i would like to offer peace talks for woto

[Auctor]

 

TOP had pretty much all its large nations out in Eq.  IF IRON had fought them, you would know this.  Feel free to check with some of your allies who did.

 

If they're not on the second page, they don't count.

[BrJLa]

 

You're cute. 

 

 

Come on.  Y'all spent weeks fumbling around, knowing you were going to demand something but unable to agree on what it was going to be.  Debating the merits of what y'all settled on seems to miss the big picture.

[alyster]

 

 

Come on.  Y'all spent weeks fumbling around, knowing you were going to demand something but unable to agree on what it was going to be.  Debating the merits of what y'all settled on seems to miss the big picture.

 

 

OK You got us. We spent 2 months debating if we should force Brehon to watch My Little Pony or not. 

[Stewie]

OK You got us. We spent 2 months debating if we should force Brehon to watch My Little Pony or not.

Sorry, MLP is over

[Centurius]

Wasn't naming you in particular, mind. But if you look through the thread, you'll see that there are elements within your coalition (who benefited, rather than were harmed) by the controversial ending of the previous war.

I just find it ironic that the whole "you deserve this war because of your mishandling of Eq" line has caught on, to an extent, in your half of the coalition, considering it is your half who, if anything, have NPO to thank. :|

I think you're confusing deduction for a need for vengeance. This war would not have been possible without NPO mishandling the last one entirely. We do not want revenge on them for this it is just the political reality, I for one am happy they did. But just like the isolation NPO suffered the current situation is a logical result from previous actions. So while we may have benefited from it NPO has nobody but themselves to thank for their current predicament.

[Commander shepard]

 

TOP had pretty much all its large nations out in Eq.  IF IRON had fought them, you would know this.  Feel free to check with some of your allies who did.

I was looking at the time and quite a lot of nations on page 1 were not out.

If they seriously had a problem with NPO then you think they would have took the nations out of PM and caused issues.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Commander shepard

[Auctor]

I was looking at the time and quite a lot of nations on page 1 were not out.

If they seriously had a problem with NPO then you think they would have took the nations out of PM and caused issues.

 

You do realize that the page nations are on in the alliance display isn't really a viable metric for whether they're upper tier or not? Or that they change positions in relation to one another as they get beat down or other nations delete? Or that nations in the upper tier on that side were particular hard to keep staggered during Equilibrium at times and some were able to rotate in and out of peace mode? Or that what was left of NPO's upper tier(banks, whatever) was hippied down long term in Equilibrium by the time NPO declared on TOP?

[Commander shepard]

 

You do realize that the page nations are on in the alliance display isn't really a viable metric for whether they're upper tier or not? Or that they change positions in relation to one another as they get beat down or other nations delete? 

 

I reckon page 1 of a proclaimed top tier alliance probably means that most of the nations are top tier.

Yeah about changing positions, but I don't recall how it far that went down on page 1, I reckon the nation ranked 40 was about 50k or a bit less which should be in TOP's fighting range and currently on Page 1 for NPO the nation ranked 40 is around that NS.

 

 

 

Or that nations in the upper tier on that side were particular hard to keep staggered during Equilibrium at times and some were able to rotate in and out of peace mode? Or that what was left of NPO's upper tier(banks, whatever) was hippied down long term in Equilibrium by the time NPO declared on TOP?

 

 

But that's not the point because if the two alliances have their nations in PM then it is silly if one later complains that the other had their nations in PM.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Commander shepard

[hartfw]

I was looking at the time and quite a lot of nations on page 1 were not out.

If they seriously had a problem with NPO then you think they would have took the nations out of PM and caused issues.

 

So, since you were watching so well at the time, how many wars did TOP get to declare on NPO after the first week of war?

 

Of TOP's 40 highest tech nations, 35 were held in war mode until the war ended or they deleted.  1 more escaped to peace mode, then came back and was staggered the rest of the way.  These were the nations that people were fighting, that you seem to miss being there.  

 

So again, I will suggest you go check with IRON's allies that fought them even if you don't think they did.  Alternatively, I'm happy to list them.

[Mogar]

 

Because this war has continued the dangerous trend of alliances ignoring MD level treaties with one side in order to be on the other side.

 

Alliances may as well just sign a Coalition treaty

+1 to this idea, I'd be happy to arrange one of these as well!

 

 

I think you will find that AZTEC are doing pretty well too!! 

AZTEC are the real winners of this war.

 

Obviously everyone is.

 

Wasn't naming you in particular, mind. But if you look through the thread, you'll see that there are elements within your coalition (who benefited, rather than were harmed) by the controversial ending of the previous war.

I just find it ironic that the whole "you deserve this war because of your mishandling of Eq" line has caught on, to an extent, in your half of the coalition, considering it is your half who, if anything, have NPO to thank. :|

Point blank the terrible ending of the last war is why we're here, I'm fairly certain half of the Polar coalition would have no issues playing EQ over again, it's just not how the cards fell.

[BrJLa]

I think you're confusing deduction for a need for vengeance. This war would not have been possible without NPO mishandling the last one entirely. We do not want revenge on them for this it is just the political reality, I for one am happy they did. But just like the isolation NPO suffered the current situation is a logical result from previous actions. So while we may have benefited from it NPO has nobody but themselves to thank for their current predicament.

 

See, this is what I'm getting at.  Whether and why NPO needs to have terms extracted on us is the real question.  TOP always intended to demand terms on NPO, and diminishing NPO's ability to challenge TOP has become the only continuing purpose of the war.  If the OWF wants to debate something, that's a more interesting topic than whether banks are obsolete.

[Auctor]

Considering the way MDoAP's commonly work in CN, I'm not sure why folks keep saying a coalition treaty would be a good idea. Let's work on basic concepts before we move onto the big stuff imo.

[Mogar]

Considering the way MDoAP's commonly work in CN, I'm not sure why folks keep saying a coalition treaty would be a good idea. Let's work on basic concepts before we move onto the big stuff imo.

it'd make the whining about "attack on one is attack on all" go away, and that by itself is good enough reason for me.

[Commander shepard]

 

So, since you were watching so well at the time, how many wars did TOP get to declare on NPO after the first week of war?

 

Of TOP's 40 highest tech nations, 35 were held in war mode until the war ended or they deleted.  1 more escaped to peace mode, then came back and was staggered the rest of the way.  These were the nations that people were fighting, that you seem to miss being there.  

 

So again, I will suggest you go check with IRON's allies that fought them even if you don't think they did.  Alternatively, I'm happy to list them.

If the answer is not many then I don't think TOP were too bothered about not being able to hit NPO nations in PM.

I checked through the nations they declared on that were not in TOP, couldn't find any that still exist. 

You would have to send me the data for the highest tech nations being kept in war.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Commander shepard

[Auctor]

it'd make the whining about "attack on one is attack on all" go away, and that by itself is good enough reason for me.

 

That's not even how CN works.

[Mogar]

 

That's not even how CN works.

I realize that people will still bitch about anything, but it'd provide a legal basis for the broader declarations and make it easier to get alliances on whoever needs to be hit.

[Stewie]

I realize that people will still !@#$%* about anything, but it'd provide a legal basis for the broader declarations and make it easier to get alliances on whoever needs to be hit.

It will also mean that alliances know earlier than later that their treaties aren't worth the paper they are written with for certain conflicts.

[hartfw]

If the answer is not many then I don't think TOP were too bothered about not being able to hit NPO nations in PM.

I checked through the nations they declared on that were not in TOP, couldn't find any that still exist. 

You would have to send me the data for the highest tech nations being kept in war.

 

Anyone who fought for IRON, they appreciate it (even if Commander Sheppard cannot remember it happening and thinks that those nations were actually in PM).

 

Here you go:

 

Ruler NS Infra Tech Staggered all war

Telchar 202258 21961 21124 Escaped once but yes

Emperor Genesis 181042 17500 20303 Came out late, was let back to PM

Lum L Lumwood 163658 12660 19612 Y

Aesis 155499 11472 18152 Y

Planet Earth 144659 11186 17841 Y

Oesch 142032 10646 17165 Y

Thors Hammer 143310 12646 17093 Y

DougZ37 141182 13000 16350 Y

tekken 142499 12763 16147 Y

fulgrim 102242 4829 14932 Y

Bodvar Jarl 130690 12444 14385 Y, never let Yev nation sit

Unspeakable Evil 110161 7510 14219 Y

Owned-You 123671 13708 14015 Y

Simon De Montfort 116171 8833 13989 Y

Wilking 105462 8949 13878 Y

Lavo_2 111502 9213 13837 Y

Dealmaster13 144976 20641 13762 Y

Jaska 116559 10667 12939 Y

Kuzuryusen 98880 7139 12398 Y

SirDelirium 112361 13272 12257 Y

Hepokatti 120875 13417 11856 Y

Killer Lolis 146369 20000 11702 PM (LOL WC)

Centurius 114571 12000 11500 Y

Megamind 110466 10842 11478 Y

Jaaku 117678 12982 11260 Y

Crymson 97413 9301 11001 Y

BEazy 109633 11000 10776 Y

maladieshie 100648 9894 10651 Y

Terveis 108922 11538 10607 Y

Yir Yoronti 96593 9284 10580 Y

badboybill2007 102183 8200 9397 Y

Jan Doedel 87472 9714 9357 Y

aaannndddyyy 106489 13388 9280 Y

Voodoo Nova 91565 9500 9200 Y

TailsK 106797 13121 9093 Y

Tushar Dhoot 97215 12000 9067 PM

Richard Rahl 84639 9894 8944 Y

kencojenko 91594 10000 8686 PM

basharious 90863 12000 7596 Y

talin 96128 13010 7533 Y

Edited January 6, 2014 by hartfw

[Auctor]

It will also mean that alliances know earlier than later that their treaties aren't worth the paper they are written with for certain conflicts.

Which is why anyone worth their salt wouldn't sign a coalition treaty in the first place - all it does is gives bandwagoners flimsy justification for bandwagonning, why should they be on the hook for that?

[Master Hakai]

 

You're cute. 

this dude's a flirt.

 

Real question here is: what is "woto"? Does anybody know?

[Commander shepard]

 

Anyone who fought for IRON, they appreciate it (even if Commander Sheppard cannot remember it happening and thinks that those nations were actually in PM).

 

Those look like the pre-war stats or early on stats so the end result is quite similar to the NPO in that their nations on the other pages ended up on the first page(still large nations) except the NPO is a larger alliance and more nations end up on the first page.

[Centurius]

 

See, this is what I'm getting at.  Whether and why NPO needs to have terms extracted on us is the real question.  TOP always intended to demand terms on NPO, and diminishing NPO's ability to challenge TOP has become the only continuing purpose of the war.  If the OWF wants to debate something, that's a more interesting topic than whether banks are obsolete.

You keep believing that.

[hartfw]

 

Those look like the pre-war stats or early on stats so the end result is quite similar to the NPO in that their nations on the other pages ended up on the first page(still large nations) except the NPO is a larger alliance and more nations end up on the first page.

 

So, TOP didn't have its upper tier in PM like you said in Eq?

[Commander shepard]

 

So, TOP didn't have its upper tier in PM like you said in Eq?

I never said they did, I just said they had a lot of nations in PM on page 1, those nations could have fought NPO nations and didn't.

[hartfw]

I never said they did, I just said they had a lot of nations in PM on page 1, those nations could have fought NPO nations and didn't.

 

Sure, because if there is one thing that doesn't matter to you, it is facts.  Keeping that in mind, it seems entirely reasonable that TOP could declare on NPO's upper tier while all of TOP's upper tier was staggered.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, since you think it is so much like NPO now, and just the product of war reduction, I'm curious to see how close you get.  TOP engaged 90% of their nations above 7,500 tech in Eq. What percentage of NPO nations above that mark do you think have been engaged in this war, versus in PM the entirety?