What was he thinking?

[Trinite]

@Trinite: If we had played this by the "lines" Gre would have fought in a minor front of this war while Fark, Rok and possibly MHA took the brunt of IRON (remember kids TOP was allied to IRON). Moreover, all our treaties are non-chaining so even though it wasnt an option, technically speaking we could have stayed out.

Fact is we took a major dump on the "lines" concept and did what we had to do and did so at fairly considerable costs.

Lines being drawn means picking a side. It's something you have to do when a war like this comes along. This is something you and Crymson never accepted. I still love you though, and I'll assume you chose the chicken.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Trinite

[BikeCat]

Presumably so, as they asked.

What room are you talking about? If you mean the peace-term discussions, Crymson was in the room mediating and generally working his arse off to prevent the war from starting. If he had anything to say on his or TOP's wishes, he would have said it himself.

Are you saying that there would have been no peace-talks at all if TOP had not been unsure of their course of action at the time?

Also, keep pretending we didn't do more damage to our enemies than any of the other KARMA alliances did to them put together. If you tell a lie often enough, someone will believe it.

Excuse me, but what?

And the bickering begins to appear publicly.

Starts as backroom jabs, seeps into the OWF, then lines start being drawn and erased. Looks like there is trouble in the post NPO "paradise".

Why don't you guys just do us all a favor and start the fighting now. Save us the realpolitik and school boy drama.

[Blue Lightning]

Excuse me, but what?

TOP did more total damage to Invicta, UPN, Echelon, BAPS and OMFG respectively than any of the other KARMA alliances fighting them did. Go ask them yourself who hurt them most if you doubt that. To say that we "pretended to join KARMA" is ridiculous, as even without using nukes on some fronts (3/5) we were certainly the most destructive alliance on our respective fronts. I hope you can appreciate why I find people doubting our commitment to the war - especially militarily - extremely offensive, considering the amount of time my war staff and I spent organising and coordinating our war effort to be as successful as possible. And I'm proud of the results.

Dude, that post went way over your head.

The room i speak of is where Karma met up days before the war. TOP wasn't there sorry you weren't invited. But don't worry you had representation (insert - chill). Now are you following?

Probably not. But if you couldn't follow my first statement you most likely have no clue what happened, and I haven't the patience or the time to catch you up.

Ok, I'm happy to admit I'm unaware of what went on in said private government room to which I wasn't invited. I would like to see some evidence of your claims that Chill was speaking on behalf of TOP, though. I thought you were talking about the talks between what was forming into KARMA and the NPO, which TOP moderated.

It is really sad that you can't admit abstaining from nuking and spying nukes was not helpful to those you fought with. It was only helpful to you. Honestly it's common sense, basic math, are you smarter than a 5th grader?

*sing the last sentence to a catchy tune

I'm also happy to admit that we didn't go nuclear on several fronts, no one has denied this. However, by joining the war we certainly drew a significant amount of damage away from other KARMA alliances while also bringing about a hasty victory on the fronts which we were a part of. To suggest that by joining the war and not nuking we caused more damage to be done to the KARMA side than if we had not joined at all is certainly false.

[Delta1212]

TOP did more total damage to Invicta, UPN, Echelon, BAPS and OMFG respectively than any of the other KARMA alliances fighting them did. Go ask them yourself who hurt them most if you doubt that. To say that we "pretended to join KARMA" is ridiculous, as even without using nukes on some fronts (3/5) we were certainly the most destructive alliance on our respective fronts. I hope you can appreciate why I find people doubting our commitment to the war - especially militarily - extremely offensive, considering the amount of time my war staff and I spent organising and coordinating our war effort to be as successful as possible. And I'm proud of the results.

I don't have to ask them, I was fighting Echelon and TOP didn't do more damage to them than everyone else combined.

[Gen Lee]

TOP did more total damage to Invicta, UPN, Echelon, BAPS and OMFG respectively than any of the other KARMA alliances fighting them did. Go ask them yourself who hurt them most if you doubt that. To say that we "pretended to join KARMA" is ridiculous, as even without using nukes on some fronts (3/5) we were certainly the most destructive alliance on our respective fronts. I hope you can appreciate why I find people doubting our commitment to the war - especially militarily - extremely offensive, considering the amount of time my war staff and I spent organising and coordinating our war effort to be as successful as possible. And I'm proud of the results.

a.) You didn't say that.

Also, keep pretending we didn't do more damage to our enemies than any of the other KARMA alliances did to them put together. If you tell a lie often enough, someone will believe it.

You stated the crock above^

I'm also happy to admit that we didn't go nuclear on several fronts, no one has denied this. However, by joining the war we certainly drew a significant amount of damage away from other KARMA alliances while also bringing about a hasty victory on the fronts which we were a part of. To suggest that by joining the war and not nuking we caused more damage to be done to the KARMA side than if we had not joined at all is certainly false.

b.) No, you did not draw a significant amount of damage away, that would require eating nukes and not leaving them to be devoured by your "partners" in war.

Wait, wait, I know. You didn't have any "partners" in war, which brings me to the point - you were selfish looking out for #1 only. Your participation was not worth the trouble you brought to the entire Karma front.

Ok, I'm happy to admit I'm unaware of what went on in said private government room to which I wasn't invited. I would like to see some evidence of your claims that Chill was speaking on behalf of TOP, though. I thought you were talking about the talks between what was forming into KARMA and the NPO, which TOP moderated.

Haven't we been through this before... why would GRE make a deal with IRON (TOP's ally) before war broke out? This one is a connect the dots, color within the lines question, I'll take 1st grade art for $200 Jeff.

[Sal Paradise]

Starts as backroom jabs, seeps into the OWF, then lines start being drawn and erased. Looks like there is trouble in the post NPO "paradise".

Post NPO Paradise has never been better. But thanks for your concern.

[BikeCat]

Post NPO Paradise has never been better. But thanks for your concern.

I totally agree. I'm loving it.

[Steelrat]

Lines being drawn means picking a side. It's something you have to do when a war like this comes along. This is something you and Crymson never accepted. I still love you though, and I'll assume you chose the chicken.

Chill and Crymson had but not the way others wanted. Both played it with the cards given to them, with their own background and their alliances needs.

The point is can you play it by the book or not aka how you solve that treaty problem . You all seem to forget that breaking and or cancelling treaties isn´t something you do with a snip of your finger, because then treaties aren´t worth the paper. Well, for some alliances it isn´t worth the paper but here at Grämlins and TOP we mean what we sign and because of that we don´t sign many, Grämlins even don´t sign protectorate treaties. Of course that is only one aspect of the picture but is was one which gave us a major headache and caused a hell lot of trouble. (Hint: At that time Grämlins having a PIAT with NPO and IRON, TOP having a MDP with both , MHA having "something eternal" with NPO and Lux Aterna, the Citadel treaty)

Then timefactor played a big role, noone knew what exactly and when will happen back then, we all guessed a lot.

All this had to be considered, had to be thought through under the aspect of how to help and shield FARK and MK as it was without a doubt that Grämlins won´t let them down. All possible scenarios had to be checked and played through beforehand and a plan ready to execute. A plan so we don´t piss off our allies and break treaties and that within at most 3 days, reality forced us within hours to break treaties and causing major trouble.

It would have been preferable to play it by the book but it turns out it wasn´t possible as it was clear Grämlins has to fight NPO or IRON top nations. Sure we could have went with attacking TPF or Valhalla and if we wanted to play it save we could have fought on any sidetrack of the war, pretending doing our "duty". We didn´t and the result was we put a heavy burden on some of our close allies to fight IRON.

Picking a side is easy when close friends have no conflicts with the other side but as the treaty web was back then there was no easy way.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Steelrat

[Blue Lightning]

I don't have to ask them, I was fighting Echelon and TOP didn't do more damage to them than everyone else combined.

I'd try and fetch some statistics to prove you wrong. However, since stepping down, my access to the relevant forums on our boards is removed so I may not be able to. Further, I don't feel it's necessary as I'm happy to withdraw that statement. Suffice to say that, at the very least, we contributed as much as any other alliance did to the war efforts against our respective targets.

I feel I should emphasise that my statement was not made out of some arrogant "TOP is better than you" sentiment. I simply meant that our contribution to the war was certainly not half-assed and we contributed as much, if not more than any other KARMA alliance to our fronts. Naturally, one of the reasons for this is that other alliances on our fronts were elsewhere engaged on other fronts. Another is simply the relative scales of our alliances and that due to our pre-war strength, we had a higher damage potential than any other on our fronts. I know that the alliance fighting alongside us were giving their all. And I realise in hind-sight that my post probably came off as arrogant (thanks enderland) but it was not meant in that way. I simply meant that, even accounting for our no first strike nuke policy, we were at least as committed and effective as any other KARMA alliance in bringing a swift and decisive victory to our fronts.

a.) You didn't say that.

You stated the crock above^

It is what I meant, but I can see why you would interpret my words that way. Unfortunately, what I mean is not always clear from what I say. I can assure you that that is what I meant, but as I stated above in response to Delta1212, I'm content to withdraw the comment as it's not fundamental to my point.

b.) No, you did not draw a significant amount of damage away, that would require eating nukes and not leaving them to be devoured by your "partners" in war.

No offence meant, but this just reeks of a lack of tactical knowledge combined with a lack of knowledge of the war in question. It's perfectly possible to draw damage away from others without using nukes or being nuked. For example, 2 of the 3 alliances we held a no nuclear first strike policy with surrendered after the first round of wars. Therefore, the nations that were fighting TOP nations, while they were not nuking us or receiving nukes, were also unable to nuke others (due to the war-slot limit) and they surrendered before they would of had the chance to fight and nuke others in the second round of wars. So our wars with Invicata and UPN, while non-nuclear, meant that the targeted nations would be unable to declare on (or be declared upon) and nuke others while also bringing about their surrender before those wars expired (and new ones were declared).

That leaves the Echelon front (which roughly translates to about one fifth of our total contribution), where, as many have been keen to point out, we joined several days after most of the KARMA alliances fighting it. Therefore, it is perhaps fair to assume that the vast majority of their unfilled defensive war slots which we took were going to remain unfilled, as the other alliances had already had 2-3 days to fill these slots (and many more days to prepare themselves for war). So the non-nuclear damage that we did to those nations was an added bonus on top of the damage other alliances were doing, not instead of the damage the hundreds of imaginary nuclear nations we stole war slots from (after 2-3 day's time between their declaration of war and ours) were going to do.

This is the part where some have suggested that, by fighting non-nuclear wars with nuclear armed nations, we were causing nuclear capable nations to fall in the rankings and therefore allow them to do more damage than they otherwise would have when they then declare/are declared on by others. This is also false, however. Firstly, because the vast majority of the nuclear capable nations TOP engaged were kept in anarchy and also redeclared upon exclusively by TOP nations (and so they weren't able to declare on or be declared upon by other non-TOP KARMA nations). And secondly, because nations with WRCs, MPs, SDIs and high levels of tech are going to drop in NS and shred apart the lower ranks regardless of whether it is conventional or nuclear warfare. In fact, by attacking and dropping these Echelon nations into the lower ranks, we were in fact saving you money, as the damage that they could then do to the lower ranks of other alliances is a lot less expensive to rebuild than the damage they would have done to your larger nations (and then they would still have dropped into range of your mid-level nations and be able to nuke them). And I should stress that the number of nations that this happened with could be counted without even taking my socks off.

Note: In the above, you can pretty much replace "TOP" with "TOP and TSO" as we pretty much acted as one entity in this war. Muchos gracias to TSO for their help in this conflict.

Wait, wait, I know. You didn't have any "partners" in war, which brings me to the point - you were selfish looking out for #1 only. Your participation was not worth the trouble you brought to the entire Karma front.

There is an element of truth in this, as although we certainly weren't just looking out for ourselves (otherwise we wouldn't have joined at all), we were not acting in order to save the skins of all of the KARMA alliances. We joined in order to help bring a swift end to the conflict which would help out our treaty partners on both sides of the war. In hindsight, it is clear that a conflict with some in KARMA was inevitable as those of us who wanted to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible clashed with those who wanted to utterly destroy and humiliate the alliances on the other side. We were not aware at the time of joining that there was so much "anti-other side" sentiment in some parts of the KARMA ranks. We were under the impression that the war was defensive in nature and therefore that, once the war was decisively won and OV defended, the alliances on the opposing side would be allowed to surrender more or less when they were ready to (we expected some reps payments, standard neutralising terms, etc of course).

It soon became clear after we had joined that some in KARMA were using this war as an opportunity to try and settle old scores and press home their revenge upon the alliances they had now beaten by either imposing humiliating and somewhat crippling peace terms or simply flat-out refusing to allow a surrender. And while they may be justified in doing so, we were not prepared to be a party to said behaviour. This is what led to the arguments which were had on the KARMA side when it came to the discussion of surrender terms. Some were out for revenge and some just wanted the war over with ASAP.

As a result of these disagreements, several have accused us of attempting to bully alliances into issuing the terms that we wanted (LoSS government have done this, for example). However, I would like to see some proof of this. It is certainly true that we expressed our opinions that we had no intention of helping to enforce what we felt were humiliating terms, however, that is all that it was, an opinion. At the end of the day, all those who signed on to peace agreements with us did so of their own free will and we can not be held responsible if they regret signing what they signed. One of the consequences of this incident was our behaviour in the discussions of peace with Echelon (it was certainly not the only thing that contributed to our end decision, though) as we felt that our objectives in the war had been achieved and had little inclination to debate peace terms with GOD, MA and others when we could just sign our separate peace and leave others to impose whatever terms they wanted to. The aforementioned alliances' approach to the discussions (which we found disrespectful) was also a factor in our decision as expressed in the announcement at the time.

Haven't we been through this before... why would GRE make a deal with IRON (TOP's ally) before war broke out? This one is a connect the dots, color within the lines question, I'll take 1st grade art for $200 Jeff.

As you pointed out before, not having full access to what went on, I don't really know what happened in that situation. As Steelrat pointed out above, though, throughout the war we were making the best of what we could given our horrendous situation. I don't mean to be presumptuous, but while it may have been easy for you to know what to do, who to support and where to stand and how, it was certainly not as easy for those of us with strong connections to both of the sides which were emerging. It is certainly clear in hind-sight, but remember that while you had made preparations and contingency agreements several weeks (if not months) before on what you would do if something like this were to unfold, we were still trying to uncover the whole picture as it was unfolding around us.

In the end, mistakes were certainly made on our part and the war was not ideal as your goals and objectives were different to ours. I hope, however, that you will come to understand that we did what we did not out of spite for you or any other alliance, but out of a desire to salvage some juice from the lemons that we had falling all around us. BikeCat is right when he says that this bickering and fighting over our disagreements in the past will only lead us to bad places. I hope that, even if we can not reconcile our differences, we do not allow them to result in us butting heads on the battlefield in the future (of course, it seems to late for this in Gen Lee's case).

[Baden-Württemberg]

I like that you stand up for what you believe in.

[Consul of Monkeys]

Excellent posts Steelrat & Blue.

[Trinite]

Picking a side is easy when close friends have no conflicts with the other side but as the treaty web was back then there was no easy way.

I agree entirely with your post. I didn't mean to suggest it was easy. Only that it was necessary, and delaying or ignoring that necessity didn't make it go away, and was really really annoying for everyone else involved.

[Gen Lee]

/snip

Quick Diagnosis:

Edited July 1, 2009 by Gen Lee

[Bob Janova]

Since Gen. Lee is not interested in the facts at this point, but just scoring points against his perceived enemies, I wouldn't get too worked up about responding to him

[Steelrat]

Because I can, that´s for you GenLee

Nemo me impune lacessit - Nobody provokes me with impunity

The scots here know what i mean.

[VIdiot the Great]

Diagnosis:

Keepin' it classy there Gen Lee?

Edited June 30, 2009 by VIdiot the Great

[Baden-Württemberg]

And people wondered why I wasn't nice in Gen Lee's thread.

Oh well....maybe it is because he isn't nice to others?!

[King Silas]

Ora et Labora - Pray and Work

All we can do now is the Ora for this forum is getting hot

[Gen Lee]

Since Gen. Lee is not interested in the facts at this point, but just scoring points against his perceived enemies, I wouldn't get too worked up about responding to him

Because I can, that´s for you GenLee

Nemo me impune lacessit - Nobody provokes me with impunity

The scots here know what i mean.

Oh come on, that's a funny picture. Every thread doesn't have to be a self-righteous journey to see who can keep their garments the whitest.

[Delta1212]

And people wondered why I wasn't nice in Gen Lee's thread.

Oh well....maybe it is because he isn't nice to others?!

Funny, coming from you.

[Trinite]

Funny, coming from you.

Just because he's a hypocrite doesn't mean he's wrong.

[enderland]

Just because he's a hypocrite doesn't mean he's wrong.

This post made me laugh more than anything I've read in a long time.

Cheers

[Blue Lightning]

Oh come on, that's a funny picture. Every thread doesn't have to be a self-righteous journey to see who can keep their garments the whitest.

Stop throwing !@#$ at my garments then.

[OOC]For the record, I've been treating this thread as an in-character thread as it seems to have gone that way even if it wasn't the intention (I suggest a move to World Affairs). All of what I've posted has been IC apart from this little OOC snippet.

Edited June 30, 2009 by Blue Lightning

[Bob Janova]

Just because he's a hypocrite doesn't mean he's wrong.

It was about time my sig got a new quote

[WalkerNinja]

I agree entirely with your post. I didn't mean to suggest it was easy. Only that it was necessary, and delaying or ignoring that necessity didn't make it go away, and was really really annoying for everyone else involved.

And I think that the point that Steelrat was getting at is that what is "necessary" is in the eye of the beholder. Conflicting loyalties, by their very nature, tend to blur the applicability of that term.

Edited June 30, 2009 by WalkerNinja