A Statement from Doomhouse

[Kilkenny]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300967391' post='2674616']
We didn't see a need to post DoWs when everyone in your alliance save a few outliers was in TPF mode. ML wanted to get involved so they tried doing it in a shady way. It was funny especially when one of them was like "I have no idea why you are attacking me."
[/quote]


Ah, so now you are back to the we didn't need to post a DoW.

so which is it, do you need ot post DoWs, or just attack. Could we get that part clarified fo rthe future??

Doesn't change anything about the situation though, we DoW on Goons, you launched attacks on us claiming Coalition war. Not sure why you have a hard time acknowledging that you ATTACKED us.

[Sardonic]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1300941434' post='2674389']
...really?...so now you stating you expecting reps from NPO as well? or is that just reps from their allies? wtf is this !@#$?

reading this thread i'm seeing repeated arguments with varying answers and deflected questions....is anyone else getting tired of the whole "trust us" idea when this is happening?

edit: damned typos
[/quote]
Wow, I didn't think it was possible to misinterpret what I said that badly, congratulations, you're illiterate. I said that if DH violated the agreement I would forfeit any claim to reparations from anyone involved in the conflict.

[Monster]

[quote name='Kilkenny' timestamp='1300967602' post='2674617']
Ah, so now you are back to the we didn't need to post a DoW.

so which is it, do you need ot post DoWs, or just attack. Could we get that part clarified fo rthe future??

Doesn't change anything about the situation though, we DoW on Goons, you launched attacks on us claiming Coalition war. Not sure why you have a hard time acknowledging that you ATTACKED us.
[/quote]

But I thought you guys were embracing coalition war as well. Need to get clarification on that. Is TPF at war with FAN seeing as how attacking NPO is attacking TPF and triggers TPF's MDoAPs? Basically, ML and TSI were going to roll with TPF regardless of any DoW and probably TOOL as well. If ML hadn't pulled the "rogues" stunt, I wouldn't have cared.

[Lurunin]

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1300965450' post='2674604']
1) take the terms.
2) don't.

either way you lose the war, with option 2 however the war goes on until you take option 1.

all of this terrible posting won't change that.
[/quote]

haha i'm sure someone will be sigging this soon....nice to see its really turning into pre-Karma days

the that i still find funny is main justification DH used for this war was to keep NPO out of the VE-NpO conflict, which succeeded for sure...too bad they wont end this conflict now that the other one peaced out

Edited March 24, 2011 by Lurunin

[Daimos]

[quote name='Iceknave' timestamp='1300923030' post='2674087']
Not really that hard to understand, though it's inconsistent with pretty much all your earlier speeches and stuff on the subject.

The main justification for war against NPO was pre-emp'ing NPO's entry into the VE-NpO war with pretty much no intel on whether NPO was going to enter or not. Fine, it's reasonable to assume that as one of the larger, not so neutral alliances not directly involved in the VE-NpO conflict that sooner or later NPO would be dragged into the war (probably via a convoluted tangled mess of chaining treaties), and therefore, pre-emp'ing NPO would shift the momentum/advantage to your side. Totally justifiable even if a bit beyond paranoid, considering NPO's been sitting around trying not to piss anybody off for about a year (this, in spite of various "diplomatic incidents", which would include the Red Raiding Safari, MK-NPO relations breaking down with closing of embassies, VE-NPO explosion over the sending over sethb to NPO's forums and expecting a warm reception, etc.). Remember, as part of the Karma terms, NPO suffered severe damage to upper tier tech levels and even after nearly a year, it's insufficient to really match other alliances who have ALSO been pumping up their tech levels without having to suffer such damages and building a strong upper tier is very time consuming and expensive (building 1 strong upper tier nation takes more than a year to do so, especially considering the 1 wonder per 30 day limitation).

The argument could be made that NPO should have done more FA wise to ensure better relations with the other side of the treaty web. HOWEVER, diplomatic relationships goes both ways. Remember, with NPO's loss in the Karma War, politically, we had little to nothing to offer another alliance not already tied to us due to our shared experiences fighting in Karma. Would it have been prudent to dump ALL the allies that stood by us during Karma? Perhaps, BUT that would be even MORE isolationist than signing treaties with those comrades that fought beside us.

Furthermore, would it be reasonable to assume that alliances that had fought on the other side of NPO be eager to even start friendly relations with NPO? Rationally speaking, there's little reason for them to consider friendly relations at all. As "victors" and "destroyers" of the previous Hegemony that held the world, there would be a sense of invulnerability and pride due in part to having finally taken down the "unbeatable". Compound that with the enormous amount of political capital held in their hands, it's very possible that dismissing NPO as politically worthless and not even worth their attention to happen. This would led to a rebuffing of ANY attempt for a resuming of political discussions. This rebuffing has further consequences for other alliances as well. As the main power dismisses NPO as a potential political candidate, less powerful alliances would, in turn, also seriously consider dismissing NPO as well for 2 reasons: fear of the main power and the potential consequences of tying themselves even marginally to NPO. What does that leave NPO to work with politically? It leaves other alliances that are either already tied to NPO due to fighting together during Karma and those alliances that were never involved in Karma, even marginally and have no relations at all with the main power.

This isolationist attitude would, in turn, fuel paranoia and worries regarding NPO's regrowth and reemergence as a potential world power, especially seeing the fairly rapid rise up the sanction ranks. Without this dialogue (minimal that it might be), there is nothing to support the idea that NPO would be peaceful, despite a change in Emperor (even if that Emperor was less well known than some of the other possible candidates for the position and comes from a very different background than the previous Emperor).

Fine, fast forward to now. Your argument is that the current reason for war is a mix between NPO's upper tier staying in peace mode and not "fighting" and that peace mode is not a "valid tactic" to use.

First Point: NPO's upper tier staying in peace mode and not "fighting".
Logically, as others have already pointed out, it would not be in NPO's best interest to send their upper tier to the slaughter. NPO's upper tier would be fighting a minimal of 3 staggered nuclear wars at the same time, dealing a mere fraction of the damage to their opponents for a number of reasons (1, the NPO nation would have at most 25 nukes with a max regain of 2 nukes per day, firing at least 3, generally more due to SDI's, while the NPO nation's opponents would have 75 nukes between them with a max regain of 6 nukes per day, firing at least 1, generally more due to SDI's. Because of SDI, odds greatly favor the NPO nation running out of nukes before their 3 opponents would run out). Compound that with being guaranteed to be out of range of the other side's upper tier with 1 to 2 rounds, it ensures that the damage NPO's upper tier would inflict would be marginally worth less and less as they fall in size. Furthermore, considering that NPO does use banks, there is no reason to assume that ALL of their upper tier are nations with the ability or the skill to fight (I'm treating anything above 50k NS as upper tier, even though it may not necessarily be the definition some would use). As most people should know, peace mode bankers generally do not fight on the battlefield. Instead, their "fight" is after the dust settles. Their challenge is logistics, the movement of aid and resources to ensure steady and rapid regrowth of the alliance after the conflict.

Considering that as an alliance, NPO has lost well over half their NS now (even if it's NS stemming primarily from infra, it'll cost money to rebuild nations up into the upper levels of infra), your main goals of preventing NPO from entering the VE-NpO conflict and ensuring that NPO would be less of a threat were both successful due to a number of reasons. Compared to the highest tech alliance at this time, MHA standing at ~922k tech, NPO has ~394k tech left, roughly 40% of what MHA has, and around half of what Umbrella has and ~60% of what MK has. From the tech perspective, it's clear NPO is not much of a threat as it would take considerable time to rebuild NPO's mid tier and start building them up into strong upper tier nations. From the average nation strength perspective, NPO is ranked 128th about the same as NpO at ~131th. Compared to MK ranked at 37th and Umbrella at number 2, NPO is not much of a threat at all.

Second Point: Peace mode is not a "valid tactic".
Peace mode is a choice people make for whatever reason. Questioning its validity as a war tactic is absurd. If one does not have even a moderate chance of being successful in winning a conflict in a specific area, what is the best option then? *HINT* It's not going off and getting slaughtered.
[/quote]


Well put comrade. I enjoyed the read.

[Monster]

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1300969401' post='2674623']
haha i'm sure someone will be sigging this soon....nice to see its really turning into pre-Karma days
[/quote]


Were you even around pre-Karma? In addition, like I said before peacing them isn't advantegous when they've cheapshotted our lower and middle tiers while hiding their bigger nations in PM. I twould be stupid and good for them. It's not something where you can just walk away. There will be no mutual respect after this or anything.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[ChairmanHal]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300960739' post='2674585']
You do realize that the whole "stop DH from buying tech" thing will stop working in around a month or two at most? Why would we play into your hands when aid will become superfluous soon enough? In terms of fighting a long term war when outnumbered, you're no TOP. Dragging it out isn't even in your interests at this point.[/quote]

1. This implies it is working now and will continue to work for some period of time.
2. Even if the war grinds down to a cease-fire by default, there is enough potential force left in Peace Mode that you'll never be able to totally demobilize.
3. They aren't TOP, but they don't need to be. They only need to stay motivated, and harass you just enough to make you permanently uncomfortable.

There have been multiple statements in this thread that DH intends to, at minimum, permanently cripple NPO and its closest allies. Continuing this until they are forced to disband only scatters a whole bunch of nation rulers to other alliances (and new alliances) where their hatred for you will simmer until they are ready to get payback.

History has taught you nothing.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Dochartaigh' timestamp='1300914282' post='2673972']
Well maybe ya'll should have been smart enough to not make those enemies? If you make the enemies, how about be smart enough to at least stick with the original reason and white peace them now that the war is over. A little honey is sometimes better than a ton of vinegar.

Face it, you keep NPO/Co at war for no damn reason other than your own paranoia and you make potential enemies out of many other alliances as well as ensuring that NPO/co are going to be gunning for you.

You give them white peace (them=NPO/co including those fighting GOONS) and you would slow down if not halt the creation of all those other potential enemies, which would mean even if NPO/Co still wanted to gun for ya'll, they would no longer have others doing the same.

If this is to decrease the threat towards DH, it is only doing the opposite. Giving white peace would decrease the threat to DH.
[/quote]


I have a similar line of thought. The general public does not sympathize with NPO they are concern of the action of DH which they view as hegemonic tendencies. Granting their opponents white peace would quell even eradicate these thoughts.

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Iceknave' timestamp='1300952506' post='2674505']
Uh, it's a a chaining of multiple defensive treaties...

Starting Point:
Jan 24 DH + FAN declares war on NPO --> triggers activation of Red Fire Pact (TPF, MADP, defense clause activated)
Jan 26 TPF declares war on GOONS --> triggers activation of OPP (TPF's MDP bloc, defense clause activated)
Jan 26 64 Digits declares war on GOONS --> triggers activation of Digital Justice (ODAP, optional defense clause activated)
Jan 29 CoJ declares war on GOONS

Not sure how you're getting that it's an oA.

All of this is in the wiki.
[/quote]

Starting Point:
Jan 24 DH + FAN declares war on NPO --> triggers activation of Red Fire Pact (TPF, MADP, defense clause activated)
Jan 26 TPF declares war on GOONS --> triggers activation of OPP (TPF's MDP bloc, defense clause activated)- This one I am not sure on as I don't know how the treaty for OPP is written but more than likely it will be an oA activated.
Jan 26 64 Digits declares war on GOONS --> triggers activation of Digital Justice (ODAP, optional aggressive clause activated)
Jan 29 CoJ declares war on GOONS

Now, even with aggressive clauses used, the one thing that GOONS cannot claim is that they are fighting a defensive war. Their initial act of aggression (i.e. aggressively attacking NPO) set of a chain of treaty activations in what is clearly a defensive war for whoever chains in on NPO's side. Guess what, you don't get to aggressively attack an alliance without some sort of consequence. Isn't that what GOONS is saying?

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300953973' post='2674515']
Not at all, you made the choice to declare solely on GOONS. The rest except Athens are GOONS treaty partners.
[/quote]

And if somehow NPO's side were winning this war and TPF demanded reps from Athens, I doubt we would not see MK and the rest of you in here saying how TPF does not deserve reps because Athens was just trying to help an ally out. Ya'll would be trying to turn TPF into some sort of evil monster for demanding reps.

[quote name='Feldheim C' timestamp='1300954416' post='2674527']
Now to be fair, my alliance's government has offered ways for CoJ to get out of this war completely reps free.
[/quote]

To my knowledge, it was a way to lower reps. Not be completely free of them unless new offers were finally put on the table instead of those godawful retarded ones that were on the table before.

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300955457' post='2674538']
It's a matter of perspective. TPF used the "RoH" or DoW from our perspective to activate defense treaties. We interpreted it to activate our defense treaties. It's pretty great actually.
[/quote]

You mean like how MK and Umbrella pulled the same !@#$? So yes, it is a matter of perspective and I would bet that most outside of DH and their allies sees even the likes of CoJ involved in pretty much a defensive war while DH are the aggressors. So you can attempt to spin it all you want but most are not stupid enough to fall for it. Please keep trying as I am enjoying all the spinning being done by DH to justify their actions.

Can't wait for all that to change the moment ya'll are involved in an [i]actual[/i] defensive war though. I foresee another complete change of views similar to how the pre-emptive attack on CnG was horrible until DH needed to use it against NPO.

Ya'll just too damn funny with your hypocrisy, lies, and double standards.

[quote name='Lurunin' timestamp='1300969401' post='2674623']
haha i'm sure someone will be sigging this soon....nice to see its really turning into pre-Karma days

the that i still find funny is main justification DH used for this war was to keep NPO out of the VE-NpO conflict, which succeeded for sure...too bad they wont end this conflict now that the other one peaced out
[/quote]

Turning? It never left. The only thing we appear to be doing though is going back in time. To me it feels like it is 2007-2008, not 2011 and most assuredly not on the precipice of some new and wonderful age. Well I should clarify, for all non-DH members/allies it will not be some new and wonderful age, for DH/allies it will be since they will have the capability to crush anyone they want for any reason they want and think they are the bestest guys in the world.

[Monster]

[quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1300969853' post='2674628']
1. This implies it is working now and will continue to work for some period of time.
2. Even if the war grinds down to a cease-fire by default, there is enough potential force left in Peace Mode that you'll never be able to totally demobilize.
3. They aren't TOP, but they don't need to be. They only need to stay motivated, and harass you just enough to make you permanently uncomfortable.

There have been multiple statements in this thread that DH intends to, at minimum, permanently cripple NPO and its closest allies. Continuing this until they are forced to disband only scatters a whole bunch of nation rulers to other alliances (and new alliances) where their hatred for you will simmer until they are ready to get payback.

History has taught you nothing.
[/quote]

It won't work forever. It's working because we're still aiding GOONS. However, their offensive against GOONS has petered out.

I'm not saying it'll grind down to a ceasefire. They won't be able to keep the lower tier war up forever since more will be getting hit soon enough.

They need to be TOP if they expect to somehow make us cave to their PM strategy.

I don't really see how they're being forced to disband and I doubt the NPO would ever disband. The issue is basically them coming out of PM, not being perma tech farms or anything. They hate us regardless and antipathy existed before.


Dochartaigh: I don't see anything new in your post, just usual "NPO are good guys, DH is bad and NPO should get off easy even though you have no incentive to do it." Not going to bother responding to a brick wall.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Dochartaigh]

[quote name='Daimos' timestamp='1300969891' post='2674629']
I have a similar line of thought. The general public does not sympathize with NPO they are concern of the action of DH which they view as hegemonic tendencies. Granting their opponents white peace would quell even eradicate these thoughts.
[/quote]

Pretty much. I hold no love for NPO and honestly would not care one whit if they were being crushed for valid actions. The crap thus far posted as "valid" reasons are nowhere close to valid unless we now begin to validate every reason NPO did pre-Karma to curbstomp alliances as completely valid. Not to mention with the attitude of "the victor can demand whatever they want, not the loser" well that now validates every surrender term NPO ever gave.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. With great power comes great responsibility.

It appears that DH only adheres to the first adage.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300960739' post='2674585']
You do realize that the whole "stop DH from buying tech" thing will stop working in around a month or two at most? Why would we play into your hands when aid will become superfluous soon enough? [b]In terms of fighting a long term war when outnumbered, you're no TOP.[/b] Dragging it out isn't even in your interests at this point.
[/quote]

TOP lasted 66 days of war against whatever allies CnG could pull in to help, this war against NPO is on day 59 and a majority of allies have been in 54-58 days, so yeah at this point in time it is going to outlast TOP's previous war.

[Monster]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300970357' post='2674633']
TOP lasted 66 days of war against whatever allies CnG could pull in to help, this war against NPO is on day 59 and a majority of allies have been in 54-58 days, so yeah at this point in time it is going to outlast TOP's previous war.
[/quote]

Except TOP actually was effective against its opponents and could make it a pyrrhic victory. The Invict-o-sphere simply isn't as fierce. It was in C&G's best interests to peace at that point.

Edited March 24, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[Sabcat]

[quote name='mattski133' timestamp='1300965450' post='2674604']
1) take the terms.
2) don't.

either way you lose the war, with option 2 however the war goes on until you take option 1.

all of this terrible posting won't change that.
[/quote]

Option two has been chosen, clearly. I'm sure you've noticed this but still the whining continues. You wanted war, you've got war.

[the rebel]

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300970544' post='2674635']
Except TOP actually was effective against its opponents and could make it a pyrrhic victory. The Invict-o-sphere simply isn't as fierce. It was in C&G's best interests to peace at that point.
[/quote]

TOP was/is a top heavy alliance so was able to be effective against CnG and Co top tier, even with that advantage and huge warchests in the main part, still only lasted 66 days and surrendered paying substantial tech reps...

Whereas in this current conflict NPO and Co middle and lower tier are being effective against DH and Co hence the need of a mass of aid being sent out from the top tier and at this rate will of outlasted TOP's previous war.

My point is refuting your claim that the NPO side cant do long term warfare because they are no TOP, when its obvious that this conflict will go on longer than any war TOP has been involved.

[neneko]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300970357' post='2674633']
TOP lasted 66 days of war against whatever allies CnG could pull in to help, this war against NPO is on day 59 and a majority of allies have been in 54-58 days, so yeah at this point in time it is going to outlast TOP's previous war.
[/quote]
Did you see our ns graph while fighting TOP? Peace were in the best interest of both sides since both took heavy damage. At this point we're taking marginal damage from NPO and for every day we're just taking less.

I don't think roq meant that they're no TOP in terms of how long they can last. I'm sure NPO can hold out forever but TOP were able to keep dealing damage to us for a very long time, NPO is not.

[Monster]

They can't do it and expect any real concessions. Lower tier warfare isn't as important, hence why you see no surrenders from anyone our side. You spent everything you had on GOONS and MK and have left everyone else untouched.

TOP got major concessions from C&G because C&G wanted it to end. We don't need it to end soon and the PM term will stay in some form or another as NPO and co can't deal significant amounts of damage anymore.

edit: neneko covered it well

Edited March 24, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin

[the rebel]

[quote name='neneko' timestamp='1300971788' post='2674641']
Did you see our ns graph while fighting TOP? Peace were in the best interest of both sides since both took heavy damage. At this point we're taking marginal damage from NPO and for every day we're just taking less.[/quote]
Yes i did see it as i was fighting also against TOP in that war, indeed tech heavy top tiers on both sides would be dealing heavy damage. Back to this war of course damage is getting less daily because lets face it when fighting in middle and low teir the total NS of alliances even out in decline due to having the bulk of NS left in tech which is hard to destroy and infra which is easy/cheap to rebuild...

[quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300971795' post='2674642']
They can't do it and expect any real concessions. [b]Lower tier warfare isn't as important[/b], hence why you see no surrenders from anyone our side. You spent everything you had on GOONS and MK and have left everyone else untouched.[/quote]
Its a battle of wills down in the lower tier and [b]is[/b] important during extended wars, aid is a small factor although aided nations end up sharing it and supporting thier targets.

But you being in Umbrella which doesnt have a lower tier wouldnt know about it.

[trance addict]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300971566' post='2674640']
TOP was/is a top heavy alliance so was able to be effective against CnG and Co top tier, even with that advantage and huge warchests in the main part, [b]still only lasted 66 days and surrendered[/b] paying substantial tech reps...

Whereas in this current conflict [b]NPO and Co middle and lower tier [i]are[/i] being effective[/b] against DH and Co hence the need of a mass of aid being sent out from the top tier and at this rate will of outlasted TOP's previous war.

My point is refuting your claim that the NPO side cant do long term warfare because they are no TOP, when [b]its obvious that this conflict will go on longer than any war TOP has been involved[/b].
[/quote]


I have highlight a few words...

1.We (TOP) "still only lasted 66 days and surrendered" Bring out your upper tier and see if they last 66 days.

2. "NPO and Co middle and lower tier are being effective" with emphasis on "are" once your mid and lower tier nations run out of money (warchest), they will cease to be effective, all the while the money from our side is being funneled into our lower tier nations helping them to be effective now and in the future of this war.

3. "its obvious that this conflict will go on longer than any war TOP has been involved". TOP went 66 days in a full out war [i]with[/i] their/are upper tier nations involved. I suggest before making comparisons, you bring out your upper tier and then we'll start the 66 day clock.

[Monster]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300973047' post='2674651']

Its a battle of wills down in the lower tier and [b]is[/b] important during extended wars, aid is a small factor although aided nations end up sharing it and supporting thier targets.

But you being in Umbrella which doesnt have a lower tier wouldnt know about it.
[/quote]


We do have smaller nations and most of them have been getting hit hard without us being able to do much about it. However, everyone knew they'd either have to go to pm for a war or get beaten up. They also know they can be rebuilt.

[Daimos]

[quote name='Sardonic' timestamp='1300940327' post='2674371']
NPO has nothing to fear about us honoring our end of the bargain, I would stake the entire sum of GOONS expected reparations on it.
[/quote]

Fear of not honoring your term is not the issue. The issue is THE TERM itself. White peace to all or continued warfare.

[the rebel]

[quote name='trance addict' timestamp='1300973168' post='2674652']
I have highlight a few words...

1.We (TOP) "still only lasted 66 days and surrendered" Bring out your upper tier and see if they last 66 days.

2. "NPO and Co middle and lower tier are being effective" with emphasis on "are" once your mid and lower tier nations run out of money (warchest), they will cease to be effective, all the while the money from our side is being funneled into our lower tier nations helping them to be effective now and in the future of this war.

3. "its obvious that this conflict will go on longer than any war TOP has been involved". TOP went 66 days in a full out war [i]with[/i] their/are upper tier nations involved. I suggest before making comparisons, you bring out your upper tier and then we'll start the 66 day clock.
[/quote]

1. Well if our middle/lower tier can last over 66 days with very little internal aid because top tier is in peacemode, can outlast TOP who was mainly large nations all with over a billion, then what does that say?

2. That point has been argued to death in this topic, no point going in circles.

3. Like stated before TOP was/is a top heavy alliance and with their allies outnumbered CnG and Co's top tier, so why would you be in peacemode when you had the greatest advantage? Do you think if NPO and Co had the top tier advantage they would still be in peace? really your arguement is flawed.

[neneko]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300973047' post='2674651']
Its a battle of wills down in the lower tier and [b]is[/b] important during extended wars, aid is a small factor although aided nations end up sharing it and supporting thier targets.
[/quote]
So what you're saying is that the best case scenario for NPO is that our lower tier get tired and surrender. Then what? Their top tier is still trapped in peacemode this looks like a pretty half baked game plan to me.

This scenario is of course not very likely. The time period where you out-damaged us in the lower tier have passed quite some time ago and I think a few alliances over on your side have realized that npo never had a plan for this beyond "if we refuse to fight long enough people will pity us".

[the rebel]

[quote name='neneko' timestamp='1300973833' post='2674660']
So what you're saying is that the best case scenario for NPO is that our lower tier get tired and surrender. Then what? Their top tier is still trapped in peacemode this looks like a pretty half baked game plan to me.

This scenario is of course not very likely. The time period where you out-damaged us in the lower tier have passed quite some time ago and I think a few alliances over on your side have realized that npo never had a plan for this beyond "if we refuse to fight long enough people will pity us".
[/quote]

Dont know what the strategy is, but bringing out the top tier when its massively outnumbered is suicide for a war that was started over "we dont like you", the lower tier is the life of the world in regards to the tech market, what are you top tier nations going to do other than aid the lower tiers? The longer this war goes on the longer the tech market freezes for our alliances as there is afew thousand tech sellers locked down.

But hey if you one of those people who dont really tech whore like me then there isnt a problem seeing the worlds tech supply strangled more due to this extended war.

[neneko]

[quote name='the rebel' timestamp='1300974771' post='2674664']
Dont know what the strategy is, but bringing out the top tier when its massively outnumbered is suicide for a war that was started over "we dont like you", the lower tier is the life of the world in regards to the tech market, what are you top tier nations going to do other than aid the lower tiers? The longer this war goes on the longer the tech market freezes for our alliances as there is afew thousand tech sellers locked down.

But hey if you one of those people who dont really tech whore like me then there isnt a problem seeing the worlds tech supply strangled more due to this extended war.
[/quote]
As I previously stated we're taking less damage each day. While at a slow rate we're already importing tech and as the damage NPO is able to deal keeps going down the tech import will go up. A longterm war with NPO will not be more than a nuisance to us while a drawn out war with TOP would have meant the destruction of most of our tech.

You say that our top tier nations can't do anything except aid our lower tier nations which is true of course but it's still a lot more than what the NPO top tier can do in peacemode. We can keep supporting our fighters while NPO can not, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the situation will look better for us each day and worse for NPO. Once again a drawn out war with NPO wouldn't mean much to us besides a lower tech import for the next month or so after which point not even that would be a problem.

Edited March 24, 2011 by neneko