War Ending

[Guest Rin]

I don't get how this makes sense from a historical perspective as the smaller individual spheres usually got beaten separately and it really didn't produce different results since the issue of a unified sphere being able to coordinate a response was the major determinant in successes for the tS side in each instance and that wouldn't change. That is, unless you're posing the scenario that the tS sphere would have broken up in a major fashion if there were other smaller individual sides, which has always been pretty unlikely. The issue in the end is the charges of worrying "consolidation" were really oversold as there was never an attempt to form a configuration like the tS + allies configuration. Instead it was a patchwork quilt of treaties that didn't really make it into a political bloc.

 

The more score you pile on one side, the more score people will put on the opposite side.

 

Let's say hypothetically that NPO had only one ally, TKR. And both tS and BK decided to hit NPO.

 

Such an unfair curbstomp could have swung TKR and allies to defend NPO against its long time friends.

 

But instead you had a huge coalition consisting of giants like UPN/VE/Rose/Sparta. That's an unfair fight. A lot of alliances are just going to join tS. This includes the paperless ones.

 

It sounds funny, but most of us want a fair fight. Wars are no longer about manipulating treaty chains to achieve hegemoney.

 

Welcome to Orbis.

[Beowulf the Second]

or keep trying to mass more alliances against t$, like you've been doing. Phiney's not 100% right, you can still consolidate GPA against us

 

SPOILER ALERT: Steve's War 4 involves Steve rallying all the micro-alliances against us

 

also, as an Executive VP myself can confirm that we are shadow gov and have deposed partisan

[Roy Mustang]

There is nothing about it in the charter that specifically clarifies what an Executive VP is, but thanks for stating it to clear it up. One Executive VP is covered by the Advisor section, but nothing about the rest.

 

I'll clarify, for the record - "Executive VP" is a theme-appropriate name we've selected to name our in-game "Officer" slot. That slot is given to people who need in-game powers for various reasons (Milcom staff for bank access, IA staff for admissions powers, etc). It is not a government position, merely a workaround to accommodate the OOC restrictions of the game engine.

 

 

I don't get how this makes sense from a historical perspective as the smaller individual spheres usually got beaten separately and it really didn't produce different results since the issue of a unified sphere being able to coordinate a response was the major determinant in successes for the tS side in each instance and that wouldn't change. That is, unless you're posing the scenario that the tS sphere would have broken up in a major fashion if there were other smaller individual sides, which has always been pretty unlikely. The issue in the end is the charges of  worrying "consolidation" were really oversold as there was never an attempt to form a configuration like the tS + allies configuration. Instead it was a patchwork quilt of treaties that didn't really make it into a political bloc. 

 

Jaguar's assessment has a lot of merit.

 

Jaguar's assessment is entirely correct, and I genuinely don't understand how more people haven't reached that conclusion. That being said, the smaller spheres have had the opportunity to win before, but definitely have flubbed things in the past. Oktoberfest is an excellent example. UPN's actions (read: failure to be forthcoming even remotely) alienated two of their allies (BK and Mensa) and directly led to their entry in defense of tS (when they could have easily opted for neutrality, as others have done in the wars which followed). Without Mensa and BK, I'm quite comfortable in stating that I believe tS, SK and TEst would not have won that war outright (stalemate possibly, depending on tactics). 

 

If you actually look at the tS + allies configuration, aside from the TKR-Guardian treaty, tS is really the big pivot point between OO and the rest of tS's allies. While that does make it very hard to hit tS directly, it does theoretically allow for more isolated hits against other parties if you can hack it diplomatically. Our unified response as you see it isn't because we're all treatied and singing kumbaya around a campfire, it's because we work our asses off to coordinate. In theory, there's zero reason ParaCov (or even simply a smaller sphere) couldn't do the same thing.

[Prefontaine]

Now respect my authority and bring me to the orbis throne room.

I guess I can welcome you into my court. You'll have to 1v1 me for the throne though. TEst protectorates all grown up now.

[Sisyphus]

There is nothing about it in the charter that specifically clarifies what an Executive VP is, but thanks for stating it to clear it up. Two Executive VPs are covered by the Advisor section(edit: it was two: Zed and Manthrax), but nothing about the rest.

I don't get how this makes sense from a historical perspective as the smaller individual spheres usually got beaten separately and it really didn't produce different results since the issue of a unified sphere being able to coordinate a response was the major determinant in successes for the tS side in each instance and that wouldn't change. That is, unless you're posing the scenario that the tS sphere would have broken up in a major fashion if there were other smaller individual sides, which has always been pretty unlikely. The issue in the end is the charges of worrying "consolidation" were really oversold as there was never an attempt to form a configuration like the tS + allies configuration. Instead it was a patchwork quilt of treaties that didn't really make it into a political bloc.

 

Jaguar's assessment has a lot of merit.

I mean, it's great to try and charactize us as a large hegemonic force that has been rolling all of its opposition but you're forgetting one very important fact:

 

The Syndicate and our allies, for the last year and up until very recently, have always been aggressively attacked by coalitions significantly larger than us and still managed to win against what should've been impossible odds.

 

Don't run around acting like we systematically destroyed Paragon, the Covenant, ParaCov, and whatever your amorphous blob is called nowadays.

 

There's a whole history of blocs biting off more than they can chew with us. Let's not try to sweep it under the rug out of political convenience now.

 

Go ahead and call us the HegemOOny all you want, the entire rest of the world forged us into what we are today. So thank you all for the keys to the kingdom.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Wilhelm the Demented

[Filthy Fifths]

thank you for this wonderful kingdom. 

 

 

 

also having a warchest might help you lads out in future wars.

[Beowulf the Second]

yep, the Alpha tS spat was the first aggressive blitz we've done (though clearly foreshadowed), and this war the second. if we're counting aggressive blitzes as the antagonizing bit here, 'amorphous blob' coalition owes us like 3 more

[Buorhann]

also having a warchest might help you lads out in future wars.

 

 

They do have 3 months to build a proper warchest now.

[Memph]

thank you for this wonderful kingdom. 

 

 

 

also having a warchest might help you lads out in future wars.

Or us when we steal it again.

[Roquentin]

 

I'll clarify, for the record - "Executive VP" is a theme-appropriate name we've selected to name our in-game "Officer" slot. That slot is given to people who need in-game powers for various reasons (Milcom staff for bank access, IA staff for admissions powers, etc). It is not a government position, merely a workaround to accommodate the OOC restrictions of the game engine.

 

 

 

Jaguar's assessment is entirely correct, and I genuinely don't understand how more people haven't reached that conclusion. That being said, the smaller spheres have had the opportunity to win before, but definitely have flubbed things in the past. Oktoberfest is an excellent example. UPN's actions (read: failure to be forthcoming even remotely) alienated two of their allies (BK and Mensa) and directly led to their entry in defense of tS (when they could have easily opted for neutrality, as others have done in the wars which followed). Without Mensa and BK, I'm quite comfortable in stating that I believe tS, SK and TEst would not have won that war outright (stalemate possibly, depending on tactics). 

 

If you actually look at the tS + allies configuration, aside from the TKR-Guardian treaty, tS is really the big pivot point between OO and the rest of tS's allies. While that does make it very hard to hit tS directly, it does theoretically allow for more isolated hits against other parties if you can hack it diplomatically. Our unified response as you see it isn't because we're all treatied and singing kumbaya around a campfire, it's because we work our asses off to coordinate. In theory, there's zero reason ParaCov (or even simply a smaller sphere) couldn't do the same thing.

Thanks.

 

iirc They've said their issues weren't with UPN being forthcoming but rather the act in itself, so not sure how it would have helped. I will admit I'm not familiar with the backroom dynamics behind Oktoberfest, however.

 

The difference here is when there's a centralized hub and ties that are long-standing and more or less unshakable, people are more willing to agree to responses that go beyond their obligations.  For instance, when Rose hit Mensa in response to the Vanguard-Mensa mass raid situation,  alliances not alled to Mensa oAed against Rose. This dynamic of willingness to go beyond treaties limits utility for "isolated hits" as you put them.

I mean, it's great to try and charactize us as a large hegemonic force that has been rolling all of its opposition but you're forgetting one very important fact:

 

The Syndicate and our allies, for the last year and up until very recently, have always been aggressively attacked by coalitions significantly larger than us and still managed to win against what should've been impossible odds.

 

Don't run around acting like we systematically destroyed Paragon, the Covenant, ParaCov, and whatever your amorphous blob is called nowadays.

 

There's a whole history of blocs biting off more than they can chew with us. Let's not try to sweep it under the rug out of political convenience now.

 

Go ahead and call us the HegemOOny all you want, the entire rest of the world forged us into what we are today. So thank you all for the keys to the kingdom.

I know you guys have this idea, but the first time the majority of your coalition rolled out was when Mensa hit Vanguard in response to something a person in Rose had done because there was the desire to avoid Rose's temporary DEIC treaty that was carried over from Uranicus Socialitas and wanted to lure Rose into tapping Mensa's UPN treaty instead.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain this action had the support of the Syndicate and it was an aggressive action. That war was fairly even and when perceived swing alliances showed they leaned towards tS/Mensa or wanted to stay out, it became a clear loss. 

Edited June 29, 2016 by Roquentin

[Zoot]

Actually all they have to do to ensure winning is to counter as soon as their ally gets attacked. Do that and BK sphere(is that right??) is in a problem since obviously Rose/VE/UPN one has better numbers. It has proven to be major(if not the biggest) reason why BK sphere is winning all the time.

 

Or this all could be hopefully changed with new war mechanics cause everyone declaring on everyone in one night would be pretty boring.

I'm gonna have to disagree. It isn't that they all need to declare on the same night, it's that they need to learn to coordinate and be active enough to pull off a blitz that doesn't completely fail.

 

Their problem is that even when they're blitzing, our side has consistently been better prepared for their blitz than they have themselves. When they run a blitz with 10 people and we have 50 sitting and waiting for them then it should come as no surprise that their blitz fails.

 

I think it might be a matter of mindset. If you expect 3/4 of your alliance to not be there then they won't, but if you expect everyone to be there, then you might get disappointed, but you'll still have a better turnout...

[James II]

or keep trying to mass more alliances against t$, like you've been doing. Phiney's not 100% right, you can still consolidate GPA against us

 

SPOILER ALERT: Steve's War 4 involves Steve rallying all the micro-alliances against us

 

also, as an Executive VP myself can confirm that we are shadow gov and have deposed partisan

Because not treatying into a bloc worked out so well for vanguard.

[Roy Mustang]

Because not treatying into a bloc worked out so well for vanguard.

 

Worked out fine for them until they decided to suicide into Mensa over raids that had been concluded for several days when they decided to counter-attack. No one jumped in to counter Vanguard

 

I understand, however, that you have a different perspective on what occurred from my own (you believe it was malicious, I think Mensa and Vanguard just failed epically to communicate), so having this particular argument is unlikely to be productive.

[Beowulf the Second]

i swear that one was the one where mensa members raided vanguard and vanguard responded in full force, and while tS scrambled to diplo both sides to peacefully resolve (someone prob has logs somewhere) and mensa was willing to pay reps (i remember a mensa member balking as theyd never offered that before), rose used it as a CB, and has admitted that war was aggressive.

 

or maybe not

[Buorhann]

Mensa and Vanguard failed to communicate poorly, that's what it was.  MrHat, Pfeiffer, TUGT, and whoever the hell else all had separate channels and just failed to relay information to one another.  Which resulted in Vanguard suiciding into Mensa.

 

Pfeiffer gave the order to Mensa to stop their raids, Mensa did.  Then in less than a week, Vanguard struck back.  Vanguard never knew, at the time, that Pfeiffer ordered the stop and thought Mensa had foolishly let them build back up.  Mensa offered to pay reps and let bygones be bygones, but then Vanguard either stalled out the talks or Rose told them to hold off on accepting it, then it resulted in a war~

 

Which was fine for Mensa, because, that's what keeps their community active here - war.

[Roquentin]

Worked out fine for them until they decided to suicide into Mensa over raids that had been concluded for several days when they decided to counter-attack. No one jumped in to counter Vanguard

 

I understand, however, that you have a different perspective on what occurred from my own (you believe it was malicious, I think Mensa and Vanguard just failed epically to communicate), so having this particular argument is unlikely to be productive.

 

Action was demanded by the membership as recurring raids by Mensa had been an issue for the month preceding that and most people were beiged so there was no way to tell if the raids were going to start again once people came off beige. The last discussion between Mensa and Vanguard ended at an impasse. Even a unilateral statement of "we're not going to raid you anymore" would have made it different, but it was a unilateral internal decision that was never relayed. 

 

 

 

i swear that one was the one where mensa members raided vanguard and vanguard responded in full force, and while tS scrambled to diplo both sides to peacefully resolve (someone prob has logs somewhere) and mensa was willing to pay reps (i remember a mensa member balking as theyd never offered that before), rose used it as a CB, and has admitted that war was aggressive.

 

or maybe not

 

There were no attempts at diplomatic intervention until it was clear Rose would get involved. The Vanguard response had been ongoing for a while. I do not recall reparations being offered. The only resolution that appeared to be on the table was a 1 v 1 between Rose and Mensa with Vanguard peacing out(with no reparations offer) as it was too uneven for tS's liking otherwise. Willing to be corrected on this, however.

[Beowulf the Second]

soooo... clearly not mensa trying to trigger treaty stuff? i wasnt directly involved in negotiations, and i'm not as well-versed in FA (and congrats on learning so much, you're very dedicated), but i do clearly remember mensa offering reps in order to deescalate and stop that war in its tracks. might have been before rose said they would come in though (warboner for them heh), but regardless would not be treaty manip

[Roquentin]

soooo... clearly not mensa trying to trigger treaty stuff? i wasnt directly involved in negotiations, and i'm not as well-versed in FA (and congrats on learning so much, you're very dedicated), but i do clearly remember mensa offering reps in order to deescalate and stop that war in its tracks. might have been before rose said they would come in though (warboner for them heh), but regardless would not be treaty manip

 

We're talking two different wars if you're referring to my comment about the attack on Vanguard for treaty manipulation purposes. That was last summer. The other Vanguard-Mensa war happened earlier this year and is the one Carmen and James were talking about.

[Boony]

Action was demanded by the membership as recurring raids by Mensa had been an issue for the month preceding that and most people were beiged so there was no way to tell if the raids were going to start again once people came off beige. The last discussion between Mensa and Vanguard ended at an impasse. Even a unilateral statement of "we're not going to raid you anymore" would have made it different, but it was a unilateral internal decision that was never relayed.

 

 

 

 

There were no attempts at diplomatic intervention until it was clear Rose would get involved. The Vanguard response had been ongoing for a while. I do not recall reparations being offered. The only resolution that appeared to be on the table was a 1 v 1 between Rose and Mensa with Vanguard peacing out(with no reparations offer) as it was too uneven for tS's liking otherwise. Willing to be corrected on this, however.

I think Arghh was also engaged with Mensa at this point (though I forget).

[Beowulf the Second]

ill just go ahead and assume that you're right and im talking about the wrong war and ill go crawl back into my shtpost hole and let the big bois discuss

[Roy Mustang]

Action was demanded by the membership as recurring raids by Mensa had been an issue for the month preceding that and most people were beiged so there was no way to tell if the raids were going to start again once people came off beige. The last discussion between Mensa and Vanguard ended at an impasse. Even a unilateral statement of "we're not going to raid you anymore" would have made it different, but it was a unilateral internal decision that was never relayed. 

 

I fail to see how this contradicts my statement of "Mensa and Vanguard epically failed to communicate". While Mensa could have, and probably should have, communicated that an end to the raids had been ordered, Vanguard also very simply could have asked "Hey did you call off the dogs or are you still in idgaf mode?".

 

It would have been trivial for either side to clarify, and neither did. At least, from my vantage point looking in.

[Roquentin]

I think Arghh was also engaged with Mensa at this point (though I forget).

 

Yes, tS had wanted both Arrgh and Vanguard to peace mensa for the Rose v Mensa 1 v 1 they offered to set up.

 

 

I fail to see how this contradicts my statement of "Mensa and Vanguard epically failed to communicate". While Mensa could have, and probably should have, communicated that an end to the raids had been ordered, Vanguard also very simply could have asked "Hey did you call off the dogs or are you still in idgaf mode?".

 

It would have been trivial for either side to clarify, and neither did. At least, from my vantage point looking in.

 

I don't mean to be overly combative here, but the discussion ended at the impasse of "I have no reason to tell my members to stop raiding you", more or less so it was a valid assumption to believe the raids would resume.

 

I'm not particularly upset over it at this point but trying to correct what I perceive to be historical inaccuracies.

[Roy Mustang]

Yes, tS had wanted both Arrgh and Vanguard to peace mensa for the Rose v Mensa 1 v 1 they offered to set up.

 

Now it's my turn to correct you

The concern was specifically with Vanguard peacing out, as we did not have any wild notion that either Vanguard or Rose had any influence over Arrgh (pirates gonna pirate, after all). We were told that Vanguard declined to peace out, so whether or not Arrgh peaced out would have been a moot point either way.

 

 

I don't mean to be overly combative here, but the discussion ended at the impasse of "I have no reason to tell my members to stop raiding you", more or less so it was a valid assumption to believe the raids would resume.

 

I'm not particularly upset over it at this point but trying to correct what I perceive to be historical inaccuracies.

 

I don't even think it's a historical inaccuracy so much as there were too many people involved, and no one was in the same room at the same time. You, MrHat, TUGT, and Pfeiffer were all talking in some combination, and somewhere in there Tim Armstrong (at that time of tS) and Abbas (at that time still active in Rose) managed to get involved too, and it all became a big shitpile pretty quickly. It's my understanding that Abbas had asked Tim to ask Mensa to cease the raids by a certain date, the same date by which the raids ended up actually ending, but it sounds like maybe Abbas didn't tell Vanguard he was doing that (or perhaps just didn't tell you, specifically? idk)

 

Meanwhile there was an alleged ceasefire that was violated by spying on both sides, and it's contested who actually spied first, and that was the logic I was given for Vanguard retaliating. All of these could be true, maybe none of them are, but I would hope you might see why I'm quite happy to peg this as a failure to communicate more than anything else.

Edited June 29, 2016 by Carmen Sandiego

[Cromstar]

All for you, Partisan:

 

[Foltest]

I think our sphere should be referred to as either the hAyygemony or the hegemoney.