The "I Don't Know Anymore" War

[neneko]

This statement settles this post.

Reps or no reps will not make things any worse in Tyga's assumptions backed by experience.

So whats the point of Reps when you say there will be no difference in future? Why screw a chance to actually have a positive resolution rather than a bitter one with humiliation...did STA lost respect when it was forcefully humiliated? No. Forced apologies and humiliations only create a lasting bitterness..you are a walking talking example of it.

--

Ok, now tinfoilhatry time..

I personally think the agenda here isnt reps or no reps, as the person making the loudest demand for it has stated in his own words there will be no difference in future with reps or no reps...the point here is in my tinfoil opinion about post war political setup. Some alliances within Karma have really moved on from NoCB and involvement in Hegemony and willing to PROVE that they have CHANGED for the good and not reverting to old ways in any degree. These alliances will also gain alot of Good will political and non-political from the former-Hegemony alliances..and why not..we would obviously like to be partners with those who extend an olive branch than those who wish to extend our misery and when you ask them why..just for the heck of it..as it makes no difference in their opinion anyway. With throwing in reps and in that way keeping Former Hegemony politically isolated, it will ensure they have more relative power in the world rather than the one diluted with former Hegemony members mingling with the alliances they have learned to respect like many in Citadel and Superfreinds.

I'm the one that said that nothing would become better by asking for reps.

What tyga said was that he doesn't belive thing will get worse by making alliances pay reps. He never said things wouldn't get better or that things couldn't get worse if alliances didn't pay reps.

Now I don't agree with Tyga in this but I'm fairly tired of people putting words in eachothers mouths in this thread.

edit: forgot half a sentence

Edited May 12, 2009 by neneko

[Starcraftmazter]

What is this war all about anymore and when did it change? How is the Hegemony to be broken down if the treaties that bind them are left intact?

Because they lost a war and got destroyed. If they try and be d!@#s to anyone in the future, they will lose another. FAN and Vox get peace. No more f!@@#$ry on the red team. We can make fun of them all we like, etc

I agree with all of your points though.

[shahenshah]

For some of them I do. For members like Gramlins and Sparta that left early enough to clearly join our side and who had supported us before, I welcome them though I will always suspect their motives, especially if they've issues terrible terms in the past themselves. I will say that maybe they're doing their time by fighting alongside us to help us change this. I will also say that for much of my career in CN I've been a military man and that I know that to win a war sometimes you have to sacrifice the ideal situation. Even if I don't think they should be here acting all high and mighty next to me, I need them. Sad but true.

IRON did not just stay back. IRON participated openly and knowingly. Not only that, you openly acted like it was perfectly fine that you did it. That's not the act of a trapped man.

Not Gramlins and Sparta but Gramlins and FOK, I think that would be accurate. The alliances on your side who handed harsh terms during NoCB war seem to be undoing those past mistakes. However some don't obviously want that.

I can only recall VietFANII where we were exclusive of many alliances now in Karma, Peace has been declared by both sides and both sides wish to move on, I don't see why it should be a problem for anyone else then.

[shahenshah]

I'm the one that said that nothing would become better by asking for reps.

What tyga said was that he doesn't belive thing will get worse by making alliances pay reps. He never said things wouldn't get better or that things couldn't get worse if alliances didn't pay reps.

Now I don't agree with Tyga in this but I'm fairly tired of people putting words in eachothers mouths in this thread.

edit: forgot half a sentence

Can you clarify bit more, I just got confused with what you said... it seems I may have taken things bit out of context..I'll edit out the post after clarifications. so hold your horses guys. Apologies in advance.

[JoshuaR]

Makes replying to you a pain in the arse though.

Muahahaha <--Inserted

...

The individual alliances will be fine. Alliances have recovered from far worse before and will again. Just remember that the NPO was isolated and friendless (asides from the NpO of course) after GWI and we all saw what happened. Complacency can be quite dangerous.

Ah, dangerous, yet you and others fully sided with Pacifica for years before and after. People didn't think they were bad guys for a long time.

OOC: Complacency led to GW2 and 3, times that everyone seems fond of. It led to more even wars, and more fun for all, meh. /OOC

The problem wasn't letting them rebuild, the problem was not hitting them again before it was too late. Regardless of terms, that danger will always be there, for any of these alliances. The thing is to recognize an enemy and prepare against him before you are outmaneuvered. That, though, has nothing to do with surrender terms.

Mild to medium reps based on how connected an alliance was won't change how complacent you are. If you are harsh, then you are doing something in the hope of preventing rebuilding. If you apply a slight slap, you leave just as much danger behind you, if not more, than if you do almost nothing at all.

[OverCaffeinated]

Your problem with understanding what is going on Tyga is that you don’t understand CN game mechanics. Manhattan Project + Hidden Nuclear Missile Silo + Weapon Research Center + large warchest = invincibility.

Once an alliance gets a fair amount of nations with all four of these, they become unbreakable. No mater how much damage you do, they will be able to launch two nukes at you every single day for months and months on end. The damage you do to them is nothing because all they need to do is buy up to 1k infrastructure to buy more nukes. Burn rate for infrastructure + two nukes each day is only 3 million. For nations with a billion or more war chest, they can last over a year.

Alliances are getting good peace terms because the damage received from beating down an alliance that is already down is too much. Why sacrifice your high priced infrastructure to beat down a guy who can just buy back the damage you did for virtually nothing?

The game has changed any you’ll never be able to run out an alliance that has a large amount of these wonders. I personally feel that to “win” this game as an alliance is to get to the point where you are indestructible. Gramlins and TOP reached that point around last November. When the Gramlins left the Continuum, they did so because they could and there was nothing the members of the Continuum could do about it even if they had wanted to. IRON and the NPO reached the point of indestructibility around February and now Sparta and MHA are closing in on those magic numbers.

Game mechanics are driving peace. You may want to severely punish alliances for past transgressions, but once an alliance gets beat down enough, the damage taken verse the damage inflicted becomes lopsided to the loser. And once that flip-flop happens, it’s in the winners best interest to end the war as soon as possible.

[Orkules]

Not Gramlins and Sparta but Gramlins and FOK, I think that would be accurate. The alliances on your side who handed harsh terms during NoCB war seem to be undoing those past mistakes. However some don't obviously want that.

Apologies, I get them mixed up as to when they left from time to time.

[Tygaland]

This statement settles this post.

Reps or no reps will not make things any worse in Tyga's assumptions backed by experience.

So whats the point of Reps when you say there will be no difference in future? Why screw a chance to actually have a positive resolution rather than a bitter one with humiliation...did STA lost respect when it was forcefully humiliated? No. Forced apologies and humiliations only create a lasting bitterness..you are a walking talking example of it.

If you had bothered to read earlier posts, I have answered this two or three times already.

Ok, now tinfoilhatry time..

I personally think the agenda here isnt reps or no reps, as the person making the loudest demand for it has stated in his own words there will be no difference in future with reps or no reps...the point here is in my tinfoil opinion about post war political setup. Some alliances within Karma have really moved on from NoCB and involvement in Hegemony and willing to PROVE that they have CHANGED for the good and not reverting to old ways in any degree. These alliances will also gain alot of Good will political and non-political from the former-Hegemony alliances..and why not..we would obviously like to be partners with those who extend an olive branch than those who wish to extend our misery and when you ask them why..just for the heck of it..as it makes no difference in their opinion anyway. With throwing in reps and in that way keeping Former Hegemony politically isolated, it will ensure they have more relative power in the world rather than the one diluted with former Hegemony members mingling with the alliances they have learned to respect like many in Citadel and Superfreinds.

As I said, go back and read my earlier responses about why I think reps are necessary, then get back to me. I'm tired of posting the same answers over and over for people too lazy to read.

As for good will from getting light terms, we'll have to wait and see how that turns out, won't we.

[Orkules]

Can you clarify bit more, I just got confused with what you said... it seems I may have taken things bit out of context..I'll edit out the post after clarifications. so hold your horses guys. Apologies in advance.

I believe neneko meant that Tyga said that he never said things wouldn't get better in his post, merely that they wouldn't get worse. Neneko said that things wouldn't get better and the two are in agreement.

I hope that horribly confusing post helps.

[neneko]

Can you clarify bit more, I just got confused with what you said... it seems I may have taken things bit out of context..I'll edit out the post after clarifications. so hold your horses guys. Apologies in advance.

Tyga said things won't get worse by imposing reps. That doesn't mean things can't get better by imposing reps or that things couldn't get worse by not imposing reps.

In other words what he said is not the same as "Reps or no reps will not make things any worse". The option that no reps could make things worse and that imposing reps could make things better is still open from his statement.

[Tygaland]

Your problem with understanding what is going on Tyga is that you don't understand CN game mechanics. Manhattan Project + Hidden Nuclear Missile Silo + Weapon Research Center + large warchest = invincibility.

Once an alliance gets a fair amount of nations with all four of these, they become unbreakable. No mater how much damage you do, they will be able to launch two nukes at you every single day for months and months on end. The damage you do to them is nothing because all they need to do is buy up to 1k infrastructure to buy more nukes. Burn rate for infrastructure + two nukes each day is only 3 million. For nations with a billion or more war chest, they can last over a year.

Thanks for explaining the tactics the STA used in August. You are right, I have no idea about game mechanics.

Alliances are getting good peace terms because the damage received from beating down an alliance that is already down is too much. Why sacrifice your high priced infrastructure to beat down a guy who can just buy back the damage you did for virtually nothing?

They are getting good peace terms because Karma wants to live up to the standards Hegemony placed upon them. You anly have to read their comments accusing others who disagree with them as being monsters.

The game has changed any you'll never be able to run out an alliance that has a large amount of these wonders. I personally feel that to "win" this game as an alliance is to get to the point where you are indestructible. Gramlins and TOP reached that point around last November. When the Gramlins left the Continuum, they did so because they could and there was nothing the members of the Continuum could do about it even if they had wanted to. IRON and the NPO reached the point of indestructibility around February and now Sparta and MHA are closing in on those magic numbers.

Who said anything about "running an alliance out"?

Game mechanics are driving peace. You may want to severely punish alliances for past transgressions, but once an alliance gets beat down enough, the damage taken verse the damage inflicted becomes lopsided to the loser. And once that flip-flop happens, it's in the winners best interest to end the war as soon as possible.

Severely? What is it with you people and exaggeration and fiction?

[sammykhalifa]

We are talking about dozens, even hundreds, of alliances involved in this thing. Thousands of individuals. Of course there were different ideas as to where we were going with it. It would be more alarming to me if there wasn't dissention.

My personal thought was that it would be nice to have more than one power deciding how things work around here, though I suppose that that battle was was won before a single shot was fired. I have no idea how quickly the "other side" can rebuild, or if they'll be the same once they do.

[OverCaffeinated]

Thanks for explaining the tactics the STA used in August. You are right, I have no idea about game mechanics.

If you did you wouldn't haven't even started this thread.

They are getting good peace terms because Karma wants to live up to the standards Hegemony placed upon them. You anly have to read their comments accusing others who disagree with them as being monsters.

There are posted reasons and then there are real reasons. When the damage taken verse the damage dealed becomes lopsided, peace will be sought by the winner.

This is a new game dynamic introduced with the proliferation of these new wonders. Earlier this was not the case and the winner could drive an alliance to the ground if they wished.

Who said anything about "running an alliance out"?

I use that because that was the threat to a defeated nation if they did not accept the terms offered them. This is no longer the case.

Severely? What is it with you people and exaggeration and fiction?

You are correct, it doesn't have to be severely. Any terms could be rejected by the losing alliance and continue the war to the winner detriment.

[Kindom of Goon]

No CB wars and horrible surrender terms...go look who offered terms to NpO...oh wait, switching sides and fighting for Karma means crimes are all waivered, where is the application form? I need a link pronto! oh noes I'm scared of ZI.

IRON was not the only ones in war with Vox and FAN, news flash for you, those wars are over. Whenever it was entirely in our own capacity, we waivered our reps last time we had a major war. Go ask NV, one of the sides on Karma...and we did it months before Karma was anywhere, Lenient peace is not new, its hard for you to swallow that a core Hegemony alliance did it more than year before Karma did.

Sure, punish us for our crimes, but don't forget to include people that are fighting along side you who stood by us for majority of the last 18 months and enabled Hegemony to have the political assets to carry out whatever you deem unfit. Oh wait, without them your so-called mighty war machine would been rolled few times over.

By your definition everyone in the hegemony should be punished for the 'crimes' commited too, which has not happened and I'm pretty sure its not what you're trying to advocate either.

Its all about consistency and participation, white peace here and there does not automatically make you a saint, and certainly won't wipe away the reputation earnt from actively supporting and participating in a lot of the crimes for the majority of the last couple of years. The same is true for the opposite, doing something bad once or twice does not automatically brand you if you're usually fair or at the very least lurk in the backround.

[Tygaland]

If you did you wouldn't haven't even started this thread.

Of course not. STA's tactics last war were just the product of random experimentation. I guess we got lucky, huh.

There are posted reasons and then there are real reasons. When the damage taken verse the damage dealed becomes lopsided, peace will be sought by the winner.

No kidding. Doesn't have anything to do with the disparity in terms between alliances though.

This is a new game dynamic introduced with the proliferation of these new wonders. Earlier this was not the case and the winner could drive an alliance to the ground if they wished.

I'm not aware anyone wants to drive an alliance into the ground.

I use that because that was the threat to a defeated nation if they did not accept the terms offered them. This is no longer the case.

As far as I can tell, the losing alliances have come seeking peace, not the winning alliances.

You are correct, it doesn't have to be severely. Any terms could be rejected by the losing alliance and continue the war to the winner detriment.

Yes, any terms can be rejected. But rejecting the terms is also to the detriment of the losing alliance too which is why they are the ones coming seeking terms.

[bigwoody]

This is an argument so moot it borders on silly. Debating the merits of possibly allowing Hegemony to restock because they might come back to hit Karma is silly.

The next major conflict will be some faction of Karma against another faction of Karma (I dont think those sides are set yet, but within a month or two they will be). Hegemony's diaspora will be split between the two sides in some way I'm sure.

My instincts tell me some of Karma has figured this out and adjusted accordingly, while others in Karma are so unfamiliar with winning a conflict, or so idealistic, that they're missing this reality.

Cheers.

Edited May 12, 2009 by bigwoody

[Tygaland]

This is an argument so moot it borders on silly. Debating the merits of possibly allowing Hegemony to restock because they might come back to hit Karma is silly.

Yes, because Karma will not exist post-war.

[bigwoody]

Yes, because Karma will not exist post-war.

That point seems lost on many

[Haflinger]

Tyga, I can't figure out if you're just being naive. I remember TWiP posting screenshots of the RIA forums months ago where they stated they would never ask anyone to accept terms they wouldn't accept themselves. At the time it gave me a better view of RIA; I'm glad to see them sticking by their guns in this war.

But it was really obvious that even the alliances that describe themselves as a part of Karma don't have the same views on peace terms. And then you get people like TOP and NSO, who aren't fighting under the Karma banner but are a large part of the reason why you're winning the war, and of course they're not going to set terms in accordance with the group that they never joined.

[Kzoppistan]

Without a strong figurehead invested with the authority to lead, a group like Karma will lose steam and disintegrate without making much lasting change.

See "the Coalition to Overthrow Dong Zhou" from the Fall of the Han/3 Kingdoms period in China around 190 ad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_against_Dong_Zhuo

[Tygaland]

Without a strong figurehead invested with the authority to lead, a group like Karma will lose steam and disintegrate without making much lasting change.

See "the Coalition to Overthrow Dong Zhou" from the Fall of the Han/3 Kingdoms period in China around 190 ad.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_against_Dong_Zhuo

This is precisely what is happening.

[ChairmanHal]

If this is the Karma War and the coalition is known as Karma with the stated goals of disabling the Hegemony, how can it be that this is not about past transgressions? Hegemony refers to what? And Karma?

What is this war all about anymore and when did it change? How is the Hegemony to be broken down if the treaties that bind them are left intact?

Was I in a different universe when I looked over what the Karma War was all about and what Karma as a coalition set out to achieve?

The original goal of this war long before Airme became a Karma spokesman or Doitzel decided it might meet the agenda of Vox was simple: climb Mt. Everest.

NPO was the pinnacle of Planet Bob. The unclimbable mountain that no one would ever top. Then one day the dissolution of the OoO happened and the War of the Coalition. It became clear then that Polaris would never again be the staunch Pacifica supporter it always was and THE ORDERS (and given the time they dominated the game, it should be capitalized as such) were now two separate powers that may or may not have the same interests or political agenda.

Beyond that, the Continuum was made up of a combination of NPO allies, some at the top of their game, others slowly fading, all with varying degrees of loyalty to Pacifica. They didn't always go where the sword was pointed, unlike back in the days of the Initiative. They asked questions, demanded answers and had agendas that more or less matched up with NPO for a time, but not always. Then there was One Vision. In theory, a solid core of allies that NPO could always count on no matter what. In reality, each of the alliances in it, save perhaps for IRON, eventually went into decline.

Mt. Everest finally looked climbable. The only question was would the topic of conversation in many an OOC backroom IRC channel or Skype chat actually happen.

It has and it is. Whatever other agendas individual alliances or individual nations bring to the table, this war at its core has been about achieving the previously unachievable and changing the world as a result. Without NPO at the top, FAN comes out of Peace Mode. Without NPO at the top, Continuum alliances can't demand excessive reps. Without NPO at the top, there is the possibility of a true multipolar world. Without NPO at the top, alliances that gave up the possibility of coming back, have a chance to do just that. Without NPO at the top, Sponge, Schatt and crew will have to make an honest living. There is more, but the point is made.

Some say this war is about payback. No, it's about mountain climbing. Nothing will be the same.

[Kzoppistan]

This is precisely what is happening.

Knowing the problem is at least half of the solution.

[OverCaffeinated]

No kidding. Doesn't have anything to do with the disparity in terms between alliances though.

Sure it does. Valhalla has been beat down a lot farther then other alliances that have received peace and had been put close to the point where the damage they were taking was less then what they were dealing out. High percentage of war wonders helped them in that regard. Would Valhalla even accepted terms with reparations? I doubt it. And there attackers would have paid for it.

MCXA had more to lose and was less capable to go the distance in war (sorry MCXA but its true). It was worth while to them to accept the terms they got.

As far as I can tell, the losing alliances have come seeking peace, not the winning alliances.

Seeking peace is always in the losers favor. More so earlier in a war once its clear who is going to win, but before too much damage is taken.

Seeking peace is in the winners favor once the outcome is decided and prolonging the conflict becomes a detriment to themselves.

I am curious to see what the NPO decides to do if they get beat down to the point they have little to lose. With a fair number of Manhattan Projects and a lot of nations in peace to bankroll them, they can make life miserable for their opponents.

[Tygaland]

The original goal of this war long before Airme became a Karma spokesman or Doitzel decided it might meet the agenda of Vox was simple: climb Mt. Everest.

NPO was the pinnacle of Planet Bob. The unclimbable mountain that no one would ever top. Then one day the dissolution of the OoO happened and the War of the Coalition. It became clear then that Polaris would never again be the staunch Pacifica supporter it always was and THE ORDERS (and given the time they dominated the game, it should be capitalized as such) were now two separate powers that may or may not have the same interests or political agenda.

Beyond that, the Continuum was made up of a combination of NPO allies, some at the top of their game, others slowly fading, all with varying degrees of loyalty to Pacifica. They didn't always go where the sword was pointed, unlike back in the days of the Initiative. They asked questions, demanded answers and had agendas that more or less matched up with NPO for a time, but not always. Then there was One Vision. In theory, a solid core of allies that NPO could always count on no matter what. In reality, each of the alliances in it, save perhaps for IRON, eventually went into decline.

Mt. Everest finally looked climbable. The only question was would the topic of conversation in many an OOC backroom IRC channel or Skype chat actually happen.

It has and it is. Whatever other agendas individual alliances or individual nations bring to the table, this war at its core has been about achieving the previously unachievable and changing the world as a result. Without NPO at the top, FAN comes out of Peace Mode. Without NPO at the top, Continuum alliances can't demand excessive reps. Without NPO at the top, there is the possibility of a true multipolar world. Without NPO at the top, alliances that gave up the possibility of coming back, have a chance to do just that. Without NPO at the top, Sponge, Schatt and crew will have to make an honest living. There is more, but the point is made.

Some say this war is about payback. No, it's about mountain climbing. Nothing will be the same.

Well, ok. ChairmanHal has spoken, pack it in guys...maybe next time we'll get past basecamp.