Accepting the Consequenses of War

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Hydro' date='17 March 2010 - 03:35 PM' timestamp='1268797239' post='2227969']
I would urge both the leadership and membership of TOP not to accept any demands for reperations. Learn from the mistake of Pacifica, and reject the demands for indulgences. You might have made a mistake, but it would be far worse to compound that mistake and put your alliance into a state where rebuilding is extremely difficult for a period that would most likely last 6 months or more.
[/quote]

You do realise if they stay at war then it will still be extremely difficult to rebuild.

[raasaa]

[quote name='Lord Curzon' date='15 March 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1268714771' post='2227019']
But don't take my word for it, think about it logically. If the preemptive strike was an attempt to overcome our side's strength deficit, it would not make sense to offer terms that would give CnG an incentive to stay in the fight. If you are trying to hit, knock out, then redeploy the "knock out" is easier if there are no reps.
[/quote]
I start cracking up every time i read this explanation.

ROFL....Hit, Knock out and redeploy.....after preemptively hitting CnG...that has to be dumbest plan ever conceived.

I still maintain my PoV on this though. LM did conceive the plan out of strategical reasoning in order to the win the war, but TOP (Crymson) agreed to do it ONLY cos they saw it as an opportunity to take out CnG. If the situation was different....lets say LM asked TOP to preemptively hit LEO for strategical reasons, i am sure TOP would have whined, complained and come up with stupid new crap just like they did in Karma war.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='raasaa' date='17 March 2010 - 03:03 AM' timestamp='1268809737' post='2228092']
I start cracking up every time i read this explanation.

ROFL....Hit, Knock out and redeploy.....after preemptively hitting CnG...that has to be dumbest plan ever conceived.

I still maintain my PoV on this though. LM did conceive the plan out of strategical reasoning in order to the win the war, but TOP (Crymson) agreed to do it ONLY cos they saw it as an opportunity to take out CnG. If the situation was different....lets say LM asked TOP to preemptively hit LEO for strategical reasons, i am sure TOP would have whined, complained and come up with stupid new crap just like they did in Karma war.
[/quote]
I wasn't in TOP-IRON and co. when they took their decision but, from my point of view, I don't see what's mutually exclusive between "backing Polaris for their war" and "taking down CnG" since:
1)CnG were poised to be the next alliances joining on the opposite side (should IRON enter in, defending NSO);
2)CnG do fit the description of people that Polaris wanted to give a lesson to (immoral mass raiders, childish posters, massive trolling, etc.).

As such, I don't get why people get so up in arms when TOP said they were backing Polaris actions. They truly were. Both in the moral and strategic senses, at least in their minds.

-------------

Now, I'm having a hilarious time with the Spartans (among others) telling us we need to absolutely accept peace because we are driving our alliance into the ground. So what? We could always stay at war and progressively delete our totally defeated nations. Why not? We're a community that's based on other games, after all. Then again, as tech become scarce, the nations that can declare on us will be weaker and weaker (as our NS goes down) and we mostly all have complete military wonders and improvements. We'll be having fun down there. I sure am. I find the thought of 175 WRC powered nations perpertually at war kinda entertaining.

[Lukapaka]

Ha! Nice poll, guy. It makes [b]perfect[/b] sense to accuse the defending party of coercing its aggressors.

The only thing I've seen extorted are epic lolz, as you guys continue to spew out these awful (and commonly illogical) retorts to [i]anything [/i]that is written. [color="#FFFFFF"](If you quote this, thank you for proving my point)[/color]

See you on the battle field

[uaciaut]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='17 March 2010 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1268812157' post='2228111']
1)CnG were poised to be the next alliances joining on the opposite side (should IRON enter in, defending NSO);[/quote]

Errr we couldn't declare on NpO even if we wanted to because they are, you know, our allies. Maybe if you'd want to say "TOP wanted to help NpO's allies" it would actually make more sense. I guess i still like my "they wanted to help themselves" option better though

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='17 March 2010 - 09:43 AM' timestamp='1268812157' post='2228111']
2)CnG do fit the description of people that Polaris wanted to give a lesson to (immoral mass raiders, childish posters, massive trolling, etc.).
[/quote]

And another brilliant strike. Again how the $%&@ does that make sense when they are our allies/MDP partners. Unless you're implying we FORCED them to sign with us or something. At this point i wouldn't be surprised to see even that thrown around, i've seen pretty much any possible stupid statement thrown around.

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='Olaf Styke' date='16 March 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1268783398' post='2227764']
TOP is never going to be what it was after this monumental blunder, and their intransigence and unwillingness to see reason may--very soon--lead to their ultimate destruction and the end of TOP as a power in Cybernations. Far be it from me, somebody who's alliance's destruction TOP has sought for quite some time now, to suggest an outcome that won't lead to the neutralization of yet another threat to Spartan interests but... SURRENDER. For the love of god, have you no common sense? We're not going to stop fighting you just because you swear to dig in for the long haul, we're going to keep tearing your alliance apart one nation at a time. We've given you a chance to tap out here, it is unbelievable folly to keep refusing to negotiate. At least IRON is still willing to see reason in this, or at least they're reasonable enough not to insult us during a peace summit and then storm out screaming 'eternal war'.

Do yourself a favour, because right now you're doing us one.
[/quote]

LMAO, really? Cause last I checked most of us were praying for one of your nations to hit us. Vanguard, ODN, and MK actually hurt when they hit us. Your nations have continuously been one to hinder the others. If we had the numbers I believe many of your nations would be bill locked...maybe even most of them.

Don't come off him hawing about how great you are because your allies have held you up...really, grow a pair and build some warchest next time. We never insulted you and left a peace summit screaming eternal war. We simply said your demands were preposterous and one member of the talks left. Just because you are winning, does not mean we will bow to whatever demands you make, and if you force our hands to go to an eternal war...we will. Simple fact.

Sorry you took so much damage due to your incompetence, but that doesn't make high reperations a gimme, or even rightful. We are not begging for peace, our members are willing to continue this, although we do not wish to...we will not bow because you are on a winning side, and want to extort us.

Let your (20 plus) allies leave, and see how your claims for reperations continue. Yeah, I know you are lucky enough they wouldn't do that to you. But still, that should be a factor in what you are asking, as TOP never aggressively attacked you. You came in on a bandwagon knowing you were on a winning front. Why not suck it up and let your allies do as they will without requesting reperations?

As far as helping ourselves Uaciaut, we knew full well going into this we would be in a bad position. How would that help us? We stood for a moral fiber in the game. NpO was a driving force in that, and backed out to save themselves at the most opportune time. Then they turned around and declared on us to save their own skins. Say what you want a million times, but it doesn't change the facts. I believe most of the planet know those facts by now.

As to your last point "us" is not MK...it is C&G, and more specifically certain members allies of said bloc. NpO hit them and wanted help, we gave it thinking they actually had the desire and will to back a moralistic front.

They didn't. Maybe it was a trap by Grub, and yourselves, because you knew we were men/women of honor, or maybe you just got to be the luckiest SOB's in CN. Doesn't change the facts.

I will admit hitting all of C&G was pretty dumb.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Chalaskan

[raasaa]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='17 March 2010 - 02:43 AM' timestamp='1268812157' post='2228111']
I wasn't in TOP-IRON and co. when they took their decision but, from my point of view, I don't see what's mutually exclusive between "backing Polaris for their war" and "taking down CnG" since:
1)CnG were poised to be the next alliances joining on the opposite side (should IRON enter in, defending NSO);
2)CnG do fit the description of people that Polaris wanted to give a lesson to (immoral mass raiders, childish posters, massive trolling, etc.).

As such, I don't get why people get so up in arms when TOP said they were backing Polaris actions. They truly were. Both in the moral and strategic senses, at least in their minds.
[/quote]

1) There is no 100% guarantee that they would enter. Prepared for war they may have been, but they were spending more energy in resolving and ending the conflict rather than escalating it .

2) Polaris was not looking to police ALL tech raiding alliances, only specific tech raiding alliances who were unable to uphold their own charter, policies blah blah.

People get so up in arms cos most of us have seen first hand, TOP's attitude during the Karma war and they are definitely did not look like the type who are willing to die for their friends. Well, thanks to the stupid decision of preemptively attacking an entire bloc, TOP is getting a first hand experience of what "die for your friends" really means [img]http://public.tektek.org/img/emotes/icon_rofl.gif[/img]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='17 March 2010 - 02:43 AM' timestamp='1268812157' post='2228111']
Now, I'm having a hilarious time with the Spartans (among others) telling us we need to absolutely accept peace because we are driving our alliance into the ground. So what? We could always stay at war and progressively delete our totally defeated nations. Why not? We're a community that's based on other games, after all. Then again, as tech become scarce, the nations that can declare on us will be weaker and weaker (as our NS goes down) and we mostly all have complete military wonders and improvements. We'll be having fun down there. I sure am. I find the thought of 175 WRC powered nations perpertually at war kinda entertaining.
[/quote]
I am looking forward to this situation where TOP has 175 WRC powered nations below 5k NS. I am sure it will encourage all alliances you are currently fighting to create better and more efficient growth programs, thus ensuring that there are no nations within that NS range

Edited March 17, 2010 by raasaa

[Blacky]

We're in the sweet spot of this war right now as far as TOP is concerned. They got smacked down the ranks down so fast (with all the lost infra) that they're tech heavy. However, once the majority of war-fighting CnG nations fall below that line it'll be a more even slugfest that TOP can not possibly win.

Eventually more and more warchests will be depleted and considering TOP's playstyle which generally revolves around improving their nations many older nations will eventually lose interest in the cyberverse and just leave it all together. I've already seen (of the nations I was at war with) around 2 nations with warchests that were close to 5 times mine let their nations die off. (one had about $2bn and the other about $2.5bn).

That is totally unrecoverable. Personally, I never had any problems with TOP but yeah, they declared on us and now they're either too stupid or too stubborn to surrender a losing war.

[raasaa]

[quote name='Blacky' date='17 March 2010 - 04:08 AM' timestamp='1268817253' post='2228129']
That is totally unrecoverable. Personally, I never had any problems with TOP but yeah, they declared on us and now they're either too stupid or too stubborn to surrender a losing war.
[/quote]
reminds me of a quote from Galdiator.

Quintus: People should know when they are conquered.
Maximus: Would you, Quintus? Would I?

[Chalaskan]

[quote name='raasaa' date='17 March 2010 - 01:13 AM' timestamp='1268817539' post='2228131']
reminds me of a quote from Galdiator.

Quintus: People should know when they are conquered.
Maximus: Would you, Quintus? Would I?
[/quote]

Sometimes it isn't a matter of knowing when you are conquered so much as whether you will leave your honor to save (pixels in this case.)

Ironic the quote you referenced is about exactly that. (Death before the loss of honor.)

Edited March 17, 2010 by Chalaskan

[raasaa]

[quote name='Chalaskan' date='17 March 2010 - 04:18 AM' timestamp='1268817808' post='2228133']
Sometimes it isn't a matter of knowing when you are conquered so much as whether you will leave your honor to save (pixels in this case.)

Ironic the quote you referenced is about exactly that. (Death before the loss of honor.)
[/quote]
err yea...i posted that quote in favor of TOP....not against....

Somehow i never agreed with the "death before loss of Honors" crap. I prefer "Live today so that you can fight tomorrow"....much better than charging into sure death under the pretext of honor.

[President Sitruk]

[quote name='raasaa' date='17 March 2010 - 04:08 AM' timestamp='1268817226' post='2228128']
1) There is no 100% guarantee that they would enter. Prepared for war they may have been, but they were spending more energy in resolving and ending the conflict rather than escalating it .
[/quote]

archon said they would enter if their allies were attacked which IRON would have to do to defend it's allies. so it'd still be a big mess without all the BAAWWWWIIING about being pre-empted.

[SynthFG]

There were other alliances that could have hit IRON had they become conventionaly involved in the defense of NSO that it would have been very difficult if not impossible for TOP to have gone on and attacked
CnG moving against IRON was by no means certain

Edited March 17, 2010 by SynthFG

[raasaa]

[quote name='President Sitruk' date='17 March 2010 - 06:42 AM' timestamp='1268826472' post='2228170']
archon said they would enter if their allies were attacked which IRON would have to do to defend it's allies. so it'd still be a big mess without all the BAAWWWWIIING about being pre-empted.
[/quote]
As far as i can see on CN Wiki, Fark as no treaty with any CnG alliance. Fark hit NSO and IRON would have had to counter Fark. So, how did you guys assume that CnG would hit IRON ??

Sorry if this has already been discussed elsewhere....i guess i missed if it has...


Edit : SynthFG pretty much beat me to it.

Edited March 17, 2010 by raasaa

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='17 March 2010 - 02:56 PM' timestamp='1268834478' post='2228219']
There were other alliances that could have hit IRON had they become conventionaly involved in the defense of NSO that it would have been very difficult if not impossible for TOP to have gone on and attacked
CnG moving against IRON was by no means certain
[/quote]

Heh, we would have backed IRON no matter who you had hit them.

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' date='17 March 2010 - 12:11 AM' timestamp='1268799434' post='2227996']
I know you want to feel important because your one of the twenty two alliances that we are still at war with and I know this makes you feel big and strong but come off it. We wanted to destroy you? Why on earth would we seek the destruction of a mass member alliance who sucks at war and isn't a threat to anyone?
[/quote]
Somebody forgot to read their alliance's Declaration of War.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='17 March 2010 - 03:07 PM' timestamp='1268835183' post='2228225']
Somebody forgot to read their alliance's Declaration of War.
[/quote]

I'm reading it right now and I don't see anything here about destroying Sparta. Actually I don't see anything about destroying any alliance. It does say we want to defeat CnG which makes sense since we wouldn't want to be defeated.

[Drai]

[quote name='Myzebedeeistaken' date='16 March 2010 - 07:44 PM' timestamp='1268797769' post='2227974']
Darn it, I laughed

Smooth sir, smooth
[/quote]
You realize he was referring to the fact that the opsec on your CnG pre-empt expedition was terrible and our milcom was preparing for it ahead of time?

At least, that's how I read it. You have no room to play it off like you have the upperhand there.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Drai

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='17 March 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1268834811' post='2228223']
Heh, we would have backed IRON no matter who you had hit them.
[/quote]
Even had it been us and MHA ?
well that's telling

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='17 March 2010 - 03:30 PM' timestamp='1268836566' post='2228237']
Even had it been us and MHA ?
well that's telling
[/quote]

Nice to know you guys were planning to hit IRON a second consecutive time. I'm glad our relationship is over.

[SynthFG]

We were prepared to move against IRON if or when they moved against a freind, a position we made absolutly clear to you almost a month before this kicked off,
I'm sure you noticed the DOW to that efect about an hour after IRON declared on MK
we were also prepared to move in defence of yourselves should any coilition be dumb enough to attack you

I don't see what bearing it has on our relationship but despite what you personaly may wish, no it's not over, we still have strong relations with many TOP members despite where your alliance has allowed itself to be lead and once this is over we hope to continue with those relations

Edited March 17, 2010 by SynthFG

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='17 March 2010 - 05:15 PM' timestamp='1268842854' post='2228295']
We were prepared to move against IRON if or when they moved against a freind, a position we made absolutly clear to you almost a month before this kicked off, we were also prepared to move in defence of yourselves should any coilition be dumb enough to attack you
I'm sure you noticed the DOW to that efect about an hour after IRON declared on MK

I don't see what bearing it has on our relationship but despite what you personaly may wish, no it's not over, we still have strong relations with many TOP members despite where your alliance has allowed itself to be lead and once this is over we hope to continue with those relations
[/quote]

lol. TOP membership has very little respect for you guys. You knew we were not willing to abandon IRON. You chose a new set of friends who have acted hostile toward TOP and decided to throw our friendship out the window. You honestly think we would give up IRON and all of our ideals to side with a bloc that has done nothing but badmouth us? If you were real friends you would have never stuck with alliances that do nothing but talk !@#$ about what WAS your closest ally for years. In our greatest time of need you abandoned us.

[anenu]

[quote name='Vladimir Stukov II' date='17 March 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1268843245' post='2228297']
lol. TOP membership has very little respect for you guys. You knew we were not willing to abandon IRON. You chose a new set of friends who have acted hostile toward TOP and decided to throw our friendship out the window. You honestly think we would give up IRON and all of our ideals to side with a bloc that has done nothing but badmouth us? If you were real friends you would have never stuck with alliances that do nothing but talk !@#$ about what WAS your closest ally for years. In our greatest time of need you abandoned us.
[/quote]


I love how your definition of friendship forces your friends to stay allied to you while you can go ally alliances they don't like, something no friend of TOP's should ever do.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='anenu' date='17 March 2010 - 05:27 PM' timestamp='1268843547' post='2228301']
I love how your definition of friendship forces your friends to stay allied to you while you can go ally alliances they don't like, something no friend of TOP's should ever do.
[/quote]

What reason would they have to not like IRON? I've never seen IRON post anything about our other allies or make any threats toward them. If IRON made themselves a threat to our other allies you can be sure as hell we would have a major problem with it and would not back them 100%.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='uaciaut' date='17 March 2010 - 04:37 AM' timestamp='1268815356' post='2228120']
Errr we couldn't declare on NpO even if we wanted to because they are, you know, our allies. Maybe if you'd want to say "TOP wanted to help NpO's allies" it would actually make more sense. I guess i still like my "they wanted to help themselves" option better though



And another brilliant strike. Again how the $%&@ does that make sense when they are our allies/MDP partners. Unless you're implying we FORCED them to sign with us or something. At this point i wouldn't be surprised to see even that thrown around, i've seen pretty much any possible stupid statement thrown around.
[/quote]
1)You understood full well what I meant: CnG would have been "against" (probably not directly against NpO) the Polaris coalition and would have entered sooner or later. We believed sooner. As some of you have already admitted, you had plans to counter IRON and TOP, of which we knew. As such, the preemption was just a fast forward of what would have happened anyway, at least for TOP and IRON. IRON counters on someone you have a treaty with? You enter directly. IRON counters on someone you don't have a treaty with? That person activates its MDP-level treaties and you probably are tied to one of them via MDoAP and decide to go to activate the oA part. Then we can hear the usual "C&G rolls together, hee haw". Seriously, we've already been through that many times in many threads already. It has been established that you guys would have entered. Stop trying to deny the evidence.

2)I'm saying that TOP-IRON-co. attack on C&G could easily fit the description of Polaris CB on \m/, minus the OOC insults. Re-read Grub's initial declaration of war if you want.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Yevgeni Luchenkov