Alterego Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='greenacres' timestamp='1300372068' post='2667685'] Boohoo, cry me a river. Same tactics they used to use on other alliances. Again, boohoo, it's so sad. [/quote] Being an asshat is ok when your friends are asshats? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pezstar Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) I see no reason for NPO and their friends to accept this deal. There don't appear to have been any guarantees from DH and their pals here, and even if there were, you really have no reason to trust them. From what I can tell, DH is not in a position to keep NPO and friends at war for a very extended period of time. This isn't the NPO/FAN situation, where it required little effort and resources on NPO's part to keep them at war for 2 years. That sort of situation simply isn't a possibility here... at least not without making two entire facets of the treaty web completely useless and vulnerable for the duration. So make them fight the war they started. If they don't want to give you a peace you can live with, then don't accept it. Edited March 17, 2011 by pezstar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECUMSEH Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Wow. I didn't realize DH was in such dire straights. Vol Navy summed it up nicely several pages back. DH flummoxed by a war of their own making. Rather amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Qazzian' timestamp='1300372507' post='2667693'] I haven't seen this addressed, so I'll ask and see what answer comes back. If the NPO were to come out of peace mode and fight, what guarantee would we have that after 1 month (However it's defined, 4 weeks, 30/31 days...) we would not be kept in wars until you get bored? Right now, when I read the OP, I hear a muttered "Trust us" while you hide a dagger behind your back. [/quote] They lied after karma and they are lying again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1300372642' post='2667697'] They lied after karma and they are lying again [/quote] Since this point is brought up a lot I'm just curious, what promises did we make during karma that we broke exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='TECUMSEH' timestamp='1300372613' post='2667696'] Wow. I didn't realize DH was in such dire straights. Vol Navy summed it up nicely several pages back. DH flummoxed by a war of their own making. Rather amusing. [/quote] I don't know how he or you come to the conclusion that Doomhouse is in dire straights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 It's called King of the Hill. Whoever has the most power at the time, wants to stay on top. MK/Doomhouse want to do it while convincing you they are the voice of freedom. When it was NPO, they didn't care what you thought. Naturally, MK will find another reason to war with NPO as soon as they feel NPO is growing too powerful for comfort. Of course, if NPO did reach the top, they would find a way to take out MK. Again, King of the Hill. Funny thing is, we tend to side with whoever the underdog is at the time. We want to help them get up that hill, and as soon as they're there...we want to knock 'em off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrash Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300343833' post='2667347'] I do not demand unilateral annihilation. I demand satisfaction, y'all. [/quote] How bad do you want that satisfaction? I'm sure if the reps were dropped, we'd all have no problems coming out of PM. Hell, I'm dying to come out and this topic makes me happy that it might be happening soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1300368590' post='2667635'] o/ The Resistance, fight on fellow freedom fighters! [/quote] [quote name='pezstar' timestamp='1300372521' post='2667695'] So make them fight the war they started. [/quote] This is actually exactly what we suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiro Nakara Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Thrash' timestamp='1300373002' post='2667702'] How bad do you want that satisfaction? I'm sure if the reps were dropped, we'd all have no problems coming out of PM. Hell, I'm dying to come out and this topic makes me happy that it might be happening soon. [/quote] If I'm correct in this (I'm sure I will be corrected if wrong) NPO's reps have been dropped if they come out to play, as for the alliances that jumped on us, it's pretty fair to say that it's not MK's decision to drop reps, and it's highly unlikely you will be getting off free without paying I could be wrong and I'm sure Sardonic already has an idea for what lies ahead for each alliance that surrenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EViL0nE Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Antoine Roquentin' timestamp='1300371526' post='2667676'] You do realize we'd being doing a lot of it with GOONS to begin with, so it doesn't change that dynamic to a great degree and it's been noted that aid to GOONS is becoming superfluous gradually, so actually even if it keeps dragging out, it won't have that effect. [/quote] I don't know what percentage of tech MK and Umb were buying from GOONS pre-war, so I can't say I can realize anything regarding that. As for whether or not GOONS is worth aiding anymore or not, that's up to DH to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='neneko' timestamp='1300373326' post='2667703'] This is actually exactly what we suggested. [/quote] Cowards that you are you wont be fighting alone amirite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Sir Humphrey' timestamp='1300372206' post='2667687'] You mentioned this in the other thread, but the other thread was going a bit OT so I'll address it here. The [i]absence[/i] of any official clarification from one alliance regarding a war that does not currently affect them is not sufficient justification for characterising the DH declaration as a preemptive strike. Sure, you "preempted" a [i]possible[/i] outcome of treaty chains. However, if you follow your logic, you could just as easily have declared a "preemptive" strike on NPO before VE even declared on NpO, given your apparent foresight with regard to the treaty web. As far as I can tell, you can point to no evidence that NPO actually planned to enter the conflict, or any action that would have prompted a "preemptive" strike. Thus, it seems difficult to sustain the argument that such a strike on an alliance is justified entirely based on the actions of third parties. As I mentioned, it is more logical that this war was always about addressing the balance of power and neutralising NPO as a potential threat at some point in the future, based on your assumptions regarding their intentions. (Btw, wouldn't a DoNA be more appropriate than a DoN, given NPO's treaties were clearly not netural with regard to the PB/NpO war?) [/quote] It doesn't make sense to preempt someone when the war they're being preempted in hasn't started. The actions of third parties when they'd have to be coordinating with NPO does matter. For example, some alliances tied to NPO were committed to entering, the end result being that most of NPO's allies would be engaged. If NPO doesn't enter regardless, it puts the NPO in the position of being easy pickings afterwards. Legion was a mandated defender, for instance when Polar was declared on. In that case, a strike on Legion or NSO that would force the issue would have made the most sense from a justification standpoint, but not from a logistical standpoint as they aren't the main alliance NS wise in that cluster of things. DoN/DoNA is more of a semantical issue. It could have been either. [quote name='TECUMSEH' timestamp='1300372613' post='2667696'] Wow. I didn't realize DH was in such dire straights. Vol Navy summed it up nicely several pages back. DH flummoxed by a war of their own making. Rather amusing. [/quote] How are we flummoxed exactly? We're not exactly looking to end it at all costs. This wasn't unprompted. Alterego: it's not just public support but more of NPO's direct base of allies was tied into the NpO side of things. Duckroll on the other hand had an avowedly anti-NpO stance before the war and had ties like TOP on our side of things and Duckroll screwing TOP over to help NpO didn't seem likely. Edited March 17, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1300372642' post='2667697'] They lied after karma and they are lying again [/quote] Even if they aren't, they want their enemies to come out and fight. You only make a demand like that if you are bored and want to have the thing done. Love it or hate it, NPO's strategy appears to be working, assuming that strategy was to make this into a long, drawn out war of attrition. With war weariness setting in, DH needs to turn this into a decisive battle and the only way that happens is if NPO rushes out and goes down in a hail of bullets. Four rounds or so of combat ought to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 This sounds a lot like another callout, the only reason I can think of for wanting them to come out of peace mode is because you've gotten bored, but really, wasn't this expected? If you're going to go into an agressive war, you should really know what you are going to be dealing with. Most other things I have to say have been said countless times, no need to repeat, it's also been said better. Just one quick question, how many more callouts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feardaram Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Direct battle with top tier NPO nations would be more fun, direct, and a little less frustrating, but it doesn't really matter. Doomhouse has already won no matter how this plays out. Keeping those top NPO nations in PM indefinitely hinders their ability to grow and severely limits the options for nations of that size to contribute through their nation. Using PM as a long-term strategy isn't "winning," it basically ends the game for them. The top tier of Doomhouse will always be here waiting for the PM exit, and waiting for any low tier NPO nation to grow into the top tier. The two possible outcomes are to get destroyed or stop playing. Whatever floats your boat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1300373419' post='2667707'] Cowards that you are you wont be fighting alone amirite [/quote] I'd say that pitting our 200 nations against 500+ would be more dumb than brave. If you really want a 1 on 1 I'm sure we'd be up for one with BAPS after this war is over. If you manage to talk your brave alliance into it I'm sure the mk gov won't be too hard to convince. Unless of course you're all cowards with big mouths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='ChairmanHal' timestamp='1300373554' post='2667710'] Even if they aren't, they want their enemies to come out and fight. You only make a demand like that if you are bored and want to have the thing done. Love it or hate it, NPO's strategy appears to be working, assuming that strategy was to make this into a long, drawn out war of attrition. With war weariness setting in, DH needs to turn this into a decisive battle and the only way that happens is if NPO rushes out and goes down in a hail of bullets. Four rounds or so of combat ought to do it. [/quote] It was in response to being asked what was required for peace. It's not DH coming out out of nowhere. Interpreting it as a mere callout thread is missing the point. [quote name='EViL0nE' timestamp='1300373382' post='2667706'] I don't know what percentage of tech MK and Umb were buying from GOONS pre-war, so I can't say I can realize anything regarding that. As for whether or not GOONS is worth aiding anymore or not, that's up to DH to decide. [/quote] Well, it's well known that one of the goals of the other side is to keep us bogged down in terms of aid slots, so if it continued at its current levels if it drags out when the need is no longer there to a great extent, it would merely be playing into the hands with little benefit for us. Edited March 17, 2011 by Antoine Roquentin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='neneko' timestamp='1300372781' post='2667699'] Since this point is brought up a lot I'm just curious, what promises did we make during karma that we broke exactly? [/quote] From what I'm piecing together... [quote name='feardaram' timestamp='1300373671' post='2667712'] Direct battle with top tier NPO nations would be more fun, direct, and a little less frustrating, but it doesn't really matter. Doomhouse has already won no matter how this plays out. Keeping those top NPO nations in PM indefinitely hinders their ability to grow and severely limits the options for nations of that size to contribute through their nation. Using PM as a long-term strategy isn't "winning," it basically ends the game for them. The top tier of Doomhouse will always be here waiting for the PM exit, and waiting for any low tier NPO nation to grow into the top tier. The two possible outcomes are to get destroyed or stop playing. Whatever floats your boat. [/quote] They're probably talking about the bit where 'eternal wars are bad!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
feardaram Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Doitzel' timestamp='1300373947' post='2667715'] From what I'm piecing together... They're probably talking about the bit where 'eternal wars are bad!' [/quote] It's not eternal if we could just get it over with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='neneko' timestamp='1300373715' post='2667713'] I'd say that pitting our 200 nations against 500+ would be more dumb than brave. If you really want a 1 on 1 I'm sure we'd be up for one with BAPS after this war is over. If you manage to talk your brave alliance into it I'm sure the mk gov won't be too hard to convince. Unless of course you're all cowards with big mouths. [/quote] LOL, If not attacking is the sign of a coward and your leader wants us dead years what does that say about MK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Alterego' timestamp='1300374083' post='2667719'] LOL, If not attacking is the sign of a coward and your leader wants us dead years what does that say about MK? [/quote] I thought we already established that we are cowards. We didn't even go 1v1 on NPO. What's your excuse? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalkerNinja Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) Nearly a year ago I warned an Emperor and an Emperor Emeritus that they were strolling down a path that would lead them back to war. Now it has, and now they are unwilling to fight it. The continued peacemode of the upper tiers can only be considered a strategy if one considers curling up into a ball to protect your face a rational strategy. All that's happening here are hordes of semi-active people with old and bloated nations are promising that they will rebuild the legions of newbs that are bleeding for the sins of a time that they weren't even around for. That's not a viable war strategy, particularly when Pacfican banking has been routinely outstripped by more focused modern approaches. But it [i]is[/i] a strategy for fomenting false consciousness. The present Order is incapable of bringing its members either [b]Strength[/b] or [b]Prosperity[/b]. It can only bring [b]Peace[/b] in the form of a dove on a war screen. The dream of Franco's Spain is being slaughtered, and not by Doomhouse. [quote name='Ivan Moldavi' timestamp='1300334479' post='2666909'] Words. [/quote] Why are you wasting your time with this? You're the only man alive that remembers the call to Order. There is real work to be done among your fractured progeny, and harassing posters on the OWF is not going to get it done. Edited March 17, 2011 by WalkerNinja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='feardaram' timestamp='1300374042' post='2667717'] It's not eternal if we could just get it over with. [/quote] Eternal war one of the 2 choices you are forcing on them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='neneko' timestamp='1300374165' post='2667720'] I thought we already established that we are cowards. We didn't even go 1v1 on NPO. What's your excuse? [/quote] Unlike MK we have standards, we dont pre-emptively attack alliances because we are paranoid or bored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts