Jump to content

IRON Announcement


Recommended Posts

Limit damage to C&G? Does our damage look limited? ODN shed ~60% of its NS and 50% of its tech. TLR numbers were the same. INTs numbers were actually slightly higher. GATOs were slightly lower. In fact, on a sheer tech %, ODN , TLR and INT all 3 lost more than NpO did during the grudge war(speaking solely of tech).... limited damage? Are you freaking kidding me?

 

But didn't you guys win a strategic victory?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 699
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You're more of an idiot than I pretend to be. Christ, shut up. You're not being witty.

 

 

Besides me does anyone even read your posts anymore? It's like you have two responses. You either claim someone else is a shit poster or you claim people are being dumb on purpose. I'm starting to think your just projecting your own insecurities onto others.

 

I suspect it was the damage to a different bloc that was a concern. I doubt that IRON based this decision on the few percent NS that could have been taken off CnG that wasn't. They do have a treaty there after all. 

 

Moreover, NPO pushing to keep the war going would have made several of their allies angry, likely more than just IRON. CnG continuing to be hit for no good ends to the war effort would have made less sense.

 

 

I'm surprised you didnt mention Neo in the same line.

Also, Expected 10/10 how all the third parties are at it, keep it up.

NPO you're a class act and will remain so and you've shown that yet again.

you guys should get a room, cunts totally deserve each other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that NPO FA is rattled.  6 months Farrin, the clock is ticking.  

 

Nightmare448

~The Peoples Champion of the NPO

6 months? You generous fellow! 

 

Shake with fear Farrin  

Edited by Letterkenny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh wow, not even sure where to start. Do you not think if we could have waved a magic wand and not had our friends and allies in CnG or NG on the other side, you really think we wouldn't have taken that in a heartbeat? CnG told us they felt responsible for enabling the actions on DH's part we were waging war against, and thus should share in some of the repercussions for that. I don't completely agree with that, but I sure as hell respect it. My respect for many of my allies on the opposite side of the coalition rose by leaps and bounds just as my respect for many people (though not our allies) on "our" side in EQ dropped.

As for harming our allies the second time you mentioned, I'd say that's between me and my allies. Everything Brehon did in this last war was for Ai first, our other allies second, and the coalition third. Continuing the war as many of you wanted would have done nothing but hurt Ai, NPO, and the tiny number of other alliances willing to send out even one or two more people into the extended war. As far as continuing the war in general, we were rapidly approaching the point where the damage we were doing to them was less than the damage they were doing back to us. At that point in time, you take your victory and go home. It could have been done differently, and I likely would have done it differently. With that said, I'm satisfied with the outcome it achieved.

 

That's exactly what I'm talking about: "NPO is satisfied with the outcome? Nice, then fuck everyone else desires and let's call the day." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I'm talking about: "NPO is satisfied with the outcome? Nice, then fuck everyone else desires and let's call the day." 

 

To be fair.. that was IRON's stance in the last war. Is not that the way of coalitions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 don't think anyone disagrees that NPO gave a lot to the war effort. We did not cancel on them because of the war - the OP is merely using the conflicts that arose during the war to illustrate that IRON and NPO are no longer in lock step diplomatically. Does this mean we don't like them? No. We still respect them and I expect our two alliances to continue to work together productively in the future. But we will both be well-served by having a little bit of legal and political distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the point being missed here is that one need not desire for a longer war, or a harsher peace to be dissatisfied with the outcome. By all accounts this war was a psychological contest: whether all the stats in the world could break the solidarity of competence. That this solidarity was never exhaustively tested, or overcome is the reason why Eq's victory was a punchline and not a trophy of accomplishment. NPO was undoubtably the greatest champion of collective settlement during the war- without them it would have never been entertained, and a more drawn out set of individual and front arrangements would have ensued. Collective peace was the only concession competence sought, and giving it meant making peace on the terms dictated by the allegedly defeated. At the end of the day the peace obtained was one that allowed NPO's partners and competence as a whole to save face, but it denied this consideration to the members of Eq.

 

IRON and others have some cause to be dissatisfied, not because they dispute the content of the peace, or felt DH should have been more thoroughly crushed, but because the eventual ToS were to some a humiliating compromise and an embarrassment. While I'm ambivalent about the war altogether, I can at least understand why IRON would at this point want to escape the orbit of NPO. In either case I am glad they made this disclosure, I think it has made for an interesting thread, and they should be commended for doing what everyone whines about every other day- that is making things 'interesting'. (Honestly, no one here seriously would have preferred "Reasons were conveyed in private, we wish the best to all- herpdederpingdo"?)

Edited by iamthey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mompson, we didn't force IRON's hand during the Grudge War. We had also been clear from the get-go (actually, for more than two years) that we wanted revenge. IRON was fully on board. A few weeks before, they told us that they wouldn't take reps because they actually favored taking them "on the battlefield", in "blood". Let's not rewrite history. When IRON started talking about going for peace, we said we would try to speed things up. We simply weren't going to give it all up and go from a previously-agreed position to pure white peace just because they suddenly felt it needed to happen now. It would have been ridiculous. 

 

I see a little bit of that attitude in the cancellation: IRON seems to enter coalitions and then experience an afterthought: they knew full well who NPO's allies were and where they would be. Given IRON's past, they should fully sympathize with that kind of position, not lambast the NPO for honoring their treaty agreements.

 

But hey, bold move, I'll give you that.

Edited by Yevgeni Luchenkov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, IRON soured on TOP because TOP kept them at war too long in the Grudge war. IRON soured on NPO because NPO didnt keep them at war long enough. Makes total sense.  For goodness sake make up your minds which it is that you want. 

It's really quite simple Rush.

 

IRON had accomplished what we wanted to in the Grudge War, TOP (our largest ally in the war) hadn't so they wanted to keep going.

IRON did not accomplish everything that we wanted to in Equilibrium, NPO (one of our largest allies in the war) did so the war ended.

 

In one scenario IRON was happy with the outcome and our allies weren't.

In the other scenario IRON was not happy with the outcome and our allies were.

 

They are not the same situation so to compare them as apples-to-apples is not appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AI knew what would happen if they jumped the gun with us, INT has CnG which severely overrules our ODP, and we can not defend NG from the opposite side. I am not sure how those last 2 can be brought into argument, we can not fight for those on the other side? Sure you can negotiate and try and keep them from being hit, but we control nothing besides our mouse in this game.

I'm sorry, Ai knew what would happen if they jumped the gun with YOU?! You, along with us and others, were fighting FOR Ai here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mompson, we didn't force IRON's hand during the Grudge War. We had also been clear from the get-go (actually, for more than two years) that we wanted revenge. IRON was fully on board. A few weeks before, they told us that they wouldn't take reps because they actually favored taking them "on the battlefield", in "blood". Let's not rewrite history. When IRON started talking about going for peace, we said we would try to speed things up. We simply weren't going to give it all up and go from a previously-agreed position to pure white peace just because they suddenly felt it needed to happen now. It would have been ridiculous. 

 

I see a little bit of that attitude in the cancellation: IRON seems to enter coalitions and then experience an afterthought: they knew full well who NPO's allies were and where they would be. Given IRON's past, they should fully sympathize with that kind of position, not lambast the NPO for honoring their treaty agreements.

 

But hey, bold move, I'll give you that.

 

Nice try, but there are logs of IRON stating specifically otherwise. I don't have them but I know they still exist in some thread in government sections of NpO forums. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really quite simple Rush.

 

IRON had accomplished what we wanted to in the Grudge War, TOP (our largest ally in the war) hadn't so they wanted to keep going.

IRON did not accomplish everything that we wanted to in Equilibrium, NPO (one of our largest allies in the war) did so the war ended.

 

In one scenario IRON was happy with the outcome and our allies weren't.

In the other scenario IRON was not happy with the outcome and our allies were.

 

They are not the same situation so to compare them as apples-to-apples is not appropriate.

 

You guys keep trumpeting this.. what you stop short of though, is explaining what, exactly it was, that you still wanted to accomplish. And were you OK with accomplishing it, knowing 100% with certainty.. that the entirety of any extended war, would see AI get 100% focused. Was AI expendable to what you wanted to accomplish? I ask the rhetorically, and do not expect an answer. The answer, seems to be pretty evident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try, but there are logs of IRON stating specifically otherwise. I don't have them but I know they still exist in some thread in government sections of NpO forums. 

Do provide them. I'll be happy to finally see the proverbial logs. It's a common thing we often hear about when it comes to TOP's history. [i]Logs[/i] would exist of our eternal malevolance, they are exchanged far from our evil watch but when it comes to producing them, they are suddenly very hard to find.

 

In this case, timing is the key.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Ai knew what would happen if they jumped the gun with YOU?! You, along with us and others, were fighting FOR Ai here.

 

This is apparently lost on IRON gov. AI was the aggrieved alliance with the CB. When AI ended it, it was ended. Unless you are IRON, who know better than AI, what is better for AI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do provide them. I'll be happy to finally see the proverbial logs. It's a common thing we often hear about when it comes to TOP's history. Logs would exist of our eternal malevolance, they are exchanged far from our evil watch but when it comes to producing them, they are suddenly very hard to find.

 

In this case, timing is the key.

 

I'll invade NpO boards and get it, give me a minute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mompson, we didn't force IRON's hand during the Grudge War. We had also been clear from the get-go (actually, for more than two years) that we wanted revenge. IRON was fully on board. A few weeks before, they told us that they wouldn't take reps because they actually favored taking them "on the battlefield", in "blood". Let's not rewrite history. When IRON started talking about going for peace, we said we would try to speed things up. We simply weren't going to give it all up and go from a previously-agreed position to pure white peace just because they suddenly felt it needed to happen now. It would have been ridiculous. 

Just an outsiders observation. I am sure they were onboard going in but I dare say they became pissed because they were doing all the fighting towards the end while you sat back and dragged your feet with negotiations. That sort of thing leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an outsiders observation. I am sure they were onboard going in but I dare say they became pissed because they were doing all the fighting towards the end while you sat back and dragged your feet with negotiations. That sort of thing leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

 

When one alliance is top heavy... like TOP was... it stood to reason that whoever was oAing with them, would pull most of the later war. If IRON gov of that era did not realize this going in.. then they had no business being in that war. They could learn a lesson or 2 from GOONS on how to enjoy the late war when you are down into the crap tier of nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...