White Chocolate Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1317429270' post='2813056']But, if you're going to do this..why bother signing a treaty? [/quote] My guess is that it's the same reason the vast majority of other alliances do: They want the ability to fight as a team if they BOTH chose to do so without there being a HUGE political uproar because they don't have a public treaty or have to deal with people getting mad because they "only" entered a war on an "optional" treaty. Arguing that a mandatory treaty between TWO ALLIANCES means that the one must defend the other EVEN WHEN the first says "stay out" is just wrong. Treaties are between alliances, not between two (or more) alliances and the rest of Planet Bob. (as much as some people might like to think otherwise) That being the case, if both parties agree on what is to be done based on their treaty - all is good. Edited October 1, 2011 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes the wise Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Heh I'm just thinking, everyone went and treatied each other to the extant that there are only a hand full of alliances left to fight. NpO being the most signifcant unless you all start in on neutrals Maybe you guys should just declare world peace? Lol What would Bob do without Polaris? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernesto Che Guevara Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 [quote name='wes the wise' timestamp='1317499916' post='2813468'] Lol What would Bob do without Polaris? [/quote] Bob without Polar? [quote name='wes the wise' timestamp='1317499916' post='2813468'] declare world peace [/quote] That. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1317491950' post='2813414'] We like UPN. We didn't expect them to slap us in the face with the amount they proposed. I think our gov thought it wasn't going to be resolved and pressed one with the only remaining resolution (war). [/quote] They offered triple damages in the logs posted. I'm not sure in what world that constitutes a slap in the face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lusitan Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 I motion that we go after each one of Polar's allies, pre-emptively if necessary, so that Polar ends up DoWing us. Effeciency ftw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1317507356' post='2813519'] They offered triple damages in the logs posted. I'm not sure in what world that constitutes a slap in the face. [/quote] The damages weren't 2mil, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 Why would we want to attack Polar? Everyone knows we're after GOD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EpsilonPhoenix Posted October 1, 2011 Report Share Posted October 1, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1317490090' post='2813402'] There are a few reasons. [/quote] Regardless of who is out to get who, UPN has no one to blame but themselves. This mess could've been avoided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Greenberg Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) [quote name='wes the wise' timestamp='1317499916' post='2813468'] Lol What would Bob do without Polaris? [/quote]Idk. I'm sure we'd find a new scapegoat. I think GOD is the next in line for everyone to hate? We'd all have to unite in the starting wars stuff though. Polaris is always a controversy in every war in some capacity. It'd be harder to start wars without them, but I think we could pull through if it happened. Edited October 2, 2011 by Ryan Greenberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilber Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='Systemfailure' timestamp='1317451368' post='2813253'] the fact that this war is basically over 30mil is so damn ridiculous that im having a hard time believing that UPN and NG aren't using this as a prelude to a treaty between the 2 [/quote] Excuse me, NSO would like to have a word with you. We had a war for 5x less money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1317476637' post='2813326'] Well, sometimes when you don't play nice, your playmates don't want to play with you anymore. If UPN let this escalate, your alliance and its allies would drag this war into a months long curbstomp that would only end when UPN and friends either accept months long surrender terms or get so beaten down that they just kind of fade away (as in the case of FAN or OCUK). You may say that you're not like that, and you may be telling the truth, but every "great" war since GWIII has gone that way (no matter who was on the "winning" side) so I have to say that I don't believe you. Is it really that hard to understand why UPN would want to spare its allies that, especially for something that they're admitting was their screwup? [/quote] Can you stop it with the martyrdom already? Get off your cross, you're fooling no one. FAN is still around, albeit not vocal, and part of infamous NPO preempt. OcUK never were relevant to start with. I'd also like to remind you than when you and your pals played hardball, the losing side played along and did its best to overcome you. As opposed to whining about losing every remote chance you get and claming the winners are big meanies for not being lenient with you. That said, I don't fault UPN for doing what they did. They screwed up and don't want their allies to burn for them. Understandable move, albeit a bit boring for the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1317522632' post='2813649'] That said, I don't fault UPN for doing what they did. They screwed up and don't want their allies to burn for them. Understandable move, albeit a bit boring for the rest of us. [/quote] I don't think anybody is seriously faulting UPN for asking their allies to not enter. Many of us are however faulting Polaris for listening. I mean, what a goddamn time to suddenly start listening to allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1317522632' post='2813649'] Can you stop it with the martyrdom already? Get off your cross, you're fooling no one. FAN is still around, albeit not vocal, and part of infamous NPO preempt. OcUK never were relevant to start with. I'd also like to remind you than when you and your pals played hardball, the losing side played along and did its best to overcome you. As opposed to whining about losing every remote chance you get and claming the winners are big meanies for not being lenient with you. That said, I don't fault UPN for doing what they did. They screwed up and don't want their allies to burn for them. Understandable move, albeit a bit boring for the rest of us. [/quote] If you paid attention to what I actually said instead of what you thought I'd said, you'd notice that I mentioned the time period of "GWIII to the Present" when I mentioned long drawn out wars. MK et al may have done the pounding in Karma, TOP/CnG, and VE/NpO, but the Hegemony, which you never miss the chance to mention that I was a part of, perpetrated UJW, WoTC, GPA, BLEU, GATO, and numerous other wars during that time. GWIII ended relatively quickly and with a variety of terms (reps, viceroy, government reformation) most of which could be completed quickly. NpPO started getting greedy in UJP and wars and terms started getting longer and bigger. This trend didn't change when NpPO lost. As for choosing FAN and OcUK, FAN was an alliance that survived a long war, OcUk is one that didn't. That's the reason I mentioned them. Some alliances (FAN, NPO, NpO, MK) survive long wars and big terms but others (OcUK, SOLID, TDSM8) don't. I like UPN but I honestly don't think they'd survive a long drawn out war. They don't seem to have a tight enough dynamic for that. That's not really a bad thing as 3/4 of the alliances here probably wouldn't. Not everyone's a die hard. That's why I'm surprised that this went to war at all as they probably know these things too and would hopefully want to protect their allies from finding out whether they can survive it. UPN managed to avoid the damage to its allies but not to itself. If you don't want me on a cross, stop putting me up on one. I'm not a martyr or a whiner and I'd never claim to be. Not agreeing with you doesn't make me a whiner and it doesn't make me automatically wrong. So please, stop following me around and calling me a whiner. You're beginning to sound like my mother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ardus Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1317526946' post='2813689'] GWIII ended relatively quickly and with a variety of terms (reps, viceroy, government reformation) most of which could be completed quickly. NpPO started getting greedy in UJP and wars and terms started getting longer and bigger. This trend didn't change when NpPO lost.[/quote] I'm going to set aside the other words and zero in on this point, which is relevant to my interests. The Third Great War did not end quickly because of some kind of benevolence on part of the the victorious Initiative, weakness on part of the League, or because of the terms pursued. Rather, I would pose that it ended relatively quickly because it was the last major global conflict in the pre-warchest era. Though some larger nations had begun to utilize warchests at that point, much of the game and its warfare was still dominated by small nation tactics: stealing funds, staying out of anarchy, and strategic collections. Wars from the Unjust War onward have been fought on the backs of gargantuan warchests that take a considerable amount of time to deplete. This diminishes incentives for parties to stop fighting and so wars (and negotiations to end them) go on. And on. And on. The particular length of wars didn't change with the watershed moment that was Karma because the underlying mechanics that encourage long wars have not changed. If I could wave a wand to change one thing it would be to limit the effectiveness of warchests, either through a cap on cash reserves (tied to NS) or the implementation of some kind of inflation (more money you have on hand, more expensive militaries get, partially achieved with the extra costs imposed by WRCs). Edited October 2, 2011 by Ardus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potato Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1317526946' post='2813689'] If you paid attention to what I actually said instead of what you thought I'd said, you'd notice that I mentioned the time period of "GWIII to the Present" when I mentioned long drawn out wars. MK et al may have done the pounding in Karma, TOP/CnG, and VE/NpO, but the Hegemony, which you never miss the chance to mention that I was a part of, perpetrated UJW, WoTC, GPA, BLEU, GATO, and numerous other wars during that time. GWIII ended relatively quickly and with a variety of terms (reps, viceroy, government reformation) most of which could be completed quickly. NpPO started getting greedy in UJP and wars and terms started getting longer and bigger. This trend didn't change when NpPO lost. As for choosing FAN and OcUK, FAN was an alliance that survived a long war, OcUk is one that didn't. That's the reason I mentioned them. Some alliances (FAN, NPO, NpO, MK) survive long wars and big terms but others (OcUK, SOLID, TDSM8) don't. I like UPN but I honestly don't think they'd survive a long drawn out war. They don't seem to have a tight enough dynamic for that. That's not really a bad thing as 3/4 of the alliances here probably wouldn't. Not everyone's a die hard. That's why I'm surprised that this went to war at all as they probably know these things too and would hopefully want to protect their allies from finding out whether they can survive it. UPN managed to avoid the damage to its allies but not to itself. If you don't want me on a cross, stop putting me up on one. I'm not a martyr or a whiner and I'd never claim to be. Not agreeing with you doesn't make me a whiner and it doesn't make me automatically wrong. So please, stop following me around and calling me a whiner. You're beginning to sound like my mother. [/quote] Calm down, sweetie pie. I did read what you said. And answer to what you said. No need to beg for acknowledgement. I extrapolated a bit, I'll give you that. However, whether you intend it or not, every single of your recent posts reeks of whining and martyrdom. Granted, I could be putting more meaning than you intended. But seeing as I'm not the only one to notice it, and that includes your mother apparently, maybe you could take a hard look in the mirror. Edited October 2, 2011 by potato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1317510628' post='2813547'] The damages weren't 2mil, lol. [/quote] That was their estimate. You on the other hand provided no figures. Normally it's the side that gets hit that does the damage calculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1317553884' post='2813806'] That was their estimate. You on the other hand provided no figures. Normally it's the side that gets hit that does the damage calculation. [/quote] Seems our estimate was more than correct as others have pointed out. It's not our fault UPN can't do basic math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1317556679' post='2813809'] Seems our estimate was more than correct as others have pointed out. It's not our fault UPN can't do basic math.[/quote] Whether your estimate was correct or not, they wasnt provided with the battle reports and math, which from the looks of it NG didnt have. But instead it was a blind estimate off NS loss, so they counter-offered with an other blind estimate. So both parties ended up seeming to insult each other, due to stab in the dark reperation amounts... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfred von Tirpitz Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1317526946' post='2813689'] As for choosing FAN and OcUK, FAN was an alliance that survived a long war, OcUk is one that didn't. That's the reason I mentioned them. Some alliances (FAN, NPO, NpO, MK) survive long wars and big terms but others (OcUK, SOLID, TDSM8) don't. [/quote] I am willing to bet OcUK had a lot of fun with that war. Mr. White and his merry band had more gumption and spirit in their little finger than a a lot of alliances i see around today. The thing of it is, they stayed in the war after everyone around them packed up their nukes and went home. Not because they were not allowed to have peace, but because they did not desire it. It was offered to them many times, and every-time they came back with "this is just too much fun" or words to that effect. You know what, they were correct. Apart from sitting up all night waiting for the bogeyman to hit on my friends in the SF or elsewhere during 2008, the engagement with OcUK post NoCB was the most fun i had in this place. They are also a bunch i remember, and i only remember those that have earned it. For a lot of us, nothing has changed from the glory days of Q/1V to today, we still play the game, never on the top, forever on the fringes and still milking the weekly dose of adrenalin that comes with every new threat. And you know what, we like it just fine. [quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1317561115' post='2813819'] Whether your estimate was correct or not, they wasnt provided with the battle reports and math, which from the looks of it NG didnt have. But instead it was a blind estimate off NS loss, so they counter-offered with an other blind estimate. So both parties ended up seeming to insult each other, due to stab in the dark reperation amounts... [/quote] pardon me, but figuring out damages at those NS ranges for two days of war does not require an advanced degree in math. Factor in the newfangled stuff about ruined back-collects etc.. and you have a slightly higher amount than what they were asked to pay for [bearing in mind 3x is normal for most folks] edit: herp-da-derp fix Edited October 2, 2011 by Alfred von Tirpitz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' timestamp='1317561768' post='2813824'] pardon me, but figuring out damages at those NS ranges for two days of war does not require an advanced degree in math. Factor in the newfangled stuff about ruined back-collects etc.. and you have a slightly higher amount than what they were asked to pay for [bearing in mind 3x is normal for most folks][/quote] Never said it did involve advanced math to work out damages done from a raid, its would seem obvious that when you go demanding reperations from a raid gone wrong you provide the math the estimate came from when the other party says "thats too much". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beau Vine Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1317553884' post='2813806'] That was their estimate. You on the other hand provided no figures. Normally it's the side that gets hit that does the damage calculation. [/quote] Good thing you reminded us of this little problem. Seems like UPN promised to show their own estimates. Since then they did not comment on it anymore, however D43th came and admitted that Non Grata rep amount were in fact fully justified, according to some unnamed source (I'm guessing UPN going "ohwait"). edit: for the record [quote name='Robster83' timestamp='1317283673' post='2811461'] He did not use CM's, and I believe he only did one bombing run. Anyway for all you 'mathematicians' out there, we will be providing the battle reports/our calculations soon enough. Looks like NG may of based their reps on the basis that the "collection is messed up" however that is invalid. Furthermore high profile officials have admitted themselves that they multiply the damage done by 3... and in my opinion, that is extortion.[/quote] Compare last sentence with the point you were trying to sell: [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1317507356' post='2813519'] They offered triple damages in the logs posted. I'm not sure in what world that constitutes a slap in the face.[/quote] Edited October 2, 2011 by Beau Vine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingEater Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1317561115' post='2813819'] Whether your estimate was correct or not, they wasnt provided with the battle reports and math, which from the looks of it NG didnt have. But instead it was a blind estimate off NS loss, so they counter-offered with an other blind estimate. So both parties ended up seeming to insult each other, due to stab in the dark reperation amounts... [/quote] So why is that a problem for NG? They are the ones who would (and are) smashing the other side if it came to war. Both sides knew this, so at the end it is just dumb for UPN to react the way they did. Plus given the way politics on planet Bob have evolved lately would it be surprising if an alliance didn't take a run at their allies despite UPN asking them to stay out? Hell NPO got run for not having an allies back, even though they weren't asked for assistance. The fact is that UPN's reaction not only endangered their own alliance, but their allies as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1317561115' post='2813819'] Whether your estimate was correct or not, they wasnt provided with the battle reports and math, which from the looks of it NG didnt have. But instead it was a blind estimate off NS loss, so they counter-offered with an other blind estimate. So both parties ended up seeming to insult each other, due to stab in the dark reperation amounts... [/quote] That's an assumption on your part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='WingEater' timestamp='1317565111' post='2813839'] So why is that a problem for NG? They are the ones who would (and are) smashing the other side if it came to war. Both sides knew this, so at the end it is just dumb for UPN to react the way they did. Plus given the way politics on planet Bob have evolved lately would it be surprising if an alliance didn't take a run at their allies despite UPN asking them to stay out? [b]Hell NPO got run for not having an allies back, even though they weren't asked for assistance.[/b] The fact is that UPN's reaction not only endangered their own alliance, but their allies as well. [/quote] The bolded is wrong. Had an ally been hit, Pacifica would have responded with a declaration of war; Pacifica was hit for various reasons, not backing an ally is not one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robster83 Posted October 2, 2011 Report Share Posted October 2, 2011 [quote name='Beau Vine' timestamp='1317565089' post='2813838'] Good thing you reminded us of this little problem. Seems like UPN promised to show their own estimates. Since then they did not comment on it anymore, however D43th came and admitted that Non Grata rep amount were in fact fully justified, according to some unnamed source (I'm guessing UPN going "ohwait"). edit: for the record Compare last sentence with the point you were trying to sell: [/quote] What part of "we $%&@ed up" do you not comprehend? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.