Accepting the Consequenses of War

[shilo]

[quote name='Trace' date='02 March 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1267569203' post='2211782']
Well I'm glad at least someone answered the question, sorta (I mean, as best you can).

Asking MK if we'd take these terms is a little weird. I mean, we did pay somewhere in excess of 50% of our tech after the noCB war. Here we're just asking for 20% of their tech directly (which I'm going to assume is their main problem). It's a little over 10% of the tech they started with. While the numbers seem huge, there are factors to it, including the fact that they attacked us and lost, and inflation in CN. TOP can afford it, they know that, its the principle behind it I guess.
[/quote]
Now if CnG only were so lenient with everyone...

[TonytheTiger]

[quote name='Franz Ferdinand' date='02 March 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1267567698' post='2211734']
I find it funny that you mention Pacifica because didn't those guys help build up the Order of the Paradox while at the same time, you guys followed them through every war they were in with the exception of the Karma War and taking as much of the spoils in each of these conflicts as possible?
[/quote]

Yes, TOP has clearly made some mistakes on the diplomatic front which preceded this conflict. Namely not standing by our real friends and allies in a tough time. We have a long and complicated relationship with both Orders, starting back in '06. The side we helped establish along with Pacifica and others was Continuum centered, but Citadel was the Block we felt closest to at the time. We were too concerned with keeping Citadel together and fighting for what we thought would be a new world order where reps extortion and ZI lists of 'rogues' where a thing of the past. We were foolish to trust those folks in Karma, but hopefully through this war we can somehow redeem ourselves. TOP, along with our allies Grem, FOK, MHA and Sparta left the Continuum to fight for Karma. Some of those same ex-allies who preached against ZI lists and extortive reps back then, fight us now demanding reps and that we kick out our members they deem "rogues".

Edited March 2, 2010 by TonytheTiger

[Branimir]

[quote name='Trace' date='02 March 2010 - 11:40 PM' timestamp='1267569844' post='2211805']I think you misread, he said that TOP was our biggest threat since you guys (implying after karma).[/quote]
Hmm, sorta confusing sentence,...not important anyway.

I think that we can conclude that no peace will be yet reached. The two sides are not close enough in their positions to make it. TOP allies could be, though, more willing due to their combat status, but not TOP.

[Geoffron X]

[quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010 - 04:05 AM' timestamp='1267520966' 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?
[/quote]
Record setting reps? Pfaahaha! They're nothing compared to ours. You know, the ones we got because you refused to honor your treaty with us?

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='02 March 2010 - 10:50 PM' timestamp='1267570456' post='2211826']
Record setting reps? Pfaahaha! They're nothing compared to ours. You know, the ones we got because you refused to honor your treaty with us?
[/quote]

Every day I wake up weeping, seemingly inexplicably.

It seems I now know why.

Edit: Oh, by the way, this was a pretty dumb thread Tony.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Some-Guy

[TonytheTiger]

I was bored.

[Branimir]

Geoffron X has some bad lingering emotions. It is what it is, happens after a crippling loss as I am sure you will find out soon enough.

Anyway, thread is fine. We could reaffirm from it that the war seemingly has yet no end in sight. Fun times.

[uaciaut]

[quote name='Trace' date='03 March 2010 - 12:29 AM' timestamp='1267569203' post='2211782']
Well I'm glad at least someone answered the question, sorta (I mean, as best you can).

Asking MK if we'd take these terms is a little weird. I mean, we did pay somewhere in excess of 50% of our tech after the noCB war. Here we're just asking for 20% of their tech directly (which I'm going to assume is their main problem). It's a little over 10% of the tech they started with. While the numbers seem huge, there are factors to it, including the fact that they attacked us and lost, and inflation in CN. TOP can afford it, they know that, its the principle behind it I guess.

I personally, while I wouldn't be happy about it, would do what I felt is best for my alliances future. After the noCB war, most of our alliance was up in arms that we accepted those terms. However, we just decided to use it as an opportunity to show everyone how badass we were besides militarily, and get it done. Was it easy to swallow? Not at all, it hurt the pride. But we had those terms paid off in 3 months, and that wasn't even using all of our slot percentage (iirc, after the first week or two I was only contributing 3 slots/round, as were many others to fund the tech from our smaller nations). If TOP were to use 100 of their nations to send tech, they could (with 100% efficiency, which I admit is somewhat hard to achieve, but TOP is as active as us, so its doable) they could have the direct tech paid off in 5 rounds. Spread it out a bit more, and you could have it done in less. Funding the outside tech takes even less time.

Is it bad? Sure, is it the end of the world? No. I'm more than content to keep fighting, cause I know that not nearly as many folks of TOP have warchest sizes that Tony does/thinks they do. While I know C&G is willing to compromise a bit, I also know we're not willing to be talked down too much. We were attacked in clear violation of commonly accepted practices, and they failed in their attempt. We plan on having some compensation for those actions. While I do wish TOP would accept so I can begin raiding the crap out of everything, as I haven't been at this low a NS in ages, I'm more than happy to continue dropping nukes on them as well.
[/quote]

Pretty well summed up tbh.


[quote name='lebubu' date='03 March 2010 - 12:41 AM' timestamp='1267569918' post='2211808']
Then perhaps we should stop discussing terms, no?
[/quote]

Also pretty well summed up given the whole posturing going on on the forums tbh.

[quote name='TonytheTiger' date='03 March 2010 - 01:01 AM' timestamp='1267571087' post='2211841']
I was bored.
[/quote]

I bet your boredom reached a climax when you decided to dow us right

Edited March 2, 2010 by uaciaut

[Opethian]

[quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010 - 09:29 AM' timestamp='1267522353' post='2211132']
It all depends on how you define winning and loosing in this game.
[/quote]

Someone is pulling an "Ivan Moldavi" here....

Also: I wouldn't call this "extortion" considering who started the war.

Edited March 2, 2010 by Opethian

[Hymenbreach]

I just someone in this whole damn war would just be the 'bigger man'. But that seems unlikely.

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='Hymenbreach' date='02 March 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1267572062' post='2211863']
I just someone in this whole damn war would just be the 'bigger man'. But that seems unlikely.
[/quote]

I just someone too

[Kzoppistan]

"When two wolves fight, even a dog can kill the victor."

I say continue to fight until you get terms you can live with, which I would advise to anyone in a conflict.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010 - 10:48 PM' timestamp='1267570348' post='2211822']
Yes, TOP has clearly made some mistakes on the diplomatic front which preceded this conflict. Namely not standing by our real friends and allies in a tough time. We have a long and complicated relationship with both Orders, starting back in '06. The side we helped establish along with Pacifica and others was Continuum centered, but Citadel was the Block we felt closest to at the time. We were too concerned with keeping Citadel together and fighting for what we thought would be a new world order where reps extortion and ZI lists of 'rogues' where a thing of the past. We were foolish to trust those folks in Karma, but hopefully through this war we can somehow redeem ourselves. TOP, along with our allies Grem, FOK, MHA and Sparta left the Continuum to fight for Karma. Some of those same ex-allies who preached against ZI lists and extortive reps back then, fight us now demanding reps and that we kick out our members they deem "rogues".
[/quote]

How convenient that you decided to fight for a new world order, against reps..blah blah blah..just as your buddies in IRON were getting bludgeoned. Although, Im sure you reached the epiphany that harsh reps are bad long before that point. I am sure of it...Aren't I?

[potato]

[quote name='Hymenbreach' date='03 March 2010 - 12:17 AM' timestamp='1267572062' post='2211863']
I just someone in this whole damn war would just be the 'bigger man'. But that seems unlikely.
[/quote]

That's what she... Nah. I wish someone too.

EDIT: Damn you, SG.

Edited March 2, 2010 by potato

[Hymenbreach]

insert verb of your own choice.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Ejayrazz' date='02 March 2010 - 01:45 PM' timestamp='1267559333' post='2211574']
Good question which I hope to see some answers to, and I also have one for you if you don't mind. Even if said terms were lenient:

If MK were giving these terms, would you accept or decline? Or a better one, lets use a figurative alliance so we can avoid people speaking on behalf of official alliances as I'd like your personal view rather than MK's.

Theoretically speaking, say you are the benevolent dictator of an alliance called The Dawgz, which you were offered these terms, would you accept them or decline?
[/quote]Hell yeah, I would surrender to an alliance called The Dawgz. All the problems here could and, damnit, should be averted by an alliance being called The Dawgz.

This sounds sarcastic but honestly I would !@#$@#$ love an alliance to be called The Dawgz. They would be the form of the alliance and reps wouldn't be needed because regardless of the outcome of a war with them, their enemies' tech would disappear, and reappear in one of their nations.

This has made the question moot, try again with an average alliance name.

[Scorponok]

[quote name='memoryproblems' date='02 March 2010 - 09:53 AM' timestamp='1267523848' post='2211151']
wonder what the numbers are of 'everyone else' combined.

Its mutually assured destruction. Pacifica is sneaking back to #1.
[/quote]


That's the bottom line, the more you plough on, the more NPO and GPA climb up the rankings. If you want that, please by all means continue, if you don't. I'd surrender.

[TonytheTiger]

[quote name='Rush Sykes' date='02 March 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1267572539' post='2211881']
How convenient that you decided to fight for a new world order, against reps..blah blah blah..just as your buddies in IRON were getting bludgeoned. Although, Im sure you reached the epiphany that harsh reps are bad long before that point. I am sure of it...Aren't I?
[/quote]

We tried for peace diplomatically as was in our interests, and it didn't work so we picked the side we felt closest to at the time. It was the wrong side.

[Raider]

[quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1267573224' post='2211894']
We tried for peace diplomatically as was in our interests, and it didn't work so we picked the side we felt closest to at the time. It was the wrong side.
[/quote]
You preemptively declared war on the entire CnG bloc for and I quote:
[quote]For our part, however, much our reason to enter this war lies in our desire to defeat those who have shown time and time again, in public and in private, that doing harm to us is high on their agenda---and that, indeed, they would take advantage of any advantageous opportunity to do so. This is a war they have brought upon themselves. [/quote]

Seriously you attacked because you thought you could get away with it and beatdown CnG, but since that plan fell apart fairly quick you're now trying to spin it and make yourself the victim.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='03 March 2010 - 09:42 AM' timestamp='1267566352' post='2211692']
You say that like 571,738 tech (and growing) isn't a horrible price to pay to make sure two alliances don't have the gall to [b]perhaps[/b] some day be part of a [b]hypothetical[/b] bloc that doesn't exist yet that [b]may[/b] attack you...theoretically.

Remember when this game was fun to play?

Seems like all the alliances that peaced out white/beige/vanilla/eggshell still do...

Just sayin'.
[/quote]

...

...

What the hell does this incoherent babble mean?

All I was doing was posting some stats as a reply to what a TOP member had said they had lost. I don't know how the hell you managed to mutilate that into this garbage.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='03 March 2010 - 09:23 AM' timestamp='1267572444' post='2211876']
"When two wolves fight, even a dog can kill the victor."

I say continue to fight until you get terms you can live with, which I would advise to anyone in a conflict.
[/quote]
I can agree with this.

If TOP decides to fight this to the bitter end until they have nothing left to give as reps, then CnG will get no reps and not be able to rebuild any time soon which will leave them in an "interesting" position.

[Ryuzaki]

[quote name='Raider' date='03 March 2010 - 12:06 PM' timestamp='1267575009' post='2211920']
You preemptively declared war on the entire CnG bloc for and I quote:


Seriously you attacked because you thought you could get away with it and beatdown CnG, but since that plan fell apart fairly quick you're now trying to spin it and make yourself the victim.
[/quote]

He was talking about the Karma war, not this one.

[Vladimir Stukov II]

[quote name='TonytheTiger' date='02 March 2010 - 11:36 PM' timestamp='1267573224' post='2211894']
We tried for peace diplomatically as was in our interests, and it didn't work so we picked the side we felt closest to at the time. It was the wrong side.
[/quote]

It wasn't the wrong side at the time. We were simply closer to Gremlins, the rest of Citadel, and FOK back then. Gremlins were like our brothers then and we would have done anything for them. It's not like we knew they would have a mass exodus of members and our relationship would be destroyed.

After the Karma war we sort of became hostile with CnG while our allies who we fought with during the Karma war moved closer to them. So here we are at war with CnG and on the opposite side of many of our long time allies.

[jerdge]

[quote name='MCRABT' date='02 March 2010' post='2211655']<SNIP> go ask NPO how much of a thorn FAN was. IRON and TOP have just under 400 members capable of constantly throwing nukes forever. The fact is that tech takes a long long time to be destroyed, infra on the other hand does not. Once IRON and TOP are just re-buying to 1000 infra once a week to throw nukes at your bottom tear you can bet that would become a real thorn in your side.[/quote]
While I think that "forever" is a bit of overstatement, MCRABT's point is interesting (of course at CnG they can't be ignorant of this, hence for some reason they must be OK with it).

Should the war continue for long time I'll be curious to see what will happen.
CnG will need "only" a few hundreds nations at a time that fight TOP/IRON's nations and keep them in anarchy, and that number will be shrinking with time as the less prepared of their opponents run out of money, but I'm unsure that so many of their members will accept to hinder their growth for 2-6 months just to continue hitting the same 1k infra over and over, having (increasingly) clearly in mind that there won't be much to be extracted from TOP/IRON after the process. And that their not engaged fellows are growing again.
The ones that will start to grow again will be instead under the constant threat of being attacked and then nuked by maniples of nations coming out of Peace Mode with 20/25 nukes, several thousands of tech levels and WRCs.
Should CnG decide to stop the growth of all their nations to rotate them all in the attacks, they'd be stopping their overall growth... While their rivals continue to develop unhindered and basically free from any threat.

On the other hand, it's doubtful/not certain that TOP and IRON can really have hundreds of nations willing to fight for 2-6 months like that, slowly losing their tech levels.

If TOP/IRON can continue to fight as they claim they will, IMHO they will bring this war to a ruinous victory for CnG. I know that I wouldn't want to be among the ones that have to decide whether they're really bluffing or not...


This situation is interesting from a psychological point of view also. CnG is unable to trust TOP/IRON, and these last are unabe to trust CnG. Both would have much to gain by offering their hand to shake to the other party, and little (TOP/IRON) to nothing (CnG) to gain from the continuation of the war for more than a week [i](warning: wild estimate)[/i].
Still, they're agreeing that the best course of action is what actually harms them the most. Mutual complete/partial destruction doesn't seem that bad to either, and both seem to forget that the (possibly) most important factor to succeed in CN is to have and to be free to use your [i]time[/i]. Which both are just wasting.


[i](By the way: a lot of people are cutting very sorry figures with their outraged, derisory, sarcastic or sadistic comments in this [i]OOC[/i] thread. Although a few ones are actually amusing, the most of them are just a pain for the mind. Poor you all, seriously: can't you use the IC forums for your ravings?)[/i]

[Ninja Colt]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='02 March 2010 - 03:42 PM' timestamp='1267566352' post='2211692']
You say that like 571,738 tech (and growing) isn't a horrible price to pay to make sure two alliances don't have the gall to [b]perhaps[/b] some day be part of a [b]hypothetical[/b] bloc that doesn't exist yet that [b]may[/b] attack you...theoretically.
[/quote]

It isn't, considering they've already [b]literally[/b] preemptive striked us without a CB.


[size="5"][b]literally.[/b][/size]