Master Holton Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 I understand the point of a policy like this is to serve as a deterrent against further attacks, however I don't believe you have much of a credible deterrent. I don't imagine that the coalition arrayed against yours failed to somehow account for the possibility of GATO's allies entering the conflict, or that it would, ultimately, change the outcome of the war. I imagine that unconnected alliances will be unlikely to declare war directly on you - but that was already the case. You've announced a deterrent that would be an irritant at best in response to a threat that was unlikely to ever materialize. It just comes across as an attempt to look bigger and badder than you actually are. Puffery and hot air. You seem to be in the wrong alliance, sir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Someone in MHA accusing someone else of living in a bubble. How cute is this guy? And I am not talking about the picture. Before start to throw generic insults to AA of someone who posted something you don't like, one of the worst retorts ever by the way, at least try to see if said poster is really in that alliance first, I thought you would know better that just because someone is using an alliance image tag doesn't means that he is actually in the alliance. Edited February 5, 2013 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 I understand the point of a policy like this is to serve as a deterrent against further attacks, however I don't believe you have much of a credible deterrent. I don't imagine that the coalition arrayed against yours failed to somehow account for the possibility of GATO's allies entering the conflict, or that it would, ultimately, change the outcome of the war. I imagine that unconnected alliances will be unlikely to declare war directly on you - but that was already the case. You've announced a deterrent that would be an irritant at best in response to a threat that was unlikely to ever materialize. It just comes across as an attempt to look bigger and badder than you actually are. Puffery and hot air. You still don't get it. I mean all our allies. Which includes some of yours. I don't think NPO would like anyone bandwagoning on to us. Nor would TPF or TIO or LoSS for that matter. I am fine with treaty chain ins and I'm fine with them being fine with that. It is war after all.... But I know our allies to be better than to let anyone in your coalition just bandwagon in. I understand you guys have an agenda but to put the agenda so far ahead of allies that you allow bandwagoning is not in my pal's nature. With the way some of the people on your side have been acting of late you never can be too sure...so why take chances? Let everyone know how we feel about it and if we get 20 legit chains.....fine but we won't tolerate bandwagoning and I believe none of our allies will either. That is the point. Whether it was needed or not...maybe we'll never really know....but the way things were going that first week or two I think it needed to be said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederico Rodriguez Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Because, you ignored the next bit where I said there are still plenty of alliances to spend our upper tier on first. Don't worry we'll be out in our own time. Edit>>> You also forgot to respond to our previous conversation where I made you look ignorant. Nah, he just comes by that naturally I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 It was addressed to the Equilibrium as a whole, not NpO specifically*. Yes, ODN is taking a pounding. SF/XX tried this very same tactic in the Dave War and it didn't work out so well. In any case, both of our sides will be sticking around long enough to see who is correct here. * You would think the reference to factions would've made this clear. Eq as a whole is faring better than what y'all are saying. It is probably not faring as well as what our side is trying to state but overall, it is fairly stalemate right now. The issue will be when alliances have felt enough is enough. How much damage are alliances on either side willing to take to achieve the outcome they want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Look, I understand why the other side has to keep up this wishful thinking/propaganda stuff. You promised your people an easy ride, but it's not happening, so morale is being sapped. You don't really have a plan. You herded unprepared masses in our general direction in the hope that we would quickly fold. It's not happening and won't happen. But if you keep saying it will, maybe you can boost your side's morale a little. It's OK. We get it. Carry on. Talk about wishful thinking/propaganda stuff... I don't think anyone on our side was stupid enough to believe a war against DH/CnG was going to be quick and easy. You are seriously delusional if you think we thought that. Most of the people I have talked to over the months has known it was going to be a long, difficult war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Talk about wishful thinking/propaganda stuff... I don't think anyone on our side was stupid enough to believe a war against DH/CnG was going to be quick and easy. You are seriously delusional if you think we thought that. Most of the people I have talked to over the months has known it was going to be a long, difficult war. Did they know how long and difficult though? and like you said will most want to keep that kind of fighting up? You guys have some good alliances over there..no doubt but I think you guys know you have some iffy, flaky ones as well. If that.....shield starts to peel back.....how long before the whole thing caves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Did they know how long and difficult though? and like you said will most want to keep that kind of fighting up? You guys have some good alliances over there..no doubt but I think you guys know you have some iffy, flaky ones as well. If that.....shield starts to peel back.....how long before the whole thing caves? We're under such devastating pressure, how can we possible cope. I'll have to wait a whole 5 days before I can collect taxes again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Trying to argue that one side or another will break down due to poor morale is just silly guys. All the "general members" are generally the same in every alliance. Some love their pixels, some fight wars for fun. It is highly unlikely that one side in a conflict of this magnitude will have significantly better odds at the "morale" front. I do understand why the side at huge disadvantage would love to spin that story but regretfully enough for you guys this is a game of numbers and we got more numbers than you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Look, I understand why the other side has to keep up this wishful thinking/propaganda stuff. You promised your people an easy ride, but it's not happening, so morale is being sapped. You don't really have a plan. You herded unprepared masses in our general direction in the hope that we would quickly fold. It's not happening and won't happen. But if you keep saying it will, maybe you can boost your side's morale a little. It's OK. We get it. Carry on. No one said it would be easy. And not many people want you to fold, personally I want to see you crushed in a brutal six month war. Your own alliance is already ahead of schedule despite hiding in peace mode from the fight. Optional Defense Network? More like Obsolete Defense Network. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Yeah you may have more numbers...we have better ones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Yeah you may have more numbers...we have better ones. If you actually believed that then you would not have most of your alliances in peace mode. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Yeah you may have more numbers...we have better ones. That is an interesting assumption that is far from proven right quite yet. I do predict that our numbers are made out of fairly similar kind of stock but as I said I can well understand why you'd reason in that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Do Not Fear Jazz Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 That is an interesting assumption that is far from proven right quite yet. I do predict that our numbers are made out of fairly similar kind of stock but as I said I can well understand why you'd reason in that way.Not from what I've heard, lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Not from what I've heard, lol. I am yet to see enough information draw any conclusion that would contradict my assumption that the CN players on either side are more or less similar in general. It is sadly enough hugely widespread custom to draw conclusions from the too few a cases we happen to run into. I am willing to assume that you do not have anywhere near enough information to draw any conclusions on the matter one way or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederico Rodriguez Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Sup FC, long time no see! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Sup FC, long time no see! Hi ^_^ (No wavy emoticon). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the rebel Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 You still don't get it. I mean all our allies. Which includes some of yours. I don't think NPO would like anyone bandwagoning on to us. Nor would TPF or TIO or LoSS for that matter. I am fine with treaty chain ins and I'm fine with them being fine with that. It is war after all.... But I know our allies to be better than to let anyone in your coalition just bandwagon in. I understand you guys have an agenda but to put the agenda so far ahead of allies that you allow bandwagoning is not in my pal's nature. With the way some of the people on your side have been acting of late you never can be too sure...so why take chances? Let everyone know how we feel about it and if we get 20 legit chains.....fine but we won't tolerate bandwagoning and I believe none of our allies will either. That is the point. Whether it was needed or not...maybe we'll never really know....but the way things were going that first week or two I think it needed to be said. Who needs to bandwagon? After all you did say this: Because, you ignored the next bit where I said there are still plenty of alliances to spend our upper tier on first. Don't worry we'll be out in our own time. Which will result in many legit chains as you start declaring on more alliances, so sort of makes the annoucement worthless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 To the small posse of those who came here to challenge my analysis of your propaganda strategy: as I said, we get it. Keep right on with that. We want you to feel better, because we're nice. The new hegemony you are helping to build (wittingly or not), if you somehow manage to pull off a win, will not be as nice. No one said it would be easy. And not many people want you to fold, personally I want to see you crushed in a brutal six month war. Your own alliance is already ahead of schedule despite hiding in peace mode from the fight. Optional Defense Network? More like Obsolete Defense Network. I'm not sure what your beef with us in particular might be. We're terribly likable - piles of 'friendliest alliance' awards and such. I figured that's why we get piled on in recent wars - a surfeit of a kind of puppy-ish affection. But if you want this to be a six month grind, we're up for it. We won't fold soon, nor will we disappear in the long term. We are neither optional nor obsolete. We've been here since very soon after the creation of Bob, and we'll be here when the lights go out. You, on the other hand: who are you and what have you done? I'm genuinely interested, since you seem to have some hitherto unarticulated issues with us and it would be fascinating to learn how you came by such bitterness and blind rage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Do Not Fear Jazz Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 I love you ODN/Pingu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 To the small posse of those who came here to challenge my analysis of your propaganda strategy: as I said, we get it. Keep right on with that. We want you to feel better, because we're nice. The new hegemony you are helping to build (wittingly or not), if you somehow manage to pull off a win, will not be as nice. I'm not sure what your beef with us in particular might be. We're terribly likable - piles of 'friendliest alliance' awards and such. I figured that's why we get piled on in recent wars - a surfeit of a kind of puppy-ish affection. But if you want this to be a six month grind, we're up for it. We won't fold soon, nor will we disappear in the long term. We are neither optional nor obsolete. We've been here since very soon after the creation of Bob, and we'll be here when the lights go out. You, on the other hand: who are you and what have you done? I'm genuinely interested, since you seem to have some hitherto unarticulated issues with us and it would be fascinating to learn how you came by such bitterness and blind rage. I really hate to get into this with you because I really love you and ODN but do you seriously propose that when we base our calculus of this war in raw numbers, the only thing that can be measured, we are spewing propaganda but when you talk about our "poor morale" and "herding unprepared masses" you are being the one considering this situation from some sort of a more neutral position? Our side obviously likes to point out the clear advantage we have, but you would best remember that it's an actual advantage, while talking about "poor morale" is really just based in your preconception that you are basing on close to nothing considering how large and varying our coalition is. In the end talk is talk and we'll walk the walk ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 Objectively speaking, ODN is lovable, even irresistible. Yet we keep hearing hostility from some in your coalition, FC. So how can we believe they are speaking anything other than propaganda? :P Either that, or they are so deeply mired in false consciousness that they have erased all memories of earlier times on Bob and actually believe that the current benign order of things is evil. If they believe that, then it is possible they believe some of the other things they say. As to morale issues, that's based on observational data. And if you think raw numbers are all that is measurable or relevant, you are a less sophisticated political analyst and operator than I had hitherto believed, comrade. You know I love you: I look forward to the day when you break out of your ideological prison and see clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 (edited) Objectively speaking, ODN is lovable, even irresistible. Yet we keep hearing hostility from some in your coalition, FC. So how can we believe they are speaking anything other than propaganda? :P Either that, or they are so deeply mired in false consciousness that they have erased all memories of earlier times on Bob and actually believe that the current benign order of things is evil. If they believe that, then it is possible they believe some of the other things they say. As to morale issues, that's based on observational data. And if you think raw numbers are all that is measurable or relevant, you are a less sophisticated political analyst and operator than I had hitherto believed, comrade. You know I love you: I look forward to the day when you break out of your ideological prison and see clearly. Gathering sufficient amount of data about morale issues is something I honestly don't believe anyone in CN has done. At best it's gut feelings or trying to apply (often poor) historical experiences to the current situation which can well be misleading. I strongly feel that the raw numbers are the only thing that we can use with any degree of certainty to try to judge this situation, everything else is just guestimation. There is also the tendency in the arguments about Cybernations warfare to emphasize the "failures" of both sides by posting those utterly idiotic screenshots of inadequate warchests, usage of too many bombers and what-not. Those do not really give any indication of anything but the poor sense of understanding of the poster who tries to make generalizations from the actions of a few in war with thousands and thousands of individuals. During times of conflict people, or at least some of them, start seeing everything through black-and-white lenses, either you are with us or you are a monstrous baby killing abomination. From my experience both sides have their less and more reputable combatants, the only thing I am honestly concerned with is the end game :P Edited February 5, 2013 by Finnish Commie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 FC, you are clearly a monstrous, baby-killing abomination. More importantly, you are not quite right, although I agree the end-game will be critical. I understand that your side wishes to pretend that only numbers matter. But even the most hardcore structural realists see beyond their hard power fetish to recognize that some intangibles such as quality of leadership, popular will and others make a significant difference in the balance of power or distribution of capabilities. For instance, in fabled far-off Terra, their is substantial empirical evidence that democracies fight longer, harder and more effectively than autocracies. Deny it all you like, the numbers are only part of the picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finnish Commie Posted February 5, 2013 Report Share Posted February 5, 2013 FC, you are clearly a monstrous, baby-killing abomination. More importantly, you are not quite right, although I agree the end-game will be critical. I understand that your side wishes to pretend that only numbers matter. But even the most hardcore structural realists see beyond their hard power fetish to recognize that some intangibles such as quality of leadership, popular will and others make a significant difference in the balance of power or distribution of capabilities. For instance, in fabled far-off Terra, their is substantial empirical evidence that democracies fight longer, harder and more effectively than autocracies. Deny it all you like, the numbers are only part of the picture. Au contraire, my point was not that only numbers matter and if it appeared so I apologize. I do believe that there are most likely dozens of other variables too (like on this "Terra" democracies having a better resistance to war weariness) but that in the context of Cybernations we simply do not have enough quantitative data of any of these other variables to draw any conclusion out of them. It is well possible that democracies in CN can fight harder than authoritarian alliances but we do not have enough proof to say either way. Neither do we have enough information to make any assumptions of the morale of one side or another of this little conflict, especially as we have dozens of different groups involved each with their unique culture. Thus my only point is that only thing we truly know is the hard numbers we can see, the amount of NS and nations and all of that. And thus finally in the only way we can measure our side does have an advantage. That does not mean that there is no possibility that your side can't have advantage in some other variables that form to compose the result of this war but we honestly can't tell, unless you can enlighten me of some proof of such a variable? Our side pointing out that we are winning the war in numbers is just our side underlining the one thing we all know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.