Rocky Horror Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='mhawk' date='03 March 2010 - 11:22 PM' 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]Have you any idea how many times we've been on the other side of a curbstomp? Think about those of us who fought in the League, who developed warchest and nuclear war doctrines in the first instance only to be beaten down because of our !@#$ allies (nothing personal). You don't know the first thing about victory or defeat on your own terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Bad Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Leigon' date='03 March 2010 - 05:32 PM' 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] We have heard this so many times before about so many groups. I know people kind of have to say it but, I don't think anybody buys it. The only thing C&G had in common with SF was the threat of Citadel. With that gone all the issues that have been forced down over that last year to deal with a common threat will be back. Its not real hard to predict the next major war on Planet Bob, the only mystery is how they will start. Edited March 4, 2010 by The Big Bad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='The Big Bad' date='04 March 2010 - 10:08 AM' timestamp='1267715544' post='2213681'] The only thing C&G had in common with SF was the threat of Citadel. [/quote] That is totally incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SynthFG Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Citadel as a block was never a threat to either SF or CnG, There were far too many individual alliance ties to make it so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 MK are probably more likely to attack Athens than Fark or GOD. Quiet, treaty huggers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Rocky Horror' date='04 March 2010 - 06:50 AM' timestamp='1267714411' post='2213671'] Have you any idea how many times we've been on the other side of a curbstomp? Think about those of us who fought in the League, who developed warchest and nuclear war doctrines in the first instance only to be beaten down because of our !@#$ allies (nothing personal). You don't know the first thing about victory or defeat on your own terms. [/quote] You don't know anything about how to log into your nation! Notice that statement doesn't have any supporting evidence or logic behind it either. I'd say I've been on just as many sides of victors and defeated as anyone else. The fact you might be a reroll and had another ruler back in the day and got curbstomped in no way refutes my statement regarding CnG requesting more reps than any other bloc, and very likely all over blocs combined. In the times I've been the victor, the greatest regrets I've had always was in carrying out destruction farther than it needed to go. Take BAPS for example. I've spent a good part of two years trying to atone for going along with that level of destruction. I find the notion of attempting to enslave a group of players to tech farms for 6-12 months idiotic. Even our most detested foe at the time (PC) we used diplomacy and terms that were completely repealed a few weeks after issued. It takes little to be the vengeful leader citing what is technically possible as the natural or logical limit of retribution. Edited March 4, 2010 by mhawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 (edited) [quote name='mhawk' date='04 March 2010 - 10:47 AM' timestamp='1267721479' post='2213751'] You don't know anything about how to log into your nation! Notice that statement doesn't have any supporting evidence or logic behind it either. I'd say I've been on just as many sides of victors and defeated as anyone else. The fact you might be a reroll and had another ruler back in the day and got curbstomped in no way refutes my statement regarding CnG requesting more reps than any other bloc, and very likely all over blocs combined. [/quote]Your statement is not supported by the naivety of your assertions regarding defeat and victory. I can't take TPF's line on dignified surrender seriously. Edited March 4, 2010 by Rocky Horror Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='Rocky Horror' date='04 March 2010 - 09:06 AM' timestamp='1267722586' post='2213764'] Your statement is not supported by the naivety of your assertions regarding defeat and victory. I can't take TPF's line on dignified surrender seriously. [/quote] Once again neither comment has anything to do with my original statement regarding CnG and reps. Good job having no argument. I expect the next one liner reply shortly about how you find TPF funny ect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trace Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='mhawk' date='04 March 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1267723087' post='2213767'] Once again neither comment has anything to do with my original statement regarding CnG and reps. Good job having no argument. I expect the next one liner reply shortly about how you find TPF funny ect. [/quote] TPF is funny. FUNNY LOOKING. Lame enough, or needs more lame? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='mhawk' date='04 March 2010 - 11:14 AM' timestamp='1267723087' post='2213767'] Once again neither comment has anything to do with my original statement regarding CnG and reps. Good job having no argument. I expect the next one liner reply shortly about how you find TPF funny ect. [/quote]If you recall, this is all in reply to "give em hell make victory worse than defeat", which is a ridiculous statement, but one that some uninformed onlookers might take seriously if left unchallenged. Also I don't think I need to say I have no respect for TPF, nor do I expect you to care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='Rocky Horror' date='04 March 2010 - 09:26 AM' timestamp='1267723817' post='2213780'] If you recall, this is all in reply to "give em hell make victory worse than defeat", which is a ridiculous statement, but one that some uninformed onlookers might take seriously if left unchallenged. Also I don't think I need to say I have no respect for TPF, nor do I expect you to care. [/quote] My statement was in regards CnG's position in this ordeal. Should they push a war farther and farther and continue taking damage for the sake of seeking reps or extermination it will have dire long terms strategic consequences. I tried to illustrate this by using a quote from the commanding officer of the Alamo. A situation that perhaps is similar to that which TOP finds itself. " I will, however, do the best I can under the circumstances, and I feel confident that the determined valour and desperate courage, heretofore evinced by my men, will not fail them in the last struggle, and although they may be sacrifieced to the vengeance of a Gothic enemy, the victory will cost the enemy so dear, that it will be worse for him than a defeat." In all those times you describe of being curbstomped ect, TOP and IRON were never the leaders or instigators of such actions. However you guys feel it necessary and justified to pursue a war of extermination citing in defense you've been put in bad situations by others. If one takes CnG's statements of "you'll never get lower terms", "these are the best you'll get" seriously, then logically eventually no matter how prepared TOP/IRON were, they will eventually be utterly destroyed and broke. Would you ask an alliance the size of Athens in the WoTC to pay 340k tech? If the answer is no, then we must disregard all the bravado of stating the terms presented are the only ones you'll get. The real issue in this is at which point you'll exceed the limits of what popular opinion will allow while at the same time slowing your own growth while all those around you rebuild and gain strength. Dare I say that one day perhaps just as CnG rallied in Karma with "Remember Athens! Remember GPA!", it is not beyond reason to foresee months from now when CnG et all have demanded a million tech between iron/top/NPO that someone else might come along and say remember what happened here. You may win your victory by seeing TOP and IRON get smaller, but in the long run it likely will be worse than a defeat now that the bar has been set so high for Reps and terms should your political situation reverse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='mhawk' date='04 March 2010 - 12:44 PM' timestamp='1267728471' post='2213841'] My statement was in regards CnG's position in this ordeal. Should they push a war farther and farther and continue taking damage for the sake of seeking reps or extermination it will have dire long terms strategic consequences. I tried to illustrate this by using a quote from the commanding officer of the Alamo. A situation that perhaps is similar to that which TOP finds itself. " I will, however, do the best I can under the circumstances, and I feel confident that the determined valour and desperate courage, heretofore evinced by my men, will not fail them in the last struggle, and although they may be sacrifieced to the vengeance of a Gothic enemy, the victory will cost the enemy so dear, that it will be worse for him than a defeat." In all those times you describe of being curbstomped ect, TOP and IRON were never the leaders or instigators of such actions. However you guys feel it necessary and justified to pursue a war of extermination citing in defense you've been put in bad situations by others. If one takes CnG's statements of "you'll never get lower terms", "these are the best you'll get" seriously, then logically eventually no matter how prepared TOP/IRON were, they will eventually be utterly destroyed and broke. Would you ask an alliance the size of Athens in the WoTC to pay 340k tech? If the answer is no, then we must disregard all the bravado of stating the terms presented are the only ones you'll get. The real issue in this is at which point you'll exceed the limits of what popular opinion will allow while at the same time slowing your own growth while all those around you rebuild and gain strength. Dare I say that one day perhaps just as CnG rallied in Karma with "Remember Athens! Remember GPA!", it is not beyond reason to foresee months from now when CnG et all have demanded a million tech between iron/top/NPO that someone else might come along and say remember what happened here. You may win your victory by seeing TOP and IRON get smaller, but in the long run it likely will be worse than a defeat now that the bar has been set so high for Reps and terms should your political situation reverse. [/quote]No. I would suggest that it would not be in TOP's interest to drop below 1mil NS, but if that's what it takes to spite us...then don't we feel special. This unbreakable TOP top tier reduced to utter self-destruction, just to show they can damage CnG in their defeat, how delicious. Honestly, I'm not that big on the 300k tech terms. I think TOP's outright, inarguable defeat (first to fifteenth in score) is enough. Some people would prefer reps though, and I won't deny that when TOP use their ill-built warchests to regain a sanction and leave MK's rebuilding efforts (themselves limited by years of reps and fighting) behind, there will be a feeling that we let them get away, while defeating them. Whichever way it goes, we'll get criticised. No reps? Didn't defeat them! Stalemate! TOP is undefeated! I've seen all the weaseling before, and when they come for the inevitable rematch that a "stalemate" invites, our victory and the nobility of our cause will be wiped from history. Reps? Disgusting, Karma fought to abolish reps, remember (no)? Draconian, crippling (they are neither of these, nor can tech reps ever be the latter), unfair, Hegemonic. 300k is a lot, but I don't think it's "wrong", and I don't think it's any reason to keep fighting. That's helping no one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I don't think it works quite that way tho, this will probably energize your particular base and all, but TPF's past reputation(albeit committed by fifty other people all in different alliances now whom I'm sure you've got catalogued) really tends to close a lot of the moral outrage doors, whereas GPA didn't really have a huge reputation for that stuff, and Athens was kinda pitifully weak back then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstep Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='Rocky Horror' date='04 March 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1267729314' post='2213854'] 300k is a lot, but I don't think it's "wrong", and I don't think it's any reason to keep fighting. That's helping no one. [/quote] And paying the reps helps who exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeni Luchenkov Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='Rocky Horror' date='04 March 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1267729314' post='2213854']and I won't deny that when TOP use their ill-built warchests to regain a sanction and leave MK's rebuilding efforts (themselves limited by years of reps and fighting) behind, there will be a feeling that we let them get away, while defeating them. /snip 300k is a lot, but I don't think it's "wrong", and I don't think it's any reason to keep fighting. That's helping no one. [/quote] Yeah, we got it that TOP never fought in a single war and MK has been waging war for the past twenty years. Seriously. Now, on to some truth, TOP actually fought in wars and all of MK's wars weren't destructive beatdowns. Since 18 months, MK has only been in victorious wars. Save for a handful of warchests who predates that, most of TOP's warchests were built during that same timeframe. Which is why you see a lot of similarities between MK and TOP when it comes to them. MK should be able to rebuild as quickly as TOP. Also, it's 350k. For TOP alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='04 March 2010 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1267733817' post='2213937'] Yeah, we got it that TOP never fought in a single war and MK has been waging war for the past twenty years. Seriously. Now, on to some truth, TOP actually fought in wars and all of MK's wars weren't destructive beatdowns. Since 18 months, MK has only been in victorious wars. Save for a handful of warchests who predates that, most of TOP's warchests were built during that same timeframe. Which is why you see a lot of similarities between MK and TOP when it comes to them. MK should be able to rebuild as quickly as TOP. Also, it's 350k. For TOP alone. [/quote] Nuclear wars require a ton more rebuilding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='jstep' date='04 March 2010 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1267731756' post='2213902'] And paying the reps helps who exactly? [/quote]The winners. Also you if you take pride out of the equation. [quote name='Yevgeni Luchenkov' date='04 March 2010 - 02:13 PM' timestamp='1267733817' post='2213937'] Yeah, we got it that TOP never fought in a single war and MK has been waging war for the past twenty years. Seriously. Now, on to some truth, TOP actually fought in wars and all of MK's wars weren't destructive beatdowns. Since 18 months, MK has only been in victorious wars. Save for a handful of warchests who predates that, most of TOP's warchests were built during that same timeframe. Which is why you see a lot of similarities between MK and TOP when it comes to them. MK should be able to rebuild as quickly as TOP. Also, it's 350k. For TOP alone. [/quote]TOP has fought easy winning wars prettymuch forever. TOP vs GATO (when GATO were !@#$. Honestly, they gave LUE an assurance that they could get their military ready "within 2 weeks", too bad the war started that day lol) TOP+FAN vs The Legion (the famous worst blitz in history) TOP vs GPA Citadel vs NpO (oh and there were about 3 more alliances against NpO too) TOP (and who the $%&@ cares) vs more !@#$@#$ purple alliances. In a shorter timeframe, 2mil NS MK fought 6mil NS NpO and MCXA with little help; WAPA who had 90% our NS (once on our own iirc); NPO, VE, Echelon, ML, TORN and...someone, which must've been at least 10x our NS to begin with, before the "winning streak" began. In those years TOP had unbridled grwth, taking them to #1 as an alliance that was on a side that would've won anyway (except in GWII), collecting a mass of reps from generally useless opponents along the way. It would be a travesty of incompetence if TOP weren't more prepared to rebuild than MK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='Rocky Horror' date='04 March 2010 - 12:58 PM' timestamp='1267729314' post='2213854'] Reps? Disgusting, Karma fought to abolish reps, remember (no)? Draconian, crippling (they are neither of these, nor can tech reps ever be the latter), unfair, Hegemonic. [/quote] Karma was a much about abolishing reps as the Unjust War was about abolishing tech raiding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='bigwoody' date='04 March 2010 - 03:49 PM' timestamp='1267739609' post='2214038'] Karma was a much about abolishing reps as the Unjust War was about abolishing tech raiding. [/quote]I implied as much. Less so, even. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='Rocky Horror' date='04 March 2010 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1267740067' post='2214051'] I implied as much. Less so, even. [/quote] You probably missed the larger implication, however. You see, some of Karma thought they were fighting against unjustly large reparations, and some in the UJW thought they were fighting to end tech raiding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='bigwoody' date='04 March 2010 - 04:19 PM' timestamp='1267741388' post='2214089'] You probably missed the larger implication, however. You see, some of Karma thought they were fighting against unjustly large reparations, and some in the UJW thought they were fighting to end tech raiding. [/quote]Those people were illiterate, their feelings have no bearing on the progress of CN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lamuella Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 so the options are "give in to extortion" or "continue to pound CnG" wow. this is the least biased poll I have ever seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 [quote name='Lamuella' date='04 March 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1267742215' post='2214106'] so the options are "give in to extortion" or "continue to pound CnG" wow. this is the least biased poll I have ever seen. [/quote] I voted "give in to extortion", personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Knight Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 (edited) I know the two sides. But can someone un-biased, which means not involved in the war, give me the honest opinion of what happened and why? Edited March 5, 2010 by Josh Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 [quote name='Josh Knight' date='04 March 2010 - 05:41 PM' timestamp='1267746383' post='2214189'] I know the two sides. But can someone un-biased, which means not involved in the war, give me the honest opinion of what happened and why? [/quote]The answer to that is almost definitely no 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.