209 réponses à ce sujet

[Medhia Nox]

@MassivelyEffective: Again, precisely because you called it naive - we could not have an accord.

I prefer to be honest - if you said to me: "Let us be allies, because we can mutually benefit from one another."

I would say: "You do not want to be allies, you want some resource I have that you cannot obtain."

Then you might follow up with: "But surely I have some resource you might need?"

And I would say: "Then let us be trading partners. I form alliances with those I can trust. I can only trust you in so far as I can pay for your loyalty."

Were I a leader, I would seek as much autonomy as possible - making such "alliances" irrelevant. Where I could not - I would prefer to keep perspective on just what type of relationship I have from a trading partner. It is not one of trust - but mutual benefit.

[SgtSteel91]

@ MassivelyEffective
So what if the keep was just a military outpost? It can't be self-sufficient so it made an agreement to Crestwood to trade supplies to the keep for protection. There is another village the keep can trade with but it's farther away, the keep can function but it won't be as well off as it was when it was trading with Crestwood. Would you then save Crestwood? And I did say that the village, if saved, could send supplies to repair the keep.

edit:

At this point I'm just curious about what it's going to take for you to choose the village over the keep.

Modifié par SgtSteel91, 21 décembre 2013 - 04:01 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@MassivelyEffective: Again, precisely because you called it naive - we could not have an accord.

I prefer to be honest - if you said to me: "Let us be allies, because we can mutually benefit from one another."

I would say: "You do not want to be allies, you want some resource I have that you cannot obtain."

Then you might follow up with: "But surely I have some resource you might need?"

And I would say: "Then let us be trading partners. I form alliances with those I can trust. I can only trust you in so far as I can pay for your loyalty."

Were I a leader, I would seek as much autonomy as possible - making such "alliances" irrelevant. Where I could not - I would prefer to keep perspective on just what type of relationship I have from a trading partner. It is not one of trust - but mutual benefit.

That's not what I was getting at at all. If it was as you said, I'd just conquer you.

I mean there are advantages to alliances. What you're not getting is that I don't personally care about your well-being. The reason I'd want an alliance is because of the gains we'd reach cooperatively than individually.

Simply put it's like this: Yes, I am completely in it for myself and my own reasons, but I do believe the best approach is to cooperate. That way, we work as a team to further our benefits. I don't have a problem helping others if it gets me where I need to go. That's the part I don't think you're understanding.

[Medhia Nox]

@MassivelyEffective: Oh, I get very much where you're coming from - and I wouldn't be used to further your aims.

At best - I would do to you, what Loghain did to Cailan.

I said - you are unreliable. You have proven as much with your commentary.

The only people you have to gain from - are those too foolish enough to think you could be trusted.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 décembre 2013 - 04:01 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

SgtSteel91 wrote...

@Massively
So what if the keep was just a military outpost? It can't be self-sufficient so it made an agreement to Crestwood to trade supplies to the keep for protection. There is another village the keep can trade with but it's farther away, the keep can function but it won't be as well off as it was when it was trading with Crestwood. Would you then save Crestwood? And I did say that the village, if saved, could send supplies to repair the keep.

I'd question why I only had such a lightly defended OP near a village with strategic capability in the first place. 

Also, I'd question why my OP isn't self-sufficient. I'd have to have some kind of supply route from my HQ to my OP. And if it's so lightly defended of an OP, I'm not going to have the manpower to hold a position on the village. And if I can't defend the village, I'm going to focus on holding my position on my keep.

Simply put, if it is as you say it is, I'm a really ****ty Commander if I put myself in that kind of situation of having a lightly defended OP needing to rely on resources from a village in hostile territory that it can't defend adequately.

You have to look at it from a real military perspective. That's why I mentioned METT-TC.

Mission
Enemy
Terrain
Troops
-
Time
Civilian Considerations

U.S. Army FM 3-21.8

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 21 décembre 2013 - 04:06 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@MassivelyEffective: Oh, I get very much where you're coming from - and I wouldn't be used to further your aims.

At best - I would do to you, what Loghain did to Cailan.

I said - you are unreliable. You have proven as much with your commentary.

The only people you have to gain from - are those too foolish enough to think you could be trusted.

Even if it furthered your own?

Trust me, I can tell you why that's a foolhardy sense of self-worth there. You're doing exactly what some of the Afghan Tribal Leaders did when I was over in the sandbox, and their decisions really came back to bite us in the ass, causing a lot of infighting and distrust between tribes who had too much pride to really focus on the local insurgencies that ended up costing everyone more.

And again, how am I unreliable? You keep telling me that I am, and not how I am. I'm going to be there to help you. It's in my interest to help you. You're turning down help because the guy who's helping you might have his own reasons for helping you? Would you rather have trust between allies or a notional ally helping you for his own ends with the really big, really powerful, and well trained military? 

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 21 décembre 2013 - 04:08 .

[dreamgazer]

Depends on whether everyone else is being a jackass or not. I'll react accordingly.

[Medhia Nox]

@MassiveEffective: I said we might come to an accord insofar as trade partners... it is the premise we have some greater unity that I would be sure was very clear that you knew we do not have.

There is no reason for you to misunderstand when - and I mean when - I sever my ties with you before you take advantage of my "whatever" (people, forces, supplies, etc.)

Edit based off your own: I'm turning down your help, because I cannot trust a man who's loyalty I am purchasing.  How is that not clear? 

Your mindset is mercenary - and while I "might" purchase mercenaries, I would never find them reliable.  Neither does most of history.

===

Also, please don't superimpose America over your personal Inquisitor army.

Your "better, bigger army" is a convention you're bringing up to attempt to prove your point.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 décembre 2013 - 04:13 .

[spirosz]

The one who will act.

[Lebanese Dude]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Good is subjective in my opinion. Even a serial killer feels 'good' when he kills his victims. 

I'm not going to begrudge him his feelings. There are reasons he feels the way he does, and much of them are completely beyond his control.

However, his existence, at least in an unfettered freedom sense, is an issue to my own circumstances. We simply have two incompatible approaches to life, and I'm not going to possibly compromise my own ends to accomodate his, unless it's beneficial to some goal of mine.

It is subjective. 

Technically we follow a similar path.  Another reason I help people is because it satisfies me. 

The fuzzy feeling I get is also something that has value to me. 

[Hellion Rex]

spirosz wrote...

The one who will act.

Hear, hear.

[dreamgazer]

spirosz wrote...

The one who will act.

So you're role-playing a thespian, then.

[spirosz]

dreamgazer wrote...

spirosz wrote...

The one who will act.

So you're role-playing a thespian, then.

Act upon this Dream!

[Hellion Rex]

dreamgazer wrote...

spirosz wrote...

The one who will act.

So you're role-playing a thespian, then.

Are we not actors portraying a role within the game?

[Medhia Nox]

Is not all the world a stage!?  

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 décembre 2013 - 04:20 .

[Hellion Rex]

If you ****** us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@MassiveEffective: I said we might come to an accord insofar as trade partners... it is the premise we have some greater unity that I would be sure was very clear that you knew we do not have.

There is no reason for you to misunderstand when - and I mean when - I sever my ties with you before you take advantage of my "whatever" (people, forces, supplies, etc.)

Edit based off your own: I'm turning down your help, because I cannot trust a man who's loyalty I am purchasing.  How is that not clear? 

Your mindset is mercenary - and while I "might" purchase mercenaries, I would never find them reliable.  Neither does most of history.

Simply put, I don't think you've ever studied foreign policy from a keystone realist perspective - considering that mutual defence alliances are based entirely on my philosophy. Nor do I think you really understand the concept of cooperative mutually beneficial alliances. Especially since you keep calling it mercenary.

NATO, NORAD, ANZUS, the Warsaw Pact...

It's not mercenary.

It's a Progressively constructive realist cooperative defense treaty. 

We're stronger together than we are separately. We have similar goals. We're going to work together. That does not mean we need to be buddy-buddy best friends. It's a policy of 'you watch my back, I'll watch yours'.

===

Also, please don't superimpose America over your personal Inquisitor army.

Your "better, bigger army" is a convention you're bringing up to attempt to prove your point.

No, it's an analogy used to explain my point of what you're saying.

The thinking that you're advocating died out when it caused the First World War. And yes, your idea's of trust and friendship between states are indeed what caused the First World War.

It's presently what's keeping Afghanistan from forming a stable and progressive political base in light of a heavy insurgency. It's why we haven't left yet.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 21 décembre 2013 - 04:23 .

[Br3admax]

"I have no wish to change the world. But nor can I stand by while men suffer and die on the whim of some select few.  Do you truly believe you can change the world? Not even I am so naive as that."

Words to live by, I think.

Modifié par Br3ad, 21 décembre 2013 - 04:26 .

[Medhia Nox]

@MassivelyEffective: And after all that - you still haven't gained an ally.

So, I suppose you need the fiction that your army is best trained and largest to disregard some pretend alliance with someone like myself.

Thedas is not the modern real world.

You stated in one of your posts that you only take objection with a serial killer because his goals are not aligned with your own - if that's what you are like, I am fine with my antiquated thinking.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 21 décembre 2013 - 04:25 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Br3ad wrote...

"I have no wish to change the world. But nor can I stand by while men suffer and die on the whim of some select few."

Words to live by, I think.

I wish to change the world. I think it's foolish waste that men suffer and die based on the whims of the select few. I wish to stop the senseless waste of men who suffer and die based on the whims of the select few. There's a difference between spending lives and wasting lives.

[spirosz]

I'm curious as to why we're arguing about the size of our pants army?

[Br3admax]

Do you know where my quote comes from, Massively? It's not really comparable to the conversation that you are having. I'm talking about myself.

[GreyLycanTrope]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...
And yes, your idea's of trust and friendship between states are indeed what caused the First World War.

Not to derail into a historical discussion or the rest of you explination but this little bit isn't accurate. If you're thinking of the Alliance system in place trust and friendship certainly weren't the ideals being used when it came about.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 21 décembre 2013 - 04:28 .

[Medhia Nox]

@spirosz: "We" are not.

[dreamgazer]

Br3ad wrote...

"I have no wish to change the world. But nor can I stand by while men suffer and die on the whim of some select few.  Do you truly believe you can change the world? Not even I am so naive as that."

Words to live by, I think.

“Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things”.