An Imperial Decree

[USMC123]

 
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.

I think NSO is winning not only because Kaskus has been knocked down to that level, but because they are burning through cash to maintain it. As far FA image, yeah Kaskus might think what uou said, but the thing about FA is that it doesnt matter what you think but what everyone else does, and very few outside of NEW are on Kaskus's side on this. Edited February 19, 2013 by USMC123

[Gibsonator21]

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.

 

NSO is winning because they have more resources. Kaskus can only physically fight for so long, while NSO will be able to fight as long as they want.

[Sardonic]

NSO is winning because they have more resources. Kaskus can only physically fight for so long, while NSO will be able to fight as long as they want.

 

Gee, this line of reasoning could be applied to... *gasp* GOONS' conflict with Kaskus!  Not that that would ever stop you SF types from continuing to try to lord the conflict over us like it was some colossal failure on our part.

[Longshadow]

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

Beat him down NSO, beat him down hard.

 

He is out of money. He had no money to start the war with.

 

He's a silly billy!

 

Gee, this line of reasoning could be applied to... *gasp* GOONS' conflict with Kaskus!  Not that that would ever stop you SF types from continuing to try to lord the conflict over us like it was some colossal failure on our part.

 

Its okay Sardonic they are just play the political game, they can't fathom that its possible for Kaskus to actually be going full retard.

[Master Holton]

Gee, this line of reasoning could be applied to... *gasp* GOONS' conflict with Kaskus!  Not that that would ever stop you SF types from continuing to try to lord the conflict over us like it was some colossal failure on our part.

 

I never thought I'd have so much in common with a GOON.

[KenMorningstar]

We defended ourselves and our decisions to ask allies for help against Kaskus as a good move. Even in the face of the peanut gallery clamoring and tossing thier uninformed opinions all over the place.

I have no problem defending NSOs choice to make the same decision.

Kaskus doesn't ever want to admit defeat. The smart move is to mobilize your resources to grind and grind and grind, it's all you can do. Although you shouldn't need any help with Doornail. Kill him yourselves. It's satisfying.

Edited February 19, 2013 by KenMorningstar

[Hereno]

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.

 

I don't understand why you keep giving me these long, drawn out replies. I asked you a simple question, requesting a simple answer.

 

Allow me to repeat myself. Who is winning this war?

 

Your choices are:

 

1. Kaskus

2. NSO, NPO and SL

 

I don't want to hear about complications and crazy arithmetic or reasoning that takes several paragraphs. I want an answer. You are avoiding my question. If you refuse to answer my question, I humbly request that you stop responding to me and getting my hopes up.

[Griff]

I don't understand why you keep giving me these long, drawn out replies. I asked you a simple question, requesting a simple answer.

 

Allow me to repeat myself. Who is winning this war?

 

Your choices are:

 

1. Kaskus

2. NSO, NPO and SL

 

I don't want to hear about complications and crazy arithmetic or reasoning that takes several paragraphs. I want an answer. You are avoiding my question. If you refuse to answer my question, I humbly request that you stop responding to me and getting my hopes up.

He thinks Kaskus is winning, simply because we lost a little more NS. Hey don't worry about proportions, or the fact that they attacked us first or the fact that almost all of them were 4-8k NS with SDIs, CIAs and WRCs. Think of the NS, man!

[KenMorningstar]

He thinks Kaskus is winning, simply because we lost a little more NS. Hey don't worry about proportions, or the fact that they attacked us first or the fact that almost all of them were 4-8k NS with SDIs, CIAs and WRCs. Think of the NS, man!

Don't bring your logic and your facts in here!

[Gibsonator21]

Gee, this line of reasoning could be applied to... *gasp* GOONS' conflict with Kaskus!  Not that that would ever stop you SF types from continuing to try to lord the conflict over us like it was some colossal failure on our part.

It's lorded over you more because it was a colossal miscalculation on your part. That and you made yourself look even more like a dumbass in your negotiations.

[USMC123]

He thinks Kaskus is winning, simply because we lost a little more NS. Hey don't worry about proportions, or the fact that they attacked us first or the fact that almost all of them were 4-8k NS with SDIs, CIAs and WRCs. Think of the NS, man!

 

You forgot to add that the only NS most of them lost later in the war is from tech since all their war mode nations were rebuying infra (and some even tech).

[KenMorningstar]

It's lorded over you more because it was a colossal miscalculation on your part. That and you made yourself look even more like a dumbass in your negotiations.

Interesting. It's as if you don't know anything about our war with Kaskus/Mongols at all.

[Gibsonator21]

Interesting. It's as if you don't know anything about our war with Kaskus/Mongols at all.

Which part was I wrong?

[KenMorningstar]

Which part was I wrong?

All of it.

[Gibsonator21]

All of it.

So you knew exactly what you were getting into, and Sardonic was simply outstanding in negotiations? Interesting. It's almost like you know nothing about your war with Kaskus/Mongals at all.

[IYIyTh]

oh right you guys are still fighting

[Sardonic]

Sardonic was simply outstanding in negotiations?

Yep, and we enforced our policy regarding aid being sent to people we're at war with, like any good alliance would have done.  We have nothing to be ashamed of.

[Rayvon]

oh right you guys are still fighting

Sure are - no fault of Kaskus' though, to be fair to them in the moment.

[Unknown Smurf]

 

 

 

Sardonic was simply outstanding in negotiations?

 

 

Yep, and we enforced our policy regarding aid being sent to people we're at war with, like any good alliance would have done.  We have nothing to be ashamed of.

 

I think he's referring to [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?/topic/114932-a-shangri-la-announcement/page-7#entry3092701]this[/url]. 

 

 

Ah, such happy memories.

 

I hope you realize that you come off in the log you posted even worse than I do.  Which is saying something because damn, I want to slap myself after some of those lines.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Unknown Smurf

[Sardonic]

 

 

 

 

I think he's referring to this. 

 

 

It was by no means a perfect 10 performance, but I think I did fine.

[Unknown Smurf]

It was by no means a perfect 10 performance, but I think I did fine.

 

Back peddle harder.

 

 

Sardonic was simply outstanding in negotiations?

"Yep, and <snip>" 

[Walshington]

I don't understand why you keep giving me these long, drawn out replies. I asked you a simple question, requesting a simple answer.

 

Allow me to repeat myself. Who is winning this war?

 

Your choices are:

 

1. Kaskus

2. NSO, NPO and SL

 

I don't want to hear about complications and crazy arithmetic or reasoning that takes several paragraphs. I want an answer. You are avoiding my question. If you refuse to answer my question, I humbly request that you stop responding to me and getting my hopes up.

 

You tactic is time honored:  Take a question which requires nuance (ie "Is assassination morally right?"), and turn it into a black and white so you can poke holes in it (If I say yes, you bring up Lincoln and Kennedy, if no you bring up Hitler and Stalin).

 

However, in regards to your pointed question, I did NOT, in fact, avoid it.  I believe the phrase attorneys use is "asked and answered". To quote myself from the very post that you quoted (sorry, my multi-quote button is absent for some reason):

 

“So if I had to say right now who I felt was "winning", it would be whichever one of you which has destroyed more NS of the other.”

You had your answer there, you just didn't bother to do the math. I’m not sure which one of you that was at that point, and didn't do the math for you because it was more work that the answer is worth.  Why? To quote myself, again from the post you yourself quoted:

"The war's eventual "winner" will depend upon a lot more factors than that, however. 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.”

I think the eventual end of this conflict validated me completely, as the reason Kaskus gave for their surrender was that their strategic reserves were depleted and they could no longer carry on the fight, or words to that effect. That's a ten dollar way of saying "We ran out of warchest".  Even if the NS destruction favored them or was even, warchest determined the outcome, as it (or political pressure) always does.

My method, as it turns out, is the exact same method used by the game to quantify a war's progress.  Not the be all end all, but a great barometer in my opinion.  

Best game improvement in a long time, I wish they could implement it for alliances.

[Walshington]

He thinks Kaskus is winning, simply because we lost a little more NS. Hey don't worry about proportions, or the fact that they attacked us first or the fact that almost all of them were 4-8k NS with SDIs, CIAs and WRCs. Think of the NS, man!

 

 

 

Contrary to Ken Morningstar’s comment, you have brought almost no logic or facts in here. Your “argument”, point by point:

“He thinks Kaskus is winning” – Read my posts as many times as you like, I have never uttered this.  This is how people who truly debate refer to

what you just did. 

“because we lost a little more NS. Hey don't worry about proportions” – I was asked how I’d calculate a winner, and I answered. I followed immediately with – but here, let me refer you to what I actually said, as opposed to what you are saying I said:

"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.

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.

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.

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."

See the reference to proportions? (it's the green part) See how I point out that just NS is flawed, but there are many other factors? (it's the pink part)  See how I even hesitate to characterize it as winning? (it's the purple part)  I only point it out now color coded because you somehow missed it the first time. Did you read why  Kaskus surrendered this morning?  They ran out of warchest.  Even if they were ahead NS destruction wise, they lost because of exactly why I said people lose wars: warchest runs out. (that's the orange part) Do you know how admin attempts to quantify how wars are going?  The exact same way I do.

Hey don't worry about  the fact that they attacked us first, or the fact that almost all of them were 4-8k NS with SDIs, CIAs and WRCs. – Why would I worry about those things when they have nothing to do with who is winning a war?  That was the debate here, unless you were replying to someone else. Your emotional response to perceived injustices have no bearing on what is essentially a math problem in the early going, and a
warchest/political problem later. Plenty of people have attacked first, at various NS and with various wonders, and have both won and lost wars.  Your statement here has no bearing on the winner of this (or any other) war.

[Hereno]

You tactic is time honored:  Take a question which requires nuance (ie "Is assassination morally right?"), and turn it into a black and white so you can poke holes in it (If I say yes, you bring up Lincoln and Kennedy, if no you bring up Hitler and Stalin).

 

However, in regards to your pointed question, I did NOT, in fact, avoid it.  I believe the phrase attorneys use is "asked and answered". To quote myself from the very post that you quoted (sorry, my multi-quote button is absent for some reason):

 

“So if I had to say right now who I felt was "winning", it would be whichever one of you which has destroyed more NS of the other.”

You had your answer there, you just didn't bother to do the math. I’m not sure which one of you that was at that point, and didn't do the math for you because it was more work that the answer is worth.  Why? To quote myself, again from the post you yourself quoted:

"The war's eventual "winner" will depend upon a lot more factors than that, however. 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.”

I think the eventual end of this conflict validated me completely, as the reason Kaskus gave for their surrender was that their strategic reserves were depleted and they could no longer carry on the fight, or words to that effect. That's a ten dollar way of saying "We ran out of warchest".  Even if the NS destruction favored them or was even, warchest determined the outcome, as it (or political pressure) always does.

My method, as it turns out, is the exact same method used by the game to quantify a war's progress.  Not the be all end all, but a great barometer in my opinion.  

Best game improvement in a long time, I wish they could implement it for alliances.

 

I just found it really amusing to watch you talk in all of these vague terms rather than just saying "I think NSO is winning" or "I think Kaskus is winning". Even now that Kaskus themselves have admitted that they were defeated, you still insist on trying to twist things into a victory, as if the words "Kaskus lost" cause you physical pain. It isn't necessary to spin things; I thought Kaskus fought pretty damn well and were good opponents, but at the end of the day they lost and there was no other possible outcome to this situation other than Kaskus being defeated at any time since this war started. You knew it, I knew it. I don't understand why you insist on arguing this point any further.

[Walshington]

Why we'd be fighting GOONS right now, I don't know.

 

 

Well, SOMEone from that side of the web, judging from this post.    I just threw out GOONS because they seem to be the poster child for all that is hated about the “that” side of the web (kind of like GOD seems to be for the other side of the web). Perhaps  I misinterpreted your post, or should have picked an alliance that NPO was at war with.  Offhanded comment that I didn't bother to research, hence the wink.  No insult intended, other than the good natured poke at Kaskus' negotiating skills.