Accepting the Consequenses of War

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='03 March 2010 - 01:53 PM' timestamp='1267646209' post='2212879']
True, though I still think the idea of Superfriends trying to take over the game is near-laughable - not for want of ability (though SF isn't "unrivaled"), but for a lack of desire to dominate.
[/quote]
They won't be taking over the game because that isn't in their nature as you have pointed out. However, right now and for the foreseeable future they are the dominate power on Planet Bob.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

If we don't see some of the recently defeated crawl back to their old master when their terms expire.

[lakerzz8]

[quote name='Nobody Expects' date='03 March 2010 - 09:22 AM' timestamp='1267637186' post='2212742']
Simple Maths, fighting a nation with 5k,10k tech and no infra hurts those attacking far more. Fighting 2 or 3 on 1 hurts those attacking far more. Now the war has reached this phase TOP will be kicking out much more damage then they are taking, ofc they can't win, but it's not a great for CnG either the longer this goes on, they lose warchests, tech and infra that is actually worth something rather then the 0-1k Infra TOP are losing.
[/quote]

Simple Maths, CnG and co have enough nations that they can keep rotating and rebuilding and collecting decent back-collects in between wars if necessary.

[Germanium]

i think top should keep fighting but for different reasons. dont build your enemy back up - ever, it defeats this purpose. not so much as the reps as they did go leinent as they say, but because you can get away with this by disbanding and/or reforming under a new aa. the aa is changeable, the community isnt. reestablish yourselves and get a protectorate, boom, you have no money to pay and they cant do a damn thing about it unless they want another war, which is more of a pzi of a collective gathering rather than the zi of an individual alliance.

[Drai]

Continue to pound C&G because I'd rather be at war than peace.
[quote name='lakerzz8' date='03 March 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1267647803' post='2212901']
Simple Maths, CnG and co have enough nations that they can keep rotating and rebuilding and collecting decent back-collects in between wars if necessary.
[/quote]
I've said this in a couple different places, glad to see somebody else posting it.

As for TOP continuing to do a ton of damage. I don't think that's going to hold true. Only a couple weeks ago I would have been ranked #22 in tech in TOP. I'm now #11 (maybe 12, can't remember). Keep in mind I've lost a decent amount of tech myself in that timeframe, close to 1,000.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Drai

[Jared]

[quote name='Freestyler8456' date='03 March 2010 - 08:36 PM' timestamp='1267648816' post='2212910']
i think top should keep fighting but for different reasons. dont build your enemy back up - ever, it defeats this purpose. not so much as the reps as they did go leinent as they say, but because you can get away with this by disbanding and/or reforming under a new aa. the aa is changeable, the community isnt. reestablish yourselves and get a protectorate, boom, you have no money to pay and they cant do a damn thing about it unless they want another war, which is more of a pzi of a collective gathering rather than the zi of an individual alliance.
[/quote]
You do realize that our target lists don't change regardless of what the nations aa is, if they were to do something like disbanding to get away from terms, all of the nations would still have to surrounded individually and would have to follow the surrounded terms which among other things decommissioning all tanks, aircraft, cruise missiles, navy, and nukes, changing aa to TOP GUN POW. I don't even know if we would really accept whole alliance individual surrenders anyways, so it might not even be a option, not that I see them doing something like that anyways.

[Meer Republic]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='03 March 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1267646209' post='2212879']
True, though I still think the idea of Superfriends trying to take over the game is near-laughable - not for want of ability (though SF isn't "unrivaled"), but for a lack of desire to dominate.
[/quote]


Mixoux pretty much covered it, I also didn't suggest SF would try to push that dominance you made that leap yourself.

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Meer Republic' date='03 March 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1267652249' post='2212956']
Mixoux pretty much covered it, I also didn't suggest SF would try to push that dominance you made that leap yourself.
[/quote]
It's just that your comment is kind of pointless. SF and CnG aren't rivals, and SF aren't going to lord any temporary statistical superiority over anyone, so it probably doesn't factor highly into CnG's thought process.

[Leigon]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='03 March 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1267653690' post='2212980']
It's just that your comment is kind of pointless. SF and CnG aren't rivals, and SF aren't going to lord any temporary statistical superiority over anyone, so it probably doesn't factor highly into CnG's thought process.
[/quote]

Indeed. We're not rivals we're tea buddies. Also i see CnG and superfriends getting closer every war. I don't know why this trend should stop.

[Meer Republic]

[quote name='Arcturus Jefferson' date='03 March 2010 - 09:58 PM' timestamp='1267653690' post='2212980']
It's just that your comment is kind of pointless. SF and CnG aren't rivals, and SF aren't going to lord any temporary statistical superiority over anyone, so it probably doesn't factor highly into CnG's thought process.
[/quote]

I don't think it's pointless, it's based in fact . I think it's interesting that C&G are willing to keep going even if it potentially damages their relative position in the world, if anything it speaks volumes for how much they trust SF. Those sorts of things should feature in any alliance or blocs thought process and I'm sure they do.

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='Leigon' date='04 March 2010 - 08:32 AM' timestamp='1267655789' post='2213012']
Indeed. We're not rivals we're tea buddies. Also i see CnG and superfriends getting closer every war. I don't know why this trend should stop.
[/quote]
I would imagine that it will probably be a relatively boring post-war world, should your prediction hold up. [i]Pax SuperGrievances[/i], perhaps?

[Neo Uruk]

Burn CnG. They are very weak, clearly.

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='Geoffron X' date='02 March 2010 - 05:50 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]

NPO complaining about people not honoring treaties is hilarious to see.

[wickedj]

[quote name='WarriorConcept' date='03 March 2010 - 06:48 PM' timestamp='1267660290' post='2213090']
NPO complaining about people not honoring treaties is hilarious to see.
[/quote]
Equally hilarious, folks who entered this war, fought for two weeks then ran away as quick as possible, and are now all over this thread screaming for TOP to kill SG

[Arcturus Jefferson]

[quote name='Meer Republic' date='03 March 2010 - 06:02 PM' timestamp='1267657577' post='2213053']
I don't think it's pointless, it's based in fact . I think it's interesting that C&G are willing to keep going even if it potentially damages their relative position in the world, if anything it speaks volumes for how much they trust SF. Those sorts of things should feature in any alliance or blocs thought process and I'm sure they do.
[/quote]
It's not that far off from asking if CnG is willing to accept a stronger (relatively speaking) GPA. I mean, yeah, it's true. But so what? Does that imply that CnG deeply trusts the GPA? Maybe WTF teams up with them and they [i]take over the world[/i]

[Trace]

[quote name='wickedj' date='03 March 2010 - 07:02 PM' timestamp='1267661188' post='2213099']
Equally hilarious, folks who entered this war, fought for two weeks then ran away as quick as possible, and are now all over this thread screaming for TOP to kill SG
[/quote]

I'm sure if we were truly evil, we would look at that as them breaking their oaths to neutrality, thus putting them back at war, right?

[mhawk]

Make victory so costly it is worse than defeat. Eventually CnG can't play innocent victim anymore. Especially not after asking more reps than all other blocs combined.

[Sandwich Controversy]

*points to sig*

[Some-Guy]

[quote name='wickedj' date='04 March 2010 - 12:02 AM' timestamp='1267661188' post='2213099']
Equally hilarious, folks who entered this war, fought for two weeks then ran away as quick as possible, and are now all over this thread screaming for TOP to kill SG
[/quote]

What did I do now?

[neneko]

Several things missing here. First of all MK doesn't care if you nuke away our infra. It has happened a few times so far so one more won't do any difference. TOP on the other hand have been collecting these pixels for years. I really enjoy watching your hard work burn to the ground.

I voted keep fighting. I think the surrender terms were offered way too early anyway. We're just starting to see some of your "immortal" warchests dropping to dangerously low levels. If it was up to me you wouldn't have gotten any terms for at least another month.

As for SF I for one welcome our new superfriendly overlords.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='neneko' date='04 March 2010 - 04:15 AM' timestamp='1267694361' post='2213570']
Several things missing here. First of all MK doesn't care if you nuke away our infra. It has happened a few times so far so one more won't do any difference. TOP on the other hand have been collecting these pixels for years. I really enjoy watching your hard work burn to the ground.[/quote]
Hard work? It takes less work to find tech deals than to wage costly wars every six months. Also, rebuying 4 x 5k infra or buying 20k infra takes the same ammount of work.

We're also very happy to see your hard rebuilding work burn to the ground.

Sidenote: if there is anything that one should remember is that, on Planet Bob, you set the precedent by which you will be judged when your destruction comes. I'm having a good time watching some people go all badass on the TOP-IRON coalition, mouthing off about how they would rather eviscerate our children and sacrifice our women with rocket launchers.

[Nobody Expects]

[quote name='Trace' date='04 March 2010 - 12:28 AM' timestamp='1267662744' post='2213121']
I'm sure if we were truly stupid, we would look at that as them breaking their oaths to neutrality, thus putting them back at war, right?
[/quote]

Fixed.

[tekken]

hmmm send my tech away or have it destroyed while nuking the other side. Not a tough decision there.

[neneko]

[quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='04 March 2010 - 11:07 AM' timestamp='1267697461' post='2213580']
Sidenote: if there is anything that one should remember is that, on Planet Bob, you set the precedent by which you will be judged when your destruction comes.
[/quote]
That seems to be true. How does it feel?

Edited March 4, 2010 by neneko

[lebubu]

[quote name='mhawk' date='04 March 2010 - 06:22 AM' timestamp='1267680382' post='2213433']
Make victory so costly it is worse than defeat. Eventually CnG can't play innocent victim anymore. Especially not after asking more reps than all other blocs combined.
[/quote]

Make them pay for letting themselves be attacked!!