[Rules of War: Causus Belli]

Its always nice to hear approval from people you respect Partisan I completely agree with your assessment that all things being equal the attacker wins.

 

I was just emphasizing that this was a mechanical advantage rather than a political or logistical one, it's part of the game for better or worse. There have been two parts to this war, Phase 1 SK++ vs VE solo, and phase two Allies vs Axis. In both phases, the winner of that particular phase was the side that were the agressors. VE got stomped on the defensive, and now SK++ is getting stomped on the defensive, so it's consistent with "Attackers always win" because that's just the game mechanics.

 

I love your posts btw, Partisan, when I grow up, I want to be a CEO now :')

[Rules of War: Causus Belli]

The following is OOC and also does not represent the official views of my Alliance.  In the interest of transparency, I am an old (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) player, so I that has slanted my mindset about this issue obviously.

 

Everyone above me has brought out really good points on this topic, and I want to discuss them a little bit more..  

 

Some will argue that the CB is nothing more but an internal motivator that drives an alliance to war. That justification comes third to the "entertainment" that is extracted from the war itself, and the strategic value of "winning". This "might makes right" often leads to post-war revisionism. 

 

Others will argue that the CB is the external "reason" for war that the aggressor brings out in order to justify its attacks to the public at large. Proponents of this argument will consider the "legitimacy" of a CB, based on the framework of personal ideology and historical precedence.

 

CB's do have an internal and external component to them, and they do vastly different things.  As a direct answer to your question, the only "valid CB" is the one based on the external component.  

 

The internal component is important to motivate and inform your alliance of the reasons you are going to war, but if you can imagine playing this game without "alliances between alliances", Open World Forums, IRC, and or the ability to PM or communicate with anyone outside of your alliance, then "validity" quickly goes out the window.  At that point, its just how much your alliance members listen to your leadership, and how much they want to fight.  "Entertainment" and the strategic value of "winning" is enough just as Partisan said, and all internal CB's eventually come down to these two factors.

 

However, the CB system is about "Just War", and "Just War" is not something that can be unilaterally approved, nor is it something that *should* be trivial.

 

A quick definition of a "Valid CB" is one that begins a "Just War".  

 

I know that sounds highly subjective (it is) but that is what makes a CB Valid.  There is no way to directly measure this validity, but there are some metrics you can use to help you try.  These are in no fashion fool-proof, and I can think of plenty of counter examples to each, but its the best I can do for now.

 

The first is "international support".  Ultimately, you declare a CB not for the benefit of your alliance, but for the benefit of the neutral non-belligerents.  Your members and close allies will do with just "We can get stronger if we do this" and "It'll be fun", while your enemies will always perceive your actions as unjust.  The only people left to convince of the validity of your "just war" are the people who are staying out of it.  If people think you have a good reason for war you'll gain plenty of international support.  If people think your CB is garbage, you won't.  I'm not talking about camps or factions either, they'll either agree with you or disagree with you on principle rather than any rational argument, but I'm talking about the people who are truly staying out of it.  If you have a majority of these "fence-walkers and neutrals" on your side, then it's a good chance you've got a valid CB.

 

The second is "precedent".  Generally, if a CB has been used and widely accepted in the past, it'll probably be good to use it again if you can.  In (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), Spying has always been a widely accepted "valid" reason for war, since early in the games history..  I would actually put this category as the top of the list, but for many people, this game is still young, and not enough precedents have been established yet.  In addition, the one that has been established, the "Roll Alliances for strategic preparation" strikes me as insanely distasteful, and not something I would consider valid CB.  It is definitely my bias speaking here, but any alliance that does not have a plan to deal with its neighbors (any alliance that isn't neutral or a close ally) if they get hostile is just asking to get stomped. However, if that is the precedent that becomes firmly established, then its a "valid CB", whether or not I personally accept it as such.  

 

*/rant* I'm talking about "strategic preparation", not "operational planning".  Strategic Preparation is about having a plan and gathering the resources needed in case a hypothetical conflict were to break out, operational planning is the implementation of said plan.  Every alliance has a right to defend its members, and having a plan to deal with uncertainties is part of that, but the idea of operational planning is pretty good evidence of intent to carry that plan out.  If you get caught in the operational planning stage, that is a super legitimate CB for the other side to hit first, but no one should be afraid of "planning" something. */end rant*

 

The downside to precedent is that most situations aren't exactly cookie-cutter versions of previous situations, and the eLaywers come out and try to argue why this isn't exactly precedent.  That being said, if you have people, especially the other side, arguing why your CB didn't match precedent exactly or closely enough, its a good indicator that you've got yourself a "valid-enough" CB.

 

The third is "backlash", which is probably the most trickiest, but a greater indication of your general CB "validness" than the other two.  Backlash is kinda like international support, but its not as conflict specific.  Its a general attitude towards your alliances, the amount of enemies you make, and the amount of "hatred" you accumulate among the international community.  The CB system of "Just War" is built upon preventing backlash, or else you end up being treated like Guardian is right now.  Valid CB's will prevent backlash, or at least deflect the majority of it, and invalid CB's will build backlash and cause the whole community to dog-pile you.  Its not something that can really be determined war by war, it's something that is built over time.  

 

Sometimes, backlash is nearly immediate.  The first major war was TAC vs TC, and the backlash that was built, and the coalition that was built as a result of this backlash, was a good indicator that the CB that EoS used "We had old logs that show that TAC was planning to roll us" was not a valid one.

 

Other times, backlash takes a long time to manifest itself, such as this recent rolling of Guardian (and SK, but in a different way).  This beatdown is a direct result of the amount of backlash that Guardian has built up for itself since the end of Marionette.  It represents the culmination of invalid CB's and actions that members of the community have found "unjust."  Although we can't use this metric to define one particular CB as "invalid", we can say that generally, Guardian would not be being beat down right now if their policy in general had not created so much backlash, and we can say that their CB's in general have been invalid.

 

The thing is that I'm using backlash like a kind of "price level" of economics.  Backlash decreases the "price" that alliances will pay to roll you, and perhaps how much they're willing to pay to stay at war with you.  Things like strength, allies, numbers, weapons, stockpiles, leadership, and everything else that makes this game dynamic also modify this price level, which is the reason that Guardian hadn't been rolled until this point.  All these factors made the price of war too high to fight, but backlash will always consistently lower this price, until you get alliances who decide that "enough is enough" and then plan an attack.  With Guardian, the leadership of Prefontaine, the strength of Guardian Nations, and the superior political positioning of Guardian made the cost of war to be high for a very long time, but once Pre stepped down, and their allies did what they did, combined with all the backlash that had been building on Guardian since Marionette, you get a situation like this.  We can look back as say "In general, Guardian did not have valid CB's for their conflicts"

 

 

A key fact that one often overlooks, is that this game generally favors the aggressor. This is underscored by the fact that up until this war, the aggressing party has nearly always been the victor. During offensive wars, the inclusion of reps as a term is often found to be quite costly in terms of (intangible) political capital. When the CB is internally motivated (and not externally justified), enforcement of such terms is likely to lead to long-term complication with regards to reputation management. This can explain why reps have not been established to date: There was never true need or external justification for it.

 

Just a quick note on this section, the truth is that this game heavily favors the aggressor in tactics only (which means actual in-game wars by mechanics), and that has stayed true even in this war.  Although SK++ were the aggressors in this war strategically with their preemptive strike, more wars have been declared on the Axis powers than have been declared by the Axis powers, especially by percentage.  Even during the period where VE had been attacked and VE and Friends were gearing up for war, VE was taking a beating, because they were on the tactical defensive.  When SK++ began to come under attack, tactical aggression switch from Axis to Allies, but nonetheless, tactical aggression still won out the day.  In large scale and organized wars, the aggressors always have the tactical advantage, its the way the game goes.  A team of three can coordinate better than 3 individual targets can coordinate in return on the defensive, and if you get blockaded during the initial blitz, then you've basically lost unless you have an amazing warchest.

 

TL;DR: A valid CB is one that begins a "Just War", and invalid CB does not.  The definition of "Just War" is fluid, but you can see how much Neutral Support, Precedent, and Backlash you are causing to determine whether or not a CB is ultimately Valid.

 

 

[Terminus Est DoW]

I also respect an alliance that is so concerned with its own pixels, it will turn on its allies with a simple 5 min conversation.

 

 

Ah, but you forget the first, and most important, axiom about TEst.

 

Khorne cares not from where the blood flows, only that it flows without cease for all eternity.

[A Wild Aegon Has Appeared!]

So Rose is so incompetent that their leadership cleared the wrong target list in the middle of a global war and distributed it to their members?

 

Nope it was my incompetence, no one else's.  That being said it does speak a lot for the "competence" of SK's leadership when you can't even find any slots on your nations.  It must mean a lot of people really wanted to see you be destroyed.  That must be a direct result of your FA competence.  

[A Wild Aegon Has Appeared!]

Don't look too hard into this Rozalia, these attacks aren't sanctioned on CU.

 

Why would we attempt to open another front in a global war? I sent Keegoz the wrong target list (I'm Rose MoD and we had one up drafted for Cobalt when their leaks came out that they were going to war with us) and ofc seeing the history that Cobalt has with Rose, people thought it was legitimate. We cleared it up though, but not before more wars we declared as Keegoz is our leader.

 

It's my fault. As for why we are aggressive towards you, you did end your post with "typical bully behavior" and "flaccid whining of provocation." When you're going to be rude and conflict-inducung, it's no wonder that we defend ourselves. I made a mistake, I'm sorry it caused a few people to fight,but if you want us to pay reps, in the middle of a war where one of "allies" was planning to stab us, you must know we can't. I'll pay put of pocket after the war is over if I have to.

[A Wild Aegon Has Appeared!]

 

There is a large difference between war and war.  War is inherently a part of the political process; it’s a cycle of destruction and rebirth, of fighting for your allies and crushing your enemies, the highs of victory, and lows of defeat.  War is about the destruction of infrastructure, the prestige and glory of battle, and the shifting of your position on the global stage.  It’s about making friends, making enemies, and sometimes confusing the two.

This is not war…this is war.

 

War is not cold, it’s not political, and it’s not a struggle.  War is personal.  War is raged not for anything else but survival.  It is the purest form of combat, because it is either do or die.  War is not glorious, it is hell. War is a raging inferno which consumes the loser entirely, a hellfire of such intensity that incinerates even the memory of the vanquished, until even your name is simply the whispers of your ashes scattered among the winds.

 

Rose and the Seven Kingdoms haven’t been friends, but we were allies.  When you came to us to help you with your plan, we agreed, because we respected the Seven Kingdoms, and yet, you planned to betray us, an alliance that would have fought tooth and nail to help you, simply because you believed us to be a threat to your power.  

 

Even more so, you planned to betray us after fighting a major war side-by-side, as comrades in arms. We thought we could trust you, we respected you.  The Seven Kingdoms is not worthy of this respect or trust, it’s not even worthy of disdain.  It is only worthy of disgust

 

A war with you would be disservice to the concept of honorable combat.  We will bury you; we will burn your lands, salt your fields, take your women, enslave your children, and slaughter your horses.  The Seven Kingdoms will suffer the same fate as Valyria. Do not misunderstand, this not a declaration of war against the Seven Kingdoms, but a declaration of War.

 

Winter is coming.

 

 

Signed by the Emperor and Lords of Rose,

 

Keegoz - Emperor of Rose

Pubstomper - Heir

 

Oblige - Lord of Economics

Lilac - Lord of Economics

Belisarius - Lord of Internal Affairs

Carter0912 - Lord of Diplomacy

Ranoik - Lord of War

MrBooty - Lord of War

[Announcement from the Viridian Entente]

Rose is an irrelevant alliance that has proven over and over again how unreliable and ineffective they are. I'd argue their only worthwhile purpose of being here is to be used. 

 

"Dying old guard" is an interesting euphemism. We're days into a conflict and have a spotless track record up this point. Was this pretty? No. But we're dealing a ton of damage and will continue to be a major player in this game long after this war. (Assuming I'm unable to convince Tenages to pull the plug. It's embarrassing to have our community be associated with this game.   ) Sadly, it won't even be an achievement. The majority of alliances in this game are complete garbage. There is no competition and the trash community makes it nearly impossible to play politics.

 

Hereno?  Is that you?

[Sperglord !@#$head's Warstats]

UPN declared war in this thread

[Be careful of the rose, you might get pricked...]

Ever since then, I've felt that there was a distinct, I don't know if animosity is the right word, but it's what's coming to mind right now. Anyway, so Rose declares their protection of the CU, and I'm thinking, great, this isn't just Mutant being stupid or whatever, this is Rose trying to !@#$ around with us. 

 

Animosity is definitely the right word.  Both of us are to blame for not trying to patch things up, but I also think that we should have not been the alliance to extend the olive branch.  We may have attacked you, but we would have never done so if you hadn't muddied the waters between us.

[Be careful of the rose, you might get pricked...]

You know Grealind, you must be an effective leader on a lot of different levels.  Most of your members think highly and speak well of you, and you have their loyalty and their trust.  You don't really have much of a government, but you've kept your alliance alive throughout war with Guardian, Rose, and other powers, basically on your own accord.  You're only true failing as a leader is you refusal to care about diplomatic consequences of your actions.  This makes what must happen all the more sad.  

 

Last time we fought, we decided on mercy, since your members couldn't be blamed for your bad decisions.  After all, you unilaterally insisted on something we found unacceptable, and you were basically only subjected to a slap on the wrist, for something that many other alliances might have crushed you for.  I don't expect you to forget past slights and any perceived injustices that we've done against you, but we hoped that you would have at least remembered we could have done a lot worse.  Maybe we never extended the hand of friendship afterwards, but you did do something distasteful and we responded in the most limited fashion we could think of.

 

This time, things will be different.  

 

I don't fault you for fighting for your beliefs.  Just as you set the precedent between us of unilaterally doing something that other party doesn't agree with, we set the precedent of using force to get what we wanted anyway.  It's only fair you should do the same now.  However, that won't save you or the members that choose to follow you.  They know now what you did to us in the past, and anyone who didn't leave after hearing you talk about attacking us has only themselves to blame.  I know that members of Cobalt aren't allowed to post here, but I do recommend that any of you reading this leave Cobalt immediately.  

 

Sometime soon, it may be too late.

[Nuclear Weapons Accountability]

The Senior Imperial Magisters of Kiako have named this first nuclear weapon in honor of Fraggle Rock.  It is now known as "Gobo's Love"

[Relative Power Index (RPI)]

Whats the main difference between W and S?  The cost of units and the amount of units are strictly linear.

[An Announcement from GR, N7SO, Arrgh and TEK]

Mmm, those comments were funny, but yea. Apologizing is fer nerds.

But I thought apologizing was...for...neutrals 

[Troubling Agency Intelligence]

He was ejected for unauthorized espionage. Grillicks was probably authorized.

Damn...someone's going to need a skin graft for this.

[Fox of BRMC Condemns the attacks by MensaHQ]

​I am shocked by the responses here, but I will respond one more time to this, maybe I can clear some things up(again). 

 

1. My Propositions  (a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion) are not demands, but a way to solve my disapproval with the Alliance. I do believe that it was a responsible request, and ironically easy and passive.

 

​2. Referring to my first post, there were THREE separate attacks stemming from more than ONE nation. Example: 3 MHQ Alliance members attacked 1 BRMC Alliance member, consecutively. Which would be very alarming to any Alliance Leader. It was an act of aggression or carelessness.

 

3. Politics & War is more about War, right? So don't mind me if I actually use some diplomacy (the art of dealing with people in a sensitive and effective way) instead of Military action.  

 

4. I honestly didn't think this would hurt so many feelings, or create controversy, Lol. Also, If I am demanded to go to IRC to have talks, I can demand that you can come here to have talks. You may not care what I have to say, or think my size matters, but I can use my authorities to refuse any negotiations, communications, or trade. Which I plan to use my fullest authority to do, I hope to be constructive not destructive for my own Alliance.

 

Thats about it, other than using the forum for Alliance Affairs, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the thread being here.

 

-Fox

 

There isn't anything wrong with the thread being here, and I don't think anyone is really arguing that this is incorrect in some technical or legal sense.  Seeing as I think you're kinda new, I think a lot of people are saying (perhaps not in the most friendliest of ways) that this is the wrong thing to do if you actually want reparations or assistance for your alliance.  Had you gone to Mensa directly, I'm sure they would have paid you or at least stopped the wars.  And if they didn't, you would have had a much stronger case to post a "Declaration of Hostilities" here, and gotten more support.  This is going to make Mensa want to do the exact opposite of helping you fix this problem.  You've called them out, and if they fold to you, what kind of message does that send all the bigger fish?  That Mensa is easy food, which is NOT what they are going to send.  At best, you've made an enemy and at worst, you're whole alliance is now in danger from an impending attack by Mensa for what they may call "libel". 

 

As to your points, they are demands.  You've placed an ultimatum on Mensa.  They have to do what you say, or else they face the consequences of which you said in your Note at the bottom of your opening post (which in this case means no trading, no talking with your alliance, as long as you're leader).  You're telling them do this or I won't be happy with you.  That's a demand.  A dialogue-opener would be like Fox-Fire up there saying "Yo boys, can you stop attacking me :)" and the pirates are like, "Arrgh!" and everyone is happy!

 

As far as being diplomatic, although this isn't as aggressive as an attack (which I feel that you are well within your rights to do, since defending the membership is the primary reason that alliances exist), you are not dealing with Mensa in a sensitive or effective way.  You are denouncing them in the public forum, which is not sensitive, and you are making them dislike you, which is not effective.  

 

This game is called Politics and War, because as Clausewitz said, "War is merely the continuation of policy by other means."  I understand this was a political move meant to force Mensa to stop attacking you, shame them into repaying you, and also showing the rest of Orbis that people shouldn't raid you, but you miscalculated it.  You made a bad political move in my opinion, mainly because raiding is generally accepted in the game, and it is seen as the responsibility of the individual alliances to protect their members by either having a good military, or having allies that protect you in case of attacks such as this.  Coming out here may be a way to defend you alliance by going on the political offensive, but unless Mensa was raiding a lot of other alliances or otherwise getting on their bad side, you're not going to be able to drum up enough support for us to do anything about it, even if you get attacked.  We might go "Bad Mensa, stop attacking minors", but I don't think any of us really want to go to war with Mensa either without just cause, cause they are a pretty good group of guys (not that you're alliance isn't either, I'm sure you guys are great too.)

 

Anyway, best of luck to you.

[Fox of BRMC Condemns the attacks by MensaHQ]

I'm not sure this is the right place to ask for this.  I'm all for airing your dirty laundry and all that (since its fun to read), but this is going to make Mensa much less willing to help you.  You may not be attacking them personally, but you are attacking their alliance by this public commendation.  It may not be DoW worthy, but by attacking the character of their alliance or their "honor" or w/e, you portray them in a bad light, which makes them less likely to get close allies, which makes them more likely to get rolled.

 

Go the IRC, or their forums, or send someone a PM, and hash it out there.

[AAR Idea for EU4]

Sounds like a lot of fun

[If you enjoy the fragrance of a rose, you must accept the thorns which it bears.]

 

Haha, in all seriousness o/ KEEGOZ

[A Message from Viridia Regarding Diabolos of The Underlying Lands]

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes to ZI a nation on Orbis. Good luck.

It'll be nearly impossible, buying infra is so damn cheap, and you can't bill lock all that well.

[It has been ages]

Hi, I didn't know you, but welcome back.

[Is citizen income for their profit, or how much the nation is getting every day?]

The income is multiplied by their tax rate, and thats how much your nation makes each day or turn.

[Mess with a Rose, you get the thorns...]

The list for government of the Union consists of 5 members its a pretty small list and one thats hard to mix up. Although mistakes do happen, so maybe the benefit of the doubt is due to be given.

Thank you, the mistake was that this member though we were going to do a general war.  Hes overzealous sometimes, but a good member.  I've instructed him to stop his attacks already.

[Mess with a Rose, you get the thorns...]

Why bother stating you won't attack normal members when you attack them anyway without consequences. 

Also, what makes you say that this was an authorized attack?  If you look at our war screen you'll see that both of these wars declared by same member, who has simply made a mistake.  I've already instructed him to cease his attacks.

[Mess with a Rose, you get the thorns...]

o/ Rose

[Announcement]

o/ UPN and TEE!

 

o/ UPTEEN!