Prefonteen

Jesus times have changed. Back in my day we had actual negotiations.

...what in the world

A game is meant to be a fun timesink, Restius. If it no longer fits the "fun" criteria for you, then you are making the right decision by omiting it from your life. Thank you for the shoutout. I've enjoyed our chats. All the best to you in real life .

Who you callin a whale

No offense bud, but from what i have aeen, the vitrol directed at lps has bedn strictly in-character and revolved around lps' ingame actions and the motivations *he* provided. Frankly, the jabs ive seen have been rather lighthearted. Especially if contrasted with some of tbe stuff i can guarantee you any major/controversial figure/leader in any prominent alliance will have had directed at him. I know i have. And i know several instances where others have. In LPS' case, he has the right to quit if he no longer feels like he enjoys the game. Thats his good right. The community however, is not to blame for that. This is a multiplayer political simulayion. That means that there is a degree of interaction with other players involved- autonomous parties who may react positively or negatively to your ingame decisions. When the latter happens, you either accept the consequences or adapt your playstyle. Simple as day. If you cant handle valid IC grievances.... go play singleplayer and reload at checkpoints whenever you mess up. Now if this happens to have clearly and maliciously crossed ooc boundaries, i stand corrected and am happy to apologize. Just prove me wrong

Is that an invitation to tango? Clap dat ass

you did so in the wrong language

I hate how people always pull the "OMG SPEAK ENGLISH" argument whenever they are at risk of losing the debate vs a foreigner. Seriously, it's beneath you. People like Manthrax who manage to master English *on top* of their native language should receive nothing but praise.

He's Canadian. English isn't his native language. Cut him some slack.

You just disagreed again. Stop making stupid posts.

Now *thats* playing on "hard" mode.

Daww

Hoping the OOC bit wasn't directed at me, as i've made a point of staying out of that part of the conversation .

Hey Restius, Long time no speak. Hope life treats you well. I generally do not join in on the LPS bandwagon (even though I see some valid points brought up) because I don't really care as much. There is however, a strong pragmatic argument to make on LPS' VM antics being a competitive problem. Looking strictly objectively, I see a nation which has been geared to fully maximize peacetime profit (4k infra per city etc.). Normally, such a loadout is offset by the higher cost of war. The strategic use of VM during times of global war (when he would be at risk of incurring cost) mitigates that risk (in what *could* be considered an ethically questionable way, but we'll leave that in the middle). As LPS does not have to deal with rebuilds and is able to maintain his stockpiles and infra loadouts, he is able to accelerate his city growth and outpace other upper tier nations who *do* stay and fight for their alliances. This by definition makes him a competitive threat for other upper tier nations. Think of it this way: If he were to be left alone entirely for too long and is able to strategically stack cities in a way where he outpaces other upper tier nations, but limits it enough to allow him to still effectively downdeclare, he can become a large problem when he *does* decide to join the fight: We now have an upper tier berserker with massive stockpiles downdeclaring from the top. With a light degree of planning and support, that's a dangerous recipe for would-be opponents. This scenario is not far-fetched as he's already displayed his willingness to join the fight when he believes a war to be an easy win/curbstomp (papers please). LPS has not reached that point just yet, but he is starting to get close to it. While I can see the merit in the tactic (and its ultimately his choice), I see it as wholly understandable that some within the community balk at this application of VM, because they feel it creates an unfair advantage. Moreover... upper tier nations do have a valid cause for concern by virtue of the above. Trickling down the effects, CS also benefits hugely from this application of VM (and city build), as large chunks of cash (and/or donations) can be levied from LPS and funneled towards alliance growth. I have no insight in what arrangement (if any) you have with LPS, but it's not a far reach that such an agreement may be in place- I know I would . This added growth similarly provides CS with a leg up over would-be opponents (theoretically speaking) due to constant availability of cash. I hope i've laid out some of the concerns which i've noticed in the community a bit more clearly. Perhaps we can spar about them, and see if you can help find ways to alleviate them? I know for sure that trying to do so would probably be more productive than getting frustrated with people for being frustrated with LPS .

Yes but you disagree and that makes your opinion stupid.

The war Never ended

Mensa hit you first because DEIC/UPN were both flexing as swing parties, making it impossible for: - Mensa to hit Rose directly: This would have brought in DEIC on Rose's side and would have led UPN to go hands-off. - Rose to hit/counter Mensa directly: This would have brought in UPN on Mensa's side, and would have led DEIC to go hands-off. You were also just really terrifying and stronk.

Im pretty sure roq was referring to a different, older war here. Back when tkr and npo were allied.

That's a numerical superiority, especially considered that Mensa's hit on Vanguard (who was by far *not* a major hitter on your side at the time) squandered the first strike opportunity and handed initiative to Rose/VE (who were both top 5 at the time, with Rose's upper tier outnumbering us heavily at the time). This theoretically gave them the chance (and they attempted as much) to shut down our side's heavy hitters in the first blow. Rose's blitz failed because of the syndicate counterblitz outshining theirs, as well as because they had doubled down on nukes (and navy), rather than conventional warfare. That does not take away from their advantage going in however, nor does it indicate any selfawareness with regards to their *real* fighting power going into that war. They couldn't know, because fighting reputations had not been solidly established yet at the time (except for maybe mensa). Any notion that they did posess that awareness and were therefore defeatist or unwilling is categorically false for that reason. I do feel like you are applying a lot of hindsight deduction to the history you are trying to project; underselling paragon/covenants/paracovs strength going into each war (as well as their confidence and willingness going in), while generally overselling syndispheres strength (and malice). It's the only reason i'm arguing on the OWF here (as I don't really have a stake in this war's progression)- since it (either intentionally or accidentally) distorts history with factually inaccurate blips.

why is this convo even *happening*

Actually.... having run coalition at the time.... even with the swaps accounted for, numbers still favored Paragon. The main problems with the coalitions generally were a matter of individual performance (which was initially hard to predict) and strategic manouvering (see: Target allocations and front swaps). Paragon, Covenant and later Paracov have over the years made a set of strong blunders militarily speaking, ranging from relying on conventional treaty chain traps to allocating Sparta at its peak to hit lower tier BK (for example) to disregarding mutual allies (pushing them to our side). With proxy specifically: Mensa actually jumped based on a (mis)representation as well. At the time they hit Vanguard, they believed to be having backup from both UPN and tS (and both had provided the same guarantee: Counter the counters, but no direct aggression). The pre-empt on tS negated the risk of UPN coming in (any perceived backroom deals aside, as thats a different matter), but forced tS+ allies into the fray. Had Rose managed to shut down tS, we would have been forced to send tS' allies (as mensa had none left beyond UPN) to either still hit VE and leave tS to the wolves, or defend tS (drawing in Rose allies). If we'd picked the former, Rose due to its numerical superiority would have been able to, once the front was locked up, regear and counter the counters on VE. All in all.... going into that war, it looked favorable for Paragon.

Ole, you just essentially got called a chump on milcom by *kastor*. Get fukt.

The Paragon dominance thing definitely was a contributing factor. As were various IC-related things we already discussed (combination of matters). So I won't argue you there! Carry on . re: the quote about Rose going into proxy war expecting a loss.... I can tell you now that all that is incorrect. Rose fully expected to defeat us based on the stats going into that war. VE's attitude at the time similarly reflected a confidence bordering on the cocky (Sorry Impero! I'm just referring to the DoW at the time, which I admit was a strong piece of rhetoric). Syndicate at the time went in fully expecting a loss, and the only reasons why we pulled out a win were: 1. Rose's blitz being stopped in its track by syndicate membership overachieving, despite strong rose numerical superiority in the top tiers. Rose banked on nukes and spent a lot of their MAPs on blockades/navy. Syndicate employed the air counterblitz. 2. Rose not being countered leading Asgard and Alpha (at the time) to having to pick between entering aggressively (oA into the war) or not entering at all. Had Rose been countered, they would have been able to cite MD+ treaties and move in. They ultimately opted not to oA in. 3. TEst opting to assist the Syndicate's side and hit VE 4. Rose infuriating BK by pre-empting tS despite an explicit warning not to. BK started out actually in coalition channels with VE-Rose as they really disliked Mensa and its actions at the time. It took a *lot* of effort talking to them to get them to take a neutral stance. When Rose pre-empted tS, that triggered the BK treaty (and, infuriated BK govt). That was a big game swing which was caused by Rose, rather than any supposed tS manipulations (as some have claimed since) When I (we) made the call to leave Paragon and create what would later be dubbed "Syndisphere" along our new alliances, we effectively created a tripolar world. Out of three poles, our projected sphere (as SK had yet to choose its sphere, Guardian was still in rebuilding mode and neither TKR nor BK had come into its own as a superpower yet) was numerically inferior to either of the other spheres. Any combination of the two would have overrun us with ease. Both spheres viewed us with hostility (VE in Paragon, and UPN/DEIC in Covenant). I know this because I ran the numbers prior to doing anything . It didn't look good, but the move was a hail mary with ideological elements (In our opinion, we preferred burning while carving our own path over being relegated to a defacto lackey). I'm sure people with access to tS' internal boards could look up the speech i gave at the time of the split where I detailed my expectation of being targeted by either or both of the other spheres if we proceeded . It should also be noted that at the time of proxy, neither Mensa nor tS had *really* established itself as a prime fighting power. Nor had Rose (or VE or anyone else, really) proven to be "bad" at fighting. Mensa and tS had both shown signs of their prowess in the preceeding war, but many still believed Rose for example to be equal in ability. There's times when it feels like this period of PnW history is generally subject to a heavy degree of revisionism to suit the picture that tS and allies was/were *always* power-hungry villains who fought with obvious advantages against a valiant minority of alliances who tried to kept the surge of chaos at bay. This is frankly a really silly distortion of truth. Let's try to stick with the facts . On the topic of this war... a split would have happened one way or another. I can't fault BK for making that leap. They jumped out of their comfort zone and that should be commended. Even if they made some mistakes in the process. Similarly, there is no fault with NPO taking the opportunity to get out of the obvious position of isolation which they had found themselves in for some time. Good on them for identifying and capitalizing on a window of opportunity.

Ah yes. For morality is inherently immoral- nothing but the tool the slave resorts to in order to subvert the master.

NO FIGHTS ON OUR PREMISES