Concerning the War of Aggression against C&G

[James I]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 02:18 PM' timestamp='1266848324' post='2197221']
James I, if you ask any TOPper at least (not sure about IRON or TORN, though TORN posters have said it), they'll tell you that the pre-emptive attack was a major error and they won't be doing that again.[/quote]
[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 07:22 PM' timestamp='1266866563' post='2197638']
Well LM has put the thinking behind the declaration out in the open now so hopefully that will curtail the things like 'TOP made it clear that their feelings of us being a threat was not related to the ongoing conflict'.[/quote]

That post also made it pretty clear that your response to me, denying outright the possibility of them doing the same again, isn't quite accurate (although I do concede that many in TOP feel the pre-emptive attack was a major error, some even before Polar were able to find peace). See: [i]Is the political fall out from a pre-emp worth the military strategy? Debatable, looking at the situation now, I'd probably lean towards No, but there could be times when it most definitely would be the way to go[/i]. Now consider the high regard in which LM is held for his tactical knowledge in the military arena and it would be careless to rule out the possibility of a pre-emptive strike altogether. Anyway, this went far from being close to the thrust of my initial point, so I'll leave it there. I just wanted to clarify.

edit: missing words.

Edited February 22, 2010 by James I

[Steve Buscemi]

[quote name='LiquidMercury' date='22 February 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1266861523' post='2197516']
snip
[/quote]
Had you not pre-empted you probably would have won this war. That's how colossal a blunder it was. It was war changing, from day one of your aggressive attack. You had Polar, Aztec and many other alliances on your side and you effectively caused them to swap sides for the most part due to their treaty obligations. You became the bully NPO of the Karma war in essence. Something I had warned TOP about for some time internally, as did many others more important than I. [b]You lost the war with your poor military tactics when you should have won the war.[/b]

[Monster]

I don't know about them winning if it hadn't happened, but it would have been worse for our side if the Polar allies didn't come over and if TOP and the others hadn't thrown their credibility away by doing it.

Edited February 22, 2010 by Antoine Roquentin

[Heft]

Well, that whole "Oh, we agreed to peace" thing didn't help. The pre-emptive attack may have worked out if the war it was connected to hadn't evaporated an hour later. But I guess we will never know.

[Monster]

[quote name='Heft' date='22 February 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1266876084' post='2197862']
Well, that whole "Oh, we agreed to peace" thing didn't help. The pre-emptive attack may have worked out if the war it was connected to hadn't evaporated an hour later. But I guess we will never know.
[/quote]


So you don't think the mutual Polar-MK allies would have told TOP to go to hell and switched sides or at least peaced if it had happened without the Polar-\m/ settlement? I know STA voiced their objections.

[Arthur Blair]

Is it just me or does it seem entirely nonsensical to claim that pushing for peace is proof positive that we wanted to entrap TOP/IRON to destroy them? How exactly does that work?

And the claim that this is Archon's fault because he didn't go and warn TOP/IRON that their attack on us was going to fail? Really?

I see a lot of deflection from these two key points, but I would love it if someone explained that in a way that wasn't entirely absurd and based itself on fact rather than speculation. I dare you.


The arguments for the other side are getting rather comical. The hoops you hop through to paint them in a positive light...

[Heft]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' date='22 February 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1266876217' post='2197869']
So you don't think the mutual Polar-MK allies would have told TOP to go to hell and switched sides or at least peaced if it had happened without the Polar-\m/ settlement? I know STA voiced their objections.
[/quote]
I don't know. We wouldn't be in this situation though, I'm pretty sure.

[quote name='Arthur Blair' date='22 February 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1266878717' post='2197971']
The arguments for the other side are getting rather comical. The hoops you hop through to paint them in a positive light...
[/quote]
Some of the arguments and justifications on both sides have been rather astounding and comical, so it's not exactly a one-way thing.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' date='22 February 2010 - 05:03 PM' timestamp='1266876217' post='2197869']
So you don't think the mutual Polar-MK allies would have told TOP to go to hell and switched sides or at least peaced if it had happened without the Polar-\m/ settlement? I know STA voiced their objections.
[/quote]
Hell, I voiced our objections and we were not even connected to the other side so yes, I believe several would have switched sides on "principle" alone.

Personally, while I like TOP overall, I have never considered one victory, no matter how significant, to be an indication of any persons supposed tactical or strategic ability. I believe LM took a lot of credit for Karma that was not due him and quite frankly, Karma as a cohesive coalition was a bit of a failure in regards to joint action and joint peace after Archon went inactive so aside from gaining the ultimate victory with by that point overwhelming odds I fail to see how it was a demonstration of any single persons, or even a group of peoples, superior planning skills at all. Alliances were taking individual terms and exiting the field left and right without any communication. That isn't any sort of superior tactics that I would call great.

Considering the failure of the "grand scheme" planning in the TPF war and the failure in this epic cluster$%&@ perhaps people will simply go back to fighting wars based on direct treaty escalation instead of worrying about the ones and zeroes of some grand plan.

I have always valued the ability of some to organize and distribute target lists and the like but no one lets the accountants run the advertizing campaign or control the front end business apparatus.

Maybe next time people will not automatically equate large NS base as an automatic indication of tactical prowess.

I will forever remember this war as a point in which I, a person that has historically won a number of wars, diplomatically and militarily, voiced my concerns at the onset and was told by people that won one war that my opinion didn't matter because my alliance is small. And I will remember that I was right, as always.

[necAnt]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='22 February 2010 - 03:14 PM' timestamp='1266851684' post='2197273']
Yet another completely wrong, and foolish statement concerning the immediate days after the Ni! raid. The truth, I suppose, is irrelevant, as people have deemed to hold to their belief of events into perpetuity. Those of us who saw the Athens forums before any "pressure" from our allies, know the truth about what happened, and where Athens remorse came from.
[/quote]
Dear sir, i allready conceded the point to james I. in privat, so i give it to you and evryone else here in the open. Yes i remembered wrong, archon didn´t put pressure on athens, at least he said so, and yes, if you believe him or not, depends on the side you are on.

cheers nec

[MagicalTrevor]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='22 February 2010 - 11:06 PM' timestamp='1266879996' post='2198029']
Hell, I voiced our objections and we were not even connected to the other side so yes, I believe several would have switched sides on "principle" alone.

Personally, while I like TOP overall, I have never considered one victory, no matter how significant, to be an indication of any persons supposed tactical or strategic ability. I believe LM took a lot of credit for Karma that was not due him and quite frankly, Karma as a cohesive coalition was a bit of a failure in regards to joint action and joint peace after Archon went inactive so aside from gaining the ultimate victory with by that point overwhelming odds I fail to see how it was a demonstration of any single persons, or even a group of peoples, superior planning skills at all. Alliances were taking individual terms and exiting the field left and right without any communication. That isn't any sort of superior tactics that I would call great.

Considering the failure of the "grand scheme" planning in the TPF war and the failure in this epic cluster$%&@ perhaps people will simply go back to fighting wars based on direct treaty escalation instead of worrying about the ones and zeroes of some grand plan.

I have always valued the ability of some to organize and distribute target lists and the like but no one lets the accountants run the advertizing campaign or control the front end business apparatus.

Maybe next time people will not automatically equate large NS base as an automatic indication of tactical prowess.

I will forever remember this war as a point in which I, a person that has historically won a number of wars, diplomatically and militarily, voiced my concerns at the onset and was told by people that won one war that my opinion didn't matter because my alliance is small. And I will remember that I was right, as always.
[/quote]
We may be on differing sides of this, but you've made many excellant posts this war and this is another. Especially your comments about karma. LM did do a lot of work yes, but look at the pure stats of that war, it was won before any "military planning" was put into play.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Stumpy Jung Il' date='22 February 2010 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1266866982' post='2197648']
Who wants to take bets on how long this argument with last and in how many threads? Im gauging my bet in years.
[/quote]
People are still arguing about GW1. So ... yeah. I don't bet, but if I did, it wouldn't be against you

[quote name='Krack' date='22 February 2010 - 03:40 PM' timestamp='1266871246' post='2197740']
I said I would "bury" IRON; they got second chance (got off easy in the Karma War) and blew it. I believe the term [i]PEA[/i] is being used to describe TOP and DAWN, as well. If you're gonna characterize my opinion, at least make an effort to get it right.
[/quote]
Hilariously, you're replying to the guy who coined the term PEA. It means pre-empting alliance. IRON did that too.

[Krack]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='22 February 2010 - 05:51 PM' timestamp='1266882719' post='2198118']
Hilariously, you're replying to the guy who coined the term PEA. It means pre-empting alliance. IRON did that too.
[/quote]

I don't care if he invented the english alphabet and co-authored Webster's Dictionary. He's using the acronym [i]PEA[/i] in a plural form - the sentence doesn't make any sense if it's referring to a single alliance; particularly when it's in response to a comment about both TOP and IRON (which he quoted). I didn't say anything about reducing TOP or DAWN "to dust"; Baghdad Bob's statement is factually inaccurate.

[_GunneR_]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 February 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1266848324' post='2197221']


James I, if you ask any TOPper at least (not sure about IRON or TORN, though TORN posters have said it), they'll tell you that the pre-emptive attack was a major error and they won't be doing that again. (Doch, TOP did not pre-emptively attack in the BLEU war, they just attacked Polar straight up. IRON and some others did pre-emptively attack BLEU members though.)
[/quote]

So if I read this correctly, then TOP recognises its mistake, I wonder though are you willing to take responsibility for those actions and make amends? Will TOP acknowledge their misgivings?

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='TheNeverender' date='22 February 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1266859814' post='2197479']
Why do I feel like the only reason that opinion only exists because this war did not go well for them, and for no other reason?
[/quote]

hindsight is a wonderful thing but i can say that i would've prefered a more conventional entry into the war.

[Timmmehhh]

[quote name='MagicalTrevor' date='23 February 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1266880694' post='2198059']
We may be on differing sides of this, but you've made many excellant posts this war and this is another. Especially your comments about karma. LM did do a lot of work yes, but look at the pure stats of that war, it was won before any "military planning" was put into play.
[/quote]
To be fair, the way the coincidential coalition formed and the strategy used during that war were imho quite good.

Also I am fairly sure there would be a 100% victory for TOP if the NpO \m/ conflict didn't peace out.

FOK was under heavy fire at the time from the entire Aztec bloc, and some smaller alliances like CCC and OV while fighting NpO. Nordreich was about to jump on FOK on the same update when the peace between \m/ and NpO happened. Stickmen was under heavy attack from very strong alliances like STA, and some minor ones like USN and had a small bloc like Valor on them. RnR was getting dogpiled by purple, they had 14 million NS on them (UPN, Invicta Quantum NSO and Hydra) Umbrella was massively outnumbered while fighting Nueva Vidia, NADC, NATO and The Foreign Division. The only alliance who was outnumbered on the other side was NSO. Also all the small alliances borderline alliances were coming in on the NpO side, and only a few ones were coming in our side. Their treaties chained way much better, they had basically every alliances who needed to enter one chain away (CDT, Purple ex Hegemony all was in early) while our side waited for everything to chain through Superfriends. I know FOK can hold up a very long time but we were also losing strength at a kinda fast rate. Things also weren't that well coordinated on our side, while it appeared Polar had a good lineup ready, FOK was basicly like "$%@! screw it we are going to help PC we will see what happens" Needless to say things didn't look great untill TOP, IRON and co declared on MK and the NpO \m/ peace happened and I am fairly confident if it wasn't for the peace we would have lost.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Timmehhh

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Some-Guy' date='23 February 2010 - 05:20 AM' timestamp='1266866414' post='2197634']
You'll have to take my word that there were at least a handful of us calling this war a mistake as soon as the target war released to us.
[/quote]
How the hell did it get through the Heptagon then?

[Monster]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='22 February 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1266887094' post='2198226']
How the hell did it get through the Heptagon then?
[/quote]

You're going to love the story behind it and the fact that those responsible haven't been held accountable and are still highly regarded.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Antoine Roquentin

[Bob]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' date='22 February 2010 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1266887360' post='2198231']
You're going to love the story behind it and the fact that those responsible haven't been held accountable and are still highly regarded.
[/quote]
Disregard I am quite silly for being silly.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Penlugue Solaris

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' date='22 February 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1266887360' post='2198231']
You're going to love the story behind it and the fact that those responsible haven't been held accountable and are still highly regarded.
[/quote]
Perhaps we should send them to the stockades...?

[Feanor Noldorin]

Edit: Double post, ftl.

Edited February 23, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[flak attack]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' date='22 February 2010 - 08:09 PM' timestamp='1266887360' post='2198231']
You're going to love the story behind it and the fact that those responsible haven't been held accountable and are still highly regarded.
[/quote]
Do tell :gush:

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Heft' date='22 February 2010 - 12:39 PM' timestamp='1266863963' post='2197565']
This has been covered multiple times by multiple people.

There was no indication on our side that peace was imminent or reasonably close. It is absurd to blame TOP/IRON for not being aware of something none of us were aware of. They had talked to Polar and they had gotten the go ahead to launch. Claiming they should have then gone back and asked how peace talks (that none of us were aware of) were going is retrospectively assigning them a responsibility based on what we know today, instead of what was known then.
[/quote]

i know this. my point was simple, if people are gonna attempt to blame CnG for not telling TOP/IRON of peace, then TOP/IRON can be blamed for not asking. it is ridiculous on either side so essentially the argument needs to die.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 February 2010 - 01:22 PM' timestamp='1266866563' post='2197638']
Of course. What's your point? TOP/IRON are not trying to grab the moral high ground and claim that they didn't want the war (and set the rhetorical groundwork for harsh terms).
[/quote]

no instead, we have TOP trying to state they DoWed for other reasons than what they put in their own DoW. we have many defending TOP and trying to get TOP the moral high ground based on CnG not accepting a white peace because ya'll are claiming TOP went in for other reasons than what they DoWed with and that the emphasis was on Polaris and not on CnG.

[quote name='Heft' date='22 February 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1266876084' post='2197862']
Well, that whole "Oh, we agreed to peace" thing didn't help. The pre-emptive attack may have worked out if the war it was connected to hadn't evaporated an hour later. But I guess we will never know.
[/quote]

the preemptive attack was doomed to utter failure the moment it was considered. TOP/IRON should have gone in using their treaty obligation to NSO. the talks of how CnG would have been fresh and yada yada yada, mean very little in modern Bobian wars due mainly to the fact that most have huge WCs now (especially in TOP) and thus, the same edge they keep proclaiming now, would have served them just as well as if they had gone in without a preemptive strike. not to mention, TSO and many other alliances were waiting to jump in as well.

essentially, TOP/IRON doomed themselves and those who fought alongside them on their dislike of CnG and their paranoia over how much of a threat CnG actually was. they had a far better chance of negating whatever threat CnG could have been in the future by entering using IRON's treaty with NSO than the chance they have now.

[Ivan Moldavi]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='23 February 2010 - 12:14 AM' timestamp='1266902058' post='2198573']
the preemptive attack was doomed to utter failure the moment it was considered. TOP/IRON should have gone in using their treaty obligation to NSO. the talks of how CnG would have been fresh and yada yada yada, mean very little in modern Bobian wars due mainly to the fact that most have huge WCs now (especially in TOP) and thus, the same edge they keep proclaiming now, would have served them just as well as if they had gone in without a preemptive strike. not to mention, TSO and many other alliances were waiting to jump in as well.

essentially, TOP/IRON doomed themselves and those who fought alongside them on their dislike of CnG and their paranoia over how much of a threat CnG actually was. they had a far better chance of negating whatever threat CnG could have been in the future by entering using IRON's treaty with NSO than the chance they have now.
[/quote]
To me, this is entirely correct. But parts of it cut both ways I believe.

It is unrealistic to believe that any amount of reparations will sufficiently cover even the costs of this war to date, much less so as it continues to progress. The logistics of aid will require that any sufficient amount be distributed over a period of at least a year, if not more, and that is just stupid. Ultimately, even with the odds as they are, it becomes apparent that certain parties, like MK for instance, are taking a substantial beating along with TOP and IRON. The only difference is that TOP will be able to rebuild once this is over and as time passes MK will be less likely to be able to do so because of the monetary disadvantage.

So, it seems that this is a perpetuating cycle. MK wants to continue fighting because they want to continue to damage TOP but TOP et al are also damaging MK in the process so MK also wants restitution (at least some members have posted so) for their damages but no alliance is willing to be a tech farm for the indefinite future so the fighting continues. What happens when MK runs out of money? I am thinking it will happen a good deal before TOP runs out, right? That is the generally agreed upon consensus I believe anyway. So what happens? MK starts losing stats faster while TOP theoretically rebuilds itself midwar, thus making some of the statistical difference moot in the process? This can probably be spread out over several alliances, right?

Now, I am not saying that I think TOP is winning by any stretch here, but in the longterm it is unrealistic to believe that reps will be able to compensate for the current loses and as the disparage in available funds continues that lose percentage versus realistic gain might begin to grow exponentially. For those that concern themselves with such things that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Just my opinion anyway.

Talking in circles about the mistakes (and there are more than just the pre-emptive to talk about when it comes right down to it) that have been made will do little to alleviate the issues pertaining to those still fighting and actively looking for a way out. The false bravado from both sides seems to be working on some odd misconception that winning this war will somehow replace your statistics or create a means to get compensation for your loses but that just isn't realistic.

Perhaps both sides should take a step back and realize that longterm yes, the CnG side will undoubtedly pound TOP et al down, but the costs to some on that side will be just as grave, if not moreso, in the process.

For me, it is what it is. The NSO has already lost almost 65% of its total NS. So the salvation of our pixels isn't really a concern, I am just making an observation.

[flak attack]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='23 February 2010 - 12:38 AM' timestamp='1266903516' post='2198610']
It is unrealistic to believe that any amount of reparations will sufficiently cover even the costs of this war to date, much less so as it continues to progress. The logistics of aid will require that any sufficient amount be distributed over a period of at least a year, if not more, and that is just stupid. Ultimately, even with the odds as they are, it becomes apparent that certain parties, like MK for instance, are taking a substantial beating along with TOP and IRON. The only difference is that TOP will be able to rebuild once this is over and as time passes MK will be less likely to be able to do so because of the monetary disadvantage.

So, it seems that this is a perpetuating cycle. MK wants to continue fighting because they want to continue to damage TOP but TOP et al are also damaging MK in the process so MK also wants restitution (at least some members have posted so) for their damages but no alliance is willing to be a tech farm for the indefinite future so the fighting continues. What happens when MK runs out of money? I am thinking it will happen a good deal before TOP runs out, right? That is the generally agreed upon consensus I believe anyway. So what happens? MK starts losing stats faster while TOP theoretically rebuilds itself midwar, thus making some of the statistical difference moot in the process? This can probably be spread out over several alliances, right?
[/quote]
You over estimate TOP's warchest advantage. Other than a handful of outliers, theirs are pretty comparable to ours

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Ivan Moldavi' date='22 February 2010 - 11:38 PM' timestamp='1266903516' post='2198610']
To me, this is entirely correct. But parts of it cut both ways I believe.

It is unrealistic to believe that any amount of reparations will sufficiently cover even the costs of this war to date, much less so as it continues to progress. The logistics of aid will require that any sufficient amount be distributed over a period of at least a year, if not more, and that is just stupid. Ultimately, even with the odds as they are, it becomes apparent that certain parties, like MK for instance, are taking a substantial beating along with TOP and IRON. The only difference is that TOP will be able to rebuild once this is over and as time passes MK will be less likely to be able to do so because of the monetary disadvantage.

So, it seems that this is a perpetuating cycle. MK wants to continue fighting because they want to continue to damage TOP but TOP et al are also damaging MK in the process so MK also wants restitution (at least some members have posted so) for their damages but no alliance is willing to be a tech farm for the indefinite future so the fighting continues. What happens when MK runs out of money? I am thinking it will happen a good deal before TOP runs out, right? That is the generally agreed upon consensus I believe anyway. So what happens? MK starts losing stats faster while TOP theoretically rebuilds itself midwar, thus making some of the statistical difference moot in the process? This can probably be spread out over several alliances, right?

Now, I am not saying that I think TOP is winning by any stretch here, but in the longterm it is unrealistic to believe that reps will be able to compensate for the current loses and as the disparage in available funds continues that lose percentage versus realistic gain might begin to grow exponentially. For those that concern themselves with such things that doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Just my opinion anyway.

Talking in circles about the mistakes (and there are more than just the pre-emptive to talk about when it comes right down to it) that have been made will do little to alleviate the issues pertaining to those still fighting and actively looking for a way out. The false bravado from both sides seems to be working on some odd misconception that winning this war will somehow replace your statistics or create a means to get compensation for your loses but that just isn't realistic.

Perhaps both sides should take a step back and realize that longterm yes, the CnG side will undoubtedly pound TOP et al down, but the costs to some on that side will be just as grave, if not moreso, in the process.

For me, it is what it is. The NSO has already lost almost 65% of its total NS. So the salvation of our pixels isn't really a concern, I am just making an observation.
[/quote]

i agree with this post for the most part but TOP will be spending a lot of their WC over the course of this war, predominately due to the number of nations that are facing theirs. CnG will soon be capable of cycling their nations in and out of the war (along with CnG allies), while TOP could very well end up with their nations incapable of escaping into peacemode to get a reprieve from this war. This means that CnG/allies will be able to regain some of their money, while TOP will continue to deplete their WCs. not only this but being stuck in anarchy/nuke affects and being forced to collect (maybe not all the time, but soon it will become the majority) will mean that TOP will not be able to regrow their WC at the rate they continue to spend it.

so, i am not sure that the monetary advantage TOP may or may not have is that much of an issue depending on how long this war rages on.