An Imperial Decree

[Joe Stupid]

Okay, so who is winning the war?

 

You don't understand? We called in allies, it's over NSO lost.

[Esial]

I surrender to Lord Viceroy of Kaskus, Pollard. What are your terms?

[Walshington]

Okay, so who is winning the war?

 

 

Well, depends on the rubric you use (or abuse) I suppose, many of which are correct in one aspect or another, most of which are used more or less for propaganda.

 

One can brag all night about how many poker chips one has stacked in front of himself at any given point in the evening.  None of it is real money until the last hand has been dealt, however.

 

Even in poker, chips don't tell the whole story.  We might both lose a grand, but that grand might be my mortgage payment and your grand may be relative pocket change.  Another player might just have wanted to get away from his wife for a night -- win or lose chips, he's won at the end.  All depends on your goals when you jumped in the game, I guess.

 

I predict this war is a loser for both sides -- rather, a loss for one side, and a pyrrhic victory for the other, at least in terms of NS and $$$ spent for gain achieved. Once again, it depends on your goals when you entered the war.

[Master Holton]

This thread has so many quality members of the community in it. We're so glad you've all come out to give your thoughts on the war.

[Griff]

Our biggest mistake so far has been overestimating their collective IQ. We'll do better next time we promise.

[Sardonic]

Well, depends on the rubric you use (or abuse) I suppose, many of which are correct in one aspect or another, most of which are used more or less for propaganda.

 

One can brag all night about how many poker chips one has stacked in front of himself at any given point in the evening.  None of it is real money until the last hand has been dealt, however.

 

Even in poker, chips don't tell the whole story.  We might both lose a grand, but that grand might be my mortgage payment and your grand may be relative pocket change.  Another player might just have wanted to get away from his wife for a night -- win or lose chips, he's won at the end.  All depends on your goals when you jumped in the game, I guess.

 

I predict this war is a loser for both sides -- rather, a loss for one side, and a pyrrhic victory for the other, at least in terms of NS and $$$ spent for gain achieved. Once again, it depends on your goals when you entered the war.

Yeah, no.  NSO is winning by all objective measures.  Not that any of the people criticizing NSO are seemingly capable of objective analysis.

[KenMorningstar]

Yeah, no.  NSO is winning by all objective measures.  Not that any of the people criticizing NSO are seemingly capable of objective analysis.

I hope that last sentence doesn't surprise you.

[Corinan]

Can you imagine D34th's tears from that one? We'd have to get 2 of every alliance and put them on a damn ark.

 

I loled. I think you just won, Griff.

[Hereno]

Well, depends on the rubric you use (or abuse) I suppose, many of which are correct in one aspect or another, most of which are used more or less for propaganda.

 

One can brag all night about how many poker chips one has stacked in front of himself at any given point in the evening.  None of it is real money until the last hand has been dealt, however.

 

Even in poker, chips don't tell the whole story.  We might both lose a grand, but that grand might be my mortgage payment and your grand may be relative pocket change.  Another player might just have wanted to get away from his wife for a night -- win or lose chips, he's won at the end.  All depends on your goals when you jumped in the game, I guess.

 

I predict this war is a loser for both sides -- rather, a loss for one side, and a pyrrhic victory for the other, at least in terms of NS and $$$ spent for gain achieved. Once again, it depends on your goals when you entered the war.

 

That's a nice dodge, but you didn't answer my question. Who, in your eyes, is winning the war right now: Kaskus, or NSO & friends?

[Longshadow]

Yeah, no.  NSO is winning by all objective measures.  Not that any of the people criticizing NSO are seemingly capable of objective analysis.

 

:wub:

[Pollard]

That's a nice dodge, but you didn't answer my question. Who, in your eyes, is winning the war right now: Kaskus, or NSO & friends?

 

Pollard.

[USMC123]

Well, depends on the rubric you use (or abuse) I suppose, many of which are correct in one aspect or another, most of which are used more or less for propaganda.

 

One can brag all night about how many poker chips one has stacked in front of himself at any given point in the evening.  None of it is real money until the last hand has been dealt, however.

 

Even in poker, chips don't tell the whole story.  We might both lose a grand, but that grand might be my mortgage payment and your grand may be relative pocket change.  Another player might just have wanted to get away from his wife for a night -- win or lose chips, he's won at the end.  All depends on your goals when you jumped in the game, I guess.

 

I predict this war is a loser for both sides -- rather, a loss for one side, and a pyrrhic victory for the other, at least in terms of NS and $$$ spent for gain achieved. Once again, it depends on your goals when you entered the war.

 

Actually I'd bet serious cash Kaskus is spending a LOT more than NSO and company.

[Unknown Smurf]

Actually I'd bet serious cash Kaskus is spending a LOT more than NSO and company.

 

How much are you willing to bet? 

[Hereno]

Pollard.

 

>Isn't a given option

>Is the correct choice

 

When are you going to DoE MDA, dearest overlord?

[Rush Sykes]

I messed up on the reps, seen that as you were still waiting on reps, in my defense I remember there was reps mentioned early and reps are common to many alliances, so a info breakdown there, my apologies to you Rayvon and anyone else, sorry.
 
By saying there's nothing to change on your end of any agreement for peace, then saying they alone are holding up the war ending. is a lie. It is you who is preventing this war from ending by not wanting to budge from your version of the outcome and to spin it any other way is deception. You want them to admit to a title that only goes to the defeated party and it doesn't seem like that has happened.

Does your plan involve killing off more of your alliance to fit that huge powertrip you're on, hanging on the teet of other alliances, while avoiding the other war that's much more interesting, using others to do your dirty work and dragging everyone and the whole thing deeper into the abyss, all at the same time?  *slowclaps*

It might've been fun if it wasn't so lame, how you've carelessly pointed at others for blame, while you could stop the war at anytime, now it'll cost you more than a dime. :P


TSL does not acknowledge this DoW for war as valid under these circumstances, intention to mediate and assist in a peaceful, satisfactory solution to everyone involved, is not a reason for war any way you look at it. A failure on your part of diplomacy to acknowledge a peace offering, even if it didn't come from Kaskus themselves. That's why this DoW is a BS, asshatery and your pants are on fire, so stop pretending your fanny is sore over an aid package and admit your need to destroy some more to feed that ego.


Long story short, I came to you seeking peace, your answer is to officially and aggressively declare war.

 

 

How in the bloody hell is NSO preventing the war from ending? They have offered several options to Kaskus, unless I am mistaken. You seem to be single minded about this, accusing NSO of not giving any ground with how they want to close out the war, while 100% totally ignoring that Kaskus has repeatedly said "white peace" "white peace" "white peace"... and offered no counter options. NSO, to my knowledge, have offered a surrender. They then gave a little more ground to Kaskus by offering a similar solution to the PC-RoK nightmare (we have the will and can still fight, but we wish to end this.... or something like this)... and it was not accepted. So... I ask you ... since its all NSOs fault... what concession has Kaskus given? You and I both know the answer.

[KenMorningstar]

DoorNail is already out of infra. Is he still broke, too?

Beat him down NSO, beat him down hard.

[Walshington]

That's a nice dodge, but you didn't answer my question. Who, in your eyes, is winning the war right now: Kaskus, or NSO & friends?

 

 

Wasn't a dodge, actually.   Lots of ways to calculate, none of which matter until the war is over.

 

If you're asking me the method I generally gauge my wars by is total NS destroyed by each side.  Flawed, but a simple, quick barometer how the war is going, although I hesitate to say who is "winning". It's not detailed or nuanced, but I don't buy the percentages model.

 

Example: Say alliance A has 10 M NS , while B has 1 M NS

 

A has destroyed 200,000 NS, while B has wrecked 1 M NS.

 

I say that B is "winning" at this point.  I realize an argument can be made that B has lost 20% of it's NS and A has lost only 10%.  I also see the argument that A has more NS to give than B, and eventually, should the losses continue, B's position will erode.  Still, at this juncture, B is destroying more NS than A.  And I judge by "destroying" -- even if A buys back up, what was destroyed was destroyed.

 

Eventually, what wins wars doesn't show up until later -- warchests.  Even if A wears B down NS wise, if they don't have the warchests to sustain the fight they will likely lose.  Or, if A's allies pressure them into suing for peace, they may surrender even though they were quote unquote winning.

 

So if I had to say right now who I felt was "winning", it would be whichever one of you that has destroyed more NS of the other.  The war's eventual "winner" will depend upon a lot more factors than that, however.  If Kaskus surrenders to NSO, I don't care HOW much NS they destroyed, it will be a loss, and vice versa.

 

Fact is, this won't be a big win for either of you.  FA wise neither of you looks great right now, what with you continuing to bring in allies to defeat a micro, insulting PPO and criticizing TSL for doing exactly what your own allies have done.  Erodes a bit the FA advantage you had at the beginning of the war when you showed great patience and had much of the world's opinion on your side.

 

Also, your insistence on surrender is keeping you out of a much more significant conflict being waged by your allies, and your lower tier is getting punished.

 

Kaskus has of course been reduced considerably in NS and ANS, but I'm not sure that doesn't play into their strategy.  In any case, they will finish this war much weaker than when they started.  Question is, do they have the warchests to keep you mired in a lower tier slugfest?  If you win this war, but it costs your allies a victory in that other war, or drives your lower tier away, I question the value of that victory.  If Kaskus wins but expends their entire warchest doing so, again, I question the value.  Of course, I am an outsider at this point -- I can question it all I want, but such victory conditions may WELL be worth the cost to both of you.  I am not a stranger to pride or cutting off my nose to spite my face.

 

Hope that is sufficiently non-dodgy.  I'm not sure who is "winning" right now, but I'd be interested in seeing the numbers.  But only mildly, because it is just a snapshot. It is the long game that must be won, not the NS of the week. Doesn't matter if you're up $3000 in the casino if you leave 2 hours later with nothing.

[USMC123]

Wasn't a dodge, actually.   Lots of ways to calculate, none of which matter until the war is over.

 

If you're asking me the method I generally gauge my wars by is total NS destroyed by each side.  Flawed, but a simple, quick barometer how the war is going, although I hesitate to say who is "winning". It's not detailed or nuanced, but I don't buy the percentages model.

 

Example: Say alliance A has 10 M NS , while B has 1 M NS

 

A has destroyed 200,000 NS, while B has wrecked 1 M NS.

 

I say that B is "winning" at this point.  I realize an argument can be made that B has lost 20% of it's NS and A has lost only 10%.  I also see the argument that A has more NS to give than B, and eventually, should the losses continue, B's position will erode.  Still, at this juncture, B is destroying more NS than A.  And I judge by "destroying" -- even if A buys back up, what was destroyed was destroyed.

 

Eventually, what wins wars doesn't show up until later -- warchests.  Even if A wears B down NS wise, if they don't have the warchests to sustain the fight they will likely lose.  Or, if A's allies pressure them into suing for peace, they may surrender even though they were quote unquote winning.

 

So if I had to say right now who I felt was "winning", it would be whichever one of you that has destroyed more NS of the other.  The war's eventual "winner" will depend upon a lot more factors than that, however.  If Kaskus surrenders to NSO, I don't care HOW much NS they destroyed, it will be a loss, and vice versa.

 

Fact is, this won't be a big win for either of you.  FA wise neither of you looks great right now, what with you continuing to bring in allies to defeat a micro, insulting PPO and criticizing TSL for doing exactly what your own allies have done.  Erodes a bit the FA advantage you had at the beginning of the war when you showed great patience and had much of the world's opinion on your side.

 

Also, your insistence on surrender is keeping you out of a much more significant conflict being waged by your allies, and your lower tier is getting punished.

 

Kaskus has of course been reduced considerably in NS and ANS, but I'm not sure that doesn't play into their strategy.  In any case, they will finish this war much weaker than when they started.  Question is, do they have the warchests to keep you mired in a lower tier slugfest?  If you win this war, but it costs your allies a victory in that other war, or drives your lower tier away, I question the value of that victory.  If Kaskus wins but expends their entire warchest doing so, again, I question the value.  Of course, I am an outsider at this point -- I can question it all I want, but such victory conditions may WELL be worth the cost to both of you.  I am not a stranger to pride or cutting off my nose to spite my face.

 

Hope that is sufficiently non-dodgy.  I'm not sure who is "winning" right now, but I'd be interested in seeing the numbers.  But only mildly, because it is just a snapshot. It is the long game that must be won, not the NS of the week. Doesn't matter if you're up $3000 in the casino if you leave 2 hours later with nothing.

 

Well the vast majority of Kaskus has been reduced to buying infra to maintain nukes (and in some cases tech for level 9 airplanes if they felt so inclined), and the only ones who aren't are peace mode warrioring it up.  As far as your FA point, I'd wager most of Bob, and especially anyone NSO and Co. is at all worried about, disagrees with you.

[Walshington]

Well the vast majority of Kaskus has been reduced to buying infra to maintain nukes (and in some cases tech for level 9 airplanes if they felt so inclined), and the only ones who aren't are peace mode warrioring it up.  As far as your FA point, I'd wager most of Bob, and especially anyone NSO and Co. is at all worried about, disagrees with you.

 

See?  It really is all relative.  I think the winner is who has destroyed the most NS at this point, although that is an arbitrary and inconsequential benchmark compared to the war's final disposition, which may not correlate to NS losses in the slightest.  You think that because the vast majority of Kaskus has been reduced to buying infra to maintain nukes and they have people in peace mode that NSO is winning.

 

You think Kaskus' refusal to accept surrender is an FA gaffe that everyone recognizes, and that your own FA gaffes (calling in allies, disrespecting PPO) are situations no one you like cares about anyway.  I would say Kaskus probably feels the opposite.

 

Who's right? Meh -- everyone and no one.  Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto.  Look how in the other war Peace Mode went from cowardice to strategy (or strategy to cowardice, if you are on the EQ side).  It's ALL propaganda and spin in the end.  Declare your victory as you wish, or your wakakakaka, as the case may be.  Just don't expect the rest of us to accept your view as gospel.

[Pollard]

Wasn't a dodge, actually.   Lots of ways to calculate, none of which matter until the war is over.

 

If you're asking me the method I generally gauge my wars by is total NS destroyed by each side.  Flawed, but a simple, quick barometer how the war is going, although I hesitate to say who is "winning". It's not detailed or nuanced, but I don't buy the percentages model.

 

Example: Say alliance A has 10 M NS , while B has 1 M NS

 

A has destroyed 200,000 NS, while B has wrecked 1 M NS.

 

I say that B is "winning" at this point.  I realize an argument can be made that B has lost 20% of it's NS and A has lost only 10%.  I also see the argument that A has more NS to give than B, and eventually, should the losses continue, B's position will erode.  Still, at this juncture, B is destroying more NS than A.  And I judge by "destroying" -- even if A buys back up, what was destroyed was destroyed.

 

Eventually, what wins wars doesn't show up until later -- warchests.  Even if A wears B down NS wise, if they don't have the warchests to sustain the fight they will likely lose.  Or, if A's allies pressure them into suing for peace, they may surrender even though they were quote unquote winning.

 

So if I had to say right now who I felt was "winning", it would be whichever one of you that has destroyed more NS of the other.  The war's eventual "winner" will depend upon a lot more factors than that, however.  If Kaskus surrenders to NSO, I don't care HOW much NS they destroyed, it will be a loss, and vice versa.

 

Fact is, this won't be a big win for either of you.  FA wise neither of you looks great right now, what with you continuing to bring in allies to defeat a micro, insulting PPO and criticizing TSL for doing exactly what your own allies have done.  Erodes a bit the FA advantage you had at the beginning of the war when you showed great patience and had much of the world's opinion on your side.

 

Also, your insistence on surrender is keeping you out of a much more significant conflict being waged by your allies, and your lower tier is getting punished.

 

Kaskus has of course been reduced considerably in NS and ANS, but I'm not sure that doesn't play into their strategy.  In any case, they will finish this war much weaker than when they started.  Question is, do they have the warchests to keep you mired in a lower tier slugfest?  If you win this war, but it costs your allies a victory in that other war, or drives your lower tier away, I question the value of that victory.  If Kaskus wins but expends their entire warchest doing so, again, I question the value.  Of course, I am an outsider at this point -- I can question it all I want, but such victory conditions may WELL be worth the cost to both of you.  I am not a stranger to pride or cutting off my nose to spite my face.

 

Hope that is sufficiently non-dodgy.  I'm not sure who is "winning" right now, but I'd be interested in seeing the numbers.  But only mildly, because it is just a snapshot. It is the long game that must be won, not the NS of the week. Doesn't matter if you're up $3000 in the casino if you leave 2 hours later with nothing.

 

Rubbish, my FA skills leave everyone dazzled and amazed.

[Rayvon]

Just don't expect the rest of us to accept your view as gospel.

Just because you said so, I promise I won't.

[Walshington]

Just because you said so, I promise I won't.

 

Implicit in your aqcuiessence is your promise to accept my views as gospel, of course.  On my end, I will agree to be dazzled and partly amazed by Pollard's FA prowess in return.

 

See?  If Kaskus was this easy to negotiate with, you'd be fighting GOONS by now. ;)

[Rayvon]

Why we'd be fighting GOONS right now, I don't know. I'll again accept your views without delay or contest. Clearly you're far above par in knowledge.

[Pollard]

Implicit in your aqcuiessence is your promise to accept my views as gospel, of course.  On my end, I will agree to be dazzled and partly amazed by Pollard's FA prowess in return.

 

Everyone knows of my l33t skillz. I have no need to prove them.

[Spartacus1082]

I wish I could read this thread but I can't since I'm blinded by Pollard's FA awesomeness and all that other happy crap........