A doctrine of war: what Karma should and shouldn't have done.

[potato]

[quote name='silentkiller' timestamp='1296162893' post='2606075']
Your king's signature is still on the ToS. Whether you had a say or not, the terms were still backed by MK.
[/quote]

You'd have to check with Archon but if it went the same as the other surrender terms, it basically happened like this.

Leader of an alliance hitting NPO: "Here are our terms. NPO accepted them. Can we add your sig?"
Archon doesn't answer for a day or two.
Archon: "Sorry about that. Yeah, sure."
Leader of an alliance hitting NPO: "Cool. Thanks."

If that's what you call "having a hand in NPO terms" then I may have to need a new dictionary.

Edited January 27, 2011 by potato

[Balkan Banania]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1296162336' post='2606058']
… You don't have to take Azaghul's word for it as he was only the one in charge of all reps within MK…
[/quote]
I suppose you are joking, although I really value Azaghul as a player I have no reason to take his word as valid. This is a political game, MK is good at it and you usually do PR stunts “bending the truth” in the way and exploiting the fact that some of the players are moralists and/or naïve. So no I don’t have to take Azaghul's word for it, I prefer to use common sense and observation.

[potato]

[quote name='Balkan Banania' timestamp='1296163173' post='2606085']
I suppose you are joking, although I really value Azaghul as a player I have no reason to take his word as valid. This is a political game, MK is good at it and you usually do PR stunts “bending the truth” in the way and exploiting the fact that some of the players are moralists and/or naïve. So no I don’t have to take Azaghul's word for it, I prefer to use common sense and observation.
[/quote]

Observation in things you weren't involved in? When all the people who had a say in it have told you repeatedly: "No, MK didn't have a say in NPO's reps"? Want my glasses?

[silentkiller]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1296163111' post='2606081']
You'd have to check with Archon but if it went the same as the other surrender terms, it basically happened like this.

Leader of an alliance hitting NPO: "Here are our terms. NPO accepted them. Can we add your sig?"
Archon doesn't answer for a day or two.
Archon: "Sorry about that. Yeah, sure."
Leader of an alliance hitting NPO: "Cool. Thanks."

If that's what you call "having a hand in NPO terms" then I may have to need a new dictionary.
[/quote]


Its about as official as Sir Paul's articles. So if Azaghul considers those official I am sure he will have no problem in accepting that MK took part in NPO's terms.

Edited January 27, 2011 by silentkiller

[potato]

[quote name='silentkiller' timestamp='1296163847' post='2606109']
Its about as official as Sir Paul's articles. So if Azaghul considers those official I am sure he will have no problem in accepting that MK took part in NPO's terms.
[/quote]

I thought we were discussing this OOC and not trying to spin this into a "you did, he did". My bad.

Edited January 27, 2011 by potato

[silentkiller]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1296164083' post='2606117']
I thought we were discussing this OOC and not trying to spin this into a "you did, he did". My bad.
[/quote]


The way the op is written it might as well be in World Affairs.

[Azaghul]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1296160506' post='2606011']
Will you stop taking Sir Pauls tabloid, as in tabloid, so Sir Pauls tabloid for more then it was. Though it is indicative of how poor your argument is, that his tabloid is the only thing you have to stick with.[/quote]
Don't play dumb. Hiding a political agenda in humor doesn't disqualify it as a political agenda. Same with Vox's publications back in the day.

[quote name='Balkan Banania' timestamp='1296160567' post='2606013']
Out of curiosity, you are implying that MK didn't get any of Pacifica's tech? Also if I remember correctly our surrender was signed by the "Voice of Karma ", so I suppose you had a say in the terms...

Edited clarification, just in case. The emoticon indicates that I don't like the titles that LM and Archon had at the time, I have nothing against them.
[/quote]
Yes we did, but it was offered voluntarily by the alliances getting the tech.

Now it is fair to say that we didn't [i]object[/i] to the terms. But the alliances on that front came up with them on their own.

[quote name='silentkiller' timestamp='1296163847' post='2606109']
Its about as official as Sir Paul's articles. So if Azaghul considers those official I am sure he will have no problem in accepting that MK took part in NPO's terms.[/quote]
One signature isn't comparable to numerous official publications.

[ddog241]

we need more war for sure. it dose make this game fun and interesting.

but also we need to stop doing the outrageous reps. why cant everyone just bloody fight and when one surrenders say ok good fight good luck no reps.

[Balkan Banania]

[quote name='potato' timestamp='1296163298' post='2606095']
Observation in things you weren't involved in? When all the people who had a say in it have told you repeatedly: "No, MK didn't have a say in NPO's reps"? Want my glasses?
[/quote]
Let me get it straight, you are telling me that I should take the MK public statements as the absolute truth and assume they are completely sincere. Personally I am a fan of historical materialism, so I have to say I prefer my observation, common sense and political thinking.
[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296164737' post='2606139']
Now it is fair to say that we didn't [i]object[/i] to the terms. But the alliances on that front came up with them on their own. [/quote]
fair enough (I would add a +0.7 in yous sum ), although keep in mind that this was the case in many secondary wars Pacifica participated. Not that it matters as we are to blame for wars that we didn’t even participate, but who cares now, the world is burning.

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296164737' post='2606139']
One signature isn't comparable to numerous official publications.
[/quote]
Now you are only downgrading the signature of the only respectable leader at your part of the web. Personally I think that a signature weight much more than a propagandistic yellow newspaper (of great taste and very enjoyable of course ).

[Branimir]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296164737' post='2606139']Don't play dumb. Hiding a political agenda in humor doesn't disqualify it as a political agenda. Same with Vox's publications back in the day.[/quote]
I am sorry, but it really isn't what you think of it. It is Sir Paul doing his thing, which he did now in two games in a span of years and years.

Our agenda could have been seen from our actions, not Pauls sense of humor. We wanted to be left alone nor did we searched for trouble or a way to roll you.

But, ok, whatever floats your boat. If you want to force rationalize this war as also a reaction to a tabloid, then go right ahead. lolol

Edited January 27, 2011 by Branimir

[Baldr]

[quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1296069832' post='2603057']
A fifth was harsh terms designed to destroy communities and forced disbandments. Terms are a lot lighter now. Even though major reps are nothing like the terms of the past, I personally hope to not see them this war because they create too much of a gap between wars.[/quote]

After Karma, NPO was forced to pay reps for 9 or 10 months. Many of the reps had to be tech sent directly from the NPO nations that had not lost all their tech in the war, and no NPO nations were allowed to purchase tech to rebuild while the reps were being paid. The entire goal was to keep NPO from rebuilding quickly.

After BiPolar, TOP paid reps for 8 months, and had another month or so to go when MK dropped the rest. So when you talk about "terms are a lot lighter now", it's simply not true.

And I expect MK to remain true to form and require huge reps at the end of this war. You've done it every time you've won a war, so why would I expect it to change?

[quote]Ideally we should have a major war around every 6 months at minimum. We need to adjust our values to make that happen. This game depends on it.[/quote]

I agree. But it's your alliance that keeps making people spend most of a year paying reps when they lose, not allowing them to rebuild. Even without all of that, it takes a long time to rebuild if you're down to hardly any infra and you've spent all your warchest.

[quote]The die was cast, war was declared. And what happens? Only some of NpO's allies enter. No one in the NPO sphere enter, even direct allies of NpO or NpO's closest allies (The Legion and TPF). [/quote]

Yes, you were pissed the NPO didn't jump in to defend NpO. You don't seem to understand that they don't have a treaty, and haven't been close in a long time. NpO was on the Karma side during Karma war, not the NPO side. NpO and NPO were on different sides the last major war before that, too. It's been a very, very long time since the two were close. Just because they share initials and have a history with each other doesn't make them close allies today.

[quote]This is the NPO that hasn't fought a war in a year and a half, far to long for this game. [/quote]

Of that year and a half, most of it they were not allowed to buy tech, and were forced to send out tech to your alliance. You designed the system to keep them from rebuilding, then are pissed when they won't defend NpO who they have no treaty with against a planned attack. So now you attack them, and when you've won, you'll require a years worth of reps and similar BS just like you've done in the past.

And then you'll be whining about why it takes so long to have another decent war.

[Cataduanes]

[quote name='Manis B' timestamp='1296157555' post='2605963']
I dont think the game is boring so much as MK is boring/bored. I believe that to be the underlying problem here.
[/quote]
Totally spot on in my view, but you know we irrelevant masses outside the select band of ''friends'' are not taken into consideration...unless we all buy into the line that this is all for the greater good with MK and co working on our collective behalf to make the game 'better'.

[Lord GVChamp]

I have to agree with the people saying that Q itself wasn't actually all that relevant. The major factor was the concentration of alliances on one "side" of the web that had no intention of competing against each other. Even in the absence of Q, TOP and MHA would be backing NPO, Sparta and MCXA would be backing NpO. My memory is hazy, but I remember Q having a clause forbidding direct attack on treaty partners, so had some of the Q alliances really planned from the get-go to take NPO down, Q might have even made it easier to accomplish it. This may be ex-Citadel arrogance talking, but I definitely think it would have been a winnable scenario, especially if OV decided to attack GPA and NADC.


I don't agree with the detractors today that say Supergrievance Box or whatever represents some sort of new hegemony of the same order that Q did. There are substantial overlaps and there doesn't seem to be much of an effort at direct competition, but it's not anywhere near as concentrated in power as Q was. Hell, this war just goes to show that there was a substantial "outside" portion, SF split possible, etc. But I do agree that the game right now isn't quite "competitive," and the attack on NPO doesn't really go far to make the game more competitive down the line either.


More thoughts later, I have to go make posts elsewhere

Edited January 27, 2011 by Lord GVChamp

[Desert Ratz]

Good read Azaghul. It is good stepping back and trying to write from an unbiased standpoint.

[Thorin]

[quote name='Baldr' timestamp='1296167021' post='2606184']
After Karma, NPO was forced to pay reps for 9 or 10 months. Many of the reps had to be tech sent directly from the NPO nations that had not lost all their tech in the war, and no NPO nations were allowed to purchase tech to rebuild while the reps were being paid. The entire goal was to keep NPO from rebuilding quickly.

After BiPolar, TOP paid reps for 8 months, and had another month or so to go when MK dropped the rest. So when you talk about "terms are a lot lighter now", it's simply not true.

And I expect MK to remain true to form and require huge reps at the end of this war. You've done it every time you've won a war, so why would I expect it to change?



I agree. But it's your alliance that keeps making people spend most of a year paying reps when they lose, not allowing them to rebuild. Even without all of that, it takes a long time to rebuild if you're down to hardly any infra and you've spent all your warchest.



Yes, you were pissed the NPO didn't jump in to defend NpO. You don't seem to understand that they don't have a treaty, and haven't been close in a long time. NpO was on the Karma side during Karma war, not the NPO side. NpO and NPO were on different sides the last major war before that, too. It's been a very, very long time since the two were close. Just because they share initials and have a history with each other doesn't make them close allies today.



Of that year and a half, most of it they were not allowed to buy tech, and were forced to send out tech to your alliance. You designed the system to keep them from rebuilding, then are pissed when they won't defend NpO who they have no treaty with against a planned attack. So now you attack them, and when you've won, you'll require a years worth of reps and similar BS just like you've done in the past.

And then you'll be whining about why it takes so long to have another decent war.
[/quote]

I see similiar statements from different people...and I have to agree.

[Affluenza]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1296153153' post='2605863']
Do you know what is arrogance? Arrogance is to claim once you attack someone out of the blue, for no reason and no provocation-- that it is their fault. That is arrogance. That is you.


Man up? We are here, holding our lines. And we took our lessons. We cant be nice enough, to not get preemted at the first opportune time when the world is busy with a global war.

That too is a two way street. "Man up."
[/quote]

Tbh if NPO had changed surely NPO should have not signed treaties with ONLY alliances that are directly trying to oppose MK and it's allies. By signing with them NPO therefore placed a sign on their backs saying quite clearly and intently NPO wish to oppose MK and it's allies.

If NPO had a mix of treaties then I would agree with the current sentiment that NPO posed little to no risk but this is not the case the intention/purpose to pose harm is there you can't excuse it by saying "NPO did nothing".

Edited January 28, 2011 by Affluenza

[Branimir]

[quote name='Affluenza' timestamp='1296174476' post='2606341']Tbh if NPO had changed surely NPO should have not signed treaties with ONLY alliances that are directly trying to oppose MK and it's allies. [/quote]
We were over this. A year and a change ago. You can not sign treaties with alliances that do not want to sign treaties with you. You also do no change friends as well. I dunno what TPF, Invicta, Legion, to name a few, really have done to you but k.

And finally-- you can not blame a war on a party that did nothing to provoke it, nor cause it. Play your villain part, satisfy your butt hurt, but stop with the fluff.

[Jacques Cousteau]

[quote name='Cataduanes' timestamp='1296168610' post='2606218']
Totally spot on in my view, but you know we irrelevant masses outside the select band of ''friends'' are not taken into consideration...unless we all buy into the line that this is all for the greater good with MK and co working on our collective behalf to make the game 'better'.
[/quote]

Why were you allowed into CnG? You folks are just as painfully bland as your average Legion or GATO.

[Affluenza]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1296174947' post='2606356']
We were over this. A year and a change ago. You can not sign treaties with alliances that do not want to sign treaties with you. You also do no change friends as well. I dunno what TPF, Invicta, Legion, to name a few, really have done to you but k.

And finally-- you can not blame a war on a party that did nothing to provoke it, nor cause it. Play your villain part, satisfy your butt hurt, but stop with the fluff.
[/quote]

Those alliances have publicly voiced opposition that is all. It is healthy, good and all part of the game.

I have nothing to be butt-hurt about. In which ever alliance I have been I have always maintained that NPO played the game well...maybe not so much in the last 2 years but prior you were brilliant.

[Branimir]

[quote name='Affluenza' timestamp='1296175559' post='2606365']
Those alliances have publicly voiced opposition that is all. It is healthy, good and all part of the game.

I have nothing to be butt-hurt about. In which ever alliance I have been I have always maintained that NPO played the game well...maybe not so much in the last 2 years but prior you were brilliant.
[/quote]
Those alliances are even rarely here, unfortunately. A lot of people are not, because they detest OWF. I honestly can not think of an instance where those alliances even initiated, or joined in, in a banter with you. I do remember intense banter at them from your ranks. Interestingly, also unprovoked but just aimed at them coz they are.

The point of butt hurt comment, went more onto your alliance as a whole.

We do not want to have empty treaties. We had that, burned us. Lesson learned. There will be no fake relationships. We do not want a treaty with VE, or PC, or GOONS or whatever, for example. It wouldn't be true even if it would be possible.

Also seeing NEW incident, one can observe that treaties with a "core alliance" means little if you are not "in", "in".

That does not mean we were plotting their destruction. And our actions back that up. So, we were condemned to be overly real politik, overly power brokers earlier. And now, from the same ranks, we are condemned for not being that, but being true.

I dont mind you, but seeing you all try and try to force rationalize what you did does make me laugh honestly. It isn't that NPO was so often in the "clear" in war times so it is kinda refreshing lol

Edited January 28, 2011 by Branimir

[Baldr]

[quote name='AirMe' timestamp='1296088107' post='2603691']
MK had no hand in the reps for the NPO. So please stop spreading that myth. The terms for the NPO were handled by the alliances who were fighting them.
[/quote]

I helped pay those reps, both sending them myself and organizing and tracking. MK was one of the main alliances in the Karma forces, and MK received a large amount of reps from NPO.

This "MK wasn't involved" is an obvious lie. MK had their hand out, and took what they could get.

I saw the discussion later in the thread about Vanguard getting reps and merging into MK. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about MK receiving reps direct from NPO as part of NPO's terms. And when you claim it didn't happen, you are lying.

Edited January 28, 2011 by Baldr

[Affluenza]

[quote name='Branimir' timestamp='1296176004' post='2606371']
Those alliances are even rarely here, unfortunately. A lot of people are not, because they detest OWF. I honestly can not think of an instance where those alliances even initiated, or joined in, in a banter with you. I do remember intense banter at them from your ranks. Interestingly, also unprovoked but just aimed at them coz they are.

The point of butt hurt comment, went more onto your alliance as a whole.

We do not want to have empty treaties. We had that, burned us. Lesson learned. There will be no fake relationships. We do not want a treaty with VE, or PC, or GOONS or whatever, for example. It wouldn't be true even if it would be possible.

Also seeing NEW incident, one can observe that treaties with a "core alliance" means little if you are not "in", "in".

That does not mean we were plotting their destruction. And our actions back that up. So, we were condemned to be overly real politik, overly power brokers earlier. And now, from the same ranks, we are condemned for not being that, but being true.

I dont mind you, but seeing you all try and try to force rationalize what you did does make me laugh honestly. It isn't that NPO was so often in the "clear" in war times so it is kinda refreshing lol
[/quote]

I didn't say for you to create fake or empty treaties and relations. Quite clearly that is never the way forward as you have found out.

I just find it strange that NPO with it's much lauded diplomatic team couldn't even manage to warm up to a single new alliance to go with the new beginning...from an outsider perspective that is indeed not a sign of an alliance that is facing up to the reality of needing to seek a new path...

If you want me to rationalize one could say MK is not the only alliance to hold a grudge against you if the above is true and that NPO tried their best to make new friends...

[wickedj]

[quote name='ddog241' timestamp='1296166119' post='2606161']
we need more war for sure. it dose make this game fun and interesting.

but also we need to stop doing the outrageous reps. why cant everyone just bloody fight and when one surrenders say ok good fight good luck no reps.
[/quote]
Cant sleep, Pacifica will roll me

[Branimir]

[quote name='Affluenza' timestamp='1296180378' post='2606489']
I didn't say for you to create fake or empty treaties and relations. Quite clearly that is never the way forward as you have found out.

I just find it strange that NPO with it's much lauded diplomatic team couldn't even manage to warm up to a single new alliance to go with the new beginning...from an outsider perspective that is indeed not a sign of an alliance that is facing up to the reality of needing to seek a new path...

If you want me to rationalize one could say MK is not the only alliance to hold a grudge against you if the above is true and that NPO tried their best to make new friends...
[/quote]
That is a completely different argument then the one with which you started. You mentioned why we dont have treaties all over the place. I answered.

The "why no warming up" part, is incorrect. We have build a constructive relationship with many alliances. They are not treaty level, but for sure they will not preemt us out of the blue for no reason either.

But with alliances that build their entire identity on opposing NPO, like MK, well nothing can be done. And guess who preemt us? Yeah.

edit: "completely", even

Edited January 28, 2011 by Branimir

[Earogema]

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Just balance the game's "teams" on your own. There isn't any need to attempt to justify this nonsense.

Or you could just treaty every single top tier heavy alliance, get treaties with all the blocs, and then pretend everything is multipolar when four of the blocs are [i]on the same side[/i].