The New Grämlins

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='14 May 2010 - 01:31 AM' timestamp='1273793493' post='2297316']
First off don't put words in my mouth,

Second your "If you don't agree with me is because you know nothing about war" is invalid because my stance originated after your ludicrous comment, not prior to it. It is also invalid because nearly every last alliance involved in war has sent their nations into peace mode at one point, Either to rest, or sit as a reserve or maybe it is a banking nation.

There are no right and wrong opinions but your statement is just plain wrong.
[/quote]

Having SOME nations at Peace Mode while OTHERS fight is indeed an strategy everyone uses.

But, note the SOME nations. If you are putting ALL your nations in Peace Mode, then it's no longer strategy and just dodging the fight.

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='14 May 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1273794327' post='2297322']Yet this statement will defeat your arguement every time because this post dug your hole from the start and now you're having trouble getting out. Peace mode is a componet of modern warfare on planet Bob and it's not going anywhere and to claim alliances are cowards for using it is a pretty arrogant statement.[/quote]

As I had wrote, putting a Reserve in Dove is an strategy. Putting EVERYONE has another name.

[quote name='BlkAK47002' date='14 May 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1273794327' post='2297322']There is no point in continuing this arguement.[/quote]

I hope you comply with your statements.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='14 May 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1273793746' post='2297318']
Krashnaia, you've been told by several people why 'lolol come out of peace mode' is (i) stupid and (ii) a hypocritical argument on your part. (The entire Supergrievances coalition had a 'top tier in peace mode' strategy in the TPF non-war, in case you forgot already.) Why are you still pushing it and making yourself look silly?[/quote]

Well, a lot of people in Planet Bob thinks every word you write is plain silly, and that doesn't have stopped you from writting. So?

Staying in Dove, collecting ZERO for five months already, showing everybody you don't have the guts to fight, yeah, that's a very clever strategy.

I don't recall the Supergrievances keeping all their tops at Dove through five months and a war. So, when that happens, you'll be entitled to do the paralels.

Everything is not in the pixels. Sometimes you have to assume losses in order to keep face and avoid being labeled as cattle.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='14 May 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1273793746' post='2297318']It is particularly dumb in this case because high infra nations are necessary to finance the extremely large reps that IRON will have to pay once this war finally ends.[/quote]

Reps that will be paid by the low tier nations, not the higher ups who, at this moment, are getting free money and tech from the lower level.

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='14 May 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1273793746' post='2297318']They've been in PM since January because IRON have been facing a massive top tier disadvantage since January. They'll already have hit the maximum PM economy penalty, which for developed nations does not bill lock you but it effectively zeroes your net collection, so there's really no incentive to come out and get rolled, however much you and other who wish to see IRON totally destroyed (but won't do anything about it, of course) bait them.[/quote]

TOP was in a top-tier diasdvantage? Really? Thought it was the other way around, but whatever.

Not collecting for five months is a sound strategy? really? If they had stayed in war mode, not only they could have collected enough money to rebuild their losses, but also would have shown the world that they have guts.

Not showing up in a Great War, while your allies fight and die, is a sound strategy? really?

Do not worry, I don't need to bait IRON to their destruction. They are doing the work pretty well themselves.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Kim Jaym Il]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 10:37 PM' timestamp='1273799240' post='2297390']
Having SOME nations at Peace Mode while OTHERS fight is indeed an strategy everyone uses.

But, note the SOME nations. If you are putting ALL your nations in Peace Mode, then it's no longer strategy and just dodging the fight.



As I had wrote, putting a Reserve in Dove is an strategy. Putting EVERYONE has another name.



I hope you comply with your statements.
[/quote]


They do not have "EVERYONE" in peace mode, they have their top tier in peace mode. This is a tactic that (I want say your alliance, but I can't confirm MA's level of participation, so I'll simply use "coalition") used in the TPF war during New Years when faced with a potentially top tier dominant opponent.

[bigwoody]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1273799240' post='2297390']
Having SOME nations at Peace Mode while OTHERS fight is indeed an strategy everyone uses.

But, note the SOME nations. If you are putting ALL your nations in Peace Mode, then it's no longer strategy and just dodging the fight.



As I had wrote, putting a Reserve in Dove is an strategy. Putting EVERYONE has another name.



I hope you comply with your statements.
[/quote]
Frankly, what IRON and DAWN has done is largely unprecedented. They are going to WIN a war front where they started out at a severe disadvantage at the top ranks, a disadvantage shrinking by the day.

Forgive me if I think they're doing it right, and that your advice is worthless at best, intentionally deceptive at worst.

[Grayshadow]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1273799240' post='2297390']
Having SOME nations at Peace Mode while OTHERS fight is indeed an strategy everyone uses.

But, note the SOME nations. If you are putting ALL your nations in Peace Mode, then it's no longer strategy and just dodging the fight.



As I had wrote, putting a Reserve in Dove is an strategy. Putting EVERYONE has another name.



I hope you comply with your statements.
[/quote]

Do you use your own dictionary like MPK does? Last time I checked the words "ALL" and "EVERYONE" did not mean 11.51515% which is the percent of IRON nations in peace mode atm.

[amad123]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1273799240' post='2297390']
Having SOME nations at Peace Mode while OTHERS fight is indeed an strategy everyone uses.But, note the SOME nations. If you are putting ALL your nations in Peace Mode, then it's no longer strategy and just dodging the fight.As I had wrote, putting a Reserve in Dove is an strategy. Putting EVERYONE has another name.I hope you comply with your statements.
[/quote]
As noted IRON has 11.5% in PM, Gramlins 31.5%, DAWN 0%.

All of CN believes wars are won by the top tier, we are about to prove them wrong. All of CN believes that if your warchest is big enough you can effortlessly re-build. We will prove that theory wrong. Gramlins believe we don't have the warchests needed for a long war. We will prove them wrong there too. We don't have the warchests needed, but we have the financial ablity to wage war anyway, and no I won't tell you how we will do it. lol

The most important thing is that we will turn a defeat into a stunning victory and we will have learned how to fight and take on alliances that have much stronger upper tiers and defeat them.

However you just go right on believing that because IRON has 17 nations in PM that they are cowards. The best enemy to fight is one that thrives on misinformation and is unable to see the reality of the situation.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 08:07 PM' timestamp='1273799240' post='2297390']
Having SOME nations at Peace Mode while OTHERS fight is indeed an strategy everyone uses.

But, note the SOME nations. If you are putting ALL your nations in Peace Mode, then it's no longer strategy and just dodging the fight.[/quote]

please show where all of IRON's nations are in PM before you make this accusation. it shows you are just pulling crap out your $@! now.



[quote]As I had wrote, putting a Reserve in Dove is an strategy. Putting EVERYONE has another name.[/quote]

and as i have noted, you have no evidence to back this claim of yours. please don't try again as the failure that this argument is has ceased to be amusing.

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 08:23 PM' timestamp='1273800181' post='2297393']
Well, a lot of people in Planet Bob thinks every word you write is plain silly, and that doesn't have stopped you from writting. So?[/quote]

you keep writing and that will be you instead.

[quote]Staying in Dove, collecting ZERO for five months already, showing everybody you don't have the guts to fight, yeah, that's a very clever strategy.

I don't recall the Supergrievances keeping all their tops at Dove through five months and a war. So, when that happens, you'll be entitled to do the paralels.[/quote]

they did not need to, but they did put their top nations in PM prior to the entrance of the coalition and until the war ended. unless you do not understand the situation, the war has not ended for IRON just yet.


[quote]Everything is not in the pixels. Sometimes you have to assume losses in order to keep face and avoid being labeled as cattle.[/quote]

and your opinion matters so much to anyone at all? you must think so high of yourself that the fact that you think some people or an alliance are cattle, that they will just cave and do whatever stupidity you wish them to do. frankly, you matter less than the Gremlins do at this point.

your opinion of anyone is worthless especially considering the facts stated in rebuttal to your pathetic argument.


[quote]Reps that will be paid by the low tier nations, not the higher ups who, at this moment, are getting free money and tech from the lower level.[/quote]

again, you show your lack of knowledge in military matters quite nicely that i really have to do nothing.

[quote]TOP was in a top-tier diasdvantage? Really? Thought it was the other way around, but whatever.[/quote]

you do realize that TOP=/=IRON don't you? TOP and IRON did not fight the same alliances except for CnG. but please continue to make yourself look foolish and continue to make your argument even easier to beat than it already was.

[quote]Not collecting for five months is a sound strategy? really? If they had stayed in war mode, not only they could have collected enough money to rebuild their losses, but also would have shown the world that they have guts.[/quote]

it is a sound strategy and you realize that they have to collect or face deletion do you not? and if they had stayed in warmode and lost 1k infra every nuke they took from Gremlin nations, they would have lost much more in terms of collection. much of the world actually understands the reasoning for IRON nations being in PM mode, which is why you and Alfred and maybe a couple of others are the only ones foolish enough to attempt this argument.

[quote]Not showing up in a Great War, while your allies fight and die, is a sound strategy? really?[/quote]

now you are just talking out that $@! of yours again.

[quote]Do not worry, I don't need to bait IRON to their destruction. They are doing the work pretty well themselves.
[/quote]

which alliance has lost almost half of their membership? is that Gremlins or IRON i forget.

[Delta1212]

Krashnaia, were I in charge of IRON/DAWN's war effort, I would be employing a similar approach up to this point. The way things stand, and especially the way they are heading, it's their best move for the moment.

[Haflinger]

Right.

848,912 Attacking + 507,451 Defending = 1,356,363 Casualties
2,201,663 Attacking + 1,358,473 Defending = 3,560,136 Casualties
1,154,569 Attacking + 1,116,081 Defending = 2,270,650 Casualties
637,854 Attacking + 831,556 Defending = 1,469,410 Casualties
283,386 Attacking + 344,346 Defending = 627,732 Casualties
145,824 Attacking + 606,457 Defending = 752,281 Casualties
1,032,418 Attacking + 1,383,881 Defending = 2,416,299 Casualties
11,887 Attacking + 49,778 Defending = 61,665 Casualties
979,837 Attacking + 1,360,783 Defending = 2,340,620 Casualties
952,059 Attacking + 1,498,018 Defending = 2,450,077 Casualties
3,819,504 Attacking + 5,164,084 Defending = 8,983,588 Casualties
171,019 Attacking + 533,497 Defending = 704,516 Casualties
131,269 Attacking + 248,132 Defending = 379,401 Casualties
1,549,870 Attacking + 3,632,041 Defending = 5,181,911 Casualties
12,797 Attacking + 133,117 Defending = 145,914 Casualties
409,233 Attacking + 692,664 Defending = 1,101,897 Casualties
280,057 Attacking + 268,785 Defending = 548,842 Casualties

Those are the 17 IRON peace mode cowards. Errr. Well - there are two low-casualty nations, both of which are built rather obviously as alliance banks.

1,179,527 Attacking + 1,145,571 Defending = 2,325,098 Casualties

Krashnaia does have decent numbers I suppose. Ranks above almost two-thirds of the peace mode cowards.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 06:35 AM' timestamp='1273750541' post='2296904']
Taking into account the economic penalties for staying at Peace Mode (halved income after 5 days and increasing happines malus capped at -9 after two weeks), each day you stay Dove, is a day the warchests of Grämlins (and everyone else in planet Bob) grow stronger in relation to yours.

And all those lower-level IRON nations provinding free money and tech to your tops isn't gonna change this.

So... since Grämlins commited seppukku long ago.. I suppose they find keeping your tops in eternal Peace Mode is amusing enough to keep with the war.
[/quote]

Please reread my post. To me it seems like common sense. Who cares about reduced collections when you make a relative 1 million NS gain in 7 days against an alliance that is now 2 million NS? I'd delete my nation before I stayed in peace mode eternally.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 11:15 AM' timestamp='1273767318' post='2296996']
I contend that many people see the danger of allowing an alliance to "get away" with a clear wrongdoing without admitting their moral failing. They're just concerned about putting themselves at risk for it because alliances can't seem to get past the "paper" aspect of life.



They should not be allowed to escape this war without admitting their clear moral failing.
[/quote]


With all due respect Matthew, is it possible you guys are taking the game too seriously? Nations get away with clear wrongdoing every single day including your friends, including me. Look at a tech raid or Tournament Edition for goodness sakes. This is a political simulation game that war is very much a part of. If someone attacks you or your friends your course of action is simple, you beat the crap out of them if you can then you move on. There is a point where not moving makes you the bad guy.

Edited May 14, 2010 by JimKongIl

[JimKongIl]

double post sorry

Edited May 14, 2010 by JimKongIl

[Ashoka the Great]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='13 May 2010 - 09:23 PM' timestamp='1273800181' post='2297393']I don't need to bait IRON to their destruction. They are doing the work pretty well themselves.[/quote]

Please tell me what you're on so I can write a pamphlet alerting children to its dangerous side-effects. Delusion, for example.

[Stetson76]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='13 May 2010 - 11:28 AM' timestamp='1273768082' post='2297005']
The Gremlins declared war to defend against IRON's unwarranted attack.

On the other hand, like I asked of Gamemaster, find me [b]specific[/b] examples and I'll be happy to read them.
[/quote]

Okay, I'm going to try again. Matthew, please look at the quotes up above, and notice the missing words in the first line: [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79441]TOP[/url], [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=79444&st=0&p=2138894&hl=declare&fromsearch=1&#entry2138894]TORN[/url] declared war in the same manner and at the same time IRON/DAWN did. In fact, TOP declared first. (Not to discount FEAR and TSO who are pretty universally added to this list, their DOW's came much later.) I've also conveniently added the links to their DOW's to satisfy your request for specific examples so you can "read them."

Not only do I not need to dig through ancient history to come up with examples for you, this points out that your "defense of MK/friends" line is nothing but a bold faced lie. If you were indeed standing on an absolute principle you would have at minimum declared on these other two alliances.

So, yes, let's stop bandying about definitions of unconditional surrender or terms or any of the other things we've been discussing, and answer the question that many others have been asking. Why would you in defense of an [b]absolute[/b] principle in which you were [b]obligated[/b] to act for the sake of the Cyberverse not declare war on TOP or TORN?

The entire argument that you are making without any cute turns of phrase or reference to a dictionary falls on this single point. You've selectively applied your principles and are in no position to make a moral judgment at this late date.

I've watched you through this entire thread use logic as your cornerstone (despite disagreeing with your conclusions) and have come to respect your loyalty and dogged adherence to principle so please, apply that logic and recognize that your stance is incompatible with your alliance's actions.

Just to make it clear, I'm not asking you to declare on these people now, I'm asking you to explain to everyone (but especially yourself) how GRE can engage in a moral crusade that is so clearly prejudiced and narrow minded.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Jaymjaym' date='14 May 2010 - 03:26 AM' timestamp='1273800357' post='2297398']
They do not have "EVERYONE" in peace mode, they have their top tier in peace mode. This is a tactic that (I want say your alliance, but I can't confirm MA's level of participation, so I'll simply use "coalition") used in the TPF war during New Years when faced with a potentially top tier dominant opponent.[/quote]

That didn't ended in a war, to begin with. So, no paralel with the current situation.

Supercomplaints haven't kept their whole top-tier nations in dove through a whole Great War.

[quote name='bigwoody' date='14 May 2010 - 03:26 AM' timestamp='1273800369' post='2297399']
Frankly, what IRON and DAWN has done is largely unprecedented. They are going to WIN a war front where they started out at a severe disadvantage at the top ranks, a disadvantage shrinking by the day.

Forgive me if I think they're doing it right, and that your advice is worthless at best, intentionally deceptive at worst.[/quote]

IRON has lost the war already. The fact that some dying alliance can afford to keep beating the dead horse with no one at Plnaet Bob lifting a finger should ring a bell in your heads.

[quote name='amad123' date='14 May 2010 - 03:50 AM' timestamp='1273801822' post='2297435']
As noted IRON has 11.5% in PM, Gramlins 31.5%, DAWN 0%.

All of CN believes wars are won by the top tier, we are about to prove them wrong. All of CN believes that if your warchest is big enough you can effortlessly re-build. We will prove that theory wrong. Gramlins believe we don't have the warchests needed for a long war. We will prove them wrong there too. We don't have the warchests needed, but we have the financial ablity to wage war anyway, and no I won't tell you how we will do it. lol

The most important thing is that we will turn a defeat into a stunning victory and we will have learned how to fight and take on alliances that have much stronger upper tiers and defeat them. [/quote]

That would make it to the top-10 in the "Famous Last Words" ranking. I've heard so many guys telling similar things and then proceeding into crushing defeat that I'm no longer surprised.

[quote name='amad123' date='14 May 2010 - 03:50 AM' timestamp='1273801822' post='2297435']However you just go right on believing that because IRON has 17 nations in PM that they are cowards. The best enemy to fight is one that thrives on misinformation and is unable to see the reality of the situation.
[/quote]

There is a very simple way to prove me wrong. Time will tell.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='14 May 2010 - 04:17 AM' timestamp='1273803453' post='2297478']
and your opinion matters so much to anyone at all? you must think so high of yourself that the fact that you think some people or an alliance are cattle, that they will just cave and do whatever stupidity you wish them to do. frankly, you matter less than the Gremlins do at this point.

your opinion of anyone is worthless especially considering the facts stated in rebuttal to your pathetic argument. [/quote]

Taking into account the large amount of grunts ganging up to reply to my messages, often with insulting terms, looks like my oppinion matters to you all more than I had figured.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='14 May 2010 - 05:28 AM' timestamp='1273807667' post='2297549']
Those are the 17 IRON peace mode cowards. Errr. Well - there are two low-casualty nations, both of which are built rather obviously as alliance banks.[/quote]

I don't know when they scored their casualties, but obviously hasn't been in the last five months.

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='14 May 2010 - 05:28 AM' timestamp='1273807705' post='2297550']
Please reread my post. To me it seems like common sense. Who cares about reduced collections when you make a relative 1 million NS gain in 7 days against an alliance that is now 2 million NS? I'd delete my nation before I stayed in peace mode eternally.[/quote]

Looks like your alliance mates don't think the same way, since they have been in dove since January, and don't seem like going to get out of it. And given their infra levels, five months of collections are more than enought to rebuild even from ZI.

Of course I understand that in your situation, you aren't going to go out to fight alone.

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='14 May 2010 - 06:18 AM' timestamp='1273810699' post='2297592']
Please tell me what you're on so I can write a pamphlet alerting children to its dangerous side-effects. Delusion, for example.
[/quote]

Look at where IRON was a year ago, and where is now.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Derantol]

Krashnaia, I'm not sure why you feel such a need to attack IRON over something as simple as having our top tier in PM. Questioning, fine, but it seems like you're taking this as an opportunity to simply troll IRON. As has been stated, our top tier remains in peace mode because it would monumentally idiotic in this scenario for us to bring them out. It is true, we've kept them there for a long time, and it is true, we have already been crushed. In this instance, we happen to have a small alliance with a stronger upper tier still at war with us. Regardless of the reason, they could destroy our upper tier handily, were we to give them that chance. We've decided not to in order to facilitate our ability to pay our reparations later in addition to assisting in rebuilding once we're totally free of war. As for stopping the war, we've been putting a fairly well-described plan into action to attempt to end the war on terms we can agree with. Our opponents wish to enforce a surrender process that we don't fully understand, and what we do understand we don't like. That is where this thread begins.

Here are the themes, as I see them.
Theme One: Gramlins are asking for something we don't want to give, but in an unusual manner. Disagreement ensues.
Theme Two: Semantic differences arise. Unfortunately, the particular pieces of this set of semantics include a well-known military term that is being used differently than the commonly understood historical context. Disagreement ensues.
Theme Three: Mostly uninvolved parties show up to bash one side or the other, inhibiting the flow of either of the above themes, both of which are more or less relevant to the thread.
Theme Four: Mods show up to tell MPK he should stop double and triple posting.

So far, it seems like you're simply taking this opportunity to take a jab at IRON. While military prowess certainly is related to the subject matter at hand, most of the substance of the debate arises from the moral implications of actions, not the strategic implications. So even if you have a point (which, in my opinion, you don't), the point doesn't really belong in this thread other than as a component of the larger subject. As it stands, however, you've been arguing for several pages about the same subject matter, with not a lot of indication that you're really interesting in the main topic. Obviously, not all that blame can be placed on you, as there have been a number of people replying, but Alfred (as an example) seems to only pipe in every so often, and his comments usually have a little more relevancy.

I'm doing my best not to personally attack you here, but I'm respectfully asking you to assist in returning this to the context of the situation. Thank you, I hope.

[amad123]

[quote name='Stetson' date='14 May 2010 - 03:48 AM' timestamp='1273823297' post='2297663']
Just to make it clear, I'm not asking you to declare on these people now, I'm asking you to explain to everyone (but especially yourself) how GRE can engage in a moral crusade that is so clearly prejudiced and narrow minded.
[/quote]
You are forgetting that Gramlins don't use conventional definitions of English words. They have said time and again it's their interpretation of the word, not ours, that conveys their true meaning. So when they say they abhor moral injustice it doesn't mean they abhor it across the board, only when it suits them and they think they can gain advantage from it. Otherwise they are quite fine with turning a blind eye on it. However, if they see the opportunity to bandwagon on an alliance they don't like, they jump on it without a treaty because they have an "obligation" to their friends. The rest of CN saw Gramlins declaration as a opportunity to give a beat down to IRON and so intense was their desire for IRON's destruction that even after all others had given IRON peace, Gramlins continued on their misguided crusade. So don't expect an explanation from them, even if you did get one it would take considerable work to determine if the words they use have the same meaning as defined in a dictionary or whether Gramlins has their own interpretation.


[quote name='Krashnaia' date='14 May 2010 - 06:50 AM' timestamp='1273834237' post='2297704']
Look at where IRON was a year ago, and where is now.
[/quote]
Look where they were a month ago or even a week ago and where they are now. Like I have said before, misinformed enemies are the best kind to have.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='14 May 2010 - 05:50 AM' timestamp='1273834237' post='2297704']
IRON has lost the war already. The fact that some dying alliance can afford to keep beating the dead horse with no one at Plnaet Bob lifting a finger should ring a bell in your heads.[/quote]

actually this goes to show that ya'll are far more like the old Heg who allowed similar things to take place without lifting a finger.


[quote]That would make it to the top-10 in the "Famous Last Words" ranking. I've heard so many guys telling similar things and then proceeding into crushing defeat that I'm no longer surprised.[/quote]

and you are quickly making your way into the ranks of the top-10 loudmouth blowhards. happy?


[quote]There is a very simple way to prove me wrong. Time will tell.[/quote]

which way would that be. the stupid suicidal move you wish IRON to make or IRON winning the war?

[quote]Taking into account the large amount of grunts ganging up to reply to my messages, often with insulting terms, looks like my oppinion matters to you all more than I had figured. [/quote]

i would account more boredom and hilarity into the reason why people are replying to you. your posts are insanely stupid, misinformed, or completely uninformed even more so than MatthewPK's posts.

[quote]Look at where IRON was a year ago, and where is now.
[/quote]

and we have seen how quickly alliances can rebuild once the war is finally over. MK rebuilt quite nicely between the SPW and the Karma war despite having to pay out crushing reps. so again, you have no clue what you talk about but seem to love running that mouth of yours.

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='14 May 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1273838493' post='2297723']
actually this goes to show that ya'll are far more like the old Heg who allowed similar things to take place without lifting a finger. [/quote]

Except that back then some people cared and decided to do something about it.

You? will not raise such sentiment. Wonder why.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='14 May 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1273838493' post='2297723']and you are quickly making your way into the ranks of the top-10 loudmouth blowhards. happy?[/quote]

To read you giving further proof of your lack of manners? Not much. I'm starting to understand why you labeled yourself as a Troll in your own signature, through.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='14 May 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1273838493' post='2297723']i would account more boredom and hilarity into the reason why people are replying to you. your posts are insanely stupid, misinformed, or completely uninformed even more so than MatthewPK's posts.[/quote]

Yeah. And you keep replying to them. Spotting some psycological issues there.

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='14 May 2010 - 02:01 PM' timestamp='1273838493' post='2297723']and we have seen how quickly alliances can rebuild once the war is finally over. MK rebuilt quite nicely between the SPW and the Karma war despite having to pay out crushing reps. so again, you have no clue what you talk about but seem to love running that mouth of yours.[/quote]

IRON was stomped a year ago. Was stomped again two months ago. Nothing seems to indicate the trend will be modified next time.

And, yep, I like to talk. That's freedom of expression. You seem to have a problem with that. Too bad. But you know, you are not going to force my mouth closed, no matter how much foul language you resort to.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Supercomplaints haven't kept their whole top-tier nations in dove through a whole Great War.[/quote]
Ah, so at least now you acknowledge that you (we) [i]did[/i] use top tier PM during an international incident. (And in fact SG [i]did[/i] keep their top tier in peace mode throughout the entire war.) So it presumably isn't necessarily cowardly to do so (unless you consider Supergrievances en masse to be cowards).

So now your argument is that staying in peace mode for a long period is cowardly, even when the strategic situation remains the same. I hope stating it in such a succinct form is sufficient for you to realise that doesn't really make much sense.

By the way if you think Supergrievances would have come out of PM while it faced a top tier disadvatage had the TPF war gone global I think you're underestimating its leadership's strategic ability. Coming out of PM at any time while the war was 'hot' would have been deadly for us for the same reason it would be for IRON now.

[quote]TOP was in a top-tier diasdvantage?[/quote]
You might have noticed that I was talking about IRON, not TOP (in fact TOP are completely irrelevant to this thread). IRON had little top tier left after Karma and as soon as Grämlins declared on them, yes, they had a massive top tier disadvantage, and that remained the case right up to today.

[Wabooz]

Well.. Shamshir is gone after 1,092 days on Bob. I hope this is worth it, Gremlins. Somehow I doubt it but maybe you all are sadistic like that..

[Krashnaia]

[quote name='Derantol' date='14 May 2010 - 01:09 PM' timestamp='1273835324' post='2297705']
Krashnaia, I'm not sure why you feel such a need to attack IRON over something as simple as having our top tier in PM. Questioning, fine, but it seems like you're taking this as an opportunity to simply troll IRON. [/quote]

I'm not trolling anyone. If anything, I'm the one getting trolled over for giving an opinion (wich doesn't mean I'm calling everyone who has replied me a Troll). Wouldn't be writting so much about it if not for the fact that I hate swarm mobs.

Now, about what you wrote. Yep, I don't agree with the Grämlin's stance here, like most people around. And yep, they are self-destroying their alliance. Beats me why, probably because they don't care anymore, and want to go with a bang. Or whatever, I dunno.

But you outnumber them 10 to 1. So I don't buy you couldn't take them down. Sure, tech makes nukes hurt a lot more. I've eaten hi-tech nukes and low-tech nukes and I can tell the difference. But a nuke is a nuke anyway, and a low tech nation feeding three nukes is collectively doing as much or even more damage than the hi-tech nuke being eaten. Eventually their top tier would be lowered to the NS range in wich you have overwhelming advantage.

Sure it would be costly, but if you have decent warchests you can rebuild to 10k-12k infra on the spot. And with that level of infra, your daily income is more than enough to fund the reps. You can only send up to 18kk in aid each 10 days, and that represent 2-3 days of collection for a nation at that level of infra. So, no, I can't buy the "we are saving our warchests so we can help later pay the reps". Unless these people don't have warchests, of course.

And there is the argument about how much prestige your alliance would win by taking the bull by the horns. Wich is more than enough reason to go for it. Because at the end of the day, it's all a matter of prestige. The more you are seen as people who mind bussiness, and who go the hard way when you must, the most people will side with you, will want you as allies, will be willing to fight alongside you... and the less people will want to confront you. Pixels don't matter that much in this equation.

Still, you have a point that this thread is about the moral reasons and etc. and so I'm going off-topic/thread hijacked here. So, since I've already made my points, I'll drop the issue now.

You are free to agree with me or not, I may be right or I may be wrong. But those are my two cents.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Krashnaia

[Haflinger]

Krash, what I don't understand is that you seem to be assuming that IRON wants to win the war quickly.

Why would they? The longer the war goes on, the longer that they can put off paying reps. If Grämlins do in fact draw the war out until Christmas or something, by then they'll be buying tech internally, and not paying reps.

[MCRABT]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='14 May 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1273841866' post='2297733']
I'm not trolling anyone. If anything, I'm the one getting trolled over for giving an opinion (wich doesn't mean I'm calling everyone who has replied me a Troll). Wouldn't be writting so much about it if not for the fact that I hate swarm mobs.

Now, about what you wrote. Yep, I don't agree with the Grämlin's stance here, like most people around. And yep, they are self-destroying their alliance. Beats me why, probably because they don't care anymore, and want to go with a bang. Or whatever, I dunno.

But you outnumber them 10 to 1. So I don't buy you couldn't take them down. Sure, tech makes nukes hurt a lot more. I've eaten hi-tech nukes and low-tech nukes and I can tell the difference. But a nuke is a nuke anyway, and a low tech nation feeding three nukes is collectively doing as much or even more damage than the hi-tech nuke being eaten. Eventually their top tier would be lowered to the NS range in wich you have overwhelming advantage.

Sure it would be costly, but if you have decent warchests you can rebuild to 10k-12k infra on the spot. And with that level of infra, your daily income is more than enough to fund the reps. You can only send up to 18kk in aid each 10 days, and that represent 2-3 days of collection for a nation at that level of infra. So, no, I can't buy the "we are saving our warchests so we can help later pay the reps". Unless these people don't have warchests, of course.

And there is the argument about how much prestige your alliance would win by taking the bull by the horns. Wich is more than enough reason to go for it. Because at the end of the day, it's all a matter of prestige. The more you are seen as people who mind bussiness, and who go the hard way when you must, the most people will side with you, will want you as allies, will be willing to fight alongside you... and the less people will want to confront you. Pixels don't matter that much in this equation.

Still, you have a point that this thread is about the moral reasons and etc. and so I'm going off-topic/thread hijacked here. So, since I've already made my points, I'll drop the issue now.

You are free to agree with me or not, I may be right or I may be wrong. But those are my two cents.
[/quote]

Hi there Krashnia, thanks for your input, we could take our top tier out of peace mode bar for the fact that Gremlins have 8 nations above 100k NS and we have 1. We are thus severely disadvantaged above 70k-80k NS where these nations begin to come into range. Factor in that our nations in this range have been collecting in PM for a considerable length of time they are not only out-gunned they are out funded. We have a number advantage, this is mainly in the lower to mid ranges, you may have noticed that Gremlins no longer has a mid range and those that still fall into the mid range category are there because of there tech or the fact that they are in peace mode.

Far from saying that we cannot defeat that upper tier, we will destroy it but it will take time and careful co-ordination. I don't really see why your getting so worked up its not like it has anything to do with you anyway.

[janax]

[quote name='Krashnaia' date='14 May 2010 - 05:50 AM' timestamp='1273834237' post='2297704']

Look at where IRON was a year ago, and where is now.
[/quote]

Look at where Monos Archein was a year ago. Remember when you were in the Sanction race? Yah...things sure change don't they.

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='JimKongIl' date='13 May 2010 - 01:55 AM' timestamp='1273730130' post='2296776']
Matthew or Ram, if you are up to the question, would you tell us if Gramlins would ever surrender unconditionally?
[/quote]
Exactly.
Their history proves they wouldn't. Codex = Not offering anything they themselves wouldn't accept.