ChairmanHal Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) The Karma war is not about NPO or IRON. It is about defending OV. Just like on Earth, where the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was the cause of World War I. The defense of OV is merely proximate causation. NPO declared an aggressive war on OV, and IRON supported them. Karma did not "target" anyone. They came to us. NPO walked straight into an ambush and you know it. What's been so astonishing about this whole war is that NPO was more or less warned that something was up, went about business as usual and when they realized the trap tried to sneak out it and made themselves look even worse. Edited May 30, 2009 by ChairmanHal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I don't see how Alliance Politics is the place to debate our contribution to the war vs. our "whiny" demeanor. Oh no you don't. This is precisely the right place for it, where all perceptions can be represented, supported, countered, and discounted. The veiled "private channels ftw" nonsense lends credence to the gripes with your attitude, to be frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 But that's not the point.By attacking, I would be ensuring that TOP members ate more nukes than would have been expected otherwise. To say we caused them to take *more* nukes is a fallacy. We hit people whose slots wouldn't have been filled otherwise. While we didn't take nukes for them, you can't say we caused them to take *more* nukes, unless you are under the assumption that the top ranked nations were completely out of range of the alliances we were fighting with, which would be incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) But that's not the point.By attacking, I would be ensuring that TOP members ate more nukes than would have been expected otherwise. Well no, not exactly. You'd be using one o-slot on the rogue, so you'd be actually preventing a TOPper using that o-slot and being nuked. Or, conversely, imagine that myself and two other people raided a guy who went rogue on three TOP nations. All of us make a similar pact - we won't nuke the rogue if he won't nuke us. Now the rogue clearly is going to be able to focus fire on the TOP nations, instead of being able to "spread the love." So in this hypothetical situation, you and your friends would be be hitting him conventionally as hard as you could? That'd be fine with me, if one of the three TOPpers nukes the rogue each day. It would save TOP from having to fill the rogue's three o-slots, which means you'd be preventing three more of our nations from being nuked each day by the rogue. You can't honestly tell me that TOP would approve of that situation - myself and my two friends get what would likely be a free tech raid while the rogue rains nukes down on TOP members. Hey, help is help. As long as you and your friends would be open to coordinating with us, I think I'd be fine with it. [Edit]: Dunno whether anyone else would agree with me though Edited May 30, 2009 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamed Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Could somebody please explain why RIA could reasonably expect us to go out of our way to take nukes on their behalf? It's not that I have anything against them, I rather like their culture for that matter, I just wouldn't take a bullet for them and don't understand why I'd be expected to. Why do you expect the RIA to take a nuclear bullet for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 We don't care about your respect. I can think of something you do care about oh ho ho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 I can think of something you do care about oh ho ho Well said, comrade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Oh no you don't. This is precisely the right place for it, where all perceptions can be represented, supported, countered, and discounted. The veiled "private channels ftw" nonsense lends credence to the gripes with your attitude, to be frank. Nah, OWF would be a fine place. This thread's topic and subsequent issues have been answered. I suppose that is what I was getting at. My other point was that it is impossible to argue his opinion on our contribution vs. demeanor and thus there was nothing to do but accept his opinion and move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) mod del. nvm Edited May 30, 2009 by shahenshah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) Oh no you don't. This is precisely the right place for it, where all perceptions can be represented, supported, countered, and discounted. The veiled "private channels ftw" nonsense lends credence to the gripes with your attitude, to be frank. Hear Hear Karma. Dunno whether anyone else would agree with me though I mostly agree Edited May 30, 2009 by shahenshah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Ender: You're analogy makes the assumption that the war slot you're taking up was going to be taken by us. In this war, as many have pointed out, we entered late and so it seems reasonable to assume that the majority of the free war slots which we took were free because the collective forces at war with those alliances didn't have nations available to declare. We weren't stealing slots, we just took up some of the leftover ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponken Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Why do you expect the RIA to take a nuclear bullet for you? We dont? I can think of something you do care about oh ho ho Nice one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Why do you expect the RIA to take a nuclear bullet for you? I don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Ender: You're analogy makes the assumption that the war slot you're taking up was going to be taken by us. In this war, as many have pointed out, we entered late and so it seems reasonable to assume that the majority of the free war slots which we took were free because the collective forces at war with those alliances didn't have nations available to declare.We weren't stealing slots, we just took up some of the leftover ones. Wow, I'm kinda bit surprised how you manage to get the slots you guys got. Its sad to see TOP being criticised for other's incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dan Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) Wow, I'm kinda bit surprised how you manage to get the slots you guys got. Its sad to see TOP being criticised for other's incompetence. It's just logisitics, they didn't have enough upper tier nations to have 3:1 on everything. Edited May 30, 2009 by Dr. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 It's just logisitics, they didn't have enough upper tier nations to have 3:1 on everything. That was a good chance to smear their reputation a bit there, Dan. Yeesh, get with the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) It's just logisitics, they didn't have enough upper tier nations to have 3:1 on everything. Even if case is changed to that, my point stands Good sir Anyway, back to the topic perhaps? Anyway, all this reps and drama. We'll follow the terms we signed on and be done with it. Edited May 30, 2009 by shahenshah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJPenguin Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Hmm. Interesting show by some I thought were friends. Appears when the tides are turned, and they are in power, they too are no better than what they preach. However, good show by Liquid Mercury, and Gen Lee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Lightning Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) I would say you're expected to because you are fighting alongside us, making us all allies of sorts. Ya know, instead of jumping into wars that are full on nuclear, taking up a defensive slot, and not really contributing as much as you think you do. In the end, TOP is a sovereign alliance, and can do as it pleases. I'm sure plenty of alliances understand this, and I'm sure plenty of alliances now will never "take a bullet" for TOP. That's the way the world works. We didn't enter this war to help you out, we did it to help our allies. It's unfortunate that you feel that fighting the same enemy as us makes us allies. That's not how we see things. That's not to say that we cannot cooperate during the war for mutual gain, but it does not extend beyond a business-like relationship. I think we made it fairly clear from the outset that we were not subscribing to the whole Karma side but were involved simply as our agenda (to help our allies win their wars/receive optimal peace-terms) over-lapped with theirs. As for the success of the military campaign, I think we did a pretty sweet job though I do say so myself. Maybe a more impartial judge would be the alliances who we were fighting. Have you thought of asking them which of us had the most effect on their stats (I bet their laughing their butts off at this thread, btw)? Any respectable alliance will not go out of their way to maximize damage on their war time allies. If you were uncomfortable being war time allies you should have stayed out of the war as you've done many times in the past. We went out of our way to minimise damage to ourselves by maintaining a fairly standard no-first-strike-nuke policy. It's not our fault that the RIA and other assorted alliances didn't think to do that (or decided not to) themselves. I don't mean to preach condescendingly but as a tip for the future, the key to war is to maximise damage to the enemy while minimising damage taken. Rather than blame us for not protecting you, maybe you should consider what you could have done to protect yourselves. Edited May 30, 2009 by Blue Lightning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWAT128 Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Our war with Echelon went nuclear from the start. If TOP didn't want to go nuke free, they should have stayed out of the fight and let someone else that was willing to nuke take their place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Our war with Echelon went nuclear from the start. If TOP didn't want to go nuke free, they should have stayed out of the fight and let someone else that was willing to nuke take their place. Why?..is there anything written somewhere that says such? Has Karma not set the world free? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Just like on Earth, where the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was the cause of World War I.The defense of OV is merely proximate causation. NPO walked straight into an ambush and you know it. What's been so astonishing about this whole war is that NPO was more or less warned that something was up, went about business as usual and when they realized the trap tried to sneak out it and made themselves look even worse. No. Before NPO actually declared war, we all knew that there was something going on in the sense that there was trouble between OV and NPO. The fact is though, not everyone you see in Karma was completely in agreement as to who was in the right or wrong. A lot of people felt that OV did $%&@ up and deserved some sort of punishment (to what degree was in debate)... it was only NPO's attack in the middle of negotiations that actually nailed the coffin. And I'm not talking like "putting the last nail" kind of deal, no, this was them building the entire coffin and nailing it shut in the span of about 3 and a half minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWAT128 Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Why?..is there anything written somewhere that says such? Has Karma not set the world free? lol Why? Because all they are doing is knocking down top tier nations with full nuclear stockpiles to ranges of smaller nations that might not have nukes. Nothing needs to be written down, but it makes little sense to attack someone then let others take the damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 No.Before NPO actually declared war, we all knew that there was something going on in the sense that there was trouble between OV and NPO. The fact is though, not everyone you see in Karma was completely in agreement as to who was in the right or wrong. A lot of people felt that OV did $%&@ up and deserved some sort of punishment (to what degree was in debate)... it was only NPO's attack in the middle of negotiations that actually nailed the coffin. And I'm not talking like "putting the last nail" kind of deal, no, this was them building the entire coffin and nailing it shut in the span of about 3 and a half minutes. Hadn't some/most Karma alliances been maneuvering to put together an anti-NPO coalition before the OV incident? This is a sincere question BTW, I'm curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hizzy Posted May 30, 2009 Report Share Posted May 30, 2009 Why?..is there anything written somewhere that says such? Has Karma not set the world free? lol It doesn't need to be written for it to be common sense. Same reason that you shouldn't send non-nuclear and non-SDI nations to hit a nuclear rogue. Would you do that if it wasn't written down somewhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts