LiquidMercury Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Maybe I'm speaking ignorantly but I seem to recall conversations regarding a rather large, vengeful alliance sitting on the sidelines that TOP might have had to deal with had they entered the war early on in a significant fashion. I'm not trying to start a fire here, I'm just saying...it was very likely to me that TOP was not going to risk any real damage to themselves while that alliance was taking zero damage also.I'm pretty sure (though it was five months ago or w/e) Karma was aware of that and planned around TOP, at the worst, not entering. Similar with ODN's situation and while they played an active, but limited role on Karma's side. TOP went where it was needed and managed to get a few quick declarations without the use of nuclear weaponry, which was the smarter bet since nooks are going to cost more to replace our infra then those we're beating on just due to the higher infra levels. If we can get by without having to use them it makes sense from a cost analysis sense. Since the surrenders came so quickly, I'd argue that even had nooks been used, the surrenders would have come no quicker. That being said, as someone who planned the military organization for Karma, I most definitely planned for TOP not being able to go in against NPO, IRON, or Valhalla. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poyplemonkeys Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Where on earth did I say that sorting out the chaining treaties from the no-chaining treaties didn't matter? I expressly said the opposite to you on IRC, just as I have on several occasions in this thread. Accusing me of taking this too seriously sounds like a real cop-out, a way to avoid admission of your own errors (it also simply doesn't fit, based on your level of participation in this thread). Yours was a slanderous thread based on basely incorrect information, and I wanted the true information to be presented so that the record could be set straight. Why should the chaining ones be separated? If alliances on the Karma side could rely on your support by you activating optional defense and aggression clauses, why is it unfair to include the optional clauses you ignored on the hegemony side? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamerlane Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 This should be said of most treaty cancellations. Rarely if ever is there a single motive. Hats off to you, sir. You solved my riddle. Also this thread is STILL going? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponken Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 How does he 'skew' them? 1. Choosing an arbitrary time period. Had I personally made this thread I would have chosen the time the OV-crisis began, which eliminates both TOP's and MHA's Q cancelation as the crisis happened after their notices 2. Not researching the treaties in question. As several alliance has said a good portion of the listed treaties are non-chaining. Some MDP's did not come into question due to the partner being the aggressor. Yet has he counted the OAP's in those cases but not counted the hundreds of other ODP's out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SinOfNemesis Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Where do I collect the trophy for being #1 in stats collecting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigsticker Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Hats off to you, sir. You solved my riddle.Also this thread is STILL going? it has been a slow day Edited October 13, 2009 by pigsticker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) I think what you are trying to say is that TOP should have chosen neutrality instead. Well, I think they declared neutrality during the Unjust War, and got called out for it by the alliance you are quoting several times. Something is not right here. May be you think is a better choice do like MCXA and Echelon in noCB war. Edited October 13, 2009 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I can tell you right now should MHA and TOP decided to fight against Karma then this would have most definitely gone a different way. a. That would of meant TOP either hits Gremlins/FCC/Fark/RoK for hitting IRON or Gremlins/FCC would of just not hit IRON knowing it would cause war with their closest buds. b. That would of meant IRON would of been free to decimate many alliances in the top tiers where most wars are won c. MHA could of hit anyone on NPO thus giving NPO a much needed respite and been able to effectively counter-attack thus drawing out the war much much longer, possibly forcing a white peace due to in-fighting against forces against them. Lastly it was one sided shortly after the war broke out due to a multitude of e-lawyering archon and I did to bring multiple spheres of influence into a scenario with many overlaps on both sides of the war. Should Gremlins/TOP have stayed out I would of most likely had zero choice as to stay out, RamirusMaximus stay out (helped Azaghul organize banking for Karma) and thus giving a lot less structure and organization to Karma. Not to toot my own horn but I'd say that would make some difference and that the war most definitely would of not been as clear cut thus having a lot less people jump on that were on the fringe about things. It also would of resulted in 30+ alliances going after NPO, and many OTP's of theirs and their allies to roam freely not being able to be picked up due to a lessened amount of workable NS, and an inability to go in on certain parties due to conflicting treaties/no legal way to hit them other then using Moldavi 2.0 which many would not do for fear of reprisal and backlash about being called "bandwagoners." So yes I contend that should TOP/MHA done as what you are calling for both to do here, Karma War would of had a much different outcome, one leaving a much more powerful Citadel and FB as they would of been two blocs relatively unscathed (I'd be unsure if Argent/Umbrella would of still gone in, I believe so though so they would of taken some damage) leaving both SF, CnG in pretty bad form as your damages would of been significantly greater and everyone be upset that citadel as a whole did nothing for them. Karma, as far as I could tell, had plenty of surplus strength to have been able to deal with MHA. TOP+IRON's upper ranks would have been a been a big problem, Only other Citadel would have really had the top ranks to fight them, and only a handful of others (Fark/FoK/MK) with the upper ranks (if not the top ranks) to deal with TOP in terms of fighting ability and preparation. Going into that era, many of us expected a much closer war to occur. My main motivation for creating Karma banking was in case of a relatively even-sided war. Different fronts would do better on different sides, with our winning on some fronts and losing on others. War likely would have hinged on who could keep up the morale on the fronts they were losing the best and prevent them from surrendering. War aid is relatively outdated as a major factor because it doesn't do a lot of good in the upper ranks where war is decided. However many are stuck in the past and overestimate it's significance, and those would likely have been the same alliances not doing well in war and itching to surrender. Having karma pool aid resources would provide some material assistance to those alliances but more importantly be a way to maintain morale among them (especially in their lower ranked members, who might not decide the war but are important for morale), create a communal feeling, and help us convince them to hang in there. Ultimately the war was so one-sided that except in maybe a few cases most alliances could cover their own aid needs and we really didn't need it. Getting back on topic, I think people are getting a little over-riled at this. Jack Diorno shouldn't be taken much more seriously than Rebel Virginia. TOP/MHA weren't the only alliances with conflicting ties. If TORN hadn't pulled out MK likely would have been in the same position when alliances countered on TORN. TOP especially was in a lose-lose situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meer Republic Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Without wishing to sound all 'do something about it' (which is actually exactly what i am saying) we're fully aware that a few folks don't like us for whatever reason, and while the propoganda and efforts to turn more people against us is cute, coalition building is fun, no?! Why not just man up and come and get us instead of just whining to whoever will listen about how evil, cowardly etc. we are. Hell we're stat collectors we'd probably fold faster than superman on laundry day...right? But hey I guess playing the victim is far more in character... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Without wishing to sound all 'do something about it' (which is actually exactly what i am saying) we're fully aware that a few folks don't like us for whatever reason, and while the propoganda and efforts to turn more people against us is cute, coalition building is fun, no?! Why not just man up and come and get us instead of just whining to whoever will listen about how evil, cowardly etc. we are. Hell we're stat collectors we'd probably fold faster than superman on laundry day...right? But hey I guess playing the victim is far more in character... There are many things that could be said about this thread, however, I'm not entirely sure where anyone has been "playing the victim" in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meer Republic Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 There are many things that could be said about this thread, however, I'm not entirely sure where anyone has been "playing the victim" in it. More of a general observation than directly related to the content of this thread but this seemed as good a place as any, I'm just starting to find this nonsense tiresome, along with all the laughable talk of 'honour' and the like on these forums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Oh man, this thread is so sweet that after reading from the OP to here I simply must have diabetes. Put me down as another member of the Jack Diorno fan club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Jack, moar historical numbers! Edited October 13, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 Thread certainly delivers. Umm... I think it's all pretty much been covered. It's hard to blame us for NPO attacking OV after we left Q. Some people just don't like us /victim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LegendoftheSkies Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Without wishing to sound all 'do something about it' (which is actually exactly what i am saying) we're fully aware that a few folks don't like us for whatever reason, and while the propoganda and efforts to turn more people against us is cute, coalition building is fun, no?! Why not just man up and come and get us instead of just whining to whoever will listen about how evil, cowardly etc. we are. Hell we're stat collectors we'd probably fold faster than superman on laundry day...right? But hey I guess playing the victim is far more in character... Well, you're the number 1 alliance now. If we really want to stand a chance of beating you, we have to rally support through such propaganda. It took a good while before such a coalition finally rose up to take down NPO. Be patient, we shall all rise up against you in due time, but pointless bickering and raging must happen first. Edited October 13, 2009 by Legend of the Skies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madtrixr Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Well, you're the number 1 alliance now. If we really want to stand a chance of beating you, we have to rally support through such propaganda. It took a good while before such a coalition finally rose up to take down NPO. Be patient, we shall all rise up against you in due time, but pointless bickering and raging must happen first. Well said. Can't topple a regime without ineffectual rage. Edited October 13, 2009 by Madtrixr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Well, you're the number 1 alliance now. If we really want to stand a chance of beating you, we have to rally support through such propaganda. It took a good while before such a coalition finally rose up to take down NPO. Be patient, we shall all rise up against you in due time, but pointless bickering and raging must happen first. Duly noted. Thank you very much for admitting that you are actively planning to wage war on TOP. What have we done to you? Edited October 13, 2009 by Zero-One Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jer Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) I'm just starting to find this nonsense tiresome, along with all the laughable talk of 'honour' and the like on these forums. I find your nonsense tiresome too. Repeatedly having to read paragraph after paragraph of your members' attempts to dress up rampant cowardice as the result of some sort of complex decision making process that is way above our simple concepts of 'honour' and 'loyalty' is getting boring. To save us from this in future can I suggest that you include this line in future treaties: Article X:Discussions within TOP on the cancellation of this treaty will begin well before (at least one week) any dangerous wars erupt. In the event that you are deemed to be on the weaker side of an upcoming war our relations will be considered as sparse and there will be a general feeling that we shared nothing in common with you so far as goals and priorities were concerned. Then you can just say you were following treaties and that the cancellations were simply a result of a lack of communication and direction, which you had coincidentally only noticed just before a major war. Edited October 13, 2009 by Aimee Mann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Just to clarify - Jack Diorno does not speak for Athens or C&G. Any opinions he puts forward on this subject are entirely his own, and it certainly doesn't mean that the majority of Athens members or the Athenian government feel the way he does about any of this. I would appreciate it if everyone reading this would keep that in mind. Secondly, I would observe that, as a statistical matter, the more non-chaining MDPs you sign with alliances on different sides of the treaty web, the better you can emerge from any war (in stats anyway), having taken less damage. This is simply because great wars in CN tend to rapidly become very uneven, and by providing yourself with an entry onto any side you can ensure that you participate in the war, which has two main effects. The first is that it shows that you "honor your treaties" because you did in fact enter on an optional clause for someone. The second is that it placates your membership by getting them a war AND it ensures that they will be on the winning side, which most will probably enjoy more than being beaten down. This is essentially a universal practice, to greater or lesser degree, among sanctioned alliances in CN. It is an almost necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve and maintain sanction. What Jack Diorno is saying is that, regardless of whether the letter of the treaties is honored, the pattern of signing lots of MDPs with far flung corners of the treaty web is a "survivalist" practice, and therefore dishonorable, because a non-chaining MDP signed by an alliance which spreads its treaties far and wide is much less likely to be activated than a non-chaining MDP signed by an alliance which keeps all of its treaties on one side of the web. And certainly in cases where it is most sorely needed, a non-chaining MDP is more likely to be honored by an alliance which keeps all of its MDPs on one side of the web than one which casts its nets far and wide. In both cases, the treaty will be honored due to the non-chaining clause, but yet there is still a substantive difference hmmmm? Jack Diorno has therefore advanced a very precise definition of a property or behavior of alliances called "survivalism". The more spread out an alliance's non-chaining MDP treaties are among different parts of the treaty web, and the more treaties it has, the less likely any given non-chaining MDP treaty is to produce actual defense of an attacked treaty partner. "Survivalism", because it enables entry into any part of any war, ensures that a highly "survivalist" alliance can come out on top every time, due to siding with the winning side, while still preserving the illusion that its non-chaining treaties mean just as much as those signed by a "non-survivalist" alliance. Edited October 13, 2009 by Londo Mollari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Londo, are you telling me, that Jack Diorno, Athens' MOFA, an executive government member that essentially act as a voice of the alliance, does not speak for Athens as a whole? And that he should not be taken seriously? Where did you find this guy anyway? Edited October 13, 2009 by Zero-One Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Londa, are you telling me, that Jack Diorno, Athens' MOFA, an executive government member that essentially act as a voice of the alliance, does not speak for Athens as a whole? And that he should not be taken seriously? Jack Diorno is not our MoFA. Jgoods45 is. Jack Diorno is only a bouleutes at the moment, he holds no government position. Edited October 13, 2009 by Londo Mollari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Snape corrected me. Edited October 13, 2009 by D34th Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 What Jack Diorno is saying is that, regardless of whether the letter of the treaties are honored, the pattern of signing lots of MDPs with far flung corners of the treaty web is a "survivalist" practice, and therefore dishonorable They weren't so far flung when we signed them 2+ years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zero-One Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 (edited) Jack Diorno is not our MoFA. Jgoods45 is. Jack Diorno is only a bouleutes at the moment, he holds no government position. Looks like I have been mistaken. My apologies. Edited October 13, 2009 by Zero-One Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madtrixr Posted October 13, 2009 Report Share Posted October 13, 2009 I thought that is a OCC forum where the IC postions in alliances doesn't matter... You would think so, right? I think it's just politics. 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.