Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Sunstar]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='16 February 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1266350184' post='2186003']
Did you read the post I quoted? If not I suggest you go do that now.

Edit: I might have misread your post and if tht is the case then I apologise. What I meant is that TOP was ready to recieve white peace as soon as they realised that Polar had accepted peace and their DOW was no longer needed. Which would have prevented so much damage to C&G's upper tier.
[/quote]
So that TIFDTT could attack again the next time they saw an advantage? Your comment misses the entire purpose of this thread and Archon's OP.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Sunstar' date='16 February 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1266350729' post='2186011']
So that TIFDTT could attack again the next time they saw an advantage? Your comment misses the entire purpose of this thread and Archon's OP.
[/quote]

Except I wasnt responding to the thread, I was responding to your misinformed post about "why C&G would accept white peace after suffering so much damage". Thanks for changing your stance about why they shouldnt be given white peace though

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='16 February 2010 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1266349747' post='2185993']
Except that you know white peace could have been given before any nukes were launched and any serious damage was done.
[/quote]
So TOP was going to give immediate peace to C&G immediately after they attacked them? This makes no sense. Was it just because they saw the odds were no longer in their favor? You don't go into an aggressive war with a dubious CB and immediately peace out when the odds don't turn to be in your favor. This reminds me of the NPO DOW on Ordo Verde, they were also immediatly seeking peace after they declared and saw all the negative responses.

When we (FOK) went in to help PC we had no real idea who would help us, and we knew we would be a dog, however we were prepared for a long fight when all the alliances DOW'ed us. We knew we could count on Stickmen and LEO and that it might draw SF in but for the rest we were unsure. Especially about the reaction from C&G, we didn't expected C&G backup since we attacked MK's treatypartner, and we knew we forced MK in a hard spot. The day we declared I posted this on the MK boards:

To our allies in the Kingdom : We realize this war puts you in a tough position. We realize most of you weren't happy about this war to begin with and would hate to see it escalate and involve yourselves. Seeing as how FOK is doing what they think is right, you should do what you feel is right. If that means staying out of the war because entering would be practically impossible for you, then that is what you should do. FOK will not hold any grudges against any ally doing so, since we understand the hard position you are in. And when I say FOK will hold no grudges, we will hold no grudges.[/quote]

tl;dr, You can't declare an aggressive war and immediately white peace out when the odds have changed and you are not longer the favorite to win, it doesn't work that way.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Timmehhh

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Timmehhh' date='16 February 2010 - 08:11 PM' timestamp='1266351073' post='2186020']
So TOP was going to give immediate peace to C&G immediately after they attacked them? This makes no sense. Was it just because they saw the odds were no longer in their favor? You don't go into an aggressive war with a dubious CB and immediately peace out when the odds don't turn to be in your favor. This reminds me of the NPO DOW on Ordo Verde, they were also immediatly seeking white peace after they declared and saw all the negative responses.

When we (FOK) went in to help PC we had no real idea who would help us, and we knew we would be a massive dog, however we were prepared for a long fight when all the alliances DOW'ed us. We knew we could count on Stickmen and LEO and that it might draw SF in but for the rest we were unsure. Especially about the reaction from C&G, we didn't expected C&G backup since we attacked MK's treatypartner, and we knew we forced MK in a hard spot. The day we declared I posted this one the MK boards



tl;dr, You can't declare an agressive war and immediately white peace out when the odds have changed and you are not longer the favorite to win, it doesn't work that way.
[/quote]

Wow do you read the posts I am replying to? I was replying to the fact that Sunstar said that the reason TOP shouldnt be given White peace is because they did so much damage. If that was the case then White peace could have been achieved on the first day.and no TOP wasnt going to accept peace because somehow they had lower odds but because the war that they originally entered due to was over.

Also nice revision about NPO seeking peace, we were infact not looking for white peace(maybe you need to read the logs again). Maybe next time you wanna make a point you would seek the facts about said points first, it saves everyone a lot of time.

Edited February 16, 2010 by silentkiller

[Inferno]

hey dude you are NPO right?

get out of my lawn!

you are neutrals and dead.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Inferno' date='16 February 2010 - 08:17 PM' timestamp='1266351469' post='2186035']
hey dude you are NPO right?

get out of my lawn!

you are neutrals and dead.
[/quote]

Well apparently we are not neutral anymore. So I think I'll stay on your lawn

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='16 February 2010 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1266351296' post='2186030']
Wow do you read the posts I am replying to? I was replying to the fact that Sunstar said that the reason TOP shouldnt be given White peace is because they did so much damage. If that was the case then White peace could have been achieved on the first day.

Also nice revision about NPO seeking peace, we were infact not looking for white peace(maybe you need to read the logs again). Maybe next time you wanna make a point you would seek the facts about said points first, it saves everyone a lot of time.
[/quote]
Sorry I was not totally aware of the exact details of the peace, I have adjusted the post. I was however aware that NPO wanted peace immediately after they declared though.As for the arguments for white peace or not, there are several factor that come in to play, not only amount of damage dished out, but also who was the aggressor on what CB and what is the likelihood both alliances will fight each other again in the future. In the end I think however this war might end in some form of white peace though.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Timmehhh

[Goldie]

Tromp is absolutely right. When you irrationally try to throw your weight in and hit a smaller alliance/group of alliances aggressively thinking you have an advantage, and then once you are committed to doing so realize your mistake, it would be a strategic blunder on the part of those who were attacked to accept a white peace right away.

The consequences of accepting white peace right off the bat:
1. The aggressive party's true colors have been shown. They want to attack you so badly and see you burn that they are willing to aggressively attack you. There would be no stopping them doing it again in the future. Unless you warred them to the point that they couldn't do so.
2. Your side has the advantage. To play into the first point, when you have an advantage behind you, after the aggressors have shown their willingness to try to kill you, the advantage needs to be exploited because you might not have it the next time around.
3. You have the weight of public support. Regardless of how the vocal minority sounds off with rhetoric, basic logic supports your pursuits in this war. Someone wants to kill you, and people will support you defending yourself from this aggressor. If this war were to have happened under other circumstances, the public support may not have been there.

When it is strategic and rational to not give white peace, and a potential devastating strategic nightmare if you do give it, then why give it, unless enough war has happened to satisfy the concerns addressed in the three above points happens beforehand.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='Timmehhh' date='16 February 2010 - 08:22 PM' timestamp='1266351768' post='2186045']
Sorry I was not totally aware of the exact details of the peace, I have adjusted the post. I was however aware that NPO wanted peace immediately after they declared though.As for the arguments for white peace or not, there are several factor that come in to play, not only amount of damage dished out, but also who was the aggressor on what CB and what is the likelihood both alliances they will fight each other again in the future. In the end I think however this war might end in some form of white peace though.
[/quote]

Again I am not arguing the content of the op, rather than Sunstar's post. Is that really hard to understand. Overall yes white peace is pretty stupid at this point which is why you won't see me arguing for it.

and just so we are clear which post I am talking about.

[quote]TIFDTT attacked C&G in order to deal massive damage to C&G. It cannot be denied that (particularly in the upper NS ranges) they have done so thus far. Why would it make any sense for C&G to accept white peace now? [/quote]

[anenu]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='16 February 2010 - 03:25 PM' timestamp='1266351947' post='2186048']
Again I am not arguing the content of the op, rather than Sunstar's post. Is that really hard to understand. Overall yes white peace is pretty stupid at this point which is why you won't see me arguing for it.

and just so we are clear which post I am talking about.
[/quote]

So different people can't have different opinions that lead to the same conclusion in your alliance?

Plus even arguing off Sunstar's post your comments make no sense. TOP attacked CnG for no reason other then they wanted us dead. To simply agree to peace right then to avoid damage would have been stupid as all it means is that we will have to wait for the conflict to come up again and it might do so in such a way that we would be destroyed. And now after hurting TOP and company their is no reason still to give white peace as.

A) They are the aggressors
and
B) We have suffered damage as well and if we where to just let them go they would simply regrow and attack us later as they have shown no remorse for their pointless attack other being sad over the damage they have taken and i fully believe they would still kill us if they had the chance.

[MCRABT]

From the logs I read of this conversation your portrayal of at least IRON's position is at best trashy tabloid writing. Why don't you just post the logs and let the world draw there own interpretations and conclusions? It certainly wouldn't put me up or down.

[Coven]

Why is it that he tells everyone to shut up and fight, and yet makes an OWF post ranting?

Make CnG burn TOP/IRON.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='anenu' date='16 February 2010 - 08:49 PM' timestamp='1266353389' post='2186095']
So different people can't have different opinions that lead to the same conclusion in your alliance?

Plus even arguing off Sunstar's post your comments make no sense. TOP attacked CnG for no reason other then they wanted us dead. To simply agree to peace right then to avoid damage would have been stupid as all it means is that we will have to wait for the conflict to come up again and it might do so in such a way that we would be destroyed. And now after hurting TOP and company their is no reason still to give white peace as.

A) They are the aggressors
and
B) We have suffered damage as well and if we where to just let them go they would simply regrow and attack us later as they have shown no remorse for their pointless attack other being sad over the damage they have taken and i fully believe they would still kill us if they had the chance.
[/quote]

Hello it seems you have missed my point as well

A) I am contesting Sunstars point that the reason TOP is'nt being given white peace is because they have done so much damage.(as this was not true when TOP was open to white peace when no considerable damage had been done)
B) I never said that you should give them white peace now, nor did I ever state that you should give them white peace at any point in the conflict.

Thank you.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='16 February 2010 - 02:05 PM' timestamp='1266350723' post='2186010']
We also have large nations being dragged down. It's not as if we won't have large tech nations with little infra holding nukes, wrc's, etc in mid and lower ranks. We have more nations, which helps spread out the damage and depletion of warchests amongst our nations, whereas TOP does not have such a luxury. Yes, there are some in TOP that have unbreakable warchests, I and others recognize that. However, we need to, and believe we can get to a point where only a very small number of TOP nations will have the ability to rebuild nearly the instant the war is over.
[/quote]

It's true they may not be able to build back up to the level they were at, but they will be able to rebuild, just like you will. The difference is that they will have done a much higher amount of direct damage to you than you have to them. Anyway, we'll see what happens, it just seems like everyone is burning down the barn to extinguish a few rats. (Apply the terms of that analogy to whichever side you identify with. LOL )


[quote name='Timmehhh' date='16 February 2010 - 02:11 PM' timestamp='1266351073' post='2186020']
So TOP was going to give immediate peace to C&G immediately after they attacked them? This makes no sense. Was it just because they saw the odds were no longer in their favor? [/quote]

No, because the war they entered because of, ended. Within the first 24 hours of NpO accepting \m/'s surrender, no one knew for sure how the sides were going to re-align. If TOP/IRON had been granted peace just like everyone else involved, it would have all be over.

[anenu]

[quote name='silentkiller' date='16 February 2010 - 03:59 PM' timestamp='1266353940' post='2186113']
Hello it seems you have missed my point as well

A) I am contesting Sunstars point that the reason TOP is'nt being given white peace is because they have done so much damage.(as this was not true when TOP was open to white peace when no considerable damage had been done)
B) I never said that you should give them white peace now, nor did I ever state that you should give them white peace at any point in the conflict.

Thank you.
[/quote]

I think it is you who are missing the point. The reason we didn't give TOP white peace in the beginning and the reason we don't give them white peace now are two different if related reasons.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Wait, what? How on earth was C&G going to offer a complete white peace, to the parties that attacked them, 24 hours after the war was declared?[/quote]
It worked on several other fronts. The primary dispute was over, and other fronts were permitted to peace out, no questions asked, despite aggression in many cases.

[quote]However, we need to, and believe we can get to a point where only a very small number of TOP nations will have the ability to rebuild nearly the instant the war is over.[/quote]
This is what is getting you compared to the Hegemony. You are essentially saying that you are going to completely crush TOP (and presumably everyone else in their coalition too). Yes, it's only been 2 cycles so far, but the intention is clear.

[quote]TIFDTT attacked C&G in order to deal massive damage to C&G. It cannot be denied that (particularly in the upper NS ranges) they have done so thus far. Why would it make any sense for C&G to accept white peace now?[/quote]
Because it's white peace now or white peace later, and you're going to take more damage every day the war continues. Certainly, so will TOP, but this is not a world containing only you and TOP. Your strength and influence is reduced by every nuke you eat. In addition, public opinion begins to turn against those who stomp down their opponents indefinitely.

[quote]So, speaking in the same objective, non-emotional terms, why would CnG give TOP, IRON, TORN collective white peace now? ... We essentially lose in a white peace right now.[/quote]
The same applies to this – if you 'lose' now, you will lose much worse if you stay at war, eating 5k+ tech nukes for an extended period of time.

[silentkiller]

Fair enough. I would disagree that they are different things mostly because it was your rejection to give them white peace in the start that caused them to damage you so much, so cant use that as justification to not give them white peace(which btw I dont think you should offer them anyway).

[Baden-Württemberg]

[quote name='goldielax25' date='16 February 2010 - 09:22 PM' timestamp='1266351775' post='2186046']
Tromp is absolutely right. When you irrationally try to throw your weight in and hit a smaller alliance/group of alliances aggressively thinking you have an advantage, and then once you are committed to doing so realize your mistake, it would be a strategic blunder on the part of those who were attacked to accept a white peace right away.

The consequences of accepting white peace right off the bat:
1. The aggressive party's true colors have been shown. They want to attack you so badly and see you burn that they are willing to aggressively attack you. There would be no stopping them doing it again in the future. [/quote]

I think we all saw what happened to NpO after the WoTC. Today, I'd try the opposite.

[Lord GVChamp]

[quote name='anenu' date='16 February 2010 - 02:49 PM' timestamp='1266353389' post='2186095']
TOP attacked CnG for no reason other then they wanted us dead.
[/quote]
Did you read the OP?

Edited February 16, 2010 by Lord GVChamp

[Rafael Nadal]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='16 February 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1266355617' post='2186182']
It worked on several other fronts. The primary dispute was over, and other fronts were permitted to peace out, no questions asked, despite aggression in many cases.


[b]This is what is getting you compared to the Hegemony. You are essentially saying that you are going to completely crush TOP (and presumably everyone else in their coalition too). Yes, it's only been 2 cycles so far, but the intention is clear.[/b]


Because it's white peace now or white peace later, and you're going to take more damage every day the war continues. Certainly, so will TOP, but this is not a world containing only you and TOP. Your strength and influence is reduced by every nuke you eat. In addition, public opinion begins to turn against those who stomp down their opponents indefinitely.


The same applies to this – if you 'lose' now, you will lose much worse if you stay at war, eating 5k+ tech nukes for an extended period of time.
[/quote]
I really don't care to get into this, however, I don't foresee there being crippling reps along with a beatdown. Not to mention, a good percentage of us will also be crushed in this war, whereas the hegemony was infamous for the curbstomps and/or crushing reps and other diplomatic shenanigans.

[Chickenzilla]

[quote name='Airikr' date='16 February 2010 - 02:53 PM' timestamp='1266353603' post='2186104']
Why is it that he tells everyone to shut up and fight, and yet makes an OWF post ranting?

Make CnG burn TOP/IRON.
[/quote]
I personally hope the war lasts for a year.

[Archon]

[quote name='Stetson' date='16 February 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1266346986' post='2185911']
So, you told the people that you were talking with that this discussion was going to determine C&G's stance on the continuation of the war? I highly doubt that anyone opposing you in the future will be naive enough to sit down and have a honest talk without expecting that the conversation will be used for propaganda and therefore I don't believe you have to worry about making that mistake in the future. I'm not saying using whatever advantages you can muster is a bad thing, this appears to be yet another example of TOP/IRON being way to trusting of people they have no reason to trust (Grub).
[/quote]

Used for propaganda? What propaganda? The conversation helped us come to a conclusion. How it is presented, well, as anyone with half a brain has observed, was to be quite expected. I wasn't exactly going to please you folks with our decision anyway, so remind me again why I should care?

[quote name='Baden-Württemberg' date='16 February 2010 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1266347570' post='2185924']
Also, I doubt anyone in TSO asked for peace. I doubt anyone of TSO has ever taking tech from MK.
[/quote]

Considering MCXA extracted heft reparations from MK after the Unjust War, I'm not so sure of that. Then again, I'd have to check to see if any of your specific members did, though you yourself were government at the time you made that decision.

[quote name='Airikr' date='16 February 2010 - 03:53 PM' timestamp='1266353603' post='2186104']
Why is it that he tells everyone to shut up and fight, and yet makes an OWF post ranting?

Make CnG burn TOP/IRON.
[/quote]

I've never understood why people who are otherwise friendly suddenly turn so hostile. Anyway, this wasn't a post ranting, it was explaining a simple thing so C&G would stop constantly getting whined at by TIFDTT about white peace updates.

[joracy]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='16 February 2010 - 04:26 PM' timestamp='1266355617' post='2186182']
It worked on several other fronts. The primary dispute was over, and other fronts were permitted to peace out, no questions asked, despite aggression in many cases.


This is what is getting you compared to the Hegemony. You are essentially saying that you are going to completely crush TOP (and presumably everyone else in their coalition too). Yes, it's only been 2 cycles so far, but the intention is clear.


Because it's white peace now or white peace later, and you're going to take more damage every day the war continues. Certainly, so will TOP, but this is not a world containing only you and TOP. Your strength and influence is reduced by every nuke you eat. In addition, public opinion begins to turn against those who stomp down their opponents indefinitely.


The same applies to this – if you 'lose' now, you will lose much worse if you stay at war, eating 5k+ tech nukes for an extended period of time.
[/quote]

Not wanting to offer them white peace, and wanting to ensure we win the war and they are no longer an immediate threat to us is not the same as attacking alliances under incredibly shaky CB's, curbstomping alliances for months after their military as been dismantled, extorting reps that trump any grievance we may have, imposing draconian terms removing members from government/destroying wonders/etc or secret terms, and all the other stuff the hegemony is noted for. TOP et al attacked us. The idea that we are as evil as the hegemony because now that they've attacked us, we want a conclusion to the war is laughable. When we aggressively attacked them with a weak CB, hold them at war long after they have been defeated, and give them draconian terms, you'll have a point. Until then, such comparisons are silly and insult peoples intelligence. This mutually beneficial thing is also incredibly silly. Do you know what else would be mutually beneficial? TOP et al agreeing to negotiate at some point and not simply demanding white peace in perpetuity. I'm sure that would end this war much quicker, and any terms they did get would benefit them compared to drawing the war out even longer, both politically, militarily and economically. They refuse to do that. We are assaulted non stop, both officially, and unofficially, in private and public that they will never negotiate anything but straight white peace. Yet; they are not lambasted for this. They could do something that would benefit both parties, but have stated they will refuse. We both have our opinions on how this war should end; and both are guilty of not doing something mutually beneficial and something that would end this war sooner.

[NoFish]

[quote name='Rafael Nadal' date='16 February 2010 - 04:43 PM' timestamp='1266356583' post='2186219']
I really don't care to get into this, however, I don't foresee there being crippling reps along with a beatdown. Not to mention, a good percentage of us will also be crushed in this war, whereas the hegemony was infamous for the curbstomps and/or crushing reps and other diplomatic shenanigans.
[/quote]
I think it probably also goes without saying that the Hegemony wasn't aggressively attacked in those cases.

[skokie]

Overall ill say this, TOP & IRON you have some what of a valid argument this conflict was going to happen sooner or later, I personally see your argument for a preemptive strike, but regardless if we agree that it was a "preemptive" or "aggression" There are no logical or rational reasoning for C&G to grant you white peace, no matter how the argument is spinning.

You see, if C&G are the "bad" guys and you did a preemptive strike, then clearly as the "bad" guys C&G would have to beat you hard enough so it rises to the top, and you will have a very hard time to catch up.
- This example is using your argument, which justify your action as a preemptive strike!

On the other hand, if you were the bad guys and attacked C&G, clearly C&G has to beat you down hard enough to eliminate further threat. Back to my main point, i honestly see your point of view, i may disagree with it, but i understand why you feel the way you do.

BTW just to note i speak only my opinion.

Ill end this post, with a quick reminder, to Top&iron&rest what you did when you started the war was YOUR choice! just remember that.

[quote]"In this life we have to make many choices. Some are very important choices. Some are not. Many of our choices are between good and evil. The choices we make, however, determine to a large extent our happiness or our unhappiness, because we have to live with the consequences of our choices."
-- James E. Faust[/quote]