Unknown Smurf Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 I want to discuss the precedents set by the most recent war: 1) The 6 million -- NG states that they agreed to 6 million after war due to the fact UPN sustained more damage than what was done to 2) 1 strike policy -- In my experience diplomacy is given a few tries before war happens. How do you feel about war between two alliances happening as soon as the alliance that did something wrong says something that the other alliance doesn't like? 3) Update Blitz -- War was declared 4 hours of the incident (right? Not 100% sure).. Does anyone else feel like that is short notice? Or have update blitzs become irrelevant due to the 25 hour nuke rule? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micheal Malone Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 The only thing update blitz does (if proper) is allow you quad attacks before your opponent is prepared sending them into anarchy and hopefully eliminating their ability to declare offensive wars allowing you better control. Given this day and age, nukes are inevitable and expected. Going into a war (and even most tech raids now days) you expect you will be nuked. The fact that warchests are the norm eliminate many of the pitfalls of nuclear anarchy and merely inflict damage which is easily re-attainable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1317623414' post='2814515'] 2) 1 strike policy -- In my experience diplomacy is given a few tries before war happens. How do you feel about war between two alliances happening as soon as the alliance that did something wrong says something that the other alliance doesn't like? 3) Update Blitz -- War was declared 4 hours of the incident (right? Not 100% sure).. Does anyone else feel like that is short notice? Or have update blitzs become irrelevant due to the 25 hour nuke rule? [/quote] No opinion on 1 .. Who says it's a must that diplomacy even be used? That's just a precedence all it's own. Each alliance, each sovereign - has nothing except that precedence stopping them from going straight to war. Blitz is just for strategic gain, as Malone said .. Nothing's made it more or less relevant. Also - short notice for who? The aggressed? They don't need any more notice of war than they get from the time the first cannon goes off till it hits their keep. If you're referring to the aggressor - perhaps not. They most likely were prepared for the possibility of war prior to actually making the decision to gear up. Example, when NSO geared up in 2 hours and Legion !@#$ it's pants. Some alliances are capable of this. It just takes competency, vigilance and communication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beau Vine Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1317623414' post='2814515']1) The 6 million -- NG states that they agreed to 6 million after war due to the fact UPN sustained more damage than what was done to [/quote] At first, I thought people were just trying to make the usual spin, where you yay/boo their ally/enemy mindlessly with no respect for facts involved. But seeing how many people brought it up... The 6 mil should not be counted as reparations [i]at all[/i] it's just a joke aiming at UPN, much like the "protected by Non Grata" term in individual surrender. [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1317623414' post='2814515']2) 1 strike policy -- In my experience diplomacy is given a few tries before war happens. How do you feel about war between two alliances happening as soon as the alliance that did something wrong says something that the other alliance doesn't like? [/quote] CB was established the moment UPN MoD raided VL. Attempting diplomatic resolution was act of good will, and internal policy of NG. I respect the former, but have no interest in meddling in the latter. [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1317623414' post='2814515']3) Update Blitz -- War was declared 4 hours of the incident (right? Not 100% sure).. Does anyone else feel like that is short notice? Or have update blitzs become irrelevant due to the 25 hour nuke rule?[/quote] Scheduling posting DoW in like T-15 min to update, would be short notice. Over 2 hours is chivalry, especially considering what timezones bulk of CN players live in. With all due respect to NG and UPN - that war really wasn't all that interesting as OP'd suggest. Edited October 3, 2011 by Beau Vine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 I don't think this war really sets any new precedents, except maybe more will people will charge $30m in reps when someone tech raids a protected AA. Although Non Grata never actually got that $30m, so not sure if its really an example to follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1317628315' post='2814535'] I don't think this war really sets any new precedents, except maybe more will people will charge $30m in reps when someone tech raids a protected AA. Although Non Grata never actually got that $30m, so not sure if its really an example to follow. [/quote] It's not new to ask for reparations that actual cover damages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 (edited) [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1317632137' post='2814541'] It's not new to ask for reparations that actual cover damages. [/quote] I thought that was closer to double the actual damages, although $30m just seems like a lot of slots to use towards reparations. Even if the money itself might not be very valuable to larger nations. Either way I don't think this war really sets any new precedents, as its not new for people to ask for high reps at the beginning of a conflict. Edited October 3, 2011 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladisvok Destino Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 Don't particularly see any precedents being set here. Some people don't try diplomacy at all, some people will give it one chance then go to plan B, some people will give it lots of attempts (usually depends on exact circumstances.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1317632899' post='2814542'] I thought that was closer to double the actual damages, although $30m just seems like a lot of slots to use towards reparations. Even if the money itself might not be very valuable to larger nations. Either way I don't think this war really sets any new precedents, as its not new for people to ask for high reps at the beginning of a conflict. [/quote] I never get why people say that larger reps are a waste of slots. The damage is done, so reparations should [b]at least[/b] cover those. If not in cash, then in tech. The offender messed up, not the defender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melancholy Culkin Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 The way I see it, if you get your panties in a bunch over reps, don't be an idiot and $%&@ around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 I don't see any precedent either. All of these things have been done in the past. Some ask for reparations, others don't. Some are quick on the trigger, others prefer long diplomatic talks. If they're both satisfied with the negotiations, it's all that matters. I can't see UPN really throwing a fit in this case, to be quite honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1317623414' post='2814515'] I want to discuss the precedents set by the most recent war: 1) The 6 million -- NG states that they agreed to 6 million after war due to the fact UPN sustained more damage than what was done to [/quote] The 6 Mil was just to piss off UPN and rub it in their faces that, even after a war they could get what they wanted in the first place. The fact that so many people are using that fact to spin it into a UPN victory is hilarious, though. [quote] 2) 1 strike policy -- In my experience diplomacy is given a few tries before war happens. How do you feel about war between two alliances happening as soon as the alliance that did something wrong says something that the other alliance doesn't like? [/quote] [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=90345"]This isn't a precedent at all.[/url] [quote] 3) Update Blitz -- War was declared 4 hours of the incident (right? Not 100% sure).. Does anyone else feel like that is short notice? Or have update blitzs become irrelevant due to the 25 hour nuke rule? [/quote] No, update blitzs are still relevant, just somewhat less so due to massive warchests and the ability to rebuild so quickly. Also.. 4 hours? Nemesis prepared an update blitz in 10 minutes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 This war dident set any precedents. Everything in the OP has been done before Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarmatian Empire Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 [quote]1) The 6 million -- NG states that they agreed to 6 million after war due to the fact UPN sustained more damage than what was done to [/quote] There is nothing to complain about...its 2 aid slots, random alliance x could come up to me and ask for 6 million and I'd give it to them, big deal. [quote]2) 1 strike policy -- In my experience diplomacy is given a few tries before war happens. How do you feel about war between two alliances happening as soon as the alliance that did something wrong says something that the other alliance doesn't like? [/quote] I think it was cool, obviously it's different from most because of the nature of NG. War friendly and decently active so they could pull it off, more power to em. 3) Update Blitz -- War was declared 4 hours of the incident (right? Not 100% sure).. Does anyone else feel like that is short notice? Or have update blitzs become irrelevant due to the 25 hour nuke rule? The blitz has been a long standing thing, nothing new. I think if more wars like this happened then things would be a little more exciting and fun. UPN didnt take days and days of crippling damage, they didnt get handed huge reps. Both alliances had a few days of fun and its all cool now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted October 3, 2011 Report Share Posted October 3, 2011 There are no rules and there are no precedents. There is only chaos and the winners are these who can master that chaos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted October 4, 2011 Report Share Posted October 4, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1317623414' post='2814515'] I want to discuss the precedents set by the most recent war[/quote] The one change I saw, at least from the outside watching the OWF debate, which I approve of is that people were less likely to feel any sympathy for arguments based on what the attacked nations did or did not do. This is fantastic and I hope it continues in future cases. In the past I remember a LOT more excuses being made for the raiders which were generally accepted, even by people not involved. Edited October 4, 2011 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph Black Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 I hope the president set here is that alliances wake up to the idea that diplomacy with a non ally isn't a must. An attack on a protected AA is an act of war in and of its self, to respond by defending your protected AA isn't something that should be pushed away from, but encouraged. The world would be more interesting and give lower level treaties like NAP's more meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted October 6, 2011 Report Share Posted October 6, 2011 The only precedent, which is now quite visible: Reps from deserters Anything else you're just a nitpicking freak. Botched raids aren't black and white and should be handled on a case-by-case basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Schrodinger Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 1) The 6 million -- NG states that they agreed to 6 million after war due to the fact UPN sustained more damage than what was done to That was just a joke. 2) 1 strike policy -- In my experience diplomacy is given a few tries before war happens. How do you feel about war between two alliances happening as soon as the alliance that did something wrong says something that the other alliance doesn't like? Diplomacy was attempted. It fell through. We didn't dance with the issue after that. I don't think CBs are needed in the first place, tho, so what does it matter of my opinion? 3) Update Blitz -- War was declared 4 hours of the incident (right? Not 100% sure).. Does anyone else feel like that is short notice? Or have update blitzs become irrelevant due to the 25 hour nuke rule? War was declared 4 hours before update. I forget the amount of time between the diplomacy falling through and the declaration (it could have been a shorter amount of time or longer amount of time). Overall, I daresay we have created no precedents. Unless the reps for deserters thing sticks. That would be pretty cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gofastleft Posted October 10, 2011 Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 just a couple notes: Diplomacy was attempted, UPN balked and NG called their bluff. I know UPN thought there would be more talks etc but there is nothing that says there has to be. If NG had waited, gave UPN an ultimatum then UPN would have had time to prepare for war. They could have gone to peace, changed defcon, bulked up etc. Being hit by a blitz 4 hours early caught them off-guard and unprepared. This was just as effective as an update blitz if not more so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='Leet Guy' timestamp='1317933720' post='2818841'] The only precedent, which is now quite visible: Reps from deserters [/quote] Yeah. And I really think this is a terrible idea. Not sure why it was put forward; is NG going to protect these nations now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kriekfreak Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='Haflinger' timestamp='1318505583' post='2824049'] Yeah. And I really think this is a terrible idea. Not sure why it was put forward; is NG going to protect these nations now? [/quote] A terrible idea? Why? Deserters are the worst kind and should be punished for deserting. Normally alliances won't do this since it will cause less deserters thus more power to opposing alliances. I think it's an excellent idea because it makes them lose a little (even if it's still far less damage than they would normally suffer). They can buy their surrender by paying a small amount of tech. After which they be treated like normal POWs. It shouldn't be a really difficult concept to grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1318505987' post='2824051'] A terrible idea? Why? Deserters are the worst kind and should be punished for deserting. Normally alliances won't do this since it will cause less deserters thus more power to opposing alliances. I think it's an excellent idea because it makes them lose a little (even if it's still far less damage than they would normally suffer). They can buy their surrender by paying a small amount of tech. After which they be treated like normal POWs. It shouldn't be a really difficult concept to grasp. [/quote] Surrender is [i]supposed[/i] to be more of a way for the occasional nation that just gets hit with the perfect storm of bad luck and bad timing and is taken out of the fight can be preserved, not a life-boat for a horde of rats that think their ship is sinking. Nonetheless it seems to be more often about the latter than the former. So it isn't really so shocking you doing this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leet Guy Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 [quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' timestamp='1318511091' post='2824063'] Surrender is [i]supposed[/i] to be more of a way for the occasional nation that just gets hit with the perfect storm of bad luck and bad timing and is taken out of the fight can be preserved, not a life-boat for a horde of rats that think their ship is sinking. Nonetheless it seems to be more often about the latter than the former. So it isn't really so shocking you doing this. [/quote] War is the price you pay for the protection afforded by the alliance during peace time. Skipping out on a war for "bad timing" doesn't make you free of repayment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deth2munkies Posted October 13, 2011 Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 (edited) There's no real precedent set by this war other than the confirmation that NG are jerks. People have been attacked for less, people have been attacked during negotiations before, unreasonable reps have been demanded before. Edited October 13, 2011 by deth2munkies 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.