Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Scorbolt' date='16 February 2010 - 01:01 PM' timestamp='1266346889' post='2185908']
This topic has never been about whether Archon was aware of the pre-emptive strike planned by TIFDTT nor is it about whether those in CnG felt they would inevitably fight TOP and IRON in relation to the NpO - \m/ war.

Also, the topic is clearly addressed to people who are NOT "in the know" because there are so many who believe they either, are in the know, or simply pretend to be, who are more than willing to generate the rumors this post attempts to address.
[/quote]

if this was supposed to have been for those who are not in the know, then the interviews should have been conducted by an unbiased, uninvolved party. all archon's OP was is hyperbole. talking of poor CnG being aggressively attacked(by god i hope someone that declares on a target hits them aggressively, i'd hate to see how a passive war would go) is just BS. CnG wanted this war, TOP/friends just gave them a way in that'd make CnG out to be the victim and fighting for "justice".

in the end, we're not fighting for the same reasons the war was originally waged. now, we're just fighting because neither side likes eachother(well, those few who seem to have a lot of say in gov and hold grudgers, 'tis a sad thing). TOP/friends has shown willingness to put this all behind us. CnG seems to think they'll be able to get TOP/friends to agree to crippling terms which i highly doubt will ever happen.

Edited February 17, 2010 by President Sitruk

[Earogema]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='16 February 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1266365437' post='2186502']
It seems as though everyone is ignoring the elephant in the sitting room.

If the intention really had been for peace and Archon and Grub had knowledge of the impending attack, didn't communicate that knowledge to each other and didn't communicate that the peace process between Polaris and \m/ had been concluded to TOP and Co. in order to prevent a meaningless war, what we have here is quite clearly a disingenous PR exercise, in the part relating to the lead-up to the war (I'm not addressing the discussion about white peace/terms etc. etc. here)

If the intention was for war on the other hand, then it's all cool daddy-o. After all, all's fair in love and war, so just !@#$@#$ well say so damn it and stop skirting around the truth of the matter.
[/quote]
They both knew of the attack, however by different means.
\m/ was peacing in the middle of TOP's attack. In fact, our peace was posted around 30 minutes after TOP/IRON's dec because we were trying to get PC's and FOK's signatures.
By this reasoning, only Grub would have been capable of informing them DURING the peace. \m/ had no obligation to, nor did PC, or FOK, and tbh, I don't think any of those three alliances could have seen this coming.

Unless Grub knew they were going to strike on that night, I find that it would have been impossible to communicate this issue effectively.

[der_ko]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 01:27 AM' timestamp='1266366441' post='2186530']
if this was supposed to have been for those who are not in the know, then the interviews should have been conducted by an unbiased, uninvolved party. all archon's OP was is hyperbole. talking of poor CnG being aggressively attacked(by god i hope someone that declares on a target hits them aggressively, i'd hate to see how a passive war would go) is just BS. [b]CnG wanted this war[/b], TOP/friends just gave them a way in that'd make CnG out to be the victim and fighting for "justice".

in the end, we're not fighting for the same reasons the war was originally waged. now, we're just fighting because neither side likes eachother(well, those few who seem to have a lot of say in gov and hold grudgers, 'tis a sad thing). TOP/friends has shown willingness to put this all behind us. CnG seems to think they'll be able to get TOP/friends to agree to crippling terms which i highly doubt will ever happen.
[/quote]
You are completely clueless if you honestly believe CnG, especially MK and GR, wanted this cluster$%&@ of a war to happen.

Hint, if we were pleased by this war we wouldn't have spent countless hours trying to stop it.

[popsumpot]

[quote name='der_ko' date='17 February 2010 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1266366958' post='2186545']
You are completely clueless if you honestly believe CnG, especially MK and GR, wanted this cluster$%&@ of a war to happen.

Hint, if we were pleased by this war we wouldn't have spent countless hours trying to stop it.
[/quote]

I didn't know CnG was made up entirely of MK and GR.

[King Tom]

[quote name='Meer Republic' date='16 February 2010 - 06:46 AM' timestamp='1266331595' post='2185552']
I may be directly fighting you guys, but bravo, seriously. Finally someone with the common sense to look past all this bluster.

As an aside you should be proud of your alliance mates the ones I've encountered during this fiasco have been nothing but decent.
[/quote]


thank you it was a good war.
I do hope that we will be on the same side next time.

[der_ko]

[quote name='popsumpot' date='17 February 2010 - 01:40 AM' timestamp='1266367239' post='2186556']
I didn't know CnG was made up entirely of MK and GR.
[/quote]
It isn't. [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/ms.gif[/img]

[joracy]

[quote name='popsumpot' date='16 February 2010 - 07:40 PM' timestamp='1266367239' post='2186556']
I didn't know CnG was made up entirely of MK and GR.
[/quote]

Hi. We kinda found this whole cluster$%&@ of a war pretty stupid. The others didn't really like it either.

[Rafael Nadal]

[quote name='popsumpot' date='16 February 2010 - 04:40 PM' timestamp='1266367239' post='2186556']
I didn't know CnG was made up entirely of MK and GR.
[/quote]

You're right, it's not. However, CnG as a whole can't want something if 2 of the signatories don't go along with it. :mysterysolved:

[junkahoolik]

[quote name='jamesdanaher' date='17 February 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1266365436' post='2186501']
Please- keep this discussion civil. Calling C&G "Joracy" is terribly insulting.
[/quote]

this is actually a terrible thing to say about a alliance mate...


[quote name='joracy' date='17 February 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1266365438' post='2186503']
Umm, cool? I guess this is where I say you taking two words out of context, blathering about something unrelated to my post, and refusing to respond to the actual content of the post, while making some mock insult against me and my allies when I call you out on doing nothing but raising your post count embodies the whole of IRON and their general strategy on public relations and the BB since the TPF war?
[/quote]

I could go on with a post about "isn't it what you did in the GGA cancellation thread, made it all about 1 thing in their cancellation notice then ridiculing IRON even though they got the notice you got and knew all of what they said, and about how it is ironic that you are calling me out for using them..." buut... i'd much rather say this. it's way easier calling out other people on their behaviors than addressing the elephant in the room that is your behavior. and CnG members behavior has lacked tremendously in the last year or more. even archon admitted it in the op. as for the whole white peace thing, it was what got Karma started. off course, it was dropped immediately after the PR battle was won. behavior check anyone??


edit: guess it still is a no-u post :|
also, excuse my current slight lack of logic in making statements. the late hours do wonders for my logical brain

Edited February 17, 2010 by junkahoolik

[rsoxbronco1]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='16 February 2010 - 07:27 PM' timestamp='1266366441' post='2186530']
CnG seems to think they'll be able to get TOP/friends to agree to crippling terms which i highly doubt will ever happen.
[/quote]
I don't think any of us expect TOP to agree to crippling terms...

[magicninja]

[quote name='magicninja' date='15 February 2010 - 11:48 PM' timestamp='1266302927' post='2185083']
There's a few things I don't get about TOP/IRON/Whoever's dow on C&G in the first place.

How was opening a new front on uninvolved parties that, up until that point, had no intention of entering the war going to help the Polaris Coalition at all? It wasn't going to help NSO fight off everyone they were engaged with. It wasn't going to help Polaris. Who were they helping by hitting C&G?

I'd like to hear the answer to that one before I draw any final conclusions.
[/quote]


I never got an answer to this. Please don't make your silence telling.

[popsumpot]

[quote name='magicninja' date='17 February 2010 - 11:10 AM' timestamp='1266369008' post='2186602']
I never got an answer to this. Please don't make your silence telling.
[/quote]

It's because C&G always was going to be in the war? It would have either been a defensive war from treaty obligations to their allies, or it would have been an offensive war for strategic reasons, but they would have been fighting sooner or later nonetheless.

[Bob]

[quote name='popsumpot' date='16 February 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1266369526' post='2186613']
It's because C&G always was going to be in the war? It would have either been a defensive war from treaty obligations to their allies, or it would have been an offensive war for strategic reasons, but they would have been fighting sooner or later nonetheless.
[/quote]
CnG was always going to be in this war, and always going to be fighting TOP and IRON. No one else could possibly have been against them.

Oh, wait a minute, CnG has nowhere nearby the upper ranks (nor did we) to even remotely cover TOP and IRON. There goes that idea.

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='Shardoon' date='16 February 2010 - 04:37 PM' timestamp='1266359857' post='2186344']
Shall I calculate how many times I can buy from 0-1000 infra with my current warchest?

On topic: Some of us at TOP were certainly prepared for the "worst case scenario" - which would be TOP vs. THE WORLD. And we are indeed enjoying the fruits of our consequences.
[/quote]
So, I know you guys are still bragging, even while you get stomped, but I don't think you know as much about game mechanics as you think. I've saw at least two other posters talk about "mutual destruction" and it's leading me to believe you have no idea what you are talking about. Which makes sense as this is TOP's first war that didn't have overwhelming odds with them.

So I'm going to enlighten you , or try my best to get through to you. As the war progresses you will lose more and more tech. Without tech you won't be able to do much damage, obviously. [b]In the past two weeks you've lost about 250,000 tech, down to 950,000.[/b] Ref: http://uevil.maybe.net/testing/newcharts/ATE.html. I expect this to accelerate as you lose more infra (losing more GA's mean faster tech drain). So I figure in another month you'll be down to around 400,000 in tech and another month you'll probably bottom out around 200,000-300,000. 75% of this will be in PM so it really factor in. The point is you keep continually losing your potency, and at a very fast rate.

As I stated above you'll be losing a lot more ground attacks due to less infra. Your navy will also be destroyed so you win less air battles plus it's nearly impossible to win an air attack against a nation with navy without a nuke, and you won't be able to nuke as often. No one cares about CMs.

Now onto nukes, the only think that matters at this point after a month. You'll be facing 3 attackers and by this time you'll be down to 0 nukes. Anything more will be spied away quickly since you won't have much tech left after a month or so of war as stated above.

I'll assume you all have WRCs (150/225). Without a WRC you are basically useless. A 7 day war allows for 14 nuke rebuys. I'm assuming your attackers have SDIs, as most of us do who are fighting. So (40% hit ratio of 14) = 5-6 nukes hitting. So maybe 1-2 nukes per opponent per round of wars.

[b]Firing off 1-2 nukes at each attacker per war plus CMs isn't really anything that will make people scared who are cycling in to hit you. All the while you'll have to rebuy all that infra every day (which is annoying). Fact the facts that game mechanics (SDI) in a prolonged curbstomp prevent a situation of "mutual destruction".[/b]

[flak attack]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' date='16 February 2010 - 08:25 PM' timestamp='1266369904' post='2186619']
So, I know you guys are still bragging, even while you get stomped, but I don't think you know as much about game mechanics as you think. I've saw at least two other posters talk about "mutual destruction" and it's leading me to believe you have no idea what you are talking about. Which makes sense as this is TOP's first war that didn't have overwhelming odds with them.

So I'm going to enlighten you , or try my best to get through to you. As the war progresses you will lose more and more tech. Without tech you won't be able to do much damage, obviously. [b]In the past two weeks you've lost about 250,000 tech, down to 950,000.[/b] Ref: http://uevil.maybe.net/testing/newcharts/ATE.html. I expect this to accelerate as you lose more infra (losing more GA's mean faster tech drain). So I figure in another month you'll be down to around 400,000 in tech and another month you'll probably bottom out around 200,000-300,000. 75% of this will be in PM so it really factor in. The point is you keep continually losing your potency, and at a very fast rate.

As I stated above you'll be losing a lot more ground attacks due to less infra. Your navy will also be destroyed so you win less air battles plus it's nearly impossible to win an air attack against a nation with navy without a nuke, and you won't be able to nuke as often. No one cares about CMs.

Now onto nukes, the only think that matters at this point after a month. You'll be facing 3 attackers and by this time you'll be down to 0 nukes. Anything more will be spied away quickly since you won't have much tech left after a month or so of war as stated above.

I'll assume you all have WRCs (150/225). Without a WRC you are basically useless. A 7 day war allows for 14 nuke rebuys. I'm assuming your attackers have SDIs, as most of us do who are fighting. So (40% hit ratio of 14) = 5-6 nukes hitting. So maybe 1-2 nukes per opponent per round of wars.

[b]Firing off 1-2 nukes at each attacker per war plus CMs isn't really anything that will make people scared who are cycling in to hit you. All the while you'll have to rebuy all that infra every day (which is annoying). Fact the facts that game mechanics (SDI) in a prolonged curbstomp prevent a situation of "mutual destruction".[/b]
[/quote]
You're forgetting bill locks as well. Some of you may have a warchest that will last another month, but most of you don't.

[Believland]

I think you expect them all to maintain the same NS throughout the war. You're also not taking into account of their NHMS or whatever it's called. Other than that, good post

[peron]

I don't post a lot on these forums for a reason.

However, since I am involved in this particular situation, I feel like it warrants a response.

As you said in your OP Archon, this is your interpretation of the talks Crymson and I had with you. Thats fair enough. In all honestly this is exactly the type of response I expected to hear from you. I did however, expect that to come in private, not a public post on these forums. We told you our side of the story and we were honest with you. It was up to you to interpret it. And you did so in the best way possible to support your side.

You've said so yourself that had we entered on the Super Friends front that you would have been "honor bound" to defend your allies. We saw that too. There was no avoiding it. Therefore, we thought the best course of action was to Pre-empt CnG. A [i]Pre-emptive[/i] strike as part of the original conflict in the NpO-\m/ war. NOT a seperate conflict. That was our reasoning for this war, no matter how you try to spin it.

So I say this, your free to interpret things however you wish. That is your right as a sovereign alliance. But let me remind you, that just because you think thats how things happened, doesn't make it true.

Also for the record, we are not against discussing peace. It was just said that we are unlikely to accept anything other than white peace.

Edited February 17, 2010 by peron

[Earogema]

[quote name='peron' date='16 February 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1266371865' post='2186659']

So I say this, your free to interpret things however you wish. That is your right as a sovereign alliance. But let me remind you, that just because you think thats how things happened, doesn't make it true.
[/quote]
Kinda like how you thought C&G was going to enter, huh?

[popsumpot]

[quote name='Earogema' date='17 February 2010 - 12:00 PM' timestamp='1266372029' post='2186666']
Kinda like how you thought C&G was going to enter, huh?
[/quote]

So you think C&G wasn't going to enter the war when TOP & IRON entered on the SF front?

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1266372029' post='2186666']
Kinda like how you thought C&G was going to enter, huh?
[/quote]

you missed a part.

"You've said so yourself that had we entered on the Super Friends front that you would have been "honor bound" to defend your allies. We saw that too. There was no avoiding it. Therefore, we thought the best course of action was to Pre-empt CnG. A Pre-emptive strike as part of the original conflict in the NpO-\m/ war. NOT a seperate conflict. That was our reasoning for this war, no matter how you try to spin it."

there would've been no misinterpretation of what CnG's course of action would be.

[Tomcat]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='16 February 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1266372353' post='2186677']
there would've been no misinterpretation of what CnG's course of action would be.
[/quote]
Perhaps if you had just like, you know, [i]not[/i] attacked their allies in the first place then you wouldn't have had to worry about them entering the conflict.

The fact is, you attacked them because of something you thought they were going to do, rather than something they actually did.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Tomcat

[Fronz]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='16 February 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1266372353' post='2186677']
you missed a part.

"You've said so yourself that had we entered on the Super Friends front that you would have been "honor bound" to defend your allies. We saw that too. There was no avoiding it. Therefore, we thought the best course of action was to Pre-empt CnG. A Pre-emptive strike as part of the original conflict in the NpO-\m/ war. NOT a seperate conflict. That was our reasoning for this war, no matter how you try to spin it."

there would've been no misinterpretation of what CnG's course of action would be.
[/quote]
I really don't see how pre-emping [b]an entire bloc[/b] is a better solution then choosing perhaps a non-SF alliance to attack, or a SF alliance not tied to CnG.

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='16 February 2010 - 09:17 PM' timestamp='1266373058' post='2186699']
Perhaps if you had just like, you know, [i]not[/i] attacked their allies in the first place then you wouldn't have had to worry about them entering the conflict.

The fact is, you attacked them because of something you thought they were going to do, rather than something they actually did.
[/quote]
So people shouldn't honor their treaties?

[Ejayrazz]

Some of the leaders I respected in Karma war are now inheriting the same moronic leadership traits we once fought.

"We wont offer white peace because we fear they will attack us one day in the future," is not only paranoia, but also is the same ideal I once fought against as a Gremlin. Let's disembody them so they never can rise again, lets oppress them till they leave, lets ransack all of their money, and lets force the game into political stagnation once again.

People complain TOP wont do anything, and when they do, they cry about it. A shame I am fighting against them, give them hell TOP.

Sorry if some of you are offended, but I have reached my limit.

However, I will keep an open mind depending on the terms given. I await your decision, Archon, and/or CnG.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Ejayrazz

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Earogema' date='17 February 2010 - 10:34 AM' timestamp='1266366875' post='2186542']
They both knew of the attack, however by different means.
\m/ was peacing in the middle of TOP's attack. In fact, our peace was posted around 30 minutes after TOP/IRON's dec because we were trying to get PC's and FOK's signatures.
By this reasoning, only Grub would have been capable of informing them DURING the peace. \m/ had no obligation to, nor did PC, or FOK, and tbh, I don't think any of those three alliances could have seen this coming.

Unless Grub knew they were going to strike on that night, I find that it would have been impossible to communicate this issue effectively.
[/quote]
I disagree that such communication couldn't have been made and your response doesn't really address the point of my post.

I'll reiterate - regardless as to whether the negotiations were underway or had been concluded, anyone with the knowledge of the impending attack (regardless of whether it was as a result of OPSEC rumours or direct contact with the attackers), with the knowledge that negotiations for peace were definitely underway and having a genuine interest in avoiding the escalation of this war should have made contact with TOP and co. to inform them of the situation to at least try to stall or stand down the attack.

If however on the other hand there was a genuine interest in escalating the war, just bloody well say so and be done with all this !@#$%footing around the subject. As I said above, less obvious !@#$%^&* and more honest talk on these forums would be nice to see.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz