shahenshah Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) How can Karma possibly start a war when NPO attacked OV first? I also know that IRON attacked on the 3rd day which set off a chain bringing in my alliance. So please explain this. Everyone and their grand mothers were in war by the time IRON entered, We entered actually on a defensive clause of our Bloc treaty. Thought you should know. Any chain reaction that we brought, we brought it upon ourselves mostly (completely?) knowing full well in advance and not here or there. Edited May 5, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 RE: Random, Penchuk, Revanche: It should be noted that the New Pacific Order now considers forcing an alliance with many small nations to conduct post-war, paid tech deals to be a harsh surrender term. Indeed, anything that is not white peace is a harsh surrender term by the new standards they are trying to push. I've never been one for standards set by NPO, though. I think we should ignore that and set reasonable and logical standards of our own for precisely who deserves what, taking all pertinent factors into account. So long as we avoid placing excessive or long-enduring strain on a community I am content. I think most people will be content, as well. Contrary to what some would have us believe, it's not too difficult not to be a scumbag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorrodders Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 NPO may have attacked OV first, but it was Karma's poor handling of the negotiations that kick started it for the rest of it. They started the war politiclly, sorry if I didnt make that clear. Or, if I have COMPLEATLY missed everything and got everything confused, please feel free to correct me. Without insulting me if possible Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 It should be noted that the New Pacific Order now considers forcing an alliance with many small nations to conduct post-war, paid tech deals to be a harsh surrender term. Indeed, anything that is not white peace is a harsh surrender term by the new standards they are trying to push. You might want to try quoting NPO government in support of that claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 NPO may have attacked OV first, but it was Karma's poor handling of the negotiations that kick started it for the rest of it. They started the war politiclly, sorry if I didnt make that clear. Or, if I have COMPLEATLY missed everything and got everything confused, please feel free to correct me. Without insulting me if possible You completely missed everything and got everything confused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 You might want to try quoting NPO government in support of that claim. Just like you and your ilk might want to try quoting government members of Karma alliances before so eagerly pinning yourselves to the cross. Though, I must say, Alterego's pathetic attempts at martrydom and melodrama have been somewhat entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) NPO may have attacked OV first, but it was Karma's poor handling of the negotiations that kick started it for the rest of it. They started the war politiclly, sorry if I didnt make that clear. Or, if I have COMPLEATLY missed everything and got everything confused, please feel free to correct me. Without insulting me if possible How far back do you want to take this? I could say that the NPO started this war politically close to three years ago when they renounced their apology that ended GW1. Thats a violation of a peace term and as we saw in the GATO-1V war the penalty for that is three months of one sided war + nine months of political captivity. Now, it might be fair to say that this war was coming either way because the political conditions were right for it, but in my opinion the NPO caused those political conditions through its actions over the past three years. Edited May 5, 2009 by Ragashingo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stumpy Jung Il Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Just like you and your ilk might want to try quoting government members of Karma alliances before so eagerly pinning yourselves to the cross. Though, I must say, Alterego's pathetic attempts at martrydom and melodrama have been somewhat entertaining. Oh hey I agree with Revanche, what a surprise! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 You might want to try quoting NPO government in support of that claim. Okay, will this IO do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomInterrupt Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 You are basically my hero. I am glad that there will be a sensible voice amongst those who will ultimately decide the gameplay of the next year. No pressure or anything. Okay, will this IO do? Can I get an "Oh snap!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Just like you and your ilk might want to try quoting government members of Karma alliances before so eagerly pinning yourselves to the cross. Though, I must say, Alterego's pathetic attempts at martrydom and melodrama have been somewhat entertaining. I think I'm on record speaking about Alterego long before this war. Heh. Like the other folks in BAPS, he means well, but he's not BAPS government. In general, I try not to accuse people of saying things they didn't say. And if you were paying attention, you might catch me agreeing with some of the things your allies are saying. Okay, will this IO do? Um, he's posting sarcastically, but his point is that the NPO supports that kind of term, and has been roundly criticized by people on your side for doing so in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Um, he's posting sarcastically, but his point is that the NPO supports that kind of term, and has been roundly criticized by people on your side for doing so in the past. Oh? I should think it was the tech deals combined with other terms (viceroyships, decommissions, etc) that people criticized them for. Can you show me an example where the NPO imposed only tech deals on a defeated alliance. If yes then you have a point, if no then you don't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrovich4 Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Excellent posts by certain excellent people. You know who you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Oh? I should think it was the tech deals combined with other terms (viceroyships, decommissions, etc) that people criticized them for. Can you show me an example where the NPO imposed only tech deals on a defeated alliance. If yes then you have a point, if no then you don't. I'm not claiming that He is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epik High Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 O ho, the man standing on the shoulders of a giant thinks he is one hundred feet tall. *shrug* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crohl Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 In a few months we'll be back here, doing it all over again. So you'd rather have a time of peace? Personally this war has been the funnest thing that CN has seen in a long while, for both sides. Why stifle the chance for another great war? Most of karma complained about the stagnation that the hegemony brought to cn affairs, and now you want to create the same thing and name it something different? More wars, the better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Um, he's posting sarcastically, but his point is that the NPO supports that kind of term, and has been roundly criticized by people on your side for doing so in the past. His point is that by using forced tech deals as a term they are imposing harsh terms based on our their own standards. Which is hilarious, frankly, and a complete fantasy version of history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threefingeredguy Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 How far back do you want to take this? I could say that the NPO started this war politically close to three years ago when they renounced their apology that ended GW1. Thats a violation of a peace term and as we saw in the GATO-1V war the penalty for that is three months of one sided war + nine months of political captivity. This is what's wrong with CN (not you Ragashino, this isn't personal). We're all trying to uphold the standards for the game that have been held in place by NPO. Why don't we come up with something original? White peace is fine with me, but if you're aiming to make the surrendering alliance hurt, remember that even old wounds leave scars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorrodders Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 To be honest, NPO are not going to be hurt. If Karma does make them hurt, then they are seen as hyporcrites. BUT if they dont make NPO hurt, then NPO are going to bounce right back, and we shall have another war in, say, 4 months (taking all bets ) In all homesty, Karma, even though they are going to win the war, is going to lose indefnatly. Either that, or they will form a new NPO, and the rest of us shall overthrow them in 6 months (again, taking all bets. Good odds for 7 months) Just my 2 cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) There's a balance to be struck between extreme leniency and white peace for everyone (or white peace for everyone but NPO) and extremely harsh terms like forced decommissioning of wonders, viceroys, disbandment, etc. I don't support white peace for NPO's closest (former MADP) allies, but that doesn't mean I'd support really harsh terms either. As I said in that OG thread, a MADP signals a virtual merger of foreign policy and a full endorsement, cooperation, and culpability for that MADP partner's actions including their aggressive wars. NPO's methods right before those last minute cancellations weren't new. Those former MADP partners of NPO did a lot more than just honor a treaty. They had signed on to complete cooperation and support for anything and everything NPO did. Edited May 5, 2009 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I'd also add that, the economics of the game are far different than they were after GW1. Nations are founded on years rather than months of development, and the aid system is much more limited and does not have the same kind of exploits NPO used to rebuild last time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gears of War Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 (edited) I am in agreement with the OP. I was OK with letting alliances on the edges of the war off with white peace, but then I watched in amazement as alliances from 1V and tC were given white peace as well and less than two rounds into the war no less. Many of the leaders of Karma are either spineless cowards or complete idiots. When we are fighting this same war again within a year I will be blaming the incompetent leadership of Karma, not the Hegemony. I put my nation in the first wave of nations hitting the NPO eagerly as the slogan "what comes around comes around" was being hailed on the forums and I ate nukes for a week because I was under the impression that we would be giving the Hegemony a taste of their own medicine. I was never in favor of Viceroy, wonder decommission, or some of the other nasty terms that the Hegemony was so fond of, but I certainly would have thought twice about getting my alliance involved in this war if I would have known coming in that all the Hegemony was going to get was white peace after a round or two of war. Perhaps the Karma leadership should change their sigs to "What goes around... eh how about a slap on the wrist?". Edited May 5, 2009 by Gears of War Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doctorrodders Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 Yes, but Karma has put itself in a bit of a spot here. They cannot place harsh terms on NPO or any of the others without being seen to be hypocritical. They cannot give out white peace either, for the reasons you have just given. They really have no option but to humiliate them, which, to be frank, is not working. NPO will bounce back after a few months solid building, courtosy of white peace, and then we shall be having this discussion all over again. In fact, amybe we shall grow that pile of dead bodies ever higher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataduanes Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 I'd also add that, the economics of the game are far different than they were after GW1. Nations are founded on years rather than months of development, and the aid system is much more limited and does not have the same kind of exploits NPO used to rebuild last time. ^^ That is a really good point actually! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted May 5, 2009 Report Share Posted May 5, 2009 This is amazing coming from somebody who has had their alliance destroyed. You should know better. You more than most know the bitter taste that that leaves. How can you fail to recognize the foolishness of this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.