Jump to content

The End. It's coming.


Syzygy

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Fernando12' date='11 February 2010 - 09:14 AM' timestamp='1265897641' post='2174697']
Here we go again with the same old arguments...

Some - Yes you should offer white peace to prove that you are better than them and they have nothing to fear.

CnG - But they will come after us again and WE WERE ATTACKED.

TOP/IRON - We only attacked cuz you guys were surely going to attack us and were just waiting for the opportunity.

CnG - Prove that we were going to attack you, your just paranoid.

TOP/IRON - Everyone knows it, then why were a bunch of your nations sitting in peace mode.

CnG - This is war, we were preparing to possibly engage where ever needed.

TOP/IRON - You were just waiting for us and you know it.

CnG - no u

TOP/IRON - no u

CnG - no u

TOP/IRON - NO U, thats right capital letters for more emphasis!

CnG - [b]NO U![/b], Ha bold letters with an exclamatiion point!

TOP/IRON - [b]NO U![/b]

CnG - [b]NO U![/b]

TOP/IRON - [b]NO U![/b]

CnG - [b]NO U![/b]

TOP/IRON - [b]NO U![/b]

CnG - [b]NO U![/b]

TOP/IRON - [b]NO U![/b]

CnG - [b]NO U![/b]

:smug:
[/quote]
sounds about right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 586
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='The AUT' date='14 February 2010 - 12:06 AM' timestamp='1266102392' post='2179860']
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. ;)[/quote]

That's actually a good reason for why TOP should discuss peace terms now. Because if CnG&Friends have to come through the long and costly path of battering the enemy into ZI, the amount of Reps is gona dwarf those of the NPO.

As the TOP's have clearly stated everywhere, and in this same thread, they are willing to take the war to it's latter consequences. A perfectly respectable position, but it involves a price to pay.

Edited by Krashnaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]there is no reliable data indicating TOP's decision making processes regarding pre-emptive attacks to have changed.[/quote]
Talk to any TOPper and see if they think entering a global war by hitting a militarily uninvolved party was a good idea, or if they'd do it again ;)

[quote]in the absence of any native desire within TOP to "make amends"[/quote]
Well it depends what you mean by 'make amends', but I would imagine they'd be happy to guarantee not being a threat except in direct treaty situations in future, which seems to be what you are worried about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If TOP wants to end the war they can take the terms and be done with it. From what I hear they are the ones prolonging this thing. As for attacking in the first place i was there and C&G was still up in the air about what they were going to do. So attacking them based on what they might have done is ridiculous at best. Anyone trying to spin it any other way needs to really look at what they are saying. Had TOP and IRon not done what they did this whole war would be over and we'd all be talking about what may happen next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Yggdrazil' date='15 February 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1266265527' post='2183377']
Might be they remember,"no draconian terms" that evolved into 10 billion. Your allies and supporters redefined draconian and approaching you would be more of the same;or with real leadership you would approach them with a offer which wasn't one of revenge. And if revenge is not you motive why did you accept reps from a front you were not even in from the last war.Revenge by my definition, reserving the right to redefine meaning of words like you did.
[/quote]

What in gods name does that have to do at all with what I posted? I mean really, like...at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='16 February 2010 - 06:35 AM' timestamp='1266266152' post='2183391']
That's actually a good reason for why TOP should discuss peace terms now. Because if CnG&Friends have to come through the long and costly path of battering the enemy into ZI, the amount of Reps is gona dwarf those of the NPO.
[/quote]
How would a ZI'd alliance be able to pay reps that dwarf those paid by the NPO? :unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='15 February 2010 - 10:43 PM' timestamp='1266270206' post='2183491']
Yeaaah, giving someone my tech just doesn't sit well with me.
[/quote]
We can buy it from you instead. How does 3m/150t sound?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest I think a large part of the no surrender attitude in TOP stems from the fact that we know we are hitting back as well as the precedent of terms set forth by these alliances.

If you're going to be hit either way, you might as well hit back and hope it hurts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='15 February 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1266270206' post='2183491']
Yeaaah, giving someone my tech just doesn't sit well with me.
[/quote]
I heard that there were no terms on the table yet in the first place.

[quote]What in gods name does that have to do at all with what I posted? I mean really, like...at all.[/quote]

[quote name='Chron' date='15 February 2010 - 07:29 PM' timestamp='1266262153' post='2183287']
Well, an apology worked well enough the first time, and we all know TOP ain't no Pacifica. You're intelligent enough to realize the difference in circumstances, moreover, you're also intelligent enough to know how boring you'd find unchallenged hegemony.
[/quote]Ooh, ooh! Pick me next! Mine actually has something to do with what you were saying!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='jstep' date='15 February 2010 - 06:50 PM' timestamp='1266277844' post='2183636']
To be honest I think a large part of the no surrender attitude in TOP stems from the fact that we know we are hitting back as well as the precedent of terms set forth by these alliances.

If you're going to be hit either way, you might as well hit back and hope it hurts.
[/quote]

We realize this and respect it. Not many alliances in this world have the stones to do it, and you have shown to many of your naysayers that their estimation of your resolve was quite incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='16 February 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1266280912' post='2183742']
We realize this and respect it. Not many alliances in this world have the stones to do it, and you have shown to many of your naysayers that their estimation of your resolve was quite incorrect.
[/quote]

we don´t have to love each other, and i think i´m right, when i say that paradoxia will never love mk, nor will mk ever love paradoxia, and i´m sure both sides are pleased about it.
but as long as we respect each other now, i´d have to say that the war brought us, at least, one little step "closer" together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' date='16 February 2010 - 02:08 AM' timestamp='1266251895' post='2183056']
Not only do you display blatant ignorance of the matter at hand (Saber had nothing to do with the DoW) but you quite clearly show what behavior made TOP think CnG was a threat. Thanks for contributing.
[/quote]
It's nice to know that my words are so threatening that they can provoke a global war and force an alliance such as TOP into its own demise.

I've still got it :smug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1266276708' post='2183609']
What in gods name does that have to do at all with what I posted? I mean really, like...at all.
[/quote]
It answered this question posed by you.

"My statement was more in the line of asking how I'm going to make people make up for what they did."
Redefining in the MK way,what you would call justice into revenge.

Indeed-reading comprehension.

Edited by Yggdrazil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Yggdrazil' date='15 February 2010 - 11:44 PM' timestamp='1266295447' post='2184498']
It answered this question posed by you.

"My statement was more in the line of asking how I'm going to make people make up for what they did."
Redefining in the MK way,what you would call justice into revenge.

Indeed-reading comprehension.
[/quote]

So you were trying to answer my question of how to make them make up for what they did by going on a diatribe about "draconian terms" and the like? You didn't actually answer my question, so if that was your aim you missed the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]The AUT, on 14 February 2010 - 12:06 AM, said:
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.[/quote]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='15 February 2010 - 02:35 PM' timestamp='1266266152' post='2183391']
That's actually a good reason for why TOP should discuss peace terms now. Because if CnG&Friends have to come through the long and costly path of battering the enemy into ZI, the amount of Reps is gona dwarf those of the NPO.

As the TOP's have clearly stated everywhere, and in this same thread, they are willing to take the war to it's latter consequences. A perfectly respectable position, but it involves a price to pay.
[/quote]

If what Aut says happens to work out and TOP nations do start hammering away at nations that are "lesser" in terms of wonders and whatnot as TOP gets taken down to lower ranges, then why would TOP need to get peace now?

I dont know how this war will turn out, but TOP seems to be in good position to reach a stalemate with CnG. They can hammer away and knock down CnG nations then rebuild and possibly get out of range of being attacked or at least be larger to where they would just hammer nations again that grow and get back in their range.

What ever happens, destruction is what both sides in this front are guaranteeing themselves. I see TOP getting white peace do to a stalemate. IRON and the others will prolly have to fight their butts off to get white peace from CnG, but will more than likely have to pay harsh terms/reps.

Edited by Fernando12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='15 February 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1266297380' post='2184723']
So you were trying to answer my question of how to make them make up for what they did by going on a diatribe about "draconian terms" and the like? You didn't actually answer my question, so if that was your aim you missed the target.
[/quote]
Approach them without draconian terms or revenge in mind,if that misses a target you define, so be it.

Edited by Yggdrazil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Fernando12' date='16 February 2010 - 06:36 AM' timestamp='1266298570' post='2184823']
If what Aut says happens to work out and TOP nations do start hammering away at nations that are "lesser" in terms of wonders and whatnot as TOP gets taken down to lower ranges, then why would TOP need to get peace now?

I dont know how this war will turn out, but TOP seems to be in good position to reach a stalemate with CnG. They can hammer away and knock down CnG nations then rebuild and possibly get out of range of being attacked or at least be larger to where they would just hammer nations again that grow and get back in their range.

What ever happens, destruction is what both sides in this front are guaranteeing themselves. I see TOP getting white peace do to a stalemate. IRON and the others will prolly have to fight their butts off to get white peace from CnG, but will more than likely have to pay harsh terms/reps.
[/quote]

The scenario you present, involves TOP's nations being wiped out of the top tier, and being forced into the mid-to-low tier.

Actually, no matter how much damage you manage to deal in the low range, being forced to stay in the lower ranges because you'll get stomped down as soon as you grow enough NS, means losing, not reaching a stalemate. And losing badly.

It's common sense. Like it's common sense that a side that enjoys 2 to 1 advantage in NS, number of nations, and more than 2 to 1 in nukes, has the upper hand in a long-term conflict.

EDIT: BTW, at the beggining of the war, I read some TOP propaganda bragging about their large number of nations in the top tier, and the prediction that they would control the fight at the higher range. Now, I'm beggining to read TOP propaganda bragging about controlling the lower ranges because their top nations have been forced down there.

I don't know how this sounds to you, but for me it sounds like a loser's argument. Much like the "We are preeventively attacking you all, evil CnG" argument evolving into "your refusal to White Peace us all is a proof we were right".

Edited by Krashnaia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='16 February 2010 - 10:16 AM' timestamp='1266311764' post='2185312']
The scenario you present, involves TOP's nations being wiped out of the top tier, and being forced into the mid-to-low tier.

Actually, no matter how much damage you manage to deal in the low range, being forced to stay in the lower ranges because you'll get stomped down as soon as you grow enough NS, means losing, not reaching a stalemate. And losing badly.

It's common sense. Like it's common sense that a side that enjoys 2 to 1 advantage in NS, number of nations, and more than 2 to 1 in nukes, has the upper hand in a long-term conflict.

EDIT: BTW, at the beggining of the war, I read some TOP propaganda bragging about their large number of nations in the top tier, and the prediction that they would control the fight at the higher range. Now, I'm beggining to read TOP propaganda bragging about controlling the lower ranges because their top nations have been forced down there.

I don't know how this sounds to you, but for me it sounds like a loser's argument. Much like the "We are preeventively attacking you all, evil CnG" argument evolving into "your refusal to White Peace us all is a proof we were right".
[/quote]

Alright, can you point out where this overwhelming advantage in the upper tier is?
Im serious. When Syz joined we had trouble finding targets for him, so please do point out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read OP, skimmed through some pages, got bored of the poo-flinging going around.

Anyway to syz - let me get this straight, you want TOP to go pre-emptive on us, throw ~10K tech nukes on us for about a week and then you want us to let them go away once they start whining since they realize our numbers are keeping more staggered and it's really starting to have a say in it?

LOL

Someone who takes aggressive action against my alliance and starts hitting us hard better be prepared for the consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='uaciaut' date='16 February 2010 - 12:20 PM' timestamp='1266319205' post='2185395']
Read OP, skimmed through some pages, got bored of the poo-flinging going around.

Anyway to syz - let me get this straight, you want TOP to go pre-emptive on us, throw ~10K tech nukes on us for about a week and then you want us to let them go away once they start whining since they realize our numbers are keeping more staggered and it's really starting to have a say in it?

LOL

Someone who takes aggressive action against my alliance and starts hitting us hard better be prepared for the consequences.
[/quote]

This is getting tiring. TOP is not "whining" about getting a beating. We're doing our best to dish out just as much damage as we receive and 99% of the alliance are having great fun.

Edited by HellAngel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' date='16 February 2010 - 01:46 PM' timestamp='1266320795' post='2185419']
This is getting tiring. TOP is not "whining" about getting a beating. We're doing our best to dish out just as much damage as we receive and 99% of the alliance are having great fun.
[/quote]

Apologies for phrasing, reasons why white peace shouldn't be an option still stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never believed there would be white peace, so yeah i agree on that point. TOP is gonna fight it out till the end... whatever that means.

The point is, no matter what we do or say, you will never be sure about us never being a threat again if you dont completely remove all of our stats, which we will not accept. So i actually dont see it going anywhere for some time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='HellAngel' date='16 February 2010 - 12:02 PM' timestamp='1266318156' post='2185380']
Alright, can you point out where this overwhelming advantage in the upper tier is?
Im serious. When Syz joined we had trouble finding targets for him, so please do point out.
[/quote]


Ask that to the people arging that as the TOP heavies get beaten down, TOP will dominate the lower tier and force a stalemate. I'm actually the one pointing that this logic is flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...