Earogema Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1298860714' post='2646504'] How are these ideas mutually exclusive? I'm for war. If almost everyone is hiding in peace mode, we don't have war. [/quote] Because the complete destruction of your adversary will just lead to more stagnation for one. Unless you were to avoid using any sort of peace terms (but let's face it, that won't happen). For two, most larger nations are developed because they do in fact pay attention to themselves and develop and bringing the world out of stagnation isn't really for them, but for the smaller nations. At least that's how I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1298865814' post='2646580'] Because the complete destruction of your adversary will just lead to more stagnation for one. Unless you were to avoid using any sort of peace terms (but let's face it, that won't happen). [/quote] Assuming that alliances don't shift before the next war. Historically that doesn't usually happen though. [quote]For two, most larger nations are developed because they do in fact pay attention to themselves and develop and bringing the world out of stagnation isn't really for them, but for the smaller nations. At least that's how I see it. [/quote] Most grow because they can and have been here long enough to do so, that doesn't mean that they don't war. If they do want to grow in peace, that's what neutral alliances are for. Edited February 28, 2011 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Maelstrom Vortex' timestamp='1298853644' post='2646435'] Can you cite any situation or event which proves my statement false or contradictory? I challenge you to do this. [/quote] The tone of which I spoke makes discussion with you an enterprise not worth involvement in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Crymson' timestamp='1298871712' post='2646662'] The tone of which I spoke makes discussion with you an enterprise not worth involvement in. [/quote] Ah! You must be referring to logic and truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1298870105' post='2646640'] Assuming that alliances don't shift before the next war. Historically that doesn't usually happen though. Most grow because they can and have been here long enough to do so, that doesn't mean that they don't war. If they do want to grow in peace, that's what neutral alliances are for. [/quote] The shift usually takes as long as the terms do though since the alliances in terms are useless to act. At least that's how I usually see it. The only time I believe where that wasn't the case was LUE in GWIII and we know what happened there. Even then there is still a few months worth of buffer where that alliance needs to get back on their feet after the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCRABT Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 An excellent political analysis stripped of jading factors subjective factors. Well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 [quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1298874524' post='2646703'] The shift usually takes as long as the terms do though since the alliances in terms are useless to act. At least that's how I usually see it. The only time I believe where that wasn't the case was LUE in GWIII and we know what happened there. Even then there is still a few months worth of buffer where that alliance needs to get back on their feet after the war. [/quote] Yup. I'm generally opposed to reps for this reason, and I hope our side won't hand out reps unless it is in the context of punishing nations in peace mode. But a "few months" shouldn't mean we have a major war only once a year, as things have been for a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DictatatorDan Posted March 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 [color="#FF0000"]The byproduct of this war will be that we will not have any large wars for at least the next nine months; unless it is for a "round two". As it is, without reps, it will take either alliance a year to rebuild, and develop a new war-fighting strategy that is more capable of dealing with elite alliances. In short term, it means that they will be pushing for higher war chest requirements, higher rates of compliance, and an emphasis on fighting longer wars of attrition. Will the succeed? Probably not. Players in the upper-tier alliances like Argent, Umbrella, TOP, MK, etc are more skilled and experienced at warfare and are going to be on average more prepared, and easier to organize, than the massive general community alliances.[/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earogema Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1298937452' post='2647208'] Yup. I'm generally opposed to reps for this reason, and I hope our side won't hand out reps unless it is in the context of punishing nations in peace mode. But a "few months" shouldn't mean we have a major war only once a year, as things have been for a long time. [/quote] Oh okay, cool stuff then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1298937452' post='2647208'] Yup. I'm generally opposed to reps for this reason, and I hope our side won't hand out reps unless it is in the context of punishing nations in peace mode. But a "few months" shouldn't mean we have a major war only once a year, as things have been for a long time. [/quote] I've compiled this list of 54 nations--26.5% of MK--that should be punished. Fooland Agmar Acton Otakon Bastardia Tazenda Volsung New Corrok Union Anarcasia Dog Eating Bees Shalen Aya Hirano Cobrarium Paint it White Kingdom of Broadring Romaniastan Siluria Krishnalia Twiglandia ghost spy new neo japan Ragedom Meldanen Squashland burnt eggs (frack) Pharaphalyn Aberon Alpha Novaya Zemlya Lost Hill Bunkers Androzani Vapo Patria Krytonia Ciudad de leon Lurktopia Griswalds Thurn Ubi Goreng Mordvinia Chicago Nuttin Except Sand Avanex Nelfrus Procrastinator Chortistan Ratamba Unstoppable Samotopia Boronia OG Republic WUTZVILLE SkonesMickLand Vlaams Rijk Solar Empire [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1209554940' post='572984'] Punishing a nation for trying to ride out the war in peace mode is one thing, but I don't like punishing a nation who might be functioning as a bank and intend to come out later during the war for late-war banking. [/quote] I guess power does things to a man's sense of right and wrong. Edited March 1, 2011 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1298950729' post='2647438'] I've compiled this list of 54 nations--26.5% of MK--that should be punished. Fooland Agmar Acton Otakon Bastardia Tazenda Volsung New Corrok Union Anarcasia Dog Eating Bees Shalen Aya Hirano Cobrarium Paint it White Kingdom of Broadring Romaniastan Siluria Krishnalia Twiglandia ghost spy new neo japan Ragedom Meldanen Squashland burnt eggs (frack) Pharaphalyn Aberon Alpha Novaya Zemlya Lost Hill Bunkers Androzani Vapo Patria Krytonia Ciudad de leon Lurktopia Griswalds Thurn Ubi Goreng Mordvinia Chicago Nuttin Except Sand Avanex Nelfrus Procrastinator Chortistan Ratamba Unstoppable Samotopia Boronia OG Republic WUTZVILLE SkonesMickLand Vlaams Rijk Solar Empire I guess power does things to a man's sense of right and wrong. [/quote] That quote just backs up my point. I'd bet that if you looked through war records most of those in peace mode have fought so far. Most are in peace in order to recharge and get out of anarchy so they can come back out, or because their rulers are away for a while. We have every intention of having them fight again. Less than ten are in peace mode in order to avoid fighting entirely, and those are a handful of people that have long term just barely been playing the game in order to send out free money and tech. This is in contrast to those in your coalition who have most or all of your entire coalition hiding in peace mode to avoid war entirely. So as I said in that quote, I have no problem using peace mode for tactical reasons, and that is what almost all of our peace mode people are doing. I do have a problem with using it as a means to avoid war entirely. Edited March 1, 2011 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1298955584' post='2647586'] That quote just backs up my point. I'd bet that if you looked through war records most of those in peace mode have fought so far. Most are in peace in order to recharge and get out of anarchy so they can come back out, or because their rulers are away for a while. We have every intention of having them fight again. Less than ten are in peace mode in order to avoid fighting entirely, and those are a handful of people that have long term just barely been playing the game in order to send out free money and tech. This is in contrast to those in your coalition who have most or all of your entire coalition hiding in peace mode to avoid war entirely.[/quote] False. We've been at this for jsut as long as you, and we too are rotating nations. [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1298955584' post='2647586'] So as I said in that quote, I have no problem using peace mode for tactical reasons, and that is what almost all of our peace mode people are doing. I do have a problem with using it as a means to avoid war entirely. [/quote] I answer you with you once more: [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1209558000' post='573129'] Sure, but I don't like this mandating how the other side has to fight if they want peace. First it was nukes, now it's banking. What's next, any nation who uses cruise missiles won't get peace?[/quote] Your imperialist aggression has forced sideways tactics of frustration, we are fighting this war as we see fit in order to inflict the greatest damage possible against overwhelming odds. Or did you expect us all to just line up and do as Doomhouse commands? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1298957801' post='2647669'] False. We've been at this for jsut as long as you, and we too are rotating nations. [/quote] Some of your lower tiers may be going in and out of peace, almost all of your upper tiers are hiding in peace and haven't been out at all. [quote]I answer you with you once more: Your imperialist aggression has forced sideways tactics of frustration, we are fighting this war as we see fit in order to inflict the greatest damage possible against overwhelming odds. Or did you expect us all to just line up and do as Doomhouse commands?[/quote] My post referred to tactics that involved actually fighting such as using nukes, the [i]tactical[/i] use of peace mode etc. Avoiding war entirely with peace mode is not a war tactic, because it is not war. You don't inflict maximum damage by avoiding top tier fighting almost entirely. Edited March 1, 2011 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigwoody Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Oh children, must everything be a peace mode argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 [quote name='bigwoody' timestamp='1298958526' post='2647693'] Oh children, must everything be a peace mode argument? [/quote] When one side is systematically using it as a way to avoid fighting, yes it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DictatatorDan Posted March 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 [color="#FF0000"]Systematic use of peace mode to avoid war entirely is a strategic, and is not a tactical decision. DH will simply negate any strategy to it by forcing NPO to come out of peacemode. When DH does that, NPO will use it as an opportunity to whine about how the "New Hegemony" is just as bad as they were. Predictable much?[/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 (edited) [quote name='DictatatorDan' timestamp='1298959479' post='2647716'] [color="#FF0000"]Systematic use of peace mode to avoid war entirely is a strategic, and is not a tactical decision. DH will simply negate any strategy to it by forcing NPO to come out of peacemode. When DH does that, NPO will use it as an opportunity to whine about how the "New Hegemony" is just as bad as they were. Predictable much?[/color] [/quote] The truth is just about always predictable. Edited March 1, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCRABT Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1298958742' post='2647697'] When one side is systematically using it as a way to avoid fighting, yes it does. [/quote] I don't think you really have a legitimate right to complain, if they don't want to fight you on your own terms then tough luck. They are fighting you in the lower tiers as you have noted but are avoiding a front on skirmish that they would obviously loose heavily in the upper tiers. If you want a square go then all sides need to be even my friend, if not you have no right to complain when your opponent decides to fight a long boring war of attrition. It's part of the game and there is simply nothing that can be done to change it. Moaning about it certainly achieves nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECUMSEH Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Well, moaning about it does suggest the wisdom of the strategy. Surely no one whines and complains about strategies that do not frustrate or aggravate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 1, 2011 Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 [quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1298986428' post='2648008'] I don't think you really have a legitimate right to complain, if they don't want to fight you on your own terms then tough luck. They are fighting you in the lower tiers as you have noted but are avoiding a front on skirmish that they would obviously loose heavily in the upper tiers. If you want a square go then all sides need to be even my friend, if not you have no right to complain when your opponent decides to fight a long boring war of attrition. It's part of the game and there is simply nothing that can be done to change it. Moaning about it certainly achieves nothing. [/quote] No they don't want to fight at all. Big difference. It's not like it will work. It makes things less interesting but doesn't end any better for them, their top tier nations stagnate in peace mode and their small nations don't get peace or aid. They are going to lose, whether by outright war or the slow attrition of peace mode. The first is more fun for all involved and has some honor in it. The latter does not. Their allies may as well have not declared at all if their intention was not to fight, at least that's the more honest approach than pretending to be at war. [quote name='TECUMSEH' timestamp='1298999668' post='2648246'] Well, moaning about it does suggest the wisdom of the strategy. Surely no one whines and complains about strategies that do not frustrate or aggravate. [/quote] I'm not "whining" I'm calling them out for being cowards. If they don't want to fight wars, they should disband and their members join neutral alliances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DictatatorDan Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 [quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1298986428' post='2648008'] I don't think you really have a legitimate right to complain, if they don't want to fight you on your own terms then tough luck. They are fighting you in the lower tiers as you have noted but are avoiding a front on skirmish that they would obviously loose heavily in the upper tiers. If you want a square go then all sides need to be even my friend, if not you have no right to complain when your opponent decides to fight a long boring war of attrition. It's part of the game and there is simply nothing that can be done to change it. Moaning about it certainly achieves nothing. [/quote] [color="#FF0000"]I think Doomhouse will make bringing out NPO's upper tier to get demolished a prerequisite for peace. *Claps hands* Regardless, DH will get what it wants either way. I don't see any relief on the horizon for NPO either, and they sure aren't endearing themselves to anyone at the moment.[/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCRABT Posted March 2, 2011 Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299023757' post='2648779'] No they don't want to fight at all. Big difference. It's not like it will work. It makes things less interesting but doesn't end any better for them, their top tier nations stagnate in peace mode and their small nations don't get peace or aid. They are going to lose, whether by outright war or the slow attrition of peace mode. The first is more fun for all involved and has some honor in it. The latter does not. Their allies may as well have not declared at all if their intention was not to fight, at least that's the more honest approach than pretending to be at war. I'm not "whining" I'm calling them out for being cowards. If they don't want to fight wars, they should disband and their members join neutral alliances. [/quote] They don't exist for the sake of your entertainment and I think they are quite content to make sure this war is long and boring for all involved. Wars are only fun for both parties when they are fought on fair terms, unfortunately history shows wars are rarely fought on fair terms (because no one wants to risk loosing). It isn't really your responsibility to make wars fair, indeed that is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot before a race. But given that you guys choose to crush a power structure that could have potentially created a fun war before it was allowed to fully develop for the simple fact you were concerned it may be able to compete with you, you can't really complain that they aren't able to compete and thus have spat the dummy out. What makes wars fun for everyone is competitiveness, remove that and the war is only fun for the winning side. You don't get it both ways, you either have a fun competitive war or a boring one sided war. When one side has a power advantage so great that it can just go out and attack someone because they want to, then making war long and boring is pretty much the only deterrent one has left. Moreover you get ridiculous situations whereby after a war, the loosing alliance will have to pay reparations for 6 months, it's no wonder alliances sit in peace mode because quite frankly when they do, the frustration it causes their opponents is probably the most entertaining experience they will have for the next six months. When it comes down to it yes we all want to have "fun" but the primary concern of any alliance government is the security of the alliance it governs. This leads to preemptive strikes to prevent future threats arising and the extraction of reparations to hinder the ability of the loosing party to recover and compete in future. The game could be more fun if the status quo whoever it may be was more interested in making it fun, but they are not. They are to pre-occupied with ensuring their own security and as such fun is a secondary concern and should one choose to pursue it, it would likely undermine the former. Call your opponents cowards all you want but these issues are the most obvious inhabiter's to fun on bob and the current status quo has done no more to address this than the last. What it comes down to is when the cards are on the table self interest will always take precedent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='MCRABT' timestamp='1299085508' post='2649685'] They don't exist for the sake of your entertainment and I think they are quite content to make sure this war is long and boring for all involved. Wars are only fun for both parties when they are fought on fair terms, unfortunately history shows wars are rarely fought on fair terms (because no one wants to risk loosing). It isn't really your responsibility to make wars fair, indeed that is equivalent to shooting yourself in the foot before a race. But given that you guys choose to crush a power structure that could have potentially created a fun war before it was allowed to fully develop for the simple fact you were concerned it may be able to compete with you, you can't really complain that they aren't able to compete and thus have spat the dummy out. What makes wars fun for everyone is competitiveness, remove that and the war is only fun for the winning side. You don't get it both ways, you either have a fun competitive war or a boring one sided war. When one side has a power advantage so great that it can just go out and attack someone because they want to, then making war long and boring is pretty much the only deterrent one has left.[/quote] How "competitive" and "even" does it have to be? Every side has the exact same set of nations with the exact same levels of activity? This war is relatively even, compared to most wars in the past. The simple fact of the matter is we are never going to have a completely even war. And we are never going to have a functioning war if the first response of whoever has a disadvantage is to run to peace mode at the first sign of trouble. If they don't want war, they should declare neutrality. Or disband and all join neutral alliances as we have enough neutral alliances. This game of running to peace mode when the numbers are against you is pathetic (OOC: It will kill the game too, this game needs war to be interesting). NPO had had peace for nearly a year and half. That was plenty of time to develop. And 1-2 years is way to long to give people to "develop" and keep things interesting. We need wars a lot more often then that. As I said in my topic a while ago, when the system of CBs failed to produce war in a reasonable period of time, we had to bypass it. [quote]Moreover you get ridiculous situations whereby after a war, the loosing alliance will have to pay reparations for 6 months, it's no wonder alliances sit in peace mode because quite frankly when they do, the frustration it causes their opponents is probably the most entertaining experience they will have for the next six months. When it comes down to it yes we all want to have "fun" but the primary concern of any alliance government is the security of the alliance it governs. This leads to preemptive strikes to prevent future threats arising and the extraction of reparations to hinder the ability of the loosing party to recover and compete in future. The game could be more fun if the status quo whoever it may be was more interested in making it fun, but they are not. They are to pre-occupied with ensuring their own security and as such fun is a secondary concern and should one choose to pursue it, it would likely undermine the former. Call your opponents cowards all you want but these issues are the most obvious inhabiter's to fun on bob and the current status quo has done no more to address this than the last. What it comes down to is when the cards are on the table self interest will always take precedent. [/quote] I agree about reparations. I only support reparations as way to punish people for peace mode (and as an added incentive to get out) if we have to, and NPO won't be getting peace with so many in peace regardless. This war is much more even, and we have "allowed" it to be much more even, than any of the wars since possibly the great wars. NPO wasn't going to win but it was far from going to be just a curbstomp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 If you go off and attack someone just because you kind of feel like attacking them, then I don't think anyone is going to have much sympathy when you complain about they go about responding to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 [quote name='Azaghul' timestamp='1299114945' post='2650230'] NPO had had peace for nearly a year and half. That was plenty of time to develop. And 1-2 years is way to long to give people to "develop" and keep things interesting. We need wars a lot more often then that. As I said in my topic a while ago, when the system of CBs failed to produce war in a reasonable period of time, we had to bypass it. [/quote] [OOC]And as I noted in your OWRP thread, the idea that MK is somehow saving the game by destroying all competitors before they are able to compete is autofellatio at best and absolute retardation at worst. Sit up straight, or get a helmet, whichever applies. I'm [i]soooooo[/i] sorry that MK was so bored with the stagnation that it was eating itself alive internally, that's not our problem, and [i]soooo[/i] sorry your war is just as boring as your Pax Mushroom. Get bent. The Saviors of the Game[sup]TM[/sup] tripe is insulting to our intelligence. 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.