Jump to content

Hey Guys


Zombie Glaucon

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

No, I'm claiming that forsberg should get off Mary's lawn.

Ah in that case, I think that's a silly thing to say and quite nonsensical at that.

Back on topic, the reason why it is wrong to use sanctions in war is because it most likely will affect neutral third parties as well as the target nation/alliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing wrong with sanctions in the right context, like aid scammers or rogues.

Sanctions are just another tool of war. There is no "right" and "wrong" in terms of in-game features, only what is the best strategic option in each circumstance. To limit oneself from utilising sanctions because of some ludicrous 'moral' concern is just as silly as when The Legion, New Pacific Order, etc. went around touting the supposed inherent evil contained within each nuclear weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wasn't Free Quebec PZI'd for offensively sanctioning in the Green Civil War? I realize who the alliances doing the ZI'ing were but it was mostly condemned by everyone else at the time.

In my opinion being a Senator means you represent everyone on your color and you shouldn't be sanctioning your fellow Green nations. I support what FQ did at the time because I think it was in the best interests of Green, unlike now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sanctions are just another tool of war. There is no "right" and "wrong" in terms of in-game features, only what is the best strategic option in each circumstance. To limit oneself from utilising sanctions because of some ludicrous 'moral' concern is just as silly as when The Legion, New Pacific Order, etc. went around touting the supposed inherent evil contained within each nuclear weapon.

Mary and tipsy I can understand, more Mary than tipsy because at least she is in war mode, but why the 90 day old tiny nation in peacemode that barely has an improvement to his name? Just seems like spite and not at all tactics to me. I also agree with Sponge that Sanctioning affects other people who may not even be in the war or else who may even be on the person doing the deeds side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mary and tipsy I can understand, more Mary than tipsy because at least she is in war mode, but why the 90 day old tiny nation in peacemode that barely has an improvement to his name? Just seems like spite and not at all tactics to me. I also agree with Sponge that Sanctioning affects other people who may not even be in the war or else who may even be on the person doing the deeds side.

You'd have to ask the people ordering the sanctioning. Personally, I don't think sanctioning was necessary in a few of the cases, and I haven't actually been involved in ordering any, but as I mentioned previously, sanctions are just another tool of war, no more or less "right" than any other feature of the war system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd have to ask the people ordering the sanctioning. Personally, I don't think sanctioning was necessary in a few of the cases, and I haven't actually been involved in ordering any, but as I mentioned previously, sanctions are just another tool of war, no more or less "right" than any other feature of the war system.

I have to disagree Revanche. In the other tools of war you only affect the person you are attacking (excluding GRL :P ). In this case the sanctions may not have only affected the 3 NPO nations but also up to 14 other nations who may in no other way be involved in the Karma war.

Edited by magicninja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

everyone cares too much about their precious pixels. sam hit it on the head the nations fighting NPO are a bunch of cowards who aren't willing to see the war through. Might as well just give NPO terms if you are going to fail at fighting them anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You'd have to ask the people ordering the sanctioning. Personally, I don't think sanctioning was necessary in a few of the cases, and I haven't actually been involved in ordering any, but as I mentioned previously, sanctions are just another tool of war, no more or less "right" than any other feature of the war system.

So it's okay to cause major economic disruptions to uninvolved third parties in order to pursue your goals in war? There's a reason why sanctions don't get used as a weapon generally, it's because widespread use of them would cause tremendous disruptions in the overall trade system and throw what was an orderly, nonpartisan method of maximizing everyone's nation potential into irreparable chaos. I know I'd be pretty ticked off if someone knocked one or two of my trades out, or those of my alliancemates. It's an act that affects more than just the intended target. Even at the height of the NAAC/Polar feud we never used sanctions as a weapon for just this reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, there are quite a few Karma nations on Red.

That's your prerogative seeing as you all still control the senate there. If you want to do a "revenge" sanction, that's your choice.

On a slightly different note, sanctions should only really be seen wrong in certain cases. I personally don't see the wrong in sanctioning a war opponent as long as you make sure their unrelated trade partners aren't harmed (such as providing replacement trades upon sanction). Also, I don't really think they should be used in personal grudges without the consent of the seat controlling alliance that senator is part of. Besides these exceptions, I don't find sanctioning inherently wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with this, but I also condemn using sanctions as a weapon in war.

Haha, then why are they in the game? Sanctioning a rogue is stupid because it's just one guy. Sure he can be annoying but is much easier to deal with. Sanctioning in war is a great way to cripple an enemy and thus why controlling the senate is considered a valuable tool.

It sucks when third party neutrals get caught in the crossfire of a sanction but that's just as true with rogues or tech scammers as anyone else. You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette. CN is turning into such a soft-touch convention. Trading with an enemy puts the interests of those neutral parties in opposition to my own and so we are at loggerheads. Either he keeps his trades and I fail to use a powerful weapon at my disposal or he loses his trades and I get to significantly weaken my enemy. Even though unintentionally, they are aiding my enemy and that puts us at odds. I am not saying sanctions should be the first step in every war but it should never be completely off the table either.

EDIT: Sanctions are a supremely annoying and powerful weapon.

Edited by Drostan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, then why are they in the game? Sanctioning a rogue is stupid because it's just one guy. Sure he can be annoying but is much easier to deal with. Sanctioning in war is a great way to cripple an enemy and thus why controlling the senate is considered a valuable tool.

It sucks when third party neutrals get caught in the crossfire of a sanction but that's just as true with rogues or tech scammers as anyone else. You have to break a few eggs to make an omlette. CN is turning into such a soft-touch convention. Trading with an enemy puts the interests of those neutral parties in opposition to my own and so we are at loggerheads. Either he keeps his trades and I fail to use a powerful weapon at my disposal or he loses his trades and I get to significantly weaken my enemy. Even though unintentionally, they are aiding my enemy and that puts us at odds. I am not saying sanctions should be the first step in every war but it should never be completely off the table either.

Hey here's an idea, fill their war slots before resorting to sanctions. Maybe if you actually fought them you wouldn't need to sanction. 55 wars from an almost 700 member alliance when NPO has almost 400 nations in war mode is pathetic.

Edited by KingSrqt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it's okay to cause major economic disruptions to uninvolved third parties in order to pursue your goals in war? There's a reason why sanctions don't get used as a weapon generally, it's because widespread use of them would cause tremendous disruptions in the overall trade system and throw what was an orderly, nonpartisan method of maximizing everyone's nation potential into irreparable chaos. I know I'd be pretty ticked off if someone knocked one or two of my trades out, or those of my alliancemates. It's an act that affects more than just the intended target. Even at the height of the NAAC/Polar feud we never used sanctions as a weapon for just this reason.

Gathering Intel could show who the trading partners are, thus, allow for verification that a Sanction would only disrupt the economies of individuals in the same alliance.

I would agree that Sanctions should not be thrown around without really weighing the benefits versus the possible effects to third parties who may be uninvolved...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey here's an idea, fill their war slots before resorting to sanctions. Maybe if you actually fought them you wouldn't need to sanction. 55 wars from an almost 700 member alliance when NPO has almost 400 nations in war mode is pathetic.

Besides your incorrect numbers, no one on black has been sanctioned so... how about we stay on topic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gathering Intel could show who the trading partners are, thus, allow for verification that a Sanction would only disrupt the economies of individuals in the same alliance.

I would agree that Sanctions should not be thrown around without really weighing the benefits versus the possible effects to third parties who may be uninvolved...

True, you could do that and maybe help the affected people find a new trade partner. However, if sanctions are used as a weapon of war, and on a wider scale than just the occasional one-off sanctioning I sincerely doubt that anyone is going to undertake that large of an effort given how hard it is to find proper trades already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey here's an idea, fill their war slots before resorting to sanctions. Maybe if you actually fought them you wouldn't need to sanction. 55 wars from an almost 700 member alliance when NPO has almost 400 nations in war mode is pathetic.

Here's an idea. Don't post unless you have something relevant to say instead of trolling us.

Most of the NPO nations out of peace mode save for about 10 are under 10k NS and many of them are between 2 - 5k NS last I looked. This may come as a shock to you, but it's often difficult to find people small enough to fight 2k NS nations who didn't just write the recruit test. heh.

Also, you're irrelevant. Also, as was discussed earlier, filling war slots of fallen nuclear nations with non-nuclear newbs is stupid. As the newbs just get nuked like crazy and deal little damage to turtled fallen nations. Why bother having more than 1 person engaged as that one person will generate defeat alerts (most damage that can be done) and can only get nuked once. If we fill their slots, we take 3x the damage and deal exactly the same amount that we do with 1. You're a military genius.

@Do it cuz we can guy: We didn't do it. So your point is sort of lost on me.

EDIT:

@Sponge: Yeah, highly unlikely anyone who just indiscriminantly sanctioned their enemy would bother to help the neutral parties find replacement trades. It's a nice idea but very impractical. When it's just a few nations, sure, but mass-scale sanctioning involves too many people.

Edited by Drostan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides your incorrect numbers, no one on black has been sanctioned so... how about we stay on topic?

actually sparta has exactly 55 active wars with NPO (I counted) you have 650 members (which is almost 700) and NPO has 396 war mode nations (almost 400)

by you when referring to sanctions I mean Karma as a whole I did not mean to imply that Sparta was actively sanctioning anyone it just happened to be a response to a Spartan who was defending sanctions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an idea. Don't post unless you have something relevant to say instead of trolling us.

Most of the NPO nations out of peace mode save for about 10 are under 10k NS and many of them are between 2 - 5k NS last I looked. This may come as a shock to you, but it's often difficult to find people small enough to fight 2k NS nations who didn't just write the recruit test. heh.

Also, you're irrelevant. Also, as was discussed earlier, filling war slots of fallen nuclear nations with non-nuclear newbs is stupid. As the newbs just get nuked like crazy and deal little damage to turtled fallen nations. Why bother having more than 1 person engaged as that one person will generate defeat alerts (most damage that can be done) and can only get nuked once. If we fill their slots, we take 3x the damage and deal exactly the same amount that we do with 1. You're a military genius.

@Do it cuz we can guy: We didn't do it. So your point is sort of lost on me.

EDIT:

@Sponge: Yeah, highly unlikely anyone who just indiscriminantly sanctioned their enemy would bother to help the neutral parties find replacement trades. It's a nice idea but very impractical. When it's just a few nations, sure, but mass-scale sanctioning involves too many people.

Don't get too worked up. If people want to say what they want, there's really no point into putting that much effort into arguing most of the time. :P

Basically, meh it's fine.

@KingSrqt

I don't know why you ignore the fact we have more wars on NPO than anyone else except for RoK who are the only ones getting some defensive wars. So, once again can we just get back to the topic at hand? If you want to discuss this, I'll be happy to chat privately.

Edited by Matthew Conrad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the NPO nations out of peace mode save for about 10 are under 10k NS and many of them are between 2 - 5k NS last I looked. This may come as a shock to you, but it's often difficult to find people small enough to fight 2k NS nations who didn't just write the recruit test. heh.

So you are saying you do not have the tools to fight the war and that you can no longer do any real damage to NPO, I think that means they have less of an incentive to accept your peace terms and that you may eant to actually consider negotiating.

Also, you're irrelevant. Also, as was discussed earlier, filling war slots of fallen nuclear nations with non-nuclear newbs is stupid. As the newbs just get nuked like crazy and deal little damage to turtled fallen nations. Why bother having more than 1 person engaged as that one person will generate defeat alerts (most damage that can be done) and can only get nuked once.

OH NOES IM IRRELEVANT, I have been called that by far more relevant people than you and it didn't shut me up then nor will it now. If you aren't willing to fight the war then quit. War is about taking your opponent out not about preserving your newbs because they will get hurt. You have the ability to aid your small nations to negate the damage they take while continuing to pummel the knocked down NPO nations. Sorry if I don't pitty Sparta when at about 4k infra I was fighting 2 nations with WRCs

If we fill their slots, we take 3x the damage and deal exactly the same amount that we do with 1. You're a military genius.

So CMS don't destroy tech anymore? If you don't want to put 3 put 2 to assure they cant escape into PM or ya know DO SOMETHING besides preserving your precious pixels. nations at that level can be effortlessly aided to cancel out the damage they take, you just do not want to put in the effort.

Edit: I don't see how any of this is off topic since the topic of this thread is how someone thought NPO got peace due to the poor war coverage on their nations.

You also have more nations than any other alliance on NPO you should have more wars.

Edited by KingSrqt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, then why are they in the game? Sanctioning a rogue is stupid because it's just one guy. Sure he can be annoying but is much easier to deal with. Sanctioning in war is a great way to cripple an enemy and thus why controlling the senate is considered a valuable tool.

Taking your alliance into consideration, I find this statement to be amusing.

Also, I'm in agreement with Srqt. Get off your behind and actually attack somebody for once. Sanctioning isn't nearly as effective as a full set of wars. Of course, you are Sparta so I do suppose I should keep that in mind.

Also, you're irrelevant.

Newsflash, using this argument now isn't anymore effective than it was when you were allied with the NPO. It is good to know that something don't ever change though.

Anyway, I can't be reading this whole thing correctly. Sparta can't possibly be saying that they aren't fighting this war because they're afraid they'd lose infrastructure. I mean, if that were the case they wouldn't have declared war on the NPO in the first place, right?

Edited by Rebel Virginia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe people are crying about the small chance of some random nation losing a trade.

No, I'm just surprised (not really) that Sparta believes sanctioning is an alternative to actually fighting wars, because that way they don't have to risk losing their pixels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...