CnG vs TOP: who will win?

[Jack Diorno]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='01 February 2010 - 06:39 AM' timestamp='1264970349' post='2148189']
That's a win. Top tier supremacy is definitely a victory condition in my book.
[/quote]
How is that a victory?
The nations that remained wouldnt be able to damage C&G at all while C&G can continue to damage the rest of TOP and overpower anyone who joined them. It's similar to FAN staying in peace mode, except they are so large we cannot attack them.
We could enforce conditions on them while at war, where as they would be powerless even with incredibly large nations.

[Zizka]

[quote name='Jack Diorno' date='31 January 2010 - 03:28 PM' timestamp='1264969719' post='2148166']
TOP can't win, they have no low tier nations and only a few mid tier nations. At the very best they could somehow push all of our top tier nations out of range or have them remain in peace mode at a cost of losing almost all of their own nations down into the swarm of C&G's substantial mid tier, where they wont return from.
C&G's middle tier will be able to weather the damage easily enough, we have a massive numerical advantage there in terms of raw nations and most C&G alliances have been pushing for increased warchests and tech imports since the karma war, in case of the worst scenario arising which it almost did.
When TOP only has the very large nations left and nobody in range they have lost, they wouldn't be able to enforce anything upon us, where as C&G could attack their allies and the nations that dropped into regular range.

All that said, I've seen the spy reports and TOP's warchests aren't anything spectacular. The nations I've spied on in my range 50-60K actually seem to have substanially smaller warchests then expected and will probably become useless meatbags after this cycle of war.
[/quote]

If TOP really manages to destroy every opposing nation within waring abilities of their highest tier, it would be an astounding victory, and I find it hard to see how you could paint it as anything other.

[Rafael Nadal]

We all win, because this will be as close to a reset as we can get.

[Jack Diorno]

Yeah well looking at the nations of TOP you aren't actually as big as I thought. Your 'big' range seems to be 110K to 200K which is only 30 nations so it isn't really that big of a deal.

hmm

[Saber]

[quote name='Zizka' date='31 January 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1264971533' post='2148235']
If TOP really manages to destroy every opposing nation within waring abilities of their highest tier, it would be an astounding victory, and I find it hard to see how you could paint it as anything other.
[/quote]
To be honest if we burnt our warchests to grow out of range we probably could overwhelm any opposition at those ranges. I know I can jump to 20k infra or more from my current position (12k) but I'd much rather defeat them through nuking every single one of them .

And a resurrection to 8k or so will be much cheaper.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Saber

[Thistledown]

[quote name='Methrage' date='30 January 2010 - 09:30 PM' timestamp='1264908604' post='2146413']
Gre and FCC hit IRON in the Karma War violating that clause, TOP ended up sticking with Citadel anyways in that war and forgave both Gre and FCC. There was much talk of removing that clause and everyone pretty much agreed it wasn't a good clause, although laziness prevailed.
[/quote]

This is an interesting little defense. I believe- and forgive me if I am wrong- that all of the current Citadel broke the Lux technically, at least in the eyes of OG, by not coming to their defense when they entered and were counterattacked in the Karma War. And let's not forget that TOP did not just attack a Citadel treaty partner, they entered on the opposite side of the war from Umbrella. While the "attacking an ally" clause may have been overlooked, I seem to recall that OG entering on the opposite side from where Citadel was going was considered a cause for expulsion.

[Delta1212]

Um... I don't think that TOP sitting above C&G with no one in range to attack would be a victory. They'd effectively be able to embargo you from doing tech deals ever again...

[eyriq]

I'd like to think this is a win for everyone though having dealt with a fallen giant before I do have a sense of apprehension. Something about a nation having a +billion dollar war-chest, nukes, and a full compliment of wonders, spies, ect, while being in the 15k-35k range paints a different picture. Maybe the high tech levels will really prevent the bigs from reaching that low a ns range, but just one fallen giant in that range would chew up and spit out any non-fallen foes it came across; imagine what dozens would do?

[LOLtex]

It's hard to tell and really depends on how this war will unfold further. I'd much rather CnG be overly cocky and already assured in their victory than taking us seriously. So, I voted CnG.

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='31 January 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1264961190' post='2147891']
That was my plan all along.

I really just wanted a new sig:

Hegemony - Defeated
Frostbite - Defeated
SF - Defeated
CnG - Defeated
Citadel - Defeated
Hegemony again - Defeated
LiquidMercury - Victorious

Mua hahaha. On a more serious note, this is beneficial for all as it decreases the disparity between top and bottom alliances. It puts a bit of a reset button on the game (though I still encourage admin to uncap GRL). Seriously though, I just wanted cheaper moon wonders.
[/quote]
I was pretty sure oyababy was victorious. Check your GA's again if you forgot.
o/ oya the god!

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='bcndwilson' date='30 January 2010 - 06:08 AM' timestamp='1264831735' post='2144068']
Everyone keeps talking about how TOP screwed Umbrella by declaring. Lux Aterna and all that.
[/quote]
Well, we did.

Ain't no getting away from that.

[avernite]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='31 January 2010 - 10:49 PM' timestamp='1264974566' post='2148372']
Um... I don't think that TOP sitting above C&G with no one in range to attack would be a victory. They'd effectively be able to embargo you from doing tech deals ever again...
[/quote]

Even so, it's more than what most people assume we will achieve, so it's a relative victory. Just like MK was beaten down in the WoTC but the damage they caused could be seen as a relative victory, and it certainly helped them eventually.

[Diogenes]

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 04:28 AM' timestamp='1264940923' post='2147404']
You don't answer any of the questions since you know you can be proven wrong then, instead you bring up something different and keep repeating the same meaningless question. I might as well not be talking to a person since the response are irrelevant anyways.

The truth is you had already chosen a side and were coordinating before TOP declared on C&G. You guys keep repeating that C&G hadn't chosen a side before then in hopes that repeating the same lie will drown out the truth. All people need to do is read back in the forum some when the war was starting up and expanding to see many posts with C&G members admitting to being on the other side and general posturing.
[/quote]

I'll respond first by saying that I don't think much of treaties in this game. I don't think something as petty as a piece of paper should be representative of a friendship, or the deciding factor in debating whether or not to come to the defense of an ally. I do think quite a bit of sovereignty, both with regards to individuals and alliances. You can do whatever you'd like when playing politics, provided that you can deal with the consequences. You can sign treaties with "friends", or you can declare war on entire blocs because you feel their presence to be threatening.

That said, your attempts to portray this declaration of war on CnG as being motivated by anything more than your own feelings is decidedly wrong. You [i]believed[/i] that CnG had chosen a side in Polar's war against \m/, and you were [i]concerned[/i] that we would move against you. You have no evidence to put either claim beyond refute. You declared war exclusively because you thought we might declare war on you, and you must now deal with the repercussions of it. There are, obviously, repercussions.

I have not a doubt in my mind that this will be a bloody, lengthy war. Just as you believed CnG would throw itself against you, though, I believe that we will now beat you into the ground.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Quiziotle

[bigwoody]

[quote name='avernite' date='31 January 2010 - 04:16 PM' timestamp='1264976200' post='2148443']
Even so, it's more than what most people assume we will achieve, so it's a relative victory. Just like MK was beaten down in the WoTC but the damage they caused could be seen as a relative victory, and it certainly helped them eventually.
[/quote]
Not to mention that TOP could essentially forbid anyone to get into the NS range of their top end other than their allies...that's long term devastation.

[Lord Brendan]

It would actually be pretty cool to have a strength range stand-off like that.

[Denial]

[quote name='Methrage' date='31 January 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1264940923' post='2147404']
You don't answer any of the questions since you know you can be proven wrong then, instead you bring up something different and keep repeating the same meaningless question. I might as well not be talking to a person since the response are irrelevant anyways.

The truth is you had already chosen a side and were coordinating before TOP declared on C&G. You guys keep repeating that C&G hadn't chosen a side before then in hopes that repeating the same lie will drown out the truth. All people need to do is read back in the forum some when the war was starting up and expanding to see many posts with C&G members admitting to being on the other side and general posturing.
[/quote]
If you look back over my previous post, you will find you were given a satisfactory answer. I repeat my question because you had remained incapable of actually providing me with a response until now. Though, I must admit, I was expecting an answer of somewhat higher quality; your eventual comments were quite lackluster and entirely devoid of fact. You and your ilk, like this genius...

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='31 January 2010 - 09:29 PM' timestamp='1264939194' post='2147365']
Lie is bolded for your convenience.
[/quote]
... are more than happy to boldly claim that Complaints & Grievances were directly involved in the previous NpO-\m/ conflict; yet, these are claims that do not withstand scrutiny. When you are questioned as to how exactly an entirely neutral, politically and militarily uninvolved bloc can have a direct role in a conflict, you dance around the question and work assiduously to avoid actually providing an explanation. When pressed further, you rely on nonsense such as Complaints & Grievances were participating in "general posturing" on the forums, had "picked a side" and were "coordinating" with them. Firstly, where exactly is your proof, some evidence to back up these claims? Was there an announcement from C&G government members that we made on behalf of the \m/ coalition, much like TOP in the recent TPF war? No. Were there plans for C&G to aggressively strike IRON, TOP, TORN or DAWN? No. Had we publicly issued government-sanctioned declarations of support for either side? No. Were we in any way engaged with TOP, IRON or any of its allies? No. Secondly, welcome to the Cyberverse, you must be new here. When posting an opinion of any relevance, [i]everyone[/i] has a side, whether consciously or subconsciously. An alliance being attacked for the opinions of its members (i.e. supporting one side over the other through posting) is what occurred in the peak of the Hegemony's reign. An entire bloc being aggressively attacked, with no trace whatsoever of any [i]casus belli[/i] in the declaration of war, is far surpassing the belligerence shown in past times.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Denial

[Bob Janova]

[quote]entirely neutral, politically and militarily uninvolved bloc[/quote]
Wow, you really [i]are[/i] in denial. You're moving further and further away from the truth each time. You had (and have) senior representatives in the raider coalition coordination IRC channels from the beginning. 'Politically uninvolved' is a transparent lie that anyone who pays attention can see right through, since you've been giving political support to Superfriends in pretty much every thread on the war throughout – I guess you're just getting desperate and throwing in more words in the hope that they'll drown out the truth.

[Denial]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='01 February 2010 - 11:06 AM' timestamp='1264988184' post='2148883']
Wow, you really [i]are[/i] in denial. You're moving further and further away from the truth each time. You had (and have) senior representatives in the raider coalition coordination IRC channels from the beginning. 'Politically uninvolved' is a transparent lie that anyone who pays attention can see right through, since you've been giving political support to Superfriends in pretty much every thread on the war throughout – I guess you're just getting desperate and throwing in more words in the hope that they'll drown out the truth.
[/quote]
Again, where's your proof? Or are you just throwing out as many baseless accusations as you can in the hopes that one of them will stick?

Also, you're again relying on this 'C&G were posting supportive messages of Super Friends!' and 'general posturing' excuse. You are advocating that an entire bloc should be attacked because it is posting commentary in favour of a bloc that contains many of its friends and allies. I am not entirely sure why you were constantly at odds with Pacifica in the past. It sounds like you'd fit right in.

[Saber]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='01 February 2010 - 02:26 AM' timestamp='1264987586' post='2148830']
It would actually be pretty cool to have a strength range stand-off like that.
[/quote]
Sadly I don't think it's possible to actually have one. NS losses in 7 days of nuke warfare at high ranges is huge. You can lose 2k infra a day and that kind of losses make certain that you'll fall out of NS range you are in.

[Bob Janova]

[quote name='Denial' date='01 February 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1264988792' post='2148954']
Again, where's your proof? Or are you just throwing out as many baseless accusations as you can in the hopes that one of them will stick?[/quote]
Let me just get this straight. Is your position that no senior members of C&G were coordinating the raider coalition? I mean, it's you that's repeatedly trying to claim that you were uninvolved, which has about the same credibility as TOP claiming to be uninvolved in the TPF war. I'm not going to drop logs of member lists or anything, no. But I just want to see if you'll actually post an outright lie or if you're just going to dance.

[quote]Also, you're again relying on this 'C&G were posting supportive messages of Super Friends!' and 'general posturing' excuse.[/quote]
When you claim to be 'politically uninvolved', those things become relevant – ironic, really, since you brought that new point in in the post where you tried to say that all those political posts from C&G in favour of the raiders were irrelevant.

[quote]You are advocating that an entire bloc should be attacked because it is posting commentary in favour of a bloc that contains many of its friends and allies.[/quote]
No I'm not; learn to read. (Actually I know full well you can read and understand and are just trying to deflect attention from the point I'm making.) I am simply pointing out that claiming that you were totally uninvolved is not accurate. Being involved politically and in the coalition coordination has not historically been seen as justifying a pre-emptive attack, and I would agree with that historical precedent. But let's not try to claim that TOP have done the same as hitting TDO here – you were involved with the other side in various non-military ways.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Delta1212' date='31 January 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1264974566' post='2148372']
Um... I don't think that TOP sitting above C&G with no one in range to attack would be a victory. They'd effectively be able to embargo you from doing tech deals ever again...
[/quote]

At the same time, if that were the case, nobody from CnG could ever grow. The larger CnG nations would have to stop buying both tech and infra to keep their NS from growing large enough for the TOP nations to declare on them and beat them down again.

I don't know how realistic this is, but if TOP could make it happen, I'd certainly count that as a win for TOP.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Baldr' date='01 February 2010 - 09:33 AM' timestamp='1265038382' post='2150520']
At the same time, if that were the case, nobody from CnG could ever grow. The larger CnG nations would have to stop buying both tech and infra to keep their NS from growing large enough for the TOP nations to declare on them and beat them down again.

I don't know how realistic this is, but if TOP could make it happen, I'd certainly count that as a win for TOP.
[/quote]

This is my theory behind creating an alliance of people only in the top 100.

[Noob Cake]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='01 February 2010 - 09:56 AM' timestamp='1265039818' post='2150556']
This is my theory behind creating an alliance of people only in the top 100.
[/quote]

You don't want me, a top 200 nation?

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='Noob Cake' date='01 February 2010 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1265040524' post='2150573']
You don't want me, a top 200 nation?
[/quote]

Well, grow, get in the top 100 (plenty will be moving out after this war) then come join the ranks of the super elite top 100 alliance that declares on anyone trying to move into our sphere of dominance without our approval. Mua hahaha. Elitism at it's best.

[Jerichoholic]

[quote name='Godwin' date='31 January 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1264957755' post='2147790']
Quoted for truth. There is no "winner" in a war like this, except perhaps everyone else who wasn't involved.

I forsee a massive drop in NS/Score for both sides, possibly even to the point where a sanction is lost... Though maybe not, looking at the huge gap.
[/quote]
The winner is those of us who like war and believe that casualties is the only stat that counts.

TOP only needs to lose 20 members to lose their sanction. I'm sure their middle tier and low tier (along with whatever ghosts they have) will be decimated enough to leave TOP. The top TOP guys seem to be in it for the long haul.

The others will be dropped quite a bit as well, I look forward to seeing the tier barriers drop quite a bit in the coming weeks/months.