Which bloc do you want to see rolled most?

[dejarue]

Awww dammit. She brought up the TOP-Ech "no nukes" thing. That's just going to flare some tempers all over again.

[Hasin]

Wonder why TOP, in a position of absolute dominance, requested a traditional war with Echelon, rather than let the nukes fly, in an already nuclear war? The end result would have been the same, and the extra damage taken by TOP wouldn't have been all that much, considering the number of wars Echelon was in, and the number of alliances facing them.

Protect that infra, boys!

Edit:

To clarify, requesting no nukes was 100% in Echelon's favor. The only rationale for TOP going with a traditional war at that point in time was to avoid extra infrastructure losses, no matter how small they would have been. They could have decimated the top 20% or so of Echelon, but they opted out of the war and instead played "Let's Tech Raid". Pathetic, spineless, and just what I'd expect from the likes of Crymson and co.

It's actually one of the biggest concerns I have with TOP right now. Pretty much everything you say I continually bring up on our home boards. You have much military experience? Maybe you could apply and help us get into good fighting form?

[Some-Guy]

It's actually one of the biggest concerns I have with TOP right now. Pretty much everything you say I continually bring up on our home boards. You have much military experience? Maybe you could apply and help us get into good fighting form?

Forgive me, dear Hasin, for applying such a huge (if not unforgivable) double standard... but aren't we best served leaving the bitter alone?

We've explained ourselves on that matter so many, many times. Why rehash the past when we are quite satisfied with our actions?

[Feanor Noldorin]

I rather like this observation. I find it to be spot on.

Out of mild curiosity, what category did MK fall into when it lay in virtual ruins under an NPO blacklist where it had openly and repeatedly declared it had zero intent to pose any threat to any ally of TOP, and indeed was actually set upon BY allies of TOP? I mean, it is common knowledge that TOP repeatedly acted against the interests of Mushroom Kingdom, especially in (but not limited to) Citadel discussion. You can feel free to disagree with this, but there's an overwhelming body of informed individuals who will contradict you and I'm far more inclined to believe them by virtue of their number and character.

I can most certainly say that is one of the principle roots of the Mushroom Kingdom's general membership's dislike of TOP. I'm told, again by many informed folks, that it was a product of TOP buying into the propaganda of the NPO in the execution of their blacklist. I'd also recommend you don't try to argue against the existence of said propaganda or blacklist, given the extensive logs I have of conversations with NPO leadership that explicitly mention these.

This subject, as Hasin noted, was discussed extensively on your own forums dating back to the beginning of February. Seeing as how you made an appearance in that discussion/thread I can't help but wonder why you are suddenly bringing this up and framing it in such a manner when you already know the reasons behind our actions.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Feanor Noldorin

[Archon]

Speaking frankly: I was in class, bored, forgot about the thread from February, and Crymson's post struck a nerve so I replied. I'll go peruse that thread again (February was a long time ago), and check back in with a report

Edit: OH! And it was being discussed on an offsite location where I learned new information. Forgot that part.

Edited December 2, 2009 by TheNeverender

[Khyber]

Archon, many people in TOP were pro MK from when I got in after the NoCB war. Discussions came along every 2 months pushing for a treaty with MK. Maybe not the majority but a very large minority. I think caution prevailed as it often does in TOP, and to me Gremlins and Umbrella were going to treaty you guys anyways, so we were tied to you through citadel so if you got attacked we would defend, and you were not likely to attack.

I'm not sure about the propaganda. I never bought into the lulzy. MK was being lead by two great leaders in my mind at the time, Airme and you, and niether were lulzy by my standers.

[Khyber]

Wonder why TOP, in a position of absolute dominance, requested a traditional war with Echelon, rather than let the nukes fly, in an already nuclear war? The end result would have been the same, and the extra damage taken by TOP wouldn't have been all that much, considering the number of wars Echelon was in, and the number of alliances facing them.

Protect that infra, boys!

Edit:

To clarify, requesting no nukes was 100% in Echelon's favor. The only rationale for TOP going with a traditional war at that point in time was to avoid extra infrastructure losses, no matter how small they would have been. They could have decimated the top 20% or so of Echelon, but they opted out of the war and instead played "Let's Tech Raid". Pathetic, spineless, and just what I'd expect from the likes of Crymson and co.

Coming from the lady that didn't want to go nukes out on Golden Sabres in the UJW, and that is after they fired 50% of their nukes on us via rogues. Seriously, your military stratigy has always been lacking, and your ES propaganda is old and out dated, but I guess we will see in time how it shapes up.

FYI a nuke does less damage monetarily on lower infra nations, part of the reason in VietFAN 1 FAN tried to hit nations as high as they could with nukes. Second, nukes do less damage when you have less tech, especially so when you have a WRC. A week or two, or three as was the case of DA, of being tech raided depletes nuke efficiency, especially since he was unable to declare after the first week and therefore nuke anyone.

Also take into effect that you had guys like Filipe, AYB, BBB2007, Xytron, and several others who either surrendered, deleted or went rogue, without firing a single nuke at anyone else or not fired at all and the number of nukes taken out of play was hugh while effectively devestating Echelon. Nukes would have very well meant they unload and stay in Echelon, or they unload then delete or surrender.

Now I understand the gripe some have, and to be honest I'm not sure where I would be if it was me in their shoes, but your claim that it benefited Echelon seems uninformed, it was one of the worst decision in terms of stratigy and moral, and I've told Neo that myself.

Edit: For your information, many in TOP have gone to ZI, are battle hardened and knowledgable about how to fight a war. I would hazard a guess that 40% to 50% have been on the lossing side of a war. Lastly the community there is second to none in my opinion, different ideas, ideologies, people that don't buy into neatly packed and continously repeated BS, but they all respect eachother and work well together to achieve their goals. ZI would not change that. I'm sure they would loss 10% of their numbers in 3 to 4 weeks, but the decline wouldn't be staggering.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Khyber

[Aurion]

Awww dammit. She brought up the TOP-Ech "no nukes" thing. That's just going to flare some tempers all over again.

That argument was retarded the first time around, and even worse the second.

So let's not.

Plus, it's Tela.

[Crymson]

Out of mild curiosity, what category did MK fall into when it lay in virtual ruins under an NPO blacklist where it had openly and repeatedly declared it had zero intent to pose any threat to any ally of TOP, and indeed was actually set upon BY allies of TOP? I mean, it is common knowledge that TOP repeatedly acted against the interests of Mushroom Kingdom, especially in (but not limited to) Citadel discussion. You can feel free to disagree with this, but there's an overwhelming body of informed individuals who will contradict you and I'm far more inclined to believe them by virtue of their number and character.

I can most certainly say that is one of the principle roots of the Mushroom Kingdom's general membership's dislike of TOP. I'm told, again by many informed folks, that it was a product of TOP buying into the propaganda of the NPO in the execution of their blacklist. I'd also recommend you don't try to argue against the existence of said propaganda or blacklist, given the extensive logs I have of conversations with NPO leadership that explicitly mention these.

Our opposition to MK as an extended connection through the treaty web (i.e., MDPed to Citadel allies of ours) was entirely based on the desire to avoid any conflicts between our allies; significant animosity existed between MK and the NPO at the time, and the latter was a close ally of ours at that point. Our own reluctance to open friendly dialogue with MK was, likewise, rooted in the fact that the NPO was hostile towards MK. We never outright disliked MK.

In other words, none of this was a result of any hostility or dislike within TOP towards MK; indeed, nothing of the sort existed. Our intention was not to act against MK's interests, but rather to avoid conflicts of interest.

[Haflinger]

Well, at least we're more hated than AZTEC.

That's something.

[Heft]

To do true lasting damage to most of Citadel (and top ranked nations in general) would require either an absurdly drawn out conflict (a few months of constant nuclear warfare) or absurdly punitive reparations and terms. Not their fault, not much else for them to do but hoard money, and it seems as if the chances of an actual solution to the massive "warchest" problem being implemented are pretty much nil.

On the other hand, if we can't properly damage the majority of Citadel, neither can they properly damage the majority of the rest of us.

[x Tela x]

Coming from the lady that didn't want to go nukes out on Golden Sabres in the UJW, and that is after they fired 50% of their nukes on us via rogues. Seriously, your military stratigy has always been lacking, and your ES propaganda is old and out dated, but I guess we will see in time how it shapes up.

50% of their nukes were in 2 nations?

[Crymson]

Awww dammit. She brought up the TOP-Ech "no nukes" thing. That's just going to flare some tempers all over again.

The actions referenced were entirely my doing and nobody else in TOP's; I made the pertinent decisions independently. As such, any judgment of the entire alliance on the basis of those actions really doesn't fit, and nobody else in TOP should feel obligated to defend what I did.

Hindsight is 20/20; my actions were somewhat thoughtless toward those who were fighting alongside us, albeit unintentionally so.

[wickedj]

Depends if you can get IRON, MHA, TOOL and FOK out of the way via treaties, so that they and their allies don't come barrelling in on the side of Citadel, and if the two other blocs going up against them get their allies on their side. It would still be close, but it can be done with a 2vs1. My money would be on a CnG and SF vs Citadel as the best chance, as those two bloc have a lot of sway outside of their core, alliances like Sparta, ODN and VE would side with them along with a ton of smaller and mid sized alliances.

Where ever FB goes they not only bring FB themselves but Polar brings the blue team. orange would be split with IRON, TOP and maybe FOK on the Cit side while ODN, R&R, Int on the 'other' side

the real war would be the 80k+ nations. who would have to hope they can grind away enough of Citadel's big guys and bring them down and just overwhelm them at the middle to lower ranks and for gods sake properly stagger them. considering the number of nations would probably be AGAINST Cit in this its not impossible..just depends on some of the little guys and how busy they can keep the aforementioned mid to low range guys

But alas, the cursed treaty web ties all four blocs together

[Archon]

Archon, many people in TOP were pro MK from when I got in after the NoCB war. Discussions came along every 2 months pushing for a treaty with MK. Maybe not the majority but a very large minority. I think caution prevailed as it often does in TOP, and to me Gremlins and Umbrella were going to treaty you guys anyways, so we were tied to you through citadel so if you got attacked we would defend, and you were not likely to attack.

I'm not sure about the propaganda. I never bought into the lulzy. MK was being lead by two great leaders in my mind at the time, Airme and you, and niether were lulzy by my standers.

Our opposition to MK as an extended connection through the treaty web (i.e., MDPed to Citadel allies of ours) was entirely based on the desire to avoid any conflicts between our allies; significant animosity existed between MK and the NPO at the time, and the latter was a close ally of ours at that point. Our own reluctance to open friendly dialogue with MK was, likewise, rooted in the fact that the NPO was hostile towards MK. We never outright disliked MK.

In other words, none of this was a result of any hostility or dislike within TOP towards MK; indeed, nothing of the sort existed. Our intention was not to act against MK's interests, but rather to avoid conflicts of interest.

Alright alright. I'm helping myself to crow and retracting my statement. I appreciate the mature responses to my post. Cheers.

[Hyperion321]

If Karma war proved anything, it's that not even the treaty web can prevent conflict forever. Watching this whenever you get angry, however, can.

[Aloop]

Hindsight is 20/20; my actions were somewhat thoughtless toward those who were fighting alongside us, albeit unintentionally so.

In the end, it's not like the outcome of that war was ever really in doubt. It was a stupid argument that grew beyond the point of reason. Lessons learned and we're moving on, I guess.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Aloop

[Zero-One]

If Karma war proved anything, it's that not even the treaty web can prevent conflict forever. Watching this whenever you get angry, however, can.

Man you made my day! Seriously. Thank you. I feel all warm and fuzzy now. Damn cats.

[kriekfreak]

The actions referenced were entirely my doing and nobody else in TOP's; I made the pertinent decisions independently. As such, any judgment of the entire alliance on the basis of those actions really doesn't fit, and nobody else in TOP should feel obligated to defend what I did.

Hindsight is 20/20; my actions were somewhat thoughtless toward those who were fighting alongside us, albeit unintentionally so.

What really? Are you saying the decision, to not go into this conflict nuclear, was entirely taken by you? Aren't TOP moving at TOP speed because you discuss things to the point it becomes really sad? I'm gonna bet that the "no-nukes" thing was discussed extensively and so the whole of TOP is responsible for that action. To the same level the whole of TOP is responsible for all the in-actions.

[Cyphon88]

What really? Are you saying the decision, to not go into this conflict nuclear, was entirely taken by you? Aren't TOP moving at TOP speed because you discuss things to the point it becomes really sad? I'm gonna bet that the "no-nukes" thing was discussed extensively and so the whole of TOP is responsible for that action. To the same level the whole of TOP is responsible for all the in-actions.

That's a good point, it's an interesting incoherence.

For the record, I would rather have that level of interaction and debate in an alliance that I was in, rather than one individual making choices like that. But each to their own.

[Meer Republic]

What really? Are you saying the decision, to not go into this conflict nuclear, was entirely taken by you? Aren't TOP moving at TOP speed because you discuss things to the point it becomes really sad? I'm gonna bet that the "no-nukes" thing was discussed extensively and so the whole of TOP is responsible for that action. To the same level the whole of TOP is responsible for all the in-actions.

The no nukes thing was never discussed, in fact when I declared I asked the two R&R guys being attacked by my target to hold off nuking as I could do more damage. Then orders came that we were not to nuke, which was the first I and I assume any other TOP member outside milcom had heard of it, all I could do was apologise to the R&R folks and do as much damage as I could conventionally.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Meercats

[kriekfreak]

The no nukes thing was never discussed, in fact when I declared I asked the two R&R guys being attacked by my target to hold off nuking as I could do more damage. Then orders came that we were not to nuke, which was the first I and I assume any other TOP member outside milcom had heard of it, all I could do was apologise to the R&R folks and do as much damage as I could conventionally.

So the only time you guys don't discuss things to the extreme, they end up being (even more) horrible choices. I can understand TOP speed a whole bit better now. Thanks.

[elpadrino]

Voted Citadel, (mostly because of TOP, from what I see of others like Grämlins or Umbrella I like them), if you have those stats use it, the game is going to be boring as long as Citadel is the main power, yeah TOP went to war in the past but only in favorable curbstomps with no risk of taken any serious damage, when the people that do the curbstomps for years with them found a real opposition they just stayed out (yes yes I know, conflicting treaties...), just look at the STA-TOP recent drama.., I doubt so much that they will jump in any war unless the odds are so clear (absolutely clear) in their favor.

Also they are not as unstopable as it will look like, it will take some blocks to join together, balls to take some big nukes and good coordination/organization but it is posible to defeat bigger nations outnumbering them with smaller ones...

[NoFish]

The actions referenced were entirely my doing and nobody else in TOP's; I made the pertinent decisions independently. As such, any judgment of the entire alliance on the basis of those actions really doesn't fit, and nobody else in TOP should feel obligated to defend what I did.

Hindsight is 20/20; my actions were somewhat thoughtless toward those who were fighting alongside us, albeit unintentionally so.

In public, at the very least, I seem to recall it being rather vocally supported by TOP members, and certainly don't remember anyone in the alliance decrying it. Although, with that said, I'm very glad to see your new perspective on those events and I really think this goes a long way to putting that whole mess of a war behind us.

[Dr. Dan]

Voted Citadel, (mostly because of TOP, from what I see of others like Grämlins or Umbrella I like them), if you have those stats use it, the game is going to be boring as long as Citadel is the main power, yeah TOP went to war in the past but only in favorable curbstomps with no risk of taken any serious damage, when the people that do the curbstomps for years with them found a real opposition they just stayed out (yes yes I know, conflicting treaties...), just look at the STA-TOP recent drama.., I doubt so much that they will jump in any war unless the odds are so clear (absolutely clear) in their favor.

Also they are not as unstopable as it will look like, it will take some blocks to join together, balls to take some big nukes and good coordination/organization but it is posible to defeat bigger nations outnumbering them with smaller ones...

 

People have such short memories.  GW 2/3 were not clear outcomes at their start (well, maybe 3 was).  UjW was the only major conflict we stayed neutral in and for good reason.  Since GW3, there has not been a single war in which the outcome has not been obvious beforehand. Albeit, at least with the Polar shake-up when tensions were high, it was unclear as to how the sides would fall pre-Q.

Learn your history!

Edited December 3, 2009 by Dr. Dan