Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ragashingo

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
  • Resource 1
  • Resource 2
  1. You're nothing compared to me. At least not in the honesty department. You are a bit more active in hunting down a story though...
  2. Tyga is right of course. What happened in the planning of the abandoned goons roll was a disgrace to most* involved. Not only that but by failing to come up with a "valid" CB you just made it harder for yourselves to piece together the necessary coalition the next time you want to try and go to war. You'll suggest a war, maybe a perfectly valid well reasoned one, but those you suggest it to will always remember the time that you couldn't come up with one good reason to attack goons. *I thought our people came off pretty darn well and mainly provided a reality check for everyone else.
  3. A couple of things: 1. A lot of you people (those in the logs) have been around here for a long time. So how come the CB's that were getting tossed around were so astoundingly bad? Fake trap alliances? Really? pezstar was right, (I'm paraphrasing here...) your plans would have been more credible and likely to succeed if you had all just DoWed GOONs with the reason: "We hate goons!" 2. Could whoever keeps leaking these logs please stop it! I despise poor war planning and tech raiding and curbstomping but I really really look down on people who can't keep a secret. And this isn't a pro goon / anti goons thing. I just really hate poor opsec.
  4. Pezstar and Bob Janova have nothing on me...
  5. I'd say we had more than two camps, but close enough. The various camps do tend to compress back down to two when a big war occurs. I'm really not sure there is any real difference here between pre and post Karma War. In either case starting a minor conflict was / is dangerous. Whoa there! I didn't say anything about a lack of diplomacy and I'm not very sure that you aren't trying to twist my words here. I in fact do like diplomacy before a war. What I don't like is what alliances used to do before the Karma War. They'd pull another alliance's leaders into a back room then hound them with rapid fire questions in an effort to get them to admit something. Your own alliance was guilt of this as are others I'm sure. Often times the actual goal of these meetings had nothing to do with averting war. Rather they were aimed at getting quotes from those foreign leaders to back up a predetermined CB. Actual diplomacy is aimed at working out differences, not getting key pieces of info to inflame problems. In this post Karma War era we see actual diplomacy save the day. Two fresh examples of this would be the Athens FoB tech raid where MK and others defended their allies diplomatically against an impending war; and the STA / Kronos debacle where diplomacy was again able to stop what almost turned into a war. I don't believe there is any guarantee that we will get a single regime. Only curbstomps tend to last long enough or do enough damage to remove an alliance from politics entirely. Even the Karma War which lasted longer than most was not able to knock the NPO from the top 10 alliances for instance. If it weren't for the terms of surrender the NPO would currently be a solid political player. My own alliance is not in or near the top ten and we are certainly big political players. Further I don't believe a unipolar world is in and of itself something to fear. The poor conditions we had before the Karma War (the numerous curbstomps, widespread PZI, etc) were the direct result of the attitudes and morals of those alliances that lead the unipolar power blocs. The fact that things happened one way in the past is no indication that they will work out the same way in the future. I don't believe that either side in this current war would return to those old ways. I believe the Karma War showed everyone that the community will not tolerate those abuses of power again.
  6. Ever since the Karma war ended we've had dozen of people moan and complain how the world was too boring. Some said there were so many treaties that a major war couldn't happen. Others said that things wouldn't be interesting without the NPO knocking off alliances left and right. All this time I've been telling these people two things: 1. To open their eyes and recognize that the minor conflicts and wars are in themselves interesting. Since the Karma war we've had plenty of close calls, little wars, and front and back room dealings. There was plenty going on to keep on entertained. 2. To be patient and wait for the big one. Over and over I insisted that these small conflicts were building up the pressure. I said that with each conflict or near conflict alliances were shifting, feeling were getting hurt, and opinions were being swayed. And that eventually the pressure would be so high that one final conflict would explode into a full "Great War" class war. I was right. These current wars are the undeniable proof that the Karma war set us back on track for fun and changed the world for the better. Alliances can now stand up and go to war for what they believe in and other alliances are free to oppose them if they wish to do so. This is not boring, this is CN at its best. Where we have multiple viewpoints and each viewpoint has enough supporters to sustain it through large scale war. But whats even more telling about this post Karma era is the things we don't have. In this war: 1. Nobody that I've seen has dropped their treaties in order to avoid conflict. 2. Nobody, from what I've heard, is pulling their enemies into back rooms and interrogating them for the fun of it before they declare war 3. Nobody is threatening their enemies with endless war or PZI or viceroys or any of the harsh near OOC punishments that alliances employed routinely before the Karma war. All these things are the direct result of the actions of the Karma and Vox movements. Our new world is a chaotic and dangerous place. Conflicts happen frequently but are often resolved through diplomacy instead of curbstomps. It is a better world for all. You're welcome. Now if we could just do something about tech raiding.
  7. I totally agree. Far too many alliances sign treaties with each other each other knowing that they conflict or they sign them then forget about them. STA is not that kind of alliance. We have been very careful with our treaties. I think our CnG allies are the same way. We all agree on political and military viewpoints 99% of the time. What's happening now is that remaining 1% that is essentially impossible to properly account for. I'm not at all suggesting that we step away from our CnG allies. I love those guys. I just think that we need to take a realistic look at how capable we are of defending each other when a large war like this one pops up again in the future.
  8. Indeed, it does put everyone in a bad position. And let me make it clear that I don't think our allies in CnG are doing anything wrong. They haven't broken or ignored treaties like we've seen others do in the past. But even though they are acting properly we are unable to count on their support and it is likely to remain that way in future conflicts. If we can't reasonably count on their support then I don't think we should have these MDP level treaties with them even though we are likely to remain stronger friends than most alliances in CN. A treaty should both show the level of friendship and the level of comitment two alliances can afford each other. Right now the treaties are doing a great job with the former but a poor job at the latter.
  9. That's not going to happen. I don't think I'll ever fully understand the NpO / STA bond since I was in GATO when it was formed, but I can get behind it. And yes, we are partially to blame for our own mess. There's no denying that. But to drop Polar over this seems wrong because we agree with their stance.
  10. I wasn't looking for support. I'm looking for whats best for STA in the future.
  11. Because they mean something. Because they are currently protecting us from further damage. And because they provide the valuable service of letting people know where we stand. Ambiguity would just make our limited FA staff have to work much harder. Why spend the time to personally tell every minor and major alliance where you stand in a one on one chat when a clearly written treaty can do the job for you?
  12. Let me start out by reminding everyone of my love and respect for CnG. I have long been a supporter of the ODN, ever since the Citrus War. I have been impressed with the outspokenness, strength, and honor of the Mushroom Kingdom, and I for some reason have always liked Athens despite some of their more recent slip ups. Also CnG as a whole was essential in helping defeat the NPO in last year's Karma War and if anybody knows me defeating the NPO had been one of my priorities for a long long time. Unfortunately CnG is now proving to be a massive source of turmoil in this current war which the New Polar Order kicked off. My alliance finds itself at war against superior forces, yet our two treaties with CnG alliances have brought us exactly zero support. Our allies also have treaties with CnG members and they too are left with zero support. Now I'm not naive. I realize that this lack of support is because multiple CnG alliances have treaty conflicts. But their problems while understandable don't provide our nations any relief. Some of our members have said that our treaties with these CnG alliances are totally without value, but I don't find that to be true at all. Our treaties with CnG alliances do have substantial value, even in this massively mixed up war. While the STA is currently facing somewhat overwhelming force our CnG treaties are preventing us from being utterly crushed. That is a good thing. We will be able to defend ourselves and our allies for far longer this way. Because of that I am of the strong opinion that we should remain allied with CnG alliances, but with a catch. It seems fairly clear that the CnG bloc is caught in the treaty web and that the planets will have to align before we can expect our allies in CnG to be able to actually defend us. On the other hand it seems fairly clear that all the alliances of the CnG bloc are highly honorable and take their treaties seriously. Given these two facts I think the best solution for the STA is to downgrade all of our treaties with CnG alliances to NAPs. Typically a NAP is a sign of a lesser level of friendship than a MDP, but that would not be the case here. The reduction of our treaties to NAPs would simply provide an accurate portrayal of the level of support our friends in CnG are actually able to provide us. I think we are still great friends with MK, and I think the strained feelings between us and Vanguard can be repaired, but I certainly don't want to go through this again in the next war.
  13. Perhaps. But we wouldn't simply take the bait.
  14. A while back we were having a GATO brainstorm about what role we should seek once we are a free alliance again. We had a good range of differing opinions and some good debate both in the topic itself and elsewhere such as on IRC. I'd like to share one of my original posts below and then follow up with some additional thoughts that were the direct result of my discussions with fellow GATO members. Please keep in mind that these thoughts are simply my own ideas of where I'd like to see my alliance go. While some of these ideas received more support than others, GATO as a whole has not endorsed these ideas in any way shape or form. All right, there's the post. I hope you made it this far. Now for some additional comments: On idea #1, I proposed a 14 day cancellation time period but I recognize that such a long period may be a bit extreme. I'd be perfectly happy with a 7 day limit, but less happy with anything below that. Remember the point of this limit is to discourage creating a treaty with people who might abandon us at a later time, to provide us time to work out a situation diplomatically while we still have allies allied to us, and to give our military time to prepare if a war is inevitable. Also be very sure to note that all my ideas for these "better treaties" only apply to ones that contain a defensive element. Purely economic or friendship based treaties are excluded from many if not all those sub-points. The point of idea #2 is that a true friend has nothing to fear from a treaty. One might correctly suggest that a treaty shouldn't even be necessary in that case and I'd agree except for a few things. We all know that as players and alliances in CN we like to negotiate treaties it's fun after all, we all like to keep such agreements public knowledge as a warning to others and as a passive defensive, and lets face it, we all like to be noticed for doing things. Idea #3 generated many questions and opinions from my fellow GATOans. Would we have the military power to do such a thing? Would foreign, non-brown alliances, disparage us for attempting such a thing? Would the other alliances on brown cooperate with us, attempt to hinder us, or want no part of the idea and ignore it? Etc. I do believe in time we will have the military strength to accomplish the defense of brown, assuming that foreign alliances don't meddle with brown in a lame attempt to disrupt GATO or draw us into a war. As for working with other brown alliance, I think it would certainly be possible. GATO has no interest in "owning" brown in the way the NPO "owns" red. I believe that a defended brown would both make it a safer place for all brown alliance, and provide all of us with more and better trade opportunities. Joint defense of a color might very well be more difficult than NPO style exclusive ownership, but I think the rewards of more trades, more potential members, and closer relationships with other brown alliances makes it more than worth the effort for GATO. Anyway there you have it. Feel free to discuss these ideas but please, this is not a topic about GWI, GWII, GWIII or any other war really. It is also not about the lives, actions, decisions, or "deaths" of any past or present GATO members. And yes, you know who I mean. Finally it is worth noting that this is the first non-introduction post to the Honor in Justice blog. BarbulaM1 created the blog a bit ago and later invited me to post along side him. We will likely cross post all our articles to the OWF for increased visibility (finding a random blog is of course difficult). The blog itself will serve as a great archive of all thought provoking topics. Thanks for your time and don't forget to comment. --Ragashingo
  15. I had to track down your profile so I could spell Standartenf├╝hrer correctly :P

  • Create New...