Prestige over Stats

[jerdge]

[quote name='Aeros' timestamp='1334630558' post='2954623']A GOONS white peace with Kaskus would be a crushing humiliation. No bones about it. Especially after that big game they were talking back in early march. Bringing in PB is less humiliation then just ending the fight.[/quote]
I am totally unsure about that. A white peace can come in many flavours and a lot of its meaning is about how you get there. Sure, it would be difficult to make it appear as a bright victory, but it wouldn't necessarily be a complete PR disaster either. You also have to weigh in what Hereno says: this war won't remain memorable for long.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1334641277' post='2954709']
pls dnot bismirch my hoonour in my internet politicle simulater. i wil stnad up for my beleifs.
[/quote]

Are you drunk?

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1334642819' post='2954720']
I just think the alliances allied to GOONS care about their ally regardless of the specifics and details of the situation. GOONS has a pragmatic interest in enforcing its' policy, but I don't consider beating up a couple strong micros to be very prestigious. You guys are severely over-estimating the long term PR effects this war will have anyway.
[/quote]

As much as I've given GOONS !@#$ about their so-called policy, it's just two factions with conflicting interest, neither of which have much "moral" high-ground over the other. That's the joy, watching groups of people trying to enforce their will over each other in dramatic and explosive fashion.

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1334644495' post='2954731']
I am totally unsure about that. A white peace can come in many flavours and a lot of its meaning is about how you get there. Sure, it would be difficult to make it appear as a bright victory, but it wouldn't necessarily be a complete PR disaster either. You also have to weigh in what Hereno says: this war won't remain memorable for long.
[/quote]

How come your nation is like 20 thousand times bigger than mine but we have almost the same casualties?

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' timestamp='1334641826' post='2954714']
Banksy, your posting has become a bit too Voytekian as of late. You used to have the perfect balance. Come back to it.

As for the OP, Vlad's crusade is what happens when one gives his heart and his trust to Johan.
[/quote]

I said it before, and i'll say it again.

[i]Cheat Codes[/i]

[Monster]

Stats = prestige. When I had stats, I had prestige. Now I keep hearing I'm a pariah. So person without stats = pariah or nobody if they're not loud.

Kaskus/Mongols have moral support, but that's all it is, really. They were pariahs before and maybe someone will treaty them after who is a big name, but they're pariahs.

Pariah state, a country whose behavior is out of line with international norms

Screw international norms.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Roquentin

[kriekfreak]

Your increased interest in our bloc/allies is noted Aeros.

[Lord Caparo]

I would like to point something out here.


Kaskus as a whole, since our Declaration of Existence has never tech raided anyone.


We encourage tech raiding for our younger nations, but it hasn't happened yet.

[Alterego]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1334648427' post='2954746']
Your increased interest in our bloc/allies is noted Aeros.
[/quote]

It must be exhausting keeping track of the ever increasing and decreasing interest levels people show in your bloc/allies. Take the rest of the day off.

[NoMercy]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' timestamp='1334629380' post='2954606']
I don't see the world rallying around Mongols and Kaskus, tbh. If they did, then we'd actually have a good fight on our hands.
[/quote]

I think many people are supportive. Otherwise their threads wouldn't have reached 50 pages +. And that's the first step.

They might not get involved now, but I am sure Kaskus will gain from this war in the end. They'll gain Members, they'll gain recognition and they will definitely gain allies if they want to. In the end, that's their only chance surviving in the long run. I think that every piece of infra they lose now, if a good investment in the future.

[Monster]

[quote name='NoMercy' timestamp='1334653028' post='2954759']
I think many people are supportive. Otherwise their threads wouldn't have reached 50 pages +. And that's the first step.

They might not get involved now, but I am sure Kaskus will gain from this war in the end. They'll gain Members, they'll gain recognition and they will definitely gain allies if they want to. In the end, that's their only chance surviving in the long run. I think that every piece of infra they lose now, if a good investment in the future.
[/quote]

Meh. Not a lot of people lined up to treaty Ninjas or other alliances that have put up similar fights.

[Courland]

[quote name='Bob Ilyani' timestamp='1334624514' post='2954561']
Real question free of bias: Why? Are you actually convinced that either alliance deserves international support, regardless of their performance in this war? The fact that Mongols are whiny !@#$%*es who bandwagon on wars, and that Kaskus are loose-cannons who can't actually politically maneuver in this game hasn't changed.
[/quote]

If you can get more than 3 people to come in here and say they were tech raided by MONGOLS, I would be shocked. BTA excluded, of course, as I think everyone here recognizes that that was a war, not "a state of tech raiding" as it was billed at the time.

I'd also like to add that political incompetence in failing to secure a treaty or post-war guarantees combined with an egregiously bad and nonsensical DoW should not be mistaken for bandwagoning.

That being said, I'm off to go whine like a !@#$%* with the rest of my alliance-mates in the moderation forum now.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='NoMercy' timestamp='1334653028' post='2954759']
I think many people are supportive. Otherwise their threads wouldn't have reached 50 pages +. And that's the first step.

They might not get involved now, but I am sure Kaskus will gain from this war in the end. They'll gain Members, they'll gain recognition and they will definitely gain allies if they want to. In the end, that's their only chance surviving in the long run. I think that every piece of infra they lose now, if a good investment in the future.
[/quote]
If you want to line up to sign a treaty with a smoking hole in the ground once we're done making it, be our guest.

[Courland]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' timestamp='1334655456' post='2954772']
If you want to line up to sign a treaty with a smoking hole in the ground once [s]we're[/s] VE & Non Grata are done making it, be our guest.
[/quote]

FYP for accuracy.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1334644876' post='2954734']
How come your nation is like 20 thousand times bigger than mine but we have almost the same casualties?
[/quote]
he does nt beleive in honuor like us FIGHTERS.

[Canik]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' timestamp='1334655456' post='2954772']
If you want to line up to sign a treaty with a smoking hole in the ground once we're done making it, be our guest.
[/quote]

If they're still active, then yeah. Avg NS isn't an issue. They can sell me tech and fight my low NS enemies.

[Monster]

[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1334656282' post='2954776']
If they're still active, then yeah. Avg NS isn't an issue. They can sell me tech and fight my low NS enemies.
[/quote]

In essence, they will become GOONS.

[Icewolf]

I think PB's prestige at this point isn't over the ability to beat enemies. I think its the fact that if they didn't respond to a request then it reduces the value of their treaties with each other and treaties in the outside world as it sends the message "if the war is politically undesirable we won't fight it." In terms of PR they don't really have a good choice. Curbstomp a micro that has already dessimated one of their members, or have the world see them not answering a treaty call. They get a PR hit whichever, but the one at the moment is far far less.

Kaskus from what I have seen has a similar dillema. If they break, the preserve some strength. However, if they break, then their gung ho fight to the death attitude goes with it, which given that is central to the alliances existence, will cause their alliance to be much weaker. So in the terms of the worst option, giving in is probably it. They have the advantage with it that this decision was taken by them before entering into the war. PB had the decision made for them, which I suspect will hurt moral in the war.

GOONS are kind of similar to Kaskus in that backing down means they lose their hardman rep. Which seeing as they are already losing members would be quite bad, as that seems to be something that holds their members together. The fact that they have had to call in PB already hurts that image, but you have to compare calling in friends (and covering it with technical reasons, although those are a PR figleaf as no-one seems to actually care) to giving in.

To sum up, PB, Kaskus and GOONS are all in a place were there is no obvious good decision, just a choice of a lot of bad ones. For all of them, fighting is the least bad option, so they are fighting. In all cases pragmatism is just as much a motivation as prestige in my eyes.

EDIT: There was an ever so minor typo

Edited April 17, 2012 by Icewolf

[jerdge]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' timestamp='1334644876' post='2954734']How come your nation is like 20 thousand times bigger than mine but we have almost the same casualties?[/quote]
Considering that I never really turtled in any conflict I probably just fought less wars than you.

Oh wait, you were throwing a jab at Yet Another Worthless Neutral(tm)!

[spoiler]Seriously. I don't play for the war system (which gets terribly boring quick IMHO) but - the little I actually play anymore, and believe it or not - for CN politics. I don't really get the importance of burning pixels or not, but just for you, to try correct a wrong impression you might have had, I'll assure you that I don't shy away from fights. I just don't go looking for them.
Also sorry if I don't brag about my combat precedents, but I'd find that a bit ridiculous.[/spoiler]


[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1334649271' post='2954751']It must be exhausting keeping track of the ever increasing and decreasing interest levels people show in your bloc/allies. Take the rest of the day off.[/quote]
Ah ah, this was a good one: Kriek, the ball is in your court!


[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1334656126' post='2954775']he does nt beleive in honuor like us FIGHTERS.[/quote]
This evolution of yours is both scary and fascinating, I just wanted you to know.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1334642819' post='2954720']
I just think the alliances allied to GOONS care about their ally regardless of the specifics and details of the situation. GOONS has a pragmatic interest in enforcing its' policy, but I don't consider beating up a couple strong micros to be very prestigious. You guys are severely over-estimating the long term PR effects this war will have anyway.
[/quote]
Pretty much this entirely. Despite what some seem to want, there will not be a huge tectonic shift in FA because of this conflict. Just like roguefest was, it will be forgotten by most. There are worse reputations to have than an alliance that calls in allies where it needs to anyway. For example, an alliance which makes a point out of staying out of losing conflicts, an alliance whose leader actively betrays an entire coalition, an alliance whose leader micromanages the FA of its allies, and so on. Don't even try to tell me that what we have done is far outside the norm.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Courland' timestamp='1334655858' post='2954774']
FYP for accuracy.
[/quote]
Yes, when I said 'we', I did mean all of us, including our allies, smartypants.

And come on to be fair, goons have done a fair bit of fighting (except for me of course, I've missed out so far). The dudes in Kaskus at least have recognised that here on these boards, I can dig up the relevant posts if you'd like me to.

[quote name='Canik' timestamp='1334656282' post='2954776']
If they're still active, then yeah. Avg NS isn't an issue. They can sell me tech and fight my low NS enemies.
[/quote]
Like I said, be our guest.

[quote name='Roquentin' timestamp='1334656612' post='2954778']
In essence, they will become GOONS.
[/quote]
Yes. We are all goons, in one way or another.

[Aeros]

[quote name='kriekfreak' timestamp='1334648427' post='2954746']
Your increased interest in our bloc/allies is noted Aeros.
[/quote]

Of course I am interested. Other then this, the only other thing of note going on is everyone waiting with baited breath to see what The Internationals Pip will look like. Maybe if you let the GRL go back down people would stop paying attention?

[Altheus]

I've thought about this a lot, due to a similiar set of circumstances that UPN was in with the "Revenge" AA. i.e. a far smaller AA taking on a much larger one with the following weapons at their disposal.

a) Huge warchests, huge enough that they can easily keep on fighting for a year.
b) Small nation strengths, or at least allowing themselves to take a beating in the first phase of the war to drop down in size. Enabling them to only have to deal with the bottom end of the bigger alliance.
c) Propaganda. It's easy to make out the larger AA is incompetent by arguing that they're not winning. Which of course they're not, but that's due to a) & b) rather than any other wider reason. Extra brownie points can be had if the larger AA is unpopular to start off with.

First thing I noticed is that the larger AA is basically on a loser from the start. They can take horrendous amounts of damage, have to put more productive finance projects on the side to concentrate on the threat and all the while get accused of being crap fighters for not being able to deal with something far smaller than themselves. The smaller AA isn't in any better a position, expect for that they have less to lose, less to organise and come out of the process smelling of roses.

There is only one thing the bigger AA can really do. Which is decide on surrender terms that aren't so weak that won't make them look any worse than they already do and then stick to it at all costs. To back down is a disaster. That's why UPN carried on hacking away at the Revenge AA for over a year, until we got what we wanted. Because not to do so would have been to invite more rogues. Destro left this world (not what we wanted) but that's the sort of commitment you require to deter more attacks.

I'm not a fan of GOONS and the circumstances about how this war came about are very different, but I do think it's underestimated sometimes how difficult it is to deal with large warchest-funded rogue attacks and how much commitment is actually needed to win against them.

[MrMuz]

It's an interesting topic. But the non-stat part isn't simply measured in 'prestige'. This isn't EU3 - ego plays a huge role. Leaders often take strategically poor moves because of ego. A good leader knows the right balance between sacrificing stats for prestige. It's just really hard to stay there because you have to work with people and emotions and general idiocy.

And people often leave out one other major factor when applying political science to CN. It's a game. A lot of people play it as a PvP game. Boredom plays a huge factor in CN politics. It translates directly into stats too, as you'll find a lot of very high NS nations deleting or going rogue from boredom. Sometimes, you'll see people leaving AAs when they feel that they've won the game and have nothing left to accomplish. Those in the 'hegemony' are also under pressure to do something interesting, there was a time before the PB-NpO war when people would complain that the world was too unipolar/bipolar and that people should declare wars on no real CB.

GOONS utilizes external recruitment very heavily, and one of their selling points is that they get a lot of action. Thus, GOONS gov is under intense pressure to actually declare wars on a slight CB. I mean here, it makes no strategic sense to even declare war on MONGOLS. Sardonic is smart enough not to underestimate Kaskus' willingness to fight, that Kaskus would call the 'bluff' and make a war more painful than statistical estimates would indicate. But the whole boredom/bloodlust thing made a big difference.


And to respond to an earlier tangential discussion, wars are not won on NS. They're 'won' when someone admits defeat. White peace is not normally counted as a victory, even when one side strongly held the upper hand. A concession of defeat is needed, sometimes even reps or other humiliating terms are required to show the degree of victory.

All that is based on who wants to surrender more. Nobody takes no damage from a war, you hurt growth significantly just by staying war-ready, so even the stronger one wants peace eventually. If the weaker side believes that they can get a strategic benefit, like force the other side to incur more PR loss, or make them lose more NS even though they'll eventually win, they can even squeeze out a victory. In rare cases, like if an alliance was recently caught in a losing war or heavily rogued, the statistically stronger side might even want to end the war earlier than a smaller side with much larger warchests.

[Artigo]

[quote name='Courland' timestamp='1334655858' post='2954774']
FYP for accuracy.
[/quote]

Good one brah


It's not that GOONS couldn't finish this war on their own, it's just that we're all sick of seeing ten daily announcements about this. OP is a fine example.

[HeroofTime55]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1334664472' post='2954797']
Pretty much this entirely. Despite what some seem to want, there will not be a huge tectonic shift in FA because of this conflict. Just like roguefest was, it will be forgotten by most. There are worse reputations to have than an alliance that calls in allies where it needs to anyway. For example, an alliance which makes a point out of staying out of losing conflicts, an alliance whose leader actively betrays an entire coalition, an alliance whose leader micromanages the FA of its allies, and so on. Don't even try to tell me that what we have done is far outside the norm.
[/quote]
I don't think anyone is arguing that this is outside the norm.

The issue is that GOONS billed itself as something greater, and Kaskus/Mongols showed the world that they aren't. Sort of reminds me of GGA and that infamous "NPO will show you why we don't need the WRC" remark. GOONS does far more posturing than it can support with it's own weight, you're trying to be something you're not.

GOONS should have called in the cavalry on day one and admitted to everyone that you are not as tough on your own as you act. In fact you should probably stop acting so tough when you are so dependent on the military strength of your allies. There is nothing wrong with knowing your place, and you'd probably be respected for it. Hell, with a few subtle tweaks, you could use this to make a very convincing villain role for yourselves, as opposed to playing the part of the fool.

Nobody ever forgot why GGA doesn't need the WRC. I hope you're OK with a similar reputation.

Edited April 18, 2012 by HeroofTime55

[MitchellBade]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' timestamp='1334629380' post='2954606']
I don't see the world rallying around Mongols and Kaskus, tbh. If they did, then we'd actually have a good fight on our hands.
[/quote]

It was a good fight till a certain alliance went crying to the grown ups.