The End. It's coming.

[eyriq]

I wonder if the community really has the will to watch a TOP or IRON slowly whittled down to irrelevancy. TOP's community in particular doesn't really strike me as the thuggish or shady type deserving of such a corrective action. You combine the communities possible lack of stomach for such a prolonged beat-down with the total cost of said beat-down to those doing it and I just don't know that a prolonged war is all that feasible or reasonable. Then again declaring white peace would be a pretty big slap in the face for C&G even with talk of this being a preemptive strike in a coalition war and what not.

[WorkingClassRuler]

Good luck Syz

[pasquali]

Syz, that was extremely well put, and sums up my own feelings as well.

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='TonytheTiger' date='12 February 2010 - 07:20 AM' timestamp='1265959249' post='2177237']
It's gonna be a sad day in CnG when they finally realize the only packets of 3 mil we will be sending out will be to our allies in this war. We won't be extorted or disarm. TOP has been prepared to fight a long, drawn out war against superior numbers for a long time now. The longer it goes on, the more damage we dish out in disproportionate levels to our opponents. Keeping TOP at war longer and then trying to extort us with terms later on will only prove to harden our resolve and make a real enemy out of us when really our attacks were a mistake. Most of TOP has no ill will for CnG, and honestly the last gov't just messed up. It's too bad that we find ourselves fighting for WP, but the decision to either fight on or submit to months of crippling extortion like NPO is a no brainer. Our backs are to the wall and we will fight like hell.
[/quote]
Oh sure, TOP is game. They'll fight. They'll also get crushed in the end. Here's how. TOP nations are built like fortresses for sure. No one is denying that. What is going to end up happening, though, is that as other alliances on TOP's side are knocked out of the war the host arrayed against you will start to rotate on and off TOP targets. While TOP nations constantly take damage, those attacking them will take just 7 days of damage and then a fresh nation will jump into their place to continue the grinding.

No alliance deserves it more. Some people around here have very, very long memories. If I may humbly make a suggestion to those fighting TOP in this war: look up my \m/ surrender terms and enact them. TOP has been a behind-the-scenes cancer since 2007. They were major architects of the Continuum Hegemony. They fabricated a nebulous threat coming from Polar just to settle a grudge they had against me personally, even though I had been overthrown and was no longer even in that alliance. Anyone griping about dirty pool on Polar's part ought to learn their history. Not that Polar actually put together some grand conspiracy like some of the nutters here claim, because they sure didn't. Let's use common sense though. Does anyone think for a minute that Polar is going to sit by and watch an alliance it utterly, totally hates (TOP) attack an alliance it still held a treaty with? If so, what sort of drugs are you smoking and can I have some?

This makes me feel like dancing.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='13 February 2010 - 11:33 AM' timestamp='1266075216' post='2179253']Let's use common sense though. Does anyone think for a minute that Polar is going to sit by and watch an alliance it utterly, totally hates (TOP) attack an alliance it still held a treaty with? If so, what sort of drugs are you smoking and can I have some?
[/quote]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='06 February 2010 - 04:11 AM' timestamp='1265443870' post='2164013']
Of all the "larger powers" out there, I like TOP the most, but I have to ask "what were you thinking?" What made you think that someone would turn against their treaty partner? Don't you realize that as soon as you approached NpO with that suggestion that they would immediately inform CnG? How do you think CnG got their counter attacking alliances in place so quickly?

I mean, I'm sympathizing with your plight on this, but, why take the word of someone who has a vested interest in baiting you?
[/quote]

I think that people have an inherent tendancy to grant the leaders of large alliances with more ability than they actually posses. By that same mechanism, I think that alliance leaders, especially the larger ones, are so convinced of the legitimacy of their own actions, that they think others will be equally persuaded.

Not to criticize these leaders too much, because some are quite talented, but nevertheless the are only human, and often caught in their own spell of infallibility.

Nor do I think that many leaders have the ability to think much farther than a few moves ahead. And such they blunder into things and then the peanut gallery writes up all sorts of interesting conspiracies regarding the circumstances.

When Athens attacked TPF, they were obviously convinced of their own case, and I'm sure they realized that it would cause some reactions. But, persuaded by their own arguments and thinking others would agree and step aside, I don't think they realized that an entire coalition would rise up. When they saw it was obvious that the counter attack would overrun them, they quickly sued for peace.

Likewise, when \m/ and crew raided their victim, I think Grub saw it as nothing more than an opportunity to kick the crap out of some people he didn't like. When events spiraled out of control, he reacted to each event accordingly, which gave the appearance of an erratic foreign policy, but to me, every move he did made sense according to NpO's obligations. It was just the end result didn't look normal to most people.

TOP, convinced of their own righteousness, and so believing that others (Grub) would be equally persuaded, went on the offensive to bust the heads of a group of people they saw as a threat. And who probably are.

So there we have it. The comedy of errors continues. No group is more evil than the other because they are all hamstrung by their own inability to view things objectively. Now everyone is going to bloody each other until some one decides they've had enough.

Personally, I think modest reps and an apology are in order with a commitment from both sides to work on building a bridge of trust.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='13 February 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1266081583' post='2179367']Personally, I think modest reps and an apology are in order with [b]a commitment from both sides to work on building a bridge of trust[/b].[/quote]What the hell is the fun in that? After all this chaos? We're going to sit down to tea? Hate makes the world go 'round.

[Elric]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='13 February 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1266089876' post='2179550']
What the hell is the fun in that? After all this chaos? We're going to sit down to tea? Hate makes the world go 'round.
[/quote]
Well, we could all sit around for a few shots of Jeremiah Weed. Even if it has nothing to do with diplomacy.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='13 February 2010 - 01:19 PM' timestamp='1266081583' post='2179367']
Personally, I think modest reps and an apology are in order with [i]all of us sitting around for a few shots of Jeremiah Weed[/i] and a [s]commitment from both sides to work on building a bridge of trust[/s] mass Ajax eating contest followed by a vicious knife fight between the survivors.
[/quote]


Fixed.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='BigKat' date='13 February 2010 - 07:41 PM' timestamp='1266090107' post='2179558']
Well, we could all sit around for a few shots of Jeremiah Weed. Even if it has nothing to do with diplomacy.
[/quote]


[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='13 February 2010 - 07:52 PM' timestamp='1266090760' post='2179571']
Fixed.
[/quote]

Both things I can definitely get behind.

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='13 February 2010 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1266089876' post='2179550']
What the hell is the fun in that? After all this chaos? We're going to sit down to tea? Hate makes the world go 'round.
[/quote]
C&G - TOP Tea Party 2010?

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Does anyone think for a minute that Polar is going to sit by and watch an alliance it utterly, totally hates (TOP) attack an alliance it still held a treaty with?[/quote]
The people who Grub gave his word to that they wouldn't counter-attack TOP would believe that

[iamwalrus]

[quote name='(DAC)Syzygy' date='11 February 2010 - 08:06 AM' timestamp='1265897205' post='2174686']
@Arthur: If you want to gain friends, you have to invest trust. Even if someone did you wrong. But the fewest have the greatness to do so, while they see themselves on the "stronger side".


Hah, no illusions, your leaders don't want that. They want to see TOP defeated over everything else. And they are willing to sacrifice a lot for that "victory". I don't really care for their reasons, but the point stands: [b]the 'defenders' are only defending as long as they are willing to end the fight if possible.[/b] If they are not, they are no 'defenders' any more, but seekers of retribution. They will just come with the standard argument "we are only makeing sure no threat is coming in the future blablablabla and so on." to make their beatdown look reasonable.

I have no problem with people wanting to see TOP dead. But at least they shouldn't lie about it and play the "oh see the big guy did me wrong, all help me poor victim and beat the crap out of him!" !@#$%^&*.
[/quote]


Your logic does not necessarily make sense here. If someone comes to do a bombing run on your nation and you destroy all of their bombers (over your nation) and so the mission fails, and then they say "lets make peace now". You don't forget that they did a bombing run in the first place and just make peace with them. You must make sure that whoever is in power to decide the bombing run takes place, leaves power or be sure that they are incapable of making another bombing run.

TOP and Iron have made a move that threatens the existence of every alliance in the game. They declared war based on the fact that they disliked some alliances and (thought) that they were going to be attacked. They have the same leadership, with the same thinking that they had when they started the campaign and they have close to the same capability of making that decision again in the future. One of those two things need to be changed. If it isn't the mentality, it must be the infrastructure.

Edited February 13, 2010 by iamwalrus

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='iamwalrus' date='13 February 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1266093909' post='2179654']

TOP and Iron [b]have made a move that threatens the existence of every alliance in the game.[/b] They declared war based on the fact that they disliked some alliances and (thought) that they were going to be attacked. They have the same leadership, with the same thinking that they had when they started the campaign and they have close to the same capability of making that decision again in the future.
[/quote]

By that logic so are Athens (in the case of KoN!), NpO, \m/, GOONS, PC, and NEW, threats to any alliance for even less incriminating reasons, judging by the last 3 months. There's probably others.

*edit: Also, this beer says it's not a good time to spark a debate, I just wanted to point out the above paragraph.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='13 February 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1266093718' post='2179648']
The people who Grub gave his word to that they wouldn't counter-attack TOP would believe that
[/quote]
Those people deserve what they get. An Emperor doesn't have to tell the truth to his enemy. In fact a good Emperor practices deception on his enemies at all turns, always keeping in mind the axiom about keeping friends close and enemies closer.

TOP should have damn well knew where they stood with Polar before they went charging off to attack one of Polar's treaty partners. I do know that beforehand TOP's leaders were giving virtual back massages to the Polar leadership in order to curry favor. They wanted Polaris on board with them. Funny how Polaris didn't forget the past, isn't it? All the double dealing on TOP's part. Passing information to Polar's enemies, engineering Polar's second-greatest disaster on spurious out of context information, raping Polar for tech, etc etc etc. The double dealing began while Polaris had a hand of friendship extended to TOP and no thought whatsoever of any antagonism. The hostile relations can be laid squarely at the feet of the leaders who dealt with Polar during that period of time, namely Crymson and Saber. If they'd only have acted in a straightforward manner instead of trying to play both sides, a lot of things that have happened since then could have been avoided.

It's a credit to TOP's leaders that they've managed to stay out of the gun sights this long. It's stupefying to me that they thought Polar was their friend, though. How naive can you get? How many times do I have to tell you people that some of us have very long memories and never forget a slight?

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='13 February 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1266093718' post='2179648']
The people who Grub gave his word to that they wouldn't counter-attack TOP would believe that
[/quote]

Here is where you break with your usual consistent basis. If TOP leaders used one iota of common sense, they would see the folly in taking someone giving their word...to break their word....in good faith. If someone asks you if you are seeking war with them, and you are, you dont tell them you are.

[Bob Janova]

I've never said TOP acted with much sense in that matter

[quote]They have the same leadership, with the same thinking that they had when they started the campaign and they have close to the same capability of making that decision again in the future.[/quote]
I don't really want to get into the 'threatens every alliance in the game', though I would say that attacking alliances that are extremely likely to oppose you in a coalition war is less dangerous than attacking alliances that have done nothing to you and are not going to oppose you imminently, as a C&G member and a SF ally have done recently. But what I have quoted shows either your ignorance or wish to push a point, because TOP [i]have[/i] changed their leadership – they had an election, and the man who is arguably the architect of the decision (Crymson) was not re-elected. TOP have clearly seen that it's a bad decision so I disagree that they would be likely to do it again.

[The AUT]

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='12 February 2010 - 11:26 AM' timestamp='1265973962' post='2177413']
CnG aren't the only ones in this conflict. As soon as more fronts open up because of surrendering, their losses will decrease quite a bit, while TOP's losses will still be more of the same. TOP can't win this.
[/quote]

You fail to take into account as TOP's upper tier gets beaten down, MK and ODN's mid-level nations will be absolutely leveled. It happens every war but not on the level we may potentially see with all of TOP's wonders. So you could say the more CnG wins, the more they're likely to lose.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='14 February 2010 - 05:37 AM' timestamp='1266089876' post='2179550']
Hate makes the world go 'round.
[/quote]
That's one thing I agree with you and the Sith on.

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='14 February 2010 - 06:58 AM' timestamp='1266094720' post='2179677']
It's stupefying to me that they thought Polar was their friend, though. How naive can you get? How many times do I have to tell you people that some of us have very long memories and never forget a slight?
[/quote]
And that's another. Boggles the mind, to be honest.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='13 February 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1266099653' post='2179802']
I've never said TOP acted with much sense in that matter


I don't really want to get into the 'threatens every alliance in the game', though I would say that attacking alliances that are extremely likely to oppose you in a coalition war is less dangerous than attacking alliances that have done nothing to you and are not going to oppose you imminently, as a C&G member and a SF ally have done recently. But what I have quoted shows either your ignorance or wish to push a point, because TOP [i]have[/i] changed their leadership – they had an election, and the man who is arguably the architect of the decision (Crymson) was not re-elected. TOP have clearly seen that it's a bad decision so I disagree that they would be likely to do it again.
[/quote]
It's possible that Cymson didn't run. Though I suppose you would know about that, not me.

[Bob Janova]

It doesn't matter, either way he didn't get re-elected and either way TOP have changed their GM, so the point I quoted was factually inaccurate.

[TehChron]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='13 February 2010 - 08:58 PM' timestamp='1266094720' post='2179677']
Those people deserve what they get. An Emperor doesn't have to tell the truth to his enemy. In fact a good Emperor practices deception on his enemies at all turns, always keeping in mind the axiom about keeping friends close and enemies closer.

TOP should have damn well knew where they stood with Polar before they went charging off to attack one of Polar's treaty partners. I do know that beforehand TOP's leaders were giving virtual back massages to the Polar leadership in order to curry favor. They wanted Polaris on board with them. Funny how Polaris didn't forget the past, isn't it? All the double dealing on TOP's part. Passing information to Polar's enemies, engineering Polar's second-greatest disaster on spurious out of context information, raping Polar for tech, etc etc etc. The double dealing began while Polaris had a hand of friendship extended to TOP and no thought whatsoever of any antagonism. The hostile relations can be laid squarely at the feet of the leaders who dealt with Polar during that period of time, namely Crymson and Saber. If they'd only have acted in a straightforward manner instead of trying to play both sides, a lot of things that have happened since then could have been avoided.

It's a credit to TOP's leaders that they've managed to stay out of the gun sights this long. It's stupefying to me that they thought Polar was their friend, though. How naive can you get? How many times do I have to tell you people that some of us have very long memories and never forget a slight?
[/quote]
See? This is why I hate being on the same side as Janova.

[quote]In fact a good Emperor practices deception on his enemies at all turns, always keeping in mind the axiom about keeping friends close and enemies closer.
[/quote]Heh, I'll admit this made me chuckle.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='13 February 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1266081583' post='2179367']
I think that people have an inherent tendancy to grant the leaders of large alliances with more ability than they actually posses. By that same mechanism, I think that alliance leaders, especially the larger ones, are so convinced of the legitimacy of their own actions, that they think others will be equally persuaded.

Not to criticize these leaders too much, because some are quite talented, but nevertheless the are only human, and often caught in their own spell of infallibility.

Nor do I think that many leaders have the ability to think much farther than a few moves ahead. And such they blunder into things and then the peanut gallery writes up all sorts of interesting conspiracies regarding the circumstances.

When Athens attacked TPF, they were obviously convinced of their own case, and I'm sure they realized that it would cause some reactions. But, persuaded by their own arguments and thinking others would agree and step aside, I don't think they realized that an entire coalition would rise up. When they saw it was obvious that the counter attack would overrun them, they quickly sued for peace.

Likewise, when \m/ and crew raided their victim, I think Grub saw it as nothing more than an opportunity to kick the crap out of some people he didn't like. When events spiraled out of control, he reacted to each event accordingly, which gave the appearance of an erratic foreign policy, but to me, every move he did made sense according to NpO's obligations. It was just the end result didn't look normal to most people.

TOP, convinced of their own righteousness, and so believing that others (Grub) would be equally persuaded, went on the offensive to bust the heads of a group of people they saw as a threat. And who probably are.

So there we have it. The comedy of errors continues. No group is more evil than the other because they are all hamstrung by their own inability to view things objectively. Now everyone is going to bloody each other until some one decides they've had enough.

Personally, I think modest reps and an apology are in order with a commitment from both sides to work on building a bridge of trust.
[/quote]

i agree with most of this though the reps bit i feel should be left up to CnG. frankly, most alliance leaders are quite egotistical though most also realize that their allies are valuable if not as friends then as meatshields at the very least. talented or not, every leader has made mistakes. some in a more major way than others but all have made mistakes in their tenure.

as for no group being more evil than the other, frankly no group is evil by any standard. war is war. the only way to gauge CN level of "evil" really is the surrender terms that will be leveled in the end. if TOP and their side does win, anything really above white peace would be quite stupid considering they were the aggressors (TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN). for CnG's side, only the 4 aggressor alliances (TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN) should have actual terms. what they will be will determine how "evil" CnG is.

[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='13 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266094196' post='2179662']
By that logic so are Athens (in the case of KoN!), NpO, \m/, GOONS, PC, and NEW, threats to any alliance for even less incriminating reasons, judging by the last 3 months. There's probably others.

*edit: Also, this beer says it's not a good time to spark a debate, I just wanted to point out the above paragraph.
[/quote]

Athens hit an alliance for no reason (though don't forget to include FoB in this) except they had no treaties. while what TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN did was quite stupid, they at least had some sort of actual CB. GOONS, PC, and \m/ once again hit an alliance for no reason except they did not have a treaty. NEW hit ZDP for the same reason but iirc ZDP began with 8 members which in many alliances cases does not constitute ZDP as an alliance. (this gets into the whole debate of what constitutes an alliance and what does not which i truly do not want to get into.)

NpO hit \m/ for attacking FoA as well as insulting Grub. so again there is an actual CB there.

so what TOP/IRON/TORN/DAWN and NpO did are not on the same level as what the others you pointed out did. the others do constitute a threat to many alliances in CN as either they are without treaties or if allowed, the precedent they would set could very well continue to grow until alliances with treaties (low level or only a few allies who have no real allies themselves) become targets.

[Xiphosis]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='13 February 2010 - 03:16 PM' timestamp='1266102995' post='2179872']
That's one thing I agree with you and the Sith on.
[/quote]

I agree. We should start one of those retarded CN religions around it.

[Denial]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='14 February 2010 - 07:50 AM' timestamp='1266099653' post='2179802']
I don't really want to get into the 'threatens every alliance in the game', though I would say that attacking alliances that are extremely likely to oppose you in a coalition war is less dangerous than attacking alliances that have done nothing to you and are not going to oppose you imminently, as a C&G member and a SF ally have done recently. But what I have quoted shows either your ignorance or wish to push a point, because TOP [i]have[/i] changed their leadership – they had an election, and the man who is arguably the architect of the decision (Crymson) was not re-elected. TOP have clearly seen that it's a bad decision so I disagree that they would be likely to do it again.
[/quote]
You know as well as anyone that TOP leadership changes as regularly as IRON loses a full point of score during a war. The same people cycle in, cycle out. This is not a reflection of some great epiphany that the TOP membership has had, nor a "we've seen the light!" moment and subsequent recognition of their mistakes. Rather, this is simply another occasion where Crymson has stepped down, his hilariously incompetent partner in crime - Saber - remains present, and he will be re-elected down the line if he chooses to run once again. Complaints & Grievances, and the Cyberverse as a whole, will not be duped by TOP's misguided use of democracy into erroneously thinking that they are no longer the belligerent, deceitful, and downright conniving miscreants that they are.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='13 February 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1266075216' post='2179253']Does anyone think for a minute that Polar is going to sit by and watch an alliance it utterly, totally hates (TOP) attack an alliance it still held a treaty with? [/quote]
They did for a while.

I dont know if Grub informed MK, per the intelligence sharing clause with MK, that TOP is going to attack them and that he has agreed to that form of military support.

But, it really is unseen how one alliance sanctions attacks from other alliances on its treaty partners as a form of military support to its current war effort, and then attacks them for that agreed upon support in defense of the allies they let be attacked in the first place.

Somewhere there, in that black hole of common sense, treaties were broken. Badly, citing them now seems funny,

That is just retarded, honestly, no realpolitiking can make it look better. The entire thing is just

Do I mention how one cant effectively deploy on both sides of ad hoc coalition wars and not be a laughing matter,...
But hey it makes for geat times so no complaints from the sidelines

Edited February 15, 2010 by Branimir