DaNES I: At the Precipice

[Supermath]

OOC: He's working on it, last I heard.

 

[~Darkening~]

oh and an eye for an eye is perhaps the stupidist rule ever to exist.

Well, remind me exactly where anyone ever called me smart .

@France: You may present a bill when you survive, it is our opinion that Russia should not have entered this war, not that the Entente was in the right.

That was not aimed at you . EDIT: Wait, tell me Flyingchicken quit! gah- the one good thing going for us .

From: Empire of Japan
To: France

It is war you have chosen. Whether you respect us is of little consequence, but the number of planes, ships, and men we pour into defeating you is of great consequence. The joy we will feel in crushing you shall only be eclipsed by the pain we will feel for your people, as they have had to suffer your incredible incompetence.

If it is truly us who have chosen war, please do us the honor of reminding us just exactly who is declaring war.

Well, I really can't say that I have any support for the overdog's case here. The Entente is much more interesting to watch. A heroic struggle against the forces of inevitability.

Heroic my arse...they are a victim of the GA's superior planning right now.

I can imagine all the conversations among the GA ending in just one word: "DOGPILE!". And yes Azale, you were just as predictable as Arabia- noone declares war, or their intent to fight- and give up the chance of a sneak attack. Well, save alex I guess.

No, the GA is (suprisingly ineptly) taking candy from a ******** baby, I hope you feel so very proud.

You seem to phrase it so much better than me .

I didnt want to say this but I cant meander around it anymore. Entente just lacked a few experienced players(not you Toltec or Darkening) on it's side and this war would be far more interesting and probably longer. Not to mention the lifespan of the NES would be prolonged since after this war....really what will there be to do. Anything that could threaten GA will probably be crushed the minute it forms under vigilant PC nations.

In far different hands, and without evevyone deciding to gangpile for stupid reasons, the Entente could do much better. In truth, we all have out flaws and the effort shown so far is just about as good as it gets. For predictions about what happens after the war, I can honestly say that the GA will break up- there are just too many aggressors allied for them to remain allied- America will invade Brazil .

It would be interesting if Russia got it's act together and joined on the side of the Entente?

We have Britian. You have Russia. Deal with it .

From what I could tell of the discussions between me and Thlayli

Confucius say: never expect anything coming from talks with Thlayli.

No, the GA formed its alliances, kept its peeps together, and coordinated a strike. Stop whining.

-gag-. The GA is the most ridiculous thing that could be called an 'alliance'. Everyone that jumped the bandwagon so far is interested in their own obvious goals, I'd love to be around just to see the hilarious post-division world. Four strikes appearntly, anyway. And last time I checked, most people were amused- not whining. I'm personally finding the whole situation funny.

ooc: I feel that japan is acting out of character, I mean they were our friends and they shut out any of their former allies and suddenly declare war, I mean yes Italy turned on the central powers but that was because a clear invasion of Belgium and mistreatment of the populace, and even at first they were neutral for a little bit. I mean come on what leader would have a change of heart in hardly any time at all, it took america years to side with the allies, a group they were obviously supporting for years in WWI.

Don't be so surprised- last time I checked, Azale had a bad habit of bailing on agreements . Through, that was what I was kinda hinting at in my little diplo. I'd sell my colony, but hell be denied if I willingly give it away. And since Azale has already decided to gangpile, who cares?

 

[LittleBoots]

I'm sorry, I'm curious. Is the dog-piling of the GA being called a bad thing? And would you rather the GA wait until the ******** baby has grown up and can prevent his candy from being stolen? I don't see why the assault on the weaker enemy in the form of a dog-pile something to be ashamed of. It would seem that doing anything else would be foolish.

Now if its simply the execution of the dog-pile that is being criticized, the critics may or may not have some validity to their statements. The dog-pile itself, though, as well as the sneak-attacks, shouldn't really be shamed when it is nothing more than an opportunistic action by a nation (or group of nations) on behalf of itself (which is exactly what should be expected).

To this point... (and I'm not trying to pick on you Darkening, just illustrating a point):

The GA is the most ridiculous thing that could be called an 'alliance'. Everyone that jumped the bandwagon so far is interested in their own obvious goals

Aren't nations supposed to pursue their own goals? Why should a nation subordinate its own goals to the goals of some lofty alliance unless those goals coincide somehow with benefit to the nation (which wouldn't really require much subordination in the first place). If it is possible to get what you want in the chaos of war, why not go for it?

noone declares war, or their intent to fight- and give up the chance of a sneak attack.

Why would a nation give up such a valuable weapon as the element of surprise?

I can honestly say that the GA will break up-

It certainly seems that without a major opposing alliance coordinating the enemy, there will be no reason for the GA to continue at its current levels. In essence, without some other impetus, I probably agree with you.

All in all, why is there so much OOC chatter about the war in the first place?

 

[Lord_Iggy]

It's called 'honour', something which some might say is... lacking.

 

[alex994]

I can imagine all the conversations among the GA ending in just one word: "DOGPILE!". And yes Azale, you were just as predictable as Arabia- noone declares war, or their intent to fight- and give up the chance of a sneak attack. Well, save alex I guess.

Lurker's Comment: I would deeply appreciate it if you left me out of the conversation.

 

[Disenfrancised]

I'm sorry, I'm curious. Is the dog-piling of the GA being called a bad thing? And would you rather the GA wait until the ******** baby has grown up and can prevent his candy from being stolen? I don't see why the assault on the weaker enemy in the form of a dog-pile something to be ashamed of. It would seem that doing anything else would be foolish.

Those are entirely fair points, there is nothing wrong with the dog-pile, I for one am only mocking those who are taking inordinate pride in what is frankly a non-acheivement.

Especially as the deck was stacked against the Entente to begin with, and there are some numbers I'd like to go through with Dachs...

 

[flyingchicken]

> Wait, wait, no, I've changed my mind on quitting. I'm going to continue as the rebel faction.

 

[Azale]

Click spoiler for quoted rant!

Spoiler :

Those are entirely fair points, there is nothing wrong with the dog-pile, I for one am only mocking those who are taking inordinate pride in what is frankly a non-acheivement.

Especially as the deck was stacked against the Entente to begin with, and there are some numbers I'd like to go through with Dachs...

Yea, those beating their chests are dumb, but still...its a freakin game, people get a little happy...just play along and dont let it hurt your e-pride (not talking to you Dis, just...some other people).

It's called 'honour', something which some might say is... lacking.

Who cares? Since when did honor matter? As long as I feel like I'm playing in character...and I most definitely do...than I could really care less about honor. Besides, would Japan would give a flying poo for France or the Entente or ANY western power? There is no honor to be had by playing along and getting swallowed by the GA.

-gag-. The GA is the most ridiculous thing that could be called an 'alliance'. Everyone that jumped the bandwagon so far is interested in their own obvious goals, I'd love to be around just to see the hilarious post-division world. Four strikes appearntly, anyway. And last time I checked, most people were amused- not whining. I'm personally finding the whole situation funny.

Don't be so surprised- last time I checked, Azale had a bad habit of bailing on agreements . Through, that was what I was kinda hinting at in my little diplo. I'd sell my colony, but hell be denied if I willingly give it away. And since Azale has already decided to gangpile, who cares?

Is whining all you can do anymore? Was the Allies in WW2 to big? They certainly had their own goals and had tons of nations jump in late just to be on the winning side. Seriously, stop whining, it makes the NES less enjoyable.

I don't bail on agreements that I set. The Entente was a very tenuous...if hardly present...agreement. Japan's duty to herself overrides everything, and if that calls for a little "betrayal", then so be it. Suck it up, stop trying to make a moral statement everytime you post. It's not like I was Spain and decided to attack through to get Barcelona or something. It just seems like you want something to point towards to whine about and say "waa, thats unfair".

And for jebus sakes, stop making attacks on me. I know I've had problems with NES commitment recently but I've been NESing for 4 (going on 5) years, I know what I'm doing and I don't need to be questioned.

Now you can respond Darkening, but really, I'm not listening. Let's just NES this thing mmk?

@flyingchicken, the first rule of starting a rebellion is that the other player attempts to scare you out of playing...you have passed test 1, good work

 

[Dachs]

I think that this whole OOC argument/rant session is pretty funny. Also, excellent avatar Dis.

And there is a map that has been attached to the update post, so I can set the next order deadline at...Tuesday 6 November 2007 at 1200 GMT. That's noon, not midnight, folks.

 

[Disenfrancised]

@flyingchicken, the first rule of starting a rebellion is that the other player attempts to scare you out of playing...you have passed test 1, good work

I'm only asking that he do what is best for Russia and not plunge it into a civil war . Besides the fact that I've been lay the ground for this for years and he hasn't bodes ill for him...

@Dachs: Um, I think you attached the stats word file by mistake

 

[Luckymoose]

OOC: So we did capture Paris. How useful.

 

[Thlayli]

I'm sorry, but all these accusations of dogpiling are ridiculous.

First of all, an economic comparison of the Alliance versus the Entente at the opening of the NES reveals rough economic parity. When the Alliance members honored their treaty agreements and declared war on Spain, the Entente should have honored theirs with Spain and immediately declared war on the Alliance. That they failed to do so still does not justify accusations of a dogpile, since the Spanish-American War was just that: An exclusively Spanish-American conflict until the rest of the Allies and Entente joined the fray.

A dogpile is traditionally defined as multiple nations attacking one victim nation simultaneously. I don't think there are any examples of this occuring yet. Even Bulgaria has had the help of the British, as well as the turncoat Serbians.

In addition, both the Entente and the Alliance had a new player taking control of one of their great powers. The matchup of:

Thlayli, Kal'thzar, flyingchicken vs. Darkening, Wubba, Flavius_Aetius

Doesn't appear to be that unfair, especially given Russia's total implosion. So in conclusion, stop whining about how the Alliance has repeatedly kicked your collective asses, and start forming a viable counterattack. Honestly.

Edit:

From: The United States of America
To: The Japanese Empire

We gladly welcome your entry into the Global Alliance, assuming this is acceptable to our other members.

 

[Dachs]

OOC: So we did capture Paris. How useful.

No, you didn't. If that's unclear, I guess I can add "THIS IS BESIEGED" to the city itself.

 

[Luckymoose]

No, you didn't. If that's unclear, I guess I can add "THIS IS BESIEGED" to the city itself.

Well generally you color the insides Blue if we have it surrounded.

 

[Dachs]

Well generally you color the insides Blue if we have it surrounded.

It's not completely surrounded...but fixed anyway. Also, Aden has been added to Germany.

 

[LittleBoots]

It's called 'honour', something which some might say is... lacking.

And others might say is... stupid. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for honour on the personal level, but that involves an unnecessary philosophy discussion. However, I fail to see any good reason for honour to enter into the calculations of a government. Can't think of too many nations in history that acted "honourably." Most of the ones that get glorified had good ulterior motives. Spartans didn't fight for "free men," that is patently ridiculous; they fought to try to hold off Persian domination that would eventually reach their own lands. The Americans didn't valiantly enter WWII to save the Jews, the British, the Whales or any other endangered species. Or at least oil, other natural resources, and the balance of power certainly helped in the decision.

Governments do what is best for their nation, or at least should. 'Honour' should only concern them insofar as it relates to international opinion, and even then not much, because other nations will be taking the same pragmatic courses and if it benefits them to ally with you later, they'll ally with you later. They will probably still do so if you turned against your last set of allies when they went down in flames. They will just have to keep in mind that the alliance must be beneficial to you for you to remain in it and will then take steps to ensure you receive benefit.

Finally, I'm not saying that whenever it looks like a nation can gain a little by screwing over its friends, it should do so. Obviously that doesn't take the entire equation into account. If staying loyal will bring greater benefit to the nation, it would be foolish to turn traitor for a lesser benefit. This includes situations where the treachery-borne benefit is greater, but the likelihood of success is low.

From these principles, it would seem intelligent for the Entente to begin breaking up, at least in certain places. Going down to the depths with your allies is stupid and irresponsible to the people of your nation. If your arse is being whipped and you are offered a separate peace, it would be intelligent to take it unless it appears reasonable that your allies will make a devastating comeback. If they will not make a devastating comeback, flip now and see if you can't get some of the goodies.

 

[Disenfrancised]

And others might say is... stupid. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for honour on the personal level, but that involves an unnecessary philosophy discussion. However, I fail to see any good reason for honour to enter into the calculations of a government. Can't think of too many nations in history that acted "honourably." Most of the ones that get glorified had good ulterior motives. Spartans didn't fight for "free men," that is patently ridiculous; they fought to try to hold off Persian domination that would eventually reach their own lands. The Americans didn't valiantly enter WWII to save the Jews, the British, the Whales or any other endangered species. Or at least oil, other natural resources, and the balance of power certainly helped in the decision.

Governments do what is best for their nation, or at least should. 'Honour' should only concern them insofar as it relates to international opinion, and even then not much, because other nations will be taking the same pragmatic courses and if it benefits them to ally with you later, they'll ally with you later. They will probably still do so if you turned against your last set of allies when they went down in flames. They will just have to keep in mind that the alliance must be beneficial to you for you to remain in it and will then take steps to ensure you receive benefit.

Finally, I'm not saying that whenever it looks like a nation can gain a little by screwing over its friends, it should do so. Obviously that doesn't take the entire equation into account. If staying loyal will bring greater benefit to the nation, it would be foolish to turn traitor for a lesser benefit. This includes situations where the treachery-borne benefit is greater, but the likelihood of success is low.

From these principles, it would seem intelligent for the Entente to begin breaking up, at least in certain places. Going down to the depths with your allies is stupid and irresponsible to the people of your nation. If your arse is being whipped and you are offered a separate peace, it would be intelligent to take it unless it appears reasonable that your allies will make a devastating comeback. If they will not make a devastating comeback, flip now and see if you can't get some of the goodies.

Except that a government breaking (at least the letter) of its word has implications down the line for the next time you want to negotiate an international agreement/loan. With NESIngs over focus on the military (and magically nation self-sufficiency) this is regrettably less important. So in conclusion, don't sign something your not going to keep (unless your a Hitler-level of crazy), but always leave some out clauses (all the golden age alliance were easily twistable to mean whatever a diplomatic core wanted it to mean). Thus, Japan reverting to neutrality is perfectly honorable, turning on its former allies and breaking its word is much less so :wags finger:

 

[Luckymoose]

I thought about outsourcing military production to a neutral party.

 

[andis-1]

Sigh. Since silver clearly can't be arsed to play, neither can i. Argentina is up for graps.

 

[LittleBoots]

Except that a government breaking (at least the letter) of its word has implications down the line for the next time you want to negotiate an international agreement/loan. With NESIngs over focus on the military (and magically nation self-sufficiency) this is regrettably less important. So in conclusion, don't sign something your not going to keep (unless your a Hitler-level of crazy), but always leave some out clauses (all the golden age alliance were easily twistable to mean whatever a diplomatic core wanted it to mean). Thus, Japan reverting to neutrality is perfectly honorable, turning on its former allies and breaking its word is much less so :wags finger:

I would agree with this. I would also say that it is more or less included in my arse-covering end-note. If its going to hurt your long run ability to obtain benefit, its a bad idea. Funny thing is, its only just now that I realize this is Machiavelli bubbling up from my subconscious. As a result, I can phrase it a little better: Remain loyal so that when it comes time to betray, the first plunge of the knife goes so deep that the victim will never be able to get revenge. Then convince your new friends you did it all for them and your new alliance.