Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Syzygy

The End. It's coming.

Recommended Posts

[quote name='der_ko' date='28 February 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1267356277' post='2208128']
This is false. TOP still holds massive amounts of tech and with their remaining warchests they'll recover record fast if we grant them white peace. Obviously we will not allow this to happen.
[/quote]

We'll see. It is interesting to see the ranking of individual nations. Before the war i was at roughly op 12-15% with my 64K NS nation, if i was at that NS now I'd be in the top 4%

What we see now is that alliances who were once known for their incredible high average NS down to a "mere" 20-30K average NS so it is safe to assume alliance wars will change during the next 3-6 months.

Those alliances who were forced to surrender with white peace will most likely become the new powerhouses simply because they had 1-3 months extra (depending on how much longer this continues) to rebuild, not to mention to restock their war chests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 12:12 PM' timestamp='1267380977' post='2208543']
It depends. See TOP loev being good at the game, you were not built to be FAN.
[/quote]
Once upon a time I might have agreed with that assessment. If you still believe that, however, you're either tragically ignorant or intentionally obtuse. (OOC) TOP came from an offsite community like FAN, in game events won't break them apart (OOC)

TOP is fully prepared to go full FAN, and arguably better prepared after the lessons of past such wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='bigwoody' date='28 February 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1267382601' post='2208590']
Once upon a time I might have agreed with that assessment. If you still believe that, however, you're either tragically ignorant or intentionally obtuse. (OOC) TOP came from an offsite community like FAN, in game events won't break them apart (OOC)

TOP is fully prepared to go full FAN, and arguably better prepared after the lessons of past such wars.
[/quote]I know their histories. I also know that FAN would be content with fighting exceptionally well, whereas TOP would rather be in a position to fight well should the need arise. This is not the position they would be in rebuying to 1k infra every day. No matter how well prepared they are (and I will readily admit that I am not short of respect for TOP's nationbuilding abilities), you're bound to feel a little redundant after a while. Add to that that they're fighting an enemy that they may dislike, but are not diametrically opposed to (cf: FAN's fight with NPO), there will undoubtedly be some recognition in their ranks that their endeavour has crossed from being valiant to being petulant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='28 February 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1267382972' post='2208598']... you're bound to feel a little redundant after a while. Add to that that they're fighting an enemy that they may dislike, but are not diametrically opposed to (cf: FAN's fight with NPO), there will undoubtedly be some recognition in their ranks that their endeavour has crossed from being valiant to being petulant.[/quote]

While, the point to what degree TOP's membership feels motivated to fight on based on strong dislike, in comparison to FAN's position two years ago, is a interesting point to bring up and think about, it has nothing to do with how TOP is build or not for a prolonged war scenario.

Its a factor of context of the situation, not building up.

Further, one can feel strong loyalty to keep him to fight on, not dislike for the opponent, or some other sentiments. Anyway, regardless, FAN like scenario probably will not happen here. So we will never definitely know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Branimir' date='28 February 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1267379490' post='2208503']
That is a terrible English version of our saying, 100% different in wording from our own, similar only in the basic idea conveyed.

To make up for this falsehood, you are to write an essay "Why Croatian is superior compared to English" on minimum of 4 cards of text delivered to me via p.m. You have a week time to write it up.

Anyway, I found that the amount of will to surrender is *negatively proportional to the amount of one's warchests.
*hopefully that is the correct mathematical term, as I hate mathematics and try to ignore/avoid it as much as I can.
[/quote]
I think it would be "reversely proportional". I don't think it applies fully though. Some people put their honor above their stats and would not like to surrender even if at zero stats. Some would surrender after the first nuke. So it's not really accurate and especially not for TOP who puts so much in its community and collective spirit.

Oh and I could not remember our saying, only variant there is (Tko sije vjetar žanje buru/oluju), is there another better one? I didn't think I translated it that badly :).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Saber' date='28 February 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1267386695' post='2208677']I think it would be "reversely proportional". [/quote]
Mathematics are evil anyway. *

[quote name='Saber' date='28 February 2010 - 08:48 PM' timestamp='1267386695' post='2208677']Oh and I could not remember our saying, only variant there is (Tko sije vjetar žanje buru/oluju), is there another better one? I didn't think I translated it that badly :).[/quote]
Jeez, man. That is one obscure saying for me then.

I still expect that essay :P

Edit:* Its a variable in the equation, not the entire formula. Should have made that clear I suppose. While alliances have their fighting capabilities not drained, their will in general for surrender, or harsh surrenders, is low. But of course, not the only factor here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Branimir' date='28 February 2010 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1267383837' post='2208615']
While, the point to what degree TOP's membership feels motivated to fight on based on strong dislike, in comparison to FAN's position two years ago, is a interesting point to bring up and think about, it has nothing to do with how TOP is build or not for a prolonged war scenario.

Its a factor of context of the situation, not building up.

Further, one can feel strong loyalty to keep him to fight on, not dislike for the opponent, or some other sentiments. Anyway, regardless, FAN like scenario probably will not happen here. So we will never definitely know.
[/quote]When I say "built", I was referring to character rather than the literal "building" of nations. My point is, I don't see it as part of TOP's character to stubbornly fight a war forever. FAN were willing to do anything to hurt NPO; this was a situation of gun nuts vs RPing pinkos in their minds. There's not the same base and absolute opposition to MK's existence in TOP, nor the willingness to sacrifice everything they have in the game just to stubbornly spite some people they don't really like.

I think it would pain TOP to see other people they dislike rule the game, while they waste their dwindling resources fighting an enemy that they don't have an over-riding hate for.

It's "inversely proportional", by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your logic is all backwards. It's C&G that seem to have the 'absolute opposition to TOP's existence'. TOP would peace out a month ago with no issues, they would today and they will at any time when your side thinks they've kicked them for long enough.

Edit: And you underestimate the resilience of most of TOP if you don't think they will fight you for a long time if you keep them at war. They may not have an over-riding hate for C&G, though they will if you keep them down long enough, but they'll keep fighting while you make them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='28 February 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1267405854' post='2209132']
Your logic is all backwards. It's C&G that seem to have the 'absolute opposition to TOP's existence'. TOP would peace out a month ago with no issues, they would today and they will at any time when your side thinks they've kicked them for long enough.
[/quote]
To be frank, they should have considered "peace with no issues" before they made a preemptive strike on CnG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did ... it's been stated by the people who agreed the strategy that they would have not entered if they knew of the peace about to be declared on other fronts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, TOP and co. started this war, so it would be silly for them to demand that C&G quit it. C&G has the right to continue this war with their valid CB (being pre-emptively attacked) until the very last TOP nation is a smoldering ruin. They also can well refuse an unconditional surrender from TOP (that is, no quarter).

EDIT: Obviously though, I hope that this conflict comes to a close immediately, which does not seem likely given the sizes of both sides' warchests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×