The Future of Neo-Hegemony ?

[Solaris]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='22 March 2010 - 07:36 PM' timestamp='1269279359' post='2233311']
Oh ho, but the propagandists on these channels often determine the perception of history, do they not?
[/quote]Oh no, those are scholars and intellectuals

[jerdge]

[quote name='Solaris' date='22 March 2010' timestamp='1269277934' post='2233296'][quote name='Bob Janova' date='22 March 2010 - 06:52 PM' timestamp='1269276749' post='2233286']Perhaps so, but there are limits on what conditions it is reasonable for the winners to put on losers in war, and if they have actually depleted TOP's warchests, then they can't even use the 'but they're still a threat zomg' excuse any more.[/quote]
Perhaps so, but history will determine the degree of reasonability, not propagandists on these channels of communication.[/quote]
How can a discipline ("history") provide any opinion? Is yours a form of Vogon Poetry, maybe?

On second thought, as (good/real) history tries to explain [i]how[/i] things occurred - not what "should" have happened and/or why what not/happened was good/bad by itself, as that's what [i]propaganda[/i] is instead about - I put forward the secondary conjecture that you were just training your doublespeak abilities.

Edited March 23, 2010 by jerdge

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='lebubu' date='23 March 2010 - 12:46 AM' timestamp='1269269182' post='2233175']
What are you basing your predictions on?
[/quote]
Attrition of stats is pretty much a given in any alliance war for both sides.
Both the losers and winners lose strength during a war, the only difference is that the winner loses less strength than the loser.
On an individual level and perhaps in some extreme asymmetrical war scenarios there may be some exceptions to this but on average an alliance loses strength by engaging in an average war.

So while the belligerents of this war are fighting their stats will continue to fall while the NPO's stats continue a slow rise owing to them not being involved in the war to any large level.

So it is a reasonable assumption that an alliance that is slowly increasing in strength will eventually surpass an alliance that is slowly losing its strength.

And therefore it is a statistical certainty that [i]given sufficient time[/i] the NPO will overtake the alliances engaged in this war in terms of strength on an individual level owing to their slow growth and the slow decline of C&G & TOP sides of this war.

[Bob Janova]

It's not even my alliance's side any more, and it was never really my side – although I have fought and my soldiers died for the raiding coalition, my sympathies have been at best split through the whole war. The side which is keeping a beaten and outnumbered opponent at war for months and not offering a reasonable exit from the war will never be my side.

I appreciate that you have to say that you believe 350k tech is 'fair terms' but any neutral observer will see that it clearly isn't, and as an initial offer it was almost certainly designed to be rejected (as indeed it was), just like TOP's initial offer of white peace.

[quote]Money is destroyed even when turtling.[/quote]
Not if you don't have any ... my point is that you can manage the timing of when you accept the aid offers so you don't leave money on hand to be destroyed.

And yes, it's easy to lose 1000 infra in a day if you're fighting high tech nations (150 from a nuke, 6 air attacks = 120, 6 CMs = 60, one DA = 40, total 370 base ... so if your opponents have 10k tech or more and a WRC you can lose 1000 while turtling), but the damage is reduced once you start to have little enough infra that it isn't the maximum every time, and I doubt you are triple teaming everyone with 10k tech nations.

[quote]OOC: could you please stop using ooc arguments in every post? At some point someone will be dumb enough to respond and then we'll get a whole new line of discussion that's nothing but ooc tags. If you want to make a thread about how we're ruining the game (wasn't this \m/s job? way to let others pick up the slack guys!) that's better suited for the ooc board. [/quote]
You might have a point there ... it just saddens me to see the people that suffered this type of thing now inflict it on others.

[lebubu]

[quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='23 March 2010 - 01:49 AM' timestamp='1269305362' post='2233673']
snip
[/quote]

Oh, sorry for the confusion - I was referring to the part about warchests.

Edited March 23, 2010 by lebubu

[neneko]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='23 March 2010 - 02:10 AM' timestamp='1269306601' post='2233700']
And yes, it's easy to lose 1000 infra in a day if you're fighting high tech nations (150 from a nuke, 6 air attacks = 120, 6 CMs = 60, one DA = 40, total 370 base ... so if your opponents have 10k tech or more and a WRC you can lose 1000 while turtling), but the damage is reduced once you start to have little enough infra that it isn't the maximum every time, and I doubt you are triple teaming everyone with 10k tech nations.
[/quote]
You don't need anywhere close to 10k tech to destroy 1k infra. I'm in two wars with one fire team guy on each and we destroy close to 1k infra a day for each of them and we're around 4k-5k tech each.

No matter how good they are at timing they can't accept the money and buy 10 nukes. They're still limited to 2 nukes per day and thus will have money on hand that will be destroyed.

Still don't get who would send the money in this scenario. Once TOPs warchests are gone I doubt anyone else on their side has much money laying around.

The rest of your "ur as bad as [i]them[/i]!!!!!" drivel is a little odd seeing that we have actually offered them peace. They're free to accept peace whenever they feel that they're good and ready.

Edited March 23, 2010 by neneko

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='neneko' date='22 March 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1269308352' post='2233740']
The rest of your "ur as bad as [i]them[/i]!!!!!" drivel is a little odd seeing that we have actually offered them peace. They're free to accept peace whenever they feel that they're good and ready.
[/quote]

Fair is in the eye of the beholder, everyone on your side of the war, save Bob , thinks the terms offered are fair, everyone on the other side of the war thinks they are not fair.


Fake Edit: Actually, I think some people on the CnG side of the war, but farther distanced from CnG also think the terms are a bit much. Sorry I won't name alliances though, I don't want to make them get picked on, or make them e-lawyer.

[Cortath]

[quote name='sethb' date='22 March 2010 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1269269485' post='2233180']
I thought you would be able to avoid taking irrelevant snipes and actually respond to what I said, Cortath.

If you must know their government only finished plans that had been started in March of '09.
[/quote]

*chuckles heartily*

Sethb, I knew long ago that you gave up any shred of sovereignty and dignity you and your alliance once had to a greater master. It was quite apparent the first time we met that you and your alliance was a tool, a useful tool.

And now you're not even that.

[Qaianna]

[quote name='neneko' date='22 March 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1269308352' post='2233740']
(snipped down to this bit)

The rest of your "ur as bad as [i]them[/i]!!!!!" drivel is a little odd seeing that we have actually offered them peace. They're free to accept peace whenever they feel that they're good and ready.
[/quote]
Um, didn't the New Pacific Order once offer peace of a sort to the Federation of Armed Nations, prior to the Karma War? Last I heard, that offer was universally reviled as unfair. Perhaps the offer itself, rather than the offer existing, is the criterion of whether such an action is seen as just and/or honourable.

And, Neneko, in response to your comment to Mr Janova regarding a possible exodus of leaders and their nations from the political arena in light of eternal war ... that was a charge laid against the former Hegemony as well, with using the tactic of eternal war and offering decidedly unbalanced peace terms as a sop to public opinion. Browbeat a faction enough and they're gonna start throwing it right back if something similar happens. There's no way to escape it. (And no need for OOC tags either. Mwahahaha.)

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='22 March 2010 - 10:34 PM' timestamp='1269311655' post='2233825']
Um, didn't the New Pacific Order once offer peace of a sort to the Federation of Armed Nations, prior to the Karma War? Last I heard, that offer was universally reviled as unfair. Perhaps the offer itself, rather than the offer existing, is the criterion of whether such an action is seen as just and/or honourable.
[/quote]

I do not believe the situation you describe ever occurred. Unless you are referring to the peace terms at the end of the first FAN war.

[lebubu]

[quote name='Qaianna' date='23 March 2010 - 03:34 AM' timestamp='1269311655' post='2233825']
Last I heard, that offer was universally reviled as unfair.
[/quote]

Last I heard, our offer wasn't.

[WalkerNinja]

[quote name='neneko' date='22 March 2010 - 08:39 PM' timestamp='1269308352' post='2233740']
The rest of your "ur as bad as [i]them[/i]!!!!!" drivel is a little odd seeing that we have actually offered them peace. They're free to accept peace whenever they feel that they're good and ready.
[/quote]

Amazing revisionism.

FAN was offered peace a year before they emerged victorious and 99% of their members left the game in the mean time.

The peace offered (come out of peace mode and fight for a bit, then we will give you peace) was unacceptable to them.

Yet vietFAN is the classic and most oft cited case of Hegemony mischief.

You have issued us "fair" terms that we do not find acceptable. By any measure "come out and fight, then you'll get peace" is easier than "pay us 350k tech, and don't use your aid slots for anything else until it's done." So if you want to be fair about the comparison, you're actually being a lot worse than NPO ever thought about being in vietFAN.

In this situation anyways. Nice try though.

Edited March 23, 2010 by WalkerNinja

[Banksy]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='23 March 2010 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1269309537' post='2233762']
Fake Edit: Actually, I think some people on the CnG side of the war, but farther distanced from CnG also think the terms are a bit much. Sorry I won't name alliances though, I don't want to make them get picked on, or make them e-lawyer.
[/quote]
I think you should just name them, or else it might look like you're just making it up

We wouldn't want that.

[Valerius]

[quote name='supercoolyellow' date='22 March 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1269224561' post='2232693']
As I said earlier, I don't think it will happen, but maybe they could have a treaty we wouldn't expect in the workings? Ordinance of the Orders would make for some delicious drama, then again, that's outlandish
[/quote]
Is it?

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Banksy' date='22 March 2010 - 10:15 PM' timestamp='1269314108' post='2233870']
I think you should just name them, or else it might look like you're just making it up

We wouldn't want that.
[/quote]

Touche, I guess you can take my comment at little value then.

[quote name='President Kent' date='22 March 2010 - 11:51 PM' timestamp='1269319891' post='2233975']
Is it?
[/quote]

A man after my own heart

[Solaris]

[quote name='jerdge' date='23 March 2010 - 02:14 AM' timestamp='1269303278' post='2233639']
How can a discipline ("history") provide any opinion? Is yours a form of Vogon Poetry, maybe?

On second thought, as (good/real) history tries to explain [i]how[/i] things occurred - not what "should" have happened and/or why what not/happened was good/bad by itself, as that's what [i]propaganda[/i] is instead about - I put forward the secondary conjecture that you were just training your doublespeak abilities.
[/quote]More like pointing out that many disagree with the notion of Janova's idea of what's reasonable, and that with time, the truth regarding currently prevailent conditions is more visible to more people (more data available), and people will be better armed to make assesments of rationality and decency in this particular conflict. I maintain that while discussion here may alter the viewpoints of some at the moment, we have a better chance of studying, analyzing, and understanding the current events once history has been made, and on-going events have unfolded. Nothing is irreverible, even if nothing can be undone, and that is the beauty of the behavioral dynamics herein.

[lebubu]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='23 March 2010 - 04:12 AM' timestamp='1269313954' post='2233866']
You have issued us "fair" terms that we do not find acceptable.
[/quote]

"The situations are perfectly comparable because both FAN and TOP didn't find the terms that they've been offered acceptable."

I'm sure the NPO made considerable efforts to negotiate acceptable terms with FAN - comparable to CnG having to stomach TOP's theatrics (and the usual threats of eternal war) in negotiations. Give me a break.

[KingEd]

I'm here still waiting for the war to end all wars. As for the reps being asked from TOP, maybe, maybe not. I don't know...either way, they'll pay something in the end.

[WalkerNinja]

[quote name='lebubu' date='23 March 2010 - 05:45 AM' timestamp='1269341118' post='2234100']
"The situations are perfectly comparable because both FAN and TOP didn't find the terms that they've been offered acceptable."

I'm sure the NPO made considerable efforts to negotiate acceptable terms with FAN - comparable to CnG having to stomach TOP's theatrics (and the usual threats of eternal war) in negotiations. Give me a break.
[/quote]

Similarly, we haven't been stuck on "unconditional peace" and have been negotiating in good faith (after that initial stupid counter-offer). Frankly, the new projections that I've been hearing sound a lot more reasonable, and I hope that they'll be offered to us sooner rather than later.

[Jack Diorno]

[quote name='WalkerNinja' date='23 March 2010 - 10:04 PM' timestamp='1269345863' post='2234121']
Similarly, we haven't been stuck on "unconditional peace" and have been negotiating in good faith (after that initial stupid counter-offer). Frankly, the new projections that I've been hearing sound a lot more reasonable, and I hope that they'll be offered to us sooner rather than later.
[/quote]
I knew Archon wasn't man enough to protect his allies.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]You don't need anywhere close to 10k tech to destroy 1k infra.[/quote]
Ok now I'm curious, where is the error in my calculations?

[quote]The rest of your "ur as bad as them!!!!!" drivel is a little odd seeing that we have actually offered them peace.[/quote]
Almost every alliance that gets brought up as the victim of the Hegemony was 'offered peace' – just offered it under conditions that the Hegemony knew would not be acceptable, in the case of some (FAN or VE), or only acceptable because of the only alternative (including C&G's favourite whine magnet, Athens in noCB). The only exception I can think of is LUE in GW3, and they explicitly broke their terms of surrender in order to jump in, so that wasn't really unjust. This is exactly what you have done by offering peace in exchange for 350,000 tech, and considering peace has not been achieved yet, it is obviously exactly what you are continuing to do.

[quote]More like pointing out that many disagree with the notion of Janova's idea of what's reasonable, and that with time, the truth regarding currently prevailent conditions is more visible to more people (more data available), and people will be better armed to make assesments of rationality and decency in this particular conflict.[/quote]
This is true, but once the partisan spectacles of the party line come off, I would imagine that people will see that demanding 350k tech from an alliance of under 200 members, and now under 4 million NS, is not reasonable.

[Jgoods45]

[quote name='Jack Diorno' date='23 March 2010 - 06:19 AM' timestamp='1269346741' post='2234126']
I knew Archon wasn't man enough to protect his allies.
[/quote]

lawl

You know nothing.

[sethb]

[quote name='Cortath' date='23 March 2010 - 03:14 AM' timestamp='1269310443' post='2233791']
*chuckles heartily*

Sethb, I knew long ago that you gave up any shred of sovereignty and dignity you and your alliance once had to a greater master. It was quite apparent the first time we met that you and your alliance was a tool, a useful tool.

And now you're not even that.
[/quote]
I know as well anybody that more than likely not any Karma alliance outside of our direct allies were actually 'in it' for us, everyone had their own interests in that war, myself included that is pretty indisputable. Yes, I made mistakes over the course of my leadership but I did what I thought was right at the time and have learned from the experience. Now I fail to see what my personal history has to do with the subject at hand, but please carry on..

Edited March 23, 2010 by sethb

[Vladimir]

To clarify the situation since there seems to be some confusion: Qaianna and Comrade WalkerNinja are correct. Emperor Revenge offered a peace deal to FAN long before the war (exit peace mode for a couple of weeks), and it was a standing offer for the remainder. FAN held a position of 'nothing but white peace'. This was the regrettable impasse that led to war continuing as long as it did.

[Earogema]

I still think the name "Neo-Hegemony" is stupid. Call them like, "Fallen-Hegemony," or "Old Guard" or something else (Neither of those are very apt, but something in that vein).