeling that if this turns into a Global War, it will shake the very foundation of Cyber Nations. We must stop them before it happens! We hereby declare war with Pandora's Box.
[/quote]
[quote name='leprecon' timestamp='1334507003' post='2953767']
This gave me a good laugh
1. You are not an alliance, you are one single nation.
2. You declared war on a bloc with more member alliances than you have warslots.
3. You attacked an enemy of GOONS, thus helping them.
[b]Fantasy:[/b] You are an alliance at war with PB
[b]Reality:[/b] You are a rogue helping GOONS out, hence fighting on their side in the war
Now if I were to continue with your fantasy, then I would ask you this;
How can you claim to be at war with GOONS when every single nation in your alliance is helping GOONS?
[/quote]
To be fair, there is a certain ambiguity in his declaration. He Declares war "with" not "against." That could be read as though he is going to war alongside them, therefore would feel the need to assist GOONS. Further weight is given to this interpretation in that he refers to PB and Doomhouse creating a Global war, after referring to PB being likely to be defeated. This suggests a fear that it is the defeat of PB that would create the Global War. As he states this must be stopped, the logical step would be to ensure a victory for PB by fighting to further their cause.
Or, he screwed up and can't tell the two GOONS AA's apart. Whichever seems more fun. -
[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1333098356' post='2945455']
I didn't think IRON would ever get rogues on them because they are simply too nice. I was wrong
[/quote]
Too much niceness resembles a mountain. A beautiful mountain of sugar and gold and happiness. This is wonderful.
Unfortunately, some peoples only response to seeing a mountain is to declare, "because its there."
And I have very little idea where I am going with this analogy. -
yay for peace. Now I can finally actually start to play the building part of this game (war broke out within a week or so of me starting, so my entire time in this game has been this war.)
-
[quote name='AlmightyGrub' timestamp='1328787356' post='2917248']
When we get anywhere near 4 months, check and see where we are at. November 25: TOP and IRON declare war on the New Polar Order for past actions in the Bipolar War. So that's a little over 2 months and certainly nowhere even approaching 4 months unless you are using your special maths?
There is a point where an alliance can lose little more... for all the peace mode bs, we have 2, count them now, 2 nations above 100K and they are in PM. One is our senator. You guys can not even look stats without glossing over the truth. I guess that is the beauty of stats in CN, 98% of them are made up.
[/quote]
Sot its false that before you reach the top nation in war mode you have already looked through ~50% of Polar's strength? -
[quote name='AlmightyGrub' timestamp='1328768163' post='2917183']
Polaris continues to fight and will continue to do so until a reasonable offer is made to them... or so I have heard
We may be beaten but we won't give up this early in the first quarter.
[/quote]
So you admit now you are losing?
That's the first. -
UPN, I respect you for answering the call to do the impossible, and staying true to your word even as Polar nations cowered in peace mode and left their allies to take the fall. I hope you have good luck in future.
o/UPN
o/IRON -
The market rate for 15 tech is actually 450 000. So even your half price offer is too expensive. (At the 3 million for 100 tech which seems standard for inter-alliance deals)
-
[quote name='Wu Tang Clan' timestamp='1327361286' post='2905797']
So they should be proud of having less than half of their NS fighting?
[/quote]
If our NS was any lower than it was 4 days ago, sure. -
[quote name='Ch33kY' timestamp='1327325428' post='2905463']
This says it all.
Highest ranking Polar nation in war mode is 31k NS. Yet the leadership refuse to negotiate their surrender. The NpO have over a hundred nations under 1k NS. These are the nations being made to pay for the poor decisions of their leadership hiding away in peace mode.
[/quote]
Currently those nations above the highest ranking war mode nation comprise 1.3 million NS. Polar is around 3.2. Those nations alone comprise 40% of Polar's strength. -
Now we can focus on the easy task, beating NpO.
o/CCC -
To be honest, there is political discourse on these forums. You just have to learn how to find it. Generally I don't click on the first 3/4 pages of a thread. If it doesn't go beyond that only the first post can contain anything interesting (and if it doesn't go beyond that it probably doesn't). Once it is over 3/4 pages then all the congratulatory/trolling posts have normally died down, and some people have got their teeth into a solid debate. Reading those debates is the way to learn about CN (i've found).
-
o/ VOC. Great to see allies marching to victory.
-
[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1322975909' post='2861628']
[img]http://ri5.rialliance.net/riapolar.png[/img]
[/quote]
So wait...am I the only person who thought that this was a revolver?
Tech Raider's and Small AA's Responsibilities
in Open World RP
Posted
Why is a nation that is considered under protection entitled to reparations whilst those that are not? Reparations implies that there is a wrong done, which means an attack on a protected nation is wrong. However, if that is the case, why is any attack right?
It also doesn't seem to make sense from an economic view. If you attack a nation in a 5 man alliance, and do $3 million damage, then it is just as true that paying that 3 million in reparations is cheaper than paying for the war against that 5 man alliance.
In terms of it being a case of the person being able to force their reperation demands, there also seems to be no logic here either, as the rules applied by most alliances as I understand them would suggest that a 30 member half million NS alliance protecting a 5 nation 100 thousand NS alliance would entitle a member of that 5 nation alliance to reparations. As these policies are drawn up before Kaskus and Mongols engaged with GOONS, this would presumably be assumed that the 600 thousand could not enforce reparations.
So what is the basis for this distinction?
I'm not making a judgement call here btw. I'm just looking at it from the basis of rationality and struggling to see why some nations would get reps and others not.