Announcement from Pandora's Box

[Buds The Man]

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1334687062' post='2954893']
That I did, but I'd be mildly surprised if Kaskus took it to the ZI of every one of their nations; hell one of them is in peace mode so it'd probably never happen. Also, I'm not in Pandora's Box; my words are merely my own thoughts, desires, or interpretations. They bear only as much weight as you give to me.
[/quote]
LOL well played sir well played.

I believe the point hal and aeros were making is that if this continues, Goons and allies will loose more than if they were to stop it now and take the offer that was made. In a large scaled multi AA war Goons/Allies strategy works much better the hard line is much easier to take as the opponents would have to take in to consideration what was happening to their somewhat less prepared allies. I believe that GOONs will end up loosing far more for pressing this issue due to pride. Once again I have no issue with this war as both sides are upholding their internal policies and both sides were well aware of the costs for their decisions.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1334676626' post='2954843']
How so? You are able to blow the NEW nations up...... had Mongols thrown the one nation to the wolves I'm pretty sure this war wouldn't be happening at this very moment.
[/quote]

Perhaps, but then they wouldn't have gotten their reps as it's unlikely one nation could pay off that much. My guess is that GOONS answer to an offer to just take out the one nation would be that doing so wouldn't cover the expenses. I could be wrong, however.

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that GOONS not making an issue of the NEW nations will allow for the tactic of leaving one's alliance and joining the one at war with GOONS now and in the future for other people as well. My guess is that it's a matter of who is friends with whom and NEW just has better connections. Maybe if PB were ready for a world war, we'd see a bunch of notices of treaties being cancelled and then various declarations made across the world.

Edited April 17, 2012 by White Chocolate

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1334701993' post='2954991']
Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that GOONS not making an issue of the NEW nations will allow for the tactic of leaving one's alliance and joining the one at war with GOONS now and in the future for other people as well. My guess is that it's a matter of who is friends with whom and NEW just has better connections. Maybe if PB were ready for a world war, we'd see a bunch of notices of treaties being cancelled and then various declarations made across the world.
[/quote]
We are not making an issue of it because we do it too. It's a fairly commonplace tactic which I've seen develop over the past couple of years, so I don't know why you're making a big deal about it.

Edit: Sorry just saw this:

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1334673011' post='2954829']
okay, so let me make sure I understand, one CAN provide aid in the form of individual nations going over to fight for your enemies (which has been pointed out as a reason THIS war has to include other alliances and couldn't be resolved by GOONS alone) as long as they "conduct themselves" in a diplomatic fashion. So what did NEW do that Mongols failed - I mean in particular? For instance, did they agree to pay reps for the fact that some of their members are providing this war aid?[/quote]
Yes, they have. Their members that have sent aid to Kaskus have (for the large part) then gone on to resign from NEW and join Kaskus. We're ok with that.

Furthermore, we value and respect our friends in Europa, who in turn are friends and allies with NEW. Commonsense dictates that if we value our relations with Europa, we should certainly try diplomacy with their friends before we resort to throwing bombs. NEW haven't done us wrong in this respect.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1334701993' post='2954991']
Because it seems to me that as long as we're talking about taking actions for security reasons and what does and does not make a good alliance policy, I would think that people (especially large nations) moving from one alliance to another during a war would be WAY more of a threat and cause WAY more damage than sending some cash to a nation (war aid OR a tech deal - doesn't matter for what reason).[/quote]
I disagree. I think that if individuals wish to join a cause (whether it involves some form of martyrdom or not) they should be free to do so. We welcome new opponents but nobody should be surprised if we seek help to deal with them where our resources have been exhausted - we tend to be the honeytrap/rogue magnet for our allies in this respect (they don't get a lot of war otherwise, except perhaps for NG, and it's a role that somebody has to play). It's certainly suckered in quite a few nation rulers over the years and I'm sure there are more to come

Edited April 17, 2012 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz

[Tick1]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1334701993' post='2954991']
Perhaps, but then they wouldn't have gotten their reps as it's unlikely one nation could pay off that much. My guess is that GOONS answer to an offer to just take out the one nation would be that doing so wouldn't cover the expenses. I could be wrong, however.

Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that GOONS not making an issue of the NEW nations will allow for the tactic of leaving one's alliance and joining the one at war with GOONS now and in the future for other people as well. My guess is that it's a matter of who is friends with whom and NEW just has better connections. Maybe if PB were ready for a world war, we'd see a bunch of notices of treaties being cancelled and then various declarations made across the world.
[/quote]

You've been on this planet as long as me an you know that this happens all the time. Why you are bringing it up is beyond me.... this isn't new and this can't honestly be prevented. This is no different than a rogue, the only thing you can do is assume that the alliances will decline members when they attempt to return. That being said you are assuming that the nations from NEW that joined Kaskus have been sent on orders from NEW. If that was the case I'm pretty positive you'd have a higher turn out than three nations and this situation would be much like the prelude to the Bi-Polar war when I believe multiple alliances joined Poison Clan to ward off NpO.

(Federation of Buccaneers) being one of them.

Edit: and I don't remember NpO declaring on FoB for that.....

Edited April 18, 2012 by Tick1

[Alterego]

[quote name='Timberland' timestamp='1334634140' post='2954656']
I'm sorry its not the great story you've told on how you were able to defend your whole alliance from one rogue.

Maybe next you can tell us a story on how you fought off a pack of skeevers with only a toothpick and one hand tied behind your back.
[/quote]

You called in PB and Umbrella for two micros. You you are in a feeble alliance with a long record of feeble fighting skills that require physical and financial bailouts from big alliances every time someone launches a CM at your alliance.

[Monster]

Yes, but GOONS is too big to fail, so they own the banks.

GOONS: Too big to fail

Edited April 18, 2012 by Roquentin

[Ardus]

[quote name='Buds The Man' timestamp='1334687433' post='2954900']
LOL well played sir well played.

I believe the point hal and aeros were making is that if this continues, Goons and allies will loose more than if they were to stop it now and take the offer that was made. In a large scaled multi AA war Goons/Allies strategy works much better the hard line is much easier to take as the opponents would have to take in to consideration what was happening to their somewhat less prepared allies. I believe that GOONs will end up loosing far more for pressing this issue due to pride. Once again I have no issue with this war as both sides are upholding their internal policies and both sides were well aware of the costs for their decisions.
[/quote]
In a strictly statistical sense that line was probably crossed a while ago. But this is a war of principle, not profit: when you are defeated statistically you don't get to dictate terms to the victors or play games with negotiations. If you attempt to do so, the war [i]must[/i] go on. That principle is of import not only to GOONS, but everybody of a mind to be victorious in future wars, so I believe it merits continued prosecution. It's an outlook similar to DH-NPO: I didn't really care about NPO's remaining top tier so much as I cared about the top tier of whomever we wound up fighting next. I personally don't care about Kaskus beyond what I feel is necessary to support my ally in their endeavor, but I do care about future instances of aid to raid targets and future peace negotiations.

Whatever point Hal and Aeros are on about I missed. I stopped reading the overwhelming majority of this thread, as it amounts to little more than petty insults from biased parties. I also probably must conclude this exchange, as I'm horribly busy with other affairs. Apologies for the rude and potentially unsatisfactory conclusion.

[i]OOC: exam season[/i]

[vandelsand]

I feel like GOONs was not doing too well against some smaller guys and had to call in the bigguns... question mark?

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' timestamp='1334704195' post='2955010']
We are not making an issue of it because we do it too. It's a fairly commonplace tactic which I've seen develop over the past couple of years, so I don't know why you're making a big deal about it.[/quote]

I'm not making a big deal. Hey, cool with me that it's a commonplace. I'm not without close friends so if our alliance ever has such problems, good to know that quickly growing in size is an option for us

I just found it ironic and decided I wanted to know the particular details. You've provided those to my satisfaction, so thank you.

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1334708492' post='2955059']
You've been on this planet as long as me an you know that this happens all the time. Why you are bringing it up is beyond me....[/quote]

I've been around on this planet long enough to questions the official justifications for war, and it's made me a more affective nation leader. Might makes right is still alive and well on this planet. These two micros were attacked because they are under-aligned micros, in my opinion. I prefer that people just admit that instead of going around and around trying to justify taking one action and then not taking another (that, by their justification of the first, would also be reasonable) if for no other reason, it warns other small alliances that they need to be well connected to survive.

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1334708492' post='2955059']this isn't new and this can't honestly be prevented. [/quote]

I would imagine that Pandora's Box is large enough as a bloc that IF they wanted to discourage people from switching AA's while the war is happening, they could have done so. If PB couldn't have, they have me fooled. I'm not complaining. As I said, I just find it ironic considering the original CB of this war.

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' timestamp='1334704195' post='2955010']That being said you are assuming that the nations from NEW that joined Kaskus have been sent on orders from NEW. If that was the case I'm pretty positive you'd have a higher turn out than three nations[/quote]

Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz said seven nations, so that's a higher turnout. No, I'm not assuming that the nations had orders from NEW. I am assuming it wasn't strongly discouraged, however. On the other hand, I doubt the nation giving the tech raided nation cash assistance was doing so under orders either. Sometimes an entire alliance, especially small ones, can suffer (be it war or being told to pay high reps, etc.) as a result of one members actions.

Edited April 18, 2012 by White Chocolate

[Tick1]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1334719887' post='2955148']
I've been around on this planet long enough to questions the official justifications for war, and it's made me a more affective nation leader. Might makes right is still alive and well on this planet. These two micros were attacked because they are under-aligned micros, in my opinion. I prefer that people just admit that instead of going around and around trying to justify taking one action and then not taking another (that, by their justification of the first, would also be reasonable) if for no other reason, it warns other small alliances that they need to be well connected to survive.
[/quote]

Did you forget the statement you made? The post I responded to had nothing to do with justifying war.

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1334719887' post='2955148']
I would imagine that Pandora's Box is large enough as a bloc that IF they wanted to discourage people from switching AA's while the war is happening, they could have done so. If PB couldn't have, they have me fooled. I'm not complaining. As I said, I just find it ironic considering the original CB of this war.
[/quote]

You act as if there aren't other blocs just as big a PB on Bob.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1334722521' post='2955167']
You act as if there aren't other blocs just as big a PB on Bob.
[/quote]

Stats wise? There isn't.

[Bob Janova]

There is nothing close to the power cluster that is Pandora's Box plus Doomhouse, and to pretend there is is rather silly.

[Dr William Westcher]

Peanut Butter is without a doubt the strongest bloc on planet Bob.

I live in fear.

[Thom98]

While we have no dog in this fight I feel compelled to give a tip of the hat to the two micro's that have inflicted such damage on an AA that calling in one of the larger blocs on Bob was needed just to deal with them.
Kudos for putting up such a good fight.

[Commander shepard]

[quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1334763356' post='2955334']
There is nothing close to the power cluster that is Pandora's Box plus Doomhouse, and to pretend there is is rather silly.
[/quote]


CnG is pretty big.
Without MK they're like bigger than PB.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1334768797' post='2955361']
CnG is pretty big.
Without MK they're like bigger than PB.
[/quote]
Please C&G, don't betray PB/DH.

Also welcome back to C&G, MK.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Sardonic

[nutkase]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334770424' post='2955367']
Please C&G, don't betray PB/DH.

Also welcome back to C&G, MK.
[/quote]

We are agreeing on too many things for my liking

[Commander shepard]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334770424' post='2955367']
Please C&G, don't betray PB/DH.

Also welcome back to C&G, MK.
[/quote]


I get that a lot, I just brush it off.
Just to clarify, without grouping PB up with MK.
CnG is bigger than PB.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1334771511' post='2955378']
I get that a lot, I just brush it off.
Just to clarify, without grouping PB up with MK.
CnG is bigger than PB.
[/quote]
I'm just saying, as things stand now, the chance of a pb/c^g conflict is pretty much nil.

[Commander shepard]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334771810' post='2955379']
I'm just saying, as things stand now, the chance of a pb/c^g conflict is pretty much nil.
[/quote]

Obviously I didn't say CnG was going to attack PB, you implied that.

[Monster]

[quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1334771511' post='2955378']
I get that a lot, I just brush it off.
Just to clarify, without grouping PB up with MK.
CnG is bigger than PB.
[/quote]


NS doesn't dictate political power entirely. MK is smaller than C&G, yet they go with what MK wants and not the other way around. Some of it is proactivity and will to power. C&G is not a proactive bloc and it's passive. GPA is bigger than MK and is a passive alliance, etc. etc.

There is also the issue of fighting ability. Even though C&G has a minor advantage over PB in termsof total NS, PB would still kick C&G's ass a la TOP v GATO in GW2.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Roquentin

[Tick1]

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334773764' post='2955402']
NS doesn't dictate political power entirely. MK is smaller than C&G, yet they go with what MK wants and not the other way around. Some of it is proactivity and will to power. C&G is not a proactive bloc and it's passive. GPA is bigger than MK and is a passive alliance, etc. etc.
[/quote]

He gets that, he is responding to the statement previously made that no bloc is as big as PB stat wise.

[Monster]

[quote name='Tick1' timestamp='1334773954' post='2955404']
He gets that, he is responding to the statement previously made that no bloc is as big as PB stat wise.
[/quote]

Well, if that claim is to be made you have to look at the nation builds as well since PB could overtake C&G at any point just by adding an alliance or doing some intensive nation boosting. I believe gopher showed where a good chunk of the game's 100k NS nations are and PB has the lion's share.

One of the selling points for PB has been that the alliances can all put up good fights. C&G are more doughboy-ish.

Dos Equis was way bigger than PB total NS wise and even had quite a number of 100k NS nations, but a lot f them were not really there for fighting.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Roquentin

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Commander shepard' timestamp='1334773590' post='2955400']
Obviously I didn't say CnG was going to attack PB, you implied that.
[/quote]

it's a spinoff of the old joke "please TOP, don't betray Gremlins!"

[Leerjet]

I must say Kaskus [i]had[/i] put up a good fight, but now its in their best interest to realize the tide of the war has changed and that they have lost. Now what I mean by lost:

What I mean by lost is that they've now lost the war as an entire entity, however they won many small battles.
They have earned respect from alot of various CN alliances and now everyone knows them as a warrior like alliance who is to be respected.

However if they don't decide to use a "diplomatic approach" they will have lost everything they gained.