Opportunity Lost

[Seerow]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326575006' post='2899648']
I haven't seen any threads by FAN or Fark complaining about the war continuing[/quote]

Of course they're not complaining about the war continuing, they're the ones keeping the war going.

[quote]so maybe NPO should do more to convince Fark/FAN they are losing by beating them on the battlefield, rather than trying to convince the OWF of that with threads like this.
[/quote]

Except statistics don't lie. Fark and FAN have been annihilated this war. FARK has lost more tech than all but a handful of alliances ever had. They have lost more than half of their nation strength. They have been defeated, they just don't want to admit it. The alternate possibility is they no longer care about their own nations and want to continue nipping at the NPO's lower ranks causing more damage where they can until their warchests run out. In which case NPO is fully justified for demanding reparations for the extra weeks this war has been drawn out for no reason.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1326575368' post='2899654']
Except statistics don't lie. Fark and FAN have been annihilated this war. FARK has lost more tech than all but a handful of alliances ever had. They have lost more than half of their nation strength. They have been defeated, they just don't want to admit it. The alternate possibility is they no longer care about their own nations and want to continue nipping at the NPO's lower ranks causing more damage where they can until their warchests run out. In which case NPO is fully justified for demanding reparations for the extra weeks this war has been drawn out for no reason.
[/quote]
I think NPO's justification would come from the fact that they were declared on in the first place to ask reps, not that the enemy didn't admit defeat fast enough. Keep pounding away at them if you think you are winning and have fun doing so, I don't see what this rush is among some alliances to wrap wars up so quickly.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Methrage

[enderland]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326575569' post='2899657']
I think NPO's justification would come from the fact that they were declared on in the first place to ask reps, not that the enemy didn't admit defeat fast enough. Keep pounding away at them if you think you are winning and have fun doing so, I don't see what this rush is among some alliances to wrap wars up so quickly.
[/quote]

Nothing you have said in this thread makes much sense at all. I don't know why I bother responding, so:

1) This war has been going on for over a month.
2) FARK/FAN attacked NPO without any CB whatsoever
3) in spite of #2, NPO offered them white peace after they had lost significant NS and nearly all their military strength
4) they said "no we haven't lost!" and voluntarily stay at war


Now, because of #4, the losing alliances are attempting to broker peace on their own terms in spite of a ridiculously generous offer from NPO. Losing alliances do not dictate terms to winners. They cannot come back to NPO at any point and say "why you so unfair?!" since they are being stubborn and childish over the whole issue of surrender in the first place.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326576428' post='2899660']
Nothing you have said in this thread makes much sense at all. I don't know why I bother responding, so:

1) This war has been going on for over a month.
2) FARK/FAN attacked NPO without any CB whatsoever
3) in spite of #2, NPO offered them white peace after they had lost significant NS and nearly all their military strength
4) they said "no we haven't lost!" and voluntarily stay at war


Now, because of #4, the losing alliances are attempting to broker peace on their own terms in spite of a ridiculously generous offer from NPO. Losing alliances do not dictate terms to winners. They cannot come back to NPO at any point and say "why you so unfair?!" since they are being stubborn and childish over the whole issue of surrender in the first place.
[/quote]
I could say the same about this thread, what was its point again? I'm guessing to discuss the war between NPO and Fark/FAN, as well as what terms people think should come of it. I'm not complaining, but just giving my thoughts that FAN/Fark not surrendering fast enough isn't deserving of paying huge reps. Maybe some reps would make sense, I'm not saying NPO has to give white peace here.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Methrage

[xoindotnler]

Having it on paper that they wanted to last the war that long could come in handy as PR if the pull the "you kept us at war for years again" card. Brehon you evil evil [s]person[/s] animal !

[enderland]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326576690' post='2899663']
I could say the same about this thread, what was its point again? I'm guessing to discuss the war between NPO and Fark/FAN, as well as what terms people think should come of it. I'm not complaining, but just giving my thoughts that FAN/Fark not surrendering fast enough isn't deserving of paying huge reps. Maybe some reps would make sense, I'm not saying NPO has to give white peace here.
[/quote]

The point of this thread is to serve as reference or public service announcement in the chance FARK/FAN/Sparta or whoever else is too proud to accept a white peace start complaining in the future about how NPO is being evil and won't offer them peace without reps or harsh terms.

Clearly, you missed this somewhere.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326577094' post='2899668']
The point of this thread is to serve as reference or public service announcement in the chance FARK/FAN/Sparta or whoever else is too proud to accept a white peace start complaining in the future about how NPO is being evil and won't offer them peace without reps or harsh terms.

Clearly, you missed this somewhere.
[/quote]
I think its a pointless thread then, they can post their victory thread after they've won imo.

[enderland]

[quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326577271' post='2899669']
I think its a pointless thread then, they can post their victory thread after they've won imo.
[/quote]

[quote]Edit: Also an alliance is defeated when they admit defeat, rather than when they meet some lost NS threshold.
[/quote]

This is one reason (of several...) you make no sense. By your standards an alliance can be 100% bill locked and ZI'ed yet not defeated.

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='Seerow' timestamp='1326473799' post='2898811']
Why wait for next war?

They clearly preempted you, and you won. They don't appreciate the white peace offers, I say start adding on 50 tech per member for every day they avoid taking peace.
[/quote]

Took the words out of my head...no white peace ok...time for reps. That is protocol.

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326577505' post='2899670']
This is one reason (of several...) you make no sense. By your standards an alliance can be 100% bill locked and ZI'ed yet not defeated.
[/quote]
I don't think we need a thread telling us they intend to ask reps, then another one when they actually get the enemy to agree to reps. If the only point of this thread is to tell us they intend to ask reps now, then I don't think that motivates Fark, FAN or Sparta to surrender any quicker.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Methrage

[xoindotnler]

Complaining for the sake of complaining is annoying.

[Aeros]

No doubt they are thinking they can just turn all their ZI'd nations into nuke turrets and wage an insurgent war against NPO or something. This serves no purpose at all, its simply destruction for destruction's sake. The Governments of FARK, FAN and Sparta seem to have no objective other then to drag this out and hurt NPO as much as they can, no matter what the consequences of this might be for the Alliances they are ostensibly responsible for.

Honestly, the only failure here is a failure of leadership. The Governments of these alliances led their members into a massacre and then refuse to take an offer of ending said massacre. I wonder how long this will last before the membership starts deciding individual surrenders are preferable to burning for their leaders pride.

Maybe make that part of the terms. Offer individual surrender with no reps, but any nation still on the AA by the time the leadership finally caves will be on the hook. To be perfectly honest, the rank and file, in FARK and FAN in particular, have done more then what would be honestly expected of anyone in this conflict. I doubt anyone would gainsay them saying they've had enough at this point.

[Krack]

[quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326576428' post='2899660']
2) FARK/FAN attacked NPO without any CB whatsoever
[/quote]

LMAO

I bet you believe this, too - which makes it even funnier.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='Krack' timestamp='1326579282' post='2899686']
LMAO

I bet you believe this, too - which makes it even funnier.
[/quote]
What would be FAN's CB? Or Fark's, for that matter?

FAN would read: "sorry, you kept us at war for a long time, we already got back to you not once but twice but we want to do it again"
Fark could read; "hey, you - among other alliances we have been allied to - kept us at war so we decide to take vengeance". One could argue that Karma already accomplished that once but hey, why not.


As for the TOP-NpO / FAN-NPO comparisons: there is the "forever" part that matters. NpO backstabbed us. We are taking revenge. NPO kept FAN at war, FAN took revenge. Now, they're taking extra revenge or something.

You won't see us re-attacking Polaris but I guess we could enjoy the support of Roq and Krack if we did so. That's something to think about.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Yevgeni Luchenkov

[SirWilliam]

This thread may very well ultimately prove ineffectual, but pointless? Not quite - NPO saw fit to make their stance on the war and on peace known. And they've done just that.

Given the circumstances - Fark and FAN being defeated in all but admission - you can't realistically get it much easier than 'white peace'. Regardless, GOONS has no problem continuing to be picky with NPL (in their attempted completion of our single term) as long as Fark and FAN continue dragging their feet.

[Bob Janova]

They didn't offer much of a CB in their [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107065]DoW[/url], that's for sure.

[LittleRena]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1326579618' post='2899690']
What would be FAN's CB? Or Fark's, for that matter?
[/quote]

Don't ask Krack tough questions like that!

[Krack]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1326579618' post='2899690']
One could argue that Karma already accomplished that once but hey, why not.
[/quote]

Yup, one could argue it. Then again, one could argue it didn't.

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1326579618' post='2899690']
You won't see us re-attacking Polaris but I guess we could enjoy the support of Roq and Krack if we did so. That's something to think about.
[/quote]

The difference, of course, is that this current war between TOP and Polar is going to end entirely at the time of TOP's choosing and under whatever circumstances TOP chooses ... while FARK really had no say in how or when the Karma War on NPO ended (in large part because TOP was a *@#$head coalition partner that was singularly worried about its buddies on the other side, but I digress ...). Not to mention your equating of Polar's screwing TOP with NPO's mistreatment of FAN and/or FARK is so laughable it does not require further comment.

As for my future support? Go ahead, do whatever you want to Polar. If you keep doing it enough, eventually your "allies" are gonna roll you when you're per-occupied.

EDIT: spelling

Edited January 14, 2012 by Krack

[Kzoppistan]

To the OP:

/shrug

Alliances admit defeat when they are ready to, even if you have a military advantage- you can't force a concession. If things continue in your favor, then the best you can hope for is to keep them insignificant.

While there may be some PR points to be gained by calling their actions "childish" or some other term for their stubbornness, it's often better to assume that people are doing what they do because it gains them an advantage that they wouldn't have by taking another course of action.

Sometimes, even if you're losing, playing for time has its advantages- as the fortune of war is fickle, indeed.

Getting someone to do what you want means providing the proper incentive.

[Monster]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1326579618' post='2899690']
What would be FAN's CB? Or Fark's, for that matter?

FAN would read: "sorry, you kept us at war for a long time, we already got back to you not once but twice but we want to do it again"
Fark could read; "hey, you - among other alliances we have been allied to - kept us at war so we decide to take vengeance". One could argue that Karma already accomplished that once but hey, why not.


As for the TOP-NpO / FAN-NPO comparisons: there is the "forever" part that matters. NpO backstabbed us. We are taking revenge. NPO kept FAN at war, FAN took revenge. Now, they're taking extra revenge or something.

You won't see us re-attacking Polaris but I guess we could enjoy the support of Roq and Krack if we did so. That's something to think about.
[/quote]





Seriously? The CB was NPO's chosen involvement in the conflict via the declaration of support. Jesus. Don't be obtuse about that. Even NPO acknowledged it was just a preemptive attack to open up a new front.

"Roq and Krack?" Krack hates me.

The thing, Yevgeni, is, Polaris already got rolled earlier this year to a 1/4th of its strength. A month no aid clause was imposed on them. Now they've gotten rolled again. NPO, on the other hand, had the terms and rebuilt to 16.5m because they weren't involved in any wars. They were attacked for a strategic purpose and it wasn't even a real NPO style beatdown for a number of reasons. CSN-DT, Fark semi-neutrality(still kind of upset).

How many times has FAN gotten revenge? Once and it wasn't even really about their revenge, but a tactical strike against the flagship alliance of the Polar coalition. They weren't in any shape to fight for Karma. Can we compare FAN's situation for a year + to the gradual reintegration of TIDTT into politics in any sense? They were still in tact as alliances and could grow despite the reparations. I'm not making light of their struggle, but it didn't hurt them to the core like years long siege warfare did to FAN.

edit: I'd agree with you that it could have been buried if the job actually got done last time around, but the OWF sided with the wrong people. People like TOOL, SNAFU, CoJ, Molon Labe etc. entered on false pretenses and prevented it from being finished. if Fark had attacked NPO with us, it'd definitely be finished.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Roquentin

[IYIyTh]

[quote name='Westernfront' timestamp='1326573730' post='2899628']
Brehon for Sparta viceroy
[/quote]

What, no one offered an ad hominem for his alliance affiliation on this one?

[Krack]

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1326581758' post='2899709']
[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1326579618' post='2899690']
What would be FAN's CB? Or Fark's, for that matter?
[/quote]
Don't ask Krack tough questions like that!
[/quote]

It's interesting that Yevgeni would ask this since he already got [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107065&view=findpost&p=2861013"]my answer[/url] a month ago, and [url=" http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107065&view=findpost&p=2861023"]agreed with it[/url].

At the bare minimum, NPO installed a viceroy (after months of war and under threat of perma-war) on FARK and kept FAN in perma-war for years. That's a good enough CB for me (and is pretty much the two most valid CB's in the history of Planet Bob), but if you want to pretend it's not? Go for it. I see Bob Janova's on board.

[Monster]

I love how people talk about CBs still with regards to Fark, when the entire war was launched with an unconventional CB to begin with. "It's okay when we do it." Keep in mind this is from the same guy who went after them in their birthday thread.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Roquentin

[Bob Janova]

NPO already got rolled for all their Hegemonic actions – or did you miss Karma? If that wasn't enough, then they got rolled [i]again[/i] thanks to Doomhouse deciding to take them out last year, and FAN got their piece of them in that one.

But then again, having Krack say I'm wrong is about as good an endorsement as it's possible to get on these boards, so I'm not too bothered.

[Krack]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1326585066' post='2899745']
NPO already got rolled for all their Hegemonic actions – or did you miss Karma? If that wasn't enough, then they got rolled [i]again[/i] thanks to Doomhouse deciding to take them out last year, and FAN got their piece of them in that one.

But then again, having Krack say I'm wrong is about as good an endorsement as it's possible to get on these boards, so I'm not too bothered.
[/quote]

Is this your personal opinion, or are you speaking in your unofficial capacity of "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" Minister for TOP?

[b]EDIT:[/b] Unrelated side question to the Gramlins membership: The next time your leadership has to choose between the best interests of the Gramlins' membership, or the best interests of their BFF in TOP, are you gonna be surprised when they bail on you again?

Edited January 15, 2012 by Krack