Which ally will act first?

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1345044413' post='3022153']
MK made up possibly the most pathetic and embarrassing CB in history to attack them for the second time in months and they tried to get the rest of the world to help you both times. Yeah MK werent afraid they would become a major threat to them. They were easily rolled by a handful of alliances and MK only did it when they had a genuine CB, there was no rush to attack them before they could properly rebuild.
[/quote]


This just in.... 90% of every CB ever use in CN has sucked. In addition, 100% of every future CB in CN will continue to suck. Get used to it and STFU about it.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Floyd' timestamp='1345024645' post='3022111']
I don't know if I would take that bet... You have seen Legion at war right?
[/quote]
I said they could probably conspire against, not hurt.

[D34th]

I love the new approach of MK and their drones: "Yeah you were right, our CB was indeed a farce because we couldn't found a real one, now get used to it and shut up."

Sorry MK and drones, I hate to inform you, but just because you think CBs are a thing of the past and you don't need them anymore doesn't mean we are automatically going to agree with you and shut up. Also, for a side who complains about the level of current political discourse, "Shut ups" aren't going to help to improve it.

[Crymson]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1345059297' post='3022199']
This just in.... 90% of every CB ever use in CN has sucked. In addition, 100% of every future CB in CN will continue to suck. Get used to it and STFU about it.
[/quote]

Better put: the single most important thing about a CB is that enough alliances to form a winning coalition are OK with it. It is inevitable that many on the other side will find the CB insufficient, but their opinion on the matter is mostly unimportant.

It is indeed true that people should stop acting hurt at non-watertight CBs. Watertight CBs were a rarity even in the distant past. In these days, they are non-existent. Those who expect them that wars will always be started by strong CBs will come away disappointed, and they are also overlooking the fact that the strength of a CB is entirely subjective. Whatever the case, rarely in the history of this game has a large war erupted from an acute grievances; instead, almost every war has been the product of political designs by an alliance by an alliance or a group of alliances. CN is, after all, a political simulator, and it is driven by political maneuver.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Crymson

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1345145983' post='3022479']
Better put: the single most important thing about a CB is that enough alliances to form a winning coalition are OK with it. It is inevitable that many on the other side will find the CB insufficient, but their opinion on the matter is mostly unimportant.

It is indeed true that people should stop acting hurt at non-watertight CBs. Watertight CBs were a rarity even in the distant past. In these days, they are non-existent. Those who expect them that wars will always be started by strong CBs will come away disappointed, and they are also overlooking the fact that the strength of a CB is entirely subjective. Whatever the case, rarely in the history of this game has a large war erupted from an acute grievances; instead, almost every war has been the product of political designs by an alliance by an alliance or a group of alliances. CN is, after all, a political simulator, and it is driven by political maneuver.
[/quote]
LSF will disagree

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1345108148' post='3022376']
I love the new approach of MK and their drones: "Yeah you were right, our CB was indeed a farce because we couldn't found a real one, now get used to it and shut up."

Sorry MK and drones, I hate to inform you, but just because you think CBs are a thing of the past and you don't need them anymore doesn't mean we are automatically going to agree with you and shut up. Also, for a side who complains about the level of current political discourse, "Shut ups" aren't going to help to improve it.
[/quote]

The ironic thing about you saying that we think CBs are a thing of the past, shows that you really have no clue about my opinion. Valid CBs cant be a thing of the past, because they NEVER....EVER.... existed.... EVER. The only thing needed to make a CB valid, is that enough people to form a winning coalition has to think its good enough. It was always that way, it will always be that way.

[D34th]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1345163832' post='3022592']
The ironic thing about you saying that we think CBs are a thing of the past, shows that you really have no clue about my opinion. Valid CBs cant be a thing of the past, because they NEVER....EVER.... existed.... EVER. The only thing needed to make a CB valid, is that enough people to form a winning coalition has to think its good enough. It was always that way, it will always be that way.
[/quote]

Valid CBs never existed? Hmmmm, ok then.

[King Wally]

[quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1345145983' post='3022479']
Better put: the single most important thing about a CB is that enough alliances to form a winning coalition are OK with it. It is inevitable that many on the other side will find the CB insufficient, but their opinion on the matter is mostly unimportant.

It is indeed true that people should stop acting hurt at non-watertight CBs. Watertight CBs were a rarity even in the distant past. In these days, they are [u]non-existent[/u]. Those who expect them that wars will always be started by strong CBs will come away disappointed, and they are also overlooking the fact that the strength of a CB is entirely subjective. Whatever the case, rarely in the history of this game has a large war erupted from an acute grievances; instead, almost every war has been the product of political designs by an alliance by an alliance or a group of alliances. CN is, after all, a political simulator, and it is driven by political maneuver.
[/quote]

+

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1345163832' post='3022592']
The ironic thing about you saying that we think CBs are a thing of the past, shows that you really have no clue about my opinion. Valid CBs cant be a thing of the past, because they NEVER....EVER.... existed.... EVER. The only thing needed to make a CB valid, is that enough people to form a winning coalition has to think its good enough. It was always that way, it will always be that way.
[/quote]

Now that really is crap I must admit. There have often been legit acts of agression toward alliances in the past that have led to wars, for example even in current times the LSF vs NoR war which started over the aiding of rogues and such (* dont quote me on exact details I honestly never followed it too close), something which has a basis of legitimate agression from LSF and could be marketed as a CB. It's not that CB's dont exist is just that the powers to be dont want to act on the real ones cause they dont conveniently fit the wars they want to fight so in a world so preoccupied with end results the agressors are forced to use lol-dave type CB's to create the wars they want.

The CB's are there, the reality is the powers to be dont want to see the ones that exist acted upon for reasons of self preservation. You me and everyone else knows that any given month legit CB scenario's arise that never come close to being acted on for this exact reason, most get kept quiet and handled in back channels and no one knows but they are there so to pretend they dont exist in the modern realm is a joke. The reality is that people no longer want to take political risks by hitting the ally of an ally of an ally and we're left with very few real war side scenarios that please those in power to persue and thats exactly why we were forced to replay two global wars nearly word for word 6 months apart from each other.

Edited August 17, 2012 by King Wally

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1345164121' post='3022596']
Valid CBs never existed? Hmmmm, ok then.


[/quote]

By George, I think he's got it.

[Crymson]

[quote name='shahenshah' timestamp='1345157440' post='3022555']
LSF will disagree
[/quote]

It's a lot easier to get a fight out of someone whom you know will oblige you.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1345165137' post='3022604']

Now that really is crap I must admit. There have often been legit acts of agression toward alliances in the past that have led to wars, for example even in current times the LSF vs NoR war which started over the aiding of rogues and such (* dont quote me on exact details I honestly never followed it too close), something which has a basis of legitimate agression from LSF and could be marketed as a CB. It's not that CB's dont exist is just that the powers to be dont want to act on the real ones cause they dont conveniently fit the wars they want to fight so in a world so preoccupied with end results the agressors are forced to use lol-dave type CB's to create the wars they want.

The CB's are there, the reality is the powers to be dont want to see the ones that exist acted upon for reasons of self preservation. You me and everyone else knows that any given month legit CB scenario's arise that never come close to being acted on for this exact reason, most get kept quiet and handled in back channels and no one knows but they are there so to pretend they dont exist in the modern realm is a joke. The reality is that people no longer want to take political risks by hitting the ally of an ally of an ally and we're left with very few real war side scenarios that please those in power to persue and thats exactly why we were forced to replay two global wars nearly word for word 6 months apart from each other.
[/quote]

The very notion that "legit CBs" pop up every month is absurd. It has been proven time and time again on planet Bob, that CBs are always viewed as poor BECAUSE diplomacy should be the 1st act. I would triple dog dare you to take one of those "legit CBs" and try to act on it without diplomacy, lemme know how that works out for you sparky. Now, I can already pretty much guess what your reply will be. "Well of course Rush, you have to try diplomacy 1st." To which I say " DUH?" If the CB was so legit, no diplomacy would be required. That everyone wants to cry, whine and demand diplomacy, is a self-fulfilling admission, that their "legit CB" would be crapped on by the entire other side, and probably portions of their own side. All of it comes around in that same nice, neat little circle, where EVERY CB has been crap, every CB will always be crap.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1345174500' post='3022653']
The very notion that "legit CBs" pop up every month is absurd. It has been proven time and time again on planet Bob, that CBs are always viewed as poor BECAUSE diplomacy should be the 1st act. I would triple dog dare you to take one of those "legit CBs" and try to act on it without diplomacy, lemme know how that works out for you sparky. Now, I can already pretty much guess what your reply will be. "Well of course Rush, you have to try diplomacy 1st." To which I say " DUH?" If the CB was so legit, no diplomacy would be required. That everyone wants to cry, whine and demand diplomacy, is a self-fulfilling admission, that their "legit CB" would be crapped on by the entire other side, and probably portions of their own side. All of it comes around in that same nice, neat little circle, where EVERY CB has been crap, every CB will always be crap.
[/quote]

Arguing over a CB is just how our system on Planet Bob works. It helps the world go round so to speak. If that's what you're saying that's fine. If you're trying to claim that we should just do away with such things, then you're an idiot.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Omniscient1

[King Wally]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1345174500' post='3022653']
The very notion that "legit CBs" pop up every month is absurd. It has been proven time and time again on planet Bob, that CBs are always viewed as poor BECAUSE diplomacy should be the 1st act. I would triple dog dare you to take one of those "legit CBs" and try to act on it without diplomacy, lemme know how that works out for you sparky. Now, I can already pretty much guess what your reply will be. "Well of course Rush, you have to try diplomacy 1st." To which I say " DUH?" If the CB was so legit, no diplomacy would be required. That everyone wants to cry, whine and demand diplomacy, is a self-fulfilling admission, that their "legit CB" would be crapped on by the entire other side, and probably portions of their own side. All of it comes around in that same nice, neat little circle, where EVERY CB has been crap, every CB will always be crap.
[/quote]

Oh your classic Rush, come on now, we all know that these situations come up all the time and the only difference between one where you write it off as "needing diplomacy" or "needing a DOW" is whether or not the reason for war has been presented by someone convenient enough for you to roll easilly or not (Oh hi Polar heres a screen shot of VE warchests, BAM! DEAD! , oh wait LSF is being destroyed, err but NoR is tied to MK so better pretend that CB isn't happening etc). And guess what, the people you can roll easilly are not generally silly enough to do the kind of things that validate a war so your only left with multiple AA's sitting within reasonable positions of power handing out the CB's to each other. The CB's exist, and I guarantee you now if they were presented by people you wanted to take out easy they would be acted on too. Crying that CB's dont exist so you need to create lol-dave wars is rubbish. CB's to validate *easy* convenient wars are next to non existant and thats the difference.

Cry about the fact you cant justify convenient wars all you want but leave the [i]CB's dont exist[/i] arguement alone you just make yourself look comical.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1345175652' post='3022667']
Arguing over a CB is just how our system on Planet Bob works. It helps the world go round so to speak. If that's what you're saying that's fine. If you're trying to claim that we should just do away with such things, then you're an idiot.
[/quote]

Being called an idiot by the lord king of all idiots, somehow doesnt bother me much. Just because a system on planet Bob is what we have made it to be, does not mean its good and should not be tried to be changed. But the fact that you admitted that arguing over a CB is , in fact, the status quo, is just an admission from you, that the majority of people in this game have, do, and will always, think that every CB is BS. So why bother with it. If I feel like your alliance is a threat to me, I should try to eliminate that threat. I should not sit around and wait for a 3rd chain ally of yours to get ballsy and go steal a war guide from a 3rd chain ally of mine's forum. The system on this planet sucks. Stick to it if it helps you sleep at night, Ive moved on to trying to create a new system.

[BamaBuc]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1345174500' post='3022653']
The very notion that "legit CBs" pop up every month is absurd. It has been proven time and time again on planet Bob, that CBs are always viewed as poor BECAUSE diplomacy should be the 1st act. I would triple dog dare you to take one of those "legit CBs" and try to act on it without diplomacy, lemme know how that works out for you sparky. Now, I can already pretty much guess what your reply will be. "Well of course Rush, you have to try diplomacy 1st." To which I say " DUH?" If the CB was so legit, no diplomacy would be required. That everyone wants to cry, whine and demand diplomacy, is a self-fulfilling admission, that their "legit CB" would be crapped on by the entire other side, and probably portions of their own side. All of it comes around in that same nice, neat little circle, where EVERY CB has been crap, every CB will always be crap.
[/quote]
Not that this isn't true, but what fun would any of this be if no one argued things like CBs? If everyone just calmly accepted declarations of war, how boring would that be? Rush, the actual fighting of wars is not that fun. Working with a coalition is not very fun either. Controversy is what makes wars fun. There will never be a world where every CB (or even many CBs at all) are solid, but I hope there will also never be a world where absolutely no one cares about CBs at all. Because what fun would it be if there were no controversy in wartime?

-Bama

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='King Wally' timestamp='1345177947' post='3022678']
Oh your classic Rush, come on now, we all know that these situations come up all the time and the only difference between one where you write it off as "needing diplomacy" or "needing a DOW" is whether or not the reason for war has been presented by someone convenient enough for you to roll easilly or not (Oh hi Polar heres a screen shot of VE warchests, BAM! DEAD! , oh wait LSF is being destroyed, err but NoR is tied to MK so better pretend that CB isn't happening etc). And guess what, the people you can roll easilly are not generally silly enough to do the kind of things that validate a war so your only left with multiple AA's sitting within reasonable positions of power handing out the CB's to each other. The CB's exist, and I guarantee you now if they were presented by people you wanted to take out easy they would be acted on too. Crying that CB's dont exist so you need to create lol-dave wars is rubbish. CB's to validate *easy* convenient wars are next to non existant and thats the difference.

Cry about the fact you cant justify convenient wars all you want but leave the [i]CB's dont exist[/i] arguement alone you just make yourself look comical.
[/quote]

This is where your foolish shortsightedness gets the best of you. The very reason there are not more wars, is because when these situations DO present themsevles, you have masses of people on both sides screaming for diplomacy. Why? I will tell you why. Because EVERYONE realizes that even the best CBs... the VERY FLIPPING BEST OF THEM... SUCK. If these situations came up monthly as you put it, we would have wars monthly. Why? Because 95% of these situations involve 2 alliances in opposite poles. That means that with allies, one alliance has military ability to destroy the other alliance, and the allies to destroy their allies. You know why it does not happen? Because 1st and 2nd tier allies, THINK THESE CBs SUCK, and they pressure the alliance on their side to solve it diplomatically. You are foolish. Your notion that valid CBs present themselves monthly is so far off base, and it doesnt fit with the current situation. Your use of the VE CB on Polar was even dumber than your overall opinion. Newsflash: that was a crap CB.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='BamaBuc' timestamp='1345179464' post='3022682']
Not that this isn't true, but what fun would any of this be if no one argued things like CBs? If everyone just calmly accepted declarations of war, how boring would that be? Rush, the actual fighting of wars is not that fun. Working with a coalition is not very fun either. Controversy is what makes wars fun. There will never be a world where every CB (or even many CBs at all) are solid, but I hope there will also never be a world where absolutely no one cares about CBs at all. Because what fun would it be if there were no controversy in wartime?

-Bama
[/quote]


Im all for arguing CBs. It makes for fun propaganda, and fun diplomatic interaction (trying to get 3rd tier allies on board.)Ive argued in favor of CBs publicly that I knew were crap at the time the powder keg was exploding. My argument is against the absurdity that legit CBs are common, and literally everywhere. It doesnt fly in the reality of the fact that in EVERY war, there will be 2 sides. One will be bigger, and will win. If these legit CBs were as common as King Wally claimed them to be, then the bigger side would act on them FAR FAR FAR more often than they do. That it take a year for one to get acted on (and its always crap when it happens too), is a pretty clear indication that only CRAP Cbs ever exist and ever come up.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1345179350' post='3022681']
But the fact that you admitted that arguing over a CB is , in fact, the status quo, is just an admission from you, that the majority of people in this game have, do, and will always, think that every CB is BS. So why bother with it.[/quote]

Because it helps our world go round. If you go preempting everyone every single war then they'll keep hiding in peace mode until they get bored and decide to fight. If you both have something to actually fight for then both sides will fight, and it'll lead to a healthier world community.


[quote]
The system on this planet sucks. Stick to it if it helps you sleep at night, Ive moved on to trying to create a new system.
[/quote]

If you don't like it leave it.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1345179993' post='3022687']
Im all for arguing CBs. It makes for fun propaganda, and fun diplomatic interaction (trying to get 3rd tier allies on board.)Ive argued in favor of CBs publicly that I knew were crap at the time the powder keg was exploding.[/quote]

So you agree with me?

[Alterego]

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1345108148' post='3022376']
I love the new approach of MK and their drones: "Yeah you were right, our CB was indeed a farce because we couldn't found a real one, now get used to it and shut up."

Sorry MK and drones, I hate to inform you, but just because you think CBs are a thing of the past and you don't need them anymore doesn't mean we are automatically going to agree with you and shut up. Also, for a side who complains about the level of current political discourse, "Shut ups" aren't going to help to improve it.
[/quote]

Yeah its a hoot. On one page you have MK saying they wish there was real discourse and on another you have GOONS slating schatt for starting this thread and TLR & TOP saying STFU when someone is critical of the fact they (MK & Co) manufactured a very weak CB.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Alterego

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1345180219' post='3022693']
So you agree with me?
[/quote]

No I dont agree with you. Arguing about a CB comes after the fact of the war beginning. At THAT point you HAVE to do it. I also think you can argue for or against strategic pre-empts based on the fact that 2 alliances or groups of alliances clearly have their sights set on one another, rather than wait around for a year for one of the 2 sides 3rd tier allies to get the always incriminating screenshot of a 3rd tier ally on the other side to kick things off. I prefer a system the eliminates the middle man. You get the best of both worlds. You have group A hitting group B because group B is plotting to kill group A. Then we all come here to this forum, and everyone in group B and supporting group B cries foul and talks about how they never wished for anything but success, cookies, and cake for group A, and never ever had intent to harm them in any way, because they would never harm a fly, while group A argues and screams to anyone who will listed, "THESE GUYS ARE TRYING TO KILL US"... it saves us all the nonsense of having to argue over whether or not stealing alliance A's navy guide, and giving it to alliance Z, is a good enough reason to throw nukes.You prefer theater, I prefer the more direct approach.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1345180574' post='3022699']
Yeah its a hoot. On one page you have MK saying they wish there was real discourse and on another you have GOONS slating schatt for starting this thread and TLR saying STFU when someone is critical of the fact they (MK & Co) manufactured a very weak CB.
[/quote]

Im not saying to STFU because anyone manufactured a weak CB. Im saying STFU because weak CBs have been, and will always be the norm on CN. It was a conflict that everyone KNEW was going to happen eventually, who gives a flying crap how it started. There is not one power base EVER in CN, that has not acted on a WEAK CB. Thats why CBs are flipping stupid.

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1345180675' post='3022700']
No I dont agree with you. Arguing about a CB comes after the fact of the war beginning. At THAT point you HAVE to do it. I also think you can argue for or against strategic pre-empts based on the fact that 2 alliances or groups of alliances clearly have their sights set on one another, rather than wait around for a year for one of the 2 sides 3rd tier allies to get the always incriminating screenshot of a 3rd tier ally on the other side to kick things off. I prefer a system the eliminates the middle man. You get the best of both worlds. You have group A hitting group B because group B is plotting to kill group A. Then we all come here to this forum, and everyone in group B and supporting group B cries foul and talks about how they never wished for anything but success, cookies, and cake for group A, and never ever had intent to harm them in any way, because they would never harm a fly, while group A argues and screams to anyone who will listed, "THESE GUYS ARE TRYING TO KILL US"... it saves us all the nonsense of having to argue over whether or not stealing alliance A's navy guide, and giving it to alliance Z, is a good enough reason to throw nukes.You prefer theater, I prefer the more direct approach.
[/quote]

Except we already have established that this isn't fun. Even for the winning side. Then you just said arguing over CBs was "fun". You would give up that for some twisted sense of efficiency?

[Omniscient1]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1345180823' post='3022701']
Im saying STFU because weak CBs have been, and will always be the norm on CN. It was a conflict that everyone KNEW was going to happen eventually, who gives a flying crap how it started.
[/quote]

So you'll approve any measure of war as long as "everyone knows it was going to happen"? Does this mean you'll be changing your position and fighting with LSF against NoR? Everyone knew it was destined to happen. No valid CB is needed, they can just declare on who they want.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Omniscient1' timestamp='1345181199' post='3022703']
Except we already have established that this isn't fun. Even for the winning side. Then you just said arguing over CBs was "fun". You would give up that for some twisted sense of efficiency?
[/quote]

Who are WE? And where did we establish that? And I would not give anything up. We could still argue over the CB (which is based on intentions), at least its not theater.