LiquidMercury

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1267035703' post='2201731'] So now you guys are saying that you will ruin it for everyone else if you don't get what you want? The world survived VietFAN. I suspect it will survive this. [/quote] I'm saying that a POSSIBLE by-product of an eternal war is people leaving this world. Branmir: I'm going to team up with AirMe, Archon, Xiphosis and pull a polaris here to come do Karma 2.0 on you :other cool smiley faces:

[quote name='neneko' date='24 February 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1267035374' post='2201720'] LM, The part of my post you replied to that I edited in should suffice as response to you. The e-lawyering and backpedaling from your initial stance in the war is sad to see. [/quote] As I've said these are my thoughts. Why would I actively want to blow up CnG when I actually LIKE most of the people there? I have great personal relations with many government from the various groups of CnG and still talk to them regularly about things completely unrelated to this war. My position about all this hasn't changed. Archon can probably testify himself if he were to choose to do so that I (me as in TOP had no clue) about making my own alliance signing an MDAP with MK and then hitting \m/ and company after they raided. I also approached Grub and had intentions to approach Gremlins, Umbrella, and all my other friends throughout the globe to have them try and sign MDAP with me in a new alliance and go kaboom boom (hey it would of been a blast ) MY reasons have never changed. As I've stated, my reasons may not have been the same as all of TOP, and some of TOP did indeed want to take a swipe at CnG. To say otherwise would be naive. Do I really need to insert bogus disclaimers of "my opinions is not that of the government of TOP blah blah blah" after every post? Just like Bob's posts aren't representative of VE as a whole (considering they're on the other side yet he is lobbying for us).

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1267034495' post='2201694'] I disagree with the assessment that this will drive people away. The world will hang around 25k - 26k occupants until it is taken down. The world doesn't revolve around any one alliance. Especially not TOP. Inflated Self Importance is not a becoming trait....take if from someone who sometimes thinks he is more important that he actually is. The only thing that would drive people away in droves is if the NPO got back to the top and started the same crap they were pulling for the 3 years leading up to the Karma war. In fact that is the only long term ill effect of this war, it puts them closer to that goal. [/quote] I agree that it doesn't revolve around any one alliance, but one alliance of our size and capability of waging eternal war in the lower-tiers/mid-tiers can make it very tiresome for new players that are trying to get into the game and continuously being beat down by people with superior wonders/improvements/tech. Add other various elements of deterrence and you get people getting fed up (on both sides) that will possibly leave. And yes it is sad that NPO will be able to be back at #1 after all this and released from terms (let's face it MHA/Sparta won't hang on to it due to inferior nation building and the fact that NPO has about 10 score or so of nukes, soldiers and air to buy back). As you said the world doesn't revolve around one alliance, but one alliance can effect the landscape of the world both politically and militarily. NPO themselves are the prime example for that.

[quote name='neneko' date='24 February 2010 - 11:55 AM' timestamp='1267034369' post='2201686'] You seem to forget that top made it clear in their DoW that defeating CnG was not related to the ongoing conflict. Funny how that fact doesn't seem to stick with you. By citadel I assume you mean the TOP power sphere since citadel is gone. If TOP really didn't want to step on any toes attacking cng for being a possible threat was probably a pretty bad idea seeing as we have direct ties to both umbrella and FOK. You cna try to shift the blame all you want but we didn't start this war and you know it. [/quote] Neneko, you say the same thing over and over again. I'm going to lay things out clear here. We went in to support Polaris, was getting to take on CnG in the minds of many who saw you as a threat, yes. Absolutely. Did it come into my mind when thinking about a pre-emptive attack. No. I leave the political hooplah at the door generally and run the numbers first. Mistake? Yes. Did WE start the war? Kind of. The war with you all? Yes absolutely. THE WAR though? Nah. This is absolutely in my mind part of the original context of supporting polar in a moral crusade. I mean moral grandstanding (lets face it TOP is guilty of it as are others). I do not believe anyone is denying that we started a war with CnG. I for one am not shifting blame what so ever to you all. I'm letting you know the context of our entrance has changed (polaris kind of flipped sides and all ya know) and thus our original reason to enter, is no longer there. If we truly did want to just come and take a chunk out of CnG (which yes, some people probably did) a protracted war would serve us better then white peace right now. The reason for that is that while many of us are close to ZI and just simply turtling, you all have infra to lose and air/navy to rebuy which isn't a cost for some of us. The war is exponentially cheaper while turtling then fighting all out. We don't have any desire to see you all destroyed and wiped from the face of the planet, and I hope that feeling would be mutual for the implications that come about from that (see pre-Karma). As I've said, yes we started the war with CnG as part of a larger war on-going. The larger war on-going has ceased to exist through multiple polarity changes of various alliances. I for one personally take the blame for the preemptive strike so if you're looking to parse out blame, point your fingers right here. Hell, if you're looking to seek restitution for it even if this would all end in global peace right now I'd send out all my tech (I still have 18.5k or so) as showing that I take the blame. Bad idea? Yes. Fun? Undoubtedly. I for one continue to o/ MK for their ability to war and shal continue to meet you all (well not MK since you all stopped putting people on me because go figure, it is costly fighting me taking nukes while doing minimal damage to me outside of blowing my infra down enough that I have to buy back up to 1k and doesn't make sense to have people on me in terms of a cost/benefit analysis) on the battle field, eternally if needs be but with honor.

[quote name='AirMe' date='24 February 2010 - 10:32 AM' timestamp='1267029387' post='2201539'] You know what, here is the deal. You can all complain about bawwwwww C&G won't stop the war bawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww, however if you can't do the time don't commit the crime. TOP attacked thinking they had an advantage, you guys now realize you don't and you want to get out of it and you are trying your hardest to pin the blame on C&G. If you don't want a protracted war, don't attack the people that will fight until there is nothing left to fight with to defend their homeland. Again Bob, I am going to accuse you of being intentionally obtuse. [/quote] It has nothing to do with an advantage or lack of advantage Airme. Merely the scope of the war has changed as has the onset (our initial reason for coming in, which was to support polaris) is no longer there. I can guarantee you that TOP has zero issue with fighting an eternal war, but that is not a war anyone will like (this is not me blustering, this is the fact that TOPocolypse is terrible for the evolution of planet Bob and ultimately will push more and more people away). I for one am a proponent of a good, fun time here for all. Not misery and animosity.

[quote name='Derwood1' date='24 February 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1267033653' post='2201660'] or maybe TOP is not who they portrayed themselves to be to FOK before all this.... [/quote] Oh come on now, we've always been arrogant stat collectors with a bit of paranoia. That doesn't change if you're our ally, at war with us, or completely in zero contact with us.

[quote name='king cjc' date='24 February 2010 - 11:13 AM' timestamp='1267031849' post='2201616'] Or FOK was focusing on other theatres of war. And im sure if C&G preemptivly attacked you, you would want them to pay. [/quote] Actually I'd still push for white peace in that arena as well for all parties involved. Personally I think preemptive attacks are at the very least, some of the most honest attacks and definitely make the game more interesting. Better then bogus CB's in my mind see: GPA war, NoCB war, 1V/GATO war, various other wars (and lets not this degrade into arguments of well you're apart of that war or this war so how can you say you think the CB is bogus! no u!)

[quote name='joracy' date='24 February 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1266994111' post='2200929'] The whole MHA thing that went on a few pages back? [/quote] As one of the major proponents of trying to keep MHA neutral or bringing them to our side, there was a lot that hasn't been aired here. For respect of my past Harmlin claims I won't be going into it but of course if you do care to discuss it further, feel free to find me on IRC. Just because one party says something and another party says something doesn't make any of it true (as I think we can all agree upon after this war amiright?).

[quote name='Krack' date='23 February 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1266991374' post='2200707'] At least say, "We're gonna wreck your lower-mid-tier for a month until we run out of money if you don't give us peace." - that at least is an argument grounded in reality. [/quote] That's just a byproduct of CnG/SF/the rest of the world not giving us white peace Nobody is forcing them to not give us white peace or forcing them to let their lower-mid-tier to be destroyed for months. That at least is an argument grounded in reality. EDIT: Fixed pronouns.

I agree, 10.10.10

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='23 February 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1266990423' post='2200672'] Damn you and your honesty . My version sounded cooler. Oh well. That war still makes me sad, such a waste of my winter holidays XD [/quote] Hey I called it off for NYE. Either way yes a sad war. [quote name='Krack' date='23 February 2010 - 11:43 PM' timestamp='1266990419' post='2200671'] And that right there sums up the argument being made; it's ludicrous. [/quote] What's your fantasy?

[quote name='flak attack' date='23 February 2010 - 11:19 PM' timestamp='1266988975' post='2200616'] I have high level intelligence stating that MK wasn't going to declare on TOP. Of course, what would I know? I'm only one of the guys that would have made a target list if we were planning to do it. [/quote] I have a high level intelligence just looking at the numbers that somewhere, down the line of treaties (agreed you may have not been in the first wave) MK would have been called upon to hit TOP in the fark/IRON/NSO route of entrance. Let's face it, you all are very good at war o/ and are one of the few alliances capable of going knee to toe with us (by sheer NS spread and total NS I do not believe you could have gone 1v1 with us, you and Gre together for sure could though). When you fight some of the best, you call upon the best. I for one whole heartedly salute you at your warring capability (been much much more fun then others I've fought) but to say that you wouldn't have been called by someone? I find that a bit far fetched. You of course are more then able and capable of disagreeing on that point, that is just a an objective opinion of mine not going on any political tension but mere statistical and numerical analysis of placing one military power house against another. Otherwise TOP's top tier would have been left to run rampant through a multitude of alliances (which ironically we're kind of doing only not rampant more like we're the pokemon "gotta catch 'em all!").

[quote name='Scorbolt' date='23 February 2010 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1266989272' post='2200622'] Would partially explain the exodus of so many Gre members to TOP. [/quote] Two separate issues and most definitely not connected. Either way isn't a debate for this topic.

Meh my guess was off by 47 minutes.

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='23 February 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1266989513' post='2200630'] Tony, if I was in Umbrella's shoes, I'd be as pissed at you guys as TOP was at Gre when they declared on IRON during the Karma war. Not that it wasn't already a dead letter, but when TOP declared on CnG, you broke the terms of the Lux Aeterna (I dunno whether you broke your treaty with Umb as well). What's good for the goose is pretty much good for the gander, to be honest with you. [/quote] I'm going to have to agree with Umar here. I for one respect Umbrella's decision (though I do not like it or agree with it as they most definitely feel the same with our pre-emptive attack). Needless to say cheers to Umbrella and to TSO for two military and quality oriented alliances getting a chance to duke it out, I urge both parties towards white peace of course. <----should be my new meme? [quote name='janax' date='23 February 2010 - 11:31 PM' timestamp='1266989705' post='2200633'] Argent collects a stat. The only Citadel alliance to never break the Lux's prohibition of attacking OTPs. Take that, stat monkeys. [/quote] Actually I don't think OG ever did either.

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' date='23 February 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1266987544' post='2200577'] If CoC refers to the Coincidence Coalition and not the Coalition of Cowards I am going to have to respectfully disagree. As it stood, CC would likely have utterly dominated the 80k+ upper tier and been able to rain down hell from there as the majority of nations sub 80k on our side rested in peace mode. Undoubtedly it would have been a tough fight, but I'm of the opinion that it would have been a winning strategy. I'm not quite sure of what lack of competence you are refering to, the strategy was purposefully delayed in the interest of diplomatic maneuvering and getting all of our nations into white peace. The method worked nigh perfectly with the "blue balls" of the other side ready to burst, tension at a high, several diplomatic victories with key treaty cancellations and signings (such as the NSO-IRON treaty and the dissolution of Frostbite). We only had one night of actual war, the ghost declarations by several alliances so that on the following several night the entirety of the coalition could enter. Apparently the other side was nervous enough about losing that they were quick to jump on the idea of white peace and back out of a war in which they stood likely to lose or at least get drawn out into a protracted slugfest. If TOP was looking for an excuse to "kill C&G" they had their opportunity right there, many others in the coalition were calling for blood and saying to seize the opportunity to strike now yet TOP steadfastly pushed for white peace for the aggressors. [/quote] [quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1266988931' post='2200614'] according to LM, the delay was due to LM being gone in RL and nothing to do with any kind of grand strategy. [/quote] LF, I love ya bud, but Doch has it right. Let's face it, it definitely wasn't part of any grand strategy (though it did end up playing to our benefit) it was more a mix of OOC and IC issues mixing that let the dice fall where they did and in our case a beneficial matter. Had it played out, yes I believe we would of won, it would of been an extremely long and protracted war but a win (this can be objectively debated and has been ad nauseum, these are my personal views based on internal knowledge of what was going on and not relevant to this thread so lets not bring it up..again though to give credit to LF's other bit we did have an NS advantage). But it wasn't a part of a grand plan, more of a roll with the punches and deal with the scenario how it happened. I must admit I like your version better, sounds way cooler, and we come off way smarter. You do bring up a valid point though of us being able to take a swipe at CnG right there.

[quote name='Denial' date='23 February 2010 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1266975908' post='2200250'] As for LiquidMercury, all his posts equate to is "I'm a brilliant military strategist, but I had no idea preemptively attacking an entire bloc would result in treaty activations." [/quote] I'm fully aware of the treaty activations that would ensue from a preemptive attack on a bloc. Now, as has happened in every war to date, some treaties are honored, some are not. I went by what people I trust (albeit mistakenly in hindsight) told me as their word as to whether or not they would activate certain treaties. I have not touted my "skill" as a military strategist what so ever in any of this. I've explained my thought process behind some of the plan that I put forth so as to give some sense of understanding to at least how this clustercoconut of a war came about from our standpoint. It would appear as though the Ivan Moldavi fortune cookie of the day read "debase LM as a strategist though he generally never claims to be a great one but people just happen to listen to his ideas." You've spouted off that same line in quite a few announcements now, I get it, you don't think much of me as a military strategist. I've never tried pushing that I am one, I let people think what they think. You think that way, others think another, but simply repeating something ad nauseum doesn't give it any more credence. I would hope you above all would realize that.

[quote name='merlin' date='23 February 2010 - 02:42 PM' timestamp='1266957721' post='2199505'] I am sorry to see further orange on orange violence. I can only hope that FOK's entrance into the war will help speed it to a quick and fair conclusion. [/quote] I think we're going to be below blue after this. Orange peace now? Rebuild, take over the color spheres as admin intended. Huzzah! Wait, I'm actually on aqua....orange scum

[quote name='Tick1' date='23 February 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1266957407' post='2199495'] Exactly which is why you shouldn't be declaring a pre-emptive strike. [/quote] Remember, 2+2=4. You're not being logical when discussing ifs/not-ifs. Either way it's a pointless argument.

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='23 February 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1266957378' post='2199493'] As the OP shows (and other DoWs for that matter, swing alliances, etc), method of execution effects politics, and politics can and undoubtedly will effect the numbers, which in turn effect the strategy. So in a way, it was being stuck between a rock and a hard place with the IRON entry or the prempt, and while being pigeonholed into the IRON entry would have had much of the same destructive result, it certainly would have been less a bit less, or at the very least a bit less sad then what we have here. However, meh, whats done is done, just a shame to see. [/quote] I absolutely agree. Definitely a rock and a hard place, I'm not sure which one I chose haha. And sadly there's no way to play it all out again. The interesting point would be that there would be zero debate in regards to your side thinking this is a separate war from the Polaris war. At least that argument could of been avoided and all the ad naseum related to it.

[quote name='AirMe' date='23 February 2010 - 02:34 PM' timestamp='1266957270' post='2199490'] I am beginning to dislike you more and more every day. [/quote] Just trying a new tune. It's honestly not as much fun. I still like you though AirMe. I do notice though that my persona on IRC is much more enjoyable then my one here which is why I do so try to avoid here.

[quote name='Tick1' date='23 February 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1266957080' post='2199482'] If it didn't happen you can't say that it would have happened. [/quote] And vice versa, if it didn't happen, you can't say that it wouldn't have happened. Yes there are a lot of negatives in that one sentence.

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='23 February 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1266957066' post='2199480'] You only have so many slots that can be filled? Whats the problem? Makes sense to rotate whos hitting you, does it not? But I'm guessing if it was you doing it, then it would be a genius tactic. [/quote] Yet not all slots are filled. And no we wouldn't tout it as a genius tactic. To me it's just a normal tactic that must be instituted due to the current mechanics involved in the war system. I for one don't blame you, begrudge you, or admonish you for doing it and take it as a personal sign of respect that you do allocate so much NS towards us. Though it may not be insinuated as such I like living in dream world

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='23 February 2010 - 02:28 PM' timestamp='1266956903' post='2199469'] I apologize LM, I didn't mean to state that you guys are not quite competent nation builders or have my statements be interpreted as such. I was more trying to explain why we have so many alliances, which I would directly attribute at least part of to TOP's impressive ability to build your nations. [/quote] To me the amount of alliances on us is at least in part a matter of respect. I'd like to think this differs then the NPO scenario due to the fact that how we have built our alliance requires this many alliances against us while NPO just pissed off enough people (and it would of been plenty more had we just let everyone who wanted to hit them do so) to warrant 17 alliances against them. Granted, it could be that we have failed so much that we truly have just generated this much animosity towards us. I like to think it's because we built the alliance right though and people have less animosity towards us then they did NPO. Is this a new record by the way for most alliances against a single alliance that are having actual wars and not just ghost DoWs? I'm not sure if UJW or GWIII saw more, if someone could refresh my memory that'd be great.

[quote name='AirMe' date='23 February 2010 - 02:23 PM' timestamp='1266956632' post='2199457'] Wouldn't have to worry about your disappointment if TOP and co. wouldn't have preempted in the first place. Good luck FOK! I love watching your blitzes though the lack of slots prevent a real nice looking blitz [/quote] To be fair, that isn't a completely valid statement. It is quite possible that this may have happened had we taken an alternative route into the war i.e. IRON/NSO route. Since that scenario never played out, we will never know. Either way we'd still have ended up fighting a large portion if not all of CnG due to the treaty lines falling where they would and it is quite possible that FOK may have done this/felt the need to do this/wanted to do this regardless of how we entered the war. As I've said, there just is no way to know but lets at least not be close-minded about possibilities. It's possibilities and speculations that make things so interesting.