Jump to content

Recognition of Hostilities


 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 335
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

16 hours ago, Auctor said:

Part of the idea behind a preemptive strike is that the "empt" hasn't happened yet, ideally.

 

 

What is empting, i'm gonnna look this up... Inquiring minds wanna know

 

empt

/ɛmpt; ɛmt/
verb
1.
(transitive) ( dialect) to empty
Word Origin
from Old English ǣmtian to be without duties; compare empty
 
So this make no sense, then to pre-empt means to be before empty? I'm not empty yet... I don't know... Silly language
Edited by MaineGOP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Auctor said:

Part of the idea behind a preemptive strike is that the "empt" hasn't happened yet, ideally.

NADC would have been best off just using the Caladin excuse from the start & just admitted they wanted to fight NpO for blue; rather than excuses implying they felt permission was needed.

 

Maybe a propaganda thread with some comics and charts will help some catch on faster. Although they seem guilty to me of something.

 

It's best NADC repent or fight without excuses; unless those are in the form of comics or effective propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Preempt" ultimately comes from the latin prefix "Prae", meaning "before" and the verb "emo, emere" meaning to buy or to distribute. Empty also comes from "emo, emere" but along that etymological route also took on the idea of completely evacuating something. You can see the term used mean to distribute something in a way that doesn't completely vacate it in the common phraseology for river systems, i.e. the Nile empties into the Mediterranean Sea.

 

In this case I used "empt" in quotes because while it's not a word in common usage, the meaning could be understood by the supposition that eliminating the prefix from "preemptive" still left a meaning no longer bound by time sensitivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 5:26 PM, AlmightyGrub said:

 

I am sure he would be happy to join.  As for the rest, I think it is easy to see now that your alliance has renamed itself No Apparent Defense Combine, but we have to take you at face value.  Your largest nations were larger than ours, you had allies in a channel planning a coalition, and you had people like ghos7 running around plotting and scheming.  It seems more than coincidental when you loom at the bigger picture.  You don't need to be able to win to be a threat to us.  We are a peaceful alliance and any attack on us causes us damage.  We are unprepared to see such damages as acceptable.  We have responded in a timely fashion.

 

Whether you are convinced or not is not the issue here, we are convinced.

 

1. Our nations we're bigger than yours? You're part of what is functionally a MDAP bloc with alliances like IRON and Umbrella. There was literally no way you could look at us and feel threatened.

2. Peaceful alliance? No one believes that for a second.

3. Of course we have allies in a channel, you roll our alliances every war anymore. It would be pretty stupid of us not to talk to each other. The idea that we were plotting and scheming and that ghos7 was somehow working for us is utter insanity though.

 

23 hours ago, AlmightyGrub said:

 

I am beginning to wonder wether it is in fact disingenuous, I am now leaning a little towards dead set oblivious or something even more troubling.  It would be extremely unlikely that someone could be so naive by this stage of the debate as to ignore the evidence written in their own hand.  It is more likely that Aurelius and Chunky are either sociapaths, so blinded by their own arrogance in the pursuit of fame and glory, that they continue to prattle lies and try to convince people they are true OR complete morons who can not see the hand in front of their face punching it repeatedly. I am leaning towards the moronic, but we mus not discount mental disorder either.  More posts of denial will show a clearer trend, so I welcome Chunk and Aurelius to provide further evidence for the diagnosis.

 

I am not sure how I would feel if I was a No Apparent Defender to see my leadership, so obviously in the wrong, embarrassing themselves over and over.  In all possible scenarios it seems that Aurelius has ruled himself unfit to continue as the man in charge.  The level of failure is becoming damning at every denial.

 

Then again they could just be the worst liars Bob has ever seen.

Ah, there's the old Grub, jumping down into the mud to sling insults based in whatever delusion you've cooked up. I'm still waiting on evidence beyond the campaign screenshots that any back channel dealings happened. I've offered to own up to things we've actually done but I will continue to dispute your statements until you offer proof to back them up.

Edited by Chunky Monkey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Chunky Monkey said:

 

1. Our nations we're bigger than yours? You're part of what is functionally a MDAP bloc with alliances like IRON and Umbrella. There was literally no way you could look at us and feel threatened.

 

You are thinking to short term, anyone looking to inflict damage on another can be considered a threat and your votes could be disrupting on blue which could also be considered a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chunky Monkey said:

 

1. Our nations we're bigger than yours? You're part of what is functionally a MDAP bloc with alliances like IRON and Umbrella. There was literally no way you could look at us and feel threatened.

 

At the time of the campaign we were not a member of Oc, and did not have sufficient ties to address your upper tier.  We remedied that, and your upper tier can now be addressed by our mid-tier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EaTeMuP said:

 

At the time of the campaign we were not a member of Oc, and did not have sufficient ties to address your upper tier.  We remedied that, and your upper tier can now be addressed by our mid-tier.

 

Between yourselves and your MDoAP allies The Legion, Non Grata, Fark, MHA, and NPO, you did not have sufficient ties to address their upper tier? I'm pretty certain Pacifica themselves could handle the upper tier of any alliance they wanted to, and depending on the match-ups, several alliances at once. Exceptions being that they'd maybe have a rough time against Umbrella and statistically should be pretty matched with IRON, but those AA's aren't exactly on the table. That is unless Pacifica's help was conditional on Oculus membership, which doesn't seem likely, but what do I know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, James Spanier said:

 

Between yourselves and your MDoAP allies The Legion, Non Grata, Fark, MHA, and NPO, you did not have sufficient ties to address their upper tier? I'm pretty certain Pacifica themselves could handle the upper tier of any alliance they wanted to, and depending on the match-ups, several alliances at once. Exceptions being that they'd maybe have a rough time against Umbrella and statistically should be pretty matched with IRON, but those AA's aren't exactly on the table. That is unless Pacifica's help was conditional on Oculus membership, which doesn't seem likely, but what do I know.

There was always the vanishingly thin chance NADC's allies might defend them. Polaris tries to think the best of people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Auctor said:

There was always the vanishingly thin chance NADC's allies might defend them. Polaris tries to think the best of people.

You mean allies already being rolled by occ?  I'm sure polar was scared of little ol NADC. Pretty much polar wanted a punching bag and they got one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Auctor said:

There was always the vanishingly thin chance NADC's allies might defend them. Polaris tries to think the best of people.

 

Pacifica have more upper tier nations than NADC and TTK have nations. What does that leave? SUN? Their upper tier is five nations above 100k. CCC's ten nations above 100k? I'm not sure but I think ties were mostly severed with CCC (that may be wrong though). Invicta's two whole nations above 100k? Argent's ODoAP maybe? You yourself were among those that frequently mocked us for our inactivity.

 

Now if NADC, TTK, CCC, and Invicta got together their 165 nations that could be a (maybe) problem for Polar to solo, but the statement was Polar "did not have sufficient ties to address their upper tier." So now throw in all of Polar's MDoAP allies pre-Oculus, even if you assume Oculus doesn't chain in from Pacifica, how is there an insufficiency there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, James Spanier said:

 

Pacifica have more upper tier nations than NADC and TTK have nations. What does that leave? SUN? Their upper tier is five nations above 100k. CCC's ten nations above 100k? I'm not sure but I think ties were mostly severed with CCC (that may be wrong though). Invicta's two whole nations above 100k? Argent's ODoAP maybe? You yourself were among those that frequently mocked us for our inactivity.

 

Now if NADC, TTK, CCC, and Invicta got together their 165 nations that could be a (maybe) problem for Polar to solo, but the statement was Polar "did not have sufficient ties to address their upper tier." So now throw in all of Polar's MDoAP allies pre-Oculus, even if you assume Oculus doesn't chain in from Pacifica, how is there an insufficiency there?

 

Your analysis shows only that you don't understand how to fight a war, win said war and live to fight another war.  I made a statement based on my experience, throwing meaningless numbers around might appear to serve your argument but the reality is very different.

 

I can assure you that if NADC TTK CCC and Invicta all attacked Polar and focused all their attention on Polar and ignored the counters Polar would not be in a positive situation after a short period of time.  The fact that we have useful allies and NADC appears to not have useful allies, despite all their bravado when planning, is duly noted.

 

We can assume however that if NADC was allowed to attack Polar in a bold first strike, our upper tier would have suffered significant losses.  Therefore NADC is a threat to Polar.  All the subsequent analysis deals only with the outcome for NADC.  It is of no concern to me in my analysis that the NADC ends up being a crater because our allies aren't useless, only that they represent a danger to us.

 

At the end of the day some people are working to win and some people are struggling to survive.  Even a struggling alliance can cause long term damages to me if they have the courage to do something about it.  Aurelius said he had the courage, here we are.

 

Anything else you wish to complain about and be wrong?

 

If this makes no sense to you, I will find it unsurprising.  Hence why I am here and you are there.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AlmightyGrub said:

 

Your analysis shows only that you don't understand how to fight a war, win said war and live to fight another war.  I made a statement based on my experience, throwing meaningless numbers around might appear to serve your argument but the reality is very different.

 

I can assure you that if NADC TTK CCC and Invicta all attacked Polar and focused all their attention on Polar and ignored the counters Polar would not be in a positive situation after a short period of time.  The fact that we have useful allies and NADC appears to not have useful allies, despite all their bravado when planning, is duly noted.

 

We can assume however that if NADC was allowed to attack Polar in a bold first strike, our upper tier would have suffered significant losses.  Therefore NADC is a threat to Polar.  All the subsequent analysis deals only with the outcome for NADC.  It is of no concern to me in my analysis that the NADC ends up being a crater because our allies aren't useless, only that they represent a danger to us.

 

At the end of the day some people are working to win and some people are struggling to survive.  Even a struggling alliance can cause long term damages to me if they have the courage to do something about it.  Aurelius said he had the courage, here we are.

 

Anything else you wish to complain about and be wrong?

 

If this makes no sense to you, I will find it unsurprising.  Hence why I am here and you are there.

 

 

 

EaTeMuP's statement was that Polar lacked sufficient ties to address NADC's upper tier (at the time I wasn't even considering their allies as they were presented as a separate point that I overlooked). If the statement was that Polar lacked sufficient ties to address NADC (and friends) upper tiers by themselves with minimal damaged sustained to itself, then sure, but that wasn't the case. 

 

Then Auctor said in his reply statement that NADC's allies might defend them, thus bringing in the complication of a coalition I had yet to tabulate. My analysis in response to the hypothetical pre-Oculus ascendancy offensive situation presented by Auctor (where NADC's also on the defensive) was to show that their upper tiers could have been addressed by Pacifica itself, who along with NG I would assume would stand with Polar as soon as possible (if not themselves in the first wave of a preemptive war). Then they themselves could easily have opened the floodgates of the rest of Oculus if they so chose resulting in a very similar situation to what we have now.

 

The statement you made based on your experience wasn't the subject by that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, James Spanier said:

 

EaTeMuP's statement was that Polar lacked sufficient ties to address NADC's upper tier (at the time I wasn't even considering their allies as they were presented as a separate point that I overlooked). If the statement was that Polar lacked sufficient ties to address NADC (and friends) upper tiers by themselves with minimal damaged sustained to itself, then sure, but that wasn't the case. 

 

Then Auctor said in his reply statement that NADC's allies might defend them, thus bringing in the complication of a coalition I had yet to tabulate. My analysis in response to the hypothetical pre-Oculus ascendancy offensive situation presented by Auctor (where NADC's also on the defensive) was to show that their upper tiers could have been addressed by Pacifica itself, who along with NG I would assume would stand with Polar as soon as possible (if not themselves in the first wave of a preemptive war). Then they themselves could easily have opened the floodgates of the rest of Oculus if they so chose resulting in a very similar situation to what we have now.

 

The statement you made based on your experience wasn't the subject by that point.

 

So let me make sure I understand this statement correctly:

 

You are criticizing Polar for not utilizing their NG and / Pacifica treaty.... of which then they (NPO and NG) could later on trigger Oculus (if need be). 

 

I think Polar cutting a few corners and acting swiftly was a better move on their part, Oculus entry alone is a great deterrent from NADC triggering an opposing coalition.

 

You use the term 'defense war' when referencing NADC, let's not forget that they are not the victims here, they are the antagonist. 

 

It it sounds like you are more upset about Polar being a part of Oculus more than the actual war.

Edited by Lord Hitchcock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lord Hitchcock said:

 

So let me make sure I understand this statement correctly,

 

You are criticizing Polar for not utilizing their NG and / Pacifica treaty.... of which then they (NPO and NG) could trigger Oculus (if need be). 

 

I think Polar cutting a few corners and acting swiftly was a better move on their part, Oculus entry alone is a great deterrent for NADC to trigger an opposing coalition.

 

You use the term 'defense war' when referencing NADC, let's not forget that they are not the victims here, they are the antagonist. 

 

At no point did I level a criticism of the Oculus first strike strategy, it was a criticism of the statement that Polar lacked sufficient ties to handle NADC's (any maybe their friend's) upper tiers. Grub made a good point that if they were swamped by a large number of NADC's allies their upper tier would be pretty damaged in the first round until Pacifica (and/or Oculus) set down all the necessary counters, but that would have been true if Polar was in Oculus or not which is what made a first strike necessary. In addition, at no point in any of my statements did I say anyone was a victim or take any sides. As for "defensive war" I used the term because Auctor said "in defense" of NADC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, keeology said:

You mean allies already being rolled by occ?  I'm sure polar was scared of little ol NADC. Pretty much polar wanted a punching bag and they got one. 

 

When you play the game of thrones, you win or you die. There is no middle ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James Spanier said:

 

EaTeMuP's statement was that Polar lacked sufficient ties to address NADC's upper tier (at the time I wasn't even considering their allies as they were presented as a separate point that I overlooked). If the statement was that Polar lacked sufficient ties to address NADC (and friends) upper tiers by themselves with minimal damaged sustained to itself, then sure, but that wasn't the case. 

 

Then Auctor said in his reply statement that NADC's allies might defend them, thus bringing in the complication of a coalition I had yet to tabulate. My analysis in response to the hypothetical pre-Oculus ascendancy offensive situation presented by Auctor (where NADC's also on the defensive) was to show that their upper tiers could have been addressed by Pacifica itself, who along with NG I would assume would stand with Polar as soon as possible (if not themselves in the first wave of a preemptive war). Then they themselves could easily have opened the floodgates of the rest of Oculus if they so chose resulting in a very similar situation to what we have now.

 

The statement you made based on your experience wasn't the subject by that point.

 

I think you are confusing two lines of thought here.  In the opinion of Polar, for the reasons stated above, was that NADC presented a threat to us.  That is all there is to it really.

 

The fact that we challenged that threat before it could materialize against us, and bought sufficient firepower with us to ensure the threat did not do significant damage even in its defense, is a simple matter of economics.  Polar is not prepared for anyone to plan taking a shot at us, whether it is ultimately proven a viable plot or not.  Every defensive war has a massive cost, one we are not prepared to pay for NADC's ambitions. 

 

The fact that we structured our first strike with precision both militarily and with consideration to the treaty web just means we have learned a lot of lessons along our journey.  There is nothing at all to stop the NADC from calling in all its treaties at this stage, in fact it is kind of stupid to allow themselves to be destroyed at a zero cost to Polar.  Their dreams are shattered along with the nations, and judging by the warchest information to hand, they will never actually recover from this stupid stupid stupid ambition to return to blue.  Aurelius has his alliance in ruins as a monument to his ego and folly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlmightyGrub said:

 

I think you are confusing two lines of thought here.  In the opinion of Polar, for the reasons stated above, was that NADC presented a threat to us.  That is all there is to it really.

 

The fact that we challenged that threat before it could materialize against us, and bought sufficient firepower with us to ensure the threat did not do significant damage even in its defense, is a simple matter of economics.  Polar is not prepared for anyone to plan taking a shot at us, whether it is ultimately proven a viable plot or not.  Every defensive war has a massive cost, one we are not prepared to pay for NADC's ambitions. 

 

The fact that we structured our first strike with precision both militarily and with consideration to the treaty web just means we have learned a lot of lessons along our journey.  There is nothing at all to stop the NADC from calling in all its treaties at this stage, in fact it is kind of stupid to allow themselves to be destroyed at a zero cost to Polar.  Their dreams are shattered along with the nations, and judging by the warchest information to hand, they will never actually recover from this stupid stupid stupid ambition to return to blue.  Aurelius has his alliance in ruins as a monument to his ego and folly.

 

I wouldn't really call it confusion, through all the thicket my point was ultimately that Polar was already in a stronger position against NADC (and friend's) upper tier with their ties as they were. I was not saying Polar shouldn't put itself in an even greater position militarily, nor attempting to shame Polar for doing so. I also was not saying that Polar shouldn't prosecute wars against threats on their own terms, nor was I saying that Polar was even necessarily wrong to do so. Trust me, I've warned NADC about their Polar policies more than once in the past, and I saw this exact war scenario happening before TTK was even attacked over the Gh0s7 stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James Spanier said:

 

I wouldn't really call it confusion, through all the thicket my point was ultimately that Polar was already in a stronger position against NADC (and friend's) upper tier with their ties as they were. I was not saying Polar shouldn't put itself in an even greater position militarily, nor attempting to shame Polar for doing so. I also was not saying that Polar shouldn't prosecute wars against threats on their own terms, nor was I saying that Polar was even necessarily wrong to do so. Trust me, I've warned NADC about their Polar policies more than once in the past, and I saw this exact war scenario happening before TTK was even attacked over the Gh0s7 stuff.

 

There is no doubt that Polar>NADC at raw data level (and most other levels).  I agree with your points as raised. 

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...