Jump to content

A Frank Opinion of the DH/NPO War


Jake Liebenow
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quick disclaimer: this is just the rants from a former NSO leader, and it's not meant to be reflective upon NSO in any way, shape, or form. This is also not some planned-out post, so if the syntax seems a bit bizarre, apologies.

So, we all know about the war. We all have heard the arguments. NPO was randomly attacked by DH. DH pre-empted them in order to prevent an entry into the VE/Polar war. It is what it is. War is healthy for the community to some extent. It shakes things up, and makes things fun and interesting for a little bit. The problem with war is that if it goes on for too long, it falls into the same bad spot that prolonged peace has, and eventually kills Bob's population - monotony.

Let's be honest, whatever the reason is that DH attacked NPO, it really did make things interesting in the world again. And this is coming from someone who focused on Finance. Normally, we're the guys trying to yell at people to prevent this sort of thing from happening, and anyone who has held a spot as MoF or anything similar to that, or originally came from that spot and went higher, would know. Again, is what it is.

That said, NPO and Legion effectively killed off any sort of fun that could be had. People take Bob far too seriously. You've literally lost a big chance for fun in [OOC]a dying game[/OOC] in favor of politics. While this isn't meant to reflect upon NSO, I can easily say that at least we had fun, made our mark, and doggone it, weren't cowards. Yeah, yeah, it's strategy. We've all heard that, too. But, again, you've effectively killed off one of the last chances of fun here, and you've taken that and run with it. Hell, you're proud of that. Of course, you're not as bad as Legion, but regardless.

There are some people I hold respect for over on NPO's side. Frankly, I respect DH more for having the balls to shake things up, and having fun doing it. It also sucks that you would use lower alliances as deterrents, essentially, to protect your own hide, and take some heat off of your own targets. Again, fine to an extent, but Legion and a lot of NPO has been in PM for a good part of 2 months, now. When will the line be drawn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 147
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1303573416' post='2697764']
What I think is that as of tomorrow, this war (and by "this war", I mean from the time of the Doom House strike) will have been longer than the NPO theatre of Karma. Just finish it already.
[/quote]
The NPO portion of the terms are all but settled. We're hung up on the rest of the coalition at the moment.

All y'all impatient little kids will get to see confetti pop from the peace pinata soon enough. 'Till then, maybe y'all ought to be conducting some political affairs and activities of your own? I mean, for all the desires that the world not revolve around MK or NPO, y'all sure don't seem real eager to try and do anything else if we've got something going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1303608918' post='2698113']
The NPO portion of the terms are all but settled. We're hung up on the rest of the coalition at the moment.

All y'all impatient little kids will get to see confetti pop from the peace pinata soon enough. 'Till then, maybe y'all ought to be conducting some political affairs and activities of your own? I mean, for all the desires that the world not revolve around MK or NPO, y'all sure don't seem real eager to try and do anything else if we've got something going on.
[/quote]

Heh. So much for the even 'braver new world'(because the 'brave new world' just wasn't good enough) you promised Ardus. Meh. At least the end of the war is near.
[quote]
We near the end. The end of forced disbandment. [b]The end of terms that cripple alliances forever.[/b] The end of silence for fear of persecution. The end of the influence of those who would overthrow these goals in favor of their own return to power. The end of cowardice. The end of myth and fear. The end of this war.[/quote]
As I told Sardonic, I personally can't wait until the surrender thread is posted. Another 250 page discussion will be interesting for at least the first couple days. :popcorn:

Edited by Ryan Greenberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303610065' post='2698129']
We could ZI the entire alliance and it wouldn't "cripple them forever".
[/quote]
You're right. The terms will still cripple them for multiple months and will prolong their rebuilding process, which isn't exactly good for the [ooc]game[/ooc] imo

Edited by Ryan Greenberg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1303609837' post='2698122']
Heh. So much for the even 'braver new world'(because the 'brave new world' just wasn't good enough) you promised Ardus. Meh. At least the end of the war is near.

As I told Sardonic, I personally can't wait until the surrender thread is posted. Another 250 page discussion will be interesting for at least the first couple days. :popcorn:
[/quote]
The sum total demands of the entire Hopeless Coalition pale in comparison to the final terms for either NPO or TOP of the previous two global conflicts, though I'm sure you'll all complain about the agreement with NPO anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1303611782' post='2698145']
You're right. The terms will still cripple them for multiple months and will prolong their rebuilding process, which isn't exactly good for the [ooc]game[/ooc] imo
[/quote]
They aren't large enough to do that, no. And they'll have plenty of upper tier who hid the entire war in peace mode to manage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1303616156' post='2698189']
The sum total demands of the entire Hopeless Coalition pale in comparison to the final terms for either NPO or TOP of the previous two global conflicts, though I'm sure you'll all complain about the agreement with NPO anyway.
[/quote]

Are you using the previous records for the harshest treaties as the "line" after which people should start complaining? I mean, I grant you the point that pretty much any course of action at this point would still result in complaints, but that's not really an appropriate benchmark you're bringing up either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1303617426' post='2698207']
Are you using the previous records for the harshest treaties as the "line" after which people should start complaining? I mean, I grant you the point that pretty much any course of action at this point would still result in complaints, but that's not really an appropriate benchmark you're bringing up either.
[/quote]
My point is that what is being demanded of numerous alliances is a fraction of what was demanded of single alliances in the last two global wars. The financial term is a hair over what was paid by MK alone for the WotC (converted to cash). No less than 11 alliances will lift the same load that MK faced way back then. Global wars before WotC have smaller financial demands, but largely because the alliances that could have lifted significant reparation loads disbanded. There's also the influence of inflation since then.

The conclusion of this war will be a change in the course of history. You and yours cannot in... [i]good faith[/i] argue otherwise. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1303618537' post='2698224']
My point is that what is being demanded of numerous alliances is a fraction of what was demanded of single alliances in the last two global wars.
[/quote]

Well yeah, but those two example were significantly higher than pretty much any previous or contemporary peace agreement. You can't really point to a single alliance getting white peace after one week of fighting and use that as a benchmark either. There's a reason why we call the highs and lows "extremes".

[quote]
The financial term is a hair over what was paid by MK alone for the WotC (converted to cash). No less than 11 alliances will lift the same load that MK faced way back then.
[/quote]

Somehow, I doubt that MK's load would have been lighter had it spent the same amount of time it sent tech fighting instead. Yet that's exactly what all these 11 alliances have been doing. You can't compare a 2 week and a 12-15 week war based on their end terms alone.


[quote]
The conclusion of this war will be a change in the course of history. You and yours cannot in... [i]good faith[/i] argue otherwise. ;)
[/quote]

Every global war is a change in the course of history. If you're talking in terms of setting terms precedents; well the super-high reps and several-month wars are precedents your grouping created in the first place, and it would really be up to you whether you want to not bring them back in future wars, given that you're the ones in power. I can't say I have seen any indication of such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1303621068' post='2698256']
Well yeah, but those two example were significantly higher than pretty much any previous or contemporary peace agreement. You can't really point to a single alliance getting white peace after one week of fighting and use that as a benchmark either. There's a reason why we call the highs and lows "extremes".[/quote]

What I said in the quote that started this back and forth is that [b]those kind of terms would not be happening anymore.[/b] Nor would they be compensated by a return to the sort of behavior prevalent pre-Karma. You can't brush those terms aside when the original argument is premised on whether or not these terms are different from those terms.

[quote]Somehow, I doubt that MK's load would have been lighter had it spent the same amount of time it sent tech fighting instead. Yet that's exactly what all these 11 alliances have been doing. You can't compare a 2 week and a 12-15 week war based on their end terms alone.[/quote]

That there are hundreds of them where as there were only a hundred or so of us back then is still a telling difference. Furthermore, the entire peace-mode tactic your forces engaged in was designed to negate the upper-tier damage that would be suffered in a war of such length (and in turn led us to decide to prosecute a long war). Are you arguing it is a failed tactic that should not be used?

[quote]Every global war is a change in the course of history. If you're talking in terms of setting terms precedents; well the super-high reps and several-month wars are precedents your grouping created in the first place, and it would really be up to you whether you want to not bring them back in future wars, given that you're the ones in power. I can't say I have seen any indication of such.[/quote]

Crippling terms are by no means the exclusive creation of my "grouping." They have always existed in a variety of forms, be it the forced changing of colors, disbandment, viceroys, or large reparations. With Karma we wiped out all but the reparations, exceptions taken against NPO for being the primary force behind all the old sins and against TOP for gambling on the preemptive attack only to fail. With this war even reparations take a blow, though they still exist, much to the chagrin of your allies and all those hippies who demand a world of drum circles and no consequences.

I can think of only two major global wars that ended with essentially no terms. The most recent is the Polar front of this bifurcated conflict. Historically was the First Great War, and Pacifica herself took great pleasure explaining how great of a mistake that was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1303622449' post='2698273']
What I said in the quote that started this back and forth is that [b]those kind of terms would not be happening anymore.[/b]
[/quote]

Are you claiming that they were a mistake in the first place? Or that future conflicts with the same circumstances would be treated differently? If NPO had launched an aggressive war on MK 3 months ago in the same style as a "pre-empt" and we lost, would we not have faced similar terms as the ones you gave TOP/IRON for the same thing a year ago?


[quote]Crippling terms are by no means the exclusive creation of my "grouping[/quote]

I was not referring to crippling terms in general, but a very specific subset of them. The reps levied in Karma and BiPolar were significantly higher than any before (partially in order to replace other forms of harsh terms), and Karma was also the onset of a marked increase in the length of "great" conflicts. Of course, removing these is entirely up to you, but since those terms were justified under specific circumstances, the real question lies in what would be done under similar circumstances, which brings us back to what I asked above.

[quote]I can think of only two major global wars that ended with essentially no terms. The most recent is the Polar front of this bifurcated conflict. Historically was the First Great War, and Pacifica herself took great pleasure explaining how great of a mistake that was.[/quote]

GW2 too as well, though it and GW1 were mostly due to a reduced ability to enforce terms due to how close the outcome was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This world is quite amusing. The ones who complain are the ones who do not understand life and probably do not appreciate roller coasters. I see no alliance as "killing" the world. I just see the ones I am supposed to treat as a buffet and the ones I'm not supposed to treat as a buffet.

This of course varies at my Emperors convenience.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1303631662' post='2698345']
This world is quite amusing. The ones who complain are the ones who do not understand life and probably do not appreciate roller coasters. I see no alliance as "killing" the world. I just see the ones I am supposed to treat as a buffet and the ones I'm not supposed to treat as a buffet.

This of course varies at my Emperors convenience.
[/quote]

[Edit]Sorry I answer to an Empress, I just assume everyone does[/Edit] but really NPO isn't stopping anyone from having fun, your free to fight with anyone for anything the problem is that people wait for something to happen instead of making it happen. If you are not enjoying the current state of affairs attack someone, or get out of the war. Its really controlled by the individuals, if you want to be on the winnings side than team up and take it, if you can't take it join em. People need to be their own movers and shakers.

Edited by Muddog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah it took real balls to shake things by attacking the same small group of traditional enemies that they always fight. It didnt shake things up by fighting the exact same people again and it wasn't brave to attack an enemy that could be easily outnumbered 10 - 1 if they all stayed out of peace mode and put up a fight. This was nothing brave or new by C&G/DH/PB/TOP/FAN/Nor and all the alliances waiting in the wings ready to pounce.

Rok were brave and shook things up.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1303610065' post='2698129']
We could ZI the entire alliance and it wouldn't "cripple them forever".
[/quote]
NPO never crippled anyone forever either by your defination. It didnt stop it being mentioned in the DoW as a "reason" to attack them

Edited by Alterego
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...