End of Terms: NPO and Beyond

[Mozaffar]

I would definately say that Karma is a large scale offensive (most of the DoW's are from Karma's side) used vy some or all of a defending force to seize the intiative from the NPO. I fail to see how an alliance with not one defensive slot in use is in a defensive war.

Just because it's unwise for the enemy to declare more wars doesn't mean it suddenly ceases being the aggressor in this conflict. I think what you fail to see is taking offensive on the military front, and the offensive on a diplomatic front (declaring wars without a proper casus belli or simply coming to the defense of your treaty partner).

[Samuel Houston]

Wu Tang said about everything that need be said.

Anything else is simply splitting hairs.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Samuel Houston

[Defiant]

From the OP, I don't know about general peace terms etc (though I would not encourage white peace), I feel that any sort of imposition of reparations due to their members hiding in peace mode should not be done. Even if those cowards are unwilling to fight, it is still a legitimate way to play the game. The rest of the alliance should not be punished. It will simply be up to those in the alliance to decide they may not want to be in an alliance with those kinds of leaders

[Matthew Conrad]

From the OP, I don't know about general peace terms etc (though I would not encourage white peace), I feel that any sort of imposition of reparations due to their members hiding in peace mode should not be done. Even if those cowards are unwilling to fight, it is still a legitimate way to play the game. The rest of the alliance should not be punished. It will simply be up to those in the alliance to decide they may not want to be in an alliance with those kinds of leaders

Let's not be coy about this matter. No one has said peace mode isn't a legitimate aspect of the game, but so is not letting your opponent get peace. NPO still has a very large amount of MP's and WRC's and nations waiting to be rebuilt the second they get peace. If we simply let the billions of saved up cash just go unscathed, do you realize how quickly they can rebuild those formerly large nations? I suspect you will admit NPO has a tendency for unhealthy grudges and brooding revenge. We won't let them try and repeat history.

[Asriel Belacqua]

I fear that I already see history paralleling itself. Many of the same people, many of the same reasons. Many of the same ideals. Different leaders, different fighters, but much is the same.

Learn from the past, don't let your differences break up the ideals of Karma, or NPO will do it again.

[Defiant]

Let's not be coy about this matter. No one has said peace mode isn't a legitimate aspect of the game, but so is not letting your opponent get peace. NPO still has a very large amount of MP's and WRC's and nations waiting to be rebuilt the second they get peace. If we simply let the billions of saved up cash just go unscathed, do you realize how quickly they can rebuild those formerly large nations? I suspect you will admit NPO has a tendency for unhealthy grudges and brooding revenge. We won't let them try and repeat history.

I can understand that and I guess I see your point. I guess them holding a grudge over a very long war that hurts them a lot is the same as a somewhat long war and only hurting them a little.

[Nizzle]

Let's not be coy about this matter. No one has said peace mode isn't a legitimate aspect of the game, but so is not letting your opponent get peace. NPO still has a very large amount of MP's and WRC's and nations waiting to be rebuilt the second they get peace. If we simply let the billions of saved up cash just go unscathed, do you realize how quickly they can rebuild those formerly large nations? I suspect you will admit NPO has a tendency for unhealthy grudges and brooding revenge. We won't let them try and repeat history.

I'm still not understanding the threat here. Many alliances have the assets you outline. However, since NPO is defeated and relatively isolated, the victors are in a better position. More nations with less damage and more money evenly distributed. NPO has a few nations with money.

It just isn't translating into a huge threat. I'm sorry.

[Matthew Conrad]

I'm still not understanding the threat here. Many alliances have the assets you outline. However, since NPO is defeated and relatively isolated, the victors are in a better position. More nations with less damage and more money evenly distributed. NPO has a few nations with money.

It just isn't translating into a huge threat. I'm sorry.

You have to take it in full context of course. See GWI and the alliances that fought against NPO, but never turned to their side. I don't think you can deny NPO has a history of seeking revenge and I'd be willing they were planning it once the CM's starting flying. The other alliances that have the assets I mentioned aren't known for manipulation and dirty tactics.

[Haflinger]

How long do you think it will take NPO to rebuild the 500K tech they have lost so far? See my post on the topic of hindering the NPO's rebuilding for a war footing.

[Mogar]

people dont seem to get, there are no more GOONS or FARK or /b/ alliances that can effectively recruit from an offsite, which kills any chance of NPO regaining their #1 spot so quick like they did in the post Gw1 to GW2 era.

Edited June 4, 2009 by Mogar

[Nizzle]

You have to take it in full context of course. See GWI and the alliances that fought against NPO, but never turned to their side. I don't think you can deny NPO has a history of seeking revenge and I'd be willing they were planning it once the CM's starting flying. The other alliances that have the assets I mentioned aren't known for manipulation and dirty tactics.

I'm tired of hearing about GWI.

The game has changed completely since then. It requires over 6k infra now to maintain nukes, not 1-2k. It is not easy to "jump back into it" when your enemies have 10k+ infra nations.

[Matthew Conrad]

I'm tired of hearing about GWI.

The game has changed completely since then. It requires over 6k infra now to maintain nukes, not 1-2k. It is not easy to "jump back into it" when your enemies have 10k+ infra nations.

From reports, NPO has enough saved money to take those 1k nations back to around 3-4k at least. After that, they can build their own infra and it wouldn't take long to regain full nuclear capability.

[Harold the Saxon]

I'll just toe the 'death to the NPO!' line right here for the sake of not sticking my nose out against the lynching mob.

Death to the NPO!

Am I doing it right?

Edited June 5, 2009 by Harold the Saxon

[Mandrivia_2]

I'll just toe the 'death to the NPO!' line right here for the sake of not sticking my nose out against the lynching mob.

Death to the NPO!

Am I doing it right?

You aren't going to get lynched for sticking your nose out. The NPO's reign of terror has ended, you may speak your mind here without fear of retribution.

[Solidus117]

Actually they didnt just attack OV. They attacked OV and OV's allies. In many cases an attack on one is an attack on the other.

I never buy these arguments. If alliances A and B declare themselves sovereign, yet "A considers an attack B as an attack on A", you are not sovereign and self-determinate.

From reports, NPO has enough saved money to take those 1k nations back to around 3-4k at least. After that, they can build their own infra and it wouldn't take long to regain full nuclear capability.

Could you please direct me to these reports so that evidence may corroborate your statement?

[Nizzle]

From reports, NPO has enough saved money to take those 1k nations back to around 3-4k at least. After that, they can build their own infra and it wouldn't take long to regain full nuclear capability.

I'm not sure what your experience is in nation growth, but there is a reason it took two years for nations to reach 10k + infra.

While I can understand the concern that NPO may "rise again", it certainly won't be with a set political group. The positioning needed to initiate a war would take at least half of a year, and probably even longer for their new allies to be in a position to stomp down the rest of CN.

You all have power now, and I'm not sure how you can't see that. You can do nothing to the NPO to fully prevent a resurgence, the prevention of future Hegemony lies squarely on your shoulders.

[Matthew Conrad]

You aren't going to get lynched for sticking your nose out. The NPO's reign of terror has ended, you may speak your mind here without fear of retribution.

Yeah, no one gets really angry if you post arguments with evidence/reasons to back them up. Namely, please don't patronize us because we don't agree with some others. If we were trying to silence them, there would be a lot more wars.

[KinKiac]

History and even this war would say otherwise, several allies were just out-right ignored.

"Counteroffensive is a large-scale military offensive used by some or all of a defending force against their attackers. The purpose is to seize the initiative from the attackers."

I would definitely say that Karma is a large scale offensive (most of the DoW's are from Karma's side) used vy some or all of a defending force to seize the intiative from the NPO. I fail to see how an alliance with not one defensive slot in use is in a defensive war.

I like how you only argued my weakest point, lol. Oh well. I think you are arguing semantics in that respect. The thing is the term counter-offensive is not a term used around here for the purposes of treaties, and as such has no bearing. It is either a defensive war or an offensive one. If NPO had more allies to fight with, the slots would have been filled. Just because Karma has more people to fill slots, and are winning, doesnt suddenly make Karma the aggressors. Karma didnt ask for the war, NPO gave it to them.

[Jipps]

I like how you only argued my weakest point, lol. Oh well. I think you are arguing semantics in that respect. The thing is the term counter-offensive is not a term used around here for the purposes of treaties, and as such has no bearing. It is either a defensive war or an offensive one. If NPO had more allies to fight with, the slots would have been filled. Just because Karma has more people to fill slots, and are winning, doesnt suddenly make Karma the aggressors. Karma didnt ask for the war, NPO gave it to them.

If an alliance declares war on another alliance without being attacked, it is an offensive war. Almost all of Karma declared war without ever being attacked, they were aggressors. Basic logic would prove my point there I really don't see anything to argue against.

If you say that an attack on alliance is considered to be an attack on their allies as well, then Hegemony would also be the defenders as we were involved in the war based on the attacks on the NPO.

-

[Haflinger]

Arguments over whether wars are defensive or offensive have been pointless in the past and will continue to be pointless in the future, as very few people here understand the purpose of a defensive war.

A defensive war is fought to defend a party under attack. When that party is either safe or conquered, the war ends.

I don't think I've actually seen any defensive wars except for curbstomps, which inevitably end with the second result.

[KinKiac]

I never buy these arguments. If alliances A and B declare themselves sovereign, yet "A considers an attack B as an attack on A", you are not sovereign and self-determinate.

Whether you "buy" it or not doesnt make it false. That is the definition of "mutual defense". By having a mutual defense treaty, when someone attacks one party, they have effectively attacked the other and it is only a matter of time, as long as the ally is honorable, before the other one attacks in defense. At the same time, it is only a matter of time before they in turn are declared on by allies of the other side. The point is that NPO knew damn well that they were not just going to war with OV. They knew damn well that VE and any other allies would all be involved as well and they knew damn well they would be sending their own allies to attack VE and anyone else who joined in. The only thing NPO didnt know was who would attack who, but they knew damn well this wasnt just between them and OV. Gimme a break with the I dont buy that routine. NPO is not dumb, they knew this would lead to a major conflict and it wasnt until the some more lines were drawn and people decided they would not suppport NPO this time around that they saw the folly of what they had done.

If the words "an attack on one is an attack on the other" was not a valid point then why put it into almost every single MDP out there. You seem to argue that an MDP with that line in it is an infringement of an individual alliances sovereignty, which if that was the case, I dont thinkl that that line would be included in all of our MDP's.

[neneko]

Arguments over whether wars are defensive or offensive have been pointless in the past and will continue to be pointless in the future, as very few people here understand the purpose of a defensive war.

A defensive war is fought to defend a party under attack. When that party is either safe or conquered, the war ends.

I don't think I've actually seen any defensive wars except for curbstomps, which inevitably end with the second result.

Giving immidiate white peace when the agressor realise they're not winning is a required condition to fight a defensive war? If so then I understand why the only defensive wars would be curbstomps. I think it's some pretty flawed reasoning though.

Take the easiest example. A war betwen two alliances. Alliance A attack alliance B. Alliance A is the agressor. It turns out alliance B had much more wrcs and tech though so they're winning. Alliance B thought the declaration by alliance A was unjust and doesn't want to just give them peace right away. A few weeks later the war is still on and alliance B is winning by alot. Is alliance B the agressor and when exactly did they become the agressor? When they made more damage than alliance A or when they turned down a peace offer by alliance A?

I agree that the whole reasoning if it's a defensive or offensive war is pretty pointless though. Especially in this case where it's blatantly obvious who threw the first punch.

I don't get why jipps is so obsessed with turning this to a agressive war by karma though. I guess it sounds better and it's probably easier to argue for white peace for them if they're the defending party. If NPO were the agressors it'd be too obvious that they should at least pay some reps to OV if nothing else so NPO suddenly getting attacked by karma for no obvious reason works alot better in this story.

[Haflinger]

Giving immidiate white peace when the agressor realise they're not winning is a required condition to fight a defensive war? If so then I understand why the only defensive wars would be curbstomps. I think it's some pretty flawed reasoning though.

It would be. Fortunately that's not what I said.

I said, a victorious defender ends the war when the security of the target is assured.

[enderland]

It would be. Fortunately that's not what I said.

I said, a victorious defender ends the war when the security of the target is assured.

It's also quite clear that OV was not the only "target" here either, heh.

[neneko]

It would be. Fortunately that's not what I said.

I said, a victorious defender ends the war when the security of the target is assured.

So in my example at the end of the war alliance B would suddenly be the agressor then?

OV was attacked first in this war by NPO and TORN. That isn't going to change no matter how long this war goes on.