bcortell Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 That would be our membership. NE asked for what our members did at the beginning. In the end he bowed to their wishes. It wasn't just him who posted about more war. Or maybe the change happened when NE and the rest of AI gov saw who was willing to commit to the extended war, and who was not. Oh.. nah, probably not possible. And, at the end of the day, AI accepted the peace, and their current gov thinks it was an appropriate peace. All other opinions on what the piece should or should not have been immediately became irrelevant. Much like IRON suddenly changing its mind about TOP in the Grudge war, alliances sometimes change minds, and adjustments have to be made. Apparently though, the double standard is that only IRONs mind can change and have it be a driving force, anyone else's mind that changes, is just an annoyance and stands in the way. I really wish the war forums were still up. They (AI) wanted more war up til NE changed his mind. Well before during and after people were saying what they were going to commit. Yes, their "current" government, not their government during the war. That is what is irrelevant. If you're looking at an event, look at who was in charge at the time, not who is now. I said nothing about IRON changing its mind. Make sure you know who you are responding to before busting out double standard bull shit. Either way, nice job with the cancellation IRON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) Please Farrin, continue to make yourself appear like Brehon or Maldavi. I can see the red headed step child through your shrowd of illusions. Ivan Maldavi, scourge of Asian honeymooners. Ivan Moldavi! There, that's three. Let's see the ghost. Edited May 23, 2013 by Schattenmann Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Many in AI joined because it was bright, shiny, and new. AI was a populist movement and without the core values that make successful alliances, you get what AI is today. Wrong. Ai was intended to be a merger of similar alliances. In the end one part had a different view to the other and hence its split with those who believed differently left. It was best for everyone involved I guess. The extended war was a stupid clause that was an embarrassing addition to an already embarrassing outcome to a war where Ai failed entirely in the peace terms. Thats more due to NPO doing what it did which alienated quite a few of us. At the end of the day I'm actually happy that IRON decided to cut away from alliances that has a divergent FA path to themselves. Also hi Mia :O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Less than a year ago, IRON held the following treaties with major/big alliances: -TOP -NPO -Umbrella -NG -AI Only the final two remain, and QH's comment from early in this thread wasn't exactly torrid for IRON. (IRON's path, as opposed to AI/NPO's?!) NG obviously has commitments all over the place, as the last war showed. It's all fine and good for IRON to want to pursue this independent path, but in this game, you need people with you at all times. Exactly who is supposed to be on this path with IRON? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Less than a year ago, IRON held the following treaties with major/big alliances: -TOP -NPO -Umbrella -NG -AI Only the final two remain, and QH's comment from early in this thread wasn't exactly torrid for IRON. (IRON's path, as opposed to AI/NPO's?!) NG obviously has commitments all over the place, as the last war showed. It's all fine and good for IRON to want to pursue this independent path, but in this game, you need people with you at all times. Exactly who is supposed to be on this path with IRON? Stewie. He's the bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Ok, glad we're not hiding that. I mean, if people want to know who is responsible for why things happen the way they do, this post is the end all be all. Are you just typing to type? Thank you for stating the obvious. I don't understand why these sentences were even necessary to the message you're trying to send. You can talk about how you took into account everyone's desires, but at the end of the day, every log I read pointed back to top/tlr/mk controlling coalition discussions and manipulating the web in their best interest. Yeah, other alliances appeared to be involved, or at least in the chan during coalition discussions: IRON, NG, Umb, etc, but it's undeniable it was all about you three and you three only as you just ~admitted. Clearly, you didn't take everyone's opinion into account if IRON was infact so upset about it. It was NG, MK, TOP, IRON. Then TLR, Umbrella and others. There was a TOP-MK-IRON-NG govt channel for ages. It was even used as the initial coalition channel. I'm not sure why you're trying to be obtuse: the name of the war is the [i]Grudge War[/i] (Revenge War for us but semantics). It's obvious as to who the main concerned parties were. IRON and ourselves started a war of aggression against Polaris. It was clear as the day. Why you are acting like it's a new demonstration is beyond me. You are correct, that would be foolish. But if they told you a few weeks in advance that they didn't want reps anymore, and then you guys go ahead with pushing for reps (the full amount that you wanted in the first place in fact), it looks as if you are completely disregarding their wishes. You surely didn't believe that we would take your first offer, so starting off as high as you did even after IRON was out of the reps talk seems unnecessary. It seems like it would slow the entire process down and keep them at war longer than necessary. Don't get me wrong, I completely see your position here in the fact that reps were the long term plan, but at the same time, you have to look at what your allies are saying. We didn't listen to STA as well as we should have, and we paid for it. We lost what much of CN considered to be our closest ally. When IRON changed their mind about reps, did you guys change how you went about demanding them? If you didn't, it gives the appearance of you ignoring what they want, and just going about what you had planned and what TOP wanted. If the answer is no, then whether you made the conscious decision to not change or whether it just happened, it looks like you are ignoring IRON from an outsider's perspective, and I would imagine from the viewpoint of IRON as well. IRON made it clear before the war that [i]they[/i] wouldn't take reparations but they also made it clear that they were perfectly fine with us taking some. We agreed that we wanted the ammount to be anywhere between 100k and 200k. When we opened the negotiations with you, no one was asking for an end to this war on our side. It went normally (high end offer <---> low end offer) until IRON decided that the war needed to end [i]quickly[/i]. We adjusted our demands, went with a less confrontational approach. Peace was reached rapidly. There was an unfortunate delay in gathering the signatures: Random was tough to get ahold. I imagine it was done on purpose, as you saw our negotiating position weakening quickly and probably thought about exploiting it a little bit. That's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socrates Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Further discussion of the Grudge War will be interpreted as derailing. Consider this a verbal warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 It wasn't just him who posted about more war. I really wish the war forums were still up. They (AI) wanted more war up til NE changed his mind. Well before during and after people were saying what they were going to commit. Yes, their "current" government, not their government during the war. That is what is irrelevant. If you're looking at an event, look at who was in charge at the time, not who is now. I said nothing about IRON changing its mind. Make sure you know who you are responding to before busting out double standard bull shit. Either way, nice job with the cancellation IRON. Your pot-shot has been noted, you can now carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Props must be given to the new IRON government for bringing up these issues with their former treaty partners in a timely manner. It appears the policy of letting unknown grievances with friends fester for years on end without saying anything until you are ready to leave them appears to have gotten replaced. I congratulate you on the improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enamel32 Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 (edited) It was NG, MK, TOP, IRON. Then TLR, Umbrella and others. There was a TOP-MK-IRON-NG govt channel for ages. It was even used as the initial coalition channel. I'm not sure why you're trying to be obtuse: the name of the war is the Grudge War (Revenge War for us but semantics). It's obvious as to who the main concerned parties were. IRON and ourselves started a war of aggression against Polaris. It was clear as the day. Why you are acting like it's a new demonstration is beyond me. Oh no, it's not a new demonstration. I feel like sometimes people don't realize (spin, etc) what's happening around them. I'm making the point: people always seem to complain about how they don't like the political status quo of the last few years. By your own admission, you're largely responsible for it. I'm glad you're openly taking credit for it, because I don't believe anyone should forget that. You can try and push the blame on NpO and BPW, but in honesty, NpO hasn't had anywhere near the political influence they had in those days and prior. I find it funny that so much planning, effort, and hate has gone into (and continues to go into) actions and alliances that ultimately impacted few and will continue to impact few for the foreseeable future. Edited May 23, 2013 by Enamel32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keeology Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 funny how this thread is all over the place. never change OWF i do wish the best for NPO and IRON sad to see cancellation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Ruler Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 See you all in Gratasphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 I respect IRON, but I have to disagree with the reasoning behind this. The last war was as clear a victory for eQ as they were likely to get. Almost all of the alliances on Competence's side fought a lot and took a major hit, as much as most on the loosing side, if not more, than in previous wars. The war lasted for several months. They've claimed they didn't want reps. I'm not sure what else IRON could have wanted. Dragging it out for many more months to try to take out what top tier you couldn't defeat Gremlins style? The probability of that actually working that way was low, and probably would have ended up being a relatively even exchange. It was time for that war to end when it did. As for NPO balancing their allies in C&G vs. the desires of their allies in Equilibrium, especially IRON, NPO's actions heavily leaned towards eQ. They fought on that side, put a lot of power onto that side, helped start the war that many in eQ wanted, and didn't stop it from going for several months. Showing that you don't just completely abandon your allies on the other side during war when it comes time for the politics of peace, doesn't make you a bad ally to your allies on the side you join. I agree with this man, thus I am quoting him. My condolences to both alliances, I know this couldn't have been easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelrich Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Congratulations, IRON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Vicarious Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 You were talking hypotheticals. I was talking facts. EQ was bad and stood no chance without NPO at the helm. You need more than popular sentiment to win a war. NPO was the true steel. AI was pure iron, black and hard and strong, yes, but brittle, the way iron gets. They broke before they bent. And the rest of EQ? Copper, bright and shiny, pretty to look at but not worth all that much at the end of the day.” If you want to use metallurgy to make a point, you probably don't want to compare iron to steel and call iron the brittle one. You also probably don't want to use copper as your "weak" choice. Something like aluminum would work much better there. /the more you know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Thinking about it, TOP and NPO are meant to each other, may be a three way treaty with MK? The bloc name would be "Egoista". Trust me. You do not want this. Otherwise, carry on. I quite enjoy your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Hahahahaha. That's seriously your reasoning? You cancelled on them for being good allies? Holy shit, somehow your alliance is even more narcissistic and whiny than I had previously thought. That's an accomplishment. I don't always agree with Hereno...but when I do...... Get to know IRON they said. They are good people they said. I am glad we didn't take that advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imran Ehsan Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Its fun to see CnG freaking out. But yeah..carry on trolling. :popcorn: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Its fun to see CnG freaking out. But yeah..carry on trolling. :popcorn: Yeah, C&G is really freaking out. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President S O Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 Oh, wow... this thread. Congrats IRON, won't fault you here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third King Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 I don't always agree with Hereno...but when I do...... Get to know IRON they said. They are good people they said. I am glad we didn't take that advice. ...it means you should seriously re-evaluate your opinion, to finish your first thought. On your second thought, likewise. I'm not sure what your problem is with us, but it appears we won't be exchanging valentines any time soon. Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 This cancellation makes sense and with the way the treaty web is now, any cancellation that makes sense is a good cancellation to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Ruler Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 I read every page. It was quite entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 I read every page. It was quite entertaining. So much so that you've said this in other words at least one other time already in this very thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted May 23, 2013 Report Share Posted May 23, 2013 ...it means you should seriously re-evaluate your opinion, to finish your first thought. On your second thought, likewise. I'm not sure what your problem is with us, but it appears we won't be exchanging valentines any time soon. Oh well. Why would you want to exchange valentines with us anyways? You just dropped NPO because you claimed they supported us more than they supported you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts