Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[Denial]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 06:56 AM' 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.[/quote]
That might apply to this situation if TOP & IRON utilised treaties in order to defend their allies that were attacked by Complaints & Grievances, as was the case in "other fronts" as you put it. As we all know, Complaints & Grievances was not engaged in any war, TOP & IRON attacked without reason or provocation, and thus your statement is invalid.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 06:56 AM' timestamp='1266355617' post='2186182']
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]
Right, because we're fighting a war [i]that was brought to us[/i] - a war where we are defending ourselves against senseless belligerence - for all of two weeks, it's "clear" that we want to completely decimate TOP? The idiocy of that claim is almost unparalleled. Almost. The winner is the preceding statement. You compare us to the Hegemony because apparently we want to "crush" TOP. Do I need to remind you that the destruction of C&G and the removal of us as a perceived threat was the very justification your idols in TOP used to attack our entire bloc? Wait, does that mean... Oh God...

EVERYONE IS THE HEGEMONY. RUN FOR THE HILLS BOB [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/frantic.gif[/img]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='17 February 2010 - 06:56 AM' timestamp='1266355617' post='2186182']
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]
It's comforting to know that you genuinely care about the state of our nations in Complaints & Grievances, but this war will end on our terms and our terms only.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 08:36 PM' timestamp='1266374183' post='2186734']
Right, because we're fighting a war [i]that was brought to us[/i] - a war where we are defending ourselves against senseless belligerence - for all of two weeks, it's "clear" that we want to completely decimate TOP? The idiocy of that claim is almost unparalleled. Almost. The winner is the preceding statement. You compare us to the Hegemony because apparently we want to "crush" TOP. Do I need to remind you that the destruction of C&G and the removal of us as a perceived threat was the very justification your idols in TOP used to attack our entire bloc? Wait, does that mean... Oh God...
[/quote]

except CnG was a threat. read peron's post and you'll find that archon told them that they'd be brought into the war if TOP/friends entered on the SF front. so instead of entering and waiting for CnG to counter, they went straight for CnG. it's called strategy and if you cant get that from one simple post then you're a lost cause.

now, you might bring up that "oh, peace was declared". yeah, a little over half an hour after the DoW's and [i]then[/i] there was word of peace. and then, as you can read in many post of this thread, TOP/friends was willing to white peace too but CnG wants to stick it out.

[Earogema]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='16 February 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1266374159' post='2186733']
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.
[/quote]
I did address your point then. I'll reiterate-

\m/, PC, and FOK had no idea TOP was going to attack. These were 3 of the 4 people who could have contacted TOP about the result of the talks. They did not because they knew not that TOP/IRON were going to attack.

Therefore the only party capable of telling TOP/IRON was Npo- Grub. Peace was underway when TOP/IRON attacked. Before peace talks were stalled on the point of Grub admitting he wasn't a world policeman and \m/ admitting they were wrong and having to follow their own charter- Nothing was coming of these talks, and tbh, both parties just wanted to fight at the time. It was the same situation as when Desperado walked out on the talks in WWE because "they weren't going anywhere" but then peace occurred a day or two later.

There was no interest in escalating this war from any of those parties. NpO wanted \m/ to suffer. \m/ called on PC and only PC and expected only PC. FOK came in for PC- This is where the war escalates. They just wanted to defend PC though. TOP/IRON should have just wanted to defend NSO, but they acted aggressively.

[GoddessOfLinn]

Just wondering what kind of terms C&G would be willing to offer?

[Krack]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='16 February 2010 - 08:30 PM' timestamp='1266373823' post='2186721']
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.
[/quote]

There are people sitting around complaining that TOP wouldn't attack C&G? Who are these morons?

[Earogema]

[quote name='popsumpot' date='16 February 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1266372303' post='2186675']
So you think C&G wasn't going to enter the war when TOP & IRON entered on the SF front?
[/quote]
[quote name='President Sitruk' date='16 February 2010 - 08:05 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 didn't miss that part. I pointed out that was his [i]interpretation[/i] of the events which [i]didn't even happen.[/i] If there were was no misinterpretation, how could I- A direct ally of SF - have "misinterpreted" C&G's action in regards to SF?

C&G were also "honor-bound" to defend Polar. They didn't. Nor did they defend STA. C&G had more obligation to defend former Frostbite than they did to defend SF. Just look at the treaties, they shall show you the way.

As I have said before, the preemptive attack came with no proof. Literally none. Not even a single screenshot.

[Tomcat]

[quote name='kevin32891' date='16 February 2010 - 06:27 PM' timestamp='1266373631' post='2186714']
So people shouldn't honor their treaties?
[/quote]
What treaty were IRON and TOP honoring by attacking CnG?
Link me to the treaty, i've searched everywhere and can't seem to find it.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='GoddessOfLinn' date='16 February 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1266375295' post='2186769']
Just wondering what kind of terms C&G would be willing to offer?
[/quote]

i'd be intrigued. peron said that they mentioned probably not accepting anything but white peace. doesnt mean they still couldnt throw some terms out there and wait for a counter. that's how negotiations work. not with "NO U!"'s.

[Believland]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='16 February 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1266375616' post='2186781']
What treaty were IRON and TOP honoring by attacking CnG?
Link me to the treaty, i've searched everywhere and can't seem to find it.
[/quote]
If you haven't gotten it by now, you won't. You're trying to point out TOP and Co. hit CnG without a treaty. Which you did. But, you missed everything else

[magicninja]

[quote name='popsumpot' date='16 February 2010 - 06:18 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]

The question was who were they helping by hitting C&G...........

How did you in any way answer that?

Nobody has and since they have no answer nobody ever will. That is what makes TOP/IRON/Whoever's reasons moot and all !@#$%^&*.

Who were TOP/IRON gonna hit that woulda brought C&G down on them? Why didn't they hit that target and C&G? That would've at least made sense.

From what I have heard TOP/IRON were waiting on C&G to enter so they could hit them but when it became apparent that wasn't going to happen they had to go pre-empitve with no real reason for doing so.

There was no reason whatsoever for TOP/IRON to do what they did.

[Gurney Halleck]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' date='16 February 2010 - 07:25 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]

First, game mechanics? What is that? Are you talking about war strategy?

Second, when people say "mutual destruction," I think they are talking more about continued mutual destruction of infra and tech and warchest - not Alliance A and Alliance B are actually mutually and completely destroyed.

Third, when you lose NS, you fight nations who are smaller (to be in range), and the tech loss can actually be less. Because, when facing these smaller nations, the rate of tech destroyed is less per nuke and lost GA. Further, at that level, you run into a lower rank who have a smaller percentage of SDIs, WRCs, and even nukes - so, some lucky opponents will get more that the 1-2 nukes per week.

Sounds like great fun; interesting times.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='Earogema' date='16 February 2010 - 08:59 PM' timestamp='1266375575' post='2186777']As I have said before, the preemptive attack came with no proof. Literally none. Not even a single screenshot.
[/quote]

kind of like Archon not posting logs to allow the "not in the know"ers to make up their own mind. instead he spins it off as his own hyperbole.

[Bob]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='16 February 2010 - 10:04 PM' timestamp='1266375887' post='2186798']
kind of like Archon not posting logs to allow the "not in the know"ers to make up their own mind. instead he spins it off as his own hyperbole.
[/quote]
I do believe Crymson and Peron have the same logs. Why have they not posted them?

[Denial]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 February 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1266375099' post='2186760']
[b]except CnG was a threat. read peron's post and you'll find that archon told them that they'd be brought into the war if TOP/friends entered on the SF front.[/b] so instead of entering and waiting for CnG to counter, they went straight for CnG. it's called strategy and if you cant get that from one simple post then you're a lost cause.

now, you might bring up that "oh, peace was declared". yeah, a little over half an hour after the DoW's and [i]then[/i] there was word of peace. and then, as you can read in many post of this thread, TOP/friends was willing to white peace too but CnG wants to stick it out.
[/quote]
No, Archon stated that C&G would enter against TOP and IRON if they attacked one of our allies. That is like saying water is wet, the sky is blue, IRON posters are hopeless, or Bob Janova is a hypocrite. It should be no surprise to anyone that Complaints & Grievances would defend any ally that found itself a victim of aggression.

Now, I will hit you with some knowledge. Your argument is a half-assed paraphrase of what Bob Janova is spewing over the forums and other media. It completely fails to stand up against scrutiny:

1. Crymson, whilst in leadership, famously stated that TOP & co were taking this opportunity to "bloody up" Complaints & Grievances, in a time where we were perceived to be most vulnerable, because they saw us as a threat.
2. Crymson and other senior TOP members have also stated that they sought to continue this war against C&G until they no longer considered us a threat.
3. TOP only ever became interested in white peace the moment they saw the odds were against them.
4. Why, exactly, would we accept white peace after we've been aggressively attacked for absolutely no reason, by a bunch of conniving, underhanded miscreants?

Thus, if we hypothetically accept your argument of "strategy" and "removing a threat" as a valid case for initiating or continuing a war, then Complaints & Grievances extending this war should be just as acceptable in your eyes as TOP & IRON initiating it. If not more acceptable, considering TOP & IRON clearly displayed their capacity as a threat to C&G, whereas TOP & IRON only had a 'belief' (Crymson's own term) that we were a threat because we said bad things in public about them now and then.

I look forward to your next post supporting Complaints & Grievances defending themselves against senseless aggression. Otherwise, you might just be guilty of holding double standards! [img]http://thecastlehall.com/boards/Smileys/kickass/eng101.gif[/img]

Edited February 17, 2010 by Denial

[Earogema]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='16 February 2010 - 09:04 PM' timestamp='1266375887' post='2186798']
kind of like Archon not posting logs to allow the "not in the know"ers to make up their own mind. instead he spins it off as his own hyperbole.
[/quote]
Of the same token, all three parties of those talks have shown themselves in this thread, and have not posted the logs to disprove him. Either because all three think it honorable, or because all three blundered in the talks.

Besides, considering that the reason for this war had no proof, and considering that Archon uses that to further his reasoning that this war was based on paranoia well...

[Believland]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='16 February 2010 - 10:06 PM' timestamp='1266375987' post='2186805']
I do believe Crymson and Peron have the same logs. Why have they not posted them?
[/quote]
They're classy enough not to

[Fronz]

[quote name='AAlumni' date='16 February 2010 - 07:03 PM' timestamp='1266375798' post='2186791']
Third, when you lose NS, you fight nations who are smaller (to be in range), and the tech loss can actually be less. Because, when facing these smaller nations, the rate of tech destroyed is less per nuke and lost GA. Further, at that level, you run into a lower rank who have a smaller percentage of SDIs, WRCs, and even nukes - so, some lucky opponents will get more that the 1-2 nukes per week.
[/quote]
That is perhaps true for the first week of war, but after continuous anarchy (assuming they stagger) that option is lost and it is the other side that takes advantage of declaring on smaller nations.

[Denial]

[quote name='Believland' date='17 February 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1266376192' post='2186820']
They're classy enough not to
[/quote]
But Archon is just a terrible person for not posting them.

Clearly, he has become the monster.

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Tomcat' date='16 February 2010 - 10:00 PM' timestamp='1266375616' post='2186781']
What treaty were IRON and TOP honoring by attacking CnG?
Link me to the treaty, i've searched everywhere and can't seem to find it.
[/quote]
I wasn't referring IRON/TOP hitting C&G, I was talking about even if IRON came to help its allies ( who were involved in war against SF) C&G would have declared anyway. I hope that we're both on the same page now.

[Believland]

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1266376265' post='2186826']
But Archon is just a terrible person for not posting them.

Clearly, he has become the monster.
[/quote]
I never said. Nice try though.

[Denial]

[quote name='Believland' date='17 February 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1266376309' post='2186829']
I never said. Nice try though.
[/quote]
You made the implication both in what you posted and who it was in reply to.

[kevin32891]

[quote name='Denial' date='16 February 2010 - 10:11 PM' timestamp='1266376265' post='2186826']
But Archon is just a terrible person for not posting them.

Clearly, he has become the monster.
[/quote]
No one stays King forever.

[Pablo Monkey]

Interesting story, history will tell if it is correct or not.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Killer Monkey land

[Bob]

[quote name='kevin32891' date='16 February 2010 - 10:13 PM' timestamp='1266376380' post='2186834']
No one stays King forever.
[/quote]
Archon will be King forever D: say it ain't so

Also, yeah. Believland I don't disagree, it was more pointing out that he didn't post them for the same reasons they didn't.

[Denial]

[quote name='kevin32891' date='17 February 2010 - 12:43 PM' timestamp='1266376380' post='2186834']
No one stays King forever.
[/quote]
... Ssshh, the great revolution is not ready to be unleashed yet.

Mushroomica prevails!