The dawn of the Iron Age

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1325662335' post='2892158']
It's no one's fault, it's just a fairly obvious and predictable result given the nature of the war where R&R was the only ally on the polar/loosing side. So it's the fault of whoever came up with that policy. None of FOK's allies were attacked in a way that would trigger mandatory defense, since all of them chained into the conflict.
[/quote]

So your only argument is that FOK honors its treaties.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325662304' post='2892156']
Remains to be tested.
[/quote]
It has been tested every single war and has always held.

At this point nobody would dare violate the treaty because even C&G's enemies would be like "dudes....wtf"

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1325662078' post='2892153']
You still don't get it. No help to Asg would have come. Bottomline. You are arguing for FOK and VE (and PB, based off the comments of WC) to be attacked and for CSN not to be, not for Asg to be helped.

[/quote]

You know, considering your arguments about VE not immediately defending GOD this war this whole stance regarding Asgaard is very comical, if not hypocritical.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1325662078' post='2892153']
You still don't get it. No help to Asg would have come. Bottomline. You are arguing for FOK and VE (and PB, based off the comments of WC) to be attacked and for CSN not to be, not for Asg to be helped.
[/quote]
He's arguing you should have taken pressure off your ally instead of fighting someone who was already done with this war. You guys would have taken tons of damage, yes, but it would have cut Asgaard's losses. But hey, it doesn't really matter what went down, as long as Asgaard is OK with it.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Gibsonator21

[Bob]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1325662519' post='2892163']
You know, considering your arguments about VE not immediately defending GOD this war this whole stance regarding Asgaard is very comical, if not hypocritical.
[/quote]
I actually don't have anything against your stance, my argument was to claim its defense what you have done is ludicrous. Two different arguments, as I am hardly claiming we are defending Asgaard.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1325662424' post='2892161']
So your only argument is that FOK honors its treaties.
[/quote]
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or did you just not read the last sentence of my post? I'm assuming you know how non-chaining clauses work.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Azaghul

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1325662840' post='2892170']
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or did you just not read the last sentence of my post? I'm assuming you know how non-chaining clauses work.
[/quote]

I did read it, you're the one trying to paint this as some plot by FOK to help out the SF/XX/Polar side. FOK defends its allies and doesn't play e-lawyer with their commitments, considering you are their allies you should know this.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' timestamp='1325663176' post='2892175']
I did read it, you're the one trying to paint this as some plot by FOK to help out the SF/XX/Polar side. FOK defends its allies and doesn't play e-lawyer with their commitments, considering you are their allies you should know this.
[/quote]
How is choosing only to honor one of the two optional portions of your treaties not elawyering?

Just to be clear I'm not buying into your premise that all "elawyering" is bad.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Azaghul

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1325663627' post='2892178']
How is choosing only to honor one of the two optional portions of your treaties not elawyering?

Just to be clear I'm not buying into your premise that all "elawyering" is bad.
[/quote]

I don't think all elawyering is bad either, but FOK said that if any of its allies were attacked they would defend them. Honestly that's a stance I personally respect.

[Monster]

It's understandable given the history between FOK and R&R, but in most cases I wouldn't be for something like that. GO went to bat for FOK in the last war without question. Maybe the counters could have been limited instead. VE took a good approach to a bad situation.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1325654249' post='2892011']
I've got it down that you outnumber the other side roughly 1.7 to 1 NS.

Edit: That's total, not a single front.
[/quote]
Hence why I said "given the constraints we operated under". I agree with the overall figure of 1.7 or 1.8 to 1 in pure NS. However, we had several alliances who couldn't fight on X or Y front because of X, Y or Z friendship/treaty (and sometimes even A, B, C, D, E, F, G and so on). That meant our firepower was going to be, often times, inefficient and even wasted. We bypassed some of that by doing a lot of chaining and a few preemptive strikes. However, the other side could have planned their counter-attacks well and they would have done a lot more damage while taking a lot less hits.

Big examples are Sparta and Polaris sitting massively in Peace Mode while the rest of their allies (and even alliance mates) are fighting (at this point, it's definitely not a war tactic), many alliances from SF/XX wasting their manpower by hitting smaller AAs from ours, the entrance of SF/XX elements in a disorganized fashion and Farkistan/FAN doing a retarded preemptive strike that brought NPO to the frontline.

What I'm saying is this:
Pre-War: 1.7 to 1 NS advantage
Constraints from our side: 1.2 to 1 NS advantage
SF/XX doing stupid stuff: 1.2 to 0.6 NS advantage.

They simply had to get their !@#$ together and enter the war. They were free to choose how and where. We had a handful of major alliances, on our side, who were exposed to counters from SF-XX-Polarsphere, yet never got any attacks (or few smaller AAs in the case of IRON).

I'm not saying they would have won. I'm saying it wouldn't be this bad of a bloodbath.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1325664129' post='2892180']
It's understandable given the history between FOK and R&R, but in most cases I wouldn't be for something like that. GO went to bat for FOK in the last war without question. Maybe the counters could have been limited instead. VE took a good approach to a bad situation.
[/quote]

We're taking plenty of flak for it anyway, so can't blame FOK.

[Gibsonator21]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1325664358' post='2892185']
Hence why I said "given the constraints we operated under". I agree with the overall figure of 1.7 or 1.8 to 1 in pure NS. However, we had several alliances who couldn't fight on X or Y front because of X, Y or Z friendship/treaty (and sometimes even A, B, C, D, E, F, G and so on). That meant our firepower was going to be, often times, inefficient and even wasted. We bypassed some of that by doing a lot of chaining and a few preemptive strikes. However, the other side could have planned their counter-attacks well and they would have done a lot more damage while taking a lot less hits.

Big examples are Sparta and Polaris sitting massively in Peace Mode while the rest of their allies (and even alliance mates) are fighting (at this point, it's definitely not a war tactic), many alliances from SF/XX wasting their manpower by hitting smaller AAs from ours, the entrance of SF/XX elements in a disorganized fashion and Farkistan/FAN doing a retarded preemptive strike that brought NPO to the frontline.

What I'm saying is this:
Pre-War: 1.7 to 1 NS advantage
Constraints from our side: 1.2 to 1 NS advantage
SF/XX doing stupid stuff: 1.2 to 0.6 NS advantage.

They simply had to get their !@#$ together and enter the war. They were free to choose how and where. We had a handful of major alliances, on our side, who were exposed to counters from SF-XX-Polarsphere, yet never got any attacks (or few smaller AAs in the case of IRON).

I'm not saying they would have won. I'm saying it wouldn't be this bad of a bloodbath.
[/quote]
How exactly do you come up with those numbers? I got the 1.7:1 from my [url="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuR-T25B6QjTdGh6YlBTZVMyOWpsb2Zmbmt5SFlQVmc&hl=en_US#gid=0"]stats sheet[/url]. Yours just look assumed. I mean, saying SF/XX aren't getting hit hard, or even having an advantage is a joke. The only alliance not getting rolled from those two blocks is R&R; otherwise we're all heavily outnumbered.

I do agree that this war could have been played better from our side, and had we played our cards right we would have caused much more damage. However, we still would have taken at least as much damage as we have with the way this war has gone, so to say it wouldn't be this bad of a bloodbath is pretty wrong...

Edited January 4, 2012 by Gibsonator21

[Krack]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1325661759' post='2892149']
Anyway, it doesn't matter much what I say. I'm sure other people have noticed ASG become a friendly fire casualty in order to fill your blood lust to get SF. So I'll just leave it in the hands of those who actually matter.
[/quote]

Ahahaha, that was so hard to predict:

[img]http://i565.photobucket.com/albums/ss93/alohaalliance/Aloha/AlohaProp/mjolnershield.png[/img]

That got uploaded in August.

[img]http://i565.photobucket.com/albums/ss93/alohaalliance/Aloha/AlohaProp/mjolnernominal.png[/img]

This too.

EDIT:
ex·pend·a·ble/ikˈspendəbəl/
Adjective:

1. (of an object) Designed to be used only once and then abandoned or destroyed.
2. Of little significance when compared to an overall purpose, and therefore able to be abandoned.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Krack

[Tygaland]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1325666074' post='2892204']
How exactly do you come up with those numbers? I got the 1.7:1 from my [url="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuR-T25B6QjTdGh6YlBTZVMyOWpsb2Zmbmt5SFlQVmc&hl=en_US#gid=0"]stats sheet[/url]. Yours just look assumed. I mean, saying SF/XX aren't getting hit hard, or even having an advantage is a joke. The only alliance not getting rolled from those two blocks is R&R; otherwise we're all heavily outnumbered.

I do agree that this war could have been played better from our side, and had we played our cards right we would have caused much more damage. However, we still would have taken at least as much damage as we have with the way this war has gone, so to say it wouldn't be this bad of a bloodbath is pretty wrong...
[/quote]

But with the fudged figures their victory is so much more glorious and their military prowess so much more legendary.

[Krack]

I thought TOP was good with numbers?* The funniest idea of the year has to be the notion that TOP has delayed this for a full year because it thought it only had a 1.2 to 1 advantage, while every other alliance on Planet Bob has known for at least 6 months that you outnumber the other side 2 to 1. It's so stupidly ludicrous that I lean towards believing you're just making up BS because you want to be able to claim you had conceived of some magnificent war strategy; or some other propaganda nobody else cares about. Still, since it's TOP, it's hard to ever really know where the "not really having a clear understanding of anything going on around them" ends and the "just making up BS to make themselves feel better" begins.

[size="1"]*At least we should certainly hope so; we [i]know[/i] they're not good at things like selecting competent leadership and being respected.[/size]

[Monster]

The OWF seems to like TOP now, so I don't know. Most people who were egging them on before they lost have changed their minds completely. I think it's an issue in terms of how they were brought down to begin with to how people act towards them when they're less of a dominating force. It's still the same alliance to me and my opinions on them have never been based on the fickle attitudes of others.

And if they were fed misinformation on how certain alliances would act, I wouldn't be surprised.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Roquentin

[MCRABT]

We are the pawn that planned and executed a war in line with our allies that was in our best interest. Personally I find the whole follower cliché rather splendid as it allows for complacency. Complacency that we have had a great deal of fun exploiting over the past 12 months.

The OP is a hyperbole, as is the idea that IRON is incapable of setting it's own an agenda and working to further it, regardless of what Doitzel or any of these other less significant relics around here may think.

Edited January 4, 2012 by MCRABT

[Leet Guy]

[quote name='Gibsonator21' timestamp='1325666074' post='2892204']
How exactly do you come up with those numbers? I got the 1.7:1 from my [url="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuR-T25B6QjTdGh6YlBTZVMyOWpsb2Zmbmt5SFlQVmc&hl=en_US#gid=0"]stats sheet[/url]. Yours just look assumed. I mean, saying SF/XX aren't getting hit hard, or even having an advantage is a joke. The only alliance not getting rolled from those two blocks is R&R; otherwise we're all heavily outnumbered.

I do agree that this war could have been played better from our side, and had we played our cards right we would have caused much more damage. However, we still would have taken at least as much damage as we have with the way this war has gone, so to say it wouldn't be this bad of a bloodbath is pretty wrong...
[/quote]

Of course they're assumed numbers - it's a rough estimate of the true NS we had to work with given the many other alliances that refused to hit here or there due to "interests" of whatever variety. RnR seems to be the only front that effectively exposed these issues. You could have at least made us sweat a bit. Certainly could have marginalized your losses on some fronts, but I guess that would have required more cross-bloc communication.

[Daimos]

Glad I opened this thread. I did not expect to find answers in why Roq was no longer in Umbrella. I have questioned and argued the DH pre-emptive strike on NPO during that time. It just did not make sense to me to risk so much on a hunch. I noticed than that Roq seemed to be the only one actively defending it’s validity. I surmised than that it must have been his idea. This thread has been unexpectedly very illuminating.

In regards to the OP, it has been MK’s age since Karma. That has not change.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Daimos

[Charles the Great]

R & R is an orange alliance.........thus they are inherently awesome and terrific even if they are on the ebil side.

o/Orange 4 life.

[Bob Janova]

There's some interesting material in this thread, particularly the hostility between Roq and the MK with which he cooperated on so much in the past.

IRON has never been an alliance interested in being the driver in a hegemony. Its reputation as a follower is well deserved, and although they now (for the last year or so) have a more assertive and proactive stance, they're still more likely to be an ally agreeing to things rather than the central alliance directing them.

FOK made a choice to threaten an entrance on the Polar side; as has been pointed out already, all their allies in the war entered of their own volition and therefore non-chaining clauses meant they had no obligations anywhere. Their position with R&R was very similar to VE's with GOD, except that VE arguably did have an obligation if GOD had demanded that they follow it (though I guess we would have seen a cancellation in that case).

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1325700132' post='2892408']
~snip~
except that VE arguably did have an obligation if GOD had demanded that they follow it ([u]though I guess we would have seen a cancellation in that case[/u]).
[/quote]
I should hope not, i doubt it. And if it did happen that way, facepalms would be heard across Digiterra.

[berbers]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' timestamp='1325659820' post='2892116']
Let's put this more clearly for you. We wouldn't be defending our ally, we would be fighting FOK. That better?

[b]The only point of a declaration of war on RnR would be to fight FOK, not to help Asgaard[/b]. I'm just going to keep stating it in slightly different ways until it becomes clear for you.

Btw, this assumes that FOK hits both DT/RoK for countering RnR. If FOK only hit one of us, there would be no way to get support for the one hit (as VE would counter whoever hits them I would assume, though I am not sure) so we would now have a Mjolnir alliance actually outgunned and outnumbered significantly. How has this improved the situation at all?
[/quote]

Don't get me wrong, I love Mj, but couldn't you have DoW'd RnR heavy and used some of that NS deployed elsewhere to counter VE/FOK? I mean look at the huge NS advantage there were on other fronts, some of that could have been redeployed?

Maybe not, they are both heavily treatied and you probably would have had a hard time finding people capable of countering that weren't directly allied.

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for Mj's planning, I'm betting the scenerios/decisions that were discussed would have been very awesome!

Either way, Mj > CnG, DT/RoK > ODN, Bob > Omni, life continues.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1325704952' post='2892450']
Don't get me wrong, I love Mj, but couldn't you have DoW'd RnR heavy and used some of that NS deployed elsewhere to counter VE/FOK? I mean look at the huge NS advantage there were on other fronts, some of that could have been redeployed?

Maybe not, they are both heavily treatied and you probably would have had a hard time finding people capable of countering that weren't directly allied.

I would have loved to be a fly on the wall for Mj's planning, I'm betting the scenerios/decisions that were discussed would have been very awesome!

Either way, Mj > CnG, DT/RoK > ODN, Bob > Omni, life continues.
[/quote]

I would much prefer being allied to CnG than MJ.