Mathias Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 Athens at least has embraced its role as the bad guy of Planet Bob. Its not like they are going recover from their series of public face palms or become any less loathed. So they are having some fun with it. Good for them. Also good for ADI, getting good PR from a treaty cancelation is always a plus. Winners on all sides in this one. For canceling a PIAT? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratonbox Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 That's my point. Their number of wars won doesn't imply they have a great military because, well, they don't. Uhmm... isn't that a bit insane? If you win half your wars you have a great military, but if you win 25 out of 27 you don't have a great military.... ? That can be true in real life, but not in CN, where greatness is given by strategy (which implies a good warchest, a good picking of enemies and discipline in the alliance ). Don't get me wrong, i don't know their current status, but if they were those people that scared everyone so much that they made an alliance composing of 107 alliances (according to wikia) to oppose ~40 alliances on NPO's side.. i guess that it proved they had a great military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 7, 2010 Report Share Posted January 7, 2010 No, it proves that they had a great political department. When you get the odds on your side through politics and through maintaining a gang of bullies that intimidates anyone from leaving the fold, you don't need a great military. As ADI will show when they control the world Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 Uhmm... isn't that a bit insane? If you win half your wars you have a great military, but if you win 25 out of 27 you don't have a great military.... ? That can be true in real life, but not in CN, where greatness is given by strategy (which implies a good warchest, a good picking of enemies and discipline in the alliance ). Don't get me wrong, i don't know their current status, but if they were those people that scared everyone so much that they made an alliance composing of 107 alliances (according to wikia) to oppose ~40 alliances on NPO's side.. i guess that it proved they had a great military. The best hospitals in the world often have the highest mortality rates. According to GGA's Wiki they've won 11 out of 13 wars. Clearly their military machine is one of the best in the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratonbox Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) GGA's machine.. in general, is one of the best. why? Because they didn't get in pointless wars.. i mean, if you know you can't beat them, diplo-spam them. @Bob Janova uhm.. politics give the strenght to an alliance too.. but i'm sure they didn't have only politics on their side, or else they would've never gotten so far to start the Karma War. PS: sorry if i'm not that good with CN history, or the situation, but the fact is that i only use the data i find on CN's wiki and what i've heard from other people that went through these wars. The date i joined this forum(the one in my profile, <- look left), is the same date i joined CN. Edited January 8, 2010 by ratonbox Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Style #386 Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 their machine.. in general is one of the best. why, they didn't get in pointless wars.. i mean, if you know you can't beat them, diplo-spam them. Wait, what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penkala Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 Uhmm... isn't that a bit insane? If you win half your wars you have a great military, but if you win 25 out of 27 you don't have a great military.... ? That can be true in real life, but not in CN, where greatness is given by strategy (which implies a good warchest, a good picking of enemies and discipline in the alliance ). Don't get me wrong, i don't know their current status, but if they were those people that scared everyone so much that they made an alliance composing of 107 alliances (according to wikia) to oppose ~40 alliances on NPO's side.. i guess that it proved they had a great military. Because all wars are even and the victor is determined by the better strategists. I hate to break it to you, ratonbox, but NPO has and had a sub-par military and relied on dozens of allies and a climate of fear to curbstomp alliances. And it really wasn't 'fear' that determined the sides of the Karma war, either... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratonbox Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 Wait, what? sorry, i should have said here what i meant by pointless. Pointless wars = wars that they couldn't win @Penkala What i don't understand is where did that "fear" come from.. PS: i think that we should have this conversation in some kind of irc channel instead of spamming this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 PS: sorry if i'm not that good with CN history, or the situation, but the fact is that i only use the data i find on CN's wiki and what i've heard from other people that went through these wars. No offence, but this being the case, you probably shouldn't be making strong assertions about politically charged points that happened before you founded your nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratonbox Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 i'm just trying to find out how everything revolves around here. and i didn't make any strong assertion, i just took the fact that were given to me and did a simple deduction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keres Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 i'm just trying to find out how everything revolves around here. and i didn't make any strong assertion, i just took the fact that were given to me and did a simple deduction. I hope these facts werent given to you by ADI "Leadership" as theres a good chance these facts were faked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 GGA's machine.. in general, is one of the best. why? Because they didn't get in pointless wars.. i mean, if you know you can't beat them, diplo-spam them.. Man, I just had to. Did you really just say that the alliance that started the noCB war over 2 tech deals, didnt get in pointless wars????????? You say you dont know CN history, this proves it. It should also indicate, whether you love GGA or not, that you should probably defer to others who have a working knowledge of history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) sorry, i should have said here what i meant by pointless. Pointless wars = wars that they couldn't win @Penkala What i don't understand is where did that "fear" come from.. PS: i think that we should have this conversation in some kind of irc channel instead of spamming this thread. So you are saying wars are pointless if you dont win. If thats how you feel, then you are right....GGA is the perfect ally for you. Edited January 8, 2010 by Rush Sykes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astronaut jones Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 Athens at least has embraced its role as the bad guy of Planet Bob. Its not like they are going recover from their series of public face palms or become any less loathed. So they are having some fun with it. Good for them. Also good for ADI, getting good PR from a treaty cancelation is always a plus. Winners on all sides in this one. Ahh, TBB. Everything you have said about athens is much more aptly applied to yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 Congratulations, ADI! This is great news, and I'm very happy for you guys. o/ ADI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratonbox Posted January 8, 2010 Report Share Posted January 8, 2010 So you are saying wars are pointless if you dont win. If thats how you feel, then you are right....GGA is the perfect ally for you. no, i was meaning this: "It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, engage them; if equal, be able to divide them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them." "The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting." "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." "Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." "If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding." All these quotes belong to an old Chinese guy.. some loser that nobody knows. But those represent my view on wars and battles, in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 no, i was meaning this:"It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them; if double, engage them; if equal, be able to divide them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them." "The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting." "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." "Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win." "Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory." "If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight, even though the ruler forbid it; if fighting will not result in victory, then you must not fight even at the ruler's bidding." All these quotes belong to an old Chinese guy.. some loser that nobody knows. But those represent my view on wars and battles, in general. OOC: Sun Tzu. IC: So basically, you're views on war are following common sense tactics "developed" by an anonymous man? Nice to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ying Yang Mafia Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 I'd think following common sense tactics would be a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 I'd think following common sense tactics would be a good thing. Common sense tactics have been followed for decades and centuries, they're the basic foundation of warfare. Using only common sense tactics creates a strategy that can be easily figured out and countered by your enemy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ketther Posted January 9, 2010 Report Share Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) OOC: Sun Tzu.IC: So basically, you're views on war are following common sense tactics "developed" by an anonymous man? Nice to know. It pains me to say so... but I think he was actually sarcastic. Maybe he should lead ADI, as it is clear this one knows what sarcasm is. /edit or was he ironic? Edited January 9, 2010 by Ketther Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted January 10, 2010 Report Share Posted January 10, 2010 Common sense tactics have been followed for decades and centuries, they're the basic foundation of warfare. Using only common sense tactics creates a strategy that can be easily figured out and countered by your enemy. All warfare is based on deception. Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent's fate. No, I don't really agree with that assessment. 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.