A Briefest Comment on RIA

[Schad]

[quote name='Krashnaia' timestamp='1322736606' post='2858091']
The irony here is that the people who could rightifuly call out RIA, their allies, NpO, have no problem with RIA's course of action. And the people yelling like a rejected teenager, are the guys who support the attack against NpO.

On a normal place, a lynching mob would not complain about the bystanders not stepping in to help the lynched. But Planet Bob is not a normal place.
[/quote]

It's hardly surprising that people are somewhat less than impressed when a week brings a seamless transition from this:

[quote name='James Dahl' timestamp='1321999778' post='2849268']
How does it not make sense? We have the same people trying to kill us both, so if they start going after either one of us, we will stand together.
[/quote]

to this:

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322720081' post='2857884']
No.. the general strategy used during wars is let's think and look at our options maybe theres a better way to help our ally then to just honor a treaty because its there, even though they really don't need the extra back-up at the moment on the alliances attacking them.
[/quote]


...and from "sup TOP, come at me!" bravado to "they don't really need our assistance too badly, and this isn't really our war". I'm not sure how anyone can be shocked that people haven't exactly responded with nods of understanding to that sudden change in tack.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Schad

[Commander shepard]

Polar wants to break the cycle, they don't want anyone to feel like they want revenge after the war which is very honorable, they and their allies who need redemption are going take all the pixel lost as payment.


o/ Polar

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1322741902' post='2858119']
Polar wants to break the cycle, they don't want anyone to feel like they want revenge after the war which is very honorable, they and their allies who need redemption are going take all the pixel lost as payment.


o/ Polar
[/quote]

I think UPN and STA bled enough for Polaris' stupidity. I think they are just waiting it to spiral out to ex-heg through UPN's ties before they decide if they are going to enter at all.

Polaris was better of not asking the help of any of their allies. It would also have been better for RIA not to have signed the MDP when they knew Polaris was gonna get targeted.

[EViL0nE]

[quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1322735847' post='2858087']
they will defeat us with forced jokes about blue balls
[/quote]
Looks like it's already starting to work.
However, I'm glad to see you guys have already moved on to anger. I can't wait to see what kind of threads get posted when you reach bargaining.

[Neo Uruk]

[quote name='EViL0nE' timestamp='1322743553' post='2858129']
Looks like it's already starting to work.
However, I'm glad to see you guys have already moved on to anger. I can't wait to see what kind of threads get posted when you reach bargaining.
[/quote]
Ya Voytek lol why you so mad man

[SpacingOutMan]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1322716436' post='2857667']
Wait, so you're saying that they haven't been in contact with their allies about what's going on? Not buying it.
[/quote]

What are you going on about? I'm not a member of RIA, so I have only the faintest idea about what RIA membership thinks about the war overall (democracy and all that jazz). Likewise, before the other night I had not been able to talk to really [i]anyone[/i] due to communication issues (OOC: Bermuda internet blows), so I was personally out of the loop.

[Baron Terror]

I remember in the WotC Polar and its allies effectively decided that they would just go down in flames and try and do as much damage as possible, as quickly as possible, before they were all out of pixels. That may have not been the case but it looked like that from an outside pov. Now I know RIA are not cowards, and I highly doubt they would have even signed with NpO without knowing they would have to defend them, however I find that its funny how much has changed in the culture of the game since 2008, since now every war seems to be a limited one, with some alliance playing the martyr so there allies can live another day. It seems a lot alliance have pretty much given up playing, and justify this by asking why should they bother indulging the collective bloodlust on our part when they know they have no hope of winning. Its like when you play monopoly and give up half way through because the other guy has hotels on all the greens and dark blues.

The problem with that is that nothing will happen until the deed is done, as every global war usually creates the grudges that lead onto the next one (not in every case but you know what I mean). So no one is going to get off your back unless they all get the massive global war that we have all been waiting for.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Baron Terror' timestamp='1322751465' post='2858191'][...], since now every war seems to be a limited one, with some alliance playing the martyr so there allies can live another day. It seems a lot alliance have pretty much given up playing, and justify this by asking why should they bother indulging the collective bloodlust on our part when they know they have no hope of winning.
[/quote]
Well, an alternative to this idea is that we're coming more and more close to a true multipolar world. Which means (groups of) alliances are more willing to act independently, taking into account what CB is being used and will judge the merits of said CB before involving themselves in some coalition where various parties are most often only looking after their self-interest.

Whatever the case, it's an interesting development for sure.

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Baron Terror' timestamp='1322751465' post='2858191']
I remember in the WotC Polar and its allies effectively decided that they would just go down in flames and try and do as much damage as possible, as quickly as possible, before they were all out of pixels. That may have not been the case but it looked like that from an outside pov. Now I know RIA are not cowards, and I highly doubt they would have even signed with NpO without knowing they would have to defend them, however I find that its funny how much has changed in the culture of the game since 2008, since now every war seems to be a limited one, with some alliance playing the martyr so there allies can live another day. It seems a lot alliance have pretty much given up playing, and justify this by asking why should they bother indulging the collective bloodlust on our part when they know they have no hope of winning. Its like when you play monopoly and give up half way through because the other guy has hotels on all the greens and dark blues.

The problem with that is that nothing will happen until the deed is done, as every global war usually creates the grudges that lead onto the next one (not in every case but you know what I mean). So no one is going to get off your back unless they all get the massive global war that we have all been waiting for.
[/quote]
You remember wrong, Polar's strategy was to just let themselves get rolled without fighting back and hope for the best.

[Londo Mollari]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1322753792' post='2858207']
You remember wrong, Polar's strategy was to just let themselves get rolled without fighting back and hope for the best.
[/quote]

Correct. It was the CnG strategy and the CnG way to attempt to do as much damage as possible without regard for the consequences. At the time, MK was really the only CnG alliance with any real sum of nukes, so they did just about all of the heavy lifting. MK shaved about 3 million NS off of NPO's 20, and a good bit of that was permanent, because many of the big nations without SDIs that MK targeted deleted afterwards in bill-lock.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Londo Mollari' timestamp='1322756511' post='2858225']
deleted afterwards in bill-lock.[/quote]

Admin bless all those that go and never come back

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1322752845' post='2858197']
Well, an alternative to this idea is that we're coming more and more close to a true multipolar world. Which means (groups of) alliances are more willing to act independently, taking into account what CB is being used and will judge the merits of said CB before involving themselves in some coalition where various parties are most often only looking after their self-interest.

Whatever the case, it's an interesting development for sure.
[/quote]
That's hilarious.

The fact of the matter is that several alliances took this new multipolar world as an opportunity to blur the lines a lot more and the blocs are all checking each other into a stalemate because a few alliances have decided to prefer honoring lone treaties rather than understanding treaties are political tools and should reflect an alliance's politics, not its facebook friends list.

You can be friends with a lot of people. That doesn't mean you need a treaty with all of them.

I don't know the dream world you think you live in but if you think people are really basing their position on an objective analysis of the validity of the CB presented, I think you're definitely not on the same planet.

[Tromp]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1322757826' post='2858235']
The fact of the matter is that several alliances took this new multipolar world as an opportunity to blur the lines a lot more and the blocs are all checking each other into a stalemate because a few alliances have decided to prefer honoring lone treaties rather than understanding treaties are political tools and should reflect an alliance's politics, not its facebook friends list.

You can be friends with a lot of people. That doesn't mean you need a treaty with all of them. [/quote]
I don't disagree at all with you here. It's a Realist point of view and that has dominated CN for as long as I can remember. Anyone can play that though, it isn't hard. And anyone who doesn't understand the workings of our world should read [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107018&view=findpost&p=2858215]Londo's post here[/url]. (I enjoyed it a lot Londo.)

[quote]
I don't know the dream world you think you live in but if you think people are really basing their position on an objective analysis of the validity of the CB presented, I think you're definitely not on the same planet.
[/quote]
Nah, we're on the same planet. One can play a Realist game and still base their position at least partly on the validity of the CB though.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Tromp

[OsRavan]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1322752845' post='2858197']
Well, an alternative to this idea is that we're coming more and more close to a true multipolar world. Which means (groups of) alliances are more willing to act independently, taking into account what CB is being used and will judge the merits of said CB before involving themselves in some coalition where various parties are most often only looking after their self-interest.

Whatever the case, it's an interesting development for sure.
[/quote]

while i may do agree with you on this being a multipolar world... that's not the issue here. That would be a better argument if you were talking about someone using non-chaining clauses to avoid joining a war that started three or four chains ago over something they dont care about.

However, in a situation like this... Polar's direct allies have no excuse to not come in (note: i've no idea if RIA is planning to not honor commitments or are just slow as heck.) Polar's allies arent disinterested third parties. Nor is this a non-chaining scenario. To be blunt, IMO there are only two reasons for a polar ally not to have entered. 1) Its part of some stupid convoluted strategy and they are planning to enter eventually but are delaying it for some (likely foolish) reason 2) they want to preserve their pixels.

Edited December 1, 2011 by OsRavan

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Tromp' timestamp='1322759530' post='2858249']
Nah, we're on the same planet. One can play a Realist game and still base their position at least partly on the validity of the CB though.
[/quote]
Counterpoint:

FOK supported Doomhouse in its most recent war against the NPO, going as far as to declare on their enemies, however small they may have been. Umbrella and MK were the aggressors there and the people you DoWed on could have easily been handled by just about anybody else.

In TOP-IRON's latest escapade to the Arctic Pole, you are supporting the other side, albeit not in a military fashion yet.

What is the difference, if not for treaty lines? It's certainly not the [i]validity of the CB[/i].

Edited December 1, 2011 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[McShady511]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322720081' post='2857884']
No.. the general strategy used during wars is let's think and look at our options maybe theres a better way to help our ally then to just honor a treaty because its there, even though they really don't need the extra back-up at the moment on the alliances attacking them.

You should try it some time.
[/quote]
Don't worry. The AA's of SF will sign a treaty, and when you get attacked they will spend several days/going on a week to decide if it is really the best option to honor a treaty they signed. I mean, isn't this what you would do? Cause they are really the best people to decide if you need help in your war. Right?

So let me try this: I am an ally of NpO. NpO is attacked, is losing and will surrender in due time. So.... Yeah I think I am just going to sit this one out. Self-respect is fleeting, but Infra is forever, right? The treaty is there but I don't think it is the best option to honor it.

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1322737875' post='2858103']
Ardus has been doing this for the past eight months. A fact I doubt will be disputed by many, if any. It should be noted that he no longer holds the official position he did in order to further that goal. As someone who put considerable time and effort into preventing those endeavors from happening when he did, I do enjoy the "I just want to see if anyone can stop me," mantra having receded into the "I know I've failed to do it on my own, but maybe if I advertise the steel bear-trap you might step into it," routine that has worked oh so well in previous time trotted out yet again.[/quote]

Honestly, I have no idea where you get this drivel from, you continue to amaze me with your ability to make !@#$ up. Ardus stepped aside because of [ooc]real life time constraints[/ooc] that he knew would make him incapable of leading an alliance. I can only commend him for taking his bow before letting his inactivity drag down the efficiency of the Kingdom.


[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1322737875' post='2858103']What RIA does is up to RIA. Technically, all of XX has cause to enter on Polaris' behalf as it shares an oDaP via Article VI. Chaining/Non-Chaining can be spun upside down and every which way. That said, this war literally has nothing to do with XX and the only physical treaty is optional.[/quote]

No idea why you had to bring XX into this conversation. I realize the obviously treaty connections, but it's damn near impossible to see those coming into play given the reluctance to even see RIA act. If XX will enter this war, then I sincerely feel bad for the alliance you once led, given how you completely !@#$ on the little good-will they still had as an alliance and then bolted at the eleventh hour for an alliance poised to come out on top. It's an act of cowardice that I will never cease to find humor in when I see your name.

[quote name='IYIyTh' timestamp='1322737875' post='2858103']While all the fuss is about the fact that RIA signed this "short term," MDP that would seem to exist for this sole purpose, I haven't seen anywhere that Polaris has requested or even wants RIA to enter on its behalf at this time. I can't say I wouldn't mind fighting some cactuars, or other forces given some of the mobilization orders out there....but the whole demonizing and baiting routine was old several years ago. It simply doesn't work.

This isn't a video game, there are no set : If X then Y. In some seeds, Poland's independence isn't guarenteed by the United Kingdom if you act quick enough.[/quote]


You're right about one thing, this isn't a game of events where X then Y happens. You have a reputation for an alliance, but poor decisions and actions can easily outweigh what occurred in the past. Therefore, you should also realize how hilarious this is for anyone who knows the former history of the RIA and their commitment to war. Delta has been quick to point out that they've gone to bat for allies in the past, but he forgets to note how politically simple those decisions were. Now he's backed into a corner, where he can either defend his flashy new treaty and save some face for the RIA, or abandon it and get laughed at for what might be one of the worst political decisions we have [b]ever[/b] witnessed. Mind you, this is literally an alliance that has lost nearly half a million NS before even entering the conflict, so I guess that speaks volumes for what matters most for the RIA.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Leet Guy

[Aeternos Astramora]

[quote name='Holy Ruler' timestamp='1322738214' post='2858104']
Make us
[/quote]
I wouldn't say that. They've done it before.

I think maybe this just means that Polar agrees with IRON and TOP that they made a mistake in the BPW, and they think that they are dutifully taking their beating for it.

[EViL0nE]

[quote name='Baron Terror' timestamp='1322751465' post='2858191'] however I find that its funny how much has changed in the culture of the game since 2008, since now every war seems to be a limited one, with some alliance playing the martyr so there allies can live another day. It seems a lot alliance have pretty much given up playing, and justify this by asking why should they bother indulging the [b]collective bloodlust on [u]our[/u] part[/b] when they know they have no hope of winning.
[/quote]
Formatting mine.
[url=http://cybernations.wikia.com/index.php?title=The_International&action=historysubmit&diff=426092&oldid=423618]I hope you see the irony here.[/url]

Edited December 1, 2011 by EViL0nE

[Steve Buscemi]

I don't buy that Polar is asking RIA to sit this one out. You don't call in a few of your allies and not the other ones. It's extremely insulting to the ones you called in to get stomped. It's not good strategy, either. RIA is asking NpO not to bring them in or just plain saying "no" or "wait" to NpO's requests. It's really that simple. I'm sure SF/XX are trying to drag more alliances to their side (unsuccessfully) and now they are a bit scared to get rolled with a dwindling coalition.

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1322644009' post='2856812']
RIA declaring on TOP makes very little difference for Polar, it would have a bad impact on RIA though. In the end the gains are way too low and the cost too high which doesn't make it beneficial for either.
[/quote]
So you need to perform a cost-benefit analysis before deciding wither or not to honor a treaty?

Interesting, I guess.

[Dcrews]

It's common knowledge that RIA is using Polar's other allies as meatshields. RIAs stance has gone from, "we will help our allies" to "we will help out eventually, patience" to "we are considering the circumstances and formulating a strategy" to "there are more things an ally can do other than declaring war" "Polar doesn't need help, so....". It is painfully obvious that RIA does not have the intention of entering this conflict. They made a MDP pact in an effort to punk TOP down, TOP called the bluff and now SF is wetting their pants with the possiblity of having to defend Polar.

I keep hearing how RIA declared on both sides of the past war so their friendship is like some priceless comodity. Considering your past actions declaring on one side should be cake. If you intended on declaring that is. Don't give me crap saying "We consider all treaties no matter how small significant" IRON has an NAP with you Polar has a MDP one takes presedence over the other. Two guesses which one.

[Varianz]

Polar really should have just picked one or the other: call in all their allies, or don't call in any. Now, the few they did call in (or were willing to come) are just going to get steamrolled because everyone's frustrated and is going to try and force their hand in calling in more support.

[King Louis the II]

[quote name='Believland' timestamp='1322717789' post='2857697']
Oh, why is it always the !@#$%* alliances that don't know how to follow a treaty?
[/quote]

Not the point. I am not discussing whether alliance A or B are good or not, even if they follow their treaties or not. My point is if you think RIA must support Polar the same is valid for TPF-STA. If you say that "TPF dont need to support STA because is not chaining" you can not say that is wrong for RIA to say their treaty was only valid "if requested" (and by the way I still think the RIA-Polar treaty is non chaining but this is a matter of discussion).

to read someone in TPF posting a long text on how immoral and coward RIA is for not jumping in the war, and at the same time "oh but our treaty is non chaining" makes me vomit.

[Dcrews]

The thing is Polar was suppose to be SF's meatshield when they eventually got themselves rolled, not vise versa. Considering the socio-political atmosphere at the time of the treaty if you did not intended to honor the treaty, it was a stupid move on your governments part. Now people want to roll you now more than before congratz.

However if you do decide to grow a pair, your hesitance could have caused permanent damage to an ally. Once agian congratz.