Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/19/19 in all areas

  1. Maybe next time don't joke in a vc whilst we have peace talks about the bs terms you can quickly come up with if we surrender whilst we have someone in said vc. If IQ were serious about peace (which they are not), they'd be handling this better. These attempts so far have been to humiliate and attempt to swap the blame to our coalition for stalling peace. Not a surprising tactic as most their allies have no idea the games their negotiators have been playing.
    9 points
  2. As someone who runs a recruitment bot 24/7 it is pain to look for unread messages that are from possible applicants, alliance members, or foreign entities. I'd like to propose two possible solutions to this issue. 1. Have Unread Messages on the top until they are marked as read or opened allowing the receiver to easily find the unread messages Or 2. Allow a search by unread or something similar to allow me to find such emails that haven't being opened or set to read
    8 points
  3. It's not a projection. The bad logs just justify the feelings you already had. The bloc you did made more sense than CoS ever being on opposite sides from you. That had been the big change in KF not them signing with you so when CoS leadership continued being friendly to you and had become progressively hostile to the other alliances it was a huge red flag that culminated in the signing of your bloc. Pretty much all of the alliances in your current bloc had been friendly for a long time except maybe Soup Kitchen. So the approach TKR took of trying to reconcile with every other coalition member was alarming in fact and if you and Manthrax/Ripper can't see how making Chaos was tension-causing in the way it's done, it can't be helped. Not really. Like I said based on multiple convos, it was clear there was a decent amount of anger and lots of accusations in the open in the week prior to us hitting tkr. You seem to think interests coincide with economic profitability. War is never really profitable. For us, fighting in globals is important because we want people to gain experience and Knightfall had coddled a lot of people. There was also demand for war starting 2 months into peace. You don't know for a fact that we would have retained our allies and it was frequently raised as a concern prior to us signing that we needed continuity in leadership or at least continuity in ideas. The PR for a big alliance sitting out/barely fighting is easy to spin negatively. "da npo is pullin da stringz to make every1 else burn". When an alliance appears to be pixel huggy and alienates people who ask it for help, it's easy for it to be a giant target or for people to want to punish them so they don't appear invincible. That was the main reason even though Rose/KT/TGH had been the ones to cause direct offense in AC, we still went with the Knightfall plan as TKR appeared to be untouchable and it would be easy for people to buy into it further. For instance, there was an alliance called Zodiac made up of Chola and BoC. The BoC people ditched after ToT to do AIM and go against IQ. The Chola people were the ones remaining but a certain group of people hid themselves away and only communicated with one leader, Aerys. Aerys became extremely busy IRL and they began to develop their own ideas and saw the game as unplayable with BK. They had broken with his tiering system and wished to become GOB-lite with high infra builds and high city counts, so when they had to fight tjest, they got upset and then didn't want to follow the strategy in AC which led to them approaching TKR and TKR asking them to drop BK. The way BK fought for the splinter alliance(The Chola Empire later renamed Tesla) meant they'd lose infra during wars due to not being able to keep max tanks/navy/etc. and stay above water. Tesla went on later to flop when they came under pressure but if TKR had not been hit, it'd have been a success story for some time longer and anyone paying attention doesn't want that to happen. Anyway, being a pixel hugger and avoiding war can be damaging PR-wise as well. There's also the fact if the war was too easy for you could either restore economics to the upper tier or go for us. At a certain point sitting on BK and co would stop being a bother especially as they'd continue to lose face in terms of their side, alliances would exit, and they had already lost the proverbial "mandate of heaven" by being on the back foot and many people on their side wavered and didn't use their full potential. At the end of Knightfall, BK appeared to be on the upswing and people gravitated to that orbit and even moreso when cov/BK looked to be super big. The issue is it was too too much sprawl and competing ideas to manage and people hadn't internalized the fact that BK and others weren't well-liked and they'd have to get used to fighting in a different way to accommodate that so all the numbers they had ended up not meaning much. We wanted to make sure a complete collapse didn't happen as it would pose a considerable risk to us. No econ would make it viable for us to beat your side on our own. Basically with the evidence, keshav got a little too eager to call smith out on his constant goading which ruined the primary source for evidence as it tipped off the involved parties to remove the content and left only second hand stuff and we don't see the point in outing people when they won't be liked anyway and they don't want to be outed. Um, we do feel we've been consistent. It's just our reasoning is more complex than anyone one factor. That said you've done a good job presenting your views of how you see what TKR is doing and have helped tone down the vitriol. Okay let's explain this again. Anyone could have hit TEst even if you're upset it was BK. It could have been a combo of Polar/acadia/upn. So Typhon and others entered aggressively and it could have had spillover effects on the other fronts if we didn't counter right away, so it was done in a rush. We had no designs on Typhon or Aurora prior to that. We had wanted TS to incorporate Typhon in order to make the sphere more streamlined and self-reliant post-war, but we had no real connections to Typhon or any of the other tS prots. So when tS made it clear we were through with the signings and deliberate lack of disclosure and the shooting down of any mediation to salvage the sphere prior to that, we couldn't hold back further than we already were. By not engaging the hard front ourselves(tS), we were already carrying less of the burden and by avoiding hitting prots, it would have been more pressure on our coalition partners.
    4 points
  4. You are the peanut gallery.
    3 points
  5. I'm not one of the negotiators, for good reason. My statement about the incentive is to encourage further talks. Every war before this, terms were given before to help negotiate the process of ending a war. Not after. You're talking to a lot of old leaders here, not new ones. Of course the newer alliances (Ming/North Point) would be willing to see past that because this is their first rodeo of such talks. Every alliance that has left Coalition B was presented terms before requesting their surrender or white peace. Some of them had lengthy discussions, some were pretty short. All of it worked out peacefully to my knowledge. The problem your side is having is that you're expecting people such as Adrienne, Keegoz, etc. to trust your words - after already having it blasted to hell and back. EDIT: And uh, yeah, a lot of the nuances of this war is NPO's fault. BKsphere only started the war, but NPO escalated it in multiple ways (Not just by dragging in more and more people that had no ties to this conflict).
    3 points
  6. “So, it’s settled, friends?” Jazz asked, looking at a ragtag group of leaders assembled before him. Adrienne nodded tersely, silent as usual. She was a dull one, Jazz thought, all work and no play. A harbinger of boredom, to be sure. Kev, who was cradling a seemingly bottomless bowl of soup in front of him, slurped loudly, pausing just long enough to give a thumbs up. Charlie, who was sharing not only the mammoth soup bowl with Kev but also the fork, gave a mumbled answer from behind his mouthful of noodles. Jazz glanced over at Skwidgy and Bezzers, who gave noncommittal nods from the couch as they continued playing Minecraft. “Let us celebrate then,” Jazz said, lifting his glass. Adrienne reluctantly clinked it and then returned to her workstation next to the bar, putting on her oversized headphones with a closed off demeanor that begged for people to annoy her. A quiet figure slinked out of the shadows to do just that and the sounds of Insane Clown Posse blaring drowned out the party music. A split second later, the sound of glass splintering caught the attention of the room. A sheepish Kev held up his fork while Jazz, broken glass in hand, looked like he was having a hard time deciding between annoyance and amusement. Squeegee, holding his can of Orange Crush, piped up from the couch, “Heh, good job, loser.” The Chaos compatriots were an odd bunch, Jazz noted as he took survey of the room. Blink glanced around, noticeably disgruntled at the lack of rum. He adjusted the eyepatch he wore as a reminder to others of his superior raiding ability. Ripper sidled over to him, hoping to reignite a discussion on the merits of one-shipping. Cooper, ever the shy and demure one, sat in a corner of the room, furiously scribbling in his notebook. In another corner, a girl wearing a pikachu costume appeared to be attempting to stew a lobster dog. In stark contrast to her, Adrienne’s apparent right hand man, GoldyHammer, was already drunk and running around the room, professing his love to anyone that would listen. Thrax seemed to have had some success in engaging Adrienne though. The two were now enthralled in discussion, comparing notes on various animal genitalia. “DUCK WANGS!” Thrax guffawed. “HILARIOUS!” All of a sudden, a loud crash emanated from the side of the room and the goons scattered. Bits of dust and dry wall snowed dow n from the sky. “YUGI PUT TANK IN HOUSE!” a voice yelled out. The goons looked shocked but the Chaosites were unphased. Jazz looked over at Skwidgy questioningly. “Ah, that’s just a normal Thursday for us. We have the repairmen on speed dial, don’t sweat it,” he said, before resuming Minecraft. Jazz shrugged and carried on. Cooper put down his notebook as Marx offered him a drink. Jazz’s eyes lit up as he spotted and lifted the notebook from the table. “What’s this?” “A term that TKR actually accepted?” asked dancemasterlee, looking over Jazz’s shoulder. “It can’t be!” Perrydotto grabbed the notebook and quickly glanced it over. Smirking, she stood up on the drinks table, accidentally knocking over one of the mixers and earning herself an indignant look from Adrienne, who resituated her computer on her lap. “AHEM!” she said, looking triumphant. The room quieted and turned towards her, save for Bezzers who, surprised at the sudden speech, knocked over a glass of tequila. It slowly dripped onto the floor. “It was a tale of mercy!” she exclaimed. The crowd gazed back at her, silently bemused. She continued on. It was a tale of mercy. A radiance of sorts And boards of controversy. The GOONS cheer, “eat my shorts.” Oh orange men, how to plead? In chorus, they all say Something awful indeed There is news, to relay. It was a Blink of an eye. The knights had seen enough So it’s time to find Versailles. The goon, we honor as tough. Enemies by circumstance. Friends of genuine intent. We begin our final dance: Surrender, we consent. From the depth of war it seems, A new vision appears Of Toxx n’ SJWs we dream, A joint future is near. As the grenades fizzle out, My queen it’s time to look Look without a single doubt GOONS read us like a book The tale lives on: mercy spurned As knight becomes comrade. Others have much to learn But GOONS, oh boy I’m glad. She finished and, with a flourish, gracefully hopped down from the table. Archibald clapped Cooper on the back. “Good job, kid,” he said. Cooper blushed furiously and looked down. Tl;dr Chaos surrenders to GOONS. Let us shake hands and use the salt to line our margarita glasses. Another Jose! /s/ The Lunatics /s/ GOONS
    3 points
  7. Young nation about Coalition B not posting all their peace terms https://webmshare.com/play/0ooyK Young nation about Coalition A refusing to surrender https://webmshare.com/play/d77Pv I don't even need to edit the videos, already perfect
    3 points
  8. 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?
    2 points
  9. Hello Orbis. This is Changeup with a message for the Orbis community, a message that is being voiced by casual players like myself across both sides of the war and outside of it: Calm things down a bit, will ya? The PW forums are little more than extreme arrogance and toxic mudslinging. This type of behavior, which is most commonly seen in alliance governments and serious players, is unhealthy for the game itself and the thousands of casual players who aren't really involved in alliance politics. The mentality shared by both coalitions "I'm right, you're wrong" leads to nothing but arguing and toxicity. While I'm all for politics on the forums (I play a game called Politics and War, lol) when it gets to this point someone needs to draw a line. I don't want to play the blame game, I'm not finger pointing here, but people just need to chill out a bit. We play this game for fun, and I wouldn't call what goes on in these 30-page threads fun. Please, let's try and make PW a bit more fun and a lot less toxic.
    2 points
  10. Where is the "Nuke everyone button" when you need it? Hard reset time.
    2 points
  11. I think a mark all read would also be useful if someone doesn't want to look through really old unread messages to mark those individually; although consider everything worth reading already read. I realize people can use the check boxes, but still think just being to get rid of the unread messages vwith 1 click would be more convenient.
    2 points
  12. This would be quite nice indeed
    2 points
  13. You say that as if the impact on recruitment is equally spread across both coalitions, it might be if this were an even war, but it isn't. Naturally the Coalition that is getting absolutely slapped below 4.5k (you guys) will feel a greater impact on low tiers and new recruits. Once again, that can be ended at any time by DMing Sphinx or TheNG and admitting defeat. From what I've observed on this side of the pond our recruits have been absolutely thriving on the plunder your coalition provides. Take the current #1 for Soldier kills in the entire war, a green NPO recruit 4 months ago who has amassed a fortune of pixels and experience tearing through all the yummy targets y'all provide. imho War is the crucible that forges the best recruits an alliance can get, provided you haven't lost tier control and can give them breathing room. If your argument is that we should make concessions to Coalition A because Coalition A is feeling the weight of defeat and can't recruit I don't think you're going to get far unfortunately. Ultimately its a free market and recruits will go somewhere they can have a reasonable expectation of prosperity.
    2 points
  14. If the war isn't enough of a burden to overwhelm other aspects of the game like your loyalty to your alliance then how can it be damaging to the health of the game like you were spouting earlier? I wouldn't leave my alliance over a little rolling which is my point. The war is a completely natural part of the game that has continued for so long with the consent of all parties involved. All these moral appeals to Game Health from your Coalition are baseless and hold no value.
    2 points
  15. I choose to stay a member of Coalition A because I happen to like TKR. I enjoy talking to the people here and being apart of that community. They reached out to me when I first started, taught me a lot about the game, and helped me grow as a player. Even now, I enjoy being with them and talking to all their members and frankly they are like family to me. Just because I choose to stay with them doesn't mean I am seeking eternal war. It just means I like my family and I stick with them regardless of what's happening inside of the game. Keeping in mind that this IS just a game. If players choice is as important as you say it is, I choose to stay with my alliance because this alliance is important to me. Doesn't mean I support every decision they make, but if I am going to be apart of that team, I do play with my teammates same as you. Would you jump ship and desert your alliance if you were in our position? If so, isn't that a bit shallow...?
    2 points
  16. I don't see how the game suffers from Coalition A voluntarily being rolled for 6+ months. Player choice is an important part of every game and your leadership has clearly chosen that they want the war to continue for the foreseeable future, and you've clearly chosen to endorse that decision by remaining a member of a Coalition A alliance. If war was truly untenable for your leadership they would surrender, and if it was untenable for you you'd leave the alliance. Neither outcome has occurred, which means that both your leadership and you as an individual want more war. There is absolutely 0 onus on Coalition B to make concessions or capitulations to Coalition A when we've won the war and gain economic ground against you every day. It's on your leadership to admit that they've been defeated and that this set of circumstances is no longer acceptable to them.
    2 points
  17. Nah. If you aren't willing to accept term one, the rest are pointless. Honestly, no amount of equivocation from your side will change this. Unless and until it's clear you are willing to surrender/admit defeat, there's no point for talks to go on. You're free to read @Akuryo's post earlier in this thread that showcased it was a simple one-liner and we moved straight into the terms and negotiated stuff till a compromise was found. That was demonstrated with Ming and whomever else tbh. Not about to change it now for folks who's leadership state they do not wish to surrender in public while trying to pull this guilt-trip on the forums. No thanks.
    2 points
  18. I just may put that image on our AA page.
    2 points
  19. I've said this before, but the problem with the talks in this war (and why we aren't getting anywhere) is the constant insistence on arguing about who was right to attack in the first place. Whether NPO had proper CB, whether they actually struck first, if this whole thing is some big conspiracy; people keep arguing about that crap continuously in a circle. But the truth of the matter in regards to that? It doesn't gd matter. I'm not gonna pretend to know the answer to the question of "was NPO in the right", because GOONS was new as heck and certainly not involved in the discussion that lead to the declaration (and even if it had been, I'm not FA). But it seriously doesn't matter, because it -happened-. You're arguing about whether or not this is morally just and it's like ??? Who cares. Do you think if Germany had just whined about the allies more in WW1 they would've won or something? This isn't how that works. The war happened. It happened and is continuing to happen. The sooner you accept that, and accept the fact that you're -losing-, the sooner we can move the hell on and get this over with. Because this denial isn't just boring, it's straight up harmful to every new player trying to join.
    2 points
  20. Clarke has stated that TCW will never have a restored military rep, and @TheNG has been making alliances make it very clear Clarke has done nothing wrong. Therefore even your own side believes TCW still has a negative war rep.
    2 points
  21. Still on about the surrender first thing, eh? Alright, i never fully disclosed the exact process for me i guess, i can't speak for Ming, and European States left when the war was still a draw and didn't have to surrender, and i noticed Ming and NP have been pointed to recently as "Examples to expect", so here's your example to expect. For context, i approached personally after about, maybe 10-14 days of self deliberations. I was well beyond ready to step out, at the start of that timeline it'd been nearly 2 weeks since anyone but myself in NP had launched an offensive, everyone else had switched to raw producing 600 infra and builds and slapped onto 100/100. Anyway, during this period Mhearl in Rose was working to try and get us out, alongside TKR trying to get their prots out. Weeks prior Coalition B proposed a deal to peace out smaller alliances, and they tried to bring that back, Coalition B wasn't biting it. So anyway, after about two weeks of this i figured, Sphinx is a negotiator. He's a good friend of mine and we've a long and storied relationship, i'm still new to FA, but i think i can handle this. I DM Mhearl, tell him i know Coalition B isn't biting on any deals and that's the wall he's hitting and i'm gonna for it myself, which he didn't mind at all. Now above me here, Bourhann says no one else who left had to surrender first before getting terms, and initially i nodded and went "Yep, true", and then i thought about it. I thought about it and realized, actually one of the first things said to me when i asked about peace was "You're looking to surrender?" or something to that effect. The entire question and answer was a measly two lines from two people that had, frankly, very little bearing on anything stated afterwards, aside from the very first term being an affirmation of my answer to that question. Among the first things pushed to me was the same thing they did to Clan Callan, infra limits. Now what happened next with these, contradictory to what KERCHTOGG expects would have happened considering, my response was i straight up told him to throw that garbage in the trash because it wasn't happening. I had a variety of arguments and reasons for why that was just a complete non-starter, primarily because if not for some of our new allies lending us assistance we'd be plugging away at a sizable debt while trying to rebuild a bank. As you can see from our actual terms, there were no infra limits. Despite having already surrendered, i drew a red line, and Sphinx and i worked together and found something else to bargain as a replacement for it, we both liked it, and Coalition B's leaders were convinced of it too. This would be the debt terms, which i bargained were better than infra limits after doing the math and seeing that if the war went on for another ~month or so after, i'd actually be in the positive. Mhearl warned me about it, he thought there was a good chance it'd only go another 3, though i'm not sure what gave him such confidence The other big disagreement was the NAP. Sphinx came with 8, said he had to talk that down from the original 9 someone said. I said that was patently absurd, 3 is perfectly fine. If you check the terms, it ended up at 6, and everybody was unhappy, just like compromises should leave you! Everything else was meme terms i didn't mind, and infact attempting to draw a picture in MS paint for Yui was pretty amusing, and more difficult than i anticipated it would be. So, anyway, that textwall over, since somebody pointed to NP and Ming as an example, there's the actual NP perspective. I surrendered before being given other terms, and despite that when i disagreed with or outright drew a red line where i'd turn right around and leave, they were negotiated and replaced with something agreeable to everyone. There was nothing stopping me from yeeting right out the window anytime i wanted after surrendering, what were they gonna do? Declare i surrendered on the forums and... stop attacking me? Yeah, uh, okay, go for it. I don't know what terms will be given to KERCHTOGG as a whole or how exactly they'll differ from mine, but i can tell you the pre-surrender was a completely irrelevant factor that didn't come up a single time afterwards in negotiations, disputes or otherwise. Hope that helps somebody make their decisions, whatever decisions those may be, for whatever reasons they feel just.
    2 points
  22. 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.
    2 points
  23. I threw most of this together as a quick dark theme alternative a couple years ago and have been gradually expanding it for greater customization. More specifically to allow for color selection rather than purely a fixed theme. It's reached the point of being quite usable and in need of a larger testing audience. To install it you'll need a user styles manager such as Stylus (available for Firefox and Chrome). Then all you need to do is click here: Some screenshots below of its default color scheme: No more tiny bank input fields! And of course if that color scheme isn't manly enough for you there is always the option to do this:
    1 point
  24. http://politicsandwar.com/index.php?id=129 Its already in the game, right? Why isn't it implemented?
    1 point
  25. I think it's a big problem that a single alliance has more than 400% the members of any other current alliance in existence without any regulation. It'd be the same if a person with a large social media following brought over some 10,000 followers into one alliance (completely hypothetical), but it's a huge problem since the overwhelming majority is located all in one alliance, under one government. It's not even about our "lack of recruitment" (I personally don't think we should have to do Sheepy's advertising for him in order to compete), but that having such a large umbrella of members under one government's disposal is absurd. It's not persecuting anyone for being good at recruitment, it's adding regulations to split up the power and add risks to having such a large member base, much like how corporations in real life are regulated. I also don't see how it'll kill player retention since the split of power is only in-game and I'm sure your community would still exist all on the same Discord platform, not to mention the increased demand for government positions would allow more of your members to get more involved in the game.
    1 point
  26. frick off you piss of shit! You are the worst person I 've ever met! You want to kick off the most important thing of this forum??!! Dishonor! Dishonor on your whole family! Dishonor on you, dishonor on your cow! Let toxic be toxic! #Ilovemakingpeoplecry
    1 point
  27. What I dont get is this: IF coal. A says: 'we surrender', coal. B presents terms. IF coal. A then thinks: 'these terms are bonkers' then they can keep fighting. Why not try this? If the terms are bonkers, show them in the OWF and keep the moral high ground, if they are okay, then peace.
    1 point
  28. 1 point
  29. So I've quoted my original post so that we have no misunderstandings (the bane of many a negotiation). I am sorry if I've been unclear with my meaning. What I mean to say is that surrender as a precondition may be amenable to someone if their circumstance in their mind indicated imminent destruction with no hope. I did not mean to imply that is the perception held of coalition A by coalition A. To be absolutely clear, I personally think (as does my leadership as far as I know) that a precondition of surrender is unacceptable to us. As far as surrender being a part of a broader peace-deal (a package deal some may call it), where all the terms are upon the table to be discussed, then I see no problem with you taking the position that our surrender is non-negotiable. Please do not get confused between surrender as a precondition and surrender as a non-negotiable element of a (hopefully) future peace deal, as you seem to have done already. To paint a logical picture, a stated precondition of surrender to negotiate terms is necessarily non-negotiable, however a non-negotiable surrender is not necessarily a precondition to negotiate terms. I am of the opinion that the only purpose that you have for asking for surrender before releasing terms is because it serves your own purposes to our detriment. I grant you that the highly probably detriment I am predicting may be an essential non-issue for coalition A to service, but equally so it may be a deal breaker and we would end up right where we are now. So given the latter, we would also be in essence arming you with a point of difference i.e. that we backed out of a surrender, and given the vitriol on this forum and the apparent diplomatic impasse we find ourselves in, I'm sure you can understand that is not unreasonably the last thing we desire. I am certain there are other opinions out there, certainly more informed with historical context. However this is just me calling it how I see it, desiring peace and not wishing to get burdened with game destroying conditions to how I/we choose to play. I will fight insofar as I believe it the best option at any given time, and your position thus far sustains this belief. Have a great day
    1 point
  30. The only issue here is that you, Sphinx, etc, are so deadset that we want to surrender. Your best option to even have us consider surrender is presenting the terms that would give us incentive to accept surrendering. It's obvious, by now, that most of our alliances on our side are pretty torn down Infra/Score wise, but by war mechanics alone - anybody can simply rebuild back up to 600-800 Infra per city and be able to fully max out military easily and cheaply to continue fighting (Entirely depending on their targets and strats, of course). This particular war isn't new to most veterans in the game. NPO/BK were ground down to dust before, TKR has been before, hell - Rose has been several times throughout it's long history, etc. All these new comers that think nation/alliance score is what matters know nothing of this game. The war started with both of your spheres (N$O and BKsphere - it's no longer Covenant, let's be real) had plans to roll both of the smaller spheres (KETOG, Chaos). You folks had established plans long beforehand to build around the idea of a long war. So one way or another, we were going to get dogpiled against. And one way or another, in the future, we'll be dogpiled again too. Simply because you can't pull each other's dicks from your asses. The only people who attempted to change the game are all in our coalition, while your side would rather have the game remain stagnant.
    1 point
  31. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=519483 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=519482 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=519485 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=519484 Guerilla Whalefare, colorized.
    1 point
  32. Hi Sphinx, thanks for clarifying your views on this. On the one hand I guess you're saying you're side isn't asking an unconditional surrender (or at least that you never said you wanted that :-)) and that rumours about some harsh terms (or any terms in general) are demonstrably false. This implicitly suggests that terms won't be excessive. But without knowing actual terms, all anyone can do is just guess… And you do state that coalition A can "reject the terms and continue fighting", just like " Germany had the option of doing so after WW1". This is an interesting comparison. The Versailles treaty meant Germany had to accept all responsibility for the war, lost much territory, received severe restrictions on the size of its military, lost control of part of its industry to its victors. The 1919 treaty suggested huge reparations payments until 1988 (!). British delegate Keynes and others knew in advance that harsh peace terms would mean trouble for the next generation. And they were right as global war 2 showed. This short reference to WW1, but also harsh words about the grudge match for which "you don't have anyone else to blame" and which won't be "forgotten about" suggests terms "won't forget about" this either and be more than just another global peace treaty. You can hardly blame rank and file reading "Vengeance" into some of these words, besides much more severe existing mutual distrust and toxicity. Some will expect the worst. That in earlier exit negotiations for instance infra limitations were said to be a topic is also unlikely to set minds at ease. I think one lesson of WW1 was that you don't just need to win the war - you also need to win the peace. And you don't do that with a "Carthaginian" peace treaty which crushes the enemy even postwar. Which - by the way - also alienates and warns neutral bystanders and even worries some on your own side (or so I hear). There is a recent example which might help. During Knightfall my alliance leader held a serious grudge against TCW and against you in particular. As FA at the time, with no history with you, I'm glad how despite this grudge the peace treaty didn't demand much more than admittal of defeat and the usual quirky demands about flags etc (and something about a trade bot). At least no big payments, infra limits or cripling demands like that. Something that by the way (I think) was agreed to as a package deal. This made for a good peace after a good war. It would really help the peace process if you could clarify all your demands, at least to coalition A. Do they need to agree they've lost first? Doing so in logs which can be leaked, means them giving something without knowing what they'll get in return. It means running the risk of it being leaked by the enemy and used to hurt their war effort. So just talk about the package deal as a whole. Show your side, the enemy and all of Orbis that besides winning the war, you can also win the peace. And do it in style.
    1 point
  33. Imagine being this bitter about losing. I can't.
    1 point
  34. An alliance involved in a global war, with multiple reports of unidentified spy ops against it?
    1 point
  35. You had zero requirement to reach out to TGH over spy reports? Uh... what? lol. >Even in the beginning of the war, GOONS orders were to only hit TKR So you're expecting us to stand aside and let you beat up on an alliance that we're on the same side with? >blatant untruths Where exactly? You spied us, you got caught, we retaliated. Go ahead and log dump it.
    1 point
  36. People don’t play this game to have fun, people play this game to prevent other people from having fun.
    1 point
  37. I agree with diversification and probably wouldn't mention any if I didn't have other reliable options. Although its a for profit bank I thought deserved some publicity and I think has a good reputation.
    1 point
  38. 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.
    1 point
  39. 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.
    1 point
  40. Literally the first line of the wikipedia article: An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party. We literally have no guarantees of what terms you're going to put down in terms, and you're asking for our surrender before outlining the terms. By definition of the term its unconditional.
    1 point
  41. 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.
    1 point
  42. It's an odd question (from the OPs perspective) because "trustworthy" is meant in the context of getting a loan from. Usually, banks have to deem the loanee trustworthy because the bank wants to be sure that they will be getting paid back and turning a profit. From the loanee's point of view, you should want to take a loan from the most unstable bank there is because there is a good chance they will soon collapse and then *not* have to pay the bank back. Assuming that they don't have an organized bankruptcy and the owners delete the bank because it's a ponzi scheme/unsustainable. When investing, however, you should look for trustworthiness and stability and it's probably best to invest in two-four trustworthy banks to diversify away company specific risks. But there's always a lack of liquidity in these investments, especially now with the global war and a lack of traders. While people gave Trolly a lot of crap, he was good for liquidity in all of the banks.
    1 point
  43. It was a sheer pleasure. I have met awesome people, and I want to thank everyone for the fun time. Special note to: @souparmon @Bozzie @kosmokenny @Caspian XII S. Wolfe @Abigor @Bill the Moose @Richard Payne III @JasperFrost @Marlboro lalo @Pruss @BlackBeard @Elijah Mikaelson @Noctis Anarch Caelum (I hope you're doing well) Cheers!
    1 point
  44. There are all sorts of problems with comparing RL factory production to life here in Orbis. Firstly, Soviet and American factories in WW2. American factories were very much more efficient than Soviet ones, but Soviet factories were truly gigantic in scale, often formed of multiple factories being combined together after the move east. Plus, although there may only have been 10 Soviet tank construction factories there were many many factories producing components that were then sent to these mega-factories. In terms of aircraft numbers, trainers are not the only non-combat types. Transports, reconnaissance, and communications aircraft made up around a third of US WW2 aircraft production for example. Secondly, WW2 to today. Obviously, modern military production numbers are relatively fewer than WW2 numbers, which could be interpreted in Orbis terms as peacetime military vs wartime military (not every alliance follows such a process though). However it is also true that modern weapons are very much more complex and expensive, meaning a longer production time, higher costs per unit and their assembly cannot be undertaken by a relatively unskilled workforce, unlike WW2-era equipment. Given that technology does not change in Orbis, and given that different nations do not have different workforces/traditions/government types that meaningfully impact production/etc etc I can't see how there can't be a difference between Orbis and RL. Mind you, as I've been typing this I've realised that although I can nitpick at some of your detail, your original hypothesis still stands.
    1 point
  45. Would be nice to be able to individually assign bank perms or not to folks too.
    1 point
  46. This is the stupidest thing I have read all day, and I have 50+ pages back in Alliance Affairs to go to.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.