Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Can a 160k NS nation produce more cash aid for his alliance in a pinch than a 60k nation? No, not really. Not as part of a sustained effort either. In fact, I think a 60k NS ntion would be FAR more willing to give to his alliance than a 160k nation who is only concerned with procuring more 6/200 tech. Producers tend to come in all shapes and sizes, but by no means is 160k NS nation more valuable than a 60k or 6k nation solely on account of that NS.
 
You are describing a situation where you enjoy numerical superiority like in this war. What about a war of equal or lesser numbers? Where you don't have the low and mid tier forces to continue grinding away for you?

You're still not getting it. The value of a 160k nation isn't necessarily in the NS, it's in the fact he/she can lob out a couple hundred million and only make the faintest dent in the warchest. Can they do more in the same time frame than a 60k or 6k nation? No, obviously not and that's a straw man because you know full well the limitations in place. But 60k nations don't typically have a couple hundred mil to spare to spam out, certainly not during a war where they're likely to be facing a very large quantity of opponents of similar size. Whether or not a 60k nation is willing to give more to his alliance is based purely on personal preference. Your experience of that may be tainted but it's worthless as an argument.

 

In a war of equal numbers, for all the reasons I made clear previously, my side would win. If you had heavy numerical superiority the war would simply go on for however long my middle and lower tier people were willing to fight it, within reason. With my upper tier unopposed, they can fund a lot of the fighting in the pit and hopefully secure a stalemate in an effort to collect a white peace, because there is no substitute for heavy numerical superiority and therefore victory is unlikely. The damage inflicted on you would make it a pyrrhic victory at best, moreover we'd rebuild faster because the upper tier is untouched.

 

Go talk to Umbrella, Deinos and TLR about fighting Fark a few wars ago.
Granted, TLR was about as active as a sloth and Deinos.. well, was Deinos.
However, we essentially made the vast majority of Umbrella irrelevant, pulled those in our range down into the meat grinder and ran it to a white peace that came on our terms when we were ready for it.

Look at them now eh? Some irrelevance.

 

Don't worry Helios, Polaris has plenty of people who enjoy growing their nations large expressly so they can fight for longer.
Being able to dominate an NS range (high or low) isn't about giving up on anything, it's about massing enough people in that range to be difficult to handle. Polaris will bounce back and quickly at that!

It will certainly be interesting to observe Polaris post-war.

Edited by Helios
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 457
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

"Putting my nation where may mouth is" could involve many things, including partnering with IRON, FTW, Umbrella, or VE in their attacks or in defense of them against people who countered them.  Indeed, the treaties we have with those allies are equally valid given the circumstances that Polaris went to war.

 

I get tired of being told by some of the "upright and righteous" people of Planet Bob that Valhalla is a bad alliance and I should feel bad.  $%&@ that.  You aren't us, you don't know how the decisions were made that got us where we are.  Hint: it had nothing to do with preserving pixels for pixels sake.

 

 

No, you prefer stabbing allies in the back, the front and the sides...

 

Non Grata last war

 

New Polar Order this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

No, you prefer stabbing allies in the back, the front and the sides...

 

Non Grata last war

 

New Polar Order this war.

Who next?

 

Hal, you straight up told me you were going to go to war, but you didn't because you knew you'd lose, and "wouldn't be much help anyway". This simply goes to show how little Valhalla understands about politics. Regardless of whether or not you would have swayed a battle, you had a MD level ally eating 10 counters on your watch, while jumping into a meatgrinder to assist an ally hit without a CB. Valhalla is okay with that, as they've shown multiple times.

Edited by Starfox101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who next?

 

Hal, you straight up told me you were going to go to war, but you didn't because you knew you'd lose, and "wouldn't be much help anyway". This simply goes to show how little Valhalla understands about politics. Regardless of whether or not you would have swayed a battle, you had a MD level ally eating 10 counters on your watch, while jumping into a meatgrinder to assist an ally hit without a CB. Valhalla is okay with that, as they've shown multiple times.

 

That's a very disappointing statement coming from you, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that it takes bits and pieces of multiple conversations held over a period weeks with a variety of people and knits it into something that amounts to a falsehood that is nothing more than a short hit piece.  I don't make the decision to go to war, that's Levi's job.  I influence that decision, but that's as far as it goes.  Odds very much favored us going to war at some point, and that was what I was referencing, so it was a fair assumption early on we would indeed be going to war, but...events decided otherwise.  As for a war dec not helping remark, that was another conversation held much later, long after this fight was decided.  At that point, any Valhalla war dec would have indeed been pretty much academic and been seen as nothing more than a token show of support that would have annoyed even more people.

 

Also, I think perhaps it's you who could use a political refresher.  Start with the text of the Valhalla - NpO treaty.

 

 

 

 

No, you prefer stabbing allies in the back, the front and the sides...

 

Non Grata last war

 

New Polar Order this war.

 

On and on about the Non Grata treaty are we after what?  two years nearly?  Have you talked to the people who were government at NG then?  You know, the ones that talked so poorly about us behind our backs then and since but failed to active the treaty?

 

Be that as it may, I'm fairly confident that in your OWF postings I can find examples where you are applauding other alliances that have done pretty much what Valhalla has done, but since it worked to the advantage of your alliance, everything was wonderful.  I'm not saying you are a hypocrite...oh wait, that is exactly what I'm saying.

 

Now run along and bother GOONS about not honoring their treaty with Sparta or TOP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That's a very disappointing statement coming from you, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that it takes bits and pieces of multiple conversations held over a period weeks with a variety of people and knits it into something that amounts to a falsehood that is nothing more than a short hit piece.  I don't make the decision to go to war, that's Levi's job.  I influence that decision, but that's as far as it goes.  Odds very much favored us going to war at some point, and that was what I was referencing, so it was a fair assumption early on we would indeed be going to war, but...events decided otherwise.  As for a war dec not helping remark, that was another conversation held much later, long after this fight was decided.  At that point, any Valhalla war dec would have indeed been pretty much academic and been seen as nothing more than a token show of support that would have annoyed even more people.

 

Also, I think perhaps it's you who could use a political refresher.  Start with the text of the Valhalla - NpO treaty.

Hal, you already knew I was disappointed. if there was anyone who was shared the situation of repeated attacks from DBDC it was Valhalla. However when the real war came, you were nowhere to be found.

 

As for the non-chaining part of the treaty, I honestly don't feel that applies. You and I both know Polar was targeted in this war, and the attack on Invicta was done for the exact reason that you state. It was the path of least resistance because a direct attack on us would have activated all of our treaties. Congrats, you fell exactly into the plans of those who wished to damage your allies, those who you have let take over 10 million damage and take 10 counters.

 

Now, enjoy that sanction. You guys will eventually learn that letting allies burn is in fact not a good foreign policy.

 

I feel like we warned Polar about Valhalla years and years ago.

And I feel like you weren't the only ones.

 

A reputation well deserved, no doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at them now eh? Some irrelevance.

You clearly don't get it. Most of Umbrella is *still* irrelevant to Fark. If they can't hit us, they are irrelevant. I could also say that most of Fark is irrelevant to Umbrella, if that makes you feel better.

There's a reason ODN had to call in NoR, DT, GLoF and INT to fight Fark. We are generally clustered together very well as far as NS goes.. and managing our numbers in the ranges they're at isn't easy for a single AA.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On and on about the Non Grata treaty are we after what?  two years nearly?  Have you talked to the people who were government at NG then?  You know, the ones that talked so poorly about us behind our backs then and since but failed to active the treaty?
 
Be that as it may, I'm fairly confident that in your OWF postings I can find examples where you are applauding other alliances that have done pretty much what Valhalla has done, but since it worked to the advantage of your alliance, everything was wonderful.  I'm not saying you are a hypocrite...oh wait, that is exactly what I'm saying.
 
Now run along and bother GOONS about not honoring their treaty with Sparta or TOP.


When chefjoe came asking for us to protect you guys I asked what your FA plans were. He said to sit quietly in a corner and just retire.


Yeah... That didn't go well did it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hal, you already knew I was disappointed. if there was anyone who was shared the situation of repeated attacks from DBDC it was Valhalla. However when the real war came, you were nowhere to be found.

 

As for the non-chaining part of the treaty, I honestly don't feel that applies. You and I both know Polar was targeted in this war, and the attack on Invicta was done for the exact reason that you state. It was the path of least resistance because a direct attack on us would have activated all of our treaties. Congrats, you fell exactly into the plans of those who wished to damage your allies, those who you have let take over 10 million damage and take 10 counters.

 

Now, enjoy that sanction. You guys will eventually learn that letting allies burn is in fact not a good foreign policy.

 

And I feel like you weren't the only ones.

 

A reputation well deserved, no doubt.

 

Since I'm not getting through to you, talk to Levi.  Suffice to say you don't have all the facts.

 

When chefjoe came asking for us to protect you guys I asked what your FA plans were. He said to sit quietly in a corner and just retire.


Yeah... That didn't go well did it.

 

Actually, that was the plan.  But we gathered enough of the old crew together and I pulled together enough new crew to make something of going concern of Valhalla again.  But what you are also saying here is that NG never expected anything out of the relationship to begin with, but once we got on course and moved forward, you were disappointed that our course and NG's didn't align.  

 

See, I get that much of it, honestly.  It's also been acknowledged on our part that there was a clear distance between Val and NG that had developed long before the first shots in that war were fired, and that treaty should have been canceled. Not because we weren't grateful, not because we wished you ill will, but as an acknowledgement of the obvious.

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.


hahaha, best.post.ever.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are consequences to actions.  And the consequence of shipping arms to a nation at war is that you might find yourself pulled into the conflict as well.

I appreciated the little "freedom" posturing stunt, in a silly little effort to render yourself immune to the consequences of your actions.  But we're turning back the clock on policies that should have been buried a long time ago.

Selling tech to a nation at war is the equivalent of aiding a nation at war, which is the equivalent of involving yourself directly in the war.  All tech sellers should bear this in mind.  There are consequences for actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selling tech to a nation at war is the equivalent of aiding a nation at war, which is the equivalent of involving yourself directly in the war.

 

I don't care what anyone says about this, Selling technology is not the equivalent of aiding a nation at war with tech, soldiers, and money....the intent is also different. But please go ahead and explain to me how 2 + 2 = 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't care what anyone says about this, Selling technology is not the equivalent of aiding a nation at war with tech, soldiers, and money....the intent is also different. But please go ahead and explain to me how 2 + 2 = 5.

 

Selling technology would be no different than selling guns, tanks, body armor, or anything else that might enhance a war effort considering that every 100 tech adds to the damage dealt by nukes in war.

Edited by Tywin Lannister
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't care what anyone says about this, Selling technology is not the equivalent of aiding a nation at war with tech, soldiers, and money....the intent is also different. But please go ahead and explain to me how 2 + 2 = 5.

 

You can care on not it does not matter.  On Planet Bob aid of any kind has always been answered with action if it is possible.  Alliances have been hit for this time after time.  You aid. you roll the dice and sometimes you lose.  

Edited by The Big Bad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can care on not it does not matter.  On Planet Bob aid of any kind has always been answered with action if it is convenient.  Alliances have been hit for this time after time.  You aid. you roll the dice and sometimes you lose.


Fixed that up for you. Edited by Terrence Krillins
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...