Jump to content

The war so far - v3


Avruch
 Share

Recommended Posts

GOONS 1.0 is going on 10 years ago before Roquentin played.

 

GOONS 2.0 was more often than not an enemy of NPO. And was a long time ally of the alliance Roquentin often led, Umbrella.

 

In any case trying to pin things that GOONS did on Roquentin is pretty silly. Even more so trying to link Roquentin with NPO and NPO with GOONS.

GOONS 1.0 was heavily tied to NPO (and NpO for those counting at home) as well as Genmay (which some might consider a precursor alliance to Umbrella) so linking things that GOONS did back then to NPO is not unfounded. I don't think Roq was around then though so it's probably unfounded to try to tie those things to him.

 

Source: I was in GOONS 1.0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering you were in GOONS, I reckon that makes you more "linked" to the behaviour which went on there than NPO who probably have only a few members at most who were in NPO whilst tied to the original GOONS :P

 

These events are a decade old and they have no relevance here. Leave (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) history and politics where they belong, namely in a crappy game most of us have hopefully quit.

Edited by Nemesis

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chunky is the real monster here.

 

 

Edit: For reals though, this weird fiction that Roq is trying to maintain about not trying to achieve a hegemoney is kinda funny. I think most people can clearly see past that, especially when many people respect Roq as a player because he's the kind of player to methodically work towards that hegemoney goal.

 

He just can't publicly admit it in this case, or else Bezzers will have some choice words. 

Edited by Bollocks

The Coalition Discord: https://discord.gg/WBzNRGK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's partially a reference to that and a reference to Gramsci's conception of cultural hegemoney. What we were trying to before would be a transvaluation of values and trying to overturn the whole "only winning matters. gotta get with the winners. growth is an absolute good." mantra that exists here, not to get too pretentious here. 

 

We can't avoid being pretentious if we're talking about Nietzsche :D

 

So in this case, we take Syndisphere to have created a master-morality arising from their definition of themselves/their actions as good. Evidence for this is found in the 'git gud' and 'winning' phenomena, as well as the warfare/economic guides they are publishing based on what worked for them. They cultivate traits in their alliances that they have seen as crucial to their success, such as game activity and skill in war. They are dismissive of others who cannot develop these same tools.

 

Then, Paracov/Inquisition etc. are battling it with a slave-morality arising from their definition of their opponents as evil, stemming from their ressentiment of Syndisphere's power. Evidence would be found in their characterization of Syndisphere as oppressive to the game state. Valued Syndisphere traits are turned into evil ones: strong allied ties = hegemoney, game activity = no life, strong FA/published guides to economic and military success = OWF circle-jerking. Nietzsche views this as corrupt, as really the slave would prefer to be the master, but because he cannot he is only self-justifying. Nietzsche finds fault in master morality as well (calling it 'unintelligent') and calls for an overall transvaluation of values stemming from an analysis and appreciation of life (the game?) itself (not sure how this transvaluation can come to Orbis).

 

I don't know about much about Gramsci, but from what I gather his theory is interesting but implies an ultimately 'correct' value system (he liked Marxism), which is why I think I prefer Nietzsche who is much more ambivalent about it.

Edited by Beowulf the Second
  • Upvote 1

01:58:39 <BeowulftheSecond> Belisarius of The Byzantine Empire has sent your nation $0.00, 0.00 food, 0.00 coal, 0.00 oil, 0.00 uranium, 0.00 lead, 0.00 iron, 0.00 bauxite, 0.00 gasoline, 0.00 munitions, 1,000.00 steel, and 0.00 aluminum from the alliance bank of Rose.
01:58:46 <BeowulftheSecond> someone please explain 
01:59:12 <%Belisarius> sleep deprivatin is a &#33;@#&#036; @_@
01:59:14 â€” %Belisarius shrugs
01:59:18 <BeowulftheSecond> we're at WAR. WE ARE BURNING EACH OTHER'S PIXELS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOONS 1.0 was heavily tied to NPO (and NpO for those counting at home) as well as Genmay (which some might consider a precursor alliance to Umbrella) so linking things that GOONS did back then to NPO is not unfounded. I don't think Roq was around then though so it's probably unfounded to try to tie those things to him.

 

Source: I was in GOONS 1.0

It's at least two degrees of separation from 10 years ago... I don't think anyone will seriously claim that's important.

 

Chunky is the real monster here.

 

 

Edit: For reals though, this weird fiction that Roq is trying to maintain about not trying to achieve a hegemoney is kinda funny. I think most people can clearly see past that, especially when many people respect Roq as a player because he's the kind of player to methodically work towards that hegemoney goal.

 

He just can't publicly admit it in this case, or else Bezzers will have some choice words. 

There's always going to be some sort of "hegemoney" in these types of worlds in the sense that there almost always going to be one grouping that has more influence and power than any others.  It's all relative, and this world is still much more competitive and divided than other worlds.

 

Most big wars in this game have been relatively statistically even and were mostly won by one side having better tactics and strategy and execution.  As opposed to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), where most big wars are at *least* 2 to 1 and almost none of the wars were decided by one side having better tactics/strategy.

 

Most of the wars we've been in have had some suspense to them and there several that even better tactical skill can't explain, we simply were lucky and/or had better strategy.  It's not like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) where most winning coalitions win because they have a huge statistical advantage.  Hell we didn't start many of the wars.

 

I don't blame NPO for trying to get the edge on us and gain a relative advantage over us.  Nor do I blame BK for trying to shape things up by switching sides.  But they shouldn't play dumb and pretend that upending us wasn't their intent.

  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's at least two degrees of separation from 10 years ago... I don't think anyone will seriously claim that's important.

 

There's always going to be some sort of "hegemoney" in these types of worlds in the sense that there almost always going to be one grouping that has more influence and power than any others.  It's all relative, and this world is still much more competitive and divided than other worlds.

 

Most big wars in this game have been relatively statistically even and were mostly won by one side having better tactics and strategy and execution.  As opposed to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways), where most big wars are at *least* 2 to 1 and almost none of the wars were decided by one side having better tactics/strategy.

 

Most of the wars we've been in have had some suspense to them and there several that even better tactical skill can't explain, we simply were lucky and/or had better strategy.  It's not like (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) where most winning coalitions win because they have a huge statistical advantage.  Hell we didn't start many of the wars.

 

I don't blame NPO for trying to get the edge on us and gain a relative advantage over us.  Nor do I blame BK for trying to shape things up by switching sides.  But they shouldn't play dumb and pretend that upending us wasn't their intent.

The side that wins the war isn't always the hegemoney. Prior to Inquisition and this war, Syndisphere held a clear hegemoney over the game, overwhelming numbers, and every tier advantage. I don't remember a larger perceived control over the game. As you alluded to, most of the wars prior have been statistically very even. 

 

In this case, even with some of the major alliances switching to oppose them the war is very challenging for the attackers.However, just because the launched an attack and played around with treaties, doesn't mean they are out for hegemoney, If Inquisition where to win the war, the way Mensa, tS, TKR and company are tiered, they would still be in pretty good shape to battle it out again if the sides where to remain the same. 

 

If your argument is that they came into this trying to upend you, then that's probably a fair assessment, however that's not the same as striving to achieve hegemoney. 

0Lovl.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why else would you upend one hegemonic power if you didn't intend to become the next one? That's generally how these things operate after all unless you are righteous and despise tyranny or something :P

There are very few people in these sorts of worlds with that level of righteousness, and I suspect that Roq is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for all of this 'underdog' talk for past historical wars like Proxy and Oktoberfest, I think we just need to remind ourselves of the definition of underdog. From Webster:

 

:  a loser or predicted loser in a struggle or contest

 

We can look back and say that the predictions at the time were wrong because one group had better military strategy, political maneuvering, and more organized/responsive players even if statistically the conflicts did not favor them. That is fine and valid. Obviously one side won those conflicts and there are reasons why that was the case. But we can't use retroactive observations as the definition of underdog, or underdogs would never win. As for the opinion at the time of the PnW community as a whole, it was overwhelmingly of the view  that the new 'Syndisphere' would lose these wars. The consensus was that this new tertiary sphere that broke the prior bipolar state (with Paragon being viewed as stronger than the Covenant) was the weakest of the three. The night Proxy broke out VE made their confidence in victory publicly known on the OWF and several key figures in Rose gov made it clear, especially when t$ chose to 1v1, that they were confident they would roll us (I clearly remember seeing public IRC statements on the matter, and also some gov-gov discussions where they were dismissive to us and exuded great confidence in their victory). We ourselves expected to lose, and when making our decisions accepted that we would likely get rolled a few times for it. So per the definition of underdog, we were certainly the underdogs.

 

And in Oktoberfest, we can certainly once again look at it in hindsight, but at the time the atmosphere post-Proxy saw the peak of the Covenant's power. Paragon had been hit hard (though somewhat salvaged by the reset) in Proxy and we were still battered from the war also. Cov had sat it out and they were viewed as the dominant power in the game. UPN and DEIC were viewed as the two most powerful individual alliances in the game, and they pulled off a successful surprise blitz on us. Once again, the dominant expectation was we'd be soundly defeated. 

 

Following both of these victories, the response was surprise. So you can argue many things about why certain sides won and lost, but based on perceptions at the time there is no doubt who was the underdog in those early days.

  • Upvote 3

a.k.a. Chaunce

 

Chaunce - Today at 9:55 PM
with the watermelons there isn't much space left
I still have a lot of room to improve
 
Manthrax Has Venomous Bite! - Today at 9:57 PM
Hee hee. Room indeed.
 
Sabriel - Today at 10:01 PM
I feel like, if the other AAs knew how we act, they'd feel a deep sense of shame in knowing that they consistently get beat by us.
when we talk about how many vegetables we can fit in Chaunce's ass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why else would you upend one hegemonic power if you didn't intend to become the next one? That's generally how these things operate after all unless you are righteous and despise tyranny or something :P

If BK, Zodiac, and CS wanted to be in a hegemoney why would they leave Syndisphere in the first place? I don't want to put words in their mouth, but it seems like they opted for the route of making things more interesting. 

 

If two spheres existed and the fighting parts are equal or close to it, then no hegemoney exists. There doesn't has to be a hegemoney in place at all times. 

  • Upvote 2
0Lovl.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't find the alliance GOONS anywhere here.  Nor do I see any entry for them on the wiki.

^^^ this 

 

to be a person who is playing PnW for only 7 months and have no clue of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) this thread is really becoming irritating :( Like I can understand bringing up PnW history here but bringing up (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) stuff is no good (according to me) 

                                              aA9XUQZ.png                                                              



           

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ this 

 

to be a person who is playing PnW for only 7 months and have no clue of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) this thread is really becoming irritating :( Like I can understand bringing up PnW history here but bringing up (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) stuff is no good (according to me) 

Hey, now you know what we have to face every single day. Seeing how this NPO was never allied to an alliance like GOONS, nor do we have a government similar to Pacifica in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) at that time and yet every time someone wants to debate about us or our goals, they jump onto the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) bandwagon is ridiculous. 

 

I mean the point of the bloc is to create a more multi-polar political system in this game where folks are not tied to a specific set of people and the others wait to get rolled. I doubt BK/Zodiac/CS allied with us, to replace tS and co. I mean they could have stayed where they were and never opened up to us and continued the way Syndisphere could have gone. Instead they literally did what they said they wanted, change it around and make it interesting. There would always be structural imbalances in a side like ours which is made up of different blocs/allies and most of all tiers lel. I mean no one on your side had to get rolled for quite a while and p much was allowed to grow and solidify in specific ranges, while NPO and a lot of us haven't been given that chance. Moreover this war happened quite quickly after the change and that sort of reduces our chances of growing into a new tier quickly. We were built till recently to be rolled by BK every single war and given time, we'll move into other tiers as and when it makes sense lol. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ this 

to be a person who is playing PnW for only 7 months and have no clue of (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) this thread is really becoming irritating :( Like I can understand bringing up PnW history here but bringing up (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) stuff is no good (according to me)

 

Frankly, I don't give a damn about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways). I only care about what happens in P&W. Leave that ancient history from a poor excuse of a game and that nostalgia outta here.

  • Upvote 1

Z98SzIG.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If BK, Zodiac, and CS wanted to be in a hegemoney why would they leave Syndisphere in the first place? I don't want to put words in their mouth, but it seems like they opted for the route of making things more interesting. 

 

If two spheres existed and the fighting parts are equal or close to it, then no hegemoney exists. There doesn't has to be a hegemoney in place at all times. 

 

You would have a point...but I believe it is rather telling that they only left Syndisphere after BK had already requested for a supremacy clause from TKR. That points to a whole other motive entirely.

 

Also, if there are two equal parts then obviously there can be no hegemoney but that does not mean that neither party is not attempting to achieve dominance over the other. To put it simply one is either the hegemon or attempting to become the hegemon and failing to do either is simply allowing yourself to be viewed as a punching bag (lolneutrals).

 

Or to put it even more simply â€œWhen you play the game of thrones you win or you die. There is no middle ground.â€

Edited by Nemesis
  • Upvote 2

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going with pre-war stats for Paragon side vs tS stats 

 

Have ~278k  for Paragon(VE/Rose/CS/NAC/Vanguard) vs ~250k for Syndicate (tS/Guardian/TEst/BK/TKR/tC) from just eyeballing it. I could have messed it up but that's not a huge statistical advantage with Vanguard being beaten on day one and no counters for two days.

 

 

Conventional treaty chain traps being needed was a result of the coalition not being unified vs Syndisphere giving it a unique advantage in practicing colaition warfare, which is my point. The numbers looked favorable for Paracov, but the people within it knew they could not be leveraged in the same way the other side could leverage them ie. people not wanting to enter on oA initially.

 

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.

  • Upvote 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or to put it even more simply â€œWhen you play the game of thrones you win or you die. There is no middle ground.â€[/size]

Absolutely.

 

Say we were in the darkest timeline and IQ decisively won this war, does anyone honestly believe Roq woulda sent everyone from the coalition home saying "nah we don't want to be a hegemoney" and not conslidate his position? Does any other major mover in IQ not do so either?

 

It's patently absurd.

 

Roq/Umbrella racked up many Dubs throughout (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn&#39;t be bringing it up anyways) over some major tectonic shifts in the political landscape-- somehow always back in the hegemoney. It's funny to pretend otherwise.

  • Upvote 2

The Coalition Discord: https://discord.gg/WBzNRGK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII

You would have a point...but I believe it is rather telling that they only left Syndisphere after BK had already requested for a supremacy clause from TKR. That points to a whole other motive entirely.

 

Also, if there are two equal parts then obviously there can be no hegemoney but that does not mean that neither party is not attempting to achieve dominance over the other. To put it simply one is either the hegemon or attempting to become the hegemon and failing to do either is simply allowing yourself to be viewed as a punching bag (lolneutrals).

 

Or to put it even more simply â€œWhen you play the game of thrones you win or you die. There is no middle ground.â€

You guys can misrepresent the reasons for BK leaving Syndisphere on the OWF however you want, but all the shit you guys talk about BK now shows how you guys truly are lol

Wouldn`t suprise me if the whole bloc splitting up and war now was arranged by TKR to get rid of one of their top competitors(BK).

If I were pantheon i would be carefull about my "precious" ally lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn`t suprise me if the whole bloc splitting up and war now was arranged by TKR to get rid of one of their top competitors(BK).

If TKR wanted to get rid of their top competitors they would've done something drastically different, like... idk... defacto leaving one of the most successful political blocs in this game by signing a new bloc into existence with a supremacy clause and then organizing a coalition against OOsphere. :rolleyes:

  • Upvote 2

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If TKR wanted to get rid of their top competitors they would've done something drastically different, like... idk... defacto leaving one of the most successful political blocs in this game by signing a new bloc into existence with a supremacy clause and then organizing a coalition against OOsphere. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

1nzt5n.jpg

Edited by 8mrgrim8
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.