[MensaHq Slaughters the Innocents.]

You are almost right except that you dont need any level of organization to fight a war against 18 players when you have 73 thus you could have simply said hit anything in range.............. that really doesn't sound like organization to me.

Also you gotta remember that politics even involves all the alliances that aren't directly involved in the conflict!

How many alliances do you think will want to ally with you if all you proved is that you can beat up a little alliance for their money?

 

We could have done it that way, but we didn't. Anyone who knows anything and is looking at the war pages will see and understand what we've done. 

[MensaHq Slaughters the Innocents.]

First of all you are aggressors that refused to compromise, second of all your policy's aren't ANYTHING to other alliances unless you are directly associating with them in this case you were raiding SI therefore associating with them and you were breaking their policy. You attacked SI (when their alliance Bio CLEARLY says you cant raid and expect no retaliation), and then you want to come here and blame it all on SI because they retaliated to your raid............... is stuff going in through one ear and coming out of the next for you?

 

:popcorn: Please tell me more of how this is all Si's fault :popcorn:

 

Responding to this in detail would be a waste of time, as would continuing this topic in this thread.

[MensaHq Slaughters the Innocents.]

Your alliance members literally raided SI prior to this. It is not challenging to figure out that you are the aggressors, and Hereno attacking Pfeiffer is merely retaliation.

 

One way of looking at it. It's like if an American biker gang murdered three people in Mexico, and Mexico marshaled its armies and attacked Washington D.C. in retaliation. 

[MensaHq Slaughters the Innocents.]

 

Also... maybe if Pfeiff wasn't an !@#$ sometimes to those who attempt diplomacy with his alliance, maybe it wouldn't have come to this.

 

 

You must have him confused with someone else. The Pfeiffer I know is always polite, humble and jovial - jolly, even. He's so unfailingly courteous that if you have found otherwise, you must have been dealing with an impostor :-P 

[MensaHq Slaughters the Innocents.]

By this logic what is stopping VE, Rose, UPN, or any other alliance bigger than you from raiding you? Would you expect any form of repayment? Or just accept the hit and move on?

 

You don't have to act that way, and the exaggerated concept just gives you a distasteful demeanor. Hereno is one of the more disliked leaders in the game and it speaks volumes that most of the non-mensa posts are siding with him. I'm done doing with the back and forth because clearly my words aren't going very far with you. 

 

What is stopping them? Well I couldn't say for sure. I'd imagine that it has something to do with the fact that Mensa is ranked fairly high, even if below some of the very highest. It also could be concern that we might have a relationship with one or more other alliances that might help us defend ourselves. If they wish to avoid a war, then they might choose to pay reps if someone in Mensa chose to request them.

 

But those factors aren't strongly at play between Mensa and SI. We have no particular reason to go out of our way to avoid a war with a tiny competitor. You would think that Hereno would have a much stronger incentive in that direction - "Gee I better not attack the alliance leader, or the whole alliance might retaliate." It's strange that he didn't, and speaks to what seems like an odd culture around war (at least as can be seen from these threads). 

 

And you haven't convinced me that this culture makes sense, but its certainly educational. I'm a newbie, so its interesting to learn how things are done here even if it seems alien compared to other web-based war games. Someone upthread called it a nation sim, and maybe that spin is where the different approach comes from. 

[MensaHq Slaughters the Innocents.]

This is a game about the long term, if you make enemies early on you are going to suffer for it later. War is a part of this game but that's why you start alliance wide wars, typically with a valid cb. I'm not blaming any of you for hitting SI after the war was officially present; I'm saying it was naive of you to raid an alliance with a forum presence and active players (one of which is Hereno) and expect no response. Your obviously co-ordinated reaction to this thread at the start shows me that you guys do give a damn about the community's perspective of you, so now pretending like you don't care and are warring because "it's part of the game" is you resorting to trying to cover up the mistakes you made that were pointed out by several people on this thread and the one Hereno started. 

 

 

I don't know that we're all here trying to "defend our honor." Many of us honestly think the approach and reaction to war here is strange. You can see, and probably already know, that most of the Mensa HQ members started playing in the last couple of months. We all came from another game where war is the raison d'etre, so its strange to see people get actually offended at being attacked and honestly expect to be repaid. 

 

As for Wladimirsky, if you think "I demand repayment from you sir, on your honor, for your manifold transgressions" "Of course my dear sir, please specify the account" is an accurate reflection of Politics and War, please allow me to introduce you to the modern concepts of realpolitik and total war. 

[MensaHq Slaughters the Innocents.]

You do realize you're playing Politics and War, right?

 

Yes, I'm just not sure why people are playing it like its called Hugs & Kisses XOXO. 

[MensaHq Slaughters the Innocents.]

Despite how active the member is or not it is still a member whose score and nation resides within the alliance. I think it's normal to pay reps and offer peace even for inactives out of good will and to not come across as disrespectful to another alliance - Rose has and still does pay reps and offer peace to nations that our young nations (without knowing the consequences of raiding) attack, and I'm sure several other alliances do the same. I'm not saying that Mensa should've paid extra or anything, but if you did the damage it's only common courtesy to try and fix it when the leader approaches you about it. Maybe that's just the culture I was led to believe is the norm, perhaps in other nation sims this is something entirely unheard of. 

 

Why in a war game is it common courtesy to pay people back for doing exactly what the game mechanics encourage? If the alliances were of equal size or had diplomatic ties or there was a risk to the aggressor, then sure pay reps for strategic reasons, but I don't see why making a nation whole out of pure altruistic generosity is considered common courtesy. 

[Notice of Reclamation]

ITT: Mensa HQ members run circles trying to defend their raiding and not face consequences, while still not paying reps.

 

No one is paying reps now, brah. There's a war on. 

[Notice of Reclamation]

You don't seem to understand the basics. When you attack a nation that is part of an alliance, you also are attacking that alliance. They are basically the same thing.

I think he was asking how much the alliance bank lost by completed wars. I guess he just figured anyone reading it would understand that immediately. But he overestimated this forum. 

[Notice of Reclamation]

Fake geniuses.

 

You wound us, so, so deeply. 

[Notice of Reclamation]

I don't know herm, that just sounds like basic game theory. You could also say that a little alliance risking war with a much larger alliance over raiding a couple of inactives is not great strategic thinking. I don't know how many people would be pissed at Mensa in that scenario, especially since Pfeiffer was actually willing to pay reps to any nation that asked - not an ungenerous policy, considering SI isn't exactly a world power. 

 

Edited to reply to Estelle... If you notice, reps were offered. They were refused. 

[Notice of Reclamation]

I don't see why it matters whether you sent the money to their alliance bank or to their members, either way your paying the same amount and you obviously don't care about the nations sense your raiding them. It's nothing more than just a weak justification for not wanting to pay the reps.

 

Even I can see the reason for this - Hereno is claiming they aren't inactive. By having them ask for reps, its proving that they are in fact not inactive. If they can't do that... then they are legit inactive raiding targets after all. 

[Notice of Reclamation]

The general rule of thumb when it comes to your members raiding other alliance members is typically you don't raid active and established alliances. As long as they have that alliance affiliation (and some kind of standing in the community) it's typically taboo active or not. There are of course exceptions to this trend (Arrgh!) and if you do decide to break the trend and raid them you have to accept the consequences of doing so which will result in retaliation.

 

This is the part I find odd. I'm new to this game, but there doesn't seem to be any reason in the game mechanics that this would be the custom. The name of the game is politics and war, why is war activity taboo?