Revisited: An Even War Avoided

[lebubu]

[quote name='Jay Z' timestamp='1289413911' post='2509482']
Funny in the sense that it is of two alliances that your minions put onto their side of the excel document they slaved over? Or funny in the sense that it is representative of your delusional view of the world whose inaccuracy exponentially grows the more inactive your beloved king is? If the latter, I would say hilarious is more appropriate.
[/quote]

I'm not sure what the hell you're on about but if you're clinging to the idea that MK and PC hate each other, you're wrong. And naive to have taken those logs at face value. As for my view of the world, I'm perfectly content with bottom feeders like you thinking it is delusional - it makes things a hell of a lot easier, really.

[WorldConqueror]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1289417077' post='2509530']
In all fairness, NPO guys are about as serious as they come. I see far more serious/angry posts from NPO members than sarcastic.

But to address the OP. Any conflict involving NSO won't amount to much, as all their allies always seem to back out and say NSO told them not to defend them. I hardly imagine NSO getting defended even if someone DoW'ed them with the CB: "Just because." I know NPO wouldn't unless they could win. Although maybe the IC/Brown/Purple allies would. It's funny to think FEAR, NATO, Invicta, etc have more balls than the 'legendary' NPO though. 2010 sure isn't 2007-08.
[/quote]
That may be so, but just because a majority are serious doesn't mean they all will be. I tend to throw jokes in when I get the opportunity for it.

And once equals always now? That's a pretty amazing leap. I think you'll find we're quite prepared to defend NSO if need be. Incredible though, that you [i]know[/i] what we'll do. What else can you predict for us, Nostradamus?

[KainIIIC]

[quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1289413527' post='2509474']
Um, no. Dan Stark is actually competent. I still doubt that NSO is. I think that the other Iron Curtain members are like Ruiz, NSO is like Hodges (who everyone thinks is dumb), and TFD is like Jack and Dan.

Bonus points for liking a great show, though.
[/quote]

TFD is FAR too goody two-shoe to be Dan, and the NSO is, like Dan Stark, someone you both love to hate, and hate to love . Hodges has to be someone like Sparta or OO

But yes, great show indeed, thought you'd agree

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1289417077' post='2509530']But to address the OP. Any conflict involving NSO won't amount to much, as all their allies always seem to back out and say NSO told them not to defend them. I hardly imagine NSO getting defended even if someone DoW'ed them with the CB: "Just because." I know NPO wouldn't unless they could win. Although maybe the IC/Brown/Purple allies would. It's funny to think FEAR, NATO, Invicta, etc have more balls than the 'legendary' NPO though. 2010 sure isn't 2007-08.
[/quote]

I think you'd be sorely mistaken, because the biggest calculus for us typically is our allies. We've avoided threats against us in the past because we don't want them to be dragged in, and during the last NoCB war (oh wait, it was 6 million, not 3!), we took all the brunt and pain (and boy was there a lot) to AVOID our allies from taking the clear bait. But go ahead, continue to have these delusions about us, our allies or the NPO..

[Jay Z]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1289416981' post='2509529']
You are totally off base and should really stop. Don was joking, as he is oft to do.
[/quote]

I have not been playing this game for long, and do not know how people tend to act.

[quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1289417383' post='2509534']
I'm not sure what the hell you're on about but if you're clinging to the idea that MK and PC hate each other, you're wrong. And [b]naive [/b]to have taken those logs at face value. As for my view of the world, I'm perfectly content with bottom feeders like you thinking it is delusional - it makes things a hell of a lot easier, really.
[/quote]

I am not clinging to the idea, it was mentioned, and I took it for truth. Naive I may be, as I do not have the experience in this world as others do, but hell I'm learning.

As for the bottom feeders insult, this is an OOC forum.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Jay Z' timestamp='1289421371' post='2509581']
I am not clinging to the idea, it was mentioned, and I took it for truth. Naive I may be, as I do not have the experience in this world as others do, but hell I'm learning.

As for the bottom feeders insult, this is an OOC forum.
[/quote]
I think you will find that the 'bottom feeders' comment was directed to the fact that your alliance is irrelevant and, as such, your world view is distorted by a lack of information.

[Jay Z]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1289422857' post='2509610']
I think you will find that the 'bottom feeders' comment was directed to the fact that your alliance is irrelevant and, as such, your world view is distorted by a lack of information.
[/quote]

And you will find that my OOC comment was directed to the fact that when OOC, I have no alliance.

[Wu Tang Clan]

[quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1289417383' post='2509534']
I'm not sure what the hell you're on about but if you're clinging to the idea that MK and PC hate each other, you're wrong. And naive to have taken those logs at face value. As for my view of the world, I'm perfectly content with bottom feeders like you thinking it is delusional - it makes things a hell of a lot easier, really.
[/quote]

IMO, the majority of general membership in CN is delusional, with all the spoon-fed propaganda and opinions of their leaders. Only a fraction actually vist the OWF and see conflicting opinions, and even then I'd venture to say most stick to those that are familiar. Delusion is an object of loyalty.

[Hyperion321]

It baffles me that those in power never seem to understand just what their power does to them and their attitudes over time.

[Schad]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1289407384' post='2509400']
It wouldn't have been all that even. Once you look deeper than raw NS and into military preparedness and upper tiers, it falls apart. Your post clearly betrays how underinformed you are.
[/quote]

Which is going to be the issue for the next while. Excluding neutrals and quasi-neutrals, PB + MK alone have close to a quarter of the 100k nations in play; it doesn't take the inclusion of too many allies to push that above 50%, and while dominance at the top tier alone doesn't guarantee victory, it means that they have a far easier path to build a winning coalition...a disproportionate count of AAs would have to be brought to bear to cover them, and because it would take a motley group of alliances and blocs that don't particularly like each other to do so (many of which would have treaty pressure from both sides), it probably isn't going to happen any time soon barring a seriously polarizing event. And the opposite is probably true, as well; PB et al aren't likely to intentionally touch off a grand coalition war while the sides are still in flux, unless it's one where they'll have a decisive advantage.

So unless there's a massive political misstep -- and this kerfuffle doesn't quite count -- or a couple of the major players actually work up the gumption to do some peacetime coalition-building beyond traditional lines, an evenly-sided war seems unlikely for the next bit.

[KIADO]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1289427951' post='2509684']
It baffles me that those in power never seem to understand just what their power does to them and their attitudes over time.
[/quote]

couldnt say it better

[Banksy]

[quote name='Hyperion321' timestamp='1289427951' post='2509684']
It baffles me that those in power never seem to understand just what their power does to them and their attitudes over time.
[/quote]
I think you'll find that people are well aware of what will happen, they just stop caring after they realise keeping to any kind of universally acceptable standard of behaviour is both dull and impossible.

Edited November 10, 2010 by Banksy

[jerdge]

[quote name='Ian Dox' timestamp='1289415904' post='2509509']What is being overlooked, well, maybe not overlooked but not enough weight is being put towards how MK's attitudes, both past and present, are being perceived by those who are uninvolved and would not look kindly upon being dragged into such an idiotic situation.

That same goes for GOONS .

Eventually, the straw that breaks the camel's back falls, and those of us out there have to wonder, really, is it worth it all?[/quote]
I really can't judge the two cases you presented (lack of information here), but I do agree that in general it's a bad idea to throw your allies' weight around, and an even worse idea to throw around [i]your allies'[/i] allies' weight. It might work for some time but in the long run it has always been counter-productive. Nobody likes "parasitic" trouble-makers.


[quote name='Jay Z' timestamp='1289423331' post='2509620']And you will find that my OOC comment was directed to the fact that when OOC, I have no alliance.[/quote]
You're right, thanks for this refreshing line. Although TBH I think that Banksy was implying that in an "irrelevant" alliance (to use his choice of words) you have access to little/no "relevant" information.
I don't say he is correct, but that's what I think he was (OOC) meaning.

[Banksy]

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1289431259' post='2509731']
Although TBH I think that Banksy was implying that in an "irrelevant" alliance (to use his choice of words) you have access to little/no "relevant" information.
I don't say he is correct, but that's what I think he was (OOC) meaning.
[/quote]
This is correct [I missed Jay Z's reply]

[Thrash]

[quote name='Steve Buscemi' timestamp='1289417077' post='2509530']
It's funny to think FEAR, NATO, Invicta, etc have more balls than the 'legendary' NPO though. 2010 sure isn't 2007-08.
[/quote]

Whoa. Is that a slight bit of praise for us? Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1289422857' post='2509610']
I think you will find that the 'bottom feeders' comment was directed to the fact that your alliance is irrelevant and, as such, your world view is distorted by a lack of information.
[/quote]

Personally, I wouldn't call any alliance "irrelevant" and certainly not "bottom feeders."

Jay Z may not be as educated, but he's shown better diplomatic skills at least in this exchange.

Edited November 10, 2010 by White Chocolate

[Banksy]

[quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1289432036' post='2509742']
Personally, I wouldn't call any alliance "irrelevant" and certainly not "bottom feeders."

Jay Z may not be as educated, but he's shown better diplomatic skills at least in this exchange.
[/quote]
I suppose compared to your own alliance, no one would be 'irrelevant.' As for 'diplomatic skills,' I think you missed the entire point of Mr Jay Z's subsequent exchange (about him having no alliance here), removing any pretentious 'diplomacy?' Or do you call any interaction between two people 'diplomacy?'

[Branimir]

You may have highlighted certain political trends in regard to the political dynamics of the ruling block(s), but as always its about the moment that defines the odds in such conflicts.

That political moment, opportunity that opens and seizing it is what is all about. Because dice can roll in all ways. Yes, you can prepare, try to set up terrain but huge part of it is the elements of the specific situation and playing them into your own advantage at that moment.

I have no idea how it will roll. Maybe we just all get together and roll MHA,...you never know ;D

Edited November 10, 2010 by Branimir

[Vol Navy]

It must be awesome to be NPO, at the end of the day they drive almost all foreign policy in the entire game. You have 1/2 the NS in the entire world huddled together even if they don't like each other, out of fear NPO may come for vengence.

[Joe Izuzu]

No need to worry about that. Didn't you hear, we are now the [b]New Pacifistic Order[/b]. We have no further plans for world domination.

[White Chocolate]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1289432384' post='2509745']
I suppose compared to your own alliance, no one would be 'irrelevant.' As for 'diplomatic skills,' I think you missed the entire point of Mr Jay Z's subsequent exchange (about him having no alliance here), removing any pretentious 'diplomacy?' Or do you call any interaction between two people 'diplomacy?'
[/quote]

yes.

dip·lo·mat·ic, adj.
1. Of, relating to, or involving diplomacy or diplomats.
2. Using or marked by tact and sensitivity in dealing with others. diplomacy

Also, I did not say that every alliance is equal to every other when it comes to "relevance" (certainly NOT in the way that most people see it), just that I would not call another alliance "irrelevant" and certainly not "bottom feeders." The first lacks tact and the second is even worse.

Just because one is speaking OOC doesn't mean people are not making judgments based on the words one uses. If anything, a person doesn't have the excuse that he/she is "role-playing" - so arguably tact is more important.

Edited November 11, 2010 by White Chocolate

[schmutte693]

[quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1289431759' post='2509740']
Whoa. Is that a slight bit of praise for us? Did you wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?
[/quote]

SSSHHHH!

It's like a beautiful butterfly; if you move, or make a sound, you will startle it away.



On topic, though: I think that the OP may have overstated the relevance of the recent NSO-MK event. However, it is rare that MK gets dealt a resounding PR defeat (rare as in I cannot remember another one, offhand). Whether that has the level of significance that the OP seems to think it will/does, I don't know. It is an interesting theory, however - thank you for the open and well-thought post.

[Vol Navy]

This was not only a PR defeat, but it just chopped the legs out of some old standby MK complaints. Turns out that it was their fault they paid NPO 84,000 tech and de-commed those wonders after WoTC, because they agreed to do it.

[The Corrupt Teacher]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1289407384' post='2509400']
It wouldn't have been all that even. Once you look deeper than raw NS and into military preparedness and upper tiers, it falls apart. Your post clearly betrays how underinformed you are.
[/quote]


[quote name='Schad' timestamp='1289429549' post='2509706']
Which is going to be the issue for the next while. Excluding neutrals and quasi-neutrals, PB + MK alone have close to a quarter of the 100k nations in play; it doesn't take the inclusion of too many allies to push that above 50%, and while dominance at the top tier alone doesn't guarantee victory, it means that they have a far easier path to build a winning coalition...a disproportionate count of AAs would have to be brought to bear to cover them, and because it would take a motley group of alliances and blocs that don't particularly like each other to do so (many of which would have treaty pressure from both sides), it probably isn't going to happen any time soon barring a seriously polarizing event. And the opposite is probably true, as well; PB et al aren't likely to intentionally touch off a grand coalition war while the sides are still in flux, unless it's one where they'll have a decisive advantage.

So unless there's a massive political misstep -- and this kerfuffle doesn't quite count -- or a couple of the major players actually work up the gumption to do some peacetime coalition-building beyond traditional lines, an evenly-sided war seems unlikely for the next bit.
[/quote]

Those quote above are important. Even if the raw stats come up near even in terms of NS/Nukes/ and Alliances you still don't have the firepower to take on a trio of MK/Umbrella/PC you just don't. To do that you'd need a fully rebuilt TOP and they'd need quite a bit more firepower added considering CnG and Co beat them before. Then you add in GOONs, VE, FoK, CnG, SF, and Sparta and no matter what you compile all of the alliances left over your looking at grim odds there. As you'd be facing off against all the best warring alliances in the game essentially. (yes I know I said Sparta but the rest are good)

[Vol Navy]

[quote name='The Corrupt Teacher' timestamp='1289440568' post='2509861']
Those quote above are important. Even if the raw stats come up near even in terms of NS/Nukes/ and Alliances you still don't have the firepower to take on a trio of MK/Umbrella/PC you just don't. To do that you'd need a fully rebuilt TOP and they'd need quite a bit more firepower added considering CnG and Co beat them before. Then you add in GOONs, VE, FoK, CnG, SF, and Sparta and no matter what you compile all of the alliances left over your looking at grim odds there. As you'd be facing off against all the best warring alliances in the game essentially. (yes I know I said Sparta but the rest are good)
[/quote]


That's pretty much what many people on what's left of this side try to say. As long as PB/CnG/SF + MHA/Sparta etc are tied so close together the game is stagnant and not going anywhere.

[Ironfist]

[quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1289400816' post='2509330']
Not that it matters at all in the context of this thread or anywhere else because it was amicable, but GATO did not drop VE, it was the inverse.
[/quote]

Correct. When I said "GATO dropping VE", I just meant the process of the treaty becoming redundant. But from a technical standpoint, yes I stand corrected.