lebubu Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 "Help, we're getting crushed" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Doug Falkner' timestamp='1297052640' post='2623217'] Doch, My point was that essentially they have the same strategy and the only real difference is the amount of effort put into the cover stories, with NPO putting a bit more effort. Though, I suspect that you and I might have different opinions of that strategy. I tend to think that it's fine - mostly because it's inevitable that alliances will act in such a manner. I suspect that you are not in favor of the strategy. [/quote] actually i am fine with either strategy. i don't care if an alliance declares war with a CB of "I don't like you". the issues i have is that the alliances doing such made a huge stink about proper CBs and how wrong aggressive wars for no reason are. and that, even though NPO attempted to use some sort of "real" CB instead of just declaring because they did not like an alliance but stated that NPO only hit the alliance cuz NPO did not like the alliance, and they made a huge stink over the fact that NPO only hit cuz they did not like the alliance and the CB was just trash; well i don't like hypocrites or double standards. had the alliances not made these huge stinks over such issues before, then i would not care about it now. if an alliance like NEW declares cuz they don't like the alliance, i would only have an issue if the alliance was an ally and that is only because they hit an ally. just like they did with DF. never had an issue with them hitting cuz they did not like DF, only an issue that they hit while DF was protected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 NPO claims it didn't lose the Great War because they inevitably won revenge over their enemies. MK was simply preventing NPO from re-writing their history to show how they didn't lose the Karma War because they got revenge over their enemies again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1297102828' post='2624244'] NPO claims it didn't lose the Great War because they inevitably won revenge over their enemies. MK was simply preventing NPO from re-writing their history to show how they didn't lose the Karma War because they got revenge over their enemies again. [/quote] actually NPO claims they did not lose not only because of the revenge but also because the terms were "say you are sorry" compared to what they were in the beginning which was, "Polaris must disband" and crap like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Falkner Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1297102074' post='2624212'] actually i am fine with either strategy. i don't care if an alliance declares war with a CB of "I don't like you". the issues i have is that the alliances doing such made a huge stink about proper CBs and how wrong aggressive wars for no reason are. and that, even though NPO attempted to use some sort of "real" CB instead of just declaring because they did not like an alliance but stated that NPO only hit the alliance cuz NPO did not like the alliance, and they made a huge stink over the fact that NPO only hit cuz they did not like the alliance and the CB was just trash; well i don't like hypocrites or double standards. had the alliances not made these huge stinks over such issues before, then i would not care about it now. if an alliance like NEW declares cuz they don't like the alliance, i would only have an issue if the alliance was an ally and that is only because they hit an ally. just like they did with DF. never had an issue with them hitting cuz they did not like DF, only an issue that they hit while DF was protected. [/quote] Fair enough. I understand your frustration with that. But, that said, folks will play their games. Dominance on Planet Bob is about getting folks who don't know any better to jump on your bandwagon - sometimes outrage for the sake of outrage does that. Sometimes declaring war on somebody because people still don't like them after 2 years does that. Doch, I've always found you to be a guy that understands that sort of realpolitik. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1297102828' post='2624244'] NPO claims it didn't lose the Great War because they inevitably won revenge over their enemies.[/quote] This is incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Vladimir' timestamp='1297108595' post='2624385'] This is incorrect. [/quote] What are the reasons then, oh Revisionist One, that you claim to not have lost the Great War? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 This is hardly the place for such a discussion. If you took the time to read the literature on the subject instead of just making blind assumptions to fit your primitive narrative then you might be able to make more educated posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Curzon Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Sounds like most of the MKers in this thread are discussing the concept of "Preventative War" which is quite different from Preemptive. The more you know. [quote]A preventive war or preventative war is a war initiated to prevent another party from attacking, when an attack by that party is not imminent or known to be planned. Preventive war aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power[1] by strategically attacking before the balance of power has a chance to shift in the direction of the adversary. Preventive war is distinct from preemptive war, which is first strike when an attack is imminent. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_war[/quote] Though, the explanation by Roq certainly is Preemptive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Voytek' timestamp='1297085238' post='2623950'] Stunt Pacifican Thread #3. Next. [/quote] Hey man, learnt how to stagger yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirreille Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='potato' timestamp='1297073138' post='2623873'] Where did I say MK was the only one allowed to not care? [/quote] I never said you did. I simply pionted out that a lot of other people, including some MK members I'm sure seem to think that NPO has to be friends with everyone, whereas your post makes it clear you don't think that is necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Doug Falkner' timestamp='1297105901' post='2624315'] Fair enough. I understand your frustration with that. But, that said, folks will play their games. Dominance on Planet Bob is about getting folks who don't know any better to jump on your bandwagon - sometimes outrage for the sake of outrage does that. Sometimes declaring war on somebody because people still don't like them after 2 years does that. Doch, I've always found you to be a guy that understands that sort of realpolitik. [/quote] oh i understand realpolitik. i have been there and done that. never really liked it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='R3nowned' timestamp='1297115269' post='2624503'] Hey man, learnt how to stagger yet? [/quote] Have you not figured out that he did it on purpose And that NPO proceeded to mess it up themselves the next round Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1297120634' post='2624635'] Have you not figured out that he did it on purpose [/quote] That was kind of the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='Locke' timestamp='1297121821' post='2624661'] That was kind of the point. [/quote] I really don't think so, but of course he'll come back and reply YEAH I WAS BEING SUBTLE AND CLEVER THAT'S IT.... to cover up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PMoses Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 To be fair.. MK/DH/FAN have done what all of us from the tC days did anytime we got bored. Go to war for nothing. If it was something simple blow it up, and let tC roll just cause we could. If you can't admit thats how we rolled by now, then your truly naive. We did it for 3 long years, and now PB/CnG/and DH, wanna see what its like to be the big boys on the field. They want to be like us, and how we were. So everyone quit whining, and just fight. Every dog has their day, and well MK and the followers have theirs coming. and last thing.. MK, PB, DH, whoever, or whatever you call yourselves these days... You can't do it like tC, and are no where near as sexy as we were. So please, quit trying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Falkner Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1297117075' post='2624538'] oh i understand realpolitik. i have been there and done that. never really liked it though. [/quote] I must admit I'm not a huge fan of it either but it seems that the most dominant alliances are those who are the best at it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='Doug Falkner' timestamp='1297134293' post='2625025'] I must admit I'm not a huge fan of it either but it seems that the most dominant alliances are those who are the best at it though. [/quote] unfortunately it is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Vapneir Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='mikk206' timestamp='1297018349' post='2622397']Stuff [/quote] Preëmptive strikes are almost always BS. On the other hand, revenge, pure and righteous revenge, isn't a bad reason for war at all. A lot better than most I've seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Lord Curzon' timestamp='1297115256' post='2624502'] Sounds like most of the MKers in this thread are discussing the concept of "Preventative War" which is quite different from Preemptive. The more you know. Though, the explanation by Roq certainly is Preemptive. [/quote] [19:53] <Archon`away> I think NPO/NSO/TPF will probaby try to draw us out. [19:54] <Roquentin|Umbrella> yeah [19:54] <Archon`away> They have looked at this entire war the same way as I am - an elaborate dance between Doomhouse and Pacific. Since people keep miscontruing the DoW Archon himself wrote, here are what his thoughts were before the preemption since he's not around to clarify. Edited February 8, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Stuart Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1297158966' post='2625530'] [19:53] <Archon`away> I think NPO/NSO/TPF will probaby try to draw us out. [19:54] <Roquentin|Umbrella> yeah [19:54] <Archon`away> They have looked at this entire war the same way as I am - an elaborate dance between Doomhouse and Pacific. Since people keep miscontruing the DoW Archon himself wrote, here are what his thoughts were before the preemption since he's not around to clarify. [/quote] Well, his thoughts were wrong. Edited February 8, 2011 by Charles Stuart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) I don't agree. A truly neutral group of alliances could have advertised their stance from the beginning as Duckroll has and Duckroll was never worried about getting hit preemptively. If the possibility of NPO entering was not there, there is no reason for NpO to hold Legion off if they were going to be on their own from the start. Pacifica in the past has exercised radio silence and could have paired that with a DoN if they were worried about getting hit. If NPO and others simply opted to stay out after they realized they didn't have the floating strength to win it and then waited to get hit, it doesn't matter. Edited February 8, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R3nowned Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' timestamp='1297120634' post='2624635'] Have you not figured out that he did it on purpose And that NPO proceeded to mess it up themselves the next round [/quote] It was pretty obvious he did it on purpose... It's still a funny thing to laugh at, and if circumstances were different, would've handed a CB to NPO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1297164602' post='2625565'] I don't agree. A truly neutral group of alliances could have advertised their stance from the beginning as Duckroll has and Duckroll was never worried about getting hit preemptively. If the possibility of NPO entering was not there, there is no reason for NpO to hold Legion off if they were going to be on their own from the start. Pacifica in the past has exercised radio silence and could have paired that with a DoN if they were worried about getting hit. [/quote] This would make a lot of sense if MK wouldn't go around and telling that they attacked us simply because they don't like us or because Pacifica hasn't been beaten down for a while now. With these arguments we're facing a totally independent conflict from NpO-VE war. Thus any DoN would have been useless. Also like I said in OP preemptively striking against a opponent just because you think they are going to attack you is a dumb thing to do. It doesn't deliver deadly punch but causes a PR nightmare. It seem to me that you are one of the few people who promote the "preemptive war" story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Have you ever thought that MK members like saying things they know will anger people? The preemptive war story is supported by those who actually enacted the strike and that's what matters. Hell, I mean I already said it who was behind it, so it doesn't really make sense to value less informed accounts. Edited February 8, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.