Quote:
Originally Posted by Wouter
If 2 countries have a ceasefire and one starts attacks before it is over, you are breaking a deal. "No Aggression Pact" clearly if you have one of those, unless your "NAP" stands for something different. You are breaching the "No Aggression Pact", since clearly you agreed to not being aggressive untill a certain time.
|
I dont agree. Let us say Trump gives an aircraft carrier group in the Indian Ocean an order to sail to attack North Korea. They reach Taiwan and are ordered to turn around has an attack occured? No. They can even get all the way to the Korean coast. The attack does not occur until they launch missiles and combat begins. Now it is possible that the North Koreans will respond to the carrier group coming close with their own attacks beginning the combat phase but they dont have to. And the Americans still have a chance to change their minds until combat begins.
This is exactly the same. We launch. We can still recall. Combat does not occur. The big difference here is that in pa wars mostly consist of such manouvers rather than actual combat so it is more ambigious. As such your calling me into the real world if anything undermines your argument.
It would only not undermine your argument if you are in a situation where giving the order leads to instant combat. But we know that this is not the case in pa; there is always 7 hours in which to change your mind. We totally arbitrarily regard war as starting when we begin moving the pieces (what would be considered mobilization in the real world), not when the pieces reach their target. This is the opposite to the real world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RexDrax
Back to my small block and playing for fun and not the win
|
It has already been identified that a large part of the problem this round is that
no one except ult is playing for the win and are only playing for fun. As such there is no one who has reason to as you say keep "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."