Leaderboard

Bwahahaha. Nearly every sentence in that paragraph is wrong. Impressive. Let's talk about history and unconditional surrenders. There has never been and never will be a unconditional surrender in which the loser did not wind up agreeing to all terms imposed by the victors. That's how that works. Let's note that coalition B has refused to talk about any potential terms until after coalition A's surrender. That is by definition a unconditional surrender. You seriously expect people to be willing to surrender unconditionally when the opposing coalition contains actors known to have imposed ridiculous terms. And don't give me any of the NPO isn't the same as NPO nonsense. Either own your name or change it. Similarly, given that BK has put rather ridiculous terms on the table in the past, an unconditional surrender to any coalition containing either alliance is a bad idea. Let's next talk about precedent. This particular game has never had unconditional surrenders, and establishing that precedent will lead to longer wars as the best possible victory condition has changed dramatically. There's also the fact that coalition B winning would encourage longer wars, as we have opened up a path to victory of literally just waiting out an opponent instead of smashing through their infra, although given how long the last few globals have been, this isn't truly a new idea, but it would be the first time it worked. Up until now, dragging out a war has at most resulted in white peace, but the precedent of improving conditions by dragging out a war has resulted in longer wars. Thirdly, it would establish that having net negative damage, rolling coalition allies, having secret arbitrary treaties that one can twist into a CB, and bullshit CBs are valid things along a path to victory. If you truly believe these are not bad precedents for the game as a whole, give me what you're smoking because I need to escape reality.

While I'm not a fan of the idea of public negotiations -- It gets messy -- your side might want to get together and make public what the terms for peace would be. I am a neutral party int his war, I've been spectating on and off and have some people on both sides I speak to about things. The public image being portrayed is that your side are a bunch of unreasonable douchenozzles in terms of peace. The reason the war is still going is because your terms for peace. If your terms are reasonable, and that metric will vary from person to person, then you take away one of the PR aspects in the war which you are losing in my opinion. If your terms aren't reasonable, well, I get why you wouldn't want them to be public knowledge which sort of further puts you in a place of continued losing that PR aspect. Also, if your terms are reasonable, and your opponents have been spinning that they aren't to some of their allies, you might see some of their allies look for individual peace.

>Coalition A: You want peace? Okay. What are your terms? >Coalition B: Not until you admit you lost and surrender! >Coalition A: Are those all your terms? >Coalition B: No, we have others. >Coalition A: Well...what are they? >Coalition B: You wouldn’t accept them if we offered, so we’re not giving them to you. >Also Coalition B: Coalition A is the reason this war is going on forever. REEEEEE! .....

The war has lasted for 6 months or so. I think we can all agree we have dragged this out for longer than reasonably accepted. I think most people on both sides want this to end after such a long time. So on behalf of myself and whoever else wants some answers: what are Col B terms to end the war? what are Col A terms to end the war? what the heck do you people want? (by people I mean both Coalitions representatives) if you just want the war to last forever or both side's terms are unreconcilable, can you guys at least put them forth for the 5 thousand people's community to hear?

Damage ratios are a poor example of winners and losers in this game. Take Papers, Please. Terminus Est clearly lost that war. I personally netted about 2B in profits from loot (didn't get a big bank hit) and myself and several others had much, much larger damage dealt numbers than damage received. Over all TEst had positive damage ratios in that war because we had more targets with infra to destroy than we had infra to destroy in our alliance. Lets say each member had 1B infra to lose, and we had 30 members. The most TEst could have lost was ~30B. If there's 500B in infra on the other side, we can deal way more damage than it's possible for us to take. Damage ratios ca be a metric of how well your alliance performed, but definitely not if you've won or lost. The damage ratios in this war are also a little skewed. The biggest factor was Coalition A blowing up each others infra in a war just before this war (due to the leaks that war stopped). They had less infra to lose going into this fight so the amount of damages they could have taken were lessened by their own side. Coalition B has also been farming some soft targets arguably not tied to coalition A in attempts to balance some of the stats. All that said, I am actually curious of what the peace terms are. There's been a lot of alleged terms thrown around publicly, and I've heard some others privately. Wouldn't be a horrible idea to set some of the record straight.

Is it worth considering how many new players started and stopped playing during that time due to alliance efforts being focused on wartime?

It's not an unconditional surrender to begin with as you are not laying down arms. You'd be approaching us as a defeated party and acknowledging defeat. You would be abel to negotiate on the other points and would have no obligation simply from agreeing to the first one to agree to the rest. Unconditional surrender would be us requiring you to turn over control of your militaries and internal workings and then implement whatever terms we have and you wouldn't know about. The rest of your post is just subjective bs where you're the good guys objectively. How I see it is the complete opposite. You've done plenty of questionable cbs and won yourselves. For me, it's ultimately you are the traditional winners and you don't want to eat some humble pie. Your side raised the stakes with its apocalyptic proclamations. You gave us essentially a blank check by saying we'd have to completely smother you and dominate or be hunted to the ends of the earth. Um, so again, this is entirely your subjective perception. I simply saw the wholesale dismemberment of the BKsphere as being dangerous for us. We would have no ability to resist a similar sized coalition on our own and our only major alliance treaties were tenuous and based on a leader who vanished. This wasn't an easy war even with us going in, so all this claptrap about killing the game is laughable. You're the ones who made the decision to pool the majority of traditional elites into two spheres that made up your side. You just wanted to win and you felt entitled for history to repeat itself and you could get back to winning and smashing mid tier people you don't like. We at one point completely operated in a sea of darkness surrounded by your hegemony in a very isolated capacity. The fact that you can't handle losing isn't my problem.

Well, it appears that the longer this war goes on, the greater BK's effort to suicide their reputation and war standing (i.e. losing allies (some quite long-term), attacking unaffiliated parties, dragging in an entire sphere with significant ties to their own side). What could possibly be next? I'm certainly curious to find out! In other news, convenient time to return from your vacation, Seb - hope you got a nice tan.

This just isn't fair, and you know it. As someone who I believe is decently well-versed in political theory and psychology, I think you know much better than I that once someone surrenders, the negotiating position is severely diminished. And you've been clear that you want surrender. Fine. Make that clear in negotiations, but post your terms and don't accept anything until you're satisfied. If these terms are as acceptable as is claimed, then there should be no harm in making a simple post on the OWF or to our leaders about what terms you have and then we can negotiate. I can't think of a good reason to not present the terms given the fact that you can walk away from negotiations if you're not satisfied after you've shown the terms and we've started negotiation. I won't go so far as to call us the good guys, but the people who have subjected us to arcane first-of-the-month-only negotiations to just delete and block our representatives multiple times certainly aren't neither. So please let's get off our high horses together, and actually work to fix this mess. If you really want to know the secret to NPO's insecurity, it's not grand coalitions nor secret conspiracies rather it comes down to duplicity, a lack of communication and paranoia. If you're truly adamant about protecting your interests, then work with us, communicate with us the terms that you are pursuing, and plan to negotiate in good faith. I can promise you the same from our side. No, I didn't say that. What I said is that we know you want a NAP and surrender plus unspecified terms, but that the main reasons of why we don't want to surrender are not just limited to this but also systematic. There are precedent and political concerns to consider. I appreciate you guys listening to what we are saying, but third-hard corruptions of my statements aren't useful.

You either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are lying through your teeth. Our coalition has been open to discussing peace for months. You are now using the “blame it on KnightFall” tagline, when none of the representatives at the table in our Coalition were on the opposite side of you during KnightFall. Keegoz - KT (Did not participate in Knightfall) Mhearl - Rose (Was a part of your coalition in KnightFall) Myself - Soup Kitchen (Did not exist during KnightFall. I was also not a part of the KF conflict) Every single excuse that you’ve thrown out in regards to discussing peace keeps coming out as bullshit. Why don’t you just own up to the fact that you want this war to be a never-ending conflict and that you are the ones holding up the process?

So this thread is a prime example of why letting your idiot members go on deranged forum rants is rarely a good thing. Never go full Scarfalot kids. I'll just bring this bad boy back out since it amusingly still applies.

"Hey, I have an idea! Sign this blank peace of paper saying you agree to anything in it! I know there is nothing on it right now, but after you sign it, we'll fill it in with terms and conditions that you have to abide by. It is the perfect contract!!!" That is what you are saying to Coalition A right now... And do you honestly realize how stupid it sounds? Do you honestly believe that anyone in their right mind is going to sign a blank piece of paper agreeing to something when NOTHING had been offered in terms of incentives to sign? News flash, Coalition B! People don't usually sign something without knowing what they are signing up for. Your request for our side to admit defeat and surrender to terms that haven't been put in place is honestly as pathetic as BKs ability to keep their allies close... If you want some form of a surrender, why don't you pull your heads out of the sand and offer something worth our time instead of wasting it? What's funny about this war is that I believe Coalition B was hoping to reestablish or form a new reputation of sorts? You guys are doing that quite lovely! *Insert sarcasm here*... With your 'admit defeat first, and THEN we'll talk'-stance, all I'm really seeing is the narcissistic, arrogant vanity of your leaders. Your Coalition, or at least a small group of people in it are so proud that they would sacrifice anything in their efforts to make themselves feel good. You can say I'm wrong and argue that is not the case here. If you do though, you MIGHT want to ask yourself why members of your own coalition are not only leaving it, but also turning against you and fighting the same coalition they were once apart of. You can blame Coalition A all you want to for that, but I can assure you it's not our fault you are at war with your own allies. Even if you guys win this war, the only reputation you'll have afforded to you when this is over is one of selfish vanity. You guys would rather win a war and lose EVERYTHING rather than accept defeat, or heaven forbid even think about white peace. That's the image I have of coalition B right now as just an average player, and I guarantee you that I'm not the only one.

The usefulness of posting this may come into question for some of you, but after some things I've seen, it seemed neccessary to post this, I do truly think this is a huge threat to the community if unchecked, so after much thought, I posted this. It seems that there are evil people toiling and schemeing to end this war, we cannot tolerate such heinous behavior any longer. They are like termites trying to destroy a beautiful house, they are trying to destroy this war that we have worked so hard to create, we must stop them before it's to late. The war has lasted for 4 months or so, I think we can all agree we can do better and drag it out much longer! I think all people in Coalition A (who aren't whales) want it to continue because it hasn't gone on long enough. So on behalf of myself, and whoever else wants some answers: Why are you trying to end such a beautiful thing? Do you delight in trying to destroy all things good? So here's my only compromise to them, the war will be over by A Christmas.

Going back to Sebs initial question... I'd like to argue endlessly having the same alliances fighting each other gets boring after 4+ months and that that drives players from the game. Even winning against essentially beaten enemies gets boring after a while. So unless a goal is boring repetition driving players from the game, peace talks for this global should get going. So both peace and new alliance wars can offer players something fresh. I don't say this because I want peace or love pixels (I love how I've been getting beiged and nuked recently). I don't say this because I'm losing (I beat my enemies armies). But because endless repetition is boring. And it's not like we don't know which alliance (yes, without the "s") has won in recent months. Looking at score, amount of members and protectorates NPO has won the game. Congrats guys. And with that coalition A is unlikely to turn around the war. Why has NPO won? And why single out NPO? 1) Score: Guinea Pig and NPO combined (569k) are twice as big as BK or T$, let alone coalition A alliances. 2) Members: just Guinea Pig and NPO combined (1300 members) have as many members as all other alliances combined up to #23. Take into account NPO protectorates like Goons and we're talking up to #30 or more. 25-30% of active players is GPWC/NPO member. 3) Other major alliances have been weakened: yes, coalition A has suffered losses in terms of members and score and activity. But major alliances tied to NPO or fighting alongside it have also suffered some losses. BK lost important treaties (Carthage etc). High tire heavy TCW is fighting against pretty much everyone else in that tier - and losing. And HS and T$ are facing bad odds in the midtier. While NPO has been adding quickly growing protectorates and been safe in the midtier it rules with BK and the lowest tier GPWC owns. 4) Thanks to 6-month long NAPs with Farksphere and RnR, we know no other large alliances are likely to enter this global. So this is it. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Roq, you argue yourself this global war has been won. I agree. Your enemies, allies and those fighting alongside NPO alike have all suffered to some degree. NPO/GPWC is largest by far. This war will easily end up the biggest and longest. Offer reasonable terms publicly, let everyone know what NPO/GPWC wants - let alliances fly those guinea pigs in their flag for a week - and let players move on to something new and more interesting. Before even more players leave this game bored and you are forced to let your 1300 Guinea Pigs (and counting) fight each other.

It's not explicitly clear. Everyone knows the comparison is a joke. You're using on paper stats for that. The numbers don't do much if people have an expectation of winning right away or not trying, so by getting hit first and losing a lot of military in the first round, many of the less experienced alliances gave up pretty quickly. I mean this has happened pretty frequently in globals, so trotting it out is awkward. I personally told Cov/BK when they originally approached me they should be able to make use of the forces already in the war, but the will just wasn't there for a lot of the people and eventually they either dropped out or deserted or went inactive. Suiciding is still considered crazy by a lot of people, even and those people will drop out/halfass. The reason your coalition has gotten so many withdrawals is mostly due to people not wanting to play correctly and do what it takes to win. You're in way worse shape than a lot of the alliances who peaced out. There aren't enough alliances for those to be separate spheres and it would leave you and KETOG to be the strongest. I've already gone over how most of the heavy hitters in KNightsfall aligned with KETOG/Rose and the transfer of members from rose to KETOG who were the heavy hitters of Rose was done in a conflict shortly before Surf's Up. Convincing people who we have nothing in common with at all whose interest is for us to gimp ourselves by letting dominoes fall is pretty useless. It wouldn't have been a utopia and we'd have not been able to beat the other spheres ourselves alone while also triggering considerable resentment by sitting out despite having the ability to make an impact. It would have been a repeat of previous wars where two spheres weren't sufficient on their own and chose to let the other take the bigger hits or just not enter at all. We had to break that cycle. Your notions of smaller ignore military capacity and informal connections. For instance, there was zero possibility of Boyce/Bluebear/etc. or Rose's big boys ever opposing KETOG in any sense. We can all imagine fantasy land where abbas is opposing keegoz/sketchy xfd. ockey is gonna hit abbas totally and so on. So no, having people like DTC/other whales and GOB/Guardian in the same orbit doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.

Soo..... You're saying that you don't have a finalized terms list. You expect the war to last a few more months (and you're not going to bother doing peace terms until it ends). Okay, so you do have a terms list. You just don't want to share it. Understood completely. From what I understand, you have been talking about peace, being disingenuous about the terms for months, with the hope that the war continues, and that you have time to create more terms. Completely understood.

For Coalition A to surrender For Coalition B to surrender Jokes aside, this war is a bit of a sticky one and there are no signs of it ending soon. I presume more people are leaving the game than actually joining it (if you exclude NPO puppets) which can only be a bad thing and the game seems to only be going in a downwards spiral from this point in terms of treaties and coalition changes.

every post in this thread will add a month to peace talks

Nope. Again, that's subjective and not necessarily true. Your argument is built upon the idea of pure numbers, and no one has historically run with the idea of pure numbers wins wars. It is a component of it, and a metric to truly measure the power of a side, but those numbers without context, and where the strength comes from and those players/alliances historical performance during war-time, are all metrics that are completely necessary to understand the real staying power of an alliance. I can go through a list of alliances if you ever do want to have a real intellectual discussion on their real power outside of numbers and their addition to a coalition or not, and see which sides come out stronger. tS/HS/NPO + Protectorates do not make an OP military bloc, and the performance of those protectorates while being ground out is anything to go on, our assertion is proven to be true. By using the numbers argument, your purposefully choosing statistics to prove your claim like Ted Cruz uses "global cooling" arguments against global warming. Cherry-picking evidence and showcasing that as some explicit truth further points to the disingenuous approach in having this discussion. The same can be said, the moment TKR and KETOGG got together and an old boys club of historic alliances along with the added firepower of Chaos coming together, it became imperative that the NPO acts. Like you say, we had two options, either allow you to consolidate, therefore rolling over and dying, or to prevent Chaos+KETOGG being a winning combination and further splitting the game and power blocs, rather then returning to a Chaos run hegemony, versus disparate set of opposition, with a history of jumping ship to easy mode coalitions, rather than putting in effort to oppose such a hegemony. Our decision was easy enough to make under the same rational claim you make. If the argument is yours was a more "rational" claim, and we should have just rolled over and died for you in a few months, I'd point to how TKR's argument that everyone else is wrong and only TKR can make rational decisions, is narcissistic at best, and the NPO isn't really going to play ball with your entitled behaviour towards FA. We aren't going to enable a TKR hegemony by watching any bulwark fail and flip sides to TKR/KETOGG and then take a rolling down the road, just like how you weren't willing to take one right now. So the motivations for both our actions are than the same aren't they? Both TKR and NPO did not want to roll over and die, so tell me again, how this makes only the NPO evil. We did the former as well, because under your conditions, it was the rational and the better than any of the other sub-optimal outcomes. Nope. Unless you're talking about KETOGG, which was before Surf's Up, or that somehow TKR and co now had this deal with KETOGG then? Folks keep stating this as some sort of goal of the N$O. It was never the goal of the N$O. N$O was originated with a very different goal in mind, and if you're going to keep trying to shoehorn this line into N$O's intent, I can categorically tell you, that's a figment of your imagination and not something we particularly bothered with. N$O had its own goals and that had nothing to do with solely not working with BK. Our treaty obligations were informed of our reason for entering, and disagreed with it. One doesn't need treaties to enter a war, as you yourselves have shown in this war. So let's not try to use that as some sort of winning argument, when it's again bullshit. Also taking advice on treaties from TKR is laughable, when you're own track record is sketchy at best. Nah, you started the move towards that, we just entered it, to ensure that if its going to come to that, you folks are bloodied and damaged enough to reduce the speed of your ascendancy. So what I get from all of this is, it was a three sphere world, and Chaos and co. had the right to further empower themselves, while NPO doesn't, and therefore if Chaos took actions to make this a bi-polar world (which it did), we're to blame for countering that. Got it. So only TKR is entitled to win wars, and NPO is evil and game-killing for opposing TKR. Sounds like a privileged entitled kid, who's just crying because they weren't able to get what they believed they were unjustly entitled to. Here, I'd like to point you to Rory Stewart reading out a nice letter. You sound like the little kid, the letter is describing https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/oct/04/stewart-reads-out-1982-eton-letter-about-johnsons-gross-failure-video Our interests lay in ensuring Chaos+KETOGG would be bloodied enough to prevent, or at least harm their ascendancy into an OP sphere. If that meant we had to work with BK in this case, so be it. It sucks tS/HS didn't see things our way, but we sure as hell will prevent any movement to enabling your sphere from becoming OP, and I'm sorry if its the failure of your FA from preventing us from acting. I guess a lack of trust and your failures to change that, played a big enough role for forcing our hand. TKR isn't spotless through this. In fact, your FA blunders were easy enough to read and made this situation possible. Maybe its time to go back to the drawing board and figure out a new path to victory. Hey there bby, why did RL take you away from us

Honestly the lack of foresight from Coalition A is alarming. If they aren’t willing to take a loss to then bounce back stronger next war then joining their coalition next war is something I’d 100% be advocating against.

Let's be very explicitly clear here. Chaos+KETOG+Rose literally had less fire power than BK-sphere on its own. The way that power separated after knightfall was problematic in the sense of there being two huge blocs (N$O and BK-sphere), two smaller spheres (Chaos, KETOG), and one very small sphere (Rose). The last three had to team up if they ever wanted to beat one of the big two from a sheer numbers perspective (Skill can make up a difference, but it's rather limited due to how this game is designed). Honestly Rose-sphere's firepower isn't so much a sphere as Rose and a few friends. Ideally, T$ would've anchored a different sphere from NPO, and similar so for BK and TCW. So there would've been 7 spheres, but I digress. As soon as it became evident via leaks that BK-sphere planned to roll us with their literal 3:1 city advantage, we had two options, either ask for help rolling them or roll over and die. We did the former because that's rational. I believe we did reach out to someone in N$O with regards to this. We're merely stating that you had the opportunity to convince the world that N$O and BK-sphere were not allied in any way. Given your literal treaty obligations pre-war, there's no MD-level treaties for your entrance, and you never claimed entrance off your OD-level treaty with Polaris, which is the only treaty joining the two spheres, the world would have a 3+sphere system. (Let's not forget that KETOG and Chaos were happy beating up each other until the leaks happened). Your alliance's actions single-handily returned the world to a 2-sphere system. While you could and you appear to be arguing that Chaos's actions reduced the world from a 5-sphere thing down to 3, as I pointed out earlier, in terms of fire power, it was already that. For there to have been truly more than 3 spheres, BK-sphere and N$O would have had to be smaller. Thanks for confirmation that your interests literally placed a non-treaty partner over a MD-level partner. It's very enlightening, and makes it apparent that unless your name is BK, one should not even bother with considering NPO as an ally, as otherwise they'll stab you in the back if your actions threaten BK.

A question to roq: So are you planning to force your ally to unconditionally surrender and accept bogus terms for defending its protectorate from a scenario aggressively pushed by BK, while also having directly attacked said ally's protectorates yourself?

Wait so agreeing that we will be discussing the terms of your surrender/defeat is now unconditional surrender and not possible? Literally all your representatives needed to state was that they accept to admit defeat as a part of the final terms and they won't negotiate with regards to that. Defeat is non-negotiable, once that term is out of the way everything else is negotiable tbh. The prevailing idea is that once everyone is clear that the negotiations are for Coal A's surrender we can move on to discuss the other terms, with which you can either do the what you're doing now, reject, or accept and work towards peace. If you aren't willing to accept the first term in any peace deal, why would someone play their hand and release the rest/work on the rest when the non-negotiable term isn't accepted? Also I love how Japan77 and JustinM have some sort of crazy idea that Chaos is allowed to team up with other mini spheres to hit alliances, but the NPO can't because it'd kill the game. Your entire position is predicated on TKR's right to win and everyone else's right to loose and I'm terribly sorry if we aren't going to let that fly. You don't have a monopoly on winning or "just" actions. Your own actions led to this, so own up to it rather than raving in apocalyptic terms that we've broken some agreement or word we made with TKR. We made neither, nor did you make one to upkeep mini spheres, since you broke that concept first, we just answered your provocations with actions to protect our interests, same as you. It's nice to see you try to pull some honour card again, its quite nifty to see. Do tell us more how TKR are all just and right and every one else who does something against the TKR is absolutely wrong. Your narcissism is fun to read.

Obviously the solution here is to have all involved parties surrender to GOONS. We've already started the process.

"We have terms. The most perfect, beautiful terms you've ever seen. But you can't see them because the IRS is currently investigating them as part of a routine audit." How dare we make the argument that we're actually winning against the paper tiger?

That's a lot of words from someone who hasn't fought an offensive war in over a month. If you truly believe Coalition B is a game killing hegemony that shouldn't be allowed to win then you're being a pretty bad citizen of the game by not fighting us at all. Mil up or shut up.

Stop.

It's been 4 months, how long did you think you set that VM timer to chief?

Hello Orbis. I am hope. Now, you may ask, what does that mean? Who are you? Why should I care? I will explain this to you shortly. I am from the Evolutionary Level Above Human (the "Kingdom of Heaven"). What does that yield? Well, immediately a lot of people will go "CULT!," "some religious radical!," some "blasphemous individual!" - because they see religion as beneath them, or at least ones that they do not prescribe to. But there is a world, far beyond your imagination, that will only be open to you once you join us. You see, we are going home. Not to our home in San Diego, but our home above. Hale-Bopp's approach is the "marker" we have been waiting for - the time for the arrival of the spacecraft from the Level Above Human to take us home to "Their World" - in the literal Heavens. Our twenty-two years on planet Earth is finally coming to conclusion - "graduation" from the Human Evolutionary Level. We are happily prepared to leave "this world" and go with Ti's crew. Who are we? We are Heaven's Gate, although you may alternatively know us as "Heaven's Davidians" or a variety of other names. Our message is simple. This world, Planet Earth as it is known by humans, is about to be RECYCLED, REFURBISHED, and SPADED UNDER. I think you all know what the implications of such an event will be. However, you can escape all this pain and impending doom, by ascending to the Level Above, the level which created HUMANS as an entity. It is very simple, you have to accept Ti and Do as your leaders and join our class - the Heaven's Gate Away Team, and prepare for the eventual apocalypse. It may sound like nonsense. It is up to you to accept these facts. We are just providing you with the knowledge needed to become AN ENTITY GREATER THAN ALL THE HUMAN CIVILISATION COMBINED - CAPABLE OF CREATING LIFE, POTENTIALLY ETERNAL LIFE. TL;DR: HEAVENS GATE declares its existence. Signed: hope and yeet Protected by: New Pacific Order and Order of the White Rose Alliance Page: https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=6040 Discord: https://discord.gg/wFHQnFW

Hi, I am Moist. I just started playing this game but I used to play CN ages ago.

No, then you keep fighting. I'll assume people are being intentionally obtuse because I can't imagine anybody not managing to grasp such a simple concept. Surrender is one of any number of terms that you have to accept, if you don't agree to all then you're obviously not bound to the rest.. If the terms are A,B,C, and D, and you are fine with A,B, and C, but not D, you continue on as normal, and renegotiate D, you have not accepted A,B or even C, and do not need to abide by them until a final agreement is reached. Surrender is A.

Nah. Why? Where's the fun in disbanding, I'm looking forward to playing this game for a long while. Or do you support players leaving the game and killing communities Micchan? I mean surrendering is a term a part of the whole deal, but non-negotiable. If you agree to that, we can move on to the other terms. i.e You will not be negotiating a white peace, or any peace that does not include your surrender/admission of defeat in the final document. Quite straightforward no?

Did you forget Rose or did we finally stop pretending that Rose isn't a part of KETOG?

No. In the last war, the other side said it was fine with that one but disputed the others. They agreeing to surrender when the final terms are agreed upon. Don't twist my statements into some sort of orwellian thing. This is kind of the lack of understanding here. It's not supposed to be a bargaining chip in our opinion. You can agree to admit defeat but negotiate on the other things. The last few times you've had no interest in admitting defeat, so nobody wants to fight on that. I don't think you've been around long enough to know what is behind our insecurity or not. The stuff I say that is dismissed as paranoia are at least contingency plans and there is a basis for acting. You did say they were light. I mean there's no way to prove what you did or didn't say but you said you heard they were light but that it set a bad precedent to surrender with the damage stats. I don't record people without their knowledge, so yeah, this won't be verifiable either way.

Where are you getting this? Basically cooper or someone else said on the hope radio show that he had an idea of what the terms are but that you didn't want to surrender. I'm not at liberty to disclose them, but you could look at the Ming or NP as models and not be too far off. Of course they're subject to change.

Ok, what if KETOGG/Chaos admitted to a state of shmerple, defined as willingness to consider surrender based on an exchange of further terms. Shmerple only transforms into surrender upon the signing of a peace accord, much like a trap card.

I want some answers. Why are you posting this when you've been relaxing comfortably in VM a good chunk of the war? Someone from Chaos/KETOG who has had nonstop war for 5 months should be posting this.

Will you go back to VM once T$ high tiers gets brought back down?

The war has just started;) Keep the global going!

Eh. I think this is kind of missing the point. Thalmor was going for a certain thing when he made the alliance and it was bound to attract people more radical than he may be. The post-Thalmor leaders like Keegoz who don't traditionally imbue their alliances with RL poliitcal views have had the challenge of balancing the fact that it will get them negative attention and alienating their memberbase by going too "PC". I don't know what their own personal views are ultimately, but the imagery curu cites is the most prominent with regards to the KT theme. By contrast there was a knights templar themed alliance in CN, and it never had these political associations because it was a much different political climate at the time it was made and it didn't try to attract people based on their RL political views. To give some examples, there was a person with a British Union of Fascists flag with Tsumugi from K-On on it. There's also a hyperborea theme nation which comes with all the associated issues the alliance had since you know Hyperborea is supposed to be the mythical homeland of the Aryan race. I was very disgruntled with the Hyperborea theme and BK's association with it for a long time. There's also that guy who did the lynching reference and his ruler name and nation name was specifically mocking of blacks/muslims to begin with. There's also Rhodesia forever nation as well and you know it means it's someone who sees white minority rule as ideal.

Thank you to all people who made positive comments and welcomed us in to Orbis greatly appreciated comrades! However all the people who have a problem with our alliance and made negative comments this is for you

So basically imagery and actions as close to Nazi as possible without breaking the rules, hmm yes much better

If you join Heaven’s Gate we will provide you with bottomless pizza rolls! That’s right! Bottomless pizza rolls! Disclaimer: we can not guarantee a bottomless supply of pizza rolls

Is tS part of KERTCHOG? Should it adopt collective bargaining with KERCHTOG then it'd be bound by anything KERTCHOG does. Otherwise, we can surrender jointly with tS to Cov and co and admit Clarke did nothing wrong.

Before joining this alliance, I felt a severe concern for the people around me. And now? Why, now I don't feel a thing! Join today! Only YOU can save yourself!

She'll roll herself and then claim that she won. Dont worry.

"Are we going to shop for precursors today?" "No need, Eliphea. It's not the precursors that we need, it's the customers. The war has geared our own production into the military and blocked the shipments from abroad. I thought it would mean more clientele for what we do, but either it's not late enough, or lots of people had the same idea." It was probably the latter, as the government wasn't big into stockpiling consumer goods. "You're going to make appliances out of scrap for a living, moving onward?" - Eliphea asked. It's like she thought the inverse of what everyone else did. When you thought how to survive a month, she thought about prosperity for years to come. When you were fixed deep in thought, she was fixed on what's right in front of you. Azariah looked at Eliphea's tender face, her rough auburn hair, her ocean-blue eyes. Eyes like an ocean, a face that could melt you into one. "I'm going to provide for you. As a man does. As your mother did. At peace, I'll turn to tasks of peace, at war, to whatever it takes. It's simple. I suffer whenever you do. I smile whenever you do. As a family." Family, they were not. Even so, Eliphea smiled and turned her head slightly to the left. A much more harrowing sight was to her right. A man, no older than Azariah, in a cliche mask, turned the warm encounter into a sorry case of Scream franchise scene. The only exception was he had a gun, rather than a knife. "You... hold it right here!" - he said, trembling. "What are... okay, I'm here. Just.. don't hurt her, okay? I've almost nothing on me, but don't you hurt her! What are you anyway." - Azariah's fight or flight instinct was flipping all over itself. Surrender to apparent robbery. Protect Eliphea. Money was fleeting, and never in abundance anyway, unlike her. Protect Eliphea... all else was secondary. "We're... Regulators... we saw you two walk with the sign... and that we cannot allow!" - he muttered, on the brink of going to the bathroom all over himself. Behind them, gunshots and panicked crowds sang their deathly orchestra. "Friends of yours?" - Azariah asked. "We really have nothing to surrender... no food, no real money... but we have this! It should be worth quite a bit!" - Eliphea stuttered, holding the large trinket before her as if to hand it over to the scared gunman, his iron sights on her. Big mistake. "NO!" - the gunman screamed, and Azariah's sight went white. BLAM! That's all he heard. In radiance, he closed his eyes. Was he no more? No, no, no, this could not be. He had to live for Eliphea... but she had to live too! If she was shot, if she was really shot by this lunatic, if... Azariah feared to open his eyes. For one dreary minute, he could not face whatever the truth of it all was. The mere notion... Eliphea... He'd prefer to cower in terror, even as perhaps she needed his help. And only when his mind realized that his eyes went wide open. The hue of the world was purple. Time seemed to have stopped. Bewildered expression of Eliphea, the screaming face of a gunman, brass casing in the air, all in perfect stasis, embroiled in a purple hue. The stars of the sky were now among them. And, the worst of it all. The lead bullet, frozen on its unforgiving trajectory. Azariah didn't need to check. If time resumed now, it would land right between Eliphea's eyes. Was there a way out of the present, frozen in motion? Should there be, if the future is so unbearable? Perhaps one could go back to the past, avoid this as a premonition. Alas, this isn't a story about going back or looking ahead.