jerdge Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Well the alliances in Karma certainly didn't think it was a foregone conclusion 5 days before ... or even 2 days into the war. I think that Revanche (I'm unsure) was actually posting about the NS of the "two sides" several and several days if not weeks prior the DoW on OV, but I'm probably not going to dig for it. It was a discourse all about the "we're already stronger and you may as well realize it" kind of statements. The name "Karma" wasn't in the air, obviously, but I hope we all realize that the name of the side isn't what we're talking of. My memory about that can also obviously be completely flawed. I remember the discussions within the MHA about the possible "sides", and we were fully aware that the NPO/tC were likely to be outnumbered in the (at the time) next global conflict, "much" before the start of the war; I guess that we "forgot" to be really survivalist and we imprudently waited for such a "long" time before Quitting! I am confident that the NPO also knew of their disadvantage, or Moo wouldn't have acted "cautiously" as he did. I in fact think that the NPO tried to manoeuvre out of the bad waters for a while, eventually realized that the conflict was inevitable, and then decided to go for the fight while they still had enough allies to be able to have a say at the peace table. But there's a lot of stuff in all of this and I don't really have the time (nor the interest) in deepening such speculations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kindom of Goon Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 Well it depends on who you speak to isn't it? I don't know why everyone still thinks of Karma as if it was a single person and a single thought process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 I think that Revanche (I'm unsure) was actually posting about the NS of the "two sides" several and several days if not weeks prior the DoW on OV, but I'm probably not going to dig for it. Actually, I believe it was LJ Scott who posted atual spreadsheets calculating the exact nation strength of the two "sides." Also, if my memory serves me properly, MHA was in a third section denoted "Swing," or of no definite alignment. My memory about that can also obviously be completely flawed. Not entirely. Many knew exactly how the dice would fall weeks before the war actually started. However, nobody really wanted to talk about it, in a taboo similar to the practice of not talking to a baseball pitcher when he's in position to throw a no-hitter. The taboo keeps the momentum from breaking. I remember the discussions within the MHA about the possible "sides", and we were fully aware that the NPO/tC were likely to be outnumbered in the (at the time) next global conflict, "much" before the start of the war; I guess that we "forgot" to be really survivalist and we imprudently waited for such a "long" time before Quitting! I will comment sparsely on this topic, since my loyalty to MHA at the time was ceaselessly under suspicion, but I remember how difficult it was for me, a staunch opponent of the traitorous nature of the NPO, to understand just how many individuals in MHa were still torn over the issue. In fact, had NPO been directly attacked rather than playing the aggressor, it would have been much more strenuous for the Karma-leaning individuals to persuade the opposite faction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 I think that Revanche (I'm unsure) was actually posting about the NS of the "two sides" several and several days if not weeks prior the DoW on OV, but I'm probably not going to dig for it.It was a discourse all about the "we're already stronger and you may as well realize it" kind of statements. The name "Karma" wasn't in the air, obviously, but I hope we all realize that the name of the side isn't what we're talking of. My memory about that can also obviously be completely flawed. I remember the discussions within the MHA about the possible "sides", and we were fully aware that the NPO/tC were likely to be outnumbered in the (at the time) next global conflict, "much" before the start of the war; I guess that we "forgot" to be really survivalist and we imprudently waited for such a "long" time before Quitting! I am confident that the NPO also knew of their disadvantage, or Moo wouldn't have acted "cautiously" as he did. I in fact think that the NPO tried to manoeuvre out of the bad waters for a while, eventually realized that the conflict was inevitable, and then decided to go for the fight while they still had enough allies to be able to have a say at the peace table. But there's a lot of stuff in all of this and I don't really have the time (nor the interest) in deepening such speculations. The only people who made the Karma were really inevitable was NPO and some of it's allies. A war starting by an aggressive move by someone from the karma side of the web would have been very unlikely to succeed. It would have required a rock solid CB by a prominent alliance. Did many on our side of the web, realizing that war was likely inevitable, make plans to strengthen our situation in case we were attacked? Certainly. We had a spreadsheet like the one Stonewall Jackson in MK, it might have been the same one. here were several major swing alliances that could have made the difference, and that was reflected on the spreadsheet. However it's been confirmed that a lot of NPO's numbers were based on wishful thinking. For example thinking they could keep MK out based on good relations with Archon, despite the overwhelming sentiment within the membership of MK and the other C&G leadership being anti-NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 The NS sheets I saw in the early part of Karma were roughly even, with large unknowns over TOP, MHA and NpO. I think a lot of people had TOP and MHA as neutral and NpO as hostile – the extent to which NPO had destroyed its relations with them came as a pleasant surprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Principe Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 I will comment sparsely on this topic, since my loyalty to MHA at the time was ceaselessly under suspicion, but I remember how difficult it was for me, a staunch opponent of the traitorous nature of the NPO, to understand just how many individuals in MHa were still torn over the issue. In fact, had NPO been directly attacked rather than playing the aggressor, it would have been much more strenuous for the Karma-leaning individuals to persuade the opposite faction. I do not think it would have been much more strenuous, it would have been nearly impossible. I think it was clear all along. We had/have friends on both sides of the treaty web. We did not want to choose between friends (and had no reasons to, because at first both sides treated us well). I think we made the choise (consciously or onconsciously) to wait whether the !@#$ would really happen and to base our actions on the actions of our allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomcat Posted October 23, 2009 Report Share Posted October 23, 2009 This thread seems to have been created as a platform for taking shots at the alliances the NPO doesn't like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litha Riddle Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 This thread seems to have been created as a platform for taking shots at the alliances the NPO doesn't like. Of course, which is why it was someone not in the NPO that posted this thread, or that Pacificans haven't posted in it much at all. Just because its something you would do, doesn't mean its what we all would do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew The Great Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 This thread seems to have been created as a platform for taking shots at the alliances the NPO doesn't like. I don't think so....Jack created it and i hope he isn't a NPO fan.... just so i won't be wrong about him Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 This thread seems to have been created as a platform for taking shots at the alliances the NPO doesn't like. Halloween strikes again? (The OP isn't Vladimir.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 This thread seems to have been created as a platform for taking shots at the alliances Jack doesn't like. Fixed that for you. Jack may be Athens's MoFA but Londo's said it's just him. As far as I'm aware NPO do like TOP and MHA anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Diorno Posted October 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Fixed that for you. Jack may be Athens's MoFA but Londo's said it's just him. As far as I'm aware NPO do like TOP and MHA anyway. Bob, I know you're an intelligent guy and I generally respect your posts, but this is the 4th time this thread that people have to be told I am not the MoFA of Athens. Jgoods is the MoFA of Athens, I am but a mere citizen who holds no Government position, and to be quite frank if I was the MoFA of Athens, quite a few Archons/Boulettes/etc would leave Athens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted October 24, 2009 Report Share Posted October 24, 2009 Oh, my mistake. Well I got that this thread didn't represent them anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.