Is this what CN is coming to?

[Cortath]

[quote name='Kzoppistan' date='07 July 2010 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1278557986' post='2363045']
If you like history, you might like [i]Diplomacy[/i] by Henry Kissinger. It's enrapturing.

http://www.amazon.com/Diplomacy-Touchstone-book-Henry-Kissinger/dp/0671510991
[/quote]

If you like Henry Kissinger, you might like [i]The Trial of Henry Kissinger[/i] by Christopher Hitchens. Although he's rather crazy now, Hitchens wrote a pretty good book.

http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Henry-Kissinger-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/1859846319

[Scorponok]

You speak the truth.

And why not? This is a game, stats are pixels, warchests are grand and launching nukes are a blast.

[Delta1212]

[quote name='General Scipio' date='08 July 2010 - 02:15 AM' timestamp='1278569710' post='2363223']
um, Operation Unthinkable?
[/quote]
Touche, though I think planning to write history and then doing it both literally and figuratively significantly outweighs most else in terms of follow through.

[Yevgeni Luchenkov]

[quote name='ktarthan' date='07 July 2010 - 06:42 PM' timestamp='1278542556' post='2362818']
If you want things to get interesting then recruit for GOONS. We have an invisible clause in our constitution that requires us to only be mildly entertaining until we reach a certain size.
[/quote]
What this man said. Give the GOONS 750 members. See what happens next. I have a feeling the OP's next thread would then be something like "why is no one doing anything to stop the GOONS?".

Ah, old days.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='07 July 2010 - 06:32 PM' timestamp='1278541905' post='2362808']
People complain about the game being boring but I can only point to [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=88607"]THIS[/url] and [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=88560"]THIS[/url] as to why there is very little excitement for long periods of times. There is a CN2 topic about a reset or second world spicing up the game. There is a blog about it too. There are people making topics about the good ole days. Well, the only ones to blame for the boring 6 month++ long periods nothingness in the game is each and every one of us that don't do anything.

Competitions for what I don't even know what the hell NSO and CSN are doing there. They don't like each other so they write about it? And they write reviews on each others newsletter and get other people to also review them to see who won? What happened to just clicking the declare war button and settling things in the in game battlefield. Have at it and have fun fighting each other in game [b]and don't bring your allies if your afraid of a world war, just fight it out 1v1 alliance v alliance[/b].
[/quote]

I agreed with you right up to the point that you wrote the bolded section. That will never happen. Indeed, the only times I recall an alliance not calling in its allies is when it figured on being being beaten bloody and involving allies would only get them beaten bloody as well.

Right now you have domination by a single megabloc that as a group is paranoid and likes to play defense. Until said megabloc dissolves or turns against itself, the current situation is unlikely to change.

That said, the history of Planet Bob has shown that the current situation [b]always[/b] changes eventually. It's not a question of if, but when and if you have the patience to see it happen and act.

[Pomiel]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='08 July 2010 - 09:41 AM' timestamp='1278596490' post='2363387']
Right now you have domination by a single megabloc that as a group is paranoid and likes to play defense. Until said megabloc dissolves or turns against itself, the current situation is unlikely to change.
[/quote]

This is true. You would know from being in RoK that we only joined The SuperFriends because we're so scared of everyone else. And of course you remember RoK's official policy of "Keep Friends and Treaties Separate"

[Hiro Nakara]

What he says about people should fight 1v1 alliance v alliance is a lot of rubbish, he quickly jamp on me when his buddies with an 80 strong alliance couldn't handle 3 guys. So tbh, I take pretty much everything he stated in his OP as garbage. If he truly believed in what he was spouting, then he would have had ARES handle there own fighting.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Pomiel' date='08 July 2010 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1278600004' post='2363433']
This is true. You would know from being in RoK that we only joined The SuperFriends because we're so scared of everyone else. And of course you remember RoK's official policy of "Keep Friends and Treaties Separate"
[/quote]

SF is indeed part of the megabloc. As such, you have won two global conflicts. That is no cause for criticism.

Also, individual member alliances have at times acted in their own interest as opposed to the interest of the group as a whole, Athens for one comes to mind. However, when was the last time Rok did something that contradicted the best wishes of the megabloc?

If the problem with "Pax SuperGrievances" is utter stagnation and a beat down of all those who attempt to assault the castle, are you merely guarding a castle filled with "friends" or are you trapped by it?

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='08 July 2010 - 06:41 AM' timestamp='1278596490' post='2363387']
Right now you have domination by a single megabloc that as a group is paranoid and likes to play defense. Until said megabloc dissolves or turns against itself, the current situation is unlikely to change.
[/quote]

Will you please stop saying it like it's a bad thing. That's how politics is played, that's how it's been played, and that's how it will always be played.

You'd know.

[Jrenster]

As much as I don't see the purpose behind OWF newsletters, we let the competition occur because we felt that the OWF has been very boring lately and that there needed to be something fun happening. I had my doubts about this because I've never saw anything interesting about OWF newsletters. They're all so typical and predictable. But, we gave it a shot because the intention behind it made it worthy of being humored.

While straight up war is fun while it lasts, it's nothing new. It's not interesting to see NSO and CSN smack each other because in the end, it's all just a bunch of pixels flying around. Everyone knows that we don't like each other.

What makes war entertaining is the intrigue behind it. It's the story that is created that makes it all the more enjoyable. For example, the 1v1 that was about to occur between UPN and BAPs was interesting because there was a story behind it. There's not much of a story behind a CSN v. NSO 1v1 because we've both made it pretty obvious that we resent each other.

But I do hate waiting for the natural course of things to happen. That tends to take forever. I'd rather write the story myself.

[Pomiel]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='08 July 2010 - 10:53 AM' timestamp='1278600763' post='2363443']
Also, individual member alliances have at times acted in their own interest as opposed to the interest of the group as a whole, Athens for one comes to mind. However, when was the last time Rok did something that contradicted the best wishes of the megabloc?
[/quote]

Maybe the bloc is acting in the interest of RoK

[quote name='ChairmanHal' date='08 July 2010 - 10:53 AM' timestamp='1278600763' post='2363443']
If the problem with "Pax SuperGrievances" is utter stagnation and a beat down of all those who attempt to assault the castle, are you merely guarding a castle filled with "friends" or are you trapped by it?
[/quote]

The problem with us is that we'll stubbornly stick by our friends. SuperFriends isn't like Q.

QUOTE:
[quote name="The Mobius Accords"]
I. Preamble
We, the undersigned alliances, in recognition of our common values and interests and in pursuit of our [b]collective security, strength, and prosperity[/b], enter into this binding agreement in furtherance of those goals. The signatories commit themselves to upholding the obligations they freely undertake by signing this pact.
[/quote]

[quote name="The SuperFriends Pact"]
I. Preamble
The undersigned alliances hereby reaffirm their faith in the fundamental rights, dignity, and sovereignty of the signatories and enter into this Mutual Aggression and Defense Pact to [b]fortify, strengthen, and promote the ties of peace and friendship[/b].
[/quote]

SuperFriends wasn't created for domination. It just happened to get big. Continuum on the other hand was founded to be a massive, intimidating bloc. I don't understand what the complaint is though. Are we supposed to just cut off people we like?

Grammar

Edited July 8, 2010 by Pomiel

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='08 July 2010 - 09:46 AM' timestamp='1278600375' post='2363438']
What he says about people should fight 1v1 alliance v alliance is a lot of rubbish, he quickly jamp on me when his buddies with an 80 strong alliance couldn't handle 3 guys. So tbh, I take pretty much everything he stated in his OP as garbage. If he truly believed in what he was spouting, then he would have had ARES handle there own fighting.
[/quote]
I was referring to nso and csn newsletter approach to "battle" each other. It's fine it's there choice.

Your situation as a rogue alliance is different IMO.

[Kzoppistan]

[quote name='Cortath' date='08 July 2010 - 08:53 AM' timestamp='1278589971' post='2363340']
If you like Henry Kissinger, you might like [i]The Trial of Henry Kissinger[/i] by Christopher Hitchens. Although he's rather crazy now, Hitchens wrote a pretty good book.

http://www.amazon.com/Trial-Henry-Kissinger-Christopher-Hitchens/dp/1859846319
[/quote]


An interesting review, I'll have to get a hold of a copy. Kissinger, the former intelligence officer, is the perfect embodiment of realpolitik. He was, I have no doubt, complicit in many war crimes, as most operators of state affairs are, but as usual of such, a person so powerful he almost transcends morality. Impressive and chilling at the same time; much like how one can admire the brutally efficient killing machine that is the tiger or shark. Well, at least from a safe distance, that is.

That is what's great about CN, one can play out all their ambitions, great or dastardly, and only risk the pixels.

The bantering of newspapers wars is rather boring, imo, but if it entertains the participants, power to them.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Kzoppistan

[NationRuler]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='08 July 2010 - 12:37 PM' timestamp='1278610657' post='2363568']
I was referring to nso and csn newsletter approach to "battle" each other. It's fine it's there choice.
[/quote]

People say "alliances are afraid of a fair fight". It wouldn't be fair. They really wouldn't stand a chance. Honestly. It's not a matter of opinion. I'm not talking CSN up or anything, it just simply wouldn't be fair. I'd honestly feel bad about it.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='07 July 2010 - 11:32 PM' timestamp='1278541905' post='2362808']
People complain about the game being boring but I can only point to [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=88607"]THIS[/url] and [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=88560"]THIS[/url] as to why there is very little excitement for long periods of times. There is a CN2 topic about a reset or second world spicing up the game. There is a blog about it too. [b]There are people making topics about the good ole days. Well, the only ones to blame for the boring 6 month++ long periods nothingness in the game is each and every one of us that don't do anything.
[/b]
Competitions for what I don't even know what the hell NSO and CSN are doing there. They don't like each other so they write about it? And they write reviews on each others newsletter and get other people to also review them to see who won? What happened to just clicking the declare war button and settling things in the in game battlefield. [b]Have at it and have fun fighting each other in game and don't bring your allies if your afraid of a world war, just fight it out 1v1 alliance v alliance.[/b]
[/quote]


[quote name='Fernando12' date='08 July 2010 - 12:13 AM' timestamp='1278544413' post='2362857']
If you all don't hate each other enough then war is not necessary I guess. I don't think people are seeing my main point here about [b]how we all talk way too much rather than do more in game.[/b]


Ok, sure thats exactly how wars happen. Like it or not, wars drive the very existence of this game. Why then is forum activity at its peak during wars? If people were here for political simming then the forums would be over loaded now since peace time is when the most politiking is going on? But its not the case is it Chey, so sorry you are wrong.
[/quote]



Which is it? Be consistent!

I'm different in your opinion? Explain? I had a valid grievance against ARES, probably more than the other 2 guys I fought alongside. We were 3 nations. v 80 nations

I done something about it.

Going by what you have written, is all fair and well according to your moaning posts. We had a DoE DoW Legitimate coup declared on ARES yet you and your buddies jamp right on taking if from being 1v1, alliance v alliance to 6v1, so pretty much everything you posted in this topic is either complete garbage or complete hypocritical garbage.

You know if you're going to jump on folks and things which is cool by me I'm not that bothered about the warring part, but what gets me is you coming in days later and posting such a BS thread, when clearly you know you'd jump/bandwagon any chance you could get, you are laughable.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Hiro Nakara

[shahenshah]

Too much reps these days, takes atleast year to get out or recover, nvm any fighting chance.

[Alterego]

[quote name='shahenshah' date='08 July 2010 - 09:50 PM' timestamp='1278622235' post='2363795']
Too much reps these days, takes atleast year to get out or recover, nvm any fighting chance.
[/quote]
True, the last war started in January and is still going in part thanks to the protection of SG. Major alliances who got lumbered with reps are out of the game until the end of the year with about another 6 months required to get up to a reasonable fighting condition. That’s well over a year between wars and because of the treaty web there will be no small wars, so we all have to sit here and wait until next summer for a war that wont be over before it starts. The way the reps and recovery time of major alliances are being increased every time there is a new war the next war could take 2 years to recover from and would be the death knell of CN.

[Sandwich Controversy]

Then you better win the next war and reverse that trend!

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='08 July 2010 - 02:46 PM' timestamp='1278618384' post='2363724']
Which is it? Be consistent!

I'm different in your opinion? Explain? I had a valid grievance against ARES, probably more than the other 2 guys I fought alongside. We were 3 nations. v 80 nations

I done something about it.

Going by what you have written, is all fair and well according to your moaning posts. We had a DoE DoW Legitimate coup declared on ARES yet you and your buddies jamp right on taking if from being 1v1, alliance v alliance to 6v1, so pretty much everything you posted in this topic is either complete garbage or complete hypocritical garbage.

You know if you're going to jump on folks and things which is cool by me I'm not that bothered about the warring part, but what gets me is you coming in days later and posting such a BS thread, when clearly you know you'd jump/bandwagon any chance you could get, you are laughable.
[/quote]

DOE, declare war on ARES...to me that is a rogue alliance and not a legitimate alliance v alliance war. I was asked to assist in taking on your nation because I was online on IRC so I accepted. Yes, it is inconsistent with what my OP states but oh well.

My main point remains that this game is full of talking and very little in game action. I do agree with what some have said that the talk helps build up what the next war will be about but as has also been said the treaty web prevents anything from happening besides once or twice a year. View the in game list of the top 200 alliances and randomly pick any one of them and you can see the activation of a treaty should it come under attack which activates another and another etc until a full blown world war is raging. Good for the game to have one major war per year or would it be better to let or have a lessoned treaty web where alliances can go alliance v alliance and settle disputes without having to do silly (IMO) newsletters. NSO/CSN is one example. NPO does the same thing going after Athens at times in their PNN announcments. Neither can really do anything 1v1 because it wouldn't stay a 1v1 because a world war would break out. NPO has the numbers to take on Athens but not the numbers to take on CnG/SF.

I doubt anyone is really happy with the situation of only one major event per year. That is not something that will sustain this game long term.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='08 July 2010 - 10:45 PM' timestamp='1278625541' post='2363856']
DOE, declare war on ARES...to me that is a rogue alliance and not a legitimate alliance v alliance war. I was asked to assist in taking on your nation because I was online on IRC so I accepted. [b]Yes, it is inconsistent with what my OP states but oh well. [/b]

My main point remains that this game is full of talking and very little in game action. I do agree with what some have said that the talk helps build up what the next war will be about but as has also been said the treaty web prevents anything from happening besides once or twice a year. View the in game list of the top 200 alliances and randomly pick any one of them and you can see the activation of a treaty should it come under attack which activates another and another etc until a full blown world war is raging. Good for the game to have one major war per year or would it be better to let or have a lessoned treaty web where alliances can go alliance v alliance and settle disputes without having to do silly (IMO) newsletters. NSO/CSN is one example. NPO does the same thing going after Athens at times in their PNN announcments. Neither can really do anything 1v1 because it wouldn't stay a 1v1 because a world war would break out. NPO has the numbers to take on Athens but not the numbers to take on CnG/SF.

I doubt anyone is really happy with the situation of only one major event per year. That is not something that will sustain this game long term.
[/quote]

Right so you agree with me that it is inconsistent I stopped reading after the bold part.

[AnCapistan]

[quote name='Hiro Nakara' date='08 July 2010 - 12:46 PM' timestamp='1278618384' post='2363724']
Going by what you have written, is all fair and well according to your moaning posts. We had a DoE DoW Legitimate coup declared on ARES yet you and your buddies jamp right on taking if from being 1v1, alliance v alliance to 6v1, so pretty much everything you posted in this topic is either complete garbage or complete hypocritical garbage.
[/quote]

We only came in because some people are terrible at fighting and needed additional help. I think Fernando just wants some sort of action to end the boredom, honestly I can't really say I blame him.

[Emperor Whimsical]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='08 July 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1278625541' post='2363856']

My main point remains that this game is full of talking and very little in game action.

I doubt anyone is really happy with the situation of only one major event per year. That is not something that will sustain this game long term.
[/quote]

Your problem is that you want SOMEONE to do something. SOMEONE to change the current system. Why can't YOU be the one to stand up and call to arms? If you want change, then you should be one to act on it, not someone else.

Secondly: the game isn't going to end because one group is dominating. Several groups have dominated before us. Someone must be happy, because people have been doing nothing but running around telling us how evil we are, and yet "very little in game action" as been taken.

[Hiro Nakara]

[quote name='Mr Damsky' date='08 July 2010 - 11:00 PM' timestamp='1278626430' post='2363867']
We only came in because some people are terrible at fighting and needed additional help. I think Fernando just wants some sort of action to end the boredom, honestly I can't really say I blame him.
[/quote]

Mr Damsky I have no problem with Fernando fighting in the slightest, he was the only decent fighter out of the 6 that I was fighting. The way he has put his post leads people to believe he hates curb-stomps treaty webs and people that call for back up (well wasn't really, I only lost about 1k infra or there about) and such tom foolery when he engaged in one himself. This to me is not consistent with the op. You can't say people should do something about it and 1v1 yadda yadda, then do the exact opposite and not expect people to respond to that.

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Pomiel' date='08 July 2010 - 01:33 PM' timestamp='1278610372' post='2363561']
Maybe the bloc is acting in the interest of RoK [/quote]

Keep thinking that.

[quote]The problem with us is that we'll stubbornly stick by our friends. SuperFriends isn't like Q.[/quote]

Or the Initiative for that matter. Distinct lack of dagger marks in the backs of former member alliances.

But my comments were more regarding the megabloc of which Superfriends and thus Ragnarok is a member. Something that large handcuffs individual alliances more than you realize.

[Rush Sykes]

[quote name='Fernando12' date='08 July 2010 - 05:45 PM' timestamp='1278625541' post='2363856']
DOE, declare war on ARES...to me that is a rogue alliance and not a legitimate alliance v alliance war. I was asked to assist in taking on your nation because I was online on IRC so I accepted. Yes, it is inconsistent with what my OP states but oh well.

My main point remains that this game is full of talking and very little in game action. I do agree with what some have said that the talk helps build up what the next war will be about but as has also been said the treaty web prevents anything from happening besides once or twice a year. View the in game list of the top 200 alliances and randomly pick any one of them and you can see the activation of a treaty should it come under attack which activates another and another etc until a full blown world war is raging. Good for the game to have one major war per year or would it be better to let or have a lessoned treaty web where alliances can go alliance v alliance and settle disputes without having to do silly (IMO) newsletters. NSO/CSN is one example. NPO does the same thing going after Athens at times in their PNN announcments. Neither can really do anything 1v1 because it wouldn't stay a 1v1 because a world war would break out. NPO has the numbers to take on Athens but not the numbers to take on CnG/SF.

I doubt anyone is really happy with the situation of only one major event per year. That is not something that will sustain this game long term.
[/quote]


lol, you literally NEVER fail to deliver. Yes it is inconsistent with what my OP states, but oh well.... BEST LINE EVER.