Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 457
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

War/Peace Preference: war.gif War is an option for Golden Empire since 11/8/2013.

 

Why would we need to into peace mode? No, what's taking the sting out of it is that most of the alliances fighting us are barely managing to keep up enough of a declare rate to bother calling it a war. Seriously, I've never been in a war against superior numbers where I've been able to spend this much time sitting in war mode with nobody declaring. I didn't even bother going into peace mode when I was away for a week in the middle of the war. 

 This just in... the lower your NS, the less likely you are to be attacked. More at 11.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why Helios has such a hard time understanding the idea of an elite lower tier producer alliance. I'd rather have an army of hardened warriors in the low tier than a horde of infra-hugging sycophants in the upper tier.

 

That's good, because at Polaris' current rate of "progress", that's exactly what they'll have. A quick check shows you have exactly one nation left above 100k NS and only 2 left above 70k.

 

 

Funfact: WFF was originally founded in 2007.

 

In order to bring about our former glory, we have been brainwashing everyone to believe it is 2007 again :awesome:

 

That explanation makes a lot more sense than getting stressed out about an ancient matter that was avenged a very, very long time ago...and I ought to know, I kept careful count of the scores that needed settled.  Should someone want to truly re-fight GW IV aka The Unjust War however, let me know, I think that we can roust Jason8 back to the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good, because at Polaris' current rate of "progress", that's exactly what they'll have. A quick check shows you have exactly one nation left above 100k NS and only 2 left above 70k.

All having an upper tier does is make your alliance increasingly vulnerable to political and military pressure from God-tier alliances. In fact having a significant upper tier presence significantly compromises the interests of low and mid tier nations in an alliance. Why should the interests of a few upper tier nations hold the rest of an alliance hostage? Can a 150k nation really produce more cash aid than a 60k nation, or offer anything that a 60k or even a 6k nation can't?

For alliances interested in preserving their sovereignty and political independence in the future they will be wiser to qualify membership by production rather than nation strength. Upper tier nations who avoid wars and don't produce anything of value to the alliance, are worse than useless. Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's good, because at Polaris' current rate of "progress", that's exactly what they'll have. A quick check shows you have exactly one nation left above 100k NS and only 2 left above 70k.

 

Granted, I don't have a whole lot of experience with not defending allies. But I find it odd that someone in your position would give us crap about how much damage we've taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All having an upper tier does is make your alliance increasingly vulnerable to political and military pressure from God-tier alliances. In fact having a significant upper tier presence significantly compromises the interests of low and mid tier nations in an alliance. Why should the interests of a few upper tier nations hold the rest of an alliance hostage? Can a 150k nation really produce more cash aid than a 60k nation, or offer anything that a 60k or even a 6k nation can't?

For alliances interested in preserving their sovereignty and political independence in the future they will be wiser to qualify membership by production rather than nation strength. Upper tier nations who avoid wars and don't produce anything of value to the alliance, are worse than useless.

 

 

You had me until you started typing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had me until you started typing

He occasionally has some valid points, finding them in his insane ramblings isn't easy.

For anyone who does not want to be directly linked to DBDC/DT, there is a real benefit to avoiding the top 300-ish rankings (currently 168k NS). As the mechanics of this world dictate, you can generally continue to do tech deals and grow without breaking into the top 300. Since the population of this planet has fallen so dramatically (it's fallen below 9000 a couple times in the last few days) and the number of nation rulers left have become increasingly apathetic to the state of their nations, the odds of pushing enough of your alliance into the top 300 (if they aren't already there) to make a meaningful stand are low. It's much easier to get a large number of your nations into the 300-500 rank range where you can work to swarm those who declare down on you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how Polar is implicitly admitting defeat in all of their rhetoric about "low-tier alliance" and "content to be at war forever". You claim that you can't be defeated, yet underneath your rhetoric you admit to having been defeated already.

 

The purpose of an alliance is to provide stability for its members, to through cooperation tame the anarchy of being unaligned, and allow growth and production. At least that is, at some level, how most of us see an alliance. Through giving up some amount of freedom -- the freedom to declare wars at random, for example -- you gain the freedom to do all the other things we do on Bob.

 

Further, alliances sign treaties in order to further help each other achieve this stability they desire. They give up some freedom in choosing their wars, in order to instead gain some protection from the aggression of others. Treaties are [OOC: at least in an IC context] only worth as much as they fulfil this purpose. No one would sign a treaty with an alliance unable to work with others, since treaties require cooperation to not make the alliance a liability.

 

Given all this, how are we to interpret the statements Polar members are making of waging eternal lower-tier warfare? Aren't they giving up all the things they gained by being an alliance in the first place -- no more protection from random wars, no more opportunity for growth. Beyond the label of "New Polar Order" on their nation, it seems Polar nations would not truly be in a very different situation from the unaligned nations in their tier. If they grow, they are destroyed by raids, and if they don't grow, they might very well be destroyed anyway.

 

Additionally, it seems that Polar, when they state that they are "content to be at war forever" are giving up on their treaties, too. They are giving up the ability to help their allies in any conflict those allies may get dragged into. A treaty with an alliance stuck in an eternal war would be a useless treaty -- one party cannot possibly aid the other. How does Polar's allies feel about Polar being willing to give up all the strength they pledged to their support in order to fight a pointless war achieving no political goal?

 

I don't know what others think "defeated" means, but accepting the loss of all these things and pretending it does not bother them does seem like a defeat. If Polar weren't so foolishly prideful, they would admit this defeat, surrender, and rebuild their alliance. Accepting your own undoing isn't doing you or your allies any favours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Granted, I don't have a whole lot of experience with not defending allies. But I find it odd that someone in your position would give us crap about how much damage we've taken.

 

But you have a lot of experience switching sides in the middle of a global war, right?  Let's not mud sling.

 

My apologizes for responding to a Tywin post.  That was an error, I'll try to be more respectful of NpO in the future and not associate the two in the same sentence.  However you guys are shot to hell--that is not disrespect, that is an observation.  Your competition much less so and the group of alliances you entered the war to protect has I believe already received peace.  That should confirm for you who the real target was.  You were warned.  Nobility has a price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how Polar is implicitly admitting defeat in all of their rhetoric about "low-tier alliance" and "content to be at war forever". You claim that you can't be defeated, yet underneath your rhetoric you admit to having been defeated already.

 

The purpose of an alliance is to provide stability for its members, to through cooperation tame the anarchy of being unaligned, and allow growth and production. At least that is, at some level, how most of us see an alliance. Through giving up some amount of freedom -- the freedom to declare wars at random, for example -- you gain the freedom to do all the other things we do on Bob.

 

Further, alliances sign treaties in order to further help each other achieve this stability they desire. They give up some freedom in choosing their wars, in order to instead gain some protection from the aggression of others. Treaties are [OOC: at least in an IC context] only worth as much as they fulfil this purpose. No one would sign a treaty with an alliance unable to work with others, since treaties require cooperation to not make the alliance a liability.

 

Given all this, how are we to interpret the statements Polar members are making of waging eternal lower-tier warfare? Aren't they giving up all the things they gained by being an alliance in the first place -- no more protection from random wars, no more opportunity for growth. Beyond the label of "New Polar Order" on their nation, it seems Polar nations would not truly be in a very different situation from the unaligned nations in their tier. If they grow, they are destroyed by raids, and if they don't grow, they might very well be destroyed anyway.

 

Additionally, it seems that Polar, when they state that they are "content to be at war forever" are giving up on their treaties, too. They are giving up the ability to help their allies in any conflict those allies may get dragged into. A treaty with an alliance stuck in an eternal war would be a useless treaty -- one party cannot possibly aid the other. How does Polar's allies feel about Polar being willing to give up all the strength they pledged to their support in order to fight a pointless war achieving no political goal?

 

I don't know what others think "defeated" means, but accepting the loss of all these things and pretending it does not bother them does seem like a defeat. If Polar weren't so foolishly prideful, they would admit this defeat, surrender, and rebuild their alliance. Accepting your own undoing isn't doing you or your allies any favours.

 

I think Polaris is very clear in the fact that we have lost this war.  It is blatantly obvious to everyone.  It was lost before a DOW was even posted.  Even our ability to resist was compromised by the continual raids on our higher tier nations.

 

I think it is also very clear that we have not been offered peace terms, nor have some of our allies.  If you would like us to surrender then perhaps you need to come up with a plan.  We won't be begging for terms now or ever.

 

I think it is also obvious that we will keep fighting and ''if necessary I am happy to fight forever'' until we reach a settlement we and our allies are happy with.  It is our prerogative to decide if the terms of our surrender are acceptable to us, the alternative is to keep fighting.

 

The fact that you have been in similar circumstances on a number of occasions amuses me to no end.  I will take every pleasure in the world when your alliance is placed into a similar position and be guaranteed I will piss on every comment you post in the exact same manner you have here, but possibly with a little more gusto as befits a goat eating troll such as myself.  Or did you forget how the world turns Comrade?

 

The fact that our higher tier has been completely destroyed, losing a years plus worth of tech importation means we will have to face a reality of being at a certain NS for the foreseeable future.  If this result in some way surprises you then you are truly beyond redemption.

 

Unlike Pacifica we have never sought to rule the world, but apparently those who don't understand us think that is the only option.  Enjoy the bed you have made for yourselves but please don't get condescending about fate when yours is only the flick of a switch away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Like getting raided every few months by the same group of nations?

 

Well i think that is politic of the game ... getting out and making moves to solidify a position .. remain stagnant and well this happens.

 

friggin grammar edits :(

Edited by brucemania
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well i think that is politic of the game ... getting out and making moves to solidify a position .. remain stagnant and well this happens.

 

friggin grammar edits :(

 

I find it interesting that you believe Polaris could ever have any kind of position with bowl smear alliances like DBDC or their enablers.  We are as polar opposite as is physically, socially or philosophically possible.  I would never embarrass myself by being associated with them in any way shape or form.  I get that some people will do anything for love, but I won't do that.

 

I would rather gouge my bowels out with a dry stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how Polar is implicitly admitting defeat in all of their rhetoric about "low-tier alliance" and "content to be at war forever". You claim that you can't be defeated, yet underneath your rhetoric you admit to having been defeated already.

 

The purpose of an alliance is to provide stability for its members, to through cooperation tame the anarchy of being unaligned, and allow growth and production. At least that is, at some level, how most of us see an alliance. Through giving up some amount of freedom -- the freedom to declare wars at random, for example -- you gain the freedom to do all the other things we do on Bob.

 

Further, alliances sign treaties in order to further help each other achieve this stability they desire. They give up some freedom in choosing their wars, in order to instead gain some protection from the aggression of others. Treaties are [OOC: at least in an IC context] only worth as much as they fulfil this purpose. No one would sign a treaty with an alliance unable to work with others, since treaties require cooperation to not make the alliance a liability.

 

Given all this, how are we to interpret the statements Polar members are making of waging eternal lower-tier warfare? Aren't they giving up all the things they gained by being an alliance in the first place -- no more protection from random wars, no more opportunity for growth. Beyond the label of "New Polar Order" on their nation, it seems Polar nations would not truly be in a very different situation from the unaligned nations in their tier. If they grow, they are destroyed by raids, and if they don't grow, they might very well be destroyed anyway.

 

Additionally, it seems that Polar, when they state that they are "content to be at war forever" are giving up on their treaties, too. They are giving up the ability to help their allies in any conflict those allies may get dragged into. A treaty with an alliance stuck in an eternal war would be a useless treaty -- one party cannot possibly aid the other. How does Polar's allies feel about Polar being willing to give up all the strength they pledged to their support in order to fight a pointless war achieving no political goal?

 

I don't know what others think "defeated" means, but accepting the loss of all these things and pretending it does not bother them does seem like a defeat. If Polar weren't so foolishly prideful, they would admit this defeat, surrender, and rebuild their alliance. Accepting your own undoing isn't doing you or your allies any favours.

 

Thank you for this hilariously patronizing treatise on the purpose of an alliance. Maybe someday you'll find yours in a situation where dignity demands that you keep fighting, even if you know you're not going to win in the traditional sense.

 

Besides, now that we're down in the lower tiers, we're having a field day. Why stop now? Once our damage ratio goes positive we get to tell everyone we're fighting that they're incompetent an only winning because of the endless masses of drooling morons they're throwing at us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Thank you for this hilariously patronizing treatise on the purpose of an alliance. Maybe someday you'll find yours in a situation where dignity demands that you keep fighting, even if you know you're not going to win in the traditional sense.

 

Besides, now that we're down in the lower tiers, we're having a field day. Why stop now? Once our damage ratio goes positive we get to tell everyone we're fighting that they're incompetent an only winning because of the endless masses of drooling morons they're throwing at us.

 

 

I believe we have been there but our dignity involves were we have been beat down our pride dictates to bounce back and be the best we can be and not sit and feel sorry for ourselves. Our culture dictates that we remain strong and resilient to a fault.  We are not happy just being a mid low tier AA as it seems you are accepting for this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 We are not happy just being a mid low tier AA as it seems you are accepting for this war.

 

Oh please, stop that posturing. It's not like we have much of a choice. Basically we either kiss the backends of DBDC or stay a mid tier alliance. Unlike you, most of us prefer the latter.

Edited by Lamorak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But you have a lot of experience switching sides in the middle of a global war, right?  Let's not mud sling.

 

My apologizes for responding to a Tywin post.  That was an error, I'll try to be more respectful of NpO in the future and not associate the two in the same sentence.  However you guys are shot to hell--that is not disrespect, that is an observation.  Your competition much less so and the group of alliances you entered the war to protect has I believe already received peace.  That should confirm for you who the real target was.  You were warned.  Nobility has a price.

You realize through your alliance's direct actions you ensured that Polar did not receive the full support it could, yes? You want Polar to get peace, put your nation where your mouth is, otherwise you're just a trash ally who clearly chose to throw their lot in with the winning side at the cost of their allies on the losing side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Oh please, stop that posturing. It's not like we have much of a choice. Basically we either kiss the backends of DBDC or stay a mid tier alliance. Unlike you, most of us prefer the latter.

 

Brucemna has definitely been kissing alot of rearends in the doomsphere IRC channels lately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologizes for responding to a Tywin post.  That was an error, I'll try to be more respectful of NpO in the future and not associate the two in the same sentence.

 

You had a chance to be "respectful of NpO" and instead you pulled a complete role reversal when your precious NS was on the line. I honestly cannot remember seeing someone go from hating an enemy to fawning over his prowess to such a complete degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting how Polar is implicitly admitting defeat in all of their rhetoric about "low-tier alliance" and "content to be at war forever". You claim that you can't be defeated, yet underneath your rhetoric you admit to having been defeated already.

 

The purpose of an alliance is to provide stability for its members, to through cooperation tame the anarchy of being unaligned, and allow growth and production. At least that is, at some level, how most of us see an alliance. Through giving up some amount of freedom -- the freedom to declare wars at random, for example -- you gain the freedom to do all the other things we do on Bob.

 

Further, alliances sign treaties in order to further help each other achieve this stability they desire. They give up some freedom in choosing their wars, in order to instead gain some protection from the aggression of others. Treaties are [OOC: at least in an IC context] only worth as much as they fulfil this purpose. No one would sign a treaty with an alliance unable to work with others, since treaties require cooperation to not make the alliance a liability.

 

Given all this, how are we to interpret the statements Polar members are making of waging eternal lower-tier warfare? Aren't they giving up all the things they gained by being an alliance in the first place -- no more protection from random wars, no more opportunity for growth. Beyond the label of "New Polar Order" on their nation, it seems Polar nations would not truly be in a very different situation from the unaligned nations in their tier. If they grow, they are destroyed by raids, and if they don't grow, they might very well be destroyed anyway.

 

Additionally, it seems that Polar, when they state that they are "content to be at war forever" are giving up on their treaties, too. They are giving up the ability to help their allies in any conflict those allies may get dragged into. A treaty with an alliance stuck in an eternal war would be a useless treaty -- one party cannot possibly aid the other. How does Polar's allies feel about Polar being willing to give up all the strength they pledged to their support in order to fight a pointless war achieving no political goal?

 

I don't know what others think "defeated" means, but accepting the loss of all these things and pretending it does not bother them does seem like a defeat. If Polar weren't so foolishly prideful, they would admit this defeat, surrender, and rebuild their alliance. Accepting your own undoing isn't doing you or your allies any favours.

 

Our Polar Imperator Emeritus already answered this well but as a former Pacifican I really want to answer the abject bastardization of Francoism that fills this post, and apparently the modern mentality of some in Pacifica. You quote the various works by Vladimir and others almost word for word in your description of an alliance but really miss the spirit of those works and what really makes a great alliance.

 

Francoism as it was originally written was not about growth for the sake of growth... that is the ideology of the cancer cell. The goal of an alliance is not to build more infrastructure and more NS, it is to protect the collective sovereignty and freedom of potential of its membership.

 

Freedom of Potential does NOT refer to freedom of uncontrolled nation growth... instead, it refers to production WITHIN the alliance, the freedom to contribute cash and tech aid, artwork, mutual security, intellectual and cultural works, to ascend within the alliance social structure through hard work, and so forth. The freedom for the individual cell to contribute to the Alliance Organism.

 

If we compare the Alliance to a human body, the goal then is to maintain a fit and disciplined, lean and well sculptured physique. What happens when an alliance allows itself to grow fat? It can no longer fight as efficiently to protect its own sovereignty.

 

Thus the upper tier that justifies its growth through this bastardization of Francoism is like the belly that protrudes beyond the chestplate and is vulnerable to attack by spearpoint. It slows down the rest of the Alliance with its own gluttony and requires the other healthy nations to be subject to the interests of the upper tier. In essence, the undisciplined self-interest of a few allows the entire Alliance to be held hostage by groups like DBDC. This is why I said upper tier nations who hide in PM during war and do not contribute beyond their own self interests are "worse than useless."

 

It's a damn shame that I am forced to elaborate on this principle in this "Producerism" because NPO has twisted Francoism time and time again to justify whatever ill-conceived decisions that consistently lead to her own decline... whether it was Karma or your vulnerability to Doomsphere in the future.

 

If I am wrong then describe to me exactly why a 160k NS nation is so much more important than a 60k NS or 6k NS nation.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Our Polar Imperator Emeritus already answered this well but as a former Pacifican I really want to answer the abject bastardization of Francoism that fills this post, and apparently the modern mentality of some in Pacifica. You quote the various works by Vladimir and others almost word for word in your description of an alliance but really miss the spirit of those works and what really makes a great alliance.

 

Francoism as it was originally written was not about growth for the sake of growth... that is the ideology of the cancer cell. The goal of an alliance is not to build more infrastructure and more NS, it is to protect the collective sovereignty and freedom of potential of its membership.

 

Freedom of Potential does NOT refer to freedom of uncontrolled nation growth... instead, it refers to production WITHIN the alliance, the freedom to contribute cash and tech aid, artwork, mutual security, intellectual and cultural works, to ascend within the alliance social structure through hard work, and so forth. The freedom for the individual cell to contribute to the Alliance Organism.

 

If we compare the Alliance to a human body, the goal then is to maintain a fit and disciplined, lean and well sculptured physique. What happens when an alliance allows itself to grow fat? It can no longer fight as efficiently to protect its own sovereignty.

 

Thus the upper tier that justifies its growth through this bastardization of Francoism is like the belly that protrudes beyond the chestplate and is vulnerable to attack by spearpoint. It slows down the rest of the Alliance with its own gluttony and requires the other healthy nations to be subject to the interests of the upper tier. In essence, the undisciplined self-interest of a few allows the entire Alliance to be held hostage by groups like DBDC. This is why I said upper tier nations who hide in PM during war and do not contribute beyond their own self interests are "worse than useless."

 

It's a damn shame that I am forced to elaborate on this principle in this "Producerism" because NPO has twisted Francoism time and time again to justify whatever ill-conceived decisions that consistently lead to her own decline... whether it was Karma or your vulnerability to Doomsphere in the future.

 

If I am wrong then describe to me exactly why a 160k NS nation is so much more important than a 60k NS or 6k NS nation.

 

The only reply to this is the only one twisting anything is yourself.. NPO has not twisted or butchered anything .. the only thing we are guilty of is adapting to the world climate as it is today and striving to be the best we can be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for this hilariously patronizing treatise on the purpose of an alliance. Maybe someday you'll find yours in a situation where dignity demands that you keep fighting, even if you know you're not going to win in the traditional sense.
 
Besides, now that we're down in the lower tiers, we're having a field day. Why stop now? Once our damage ratio goes positive we get to tell everyone we're fighting that they're incompetent an only winning because of the endless masses of drooling morons they're throwing at us.

Are you sure that it is "dignity", and not just plain pride? Pride is, as you might be aware, not a virtue. Excess pride only hurts you. You'd be much better served by getting peace and then rebuilding your position -- not just nation-wise but also politically -- instead of keeping this fight going for some disordered sense of "dignity".
 

[A Tywin post]


I'm not suggesting that an upper tier is the end-all-be-all of an alliance. However, being in the micro-tier with slowly depleting warchests does cripple your ability to protect yourselves and your allies. Despite all your narrative, in the end, a nation at 1k infra cannot sustainably send out aid. Perpetual war strains all your resources, not just the NS of your upper-tier nations. (Who by now aren't upper tier any more...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. You'd be much better served by getting peace and then rebuilding your position -- not just nation-wise but also politically -- instead of keeping this fight going for some disordered sense of "dignity".

 

Fancy words of propaganda. You know full well both of it is basically fully impossibly while we are opposed to the Doombirds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...