Consul of Monkeys Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='Ecthelion' date='02 March 2010 - 01:37 PM' timestamp='1267537260' post='2211245'] You most certainly are not FAN. [/quote] I agree, we are far more active and better prepared than FAN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010 - 03:42 AM' timestamp='1267523174' post='2211141'] I count 2 MK nations over 10K infra, both cowering in peace mode vs 8 TOP nations 10k+. Who's winning? [/quote]You. It's you, baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WcaesarD Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 The longer TOP fights, the worse off they will be in the long term, and for the next war. They certainly have a bargaining position, if not quite as strong as the CnG one, and they should be using it now, while they can. For those saying those warchests will last forever, that infra buying will add up quick, and once those nukes start only doing 200ish infra per hit, the war will get old fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECUMSEH Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 It costs what, about $3-3.5M to buy up to 1000 infra to buy two nukes for the day? TOP will go on and on. And meanwhile, TOP nations eat 1 nuke per day and are able to dish out up to 3 per day (assuming CnG is hitting them w/ full force and that they have defective SDIs). That said, TOP, of course, is going to lose worse than CnG. But CnG is obviously losing in a really bad way, too. Which gets to the interesting game of chicken that's being played: is TOP committed more to paying no reps or are CnG committed more to getting huge reps? If I had to bet, I'd say it's a draw. Which means CnG and TOP are going to be nuking each other for some time to come. And hey -- TOP's nukes will eventually stop hurting. CnG has blasted LM for over a month now and he's down to a mere 17.5K tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechanus Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Look at it this way TOP; if you keep fighting you're getting to have your cake and eat it too. You surrender now and you're just passing it over to the new hegemony that is C&G. Might as well burn the house down while enjoying that slice, eh? Keep fighting TOP. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Lets not mince words here, that first terms offer was absolutely tech extortion. CnG has the right to attempt it just as much as we have the right to have our resolve hardened by it and fight that much harder. No, we cannot win, but we can make it hurt. Right now I am losing about 300 infra a day (near 1k infra, its a cycle), and destroying about 1200 infra per day from nations with around 5-6k infra each. You are paying a great cost to continue this conflict. Stop comparing us to FAN. You cannot imagine how much more painful this will be than FAN. FAN had to run into peace mode after a couple rounds because VietFAN predated Manhattan Projects, and the lessons learned from VietFAN mean many of us have multi-billion dollar warchests. There are two choices here: 1) Work with us towards a reasonable peace. 2) Continue to lose relative power as we nuke the $%&@ out of you while everyone else rebuilds. We do not care about our infra, or even our tech. If your calculations were based on leveraging our self-preservation instincts, you made a horrible error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='Mechanus' date='02 March 2010 - 04:50 PM' timestamp='1267541641' post='2211287'] Look at it this way TOP; if you keep fighting you're getting to have your cake and eat it too. You surrender now and you're just passing it over to the new hegemony that is C&G. Might as well burn the house down while enjoying that slice, eh? Keep fighting TOP. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain. [/quote] Make this guy your political advisor for even greater profit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECUMSEH Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote]We do not care about our infra, or even our tech. If your calculations were based on leveraging our self-preservation instincts, you made a horrible error.[/quote] I don't think this is posturing -- I think that's where TOP is. I could be wrong. If it is right, then CnG is, as they surely know, in for a slog. I suppose they'll wear down the warchests at some point in time, and that's when they'll have their victory. Even then, though, I think a lot of TOP nations would rather delete than pay reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mechanus Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='uaciaut' date='02 March 2010 - 06:57 AM' timestamp='1267542066' post='2211298'] Make this guy your political advisor for even greater profit! [/quote] I don't care enough for the game anymore to be for hire. I'm just along for the ride. TOP and Co. understand that you lot will make it hell for them to surrender. Why, when knowing what your current peace demands are, would they even consider surrendering? They seem to be having fun right now and are probably forging new friendships through it all while the rest of you continue to suffer losses. They may ultimately be on the worse end of the beating, but the least they can do is make you pay for every inch you want to gain from their surrendering. I say good on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 do both! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 You could always do #1 to start with, and then once the enemy has let down its guard go into #2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Unstoppable force meets immovable object. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Boris Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Well, you're doomed to burn anyways, so from a pragmatic standpoint, smoke if you got them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='The Big Bad' date='02 March 2010 - 07:48 AM' timestamp='1267534326' post='2211218'] Keep pounding away. C&G is taking a beating and from a strategic stand point everyday they are put in a worse spot. While some would sell you the C&G and SF are tight they are not. They are in fact rivals. This is why C&G has kept Polar on to try and balance the growing gap in military strength. The return of NPO and general turning of the tide of popular opinion since Karma all make this a vital war for C&G to come out of soon and intact. Either way TOP is screwed unless they give you light terms you might as well take them down with you. [/quote] Xiphosis and Hoo hate MK more than TOP, they can confirm this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='Jared' date='02 March 2010 - 10:29 AM' timestamp='1267547590' post='2211376'] You could always do #1 to start with, and then once the enemy has let down its guard go into #2 [/quote] Yeah, we could. But we won't. Even when fighting for our very existence, there are depths we won't go to. Our word is our bond and if we sign a surrender document, we honor it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tushar Dhoot Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 According to our stats (taken from UE), TOP/IRON/TOOL/TORN has dished out: 916,838 tech damage and; 4,899,110 infra damage While taking: 709,061 tech damage and; 3,771,445 infra damage Keep in mind this is from Feb. 22nd 2010, when there were quite a few alliances stacked against us (albeit not as much as right now). The infra damage may go down, but another thing to consider is that TOP's infra will continue to get cheaper while CnG nations will be rebuilding and lose more expensive infrastructure. TOOL is also not in the war anymore, so their damages taken won't count, but neither will their damages given. I tried to keep this as unbiased as possible. Don't maul me :S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 To continue the war will be a really bad move for TOP. Specially now that many alliances surrendered, TOP/IRON are so outnumbered, that C&G+SF+everybody else could alternate on attacking than. While our side could enjoy a vacation between alternations TOP/IRON will not. You can have as much warchest you want. Righ now one side can rebuild the other can't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 (edited) [quote name='King Louis the II' date='02 March 2010 - 10:47 AM' timestamp='1267548636' post='2211401'] To continue the war will be a really bad move for TOP. Specially now that many alliances surrendered, TOP/IRON are so outnumbered, that C&G+SF+everybody else could alternate on attacking than. While our side could enjoy a vacation between alternations TOP/IRON will not. You can have as much warchest you want. Righ now one side can rebuild the other can't. [/quote] Rebuild, no. Look back at the FAN war, even before the days of MPs, a much smaller force can be a serious thorn in the side of a larger force. Besides, we are willing to hash out a reasonable peace. It may even happen soon (stranger things have happened). However, when given the choice between extortion and fight, then, well... Edited March 2, 2010 by bigwoody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='Tushar Dhoot' date='02 March 2010 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1267548621' post='2211400'] According to our stats (taken from UE), TOP/IRON/TOOL/TORN has dished out: 916,838 tech damage and; 4,899,110 infra damage While taking: 709,061 tech damage and; 3,771,445 infra damage Keep in mind this is from Feb. 22nd 2010, when there were quite a few alliances stacked against us (albeit not as much as right now). The infra damage may go down, but another thing to consider is that TOP's infra will continue to get cheaper while CnG nations will be rebuilding and lose more expensive infrastructure. TOOL is also not in the war anymore, so their damages taken won't count, but neither will their damages given. I tried to keep this as unbiased as possible. Don't maul me :S [/quote] That damage is spread out several alliances. Absolute values would not say anything. Ina ddition, Part of this damage would also be "healed" from a side that can have its nations rebuild for one week. It is math man. Look at the rankings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='Tushar Dhoot' date='02 March 2010 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1267548621' post='2211400'] I tried to keep this as unbiased as possible. Don't maul me :S [/quote] You don't get mauled for having common sense and posting some facts The basic point is that we're outnumbering you and thus ensuring the speed you're losing tech at is higher than us. Rebuying infra isn't as much as a priority for either one here, it's about rebuying the lost tech and decreasing damage potential through lost tech levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Louis the II Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='bigwoody' date='02 March 2010 - 11:48 AM' timestamp='1267548713' post='2211402'] Rebuild, no. Look back at the FAN war, even before the days of MPs, a much smaller force can be a serious thorn in the side of a larger force. Besides, we are willing to hash out a reasonable peace. It may even happen soon (stranger things have happened). However, when given the choice between extortion and fight, then, well... [/quote] If you are saying all this because of propaganda, It is right for you to do so. If you REALLY BELIEVE on that...well..good luck man... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='02 March 2010 - 11:43 AM' timestamp='1267548437' post='2211397'] Xiphosis and Hoo hate MK more than TOP, they can confirm this. [/quote] It has nothing to with hate. It has everything to do with being dominate. Just as this war with TOP was coming before Karma as part of peoples strategic planning so is the next. People who know what they are doing play a couple wars ahead. And Hoo and Archon both know what they are doing even if they make the occasional miscalculations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='King Louis the II' date='02 March 2010 - 04:47 PM' timestamp='1267548636' post='2211401'] To continue the war will be a really bad move for TOP. Specially now that many alliances surrendered, TOP/IRON are so outnumbered, that C&G+SF+everybody else could alternate on attacking than. While our side could enjoy a vacation between alternations TOP/IRON will not. You can have as much warchest you want. Righ now one side can rebuild the other can't. [/quote] TOP isn't stupid, they know that war ends up killing them. The issue is which ends up hurting more, reps or war. Some times, continuing to fight on is a rational decision. The first rep offer that NPO got was pretty ridiculous, so we fought on for something else (which still ended up being ridiculous, but hurt us less). Yet, we ended up losing more tech in reps than we would have lost had the war continued (seeing as the reps were higher than our total tech level). Now, this concern was somewhat less important for us, a rather mass-numbers and bottom heavy alliance that would benefit more from infra growth, but it is a concern paramount for TOP, for whom tech is pretty much the most important asset they have. It's quite a complicated decision, as it factors in things such as the desire of the other side to compromise, the pressure of third-party PR, opportunity cost, the ability to do damage, the technical capacity to keep surviving and so on, but it is by no means some foolish notion of immortality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010' post='2211118']Why would an alliance that has been preparing to be on the wrong end of a curbstomp since the WUT started turning on itself pay record setting reps? The fact is that a month on, TOP is still giving as good as we are getting, still has over 1k nukes, and still has warchests which will last us for many months more. Why should TOP peace out when we are just that well suited to a long war?[/quote] If what you described is a good picture of the situation you have absolutely no reason to stop fighting, [i]unless[/i] you realized that your attack was wrong in the first place. If you're sure that you were and are right then by any means continue to nuke them as long as possible (you'd also be proving that you accumulated your pixels to actually [i]use[/i] them, which is good in itself). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord GVChamp Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 [quote name='der_ko' date='02 March 2010 - 04:47 AM' timestamp='1267527066' post='2211179'] I don't really care either way. Our terms will not change, only your ability to pay them will and the longer you resist the harder it will be for you. [/quote] Really? Is this the official MK stance? Because I remember some of your members saying that you would just have to issue draconian terms at the beginning of the war because you needed to remove TOP as a threat, and that as time went on the advantage would drift more and more to your side. Which would preclude the need for reparations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.