The "I Don't Know Anymore" War

[Heracles the Great]

I disagree that Karma is just an angry mob. If they were an angry mob they'd have gone on the offensive and surely would not have tried to resolve the OV incident like they did. So, I'll disagree with that representation.

While it was strategically better to fight a defensive war, it's hard to imagine the kind of treaty escalation and call to arms that we saw this time around, if not for the "angry mob" - I mean we basically were witnessing another NPO & Co. curbstomp of OV, no different then the ones before of so many other alliances, yet this time was different. Was it because NPO finally hit that "sweet spot" in the treaty web that just happened to set off nearly every treaty in the web on the opposite side? Or was it because so many alliances activated optional clauses they normally (or in the past haven't) wouldn't? I mean typically a non-chaining MDP becomes optional if the alliance is attacked because of a war they entered into through another treaty - I can only guess how many optional clauses were activated to get us where we are.

As for your description of reasons why alliances are at war they seem fairly accurate although I think pigeon-holing each alliance or bloc into one of those groups would be difficult. From the STA's perspective they would fit into all three groups to some extent. Mostly 2 and 3 but there is a little of 1 within our ranks too. I think that would be applicable to most alliances in the war on the side of Karma.

I agree and I think that most alliances are like that - they will have more than one of the "factions" that I generalized within their own ranks and even moreso across their allies ranks. The actions of the alliance as a whole are often determined by which faction has the largest majority within the alliance itself at a micro-level and across the entire front of a branch of a war on a macro-level.

I'd say the main reason for the gradual withdrawal of alliances from Karma, at least in any military capacity, is the closure of their branch of the war. Again, using STA as an example as it is the one I know most about, our war was a branch from the TPF front fighting Molon Labe and later DOOM after ML attacked MK. Once peace was agreed between us, MK, NSO, NpO, ML, DOOM and TPF our war was done in an active sense. The idea, from my perspective, was to remove peripheral alliances from the war to take pressure of those fighting on the frontlines against Continuum/1V alliances.

As each group of alliances peace out an opponent, Karma alliances exit the fighting aspect of the war which is why numbers of alliances fighting under Karma's banner drops steadily as the war progresses.

Your groups may have more to do with the peace terms offered so far and I think that is probably the biggest weakness Karma has. Once the fighting was done alliances didn't bother talking to each other or try and put together some sort of scheme for surrender terms. They just saw a way to end the fighting and took it.

No big deal and within the rights of all involved to do that. But it does not really contribute to the overall goal of Karma and that is what confused me. Moreso when alliances who fought under the Karma banner, received aid from other Karma alliances and fought on fronts organised and maintained by Karma then decided to tell Karma to go forth and procreate when it came for peace terms to be decided.

When the STA discussed peace terms with ML and DOOM a Karma rep was there. LiquidMercury from Grämlins. I didn't have an issue with it as we were dealing with alliances on the perirphery of the Hegemony, there was no reall call for reps or any other restrictions. But, I think a more coordinated distribution of peace terms would have been a wiser path to follow and a fairer one for those alliances surrendering.

To see SSSW18 and TSI have to pay reps and alliances like Valhalla and NATO walk away with nothing does not seem fair to me at all. In fact, it is ludicrous and testament to the failure of Karma to do the fair and just thing with regards to terms handed out.

But, it is all done now and nothing I or anyone can do about it. I just feel sorry for alliances like SSSW18 who now appear to be held more accountable for a war they had nothing to do with starting than one of the core members of the group that started the war.

Perhaps I'm just insane.

From a peripheral standpoint, I think this may have less of an influence, but I think as we get to the heart of the beast, as one might say, that the way the majority within those alliances perceive the war (the factions) will have a major impact on when they decide to consider terms, and how those terms come out. For instance, if on the Valhalla front there were an alliance or two that had a stronger faction prescence of the first group as opposed to the second or third, the terms might have been far different. I think that the fact that there is not a unified bloc, and that each alliance, while perhaps being smart enough to coordinate military efforts with "Karma", entered this war with their a different degree of... perhaps passion? ... for the goals and ideals at hand, is the major reason we're seeing the descrepancies in terms beind handed out (reps for SSSW18, but not Valhalla - etc.).

At the end of the day - while the battle cry issued by Archon may have been "Karma" - it was never about Karma for a large number of people. Just as Ivan Moldavi stood up and openly requested the NSO not be affiliated with Karma as they were simply standing by their allies, I think there were many alliances whose degree of passion for the "ultimate goal" set by more vocal members of Karma was much lower than once perceived. I don't think it changed overnight, or that battle weariness played into it, I just think they were either too quiet about their true intentions or were drowned out by those more passionate.

Again - just an observation and opinion - I could be off based on a few or all parts.

[Tygaland]

While it was strategically better to fight a defensive war, it's hard to imagine the kind of treaty escalation and call to arms that we saw this time around, if not for the "angry mob" - I mean we basically were witnessing another NPO & Co. curbstomp of OV, no different then the ones before of so many other alliances, yet this time was different. Was it because NPO finally hit that "sweet spot" in the treaty web that just happened to set off nearly every treaty in the web on the opposite side? Or was it because so many alliances activated optional clauses they normally (or in the past haven't) wouldn't? I mean typically a non-chaining MDP becomes optional if the alliance is attacked because of a war they entered into through another treaty - I can only guess how many optional clauses were activated to get us where we are.

None of which supports your angry mob label. The reason so many people stood up firstly for OV and then afterwards to defend/assist their allies in the fight against the NPO and their allies was not anger, but opporunity. In the past, alliances have backed down because th enumbers were not there, this time the numbers were there. So much so that even the closest of the NPO's allies faltered. It wasn't anger, it was that the balance had moved away from the NPO this time.

I agree and I think that most alliances are like that - they will have more than one of the "factions" that I generalized within their own ranks and even moreso across their allies ranks. The actions of the alliance as a whole are often determined by which faction has the largest majority within the alliance itself at a micro-level and across the entire front of a branch of a war on a macro-level.

Yes, that makes sense. Especially in allianced with small leadership groups.

From a peripheral standpoint, I think this may have less of an influence, but I think as we get to the heart of the beast, as one might say, that the way the majority within those alliances perceive the war (the factions) will have a major impact on when they decide to consider terms, and how those terms come out. For instance, if on the Valhalla front there were an alliance or two that had a stronger faction prescence of the first group as opposed to the second or third, the terms might have been far different.

Maybe and maybe not. It is not uncommon for one alliance in such a situation to pull rank and dictate terms to others in their group.

I think that the fact that there is not a unified bloc, and that each alliance, while perhaps being smart enough to coordinate military efforts with "Karma", entered this war with their a different degree of... perhaps passion? ... for the goals and ideals at hand, is the major reason we're seeing the descrepancies in terms beind handed out (reps for SSSW18, but not Valhalla - etc.).

Of course if there is no coordination then peace terms are going to be a crap shoot.

At the end of the day - while the battle cry issued by Archon may have been "Karma" - it was never about Karma for a large number of people. Just as Ivan Moldavi stood up and openly requested the NSO not be affiliated with Karma as they were simply standing by their allies, I think there were many alliances whose degree of passion for the "ultimate goal" set by more vocal members of Karma was much lower than once perceived. I don't think it changed overnight, or that battle weariness played into it, I just think they were either too quiet about their true intentions or were drowned out by those more passionate.

Again - just an observation and opinion - I could be off based on a few or all parts.

Most alliances handing out terms, especially those handing out the free passes, claim they want to do what is right and fair when offering peace. I just don't see the fairness in major players in the Hegemony getting a free pass while smaller alliances more distantly connected get reps and other restrictions.

I guess, to me, it seems it is more about what is easiest and what seems fair rather than what is fair and just.

But, I just shrug my shoulders and walk away because there is nothing I can do about it.

[Heracles the Great]

None of which supports your angry mob label. The reason so many people stood up firstly for OV and then afterwards to defend/assist their allies in the fight against the NPO and their allies was not anger, but opporunity. In the past, alliances have backed down because th enumbers were not there, this time the numbers were there. So much so that even the closest of the NPO's allies faltered. It wasn't anger, it was that the balance had moved away from the NPO this time.

I would disagree that they were not angry - the way this board has been going since before the NoCB and has been progressing at an even higher rate since the NoCB war, anger was a large part of this. NPO could only curbstomp so many alliances for so long before the world finally united enough to seek their destruction. The only reason the numbers "were there" this time was because of that anger. Now perhaps towards the outter edges there are alliances who simply joined b/c the war was in their favor finally, but to get there, enough alliances had to unite for the cause to get there. Nobody forsaw the massive showing of "rats jumping ship" that we witnessed therefore the numbers were actually rather close as the planning stage got closer to the execution stage.

Most alliances handing out terms, especially those handing out the free passes, claim they want to do what is right and fair when offering peace. I just don't see the fairness in major players in the Hegemony getting a free pass while smaller alliances more distantly connected get reps and other restrictions.

I guess, to me, it seems it is more about what is easiest and what seems fair rather than what is fair and just.

And I think that is probably the other major factor that ties in with the degree of passion and the factions that I mentioned. What is "right and fair" is very subjective and purely an opinion that is formed differently by each person. Some may only see it in the context of how this war took place and not want to seek retribution for past actions that they don't see included in this war, while others may see it in the context of the actions of the group as a whole over the last couple wars strung together. I agree with what you are saying, in that it's hard to understand how one alliance (in your example SSSW18) who's actions in this war were honorable (to my knowledge, don't quote me on that) and simply honored a treaty, and whose past actions (again, to my knowledge) have been less sullied than many others, go harsher terms than another alliance (in your example Valhalla) who's actions in this war were honorable but who's track record is far worse than the previous alliance. If there were unification in the peace terms, they should have seen similar terms (if the context were purely of this war) or Valhalla should have gotten worse terms (if the context included past wars) however the factions that created the majority int he alliances that gave terms were very different each had a different opinion on what they saw as fair and just.

Essentially - I agree with you (I think) - if this were to be "done over" - knowing what we know now - those who wanted to actually see "Karma" take place probably would need to form a much stronger bond that unified everyone behind a singular name and used that to dictate both militaristic and diplomatic actions. However achieving that may have reduced the numbers on Karma's side as there are many who would not have bought into the "Karma" ideal and that may have prevented the war from being won on the militaristic front as it was. So who knows... perhaps you were condemned either way and the way this ultimately went down was far better than the alternative.

[Angrator]

I don't know what the controversy is about the "angry mob" classification. I think while it may confuse the Casus Belli, it is true to a large extent. I've been waiting for a while for this fight, so when it started, I threw down some money and started attacking the NPO. You can't deny that a lot of people who had their alliances hacked away and murdered from underneath them are not really angry at the NPO. They ruled over us for two years of oppression and guess what? They aren't going back on top any time soon.

I don't know why people like Heft use disorganization as such a pejorative. Karma isn't looking to dominate others for two years. That was the NPO thing. It is only enough that we are free. I don't really care if Karma has unity. I just want the NPO to be finished. Besides Tyga, that as a leader you are bringing up this issue in public says something about Karma's organization.

[Tygaland]

I don't know what the controversy is about the "angry mob" classification. I think while it may confuse the Casus Belli, it is true to a large extent. I've been waiting for a while for this fight, so when it started, I threw down some money and started attacking the NPO. You can't deny that a lot of people who had their alliances hacked away and murdered from underneath them are not really angry at the NPO. They ruled over us for two years of oppression and guess what? They aren't going back on top any time soon.

I don't know why people like Heft use disorganization as such a pejorative. Karma isn't looking to dominate others for two years. That was the NPO thing. It is only enough that we are free. I don't really care if Karma has unity. I just want the NPO to be finished. Besides Tyga, that as a leader you are bringing up this issue in public says something about Karma's organization.

And the final death blow was the "private channels ftw" meme. Now if someone can push these walls of text on top of me to save on the burial, I'd be ever so grateful.

[Angrator]

lol... that was quite an interesting comment and made me laugh

Edited May 13, 2009 by Angrator

[Azaghul]

The goals of those entering "Karma" varied greatly. The primary one for most involved seemed to me at least to be a perceived threat to our "side" of the treaty web around Superfriends/C&G/Citadel and the opportunity/numbers were there to take a stand and not let their allies get dismantled piecemeal. Where the ideals came in is in how people had aligned-themselves pre-war as I think most saw this war as a strong possibility.

Anyway as I've said before I think the importance of reps is being over-hyped. The modest reps being proposed and given will likely only have a minor impact economically. MK and NpO proved that even really high reps aren't crippling in the face of a determined rebuilding effort. The effective damage they do or restore is minor compared to the impact of actual war, and won't be the difference between having and not having a GW1 repeat.

You also shouldn't overlook the political repercussions. GW1 occurred in the context of a lot smaller and less developed nations. NPO/NpO were two alliances who relied primarily on their own strength. The power structure NPO had built up before this war relied upon the military strength of many AND NPO asserting their political dominance over that strength.

On the pure strength front, the economics are very different, with a much more limited aid system, with no exploits like the one NPO used to regrow after GW1, and much greater ground to regain to catch back up with the competition. It remains to be seen if NPO can show the economic abilities that MK/NpO showed after the noCB war. Even with MK/NpO's great rebuilding, we only really succeeded in building back to something close to our former NS strength and nuke count, and are both still weak in the top ranks. Even if NPO and it's close allies manage to show great skill in rebuilding, it won't be to their former level of comparative strength, at least for a very long time. That's in a vacuum without politics taking out them or their competition. And the damage to the top ranks will take even longer to rebuild. Reps as I said earlier won't make a big difference, and only really have the power to cripple rebuilding efforts that are lethargic and wouldn't be very successful to begin with.

The political system they built is in total shambles. Forced treaty cancellations wouldn't help, they still would have the ties to their very close allies and just resign them later. However, those allies showed with their MADP cancellations that they no longer were willing to hold a subservient role in those relationships. Others have effectively broken off, even if they still have ties with NPO (MHA and TOP come to mind). Most importantly, the pressure to align yourself with NPO for safety no longer exists. It's no longer the choice to make yourself subservient to NPO or be the victim of the next curbstomp.

That's what happened this time, the would be victims of the would be curbstomp proved stronger and more united than NPO anticipated. NPO's incompetence in its aggression further shifted the balance of power from NPO to the opposition. The opposition, represented in Karma, reached a critical mass to be victorious and the whole house of cards of the system that had propped NPO up fell down. NPO's aroma of strength and invincibility now has to be rebuilt from scratch. They no longer have the political power to impose political subservience and by doing so maintain their political power. That's something that many strong players, now equal to NPO, are likely going to want to and succeed in preventing from happening again.

That makes this situation very different from GW1. It was after GW1 that NPO built that political system that is now destroyed. Everyone now knows how NPO operates on that front and won't be so vulnerable to it. There are a lot more alliances with significant military strength than there were after GW1 After GW1 they could win by rebuilding their own strength quickly (as I pointed out earlier, the hill is far steeper on that front now) and pulling a few key alliances, both old and new to their side. There are far to many to alliances with significant strength and too much history that everyone is aware of for that to have a good chance of happening again.

Edited May 13, 2009 by Azaghul

[Thorgrum]

The goals of those entering "Karma" varied greatly. The primary one for most involved seemed to me at least to be a perceived threat to our "side" of the treaty web around Superfriends/C&G/Citadel and the opportunity/numbers were there to take a stand and not let their allies get dismantled piecemeal. Where the ideals came in is in how people had aligned-themselves pre-war as I think most saw this war as a strong possibility.

Anyway as I've said before I think the importance of reps is being over-hyped. The modest reps being proposed and given will likely only have a minor impact economically. MK and NpO proved that even really high reps aren't crippling in the face of a determined rebuilding effort. The effective damage they do or restore is minor compared to the impact of actual war, and won't be the difference between having and not having a GW1 repeat.

You also shouldn't overlook the political repercussions. GW1 occurred in the context of a lot smaller and less developed nations. NPO/NpO were two alliances who relied primarily on their own strength. The power structure NPO had built up before this war relied upon the military strength of many AND NPO asserting their political dominance over that strength.

On the pure strength front, the economics are very different, with a much more limited aid system, with no exploits like the one NPO used to regrow after GW1, and much greater ground to regain to catch back up with the competition. It remains to be seen if NPO can show the economic abilities that MK/NpO showed after the noCB war. Even with MK/NpO's great rebuilding, we only really succeeded in building back to something close to our former NS strength and nuke count, and are both still weak in the top ranks. Even if NPO and it's close allies manage to show great skill in rebuilding, it won't be to their former level of comparative strength, at least for a very long time. That's in a vacuum without politics taking out them or their competition. And the damage to the top ranks will take even longer to rebuild. Reps as I said earlier won't make a big difference, and only really have the power to cripple rebuilding efforts that are lethargic and wouldn't be very successful to begin with.

The political system they built is in total shambles. Forced treaty cancellations wouldn't help, they still would have the ties to their very close allies and just resign them later. However, those allies showed with their MADP cancellations that they no longer were willing to hold a subservient role in those relationships. Others have effectively broken off, even if they still have ties with NPO (MHA and TOP come to mind). Most importantly, the pressure to align yourself with NPO for safety no longer exists. It's no longer the choice to make yourself subservient to NPO or be the victim of the next curbstomp.

That's what happened this time, the would be victims of the would be curbstomp proved stronger and more united than NPO anticipated. NPO's incompetence in its aggression further shifted the balance of power from NPO to the opposition. The opposition, represented in Karma, reached a critical mass to be victorious and the whole house of cards of the system that had propped NPO up fell down. NPO's aroma of strength and invincibility now has to be rebuilt from scratch. They no longer have the political power to impose political subservience and by doing so maintain their political power. That's something that many strong players, now equal to NPO, are likely going to want to and succeed in preventing from happening again.

Great post, very insightful and a good read considering some of the redundancies in the thread thus far.

-Thank you- from one of the members of the peanut gallery

[Heracles the Great]

As usual, you continue to impress me Azaghul with a very well thought out and very accurate analysis - Well done

EDIT: Spelling (I think I got them all, but it's still early)

Edited May 13, 2009 by Heracles the Great

[Azaghul]

Thank's y'all.

I need to stop my bad habit of proof-reading and editing after I post, lol

[Adrian LaCroix]

You wrote that post as if their upper ranks are taking huge chunks of damage. They aren't, they're sitting in peace mode. Don't know what difference that'll make in the long run, but

/me shrugs

[Shurukian]

It's been said from the beginning that Karma is simply a coalition of alliances together for this war. So for those saying that this will kill Karma in the future, there will be no Karma to kill. Karma will die as soon as this war is over. I also think it's safe to say, that the next war will probably be current Karma alliances vs. other Karma alliances. While treaties are dropping and the MDP web is breaking up on the Hegemony side, it hasn't yet happened to the Karma side. And that's what the next war will probably be.

Similarly, it doesn't matter what terms you give them. Everything grows back. All you can do is hamper it, unless you plan to full destroy them, which would just be detrimental to Bob.

[Lord Boris]

It's been said from the beginning that Karma is simply a coalition of alliances together for this war. So for those saying that this will kill Karma in the future, there will be no Karma to kill. Karma will die as soon as this war is over. I also think it's safe to say, that the next war will probably be current Karma alliances vs. other Karma alliances. While treaties are dropping and the MDP web is breaking up on the Hegemony side, it hasn't yet happened to the Karma side. And that's what the next war will probably be.

Similarly, it doesn't matter what terms you give them. Everything grows back. All you can do is hamper it, unless you plan to full destroy them, which would just be detrimental to Bob.

I agree with Shuru. It's no secret that there are certain alliances on what has colloquially become known as 'Karma' that would rather see each other bludgeoned to a pulp, if not for their currently held common adversary, NPO. The fact that threads like this have popped up have rather demonstrated the point that there is no unified bloc going on. It's just a bunch of different groups assembled for the only common goal they actually have.

It is there, I believe, that we see the reasoning for 'lenient' terms being given. By hoping to not stir up more hatred, some groups are hoping that they will be able to get those who fought on the Hegemony side this time around to support them when the next big one comes around, which will likely be a culling of SF/TT, Citadel, or C&G.

[Gatherum]

A fine point, had I even hinted that they should not exist. I love it when people can't respond to what I say so make up something else and use that as my argument.

I never meant to insinuate that that is what you had said, but note that I also said that they must be allowed to thrive, which is not possible under harsh terms. Being that they have never experienced such, do you think that they would keep together in that event?

Mine apologies for not being clear.

[Monster]

The goals of those entering "Karma" varied greatly. The primary one for most involved seemed to me at least to be a perceived threat to our "side" of the treaty web around Superfriends/C&G/Citadel and the opportunity/numbers were there to take a stand and not let their allies get dismantled piecemeal. Where the ideals came in is in how people had aligned-themselves pre-war as I think most saw this war as a strong possibility.

Exactly, I saw SF being picked off along with VE and jumped at the chance to do something about it. I also hated unipolarity and we've gotten rid of it.

[Angrator]

It's been said from the beginning that Karma is simply a coalition of alliances together for this war. So for those saying that this will kill Karma in the future, there will be no Karma to kill. Karma will die as soon as this war is over. I also think it's safe to say, that the next war will probably be current Karma alliances vs. other Karma alliances. While treaties are dropping and the MDP web is breaking up on the Hegemony side, it hasn't yet happened to the Karma side. And that's what the next war will probably be.

Similarly, it doesn't matter what terms you give them. Everything grows back. All you can do is hamper it, unless you plan to full destroy them, which would just be detrimental to Bob.

Not everything grows back. Do you see LUE, GATO, Legion, ONOS, GOONS, \m/, etc back to their former strength? Half of those alliances don't even exist anymore.

[Monster]

Not everything grows back. Do you see LUE, GATO, Legion, ONOS, GOONS, \m/, etc back to their former strength? Half of those alliances don't even exist anymore.

Those were all pretty much destroyed, so her point still stands.

[Angrator]

Those were all pretty much destroyed, so her point still stands.

Huh? That statement just doesn't make any sense. Pretty much destroyed? You can be either destroyed or not destroyed, not both. In all cases, the harsh NPO terms contributed to the fall of their enemies from power. I am not arguing semantically, but rather I am arguing against the central point of Shurukians argument. Namely, that terms are largely ineffectual. Shurukian seems to think that terms have little effect on an alliance is wrong plain and simple. The NPO trying to convert opponents like Legion and ONOS by throwing viceroy's on them, and throwing down huge levels of reparations had a huge effect. It drove membership away from those alliances like crazy. To state otherwise is a factual absurdity.

I'm not saying that war damages itself is not a huge determiner, but terms do have an effect. Funny how the effect of terms seems to diminished by alliances favourable to the NPO.

[Ad Fidem]

Im sorry I didn't read all the post but i just have to say this war has been the most confusing ever. One day Alliances are at all out war dealing out whatever damage they posible can then the next day they are at peace. But then again i suppose it comes down to the matter of diplomacy winning this war than brute strength.

[Monster]

Huh? That statement just doesn't make any sense. Pretty much destroyed? You can be either destroyed or not destroyed, not both. In all cases, the harsh NPO terms contributed to the fall of their enemies from power. I am not arguing semantically, but rather I am arguing against the central point of Shurukians argument. Namely, that terms are largely ineffectual. Shurukian seems to think that terms have little effect on an alliance is wrong plain and simple. The NPO trying to convert opponents like Legion and ONOS by throwing viceroy's on them, and throwing down huge levels of reparations had a huge effect. It drove membership away from those alliances like crazy. To state otherwise is a factual absurdity.

I'm not saying that war damages itself is not a huge determiner, but terms do have an effect. Funny how the effect of terms seems to diminished by alliances favourable to the NPO.

Let me explain what I was getting at: if you drive away most of the core members, it stops being the same alliance. This is what seems to have happened with ONOS and Legion. It was tried with GATO being kept at war for so long, installing a viceroy, and then purging certain elements within the alliance. Terms such as those were used to attempt to destroy the alliances in all but name without forcing an actual disbandment.

Demanding 82k tech doesn't really have the same effect and inspires hatred more than anything.

It's not just people who are perceived to be favorable to NPO saying this. Azaghul made the point in a very long post earlier in this thread and he was in charge of MK's bank when they were under terms and still is.

Edited May 14, 2009 by Nausea

[John Michaels]

I need to tackle something before people who don't know what they're talking about stamp such idiotic notions into people's minds. I admit I have not read past Page 2, and do not know if this crackpot nonsense has been dealt with. However, I lack the time to read this thread, and I think it's important we deal with idealistic claptrap before it becomes ingrained in the minds of many.

The ludicrous idea of which I am referring to is the idea that this war has "broken" the Hegemony. It has not. It takes more than a few weeks to break the largest power bloc in the game's history. Hell, the NPO rebuilt in two weeks after the First Great War, and if their top nations are not properly wrecked they'll do the same damn thing all over gain. They'll be back on their feet in such a short amount of time you'll be looking back two weeks prior and wondering how the hell you ever believed they were toast.

And, as NPO showed in the post-GW1 climate, new alliances will come, and many of them will not have witnessed the past two years of NPO oppression. Because of the bickering and disputes between the CoaLUEtion allies, the NPO was able to assemble a newer, younger group of alliances which became the Initiative. I personally believed what attracted a great deal of their attention was the fact that the Order was the strongest alliance in the game. If you think history won't repeat itself, that's because you're dumb. If you believe that all it takes is one war to ensure the hegemony of the past two years will be broken, you're wrong, because they will make an attempt to gain their revenge, even if they must wait a great deal of time. We saw it with the example of the Legion; they didn't think too much of their entry into the First Great War. After all, they referred to their conflict with the Order as the "Legion-NPO Barfight." They assumed that it was one quick brawl and all would be well in the world. It wasn't. NPO played along to their fantasy for eight months, and when they had the opportunity, they openly acknowledged they had been desiring their chance for payback all along.

Those of you who believe the Order and their allies - and they are allies, because right now they have no one else left in the cyberverse who will trust them. I doubt the NPO trusts the Hegemony alliances after their little stunt at the start of this conflict, but who else is there? They have shown they won't just throw their hands up in the air and say "Well, guess I'd better change everything I sought to achieve." They'll only do that if the alliances of this world do their best to keep NPO contained, and frankly they won't because they don't have the balls for it. I just hope that this time people will learn their !@#$@#$ lesson and won't just assume all's well that ends well, because it only ends well if you don't fall asleep at the goddamn wheel. I desperately want to be wrong but the history of this game hasn't exactly given me a great deal of confidence.

[Aurion]

As I've been saying for awhile now, no one on the karma side of the war has the balls to do what needs to be done.

No one?

I guess we'll just have to wait and see on that one.

It's going to be interesting to see if NPO pride last longer then their attackers willingness to prolong the war.

I don't think that will be much of a problem.

I love it when people can't respond to what I say so make up something else and use that as my argument.

That does seem to happen to you a fair bit, doesn't it?

[Tygaland]

That does seem to happen to you a fair bit, doesn't it?

lol, yes...it does.

[Angrator]

I need to tackle something before people who don't know what they're talking about stamp such idiotic notions into people's minds. I admit I have not read past Page 2, and do not know if this crackpot nonsense has been dealt with. However, I lack the time to read this thread, and I think it's important we deal with idealistic claptrap before it becomes ingrained in the minds of many.

The ludicrous idea of which I am referring to is the idea that this war has "broken" the Hegemony. It has not. It takes more than a few weeks to break the largest power bloc in the game's history. Hell, the NPO rebuilt in two weeks after the First Great War, and if their top nations are not properly wrecked they'll do the same damn thing all over gain. They'll be back on their feet in such a short amount of time you'll be looking back two weeks prior and wondering how the hell you ever believed they were toast.

And, as NPO showed in the post-GW1 climate, new alliances will come, and many of them will not have witnessed the past two years of NPO oppression. Because of the bickering and disputes between the CoaLUEtion allies, the NPO was able to assemble a newer, younger group of alliances which became the Initiative. I personally believed what attracted a great deal of their attention was the fact that the Order was the strongest alliance in the game. If you think history won't repeat itself, that's because you're dumb. If you believe that all it takes is one war to ensure the hegemony of the past two years will be broken, you're wrong, because they will make an attempt to gain their revenge, even if they must wait a great deal of time. We saw it with the example of the Legion; they didn't think too much of their entry into the First Great War. After all, they referred to their conflict with the Order as the "Legion-NPO Barfight." They assumed that it was one quick brawl and all would be well in the world. It wasn't. NPO played along to their fantasy for eight months, and when they had the opportunity, they openly acknowledged they had been desiring their chance for payback all along.

Those of you who believe the Order and their allies - and they are allies, because right now they have no one else left in the cyberverse who will trust them. I doubt the NPO trusts the Hegemony alliances after their little stunt at the start of this conflict, but who else is there? They have shown they won't just throw their hands up in the air and say "Well, guess I'd better change everything I sought to achieve." They'll only do that if the alliances of this world do their best to keep NPO contained, and frankly they won't because they don't have the balls for it. I just hope that this time people will learn their !@#$@#$ lesson and won't just assume all's well that ends well, because it only ends well if you don't fall asleep at the goddamn wheel. I desperately want to be wrong but the history of this game hasn't exactly given me a great deal of confidence.

You do have a way with words John Michaels. I reentered this game just to defeat the NPO, and now that they have fled the forums it's so very easy to forget how bad it really was. I like them not being around, but I also wish I could "talk" to them about their hippy screen protection. I've helped bring down 3 little NPO nations, and it doesn't take a lot to guess how much aid they received. I honestly thought a week long war could bring them down, but perhaps I was wrong. Today's warfare is much more destructive than the first great war and the difference between top and the bottom was much smaller then. However, if they keep their top nations up then it's going to be hard to break them.

They need some severe reparations, so that the hipsters are too busy paying off reps to help the smaller nations.

[Gatherum]

lol, yes...it does.

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...t&p=1526130

Still, my condolences...I sympathize, Tyga.