A Frank Opinion of the DH/NPO War

[Daeryon]

The entire premise of this thread is laughable.

NPO gets attacked by overwhelming forces, and fights one hell of a war, managing to nullify the best assaults of it's enemies, and we'll blame them for not marching out to the slaughter. Oh no! BAd NPO! Using peace mode! You should bravely go out there and face 4 to 1 odds in those ranges!

Just as insipidly I'll assert that the boredom is DH's fault.

They should sell off all their infra and tech, come down to the level where NPO has advantage and then fight the war!
How dare they hold things up and cower in the upper ranges!

Where is umbrella??? Why are they not going to the lower ranges and coming out to die??


See? I can be absurd too.


Facts are: DH attacked NPO. NPO is defending itself, and well.

Frankly it's also hilarious that the poster praises DH for "shaking things up". I would bet cash that if NPO had been the one "Shaking things up", the same author would be writing a post about how aggressive meaningless attacks need to stop.

Save us threads like this in the future.

[Lord Velox]

[quote name='Daeryon' timestamp='1303644827' post='2698405']
The entire premise of this thread is laughable.

NPO gets attacked by overwhelming forces, and fights one hell of a war, managing to nullify the best assaults of it's enemies, and we'll blame them for not marching out to the slaughter. Oh no! BAd NPO! Using peace mode! You should bravely go out there and face 4 to 1 odds in those ranges!

Just as insipidly I'll assert that the boredom is DH's fault.

They should sell off all their infra and tech, come down to the level where NPO has advantage and then fight the war!
How dare they hold things up and cower in the upper ranges!

Where is umbrella??? Why are they not going to the lower ranges and coming out to die??


See? I can be absurd too.


Facts are: DH attacked NPO. NPO is defending itself, and well.

Frankly it's also hilarious that the poster praises DH for "shaking things up". I would bet cash that if NPO had been the one "Shaking things up", the same author would be writing a post about how aggressive meaningless attacks need to stop.

Save us threads like this in the future.
[/quote]
You do know the poster is on NPO's side [formerly] right?

[Haflinger]

Personally, I think the threat of peace is hanging over all of us, and it is that which we need to fear.

[Daeryon]

[quote name='Lord Velox' timestamp='1303645219' post='2698406']
You do know the poster is on NPO's side [formerly] right?
[/quote]

And that's relevant how? Regardless of what "side" he's on, or was formerly on, the idea that NPO "owes it to the game" to go out and fight a war on DH's terms is ridiculous.

[Lord Velox]

[quote name='Daeryon' timestamp='1303647368' post='2698418']
And that's relevant how? Regardless of what "side" he's on, or was formerly on, the idea that NPO "owes it to the game" to go out and fight a war on DH's terms is ridiculous.
[/quote]
It's not fighting a war on DH's terms as you say.
It's simply [i]fighting [/i] instead of sitting and doing nothing.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1303623518' post='2698295']
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]

I wouldn't call them a mistake, especially the Karma terms. Nothing short of devastating reparations could have come out of that war. You had too many enemies and had given too many reasons to not be trusted. Call it revenge, justice, pragmatism, idealism, whatever, but after everything in the lead-up to Karma, nothing less could have been the outcome. I spent the period immediately after the war defending the terms from accusations that they were too [i]light[/i].

The TOP/IRON terms were specifically designed to address two present and existing concerns: (1) that we hadn't done enough damage to TOP to undo their frightening lead over all other alliances and (2) to prevent a near-term repeat conflict. We were well enough convinced that TOP would replenish itself with its remaining warchest assets and return to business as usual, so the terms were designed to prevent that and diminish the danger that might arise if it did. They were designed deliberately to prevent another war between us in the near to mid-term. Much to our joy, TOP (and IRON) opted to overhaul their foreign policy and we eventually relieved tens of thousands of tech from their debt. What none of us expected is that nobody else would aggressively work to shake things up, despite the fact that a large portion of the web was now utterly devastated by one of the most destructive wars in CN history. It's from that lesson that I'd like to avoid using terms that deliberately extend peace in the future.

Had NPO made the mistake of preemptively attacking MK as TOP did three months ago my demands of Pacifica would be similar to our current agreement, though the NS demanded would have been higher. I don't want your money. I want you wrecked and then I'd like to walk away.

I can't guarantee that lebubu and Archon agree with me as to that hypothetical though.

[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]

My preference is to impose appropriate destruction and then conclude the war with as few terms as possible. This is the foundation of the Peace Mode demand. The only reason I push any monetary demands at all is (1) it's the only tool currently available to me to prod enemies into a short war, as poor a stick as it is and (2) GOONS want to get some recompense and I'm not getting in the way of that.

[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.[/quote]

GW2 ended with the abandonment of LUE and the "peace" terms that followed from that front. That's why I didn't include it.

Oh, and you dodged my question about the peace mode tactic.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Ardus

[SADeki]

[quote name='Daeryon' timestamp='1303644827' post='2698405']
NPO gets attacked by overwhelming forces, and fights one hell of a war, managing to nullify the best assaults of it's enemies, and we'll blame them for not marching out to the slaughter. Oh no! BAd NPO! Using peace mode! You should bravely go out there and face 4 to 1 odds in those ranges!
[/quote]

Didn't a lot of people on the NPO side claim that this was going to be an easy victory early on in the war?

Did you ever take into account, that the fact that you are outnumbered, and the fact that your alliance and your allies use peace mode to such an extent, might just be related?

[Daeryon]

[quote name='Lord Velox' timestamp='1303650287' post='2698434']
It's not fighting a war on DH's terms as you say.
It's simply [i]fighting [/i] instead of sitting and doing nothing.
[/quote]

There's plenty of fighting going on.

I'd ask the rest of GOONS if you aren't seeing it.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Daeryon

[Daeryon]

[quote name='SADeki' timestamp='1303657711' post='2698475']
Didn't a lot of people on the NPO side claim that this was going to be an easy victory early on in the war?

Did you ever take into account, that the fact that you are outnumbered, and the fact that your alliance and your allies use peace mode to such an extent, might just be related?
[/quote]

I can't make statements on what "a lot" of people on the NPO side thought. I can say that if anyone with a brain looks at NPO + allies straight up vs DH, the advantage toe to toe is DH. You think DH declared thinking they'd lose?

And no, not really. I look at it as doing what we need to do against an enemy with more strength who was determined to drag us all into a war we didn't want in the first place.

[Letum]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1303653250' post='2698444']
It's from that lesson that I'd like to avoid using terms that deliberately extend peace in the future.

My preference is to impose appropriate destruction and then conclude the war with as few terms as possible.
[/quote]

Well, that is admirable; and I hope it holds up as well when you're prevented with tangible incentives to do the opposite. Given that we already feel pretty screwed over however, you'll find it to be a rather thankless endeavor.



[quote]
Oh, and you dodged my question about the peace mode tactic.
[/quote]

I viewed it more as bait that a question really. I don't consider a tactic a failure simply because those in power seek to attach punitive consequences to it. The shorter war that would have probably come about without its usage, coupled with an earlier rebuilding period would have meant that damage wise, we might be in a better position now. Though my experience with how war would impact our less capable nations suggests that difference would be slight. Of course, the greater damage is very deliberate, as your coalition wanted to make it more damaging in order to discourage its usage. But the very reasons why it was in your interests to prevent it - both the material damage to our upper tier and shortening the time to any future conflict - are also reasons why it is in our interest to use it. Its accomplishments are very limited in scope - but that is in context of a situation without much room for benefits in the first place. I would have probably chosen a very different flavour of the tactic, but I would view it as a success. If you want me to talk about the advantages conferred which convince me of that, then I'd be happy to do so at a time when highlighting them wouldn't give anybody the opportunity to try and counter them.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='SADeki' timestamp='1303657711' post='2698475']
Didn't a lot of people on the NPO side claim that this was going to be an easy victory early on in the war?
[/quote]
No.

You might want to take a look again at those posts. I don't think anyone made that claim.

[Maelstrom Vortex]

By the argument of the OP, he should be directing his finger at all the neutrals who are not actively engaged and constantly sitting on the sidelines.. for which there are far worse offenders than we. If anything, we seem to be the sole source of excitement for this world.. the sole target, the sole aggressor. I understand what the OP feels, I think his anger is completely misdirected however based on the assessment he is making.

If we had an ideal situation, we'd have an even and fair fought war... but what's the odds of that when NPO is involved? Everyone knows we must be gang-banged or we win and only a few want that. That's just how it is.

You want a good "Fair" fight based on skill, go out of your way to make opposing coalitions that are balanced in technology, war chest reserves, and ns, then you'll have a "Fair" fight based on the ability to fight a war, not just the assets to fight a war. For once, by the poster's standards, the game may actually be fun.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Jake Liebenow]

[quote name='Daeryon' timestamp='1303644827' post='2698405']
Frankly it's also hilarious that the poster praises DH for "shaking things up". I would bet cash that if NPO had been the one "Shaking things up", the same author would be writing a post about how aggressive meaningless attacks need to stop.

Save us threads like this in the future.
[/quote]


You obviously don't know me very well. If NPO had attacked DH and DH froze in PM like a bunch of cowards, I PROMISE you I would be typing up this exact thing again, but with different names. This isn't about politics, which you so grievously missed, despite it being very clear in the OP. I couldn't care less about politics at this point. I [i][b]do[/b][/i] care about Bob being interesting. PM isn't interesting.

And, for the record, some neutrals do provide a necessary place. I disagree with what they're doing, but for alliances that claim not to follow that practice to do what they're doing? That's a little too much.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Jake Liebenow

[Heft]

[quote name='SADeki' timestamp='1303657711' post='2698475']
Didn't a lot of people on the NPO side claim that this was going to be an easy victory early on in the war?

Did you ever take into account, that the fact that you are outnumbered, and the fact that your alliance and your allies use peace mode to such an extent, might just be related?
[/quote]
No, and....well, yes, duh, but probably not in the way you mean?

Even the people who were blustering about our side somehow ultimately coming to victory never claimed it would be easy, and many more people were just getting on with the business of trying to lose as little as possible. And peace mode was used to such an extent because of the numbers, and being outnumbered. You seem to be trying to reverse cause and effect here (or else your argument makes no sense).

And finally, not a single alliance in NPO's coalition deserves to pay any reparations or any terms. Congratulating yourself on not offering "harsh" terms is rather missing the point: you started an aggressive war without cause and continued to press the war well past the point of there being any possible justification for it (what with the war it was supposedly a part of ending weeks ago).

[Maelstrom Vortex]

I wonder if it ever occurred to people there was a natural cycle in a long term war war for nations who are nuclear powers and have a lick of strategic sense to hit peace when they're out of ammo to restock? Oh my, that couldn't possibly be the reason.. no.. they must all be cowards. And if the text didn't relay that, it was dripping with sarcasm. It couldn't possibly be strategy. We don't think that deep.

Pardon me if I like to win. Pardon me for liking to have my enemy hurt a hell of a lot more than I do for engaging me.

If what I'm understanding is correct and this is another complaint about some of us being in peace, this thread belongs like the bulk of other threads in the "composed by a moron who does not understand the depth of war" pile and the complaint is completely invalid.

Just go make love to DH Jake, it's the easier way to get in bed with them compared to all this posturing which gives us eyestrain.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex

[Mansa Musa III]

Wait what's happening here? Is this related to the Karma war? I remember in the Karma war superfriends stomped NPO but this is just confusing, who's the doomhouse and when were they established

[alyster]

[quote name='SADeki' timestamp='1303657711' post='2698475']Didn't a lot of people on the NPO side claim that this was going to be an easy victory early on in the war?[/quote]

Which planet has this one been living on?

[Vladisvok Destino]

[quote name='Mansa Musa III' timestamp='1303665230' post='2698544']
Wait what's happening here? Is this related to the Karma war? I remember in the Karma war superfriends stomped NPO but this is just confusing, who's the doomhouse and when were they established
[/quote]

Since you've apparently just returned to Planet Bob, it might be worth [url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Doom_House-NPO_War]reading up[/url] on current affairs and how they relate to the topic.

Edited April 24, 2011 by Vladisvok Destino

[Link Gaetz]

[quote name='Jake Liebenow' timestamp='1303663969' post='2698533']
You obviously don't know me very well. If NPO had attacked DH and DH froze in PM like a bunch of cowards, I PROMISE you I would be typing up this exact thing again, but with different names. This isn't about politics, which you so grievously missed, despite it being very clear in the OP. I couldn't care less about politics at this point. I [i][b]do[/b][/i] care about Bob being interesting. PM isn't interesting.
[/quote]
This kind of nonsense talk is part of what's killing Planet Bob. So NPO comes out of PM and gets blasted by Umbrella, etc. in the upper tiers in a very uneven fight and is out of commission for a long time. You think that somehow makes Planet Bob more interesting? Not hardly. What would be interesting is if alliances showed any interest in being involved in wars that had some semblance of evenness. But, I don't expect I'll ever see that.

(ooc) that's why TE is in many ways more interesting (ooc)

[Earogema]

[quote name='Link Gaetz' timestamp='1303680154' post='2698684'] What would be interesting is if alliances showed any interest in being involved in wars that had some semblance of evenness.
[/quote]
Precisely. This Planet would be a lot more interesting if people stopped just siding with their friends and actually wanted to balance things out for a challenge, but they won't, and instead they'll even go as far to complain that the [i]other side[/i] isn't doing enough to make things fun. It needs to stop. You are not [OOC] saving the game. [/OOC]

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Jake Liebenow' timestamp='1303585800' post='2697897']
Pixels. They want to save their pixels.
[/quote]

They want to save their pixels so they haven't peace out yet? This is new.

[Ardus]

[quote name='Letum' timestamp='1303658875' post='2698488']
Well, that is admirable; and I hope it holds up as well when you're prevented with tangible incentives to do the opposite. Given that we already feel pretty screwed over however, you'll find it to be a rather thankless endeavor.[/quote]

All worthwhile endeavors are thankless. If there were thanks to be had, somebody would have done it already.

[quote]I viewed it more as bait that a question really. I don't consider a tactic a failure simply because those in power seek to attach punitive consequences to it. The shorter war that would have probably come about without its usage, coupled with an earlier rebuilding period would have meant that damage wise, we might be in a better position now. Though my experience with how war would impact our less capable nations suggests that difference would be slight. Of course, the greater damage is very deliberate, as your coalition wanted to make it more damaging in order to discourage its usage. But the very reasons why it was in your interests to prevent it - both the material damage to our upper tier and shortening the time to any future conflict - are also reasons why it is in our interest to use it. Its accomplishments are very limited in scope - but that is in context of a situation without much room for benefits in the first place. I would have probably chosen a very different flavour of the tactic, but I would view it as a success. If you want me to talk about the advantages conferred which convince me of that, then I'd be happy to do so at a time when highlighting them wouldn't give anybody the opportunity to try and counter them.
[/quote]

A reasonable enough answer. I look forward to the inevitable thread discussing the validity/effectiveness of the tactic once we're all finished up here.

[Daeryon]

[quote name='Jake Liebenow' timestamp='1303663969' post='2698533']
You obviously don't know me very well. If NPO had attacked DH and DH froze in PM like a bunch of cowards, I PROMISE you I would be typing up this exact thing again, but with different names. This isn't about politics, which you so grievously missed, despite it being very clear in the OP. I couldn't care less about politics at this point. I [i][b]do[/b][/i] care about Bob being interesting. PM isn't interesting.

And, for the record, some neutrals do provide a necessary place. I disagree with what they're doing, but for alliances that claim not to follow that practice to do what they're doing? That's a little too much.
[/quote]

"froze like a bunch of cowards"?

No, you don't have an agenda at all.

Go worry about the "57th Overlanders". Maybe when you get attacked by 5 or 6 alliances you can leave all your people out of peace mode so they can get swamped. It'll prove how great you are to make CN so interesting....while you get your rear handed to you.

It'll be real interesting for everyone, and then you can stop complaining about NPO.

[Lord Velox]

[quote name='Daeryon' timestamp='1303726986' post='2699112']
"froze like a bunch of cowards"?

No, you don't have an agenda at all.

Go worry about the "57th Overlanders". Maybe when you get attacked by 5 or 6 alliances you can leave all your people out of peace mode so they can get swamped. It'll prove how great you are to make CN so interesting....while you get your rear handed to you.

It'll be real interesting for everyone, and then you can stop complaining about NPO.
[/quote]
GOONS were attacked by more than 6 alliances and we held them back pretty nice without mass usage of PM.
I don't see how calling you cowards will help though,I'll just keep on pounding your nations into Pixeldust.

[Jake Liebenow]

[quote name='Daeryon' timestamp='1303726986' post='2699112']
"froze like a bunch of cowards"?

No, you don't have an agenda at all.

Go worry about the "57th Overlanders". Maybe when you get attacked by 5 or 6 alliances you can leave all your people out of peace mode so they can get swamped. It'll prove how great you are to make CN so interesting....while you get your rear handed to you.

It'll be real interesting for everyone, and then you can stop complaining about NPO.
[/quote]

I'd love to see you talk to NSO like that, who actually did fight. We didn't keep everyone out of peace mode, but we actually did do the fighting. GOONS can tell you that much, and you know what? Even when we lost over 50% of our NS, and our upper tiers got demolished, [i]we still had fun doing it[/i]. I left for the 57th because I hate how the politics on Bob is throwing things into, ironically, monotonous chaos. Talk about an oxymoron. They're quiet, and let me do my pet projects in peace.