The emergence of "Do not surrender syndrome"

[Overlord Shinnra]

We are now almost two weeks into the most destructive war known to Bob and we have had a grand total of 1 - 3 surrenders out of a possible almost 100 alliances. This after another war had just transpired or continued into this one. We have several alliances that have lost NS to the clip of 50% of their total starting NS and continue to freefall with more not far behind. We used to see alliances surrender once they got uncomfortable but I have talked to several whom I consider decent opinions on the matter and all agree that this war doesn't even look close to over.

The questions then become;

How does this war end?
When does this war end?
Why does everyone feel the need to push their pixels to the limit all of a sudden?


Discuss.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

It ends when everyone agrees to white peace. I'd say people aren't willing to surrender because everyone is really bored and there's not much new to accomplish.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Vladimir Stukov II

[Moridin]

Because warchests are, on average, much larger than they have been in previous wars, in order to do serious and lasting damage to an alliance one needs to draw the war out longer than before. One week was all that was needed in the Unjust War, two weeks for the War of the Coalition (excluding Polar), then closer to a month for many alliances in Karma (and the last alliances to surrender taking far longer). Unless something very unexpected happens, I'd expect the TOP/C&G front, for example, to last at very least a month, probably significantly longer. Each side there has warchests built to last over a month of war, and their opponents know it.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Overlord Shinnra' date='09 February 2010 - 09:53 PM' timestamp='1265774001' post='2171782']
How does this war end?
When does this war end?[/quote]
It ends with a reasonable peace that doesn't leave anyone out to dry.

As for the when, I don't see it coming soon.

[quote]Why does everyone feel the need to push their pixels to the limit all of a sudden?
[/quote]
Friends > Infra

Oldie but fits.

Edited February 10, 2010 by bigwoody

[Corinan]

I don't know, but it's pretty awesome.

[ChairmanHal]

THis war didn't start all at once, and it will not finish that way either. Sometime in early March it will occur to people that all the wars have finished and the debate over what it all meant can begin.

[Dochartaigh]

well at least for the TOP/CnG front, considering both sides see each other as a threat (TOP/IRON from their DoWs, CnG from posts on the boards afterwords) it will end when one side is clearly no longer a threat to the other. as others have said, given the large WCs that are now had by most of the upper NS nations, this could be a while coming.

[Prime minister Johns]

the reason I am not surrendering is quite simple.
I like where I am at the moment and I won't surrender.

[Gopherbashi]

Because we probably won't have another war until 2011.

[Delta1212]

This is what the Karma War would have been like of the Hegemony hadn't botched the opening so spectacularly and ended it before it started. Granted, this one started with compounded screw ups flying left and right, but it was anything flight inducing this time.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Delta1212

[Qaianna]

What's the general reaction to alliance surrenders? Especially from one's own allies? That may play a role.

[Hayzell]

Because, whether people like to admit it or not, two general sides have formed in the Cyberverse and they each now struggle against one another. Most are in it to help their allies on one side, some do it in hopes of creating a safer future for their alliance and their allies, but ultimately it's just a matter of too much being at stake.

This war has been in the making since at least November. Plus or minus a few key alliances, the treaty web has predicably split along the lines we are looking at now, all that was needed was a trigger.

[cctmsp13]

This war is a more balanced strength wise than any war since maybe GW3. If the way the war will end is obvious, people have an incentive to get out early. With the sides more balanced, no one wants to leave early while there's still a chance of victory for them.

[Darth Blitzer]

[quote name='Moridin' date='09 February 2010 - 10:59 PM' timestamp='1265774398' post='2171796']
Because warchests are, on average, much larger than they have been in previous wars, in order to do serious and lasting damage to an alliance one needs to draw the war out longer than before. One week was all that was needed in the Unjust War, two weeks for the War of the Coalition (excluding Polar), then closer to a month for many alliances in Karma (and the last alliances to surrender taking far longer). Unless something very unexpected happens, I'd expect the TOP/C&G front, for example, to last at very least a month, probably significantly longer. Each side there has warchests built to last over a month of war, and their opponents know it.
[/quote]

Indeed, larger warchests allow you to continue fighting for weeks even if you're getting knocked around pretty bad, so there really isn't a reason to surrender even if you're obviously losing

[Letum]

[quote name='cctmsp13' date='10 February 2010 - 11:23 AM' timestamp='1265801038' post='2172435']
This war is a more balanced strength wise than any war since maybe GW3. If the way the war will end is obvious, people have an incentive to get out early. With the sides more balanced, no one wants to leave early while there's still a chance of victory for them.
[/quote]

Actually, that is more of a quadratic than a linear relationship. If the sides are too equal, then a white-ish or very light peace will be negotiated (As in GWI, GWII and WWE), as neither side can press the advantage without a very costly attrition, and both sides seek to regroup instead. If the sides are somewhat equal, but one side has a definite advantage, you have mutual interests to keep fighting - one side because they smell decisive victory, the other because they believe in their chances to inflict enough damage to affect the peace they get.

[jerdge]

[quote name='Overlord Shinnra' date='10 February 2010' post='2171782']We are now almost two weeks into the most destructive war known to Bob and we have had a grand total of 1 - 3 surrenders out of a possible almost 100 alliances. This after another war had just transpired or continued into this one. We have several alliances that have lost NS to the clip of 50% of their total starting NS and continue to freefall with more not far behind. We used to see alliances surrender once they got uncomfortable but I have talked to several whom I consider decent opinions on the matter and all agree that this war doesn't even look close to over.

The questions then become;

How does this war end?
When does this war end?
Why does everyone feel the need to push their pixels to the limit all of a sudden?


Discuss.[/quote]
Your assumption has yet to be proved, I'm not really convinced that we're not going to see a domino of surrenders in the next couple of weeks.


About your questions, ITT this war will end with a lot of separate peace agreements and without having provided a clear picture of what the "sides" exactly were.

Most of the fronts (50%-80%) will be at peace within the first two weeks of [s]February[/s] [b]March[/b].

About the reason for refusing to surrender "early", it's because of what others said: big warchests.
According to my knowledge, anyway, save some alliances that had a high average NS from the beginning, most of the others have their top layers that are equipped to fight for a few weeks, not for months (i.e. warchests the size of hundreds of millions, not over 1 billion). There are individual exceptions to this rule, but not as many as they would be needed to keep all those alliances at full war for over one month.

[size=1][[b]Edit:[/b]doh!months][/size]

Edited February 11, 2010 by jerdge

[Cyber Nationz]

The War can end by friday.
Problem is:

Iron, TOP, TORN and thier lot wants White Peace.
C&G wants surrender from the opposition and "Utter Milking" reparations from Most likely TOP.

These two choices are like the same sides of a magnet..... They will never Stick.
One side has to give in.
I have interviewed both sides and agree with both. But personally I believe nobody should demand reparations cause this is the most brutal war in CN history.

Now Friends need to persuade thier Friends. I know CN follows the culture of "Friends before Infra", however to what limit.
Think about your own members. They are stuck in this clusterF@#k and now if they leave they will be called traitors and hunted down and if they stay they rapidly die.

I say we need to start a movement for White Peace. Everybody should forget the bull-feces and go for white peace.
Friends should tell thier friends to give up on grudges and embrace white peace. Give it and receive it and End this War!

[i]p.s I am tired of sitting in my refrigerator all day and wearing a military issued gas mask.[/i]

[Mechanus]

[quote name='jerdge' date='10 February 2010 - 05:26 AM' timestamp='1265808375' post='2172518']
Most of the fronts (50%-80%) will be at peace within the first two weeks of February.
[/quote]

We're already in the 2nd week of February, so you're saying that we'll see 1/2 - 3/4 of the alliances at war starting getting/offering peace by end of Saturday?

[Drai]

It ends when everybody feels satisfied with the results, or if one side knows they aren't progressing enough to accomplish anything worthwhile and is willing to take reps or terms from the other side. For now, neither of those are close to happening.

I really don't see how many people will be satisfied with white peace in this case. Anybody I've seen pushing for white peace was part of the aggressors' side. Obviously they'll feel that way because ever since the beginning of the war their side has been growing more outnumbered. Meanwhile the Defending side has been gaining influence, and very much feels that they were wrongly attacked. They don't want to run the risk of this happening again so they want to make sure they're not at a disadvantage to the other side. At this point in time that won't happen with white peace, and even in a couple weeks I don't see it being very plausible.

That's what I've observed from "my side's" point of view at least.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Drai

[WcaesarD]

It seems to me that most of the fringe alliances, IE those in through treaty or friendship will most likely go for white peace soon enough, maybe minimal reps as tokens. And that the main centers of the war will continue for longer with different endings, though I could easily be wrong. The war should most likely be mostly over by the end of the month, and over completely by the ides of march.

[Xiao Weng]

It ends when I say it does. As of yet, I am still entertained.

Dance, puppets! Dance!

[Schattenmann]

I think it will end not too long after TOP and IRON realize that you don't get to attack a bloc then say "oops we got duped, sorry" and walk away scot free.
The mods and wiki might say this has all been the same war, but the people calling the shots say it's not and until some people come around to reality the war will keep going because frankly SuperComplaints has all the justification they need and all the NS they need to keep it going for as long as it takes that realization to come.

[Earogema]

Vox had it without warchests.

[Lincongrad]

[quote name='Schattenmann' date='10 February 2010 - 10:54 AM' timestamp='1265828052' post='2172902']
I think it will end not too long after TOP and IRON realize that you don't get to attack a bloc then say "oops we got duped, sorry" and walk away scot free.
The mods and wiki might say this has all been the same war, but the people calling the shots say it's not and until some people come around to reality the war will keep going because frankly SuperComplaints has all the justification they need and all the NS they need to keep it going for as long as it takes that realization to come.
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure they realize that. God knows they've been yelled at for it.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

Not that it matters, or anyone would take it into consideration, but, a war ending without a resolution of the core issues at causing it, is not an ending, its just a time out.

As far as surrenders are concerned, why surrender? I ask that to both alliances and individual nations. Why would you wish to surrender, was the commitment in the defense pacts signed and announced with such fanfare contingent upon a particular level of damage? Was an individual nation's membership and all those tall claims of alliance > my nation, just that, tall claims? A nation may fall to war, it might vanish given enough time in economic depression, it can be refounded, rebuilt and rearmed. Trust lost, cannot usually be regained easily. Neither can tarnished reputations be made to shine. The world and its natives have long memories.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Alfred von Tirpitz