Prefonteen

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

Yes. Put your juicy upper tier nations in our courtyard. And make sure they bring their lunch money. We uhh don't uhh.... Don't want them to uhh, get hungry.

Did someone say fight?

If I'd known that I'd have begged him myself.😭 Fair point though. If Sheepy assumed I was aware of this, his reaction makes more sense.

Alex, I continue to stand behind my beliefs as voiced over Discord. With that said, I do appreciate that you were willing to listen to our arguments and that you chose to take a more proportionate approach towards our punishment. There ultimately was no malign intent on our part, though I suppose that might not have been as easily visible without context. Perhaps some good will come out of this in the modification of game rules to provide a bit more clarity. On the matter of who reported the wars: I do not particularly care for *who* did it. That said, I would like to point out a potential flaw in the methodology of handling privately issued reports: When a public report is made in the appropriate forum, the defendant often has the chance to plead his case. This allows for a less onesided presentation of facts relevant to the case (by defendant and accuser to you). This entire ordeal somewhat showed that when it concerns private reports, there is no real ability for the defendant to make his case until post-punishment. In my case, I was unaware I had even broken the rules until I received notification that my city had been Hiroshima'd. I was mostly busy chuckling along, amused at our metapod-induced "war". I'm not sure if this is worthwhile for you at all (or if it fits the style in which you wish to moderate), but it may be worthwhile to look at somehow altering that process to provide a little more opportunity for both sides to be told.

Well this is awkward. Sheepy's hammer just did more damage to hogwarts than the entire war did.

I volunteer my services as your FA leader

I'm quoting this for posterity's sake. Obviously you are planning to blitz me.

Honestly, what are you trying to achieve here? I feel like you should know already by now what happened. It's all out in the open i've been told.

No. Who are you to determine how I should conduct my wars?

He suffers from insomnia and anxiety. All triggered by the savage blitz.

We regret our involvement. The toll this war has taken on Joe Stupid has been too much to bear. You people are monsters.

Sits back down

As keegoz said: We pulled out because we had nothing left to do but sit around. The only alternative for us would have been to snowball and simply roll anything in range on your coalition's side, crossdeclaring on various alliances. ... If your alliance and its allies believe that opting not to was the wrong decision, say the word and we will be happy to reengage?