kingzog wrote:As I said in the thread, if you sit in PM you leave yourself open to criticism. Whether it's just or unjust criticism is a matter of perspective and, let's face it, personal interest.
If you go all out, folks respect that. I've never seen an alliance criticized for throwing everything they had into a fight.
I'm going to disagree with Duderonomy, though. Perma-war is just as damaging as prolonged periods of peace. Possibly even more so. Every long war in CN's history has been followed by some kind of exodus, and we're at the point where we can ill afford to have people, friend or foe, chased away.
If you think of CN as one endless, long-winded argument between alliances that are constantly changing allegiances to one another, then wars should be the punctuation. Quick and to the point.
I think permawar (or at least sustained 6 month-to-a-year wars) are an inevitable outgrowth of the peacemode tactic. We're already seeing the losers of a war trying to dictate terms to the winning coalition while the losing AA's leaders hide in peace mode. Their hope is that by making it a contest of wills, rather than nation strength, the losing AA can simply wait out their enemies until concessions are made.
That's why I've been advocating tech trading on the winning side, so we can get a head start on NS growth. While precautions will need to be made, it is doubtful the losing side will leave PM just to get curbstomped. So keep them stagnant while DBDC, et al continue to grow.
Is it sad that nations are leaving? Yes. But it's not our decision to make. It is up to the losing coalition to determine when enough is enough. If they are happy to sit in peace mode, then we will wait until they can't stand it anymore. But our growth will continue as normal.
Don't worry about tomorrow,
because tonight Dynamite will make everything all right.