Jump to content

rabonnobar

Members
  • Content Count

    1,602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rabonnobar

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    Calabria
  • Alliance Name
    Non Grata
  • Resource 1
    Lead
  • Resource 2
    Oil

Recent Profile Visitors

2,126 profile views
  1. Of the 13 nations in the game with over 100,000 tech, 11 are in NPO. One is in Disciples of Duckroll, which holds a treaty with NPO apparently: "About Disciples of Duckroll: We hold a single treaty with the New Pacific Order. For all alliance matters, contact StevieG. Or hit us up on discord. https://discord.gg/rPmJa8G" One is in DBDC. Of those approaching 100,000 tech in the 90,000s, five of five are in NPO. Of nations with more than 70,000 but less than 90,000 tech: 11 are in IRON, 7 are in NPO, 1 is in ODN, 1 is in GPA, and 1 is in DBDC. The coalition in the OP thus has 35 of the 39 nations with more than 70,000 tech (NPO alone having 23, and their blocmate IRON, 11). Of the four others, one is in an alliance that is allied to NPO (and only NPO). One is a neutral. Two are in DBDC. Source: https://www.cybernations.net/allNations_display.asp?Page=1&Order=DESC&Field=Technology_Purchased
  2. We're definitely both ~living our best life~ / giving our all in that one, lmao. If only I didn't have to ration my nukes / deployed troops for GAs, it'd be a funner time. Maybe next time, duder.
  3. I don't pretend to have warchest data for other NGers or for MONGOLS and co, so I guess we'll have to see how it shakes out. I'm skeptical we'll be much less effective than those guys, overall, but we'll see.
  4. There have been several instances in this thread of folks in NPO and other power structure alliances essentially arguing against the very idea of war at all. I ask this of those folks, and other folks in those alliances: (1) Should wars be avoided when possible? Impossible meaning rogues, etc. (2) Do you desire another war on this world between alliances? (3) Do you think that another war on this world between alliances would be good or bad for this world? Let's define NG as not-an-alliance, as I want you guys' perspective, and that seems to be the position of your coalition.
  5. Of course I know that. I am directing that reasoning at various people in this thread minimizing the impact NG will have. Thanks for proving my point.
  6. Right, but one would only be a "bad ally" when failing to help someone who needs it, or when the aid was requested and not given. For the #1 alliance in the game, which had the assistance of the #2 alliance in the game and many many many others, to even request such aid is my point. I was not in NG at the time nor was I ever in NG before a week ago, but just speaking for myself, if they were trying to stir up actual trouble (read: fun) instead of joining a coalition of several alliances constituting 500+ nations to curbstomp a grouping a tiny fraction of the coalition's size, then, eh... NPO needing the help of a few dozen nations when it already had many hundreds proves MONGOLS' impact.
  7. MONGOLS caused you guys plenty trouble and headache. In fact, someone (maybe you, but I don't recall) complained upthread about NG not helping with MONGOLS more. If they were handled with ease, the number one alliance in the game in a bloc with the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 8th biggest alliances in the game and allied to a bloc with the 3rd, 4th, 11th, and 12th biggest alliances in the game (rankings as of this moment, I don't have historical rankings but I assume it was similar), with most of the non-disbanded and non-neutral remainder aligned with you in some fashion, should not be complaining about not receiving enough help from the mere (insert NG rank at the time here)th biggest alliance in the game. You had essentially the entire game against a small band of merry fellows and one (percentage-wise) small group of players in that "essentially the entire game" portion didn't participate enough (probably because they were busy trying to stir up conflicts worth a damn) and it was enough of an issue that you remembered and brought it up here. I do not know MONGOLS' peak preparedness or whatever, but I am skeptical that the gap, if it exists at all, is of any meaningful size.
  8. (1) Wars have been lopsided for a very long time, yes, but they have become quantitatively more lopsided with each passing year. It is not a new problem, but it is an exponentially increasing problem. I, and I think many others, would be very happy with a 2/3 to 1/3 war, as sad as that is to say. But we don't get anything even close to that. (2) The fact that people keep signing treaties that are never activated, when there is so much treaty saturation already, is the problem. (3) Starting active new alliances, especially at this stage in the world, is very difficult work. The extremity of the lopsidedness of the current political environment only adds to the difficulty. Combine the two, and what you propose is effectively impossible. I believe that an unspoken, but hinted-at, argument of yours is that if people are so unhappy, then why aren't there more people working to change it? My response is two-fold: (a) People are trying, and have tried, but failed. (b) The dissatisfaction with the current situation is disproportionately concentrated in the common membership of alliances, and not in government. This makes sense if you think about it - those in government, who built and contributed to the current situation, do not want to shake things up. Governments are inherently resistant to change. While those members *should* become more active, work their way up in government, and change the situation, two things stop that from happening: (i) Common members are probably not higher up for a reason - they tend to be less active, knowledgeable, and politically savvy. (ii) The impossibility and severity of the task. That's why I keep mentioning the exponential increase in the lopsidedness of wars and the entangledness of the treaty web. The more extreme those two things become (though they have just about reached the peak at this point), the less likely the reforms that you propose are to be feasible, much less to be done.
  9. I added numbering to make it easier to respond to specific points. (1): I am not asking for sympathy. The only reason I bring up the lopsidedness is to point out that it does not constitute an interesting or noteworthy development for citizens of Bob and it should not, but probably will, be the closest thing to a global war that this world sees for this entire year. (2) Yes, but the problem has gotten exponentially worse and it is choking this world. (3) Correct. Nations joining this world that get a recruitment message from GPA and another from a non-neutral alliance, and then join the non-neutral alliance (or choose a non-neutral over a neutral otherwise), want their alliance to square off with other alliances. If they did not want that then they would have joined a neutral alliance.
  10. If you believe that alliances squaring off against one another kills this world and chases out members, then what differentiates you from a neutral alliance, ideologically? As for "in effect": Treaties that are never activated are a farce.
  11. I'm not complaining about the CB. I don't know if the allegations are true or not, but if they all are then I believe it is a valid CB. I am complaining about the state of Bob, and the alliances comprising the power structure (listed in the OP)'s seeming satisfaction with the current state of affairs. This declaration constitutes the top ten non-neutral alliances collaborating to attack the 27th largest alliance (at the time of declaration). I mention the odds not because I personally mind them (I do not), but for this reason: That lopsided of a war should not be fun or interesting enough to constitute the Great War of 2019, and yet it almost certainly will. (We are over halfway done with 2019 and it holds that title so far, I believe.) I foresee the alliances participating using it as an excuse, intentionally or sub-consciously, to drum up no other conflict for awhile. Their members, and this planet, deserve(s) better. I am confident that, if polled, most of the membership of those alliances would desire that there be a war in 2019 with more even odds - still a curbstomp in their favor, to be sure, but more interesting than this. 45 Non Grata nations times three defensive slots means that a maximum of 135 of the >1,000 nations of this coalition can attack NG at a time. And that doesn't even account for war-hungry coalition nations declaring on more than one NG nation, or NG nations periodically and strategically in peace mode to restock on nukes. There are currently 31 Non Grata nations in war mode. That is under 100 defensive slots for over 1,000 nations. The more extreme the curbstomp, the less interesting the conflict. I think we can all agree with that, yes? Thus, I see the power structure's attempts to use this super-extreme-curbstomp to sate their members' bloodlust as a failure of their obligation to their members to deliver a world worth inhabiting. That is the point of alliance government, is it not? Ultimately, this is a game, and like any game, the purpose is pleasure and entertainment. In the context of this world, that means, yes, delivering to your members security and power, but not at the expense of all political and military events, as foreign affairs and warfare are a major component of this game for most, if not all, players. Indeed, it is foreign affairs and the desire for military conflict that set non-neutral alliances apart from neutral alliances. Treaties and military blocs mean nothing if they are never activated. Rogue clean-up, which this effectively is by the numbers if nothing else, should not count - even GPA deals with rogues. If the power structure has no intent to enter any military conflicts other than (effectively) rogue clean-up, then it should issue a Declaration of Neutrality already and quit stringing along its members who desperately hope for some interesting news but ,when they check the OWF, see only threads about rogues, (effectively) rogues, micro conflicts, and treaties that will never be activated in any remotely meaningful way.
  12. Oculus and fringe Oculus are essentially the entire game at this point. If they are not screwed with, then no one is screwed with. That is the reality of the treaty web. Thus, leading to a de facto state of no one screwing with anyone. I am saying that to hark back to my posts on pages 5-6, not the current discussion. Without NG's "screwing [around]", and apart from Umbrella's roguery and micro wars (MONGOLS/SPATR, COBRAlition), the last war would have been the XX-Sparta events of 2017.
  13. Same here, to be clear. I chose to go to NPO after NSO disbanded for a reason. I don't hold ill will for NPO specifically, other than their part in the overall situation, but they share that burden with others. I disagree that all blocs can be taken down. If all alliances on Bob, including GPA and the inactive alliances, were to join the same bloc, and that bloc acted as one and showed zero signs of faltering (even after, yes, attempts were made), then it would be impossible to take down. There is a point at which the task becomes genuinely impossible. Then the argument just becomes: Is Oculus at that point - of being impossible to take down? I believe it is, and pretty obviously so. The differential between the current power structure and the elements working, and willing, to combat it is massively larger than it has been at any point in this world's history. I am saying this as someone who saw post-GWIII-era NPO as able to be beaten. I saw Continuum, CnG/SF, and even Pandora's Box as able to be beaten. But there is a wide gap between "difficult" and "impossible."
  14. @LoD: Fair enough. "I should point out that particular template shouldn't be relied upon as an all inclusive list, by chance I only added in the "Other Wars of '19" section about an hour ago. For a period of 2 years (June 2016 - September 2018) no one updated that template at all. It's certain that more wars have been fought than just the ones listed, just that no one's added them." Yeah, I gotcha. But (1) the fact that there is so little interest in updating it (because there is so little of interest worth updating) is an issue and (2) even a full list would be exceptionally sparse.
×
×
  • Create New...