Coach Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 Holy crap, little ol' DoA made it on someones list....look at us go!!!! o/DoA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 [quote name='KagetheSecond' timestamp='1297104837' post='2624296'] "PEOPLE ARE FINDING FLAWS IN MY REASONING. THEY'RE ALL DUMB BECAUSE I AM A JEENYUS LOLOLOL" [/quote] I wasn't going to post, but this was just so great I felt the need too. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bakamitai Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 I don't suppose someone would take this good idea and actually implement it correctly, instead of ridiculing the OP... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted February 7, 2011 Report Share Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) [quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1297115215' post='2624501'] Since when is determining that an alliance's best course of action being to defend their allies, no matter the front, no matter the cause, a result of having no spine? [/quote] Because we don't 'defend' anything, 90+% of the war is treaty chains out the ying yang. Phrases like "defending our allies" is a cop out, an excuse to stop thinking for yourself while making it look like you possess some other redeeming quality like loyalty, as if anything made up for complete lack initiative. That's not to say one shouldn't stand by their friends, but people need to start choosing their friends rather than letting a treaty chain choose their friends for them. Every war the treaty web splits somewhere, somebody faced with a choice of sides ignores one set of treaties and goes with the other. They chose what they wanted. And that I can respect, no matter who they chose, because they had the stones to actually make the choice so many let others make for them. [quote]Some people simply don't care for the shenanigans being thrown around and decide that their best option is to cover an ally's back. [/quote] Its a coalition war, it doesn't work that way. You don't just fight for your ally, you fight for allies, friends, and people you don't even know. If you support a treaty partner you also support all the treaty partners of that alliance, and so on down the list till you go back to the first DoW's. Its not as simple as 'cover an ally's back', when you declare you pick a side. You can try to forge a middle ground, but that's tricky and usually backfires. GATO tried, and did an OK job of it in my opinion, but notice how the rest of the side they were nominally fighting for then started hating on them? GATO made a decision, they did what they could for their allies but decided they didn't want to burn for Polar. But people hate alliances that make decisions, most want nice tame little allies they can manipulate around who won't think for themselves. Sad thing is, most people are nice tame little allies who won't take initiative on their own. Don't misunderstand though, this is not the same as deciding to align yourself with another, that is a choice too, and respectable, despite how similar it looks to the behavior I just criticized. Edited February 7, 2011 by TypoNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297118991' post='2624587'] Its a coalition war, it doesn't work that way. You don't just fight for your ally, you fight for allies, friends, and people you don't even know. If you support a treaty partner you also support all the treaty partners of that alliance, and so on down the list till you go back to the first DoW's. Its not as simple as 'cover an ally's back', when you declare you pick a side. You can try to forge a middle ground, but that's tricky and usually backfires.[/quote] Wrong, at least in the case of small and medium range alliances. Large alliances...well, I wouldn't know. For smaller groups, one's ally is the ONLY reason to fight, in my opinion. What "tie" - regardless of how the web plays out - do we have to alliances like NPO or VE? None. I've only ever talked to one NPO member (and not anyone "important") ever to the point where I would call him a friend. I know one or two people I'd call friends in larger alliances but ONLY because they use to be in the alliance that was my former protectorate. I'm not being critical of larger alliances, either. That's natural, you got bigger things to deal with for sure. So it goes. But don't mistake our reasons for entering a war, if it happens. So NpO gets caught spying on VE. Bad NpO! But how does that fact (and for arguments sake I'm assuming the CB is totally legitimate) have anything what-so-ever to do with the Sandwich Confederation? It does not. Compare that with some alliance deciding to attack our ally and friend, NEAT. Just by itself, there is a potential compelling reason to get involved. Add to it the fact that NEAT had already been fighting in the war for some time and as a result could use backup plus they desired an exit, having already done their part for other allies. Okay, now there is something we (SC) care about and can "do something" about and it has absolutely zero to do with the "coalition war" or any other way people who have no relation to us or knowledge about us care to divide the sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonewolfe2015 Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297118991' post='2624587'] Because we don't 'defend' anything, 90+% of the war is treaty chains out the ying yang. Phrases like "defending our allies" is a cop out, an excuse to stop thinking for yourself while making it look like you possess some other redeeming quality like loyalty, as if anything made up for complete lack initiative. That's not to say one shouldn't stand by their friends, but people need to start choosing their friends rather than letting a treaty chain choose their friends for them. Every war the treaty web splits somewhere, somebody faced with a choice of sides ignores one set of treaties and goes with the other. They chose what they wanted. And that I can respect, no matter who they chose, because they had the stones to actually make the choice so many let others make for them. [/quote] A good discussion I can enjoy, let's take this a bit further provided we've not taken this topic out of its original purpose too much. I believe your perspective of defense is very subjective to the situation at hand. The thing is, some people don't sign treaties for them to simply be paper connections for tools during war. Some alliances see treaties as a visual representation to the rest of Bob to legalize a friendship that already had come to a point of defending each other no matter the circumstance. The problem comes when that same alliance who signed that treaty, finds them self split by the fact two very strong allies of theirs decide to go opposite ways in a large scale war. While that alliance may not have any investment in the outcome nor care how it turns out, they do wish to support their allies and not watch them burn for their beliefs or burn for supporting their allies. So that alliance decides rather than choose an ally, a decision they cannot rightfully do as neither ally deserves any less respect than the other, they choose to fight and defend both (or more than 2 if that's the case) under any and all circumstances. This is a decision that is right in my eyes and many others out there who are watching or have engaged in this conflict. For it does not put you into a neutral trance where you help no one because of your personal feelings, abandoning your allies and using a 'cop out' like "We'll rebuild you later". [quote] Its a coalition war, it doesn't work that way. You don't just fight for your ally, you fight for allies, friends, and people you don't even know. If you support a treaty partner you also support all the treaty partners of that alliance, and so on down the list till you go back to the first DoW's. Its not as simple as 'cover an ally's back', when you declare you pick a side. You can try to forge a middle ground, but that's tricky and usually backfires. GATO tried, and did an OK job of it in my opinion, but notice how the rest of the side they were nominally fighting for then started hating on them? GATO made a decision, they did what they could for their allies but decided they didn't want to burn for Polar. But people hate alliances that make decisions, most want nice tame little allies they can manipulate around who won't think for themselves. Sad thing is, most people are nice tame little allies who won't take initiative on their own. Don't misunderstand though, this is not the same as deciding to align yourself with another, that is a choice too, and respectable, despite how similar it looks to the behavior I just criticized. [/quote] I've been a part of both coalition wars and as a fringe alliance not involved in the big picture, it is therefore possible to not fight for some ally of an ally of a friend you don't even know nor care about. Indirectly, perhaps you're helping the original alliance that the wars chained off of, but again perspective is a key issue here. Many alliances not part of the central conflict don't give a crap about why the war started if their allies come under attack and need their help. Perhaps this is their "decision" you believe they need to make regarding alignment. They don't align to a party or a side, they align to the nearest ally who needs their help. Whether those allies all represent one single coalition, or every side involved. It's not a cop out if they don't care for either party who started the original conflict to simply decide that they will defend their ally, because they are making a decision to not align them self with a coalition out of their beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) I probably should have elaborated based on you two's posts. There is the basic premise of 'you fight for your friends or you won't have any friends to fight for you' This complicates decisions on if and how much one should become involved in a larger conflict. Even if you dislike how it started the fact that now your friends are at war means you need your friends to win the war. And that consideration also chains out from the center as well. But in those larger conflicts its important to remember supporting your allies counts and supporting your allies allies and so forth. If your ally is countered and you counter the counter successfully you make your ally's job of supporting their other allies that much easier. Maybe even the difference between closing that front or not. And that consideration chains back down too. No matter how initially isolated ones part in a coalition war, you are helping everybody on that side. Edit: never mind terrible example, I can't read a warchart. Edit: now that I have time. If large alliance A declares on Large alliance X, and they then chain out a few times and you are small alliances B declaring on small alliances Y, eventually your involvement will domino out, by helping whoever you declared in support of you make it easier for them to support whoever they declared for, and so on down the line as many times as needed. You don't need to know anybody at all, for example I couldn't tell you anything at all about GRUE, but they played a part in getting THL and MCXA off INT. Who are in turn attacking tLW and FAR, and those two are attacking iFOK. Who is in their turn attacking NpO. Who is of course under attack by VE. So GRUE is helping us to defeat Polar. By taking the pressure off the alliances who declared in support of iFOK, and there by making it easier for those alliances to relieve iFOK, letting iFOK focus more of their attention on Polar. And so you see we are all connected in the [s]great circle of life [/s] MDP Web of Doom. I never claimed it was an easy choice, which is why I respect those who actually make it rather than letting it be made for them. Because unfolding events [i]do[/i] force everyone's hand to a large degree. Once certain things happen there are very few acceptable responses. Simple decisions are not the same as easy decisions. Edited February 8, 2011 by TypoNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g-money Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 We are not on a side. We are independent of sides. We have no treaties and choose each action based on thought and reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jyrinx Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='g-money' timestamp='1297137365' post='2625114'] We are not on a side. We are independent of sides. We have no treaties and choose each action based on thought and reason. [/quote] I actually find the OP's assertion that we're on PB's side, for no apparent reason whatsoever, strangely compelling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batallion Posted February 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='Jyrinx' timestamp='1297142519' post='2625299'] I actually find the OP's assertion that we're on PB's side, for no apparent reason whatsoever, strangely compelling. [/quote] I was under the impression you guys were really tight with Fark. I guess I was wrong, will remove it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nooob Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 LSF have already fought >.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhysicsJunky Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='Batallion' timestamp='1297143740' post='2625329'] I was under the impression you guys were really tight with Fark. I guess I was wrong, will remove it now. [/quote] That has an essence of truth to it but it comes short of negating the fact that we're historically just as close to NpO. Our role in this war is and will likely stay limited to making angry faces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297128787' post='2624859'] You don't need to know anybody at all, for example I couldn't tell you anything at all about GRUE, but they played a part in getting THL and MCXA off INT. Who are in turn attacking tLW and FAR, and those two are attacking iFOK. Who is in their turn attacking NpO. Who is of course under attack by VE. So GRUE is helping us to defeat Polar. By taking the pressure off the alliances who declared in support of iFOK, and there by making it easier for those alliances to relieve iFOK, letting iFOK focus more of their attention on Polar.[/quote] Well, at some point one does have to weigh the benefits of helping an ally vs. being manipulated into the web by alliances that do not have one's best interests at heart. Naturally, we at the Sandwich Confederation were well aware that UBD (and by extension their allies) attacked NEAT in order to trigger our chain with them, thus forcing us to get involved in a clear bid to steal our secrets about sandwich making. Lucky for us, and by extension VE I suppose, that that "side' had mercy on us, and decided to take the high road in the end. [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297128787' post='2624859'] I never claimed it was an easy choice, which is why I respect those who actually make it rather than letting it be made for them. Because unfolding events [i]do[/i] force everyone's hand to a large degree. Once certain things happen there are very few acceptable responses. Simple decisions are not the same as easy decisions. [/quote] Indeed. We thought long and hard about it. I especially hated suggesting to the Basketball Ninjas that they get involved too, knowing how strongly they were opposed to the idea of testing their skills in an actual combat situation. Guess it all comes down to the fact that regardless of how well one plans something, sacrifices must be made. Edited February 8, 2011 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commander thrawn Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 So everyone who was misaligned in the OP should form a third side and roll everyone then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proxian Empire Posted February 8, 2011 Report Share Posted February 8, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1297031272' post='2622738'] [i][color="#FF0000"]*D34th opens the thread and see Asgaard, Créole and Genesis in PB's side[/color][/i] [i][color="#FF0000"]*D34th closes the thread[/color][/i] [/quote] I like this man's point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Workers Federation Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) [quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297085688' post='2623954']This kind of thinking is just plain silly. Let your foreign policy be dictated by who can chain a treaty to drag you into a war first? More people need the stones to stand up and decide which side they agree with and make a stand with them, regardless of who manages to chain where. Saying you just follow treaties is another of saying you have no spine. Leaders are leaders to make decisions, not to let others make them for them.[/quote] The LSF enters war when it is in its interests with relation to its principles as a Libertarian Socialist grouping and its history and bond with its alliance partners. In reply to an earlier post, if NATO were attacked and requested help, so long as our treaty with NATO would not conflict with another I don't see why the federation would not answer its ally's call. If there was a treaty conflict, the decision of war would be up to the delegates' council comprised of all members to be collectively decide on. We have no interests in the petty squabbles of bourgeois alliances, we fight for ourselves and our friends as our history shows. The large alliances can fight until they destroy one another and their respective rank and file in destructive global and 'controlled' wars, we recognise this as an inevitability on Planet Bob and exist not for the hegemonic blocs or any other such power other than the collective will of our entire membership to dictate our fate, we would resist such an attempt to hinder our liberty as history shows. We are all our own leaders, democratise your alliances! Edited February 9, 2011 by Workers Federation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 *Prime minister Johns sits down and reads the list and sees the \m/ name on the NPO side and has coke spray spectacularly out of his nose* *Prime minister johns goes and changes his shirt* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 [quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1297221464' post='2626504'] *Prime minister Johns sits down and reads the list and sees the \m/ name on the NPO side and has coke spray spectacularly out of his nose* *Prime minister johns goes and changes his shirt* [/quote] http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/PB-NpO_War You may want to double check yourself there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted February 9, 2011 Report Share Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) [quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1297233500' post='2626737'] http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/PB-NpO_War You may want to double check yourself there. [/quote] Read the OP of this thread and you will see why I am somewhat surprised. I am aware that \m/ is involved in the doomhouse vs NPO war that is kind of linked to the main conflict. Edited February 9, 2011 by Prime minister Johns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KainIIIC Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 [quote name='commander thrawn' timestamp='1297181753' post='2625756'] So everyone who was misaligned in the OP should form a third side and roll everyone then? [/quote] Nah, all combatants should declare universal white peace and then roll the third side Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hime Themis Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 Gentle Persons I thought a clarification or two may be in order. The Rosular Kindom consists of three separate wings Realm of the Rose, Blackwater and the Order of the Black Rose but one alliance. This means that we would decide to intervene all together or not at all. We do have two ODPs with alliances on the DH side of the conflict but at this point we have not seen reason to intervene on either side. We are waiting for the perfect war so we may not only follow the magnificent example of our crazy RIA friends who fought on both sides but to one up them. At the time of the perfect war we are looking forward to having one division on either side and the third declaring neutrality. Respectfully Dame Hime Themis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 [quote name='Prime minister Johns' timestamp='1297287358' post='2627229'] Read the OP of this thread and you will see why I am somewhat surprised. I am aware that \m/ is involved in the doomhouse vs NPO war that is kind of linked to the main conflict. [/quote] \m/ is in fact not involved in the doomhouse vs NPO war. They did bandwagon in but left after only a few hours. They are, however, involved in defending Polar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 [quote name='Hime Themis' timestamp='1297300839' post='2627486'] Gentle Persons I thought a clarification or two may be in order. The Rosular Kindom consists of three separate wings Realm of the Rose, Blackwater and the Order of the Black Rose but one alliance. This means that we would decide to intervene all together or not at all. We do have two ODPs with alliances on the DH side of the conflict but at this point we have not seen reason to intervene on either side. We are waiting for the perfect war so we may not only follow the magnificent example of our crazy RIA friends who fought on both sides but to one up them. At the time of the perfect war we are looking forward to having one division on either side and the third declaring neutrality. Respectfully Dame Hime Themis [/quote] The perfect war means fighting on the same side as BN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
commander thrawn Posted February 10, 2011 Report Share Posted February 10, 2011 [quote name='Max Power' timestamp='1297319366' post='2627784'] The perfect war means fighting on the same side as BN. [/quote] ^This, and Asgaard of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batallion Posted February 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2011 Front page updated with more accurate lists and numbers. Still unsure about Old Guard's alignment, but treaty-wise they are technically on PB's side. 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.