Jump to content

War. War Never Changes.


Lordship
 Share

Recommended Posts

Right, but the point is a bunch of guys on the left side of the war dragged over a petty rivalry after being usurped as the status quo powers that be over there.

 

Syndisphere's motive since then has been, "Well if you're going to be petty, then we'll show you what it's like when we're on top and you have to usurp us."

 

Uhhhm.

 

So if you read that, it says the only thing that actually exists from the "left side" is a comment from a non-gov member of t$. And I don't think much has come out since then, since it didn't exist. NPO was pretty unapologetic about basing their decisions on things from [that game], but even they've mostly chilled out with that crap since.

 

If you're only sticking to what you read, you made a hell of a jump from there to the entire sphere's motive, and are obviously bringing in other opinions from somewhere.

 

Syndisphere does not need anything more than what's happened in this game to consider certain parties their rivals.

  • Upvote 1

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're almost at 20 pages of beating a dead horse.

 

Every war I've seen in Orbis has started the same way. Someone tries to start shit with Syndisphere thinking they have the advantage. They get a half-decent first strike in. Some combination of Mensa/TKR/Syndicate/BK (RIP) get ignored in favor of overtly engaging one of others. The ignored alliance builds up and slowly begins relieving pressure on one other. Then those two relieve pressure on the other two. Then the war turns into a loss for the opposition and the only defense people can come up with is either cheesy - nukes when they weren't good, or "winning" in the lower tiers - or total chaos ie paracov.

 

This screams disorganization, but it also screams a lack of morale / effort being put forth. This is a competitive setting where you have to try if you want to win and the people coming on the public forums trying to argue that things are unwinnable when half of syndicate split off to make a micro AND you turned BK to your side.

 

A lack of morale and organization usually turns into a dissatisfaction with leadership and yet Roquentin is still Emperor. Curufinwe is still Emperor. Pangui or Hansarius / insert-rotational old-guard figure here are still running UPN. Either fire your leaders and exit the greater political game if you're inactive and disinterested, or fire your leaders and step up to do what needs to be done.

 

Then you missed several wars like Milton said and this is a huge distortion of history since the wars have been pretty different and you even account for it in your first sentence. 

 

You conflate disorganization with lack of available active capacity, another distortion.Even Syndisphere hasn't been able to cover every major target on the first roll out. The difference is they usually have enough active capacity to demolish some alliances early on and then move to the other fronts. They've picked and chosen fronts like avoiding TEst and countering Alpha/Fark and they've mass blitzed individual alliances like Rose and UPN in the past. I don't think I've denied that there's been a historical activity deficit between Syndisphere and its opponents.

 

The fact that you can blatantly say this shows you lack the ability to make objective assessments. The people who are Syndisphere who are capable of objective analysis can figure out why neither of us have been pushed to resign and it's absolutely moronic to say that about the two best performing alliances. It's also a stupid argument in general that a war's outcome is inherently a referendum on the leadership and most alliances would go defunct over time if they deposed their leaders every time they lost.

 

 

Definitely going to disagree here. Without Paracov/IQ consistently attacking Syndisphere, it would have already fallen apart. I know because I'd have done it myself, over a year ago.  :P

 
 
The issue, Manthrax is you always say this, but there was nothing indicating that in terms of *actions*. The lead-up to Silent was more intra-Syndisphere treaties that didn't go along any sort of divide and open antagonization of would-be roll targets. The web on Syndisphere side becoming more of a tangle isn't a precursor to dynamic change. So when you attack people for trying to consolidate to bolster their own position, and then you consolidate after beating them, there isn't really room to blame it on the other side for trying to preempt another war.  I think it's also not appropriate to equate Paracov with IQ as most of the Paracov alliances were effectively diminished and one was even on your side.  
 
 
 
 
 

Having been at the crib of the majority of rivalries that have shaped the current political atmosphere, i'd kindly point out that no, (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) had jackshit to do with those.

 

I am perfectly capable of generating unrelated IC drama without needing to use the prehistoric relations from another game a my framework, thank you very much.

 
Some may be capable, but others certainly aren't and it's been pretty public and those perceptions have definitely played their role.
Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Uhhhm.

 

So if you read that, it says the only thing that actually exists from the "left side" is a comment from a non-gov member of t$. And I don't think much has come out since then, since it didn't exist. NPO was pretty unapologetic about basing their decisions on things from [that game], but even they've mostly chilled out with that crap since.

 

If you're only sticking to what you read, you made a hell of a jump from there to the entire sphere's motive, and are obviously bringing in other opinions from somewhere.

 

Syndisphere does not need anything more than what's happened in this game to consider certain parties their rivals.

 

Like I said before, there seems to be a split motive going on where the drama within this gameworld has created genuine appeals to tradition instead of giving the left side* of the war a dose of its own medicine.  The others are still waiting for NPO to get over itself and have congratulated UPN for finally splitting from NPO.

 

For example, I'd probably say Syndicate, Mensa, and half of TKR are into this to give NPO a dose of its own medicine.  The other half of TKR, Pantheon, and Rose are into this for a genuine appeal to tradition.  This also explains the selective paper signed by Zodiac and BK.

 

*I'm calling it that because on the Easter Weekend Massacre wiki page, they're listed in the left column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue, Manthrax is you always say this, but there was nothing indicating that in terms of *actions*. The lead-up to Silent was more intra-Syndisphere treaties that didn't go along any sort of divide and open antagonization of would-be roll targets. The web on Syndisphere side becoming more of a tangle isn't a precursor to dynamic change. So when you attack people for trying to consolidate to bolster their own position, and then you consolidate after beating them, there isn't really room to blame it on the other side for trying to preempt another war.  I think it's also not appropriate to equate Paracov with IQ as most of the Paracov alliances were effectively diminished and one was even on your side. 

 

 

This is a fair criticism in the sense that I can't prove it (I suppose there are things I might share that would make it more clear, but it's not worth making them public). If you think I'm a liar, that's that.

 

Note though: none of those inter-sphere treaties actually added to the Syndi side, and the only treaty I put my name to was an upgrade of an alliance that had put in the work to deserve it (Hi Chola people!). Rose, SK, and NPO were all maneuvering to breathe down my neck at the time. I kept what treaties I needed to mitigate that risk, and wait on one (or all) of you signalling some willingness to actually get out of the way, or all of you jumping. You know which came next: you were there. :P If my only concern was UNMITIGATED SYNDISPHERE DOMINANCE FOR ALL TIME, what would I have been waiting for? I'd have signed more treaties and brought a boring, lopsided war right to you guys.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then you missed several wars like Milton said and this is a huge distortion of history since the wars have been pretty different and you even account for it in your first sentence. 

 

You conflate disorganization with lack of available active capacity, another distortion.Even Syndisphere hasn't been able to cover every major target on the first roll out. The difference is they usually have enough active capacity to demolish some alliances early on and then move to the other fronts. They've picked and chosen fronts like avoiding TEst and countering Alpha/Fark and they've mass blitzed individual alliances like Rose and UPN in the past. I don't think I've denied that there's been a historical activity deficit between Syndisphere and its opponents.

 

The fact that you can blatantly say this shows you lack the ability to make objective assessments. The people who are Syndisphere who are capable of objective analysis can figure out why neither of us have been pushed to resign and it's absolutely moronic to say that about the two best performing alliances. It's also a stupid argument in general that a war's outcome is inherently a referendum on the leadership and most alliances would go defunct over time if they deposed their leaders every time they lost.

 

 

 
 
The issue, Manthrax is you always say this, but there was nothing indicating that in terms of *actions*. The lead-up to Silent was more intra-Syndisphere treaties that didn't go along any sort of divide and open antagonization of would-be roll targets. The web on Syndisphere side becoming more of a tangle isn't a precursor to dynamic change. So when you attack people for trying to consolidate to bolster their own position, and then you consolidate after beating them, there isn't really room to blame it on the other side for trying to preempt another war.  I think it's also not appropriate to equate Paracov with IQ as most of the Paracov alliances were effectively diminished and one was even on your side.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Some may be capable, but others certainly aren't and it's been pretty public and those perceptions have definitely played their role.

 

 

Yeah maybe my example of the only two active leaders was a bad one, but I wanted to use recognizable names. To be entirely fair to me, I just wanted to re-ignite conversation because I missed the first 15 pages of this thread ha.

 

I just get tired of seeing Pacifica, or Pacifican sympathizers, play the victim card like NPO has been so oppressed because you've been met with some pushback in your FA.

Superbia


vuSNqof.jpg


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a fair criticism in the sense that I can't prove it (I suppose there are things I might share that would make it more clear, but it's not worth making them public). If you think I'm a liar, that's that.

 

Note though: none of those inter-sphere treaties actually added to the Syndi side, and the only treaty I put my name to was an upgrade of an alliance that had put in the work to deserve it (Hi Chola people!). Rose, SK, and NPO were all maneuvering to breathe down my neck at the time. I kept what treaties I needed to mitigate that risk, and wait on one of you either signalling some willingness to actually get out of the way, or all of you jumping. You know which came next: you were there. :P If my only concern was UNMITIGATED SYNDISPHERE DOMINANCE FOR ALL TIME, what would I have been waiting for? I'd have signed more treaties and brought a boring, lopsided war right to you guys.

 

I'm not calling you a liar, but there was nothing that would have indicated to us that there was a split planned.

 

The treaties essentially cut off potential splits: no one would expect an OO-Syndi split when you upgraded Chola coupled with Chola signing CS/BoC, and Mensa signed BK. With TKR-Pantheon which was the one that effectively established Syndisphere as the hegemoney it was combined with an attempted downgrade of VE,  They were then tied to tS AND TKR. The Paragon split was intended to get out of the way, but when they incorporated SK, and it got blowback, they became a lot more willing and no one in Paragon thought a Syndisphere split would happen. The issue in my estimation is even if you had wanted a split, there would have been enough push back both within the Syndicate and your allybase that would have prevented it as many in that sphere don't see any reason to split up.

 

 

 

Yeah maybe my example of the only two active leaders was a bad one, but I wanted to use recognizable names. To be entirely fair to me, I just wanted to re-ignite conversation because I missed the first 15 pages of this thread ha.

 

I just get tired of seeing Pacifica, or Pacifican sympathizers, play the victim card like NPO has been so oppressed because you've been met with some pushback in your FA.

 

Fair enough.

 

I mean it's less pushback and more like that it's basically things are effectively closed off with anyone who happens to still have some sort of stake in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) past issues or is aligned with those that do and influenced by them(ie. seeing several references made to it("oh I've been told you're x). That is  a huge difference between the other IQ alliances and many of those in Syndisphere currently. For instance, there are two alliances that openly identify as crossover alliances that come from a similar background and historically fought NPO and allies; the one where they don't care about (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) is the one aligned with us, the one where they do is the one that dropped them with much of it being related to being allied to us. The fact that people seem to think if we're involved in something that we puppetmastered it and used everyone is another one that seems like it's imbued with those overtones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not calling you a liar, but there was nothing that would have indicated to us that there was a split planned.

 

Well thank you for that RE: lying.

 

And you're right! I did not go out of my way to indicate it (although I do think what I detailed above were at least hints, and there would have been better ways for me to crush SK/Rose and the Paracov remnants if I had a mind to). It was not impossible, though. There was weariness even then of the existing dynamic within t$, it's ally base, and in its existing rivals. Shifting that up would have been challenging, but not impossible.

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only stubborn people can change their own minds.

Isn't that pretty much the exact opposite of what stubborn people do?

 

I mean, I guess you could argue that stubborn people are more prone to cognitive dissonance.

 

Strictly speaking though, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what stubborn people are expected to do.

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that pretty much the exact opposite of what stubborn people do?

 

I mean, I guess you could argue that stubborn people are more prone to cognitive dissonance.

 

Strictly speaking though, that's pretty much the exact opposite of what stubborn people are expected to do.

 

I'm saying when someone's stubborn, only someone can change one's own mind.

 

Stubborn people don't listen to be persuaded by others.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate:

On 8 June, the New Pacific Order, a strong alliance that had come to P&W from Cybernations some months before but had not yet fought in any P&W alliance war, signed a treaty with UPN. Taken together with their treaties to VE and others this put them firmly on Paracovenant's side.

On 9 June, Partisan (the head of t$) publicly called out NPO, posting a leaked thread from their forums in the game Cybernations. This thread called for Cybernations players to join the Politics and War version of NPO in order to help in an upcoming war, which would supposedly be an attack on the P&W version of NPO due to their success in Cybernations. This was supported by a chatlog from a non-government t$ member who declined an offer to join NPO, saying "Eh. You'll get killed off in the next war...nobody in this game wants you here." Partisan accused NPO of taking the remark out of context and trying to frame t$ as a threat to rally support for a war against t$, and of crossing (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) politics into P&W.

http://politicsandwar.wikia.com/wiki/NPO%27s_First_Time_%E2%99%A5

 

What are you talking about?

Correct. I did call out crossover for being crossover.

 

Our cb for fighting npo however (thus kockstarting that set of wars) is well documented as being the apparent consolidation among paragon, covenant and alpha/pacifica.

 

See it as making an assessment of motives and intended actions based on historical patterns (among paragon/cov) and treaty movements, and preempting such threats before they can materialize.

 

Seems pretty ic to me. (And yes, i have at the time gone on record with exactly that rationale for war).

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then you missed several wars like Milton said and this is a huge distortion of history since the wars have been pretty different and you even account for it in your first sentence.

 

You conflate disorganization with lack of available active capacity, another distortion.Even Syndisphere hasn't been able to cover every major target on the first roll out. The difference is they usually have enough active capacity to demolish some alliances early on and then move to the other fronts. They've picked and chosen fronts like avoiding TEst and countering Alpha/Fark and they've mass blitzed individual alliances like Rose and UPN in the past. I don't think I've denied that there's been a historical activity deficit between Syndisphere and its opponents.

 

The fact that you can blatantly say this shows you lack the ability to make objective assessments. The people who are Syndisphere who are capable of objective analysis can figure out why neither of us have been pushed to resign and it's absolutely moronic to say that about the two best performing alliances. It's also a stupid argument in general that a war's outcome is inherently a referendum on the leadership and most alliances would go defunct over time if they deposed their leaders every time they lost.

 

 

 

 

The issue, Manthrax is you always say this, but there was nothing indicating that in terms of *actions*. The lead-up to Silent was more intra-Syndisphere treaties that didn't go along any sort of divide and open antagonization of would-be roll targets. The web on Syndisphere side becoming more of a tangle isn't a precursor to dynamic change. So when you attack people for trying to consolidate to bolster their own position, and then you consolidate after beating them, there isn't really room to blame it on the other side for trying to preempt another war. I think it's also not appropriate to equate Paracov with IQ as most of the Paracov alliances were effectively diminished and one was even on your side.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some may be capable, but others certainly aren't and it's been pretty public and those perceptions have definitely played their role.

Double edged seord from what i can see. select Individuals on both sides seem to lack this capacity.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: the thrax vs roq convo:

 

I don't think you're giving Thrax enough credit, Roq. He went out of his way to indicate his willingness to move on by *not* slapping half of your allies-to-be to shit despite the various occasions at which they gave him cause to.

 

The SK situation is the first to come to mind for me- Thrax handled that extremely graciously, considering the manner in which SK went about the split. Even retired, I was woken up by the autistic screeching ("OMG WE ARE GONNA MAKE A SPHERE. WE ARE THE THIRD WAY. SYNDI IS SHIT. GO SK WHOO. COME AT US BRUH. THUGLYFE").

 

This was pretty much broadcasted via all media platforms and a certain FA govt member who had previously leaked syndi talks to Alpha (kickstarting that flare-up) and who had been pronouncedly anti-tS even while allied to us, spearheaded that broadcast.

 

I mean.... I'm not sure if you realize how much worse things would have gone if I had been in charge. :P. Thrax made an effort to not blow the world up. That was his indicator.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been at the crib of the majority of rivalries that have shaped the current political atmosphere, i'd kindly point out that no, (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) had jackshit to do with those.

 

I am perfectly capable of generating unrelated IC drama without needing to use the prehistoric relations from another game a my framework, thank you very much.

 

 

Some may be capable, but others certainly aren't and it's been pretty public and those perceptions have definitely played their role.

I just saw this. I'd agree, it's been pretty public from what I can tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It took me a good four pages in to realize "(That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways)" was just forum censoring and not something everyone was doing intentionally :P I'm also not even really sure what this thread is supposed to be about anymore so I'll just shout Go Pats! and gtfo

Edited by Mikey
  • Upvote 2

Archduke Tyrell, Lord of Highgarden, Lord Paramount of the Reach, Warden of the South, Breaker of Forums.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. I did call out crossover for being crossover.

 

Our cb for fighting npo however (thus kockstarting that set of wars) is well documented as being the apparent consolidation among paragon, covenant and alpha/pacifica.

 

See it as making an assessment of motives and intended actions based on historical patterns (among paragon/cov) and treaty movements, and preempting such threats before they can materialize.

 

Seems pretty ic to me. (And yes, i have at the time gone on record with exactly that rationale for war).

Eh... considering how Paracov contained UPN as a leading integral member which goes back to the beginning of its existence (or at least since Syndicate left Paragon), I'm not sure it's that simple.  Again, my focus here was on UPN, not NPO.  The crossover by NPO really seems to just be the straw that broke the camel's back.  I say this especially since the rivalry between you two goes back to the beginning of time in this gameworld, and how it was going on even before UPN left the other gameworld.

 

I might be wrong here, but the alternative is making a plain appeal to tradition in preference of the old guard which is less justified.  In games like this, appeals to tradition discourage anyone new from joining the game at all since the game becomes rigged to whoever joins the game first which is an innately OOC condition.  The timing that one player joins the game versus another has no connection to in-game mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh... considering how Paracov contained UPN as a leading integral member which goes back to the beginning of its existence (or at least since Syndicate left Paragon), I'm not sure it's that simple.  Again, my focus here was on UPN, not NPO.  The crossover by NPO really seems to just be the straw that broke the camel's back.  I say this especially since the rivalry between you two goes back to the beginning of time in this gameworld, and how it was going on even before UPN left the other gameworld.

 

I might be wrong here, but the alternative is making a plain appeal to tradition in preference of the old guard which is less justified.  In games like this, appeals to tradition discourage anyone new from joining the game at all since the game becomes rigged to whoever joins the game first which is an innately OOC condition.  The timing that one player joins the game versus another has no connection to in-game mechanics.

 

The UPN-tS rivalry stems from an in-game event which occurred a few years ago, and involved me plotting to take them out as part of what I saw as both an inevitable showdown (being the eventual Paragon vs Covenant clash which was slated to happen had we stayed in Paragon) and a necessity for tS to be able to safely move on from its toxic relationship with VE.

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: the thrax vs roq convo:

 

I don't think you're giving Thrax enough credit, Roq. He went out of his way to indicate his willingness to move on by *not* slapping half of your allies-to-be to shit despite the various occasions at which they gave him cause to.

 

The SK situation is the first to come to mind for me- Thrax handled that extremely graciously, considering the manner in which SK went about the split. Even retired, I was woken up by the autistic screeching ("OMG WE ARE GONNA MAKE A SPHERE. WE ARE THE THIRD WAY. SYNDI IS SHIT. GO SK WHOO. COME AT US BRUH. THUGLYFE").

 

This was pretty much broadcasted via all media platforms and a certain FA govt member who had previously leaked syndi talks to Alpha (kickstarting that flare-up) and who had been pronouncedly anti-tS even while allied to us, spearheaded that broadcast.

 

I mean.... I'm not sure if you realize how much worse things would have gone if I had been in charge. :P. Thrax made an effort to not blow the world up. That was his indicator.

 

I mean, it didn't show he wanted to split up Syndisphere. There was a convo where he was outright told no one really expected it to be tS pushing for but rather the other high strength alliances in Syndisphere who were more likely to be war-hungry. It wouldn't have to be Manthrax pulling the trigger for something to go down and it was enough of a concern for Paragon that SK would get hit that they saw collaboration as being needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wiki Mod

 

 

 

 

Like I said before, there seems to be a split motive going on where the drama within this gameworld has created genuine appeals to tradition instead of giving the left side* of the war a dose of its own medicine.  The others are still waiting for NPO to get over itself and have congratulated UPN for finally splitting from NPO.

 

For example, I'd probably say Syndicate, Mensa, and half of TKR are into this to give NPO a dose of its own medicine.  The other half of TKR, Pantheon, and Rose are into this for a genuine appeal to tradition.  This also explains the selective paper signed by Zodiac and BK.

 

*I'm calling it that because on the Easter Weekend Massacre wiki page, they're listed in the left column.

 

Woah there woah! Please do not associate Mensa with (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways), we have maybe two people who played it. 

  • Upvote 1

 

 

23:38 Skable that's why we don't want Rose involved, so we can take the m all for ourselves

23:39 [] but Mensa is the cute girl at the school dance and she's only dancing with us right now to get our friend jealous

23:39 [] If Rose comes in and gives Mensa what she wants, she'll just toss us aside and forget we ever existed

23:39 zombie_lanae yeah I do hope we can keep having them all to ourselves

23:40 zombie_lanae I know it's selfish but I want all their love

 

 

6:55 PM <+Isolatar> Praise Dio

Pubstomper|BNC [20:01:55] Rose wouldn't plan a hit on Mensa because it would be &#33;@#&#036;ing stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, it didn't show he wanted to split up Syndisphere. There was a convo where he was outright told no one really expected it to be tS pushing for but rather the other high strength alliances in Syndisphere who were more likely to be war-hungry. It wouldn't have to be Manthrax pulling the trigger for something to go down and it was enough of a concern for Paragon that SK would get hit that they saw collaboration as being needed.

 

Why would Paragon care if SK got hit, considering SK was directly saying their intent was to be hostile? if they weren't hostile to Syndisphere, they wouldn't care. It was only a concern for Paragon because they made it one.

 

If other alliances wanted to war you for no reason other than they could, I'd have said "go ahead", and advised them to treat it like a 1 on 1. Screw getting involved in making that a stomp, just for chuckles. That's not what happened though. I had intel on many of the alliances involved, and they hit us aggressively anyway. Should it really be a surprise that resulted in a galvanized Syndisphere...?

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're almost at 20 pages of beating a dead horse.

 

Every war I've seen in Orbis has started the same way. Someone tries to start shit with Syndisphere thinking they have the advantage. They get a half-decent first strike in. Some combination of Mensa/TKR/Syndicate/BK (RIP) get ignored in favor of overtly engaging one of others. The ignored alliance builds up and slowly begins relieving pressure on one other. Then those two relieve pressure on the other two. Then the war turns into a loss for the opposition and the only defense people can come up with is either cheesy - nukes when they weren't good, or "winning" in the lower tiers - or total chaos ie paracov.

 

This screams disorganization, but it also screams a lack of morale / effort being put forth. This is a competitive setting where you have to try if you want to win and the people coming on the public forums trying to argue that things are unwinnable when half of syndicate split off to make a micro AND you turned BK to your side.

 

A lack of morale and organization usually turns into a dissatisfaction with leadership and yet Roquentin is still Emperor. Curufinwe is still Emperor. Pangui or Hansarius / insert-rotational old-guard figure here are still running UPN. Either fire your leaders and exit the greater political game if you're inactive and disinterested, or fire your leaders and step up to do what needs to be done.

This is a good summation.

 

The only disagreement I'd offer is that we generally do better than to have our unengaged alliances build up and "slowly" relieve pressure.  Sometimes it takes us a while to win a front, but there are a lot of cases we've come out ahead because we are better at countering/blunting attacks and winning fronts quickly.  In several cases we've stopped offensives in their tracks before they can get any major headway.

GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate:

On 8 June, the New Pacific Order, a strong alliance that had come to P&W from Cybernations some months before but had not yet fought in any P&W alliance war, signed a treaty with UPN. Taken together with their treaties to VE and others this put them firmly on Paracovenant's side.

On 9 June, Partisan (the head of t$) publicly called out NPO, posting a leaked thread from their forums in the game Cybernations. This thread called for Cybernations players to join the Politics and War version of NPO in order to help in an upcoming war, which would supposedly be an attack on the P&W version of NPO due to their success in Cybernations. This was supported by a chatlog from a non-government t$ member who declined an offer to join NPO, saying "Eh. You'll get killed off in the next war...nobody in this game wants you here." Partisan accused NPO of taking the remark out of context and trying to frame t$ as a threat to rally support for a war against t$, and of crossing (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) politics into P&W.

http://politicsandwar.wikia.com/wiki/NPO%27s_First_Time_%E2%99%A5

 

What are you talking about?

This only really applies to NPO and NPO came in long after Syndisphere emerged with a consistent series of wars against it.  Other than NPO and Alpha, I can't think of any alliances where their (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) rivalries and identities have been a significant factor.

 

ETA: Awesome filter.

Edited by Azaghul
GnWq7CW.png

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.