Who's Tech Dealing With The Gramlins

[My Name Is Romance]

[quote name='shilo' date='27 April 2010 - 09:05 PM' timestamp='1272416727' post='2277915']
You are trying to get us to surrender unconditionally, how about you start forcing us to do so?
[/quote]

Collectively my favorite argument out of all these threads.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 April 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1272408088' post='2277722']
No, you apparently don't understand what is being asked.
Perhaps you should take that up with your government.

IRON/DAWN need to surrender, perhaps then we will discuss terms.
[/quote]

This is becoming increasingly ridiculous.

There have been a few times in history where unconditional surrender might have been a rational demand. GATO at the end of the GATO-1V War, or FAN during the Second FAN War, for example. In both of those cases (GATO especially), the victim alliance was so utterly and totally defeated that they wouldn't really have had much to lose by giving their unconditional surrender. They certainly had nothing to gain by continuing the fight, as they had absolutely no chance of victory. However, even then, with an entire alliance at ZI, they did not surrender without terms.

I have to say you are rather delusional if you think that is the position you currently hold over IRON. At best you hold a temporary tactical advantage, but really what you're in is a stalemate. IRON cannot touch most of your nations without extreme damage to themselves, but at the same time the majority of IRON cannot be attacked by Gremlins without a large sacrifice on your part. The poor Filipino Heroes in range of IRON are being crushed by overwhelming numbers, and many of your large nations are defecting. In the long term your recruitment method (basically running off of reputation) will no longer work as it has, and you won't have any new nations to replace the ones that do leave.

Now, the situation is not particularly physically harmful to you, especially with tech dealing continuing as normal. You are taking little tangible damage, and could effectively sit on IRON indefinitely. IRON of course is rather stunted by the war, with all of their large nations making half the money they would be and unable to send out aid. But what does Gremlins gain from this endeavor? Although I mentioned that there is no tangible damage yet, the negative reputation you're building from this is massive, and may become tangible soon enough. You might wave it away as the fickle peanut gallery, but you would be foolish to do so as there are few things as powerful. Rarely does any alliance receive such widespread hate, and even rarer does anyone survive it.

Basically it seems as if you're gambling everything your alliance has with little or no benefit to be made.

Edited April 28, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[wfbone]

/thread anyone?

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 April 2010 - 08:46 PM' timestamp='1272415560' post='2277894']
Ok. Can you give me a hint as to when you're all coming out of PM?
[/quote]

Nations will come out of PM when needed. Do you think we would actually all come out at once?

[Gamemaster1]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 April 2010 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1272381363' post='2277340']
The war continues as long as IRON and DAWN want it to. All they have to do is surrender.
Our terms are not absurd because we have offered no terms.
[/quote]
For the last time, unconditional surrender is a term. We have to decom things to even talk to you, at which point talking wouldn't matter anyway because we'd have to do whatever you want us to do. [b]Decommissions. Are. Terms.[/b]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 April 2010 - 06:41 PM' timestamp='1272408088' post='2277722']
No, you apparently don't understand what is being asked.
Perhaps you should take that up with your government.

IRON/DAWN need to surrender, perhaps then we will discuss terms.
[/quote]
I don't need to take it up with my government. Every person who reads these forums understands what is being asked better then you appear to. This 'ask your government' line is just getting embarrassing now.

I love these arguments. Every day, you come back in here and spout of the same arguments like you've got nothing better to say. Every time, we soundly trounce you. Change the damn record already, it's broken and we all can tell.

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='27 April 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1272415560' post='2277894']
Ok. Can you give me a hint as to when you're all coming out of PM?
[/quote]

51 IRON nations (of 322) are in peace mode. 15.83%.

10 Gramlins nations (of 55) are in peace mode. 18.18%

Of all the current active wars between Gramlins and IRON, there is only one Gramlins nation who has declared. He's unlikely to get that chance again for some time, as now that they've got him in range, he'll be nuked daily until he's so small that nobody with nukes can hit him.

IRON declared all the rest of the current wars between the two.

You can talk about how IRON is hiding in peace mode, but anyone can look at the actual stats.

[Il Impero Romano]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='28 April 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1272418273' post='2277939']
This is becoming increasingly ridiculous.

There have been a few times in history where unconditional surrender might have been a rational demand. GATO at the end of the GATO-1V War, or FAN during the Second FAN War, for example. In both of those cases (GATO especially), the victim alliance was so utterly and totally defeated that they wouldn't really have had much to lose by giving their unconditional surrender. They certainly had nothing to gain by continuing the fight, as they had absolutely no chance of victory. However, even then, with an entire alliance at ZI, they did not surrender without terms.

I have to say you are rather delusional if you think that is the position you currently hold over IRON. At best you hold a temporary tactical advantage, but really what you're in is a stalemate. IRON cannot touch most of your nations without extreme damage to themselves, but at the same time the majority of IRON cannot be attacked by Gremlins without a large sacrifice on your part. The poor Filipino Heroes in range of IRON are being crushed by overwhelming numbers, and many of your large nations are defecting. In the long term your recruitment method (basically running off of reputation) will no longer work as it has, and you won't have any new nations to replace the ones that do leave.

Now, the situation is not particularly physically harmful to you, especially with tech dealing continuing as normal. You are taking little tangible damage, and could effectively sit on IRON indefinitely. IRON of course is rather stunted by the war, with all of their large nations making half the money they would be and unable to send out aid. But what does Gremlins gain from this endeavor? Although I mentioned that there is no tangible damage yet, the negative reputation you're building from this is massive, and may become tangible soon enough. You might wave it away as the fickle peanut gallery, but you would be foolish to do so as there are few things as powerful. Rarely does any alliance receive such widespread hate, and even rarer does anyone survive it.

Basically it seems as if you're gambling everything your alliance has with little or no benefit to be made.
[/quote]

This is a very good post, and you people in Gre should read it carefully and understand it. Gre is no longer a powerhouse, physically or politically. Before, it was a social wrong that you would attempt to impose such a thing. Now, circumstances have changed, you lost nations and have been getting anything in their range dogpiled, and there is literally no way you are in a position to ask for unconditional surrender even if it was something considered to be acceptable. I get the feeling in the next few weeks you will dip below 45 nations. Do you really think 45 nations who are most likely inactive (from what I've been hearing) can impose anything on anyone?

Sure, at this point I'm sure Ram has realized he has f'ed up and would only ask for minimal terms after the unconditional surrender requirement is met, but now its to late, your not an alliance who can impose that anymore. IRON, when they leak to you guys how it will be something like white peace once you unconditionally surrender, don't accept, in the next few weeks they will continue to beat themselves more and more. Plus, the longer the time frame removed from the ES accords, the more likely people will be to release some alliances to help you guys stop the ridiculousness, as there is much less danger of such a release setting a bad wartime precedent seeing as war will be long since over.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

I did look. I see all the IRON nations of any size in PM, and all the Grämlins nations of any size in war mode and unmolested. Doesnt look like you are doing very well to me.

But whatever. Wars dont typically end when both sides think they are winning, so I guess the war will continue eh?

Edited April 28, 2010 by Sigrun Vapneir

[shilo]

[quote name='Sigrun Vapneir' date='28 April 2010 - 09:11 AM' timestamp='1272438664' post='2278320']
I did look. I see all the IRON nations of any size in PM, and all the Grämlins nations of any size in war mode and unmolested. Doesnt look like you are doing very well to me.

But whatever. Wars dont typically end when both sides think they are winning, so I guess the war will continue eh?
[/quote]
Well, we would be doing very bad if we would just get our smaller top tier out of pm to get them crushed by superior numbers. Might sound glorious and all, but we prefer actually working towards winning this conflict. But yes, the war will continue, and last for as long as it takes.
It's up to gRAMlins, when they feel they have lost enough both in members and reputation for this mad endeavor, they can come to us.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Mushroom Man' date='27 April 2010 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1272410666' post='2277785']
You tried to point out a pattern emerging in IRON's favour, you were corrected in that the pattern is quite clearly in Gremlins favour, and you decide to carry on using this same pattern as an argument to why IRON will eventually beat Gremlins? What the hell is wrong with you?
[/quote]

nothing. i showed that Gremlins has lost 2 nations over 35k NS compared to IRON's 1 nation. if Gremlins continues to lose 2 nations over 35k NS then Gremlins will lose the advantage. IRON will most likely end up staying the same number since sooner or later, they will most likely start to gain nations even if they do lose some nations occasionally.

you did exactly as Matt did and looked at the surface instead of delving beneath it. on the surface, yes, the ratio slid slightly more into Gremlins favor currently, but do you honestly think it will continue that way? again, especially if Gre continues to either have their upper NS nations delete or leave the alliance? now this may not happen, but then there is the fact that the mid-tier NS is significantly in IRON/DAWN's favor and thus, soon Gre won't have any 40k or below nations unless they are ZIed nations.

but yes, i am a complete moron who can't seem to grasp being corrected, despite explaining myself quite clearly in the post you quoted... the fact that i stated "should you continue to LOSE your upper NS nations" should have pointed you in the direction i was going (i.e. just in case, the first set of numbers was 32 to 10. this means that Gremlins had 32 nations over 50K NS and IRON had 10 nations over 50k NS. follow me thus far Mushroom Man???? now, the second set of numbers was 30 to 9. this means that Gremlins had 30 nations over 50k NS and IRON had 9 nations over 50k NS. okay. now if you take 32 and subtract 30 from it, you get 2 nations left over. this means that Gremlins lost 2 nations. now if you take 10 and subtract 9 from it, you get 1 nation left over. this means that IRON lost 1 nation. which number out of 2 and 1 is larger? now, i also go on to explain the fact that IRON will more than likely start gaining nations instead of continuing to lose them, which means that if Gremlins continues to lose their upper NS at a rate of around 2 every couple of weeks, then Gremlins will lose the advantage they currently hold. now i am unsure if i could honestly break this concept down any further but i could try to go Barney style if you still do not understand Mushroom Man.) next time i suggest instead of just trying to insult me, you actually take a look at what it is i am discussing, otherwise, you just make yourself look like a fool.

[Cormalek]

Dochartaigh - as Matthew pointed out this argument is baloney. All numbers need some context.

If bread gets cheaper by 30c going from 60c to 30 c, and salmon get's cheaper from 10.6 bucks to 10 bucks - which lost more value? [i]If[/i] this trend continues, you don't honestly expect them to lose 2 members, whether they have 60, 600 or 6 total, do you?
It is really funny that you'd mention this, as it is in fact IRON who suffered bigger loss (10% BMT* against 6.25%).

Although I do agree that it is IRON who is more likely to gain members.


Digits are tricky !@#$%^&*, one must tread carefully with them.

*Hehehe, Big Nations Total, hehe.
Oh my, too much coffee.

[franciscus]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 April 2010 - 01:46 AM' timestamp='1272415560' post='2277894']
Ok. Can you give me a hint as to when you're all coming out of PM?
[/quote]
I'm out of PM ever since the Big War[sup]TM[/sup] ended and just sitting on your barricade, hitting this little puppy called Bago Bantay. He's not even moving anymore and I feel sorry for him, but as I'm rather a cats' person and my general ordered me to sell a bit of infra to get in his range, I had to do it. I'll stop as soon as I see my demands satisfied. He'll have to either surrender (not unconditionally, no. He can ask me to stop attacking him) and/or deliver a nice shrubbery.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]The war continues as long as IRON and DAWN want it to. All they have to do is surrender.
Our terms are not absurd because we have offered no terms. [/quote]
I know I'm wasting my time trying to talk sense into you, but once again: If they have to do something in order to get peace, that something is a peace term, by definition. Thus 'demilitarise and surrender unconditionally' is a peace term, and what's more an absurd one.

Nutkase: Yes, almost all wars are indefinite until they are concluded. When it becomes an issue is when one or both sides show no intention of ending it. This is what people (incorrectly) use the term 'eternal war' to mean and that's what's happening here. The semantic discussion about what we should call it may have obscured that point.

[kerschbs]

[quote name='Il Impero Romano' date='28 April 2010 - 03:07 AM' timestamp='1272438440' post='2278317']
This is a very good post, and you people in Gre should read it carefully and understand it. Gre is no longer a powerhouse, physically or politically. Before, it was a social wrong that you would attempt to impose such a thing. Now, circumstances have changed, you lost nations and have been getting anything in their range dogpiled, and there is literally no way you are in a position to ask for unconditional surrender even if it was something considered to be acceptable. I get the feeling in the next few weeks you will dip below 45 nations. Do you really think 45 nations who are most likely inactive (from what I've been hearing) can impose anything on anyone?

Sure, at this point I'm sure Ram has realized he has f'ed up and would only ask for minimal terms after the unconditional surrender requirement is met, but now its to late, your not an alliance who can impose that anymore. IRON, when they leak to you guys how it will be something like white peace once you unconditionally surrender, don't accept, in the next few weeks they will continue to beat themselves more and more. Plus, the longer the time frame removed from the ES accords, the more likely people will be to release some alliances to help you guys stop the ridiculousness, as there is much less danger of such a release setting a bad wartime precedent seeing as war will be long since over.
[/quote]

These two men make incredible points. Instead of making my own wall of text, I endorse Impero's.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='28 April 2010 - 08:17 AM' timestamp='1272460611' post='2278449']
Dochartaigh - as Matthew pointed out this argument is baloney. All numbers need some context.

If bread gets cheaper by 30c going from 60c to 30 c, and salmon get's cheaper from 10.6 bucks to 10 bucks - which lost more value? [i]If[/i] this trend continues, you don't honestly expect them to lose 2 members, whether they have 60, 600 or 6 total, do you?
It is really funny that you'd mention this, as it is in fact IRON who suffered bigger loss (10% BMT* against 6.25%).

Although I do agree that it is IRON who is more likely to gain members.


Digits are tricky !@#$%^&*, one must tread carefully with them.

*Hehehe, Big Nations Total, hehe.
Oh my, too much coffee.
[/quote]

they have actually lost around 13 (believe they started at 68members in the past month. at least 5 were nations over 50k NS iirc. i only included the 2 from around that post. so, putting that into the mix (which i guess i had falsely assumed many would do already) Gremlins has lost at least 5 members over 50k NS compared to IRON losing 1 (iirc). my comment was directed at the fact that Gremlins are losing larger nations quicker than IRON is. a 5 to 1 loss over a month is pretty significant, even if Gremlins started off with more.

you can get digits to do anything if you manipulate the data sufficiently, thus your bread comparison is just plain ridiculous in this instance. fact is, currently the Gremlins hold a 3.33 times greater amount of 50k NS nations than IRON but are losing them at 5 times the rate. if that trend continues, no matter how you manipulate the data, Gremlins will lose the edge far quicker. add to that the fact that IRON/DAWN will most likely gain more nations as time goes on. so even if Gremlins do not lose upper nations as quickly or at all, the edge will slowly be lost.

this is not even including the mid-tier nations of IRON/DAWN gaining NS to slowly retake the 30k-40k portion and then upwards. sorry, it seems i should simply not assume that people can honestly think for themselves and figure this stuff out on their own. as i stated to Mushroom Man, sure if you look strictly at the ratio figures then you are correct, IRON has lost a bit more than Gre has in that aspect. but a minor setback is much better than a major fall. and Gremlins have been shedding members since this war began. how many more will be shed when they simply get bored of this or get active and realize that Ramirus is turning all of CN against them? who knows. we shall see.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Gamemaster1' date='27 April 2010 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1272428279' post='2278120']
For the last time, unconditional surrender is a term. We have to decom things to even talk to you, at which point talking wouldn't matter anyway because we'd have to do whatever you want us to do. [b]Decommissions. Are. Terms.[/b]


I don't need to take it up with my government. Every person who reads these forums understands what is being asked better then you appear to. This 'ask your government' line is just getting embarrassing now.

I love these arguments. Every day, you come back in here and spout of the same arguments like you've got nothing better to say. Every time, we soundly trounce you. Change the damn record already, it's broken and we all can tell.
[/quote]


You haven't trounced me, merely restated over and over again that the terms are unacceptable.
You need to surrender to proceed from here. If, after that, GRE demands your demilitarization for further discussions then you can discuss that.

As far as my spouting the same arguments: there is only one point to make. IRON and DAWN need to surrender before further discussions will take place.
So if you want to use some kind of circular reasoning to assert that there's tyrannical terms on the table that's your prerogative. But the reality is and was that GRE demands your surrender before discussing terms.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' date='28 April 2010 - 05:21 AM' timestamp='1272457259' post='2278430']
nothing. i showed that Gremlins has lost 2 nations over 35k NS compared to IRON's 1 nation. if Gremlins continues to lose 2 nations over 35k NS then Gremlins will lose the advantage. IRON will most likely end up staying the same number since sooner or later, they will most likely start to gain nations even if they do lose some nations occasionally.

you did exactly as Matt did and looked at the surface instead of delving beneath it. on the surface, yes, the ratio slid slightly more into Gremlins favor currently, but do you honestly think it will continue that way? again, especially if Gre continues to either have their upper NS nations delete or leave the alliance? now this may not happen, but then there is the fact that the mid-tier NS is significantly in IRON/DAWN's favor and thus, soon Gre won't have any 40k or below nations unless they are ZIed nations.

but yes, i am a complete moron who can't seem to grasp being corrected, despite explaining myself quite clearly in the post you quoted... the fact that i stated "should you continue to LOSE your upper NS nations" should have pointed you in the direction i was going (i.e. just in case, the first set of numbers was 32 to 10. this means that Gremlins had 32 nations over 50K NS and IRON had 10 nations over 50k NS. follow me thus far Mushroom Man???? now, the second set of numbers was 30 to 9. this means that Gremlins had 30 nations over 50k NS and IRON had 9 nations over 50k NS. okay. now if you take 32 and subtract 30 from it, you get 2 nations left over. this means that Gremlins lost 2 nations. now if you take 10 and subtract 9 from it, you get 1 nation left over. this means that IRON lost 1 nation. which number out of 2 and 1 is larger? now, i also go on to explain the fact that IRON will more than likely start gaining nations instead of continuing to lose them, which means that if Gremlins continues to lose their upper NS at a rate of around 2 every couple of weeks, then Gremlins will lose the advantage they currently hold. now i am unsure if i could honestly break this concept down any further but i could try to go Barney style if you still do not understand Mushroom Man.) next time i suggest instead of just trying to insult me, you actually take a look at what it is i am discussing, otherwise, you just make yourself look like a fool.
[/quote]

Doch,
Your position now depends on the idea that IRON will start *gaining* nations in the upper tier.

However, previously your example was a 2:1 loss ratio.
32/10 = 3.2
30/9 = 3.33
28/8 = 3.5
26/7 = 3.71
24/6 = 4

You see where this is going?
At what point do you think IRON will start gaining nations? Do you not think GRE will stop losing nations?

[ironchef]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 April 2010 - 12:11 PM' timestamp='1272481888' post='2278690']

As far as my spouting the same arguments: there is only one point to make. IRON and DAWN need to surrender before further discussions will take place.

So if you want to use some kind of circular reasoning to assert that there's tyrannical terms on the table that's your prerogative. But the reality is and was that GRE demands your surrender before discussing terms.
[/quote]

IRON and DAWN need to surrender before further discussions will take place?
No they need to demilitarize, that is decommission all nukes, military wonders, military improvements, navy, air, tanks and CM, and troops down to 20%, before they can surrender and further discussions will take place.

That would make demilitarizing their alliances a term they must comply to before they surrender. This in itself is a [b]tyrannical term[/b] to ask of any. And yes it is a term, call it a condition, a requirement, or whatever you like but that will not change the fact that it is a term of their surrender.

Edited April 28, 2010 by ironchef

[Cormalek]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 April 2010 - 09:11 PM' timestamp='1272481888' post='2278690']
You need to surrender to proceed from here. If, after that, GRE demands your demilitarization for further discussions then you can discuss that.[/quote]

So I understand that IRON and DAWN can at this point approach Grämlin gov, say "we surrender" and begin peace talks? They will be be able to talk about peace terms without prior demilitarization?

And if so, is that in fact official position of The Grämlins, or just a personal opinion?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='ironchef' date='28 April 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1272488417' post='2278784']
IRON and DAWN need to surrender before further discussions will take place?
No they need to demilitarize, that is decommission all nukes, military wonders, military improvements, navy, air, tanks and CM, and troops down to 20%, before they can surrender and further discussions will take place.

That would make demilitarizing their alliances a term they must comply to before they surrender. This in itself is a [b]tyrannical term[/b] to ask of any. And yes it is a term, call it a condition, a requirement, or whatever you like but that will not change the fact that it is a term of their surrender.
[/quote]

Your misinformation is stunning.
IRON and DAWN have not been asked to decommission military wonders, nor have they been asked to demilitarize [b]before[/b] they surrender.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='28 April 2010 - 02:11 PM' timestamp='1272489062' post='2278799']
So I understand that IRON and DAWN can at this point approach Grämlin gov, say "we surrender" and begin peace talks? They will be be able to talk about peace terms without prior demilitarization?

And if so, is that in fact official position of The Grämlins, or just a personal opinion?
[/quote]

I don't know what will happen after IRON/DAWN surrenders. However, that's the first required step in the process.

Anything else is opinion and/or the rumor mill.

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='28 April 2010 - 05:50 PM' timestamp='1272491410' post='2278843']
I don't know what will happen after IRON/DAWN surrenders. However, that's the first required step in the process. Anything else is opinion and/or the rumor mill.
[/quote]

The odds of IRON/DAWN surrendering are about equal to that of Ramirus coming to his senses.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='28 April 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1272492142' post='2278859']
The odds of IRON/DAWN surrendering are about equal to that of Ramirus coming to his senses.
[/quote]

Whatever; but that has nothing to do with the apparently pervasive lies and misconceptions about what GRE has demanded.

[ktarthan]

A few things are slowly starting to click - although I still believe that this isn't the best way to go about whatever your final intention is. That, however, is simply a difference of opinion, and not something I feel is really up for debate. My main concern is this:

If they take the "first step", as you say, and surrender, what happens if they find the next step to be unacceptable? Assuming the next step is the discussion of terms, do they still have any sort of option to negotiate? If they find the terms to be unacceptable and continue to fight, would they be accused of going back on their word?

(Note to all sides: I am not advocating for or against a surrender, just asking a hypothetical for my own curiosity)

Edit: grammar

Edited April 28, 2010 by ktarthan

[BlkAK47_002]

[quote name='Penlugue Solaris' date='27 April 2010 - 05:47 PM' timestamp='1272404829' post='2277657']
I look forward to your declaration on me for aiding Gramlins then in a few days. Or, your refusal to pay MK reps based off that.
[/quote]
Translation: Well being we that can and will get away with it, screw you and the Easter Sunday Accords, In fact if you don't like it do something about it.

Edited April 28, 2010 by BlkAK47002