Nature of This Game (Stargatewars yes/no?)

[weilandsmith]

You decided to imply that the United States actions were on par with the genocide commited by a known Tyrant to attempt to prove a point in SGW.

On par? How can you comparer? Is it better to have tortured and killed just two people than the mass genocide committed by Hitler?

You also decided to imply that the moral decisions of the Allies and their care of human life was on a similiar standing to Hitler's actions and decisions to attempt to prove a point in SGW.

The allied commanders were sending soldiers to fortified, open beaches littered with land mines. Of course they knew what was going to happen.

I avoided using any sort of historical situation on purpose but I do believe it is my duty as being apart of a serving family to have addressed such comparrisons. Now, who was the one took the argument to the extreme?

As I was saying, you took this argument personally. Don't please.

My argument has always been that SGW is addressed in SGW terms and that history plays only a fracion of a secondary role in providing examples and questionable advice. You do not look to the real world to understand SGW, you look to the internal workings of SGW. The real world only helps contribute a portion to the pool and wealth of information that is processed everyday in the decision making that goes on behind the scenes.

Well of course history is a small part of what happens here at SGW. But, when you make decisions, you look at your circumstances and formulate the best plan you can come up with. Sometimes, history has a part in shaping your decision. More often than not, you base your decisions on past experiences that fit the current situation. Isn't that history?

You chose to bring these things up and continue to bring up skewed historical events to substitute a lack of real knowledge on the actual politics of the game and I merely felt it necessary to defend such absurd claims.

The primary object of the game is to be strong and stand strong against any and all who would seek to bring you down, and in future, perhaps reign supreme. It is a game after all. But is it any different in real life where you plot strategies to improve your company's performance? Is it really any different when you try to be diplomatically devious to get your superiors to notice you in the hopes of getting a promotion? Is it really any different from hooking up with a neighborhood anti-crime watch so you can protect yourselves from thieves and other miscreants? Is it any different from one gang continuously recruiting so that they can have numerical superiority? Is the strategy of recruiting any different than a company wanting to hire the best possible applicant to fill the role it needs filled? Is SGW any different from real life?

[semper]

WAR
1.
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
2. The period of such conflict.
3. The techniques and procedures of war; military science.
2.
1. A condition of active antagonism or contention: a war of words; a price war.
2. A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: the war against acid rain.



Having an NAP is NOT a war in the sense of the game, it may allow a war of politics and recruitment, but ultimately, no matter how you sell it, all these NAP's are a massive pile of BS made by people who love their accounts far to much.

You certainly dont see the English and Americans in Iraq trying to negotiate an NAP with the Iraq militia or Binladen that are still fighting because they cant strike out at them properly without incurring severe damage and tolls on their own forces?

On the flip side, there is nothing stopping the weaker players from attacking either, so both sides are to blame.

No madtown, this is meant to be a war game, yet it is far from it. A political strategy game is more like it.

Furthermore, anyone actually using an NAP or 'hiding' in an alliance and daring to use the old "well its a war game argument" to feebly justify their massings and attacks should be booted up the arse, as they're some of the biggest hippocrits standing.

I actually think admin should put a max size on alliance membership, and the prospect of an NAP or a alliance alliance should be shunned by the community. Not to mention the immediate dissipation of PPT.

You never know..SGW may one day be a war game...

I would disagree and perhaps do smth rude...

Probably there is a reason why some of the ppl are leading top alliances...probably if you could do it better you would be at least leading one of them...
Imo with your way of thinking, it will be hard to ever do it...


If you dont want to both you and the possible alliance are at a gain


A bit provoking, but at the same time stating my opinion that there are not stupid ppl who negotiate these NAPs and often this ppl brought alliances to where they are now also...and ppl trust in them...
You saying what they do is some BS basicalky indirectly implys you think your way would be better one...whatever that way is...I suggest you apply for some leadership position

Heck I offer you my own if you convince 50% of my guys you could lead them better...


Not saying your way is not a better one...but perhaps you looking down on others is a bit ironic and strange...
If you are confident in yourself build a team thats willing to back your thinking and conquer the -SGW universe...show us the meaning of sgWARS as you say


I appologize if any of above offended you, it was not my intention...and its all my opinion anyway, who is to say more right the yours





Blue

Thats not actually my way of thinking, im personally not bothered with a political strategy game, its juts getting everyone elses thinking on the ball that is the problem, because you cant have a 'war' game, use that excuse and not be in a constant state of war whilst being in the war game without changing the etiology of the word war or the game itself.

onto more of your post...
should I be leading one of the alliances? If I was a better thinker/player I would be leading one of them...is the bottom line of what you were saying. (I think im right there..) Well I pose the point to you...George Bush, John Major, Tony Blair..... not to mention most alliances have a high council. and most of the accounts in this game are as good as they are because a constant state of war did not exist, NOT because of the mastery of any one person sitting at a computer. I'll also put some blame here down to the fact when people have nothing to destroy well...but then one way around that would be to set off another plague that saps miners if your under a certain power, obviously in conjunction with yoru actual amount of miners/lifers and spies (the more you have, the more you lose)....now wouldnt that be nasty? But it would change the face of war in this game I bet. Losses would be far higher...tactics would change.

lets keep going though. Your challeging my way of thinking, and asking me to put it to the test. Yet in your thoughts you forget. Most people in this game are 70% of the time stat builders. FUALL, TJP...pick any alliance u want. Stats building gets you power, as does the intimidation of the bigger alliances. A state of all out war, would near enough remove the intimidation, and eventually the stats would be worn away. All these people you ask me to convince would lose power, and as we all know. Everyone hates to lose power. So bottom line on that one, I dont think all the so called big and great players of the two major empires could actually handle a state of constant war, whether they know it directly as such, or in a round about way, and thats why my way of thinking would never be approved.

People dont lead an alliance to move it forward, they do it to keep order. Its an alliance, not a nation, at least should I say...the alliances in SGW ARE nations, and should be alliances.

and finally. I would build a team and I would show you my way of thinking. Unfortunately though, there are few brave enough and not just stupid enough, there are few with the actual power to take on the ultimate stat builders of the game, as they have gone properly unchallenged for so long without long intervals in the fighting of this so called war game. So yes, maybe one day myself and my colleague will stand back to back against you.

Oh and no, you didnt offend me. Its quite impossible for anyone save Tyber and probably Buck to do so. At least as far as this game goes...


ON another side note....those who laid claim to fighting long wars and saying you just cant keep it going because you dont have the time and resources...did u ever think that your opponent has the same problem to? Yeah meaning there would be a time of no fighting, a time for you both to briefly recover and build up to repeat the destruction...of course this sorta ties in with my previously mentioned problems of people having nothing.

[Severian]

I am not going to dignify your historical claims with a responce and do not try claim the moral highground here or patronise me. I can safely say that I am confident with my views and have no intent on arguing without purpose.

Well of course history is a small part of what happens here at SGW. But, when you make decisions, you look at your circumstances and formulate the best plan you can come up with. Sometimes, history has a part in shaping your decision. More often than not, you base your decisions on past experiences that fit the current situation. Isn't that history?

You are changing your tune completly.

Initially you have been stating nothing BUT historical circumstances and saying that is stargatewars. That through history we can accurately tell exactly what will happen and that it is real life that reflects stargatewars and the only point of reference. You were outright equating RL with SGW and providing convienient and select examples to try and prove your point.

My argument was a detailed understanding of all things stargatewars with reference to multiple things including history but that the real world plays a smaller role and that it is SGW intel/experience/networks and a multitude of other things encompassing the community that form the vast majority of the decision making process.

Your argument was equated to Janus/FUALL. Being well, apart of the process you would think that I would KNOW what the process was as I was - I think the term was, involved in it. But you can go ahead and continue to make statements about the decisions I was involved in. I mean, surely you know what was going through the heads of all the people that were there and I, only having been there do not.

Now you are adopting my argument in saying you look at the situation then formulate then have a glance at history for a reference and tagging that onto your previous statements.

Quite different to what you were debating beforehand and entirely differnt to what I was rebutting. But i guess singing different tunes and avoidence is a nice way to dodge all of my replies.

The primary object of the game is to be strong and stand strong against any and all who would seek to bring you down, and in future, perhaps reign supreme. It is a game after all. But is it any different in real life where you plot strategies to improve your company's performance? Is it really any different when you try to be diplomatically devious to get your superiors to notice you in the hopes of getting a promotion? Is it really any different from hooking up with a neighborhood anti-crime watch so you can protect yourselves from thieves and other miscreants? Is it any different from one gang continuously recruiting so that they can have numerical superiority? Is the strategy of recruiting any different than a company wanting to hire the best possible applicant to fill the role it needs filled? Is SGW any different from real life?

I don't know about you but being well, apart of TLE during my active days, the objective was to have fun with mates - come what may.

Your argument has been in History this happened and so we'll replace this historical faction with this SGW alliance and this opposing faction with this rival SGW alliance and this is how the world ends.

Having spent a lot of time in all mediums of communication within the TLE and having kept contact and friendships with several FUALL members, I can safely say that the entire basis of your argument is wrong.

You also speak of the objective as if it were universal and human nature to be the most powerful which is generalising to the extreme. I spent an earlier post rebutting this sort of generalistion in that all people and alliances have different objectives and priorities.

I also spent the better part of my initial responce to you saying that posting/spamming as many historical situations that suit your argument does not necessarily make you right as there can be dozens of counter historical situations that prove you wrong.

Again all you do is select events that suit your argument without even having an indepth understanding of the inner workings or mindframes of the two alliances you are attempting to associate to historical circumstances and think that it somehow makes your argument intelligent and accurate.

When you are a spokesman for one of the two factions or part of the command structure of those alliances, then you can come to me and discuss just how relevent real life (not SGW) history played in our decision making process and understandings and perspective on the game.

[weilandsmith]

I never implied or claimed to know what is going on in your head. I would laugh at me if I did that and I would laugh at you if you claimed the same. So, I wouldn't presume to surmise or even write about the motivations of your alliances.

All this argument is about:

1) people want to set rules of war in SGW and how SGW should be played

2) i say no. and i outline my, as you say, specious argument. my point being when war erupts, rules will be broken and that you cannot tell all individuals how to suit their playing style to yours alone.

3) in these arguments, i selectively ( i will not argue this one. i admit to it. so did you. and you admitted to it.) i selectively used events in RL to relate to SGW to give weight to number 2.

4) I do not understand where you say that I am assuming or rather that I am claiming to be omniscient and am aware of how all alliances think? Look at those three points up there.

5) Experience is from the past. Part of our history. Decisions we make depend on the present circumstances surrounding an event coupled with experience or the historical factor. Thus history, weather in RL or in SGW alone, plays an important part in decision making.

6) I compared the super alliances to the USSR where, at some point in the future, they will fragment like the USSR. This is my belief. My opinion. My belief is that the only constant is change. Even the sun, which is seemingly constant, will explode some billion years from now. Things change, eventually. This is my belief and this is the reason why I used the Cold War, the USSR and the super alliances to promote my belief that the alliances will collapse, either through war, or on its own. Nowhere here does it say that I know what you guys are thinking.

Well, good night.

[Severian]

[spoiler]:-D I never implied or claimed to know what is going on in your head. I would laugh at me if I did that and I would laugh at you if you claimed the same. So, I wouldn't presume to surmise or even write about the motivations of your alliances.

All this argument is about:

1) people want to set rules of war in SGW and how SGW should be played

2) i say no. and i outline my, as you say, specious argument. my point being when war erupts, rules will be broken and that you cannot tell all individuals how to suit their playing style to yours alone.

3) in these arguments, i selectively ( i will not argue this one. i admit to it. so did you. and you admitted to it.) i selectively used events in RL to relate to SGW to give weight to number 2.

4) I do not understand where you say that I am assuming or rather that I am claiming to be omniscient and am aware of how all alliances think? Look at those three points up there.

5) Experience is from the past. Part of our history. Decisions we make depend on the present circumstances surrounding an event coupled with experience or the historical factor. Thus history, weather in RL or in SGW alone, plays an important part in decision making.

6) I compared the super alliances to the USSR where, at some point in the future, they will fragment like the USSR. This is my belief. My opinion. My belief is that the only constant is change. Even the sun, which is seemingly constant, will explode some billion years from now. Things change, eventually. This is my belief and this is the reason why I used the Cold War, the USSR and the super alliances to promote my belief that the alliances will collapse, either through war, or on its own. Nowhere here does it say that I know what you guys are thinking.

[/spoiler]

Where to Start.

1) Vendetta Corner and multiple threads in the GC have rules of war which are followed. Rules are proposed, set and accepted or rejected and for the most part, those accepted are upheld. Rules worked in that case. NaPs, an agreement or set of rules/restrictions. Considering they've been in place for a good year, i'd say that those restrictions worked. Rules do work, people do honour agreements and people do value trust and agreements for the most part.

2) Wars are fought between parties that don't have any sort of agreement, as with Question 1, there are multiple cases of alliances fighting wars with rules and following those rules. So your point here is null and void.

3) You are guilty of it dozens of times in such few posts and use it as the crux of your argument. I use it rarely and only as a small part to support a larger argument that is not the example alone.

4)
[spoiler]

When you compare these events to SGW, you will see the same things happening. 2 Super alliances in a quest to get the ultimate advantage in terms of manpower.

Assumption of the purpose and motivation behind the two super alliances. Assumption of real life therefor it must be real and apply in SGW.

This is similar to the United States versus the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Eventually, as in the case of the USSR, one will break down and the other will have dominion.

Assumption that the internal workings and politics of the super-powers mimic those of the Superpowers of the cold war and as such will suffer a similiar fate.

There are no rules. People who demand that SGW should be a constant, ceaseless struggle; people who demand that rules be put in place to define the style of play in SGW; people who demand that rules be put into play to define wars; they are wasting time and effort because wars will always be about exploiting advantages.

Assumption above about the practices of alliances and their reasons and motivations in war. You believe you know them but this proved wrong in multiple cases, not to mention one involving Jedi and a member of TLE in which strick defence building and other rules were in place and followed without fail for a large duration of time. Proves rules are in place, that they were constant during the conflict and that they were not in place to exploit advantages.

Would you allow your advantage to be nullified or canceled out because of a rule? Most likely not. Most especially not in an environment where war is always imminent.

Assumption of the potential conflict between the superpowers and that our decisions will follow your line of thinking.

I was using world war II, the cold war and Iraq as examples to define the word "war" and how silly it is for people to try to "civilize" war by placing rules which will be broken anyway once war starts in SGW. I never made any political statements. You did. It seems that you are the one who is very eager to debate about Iraq. I'm not. Iraq is a huge political mess. Why in hell would I want to discuss a mess?

please read the whole post next time. writing down aggressive comments without seeing the whole picture is, well, you get the picture.

Assumption that alliances will follow the example laid down by the real world conflicts. Again I could list multiple wars in which the two powers agreed and stuck by certain rules of engagement and that they were followed. You equate Iraq war to SGW, then call Iraq a political mess and wouldn't want to discuss it. Why then would you want to discuss SGW as by your logic, follows it? Also you do not see the whole picture on the two powers as I do and yet you still seem to be posting, well, you get the picture.

i'm not arguing about sweden. i just used them as an example of how they acted during a war. sweden, and all the other examples i used can be used a s some sort of comparison as to how war is played out in SGW.

Assumption: You know how we act during war because you know how real life wars were enacted.

In the SGW world, you see alliances scrambling to at least gain NAPs with every other alliance to avoid getting embroiled in the perceived great war that will happen between the two great alliances. Therein lies the irony of it.

Assumption: You know why the superpowers and their assoiates are asking/recieving naps. That is you assume to know the motives and reasoning and mindframe behind those actions.

So many NAPs in force and yet every single day, a NAP is broken. There is confusion as to which alliance has a NAP with what alliance. What more if the much heralded war happens? Do you think that imposed rules will circumscribe a full blown war? Do you think that people attacking and getting attacked will have to time to bother waiting to find out if so and so alliance has a NAP with their alliance? Considering that the two super alliances are not really solid; considering that the alliances within the two super alliances will have their own agendas, considering that they have pacts and treaties with other alliances that may or may not be respected by others in the super alliance?

Assumptions on the two alliances being solid, assumptions you understand their agendas, pacts and treaties as well as level of respect and communication between them. Assumptions on the confusion between naps and how they are followed.

No. War and politics is chaotic. If war does not happen, the many agendas of each alliance within an alliance will break apart the super alliances. It is just a matter of time. The question is will war come first or will they collapse like the Soviet Union

Assumptions on the agendas and number of agendas within each alliance and that they mimic the Soviet union and thus mimic its fate.

As you can see, I can keep going on for some time about the assumptions you make about he workings of our alliances and taking things on forums as face value and truth without understanding one bit about the true going ons behind the scenes.[/spoiler]

5) Your argument made no mention of SGW history. It was always the real world reflecting and portraying what would happen in SGW. You have since tagged on my line of SGW history and experience being important and changed your focus.

6) See above. Also CoP is still around and so is TLE despite both facing some of the toughest battles on all fronts, political/diplomatic/war/information etc for over a year now. To say that well in time everything will die is a statement with very little value. This is a universal constant that affects everything and so usually factored out. It is a poor thing to rely on for a statement as it is vague enough to be applied to anything at any moment without setting a context/reason or timeframe.

[SVaRuN]

should I be leading one of the alliances? If I was a better thinker/player I would be leading one of them...is the bottom line of what you were saying.

Its not all about having the ability...its also about wanting...if both are no there nth will happen...

Well I pose the point to you...George Bush, John Major, Tony Blair..... not to mention most alliances have a high council. and most of the accounts in this game are as good as they are because a constant state of war did not exist, NOT because of the mastery of any one person sitting at a computer.

I would say you are partially right...some like STI build their acounts based on peace...but their are many ways to build your acount upon...and it all requires some sort of tactic...some ppl point at STI for being a total stat builder and having what he has because he backed out of loads of wars...
Even if that is true I ll say the following. Even if STI did that, it took skills to predict...talk y<our way out of things and make ppl listen to you and various other stuff...

I'll also put some blame here down to the fact when people have nothing to destroy well...but then one way around that would be to set off another plague that saps miners if your under a certain power, obviously in conjunction with yoru actual amount of miners/lifers and spies (the more you have, the more you lose)....now wouldnt that be nasty? But it would change the face of war in this game I bet. Losses would be far higher...tactics would change.

There are loads of strategy to use against such ppl...and even if they have no friends no nada...at least what you can do is seriously damage their growth and damaging their growth is equal to destruction in long term...

lets keep going though. Your challeging my way of thinking, and asking me to put it to the test. Yet in your thoughts you forget. Most people in this game are 70% of the time stat builders.

I hate to compare RL to this game but perhaps this will make it mroe logical...
Majority of countries doesnt war for majority of time...and even when they do they fidn a weaker opponent...Are countries stat builders or they just see that constant waring or war = bad growth or even econemy colaps following with loads of probs...like cup etat etc...
There is also a reason behind every war in this game and stat building can be taken like you say as cowardly act...or is it preparing for war...and that when it comes you have the advantage...

FUALL, TJP...pick any alliance u want. Stats building gets you power, as does the intimidation of the bigger alliances

Alliance rankings? perhaps and perhaps we are well beyond lets make some power so we llbe rank 1.
If not about that lets overview...exactly like in RL economy peace, working gets you profit war is not making you profit...but can be result for profit afterwards...like lets say iraq war...and oil...
Intimidation can be passive or active...its their like everything in this world...when you find a guy who ll use my alliance will come and kick your ass and point it out ...I am sure every good leader will kick his ass from the alliance itself...if we are powerful and have intimidating effect, its because ppl see us as that and not cause we make flyers posters or whatever...

A state of all out war, would near enough remove the intimidation, and eventually the stats would be worn away. All these people you ask me to convince would lose power, and as we all know

I doubt intimidation would be removed...I will give you credits and agree with losing power...not actually losing though...since best alliances out there still grow in time of war...but more like growing slower in compare t other non waring ones...

Everyone hates to lose power. So bottom line on that one, I dont think all the so called big and great players of the two major empires could actually handle a state of constant war, whether they know it directly as such, or in a round about way, and thats why my way of thinking would never be approved.

- certanly one of the factors...clearly not the major one and even if it is lets review...
Game in westeren society means competing...and ppl wish to strive to the top or sometimes not and just do their best...ofcourse there are those who just play to play...
But those in top are the ones who play to win or play and do their best at it ("their best") so yeah...naturally they ll wish to not only obtain power but keep doing their best...since they have brains they ll use them and deduct that waring constantly isnt a smart move if you wish to be at the top...although this is how this game was build and there are countless variations on how ppl play.
I play for friendship and friends...I know that if I boost my stats and all that stuff I may be able to protect that way of playing better...I also know that if we as an alliance constantly improve ourselves that we ll be in better position to defend for what we play...

I was in smaller alliances...I saw them fell apart ppl games being destroyed because bigger one stepped in and wam it...
So lets say I learned and am learning what to do to make sure we ll keep having fun at this game and one of the parts of this fun is being at the top sure...I was raised to not only like a game for being a game as it is...but like wining at football, doing your best at football and any other game I come across...I see no fun in just playing football to play it...(and not doing your best or at least putting in the effort while you play it) I also know that when it comes to matches I like wining them more then losing them

Thats the way we are raised...and thats western culture...some cultures however dont have that although those are few...and i dont belong to any...

People dont lead an alliance to move it forward, they do it to keep order. Its an alliance, not a nation, at least should I say...the alliances in SGW ARE nations, and should be alliances.

Idk for others I cant talk to them ut from the previous comment above...
I dont lead it to keep the order...thats just one function that comes along...
I personally lead it cause like a player playing football who is at the bench when his team is playing I would feel helpless while leaders would be making some decisions... want to play...I want to help with my knowledge and when I am doing my job I try to do just what you said leaders dont do...Improve , move forward. We strive to perfection and in doing better...perhaps thats the key and the main diffrence between some alliances

and finally. I would build a team and I would show you my way of thinking. Unfortunately though, there are few brave enough and not just stupid enough, there are few with the actual power to take on the ultimate stat builders of the game, as they have gone properly unchallenged for so long without long intervals in the fighting of this so called war game. So yes, maybe one day myself and my colleague will stand back to back against you.

there is always a way and where does it say you need to have a team capable of killing us all to have the team...you can start small and go from there...
When me and blahh build TL we had few ppl that we considered friends and we take it from there...and once we were official we had those 10+ players and suddenly 100 plus top ppl ganged on us...
some wam wam bam bam time later here we are...

I did it for my reasons youm may do it for your own...and you can perhaps build an awsome team but unless you try it you wont know it...its true though you need will, time, patience...you need bunch of stuff but you can if you want to...

ON another side note....those who laid claim to fighting long wars and saying you just cant keep it going because you dont have the time and resources...did u ever think that your opponent has the same problem to? Yeah meaning there would be a time of no fighting, a time for you both to briefly recover and build up to repeat the destruction...of course this sorta ties in with my previously mentioned problems of people having nothing

Actually they usually look at the rest of the ppl who aint fighting...not at the opponent...they dont wish to give them a chance...If you ever watch f1 you do know why there is some gentelmans agreement between the two drives in the same team...to not overtake your teammate if you are idk 1st and second...cause it may go wrong you may cruch against eachother and then other ppl will take the prize...
Similar stuff...why would someone had to fight someone just because he is there...especially when he knows that by fighting him like you said they ll be only damaging eachother


Blue