Leaderboard

Esteemed members of Orbis, The Federation joined the war for her allies, The Immortals - to no regret. However circumstances for the war effort changed. Unfortunately, those we thought were friends, were actually enemies within and paid no respect to alliances within Fark-sphere and others. Our delay for peace was as a result of much thought going into whether we should join alliances who signed peace. In the end, peace was decided for our alliance. Therefore: Upon the 21st of January, an agreement was made with the Ambassador of GOONS, JT Jag, and I that The Federation would invoke Clause 5 in the terms outlined in the 'Peace In Our Time' treaty. Large thanks to JT Jag for his swift cooperation and understanding. Thank you all. Have a nice day/night.

@Jazz R Oppenheimer Have a Snickers. You’re not you when you’re hungry.

I see you haven't read the art of the deal.

You're a little all over the place here, friend. First you invite us back to a non-existent server, then you tell us you're gonna sit on us forever, now you want us to make a server and invite you? This is a fun rollercoaster at least. 10/10 would ride again.

I don't know what's up with this congnitive dissonance. The peace terms presented are completely absurd and insane. Ask your gov to show you the terms and ask yourself if you would accept them for yourself, and accept them for BK and NPO respectively. You can't say 'just surrender and peace out already retard lol' when the peace terms include giving up our firstborns and surrendering our wives. It doesn't help that the process of negotiation has been made unnecessarily difficult because... reasons I guess. 'Well, fine then, I guess the war isn't ending then!' Yeah, I guess so. The people left active and fighting in Coalition A and in KT are the absolute most insane frickers left after all the others who did the smart thing and quit over the course of last year. You wanna make shit as hard on us as possible, we're going to return the favor. Now, nobody gets to enjoy any peace. Forget Politics and War. This game is just War now. Welcome to the ricefields.

An example of what would be rather hard for us to swallow is what's going on with KT right now. Maybe it could illustrate our concern: - KT has decided to go "frick it" and is doing its own thing. We don't have much if any control over what they say and do anymore, and they want to be seen as seperate. Let's call them a rogue entity. - At the same time, during peace negotiations, Coal B has made progression/finalization of peace talks contingent on KT. If we don't reel in KT, we won't have peace. TKR et al have offered alternatives which were shot down. TKR has tried to reel in KT, but failed. - As a result, we are unable to move forward due to a party we can't control doing its own thing. Applying that same principle to the NAP/bond: - let's say you hold 10B in collateral. We'll leave the argument on numbers and economics aside. This is purely about the principle of the bond and its relation to the NAP. - Let's say I retire and decide to form a 3rd incarnation of Terminal Jest (fun example!). I start posting dumb shit/trolling, and hit you. A total of 10 or 15 rogues join me. - Coalition A tries to reel me in, but I simply meme them and tell them to frick off. - Coalition B now has cause, according to the terms of the peace agreement, to consider the NAP broken and the bond forfeit. The 10B is lost and coal B no longer pays back the cash. - Coalition A, despite trying to fulfill the agreement, is now stuck choosing between escalating over the matter, or accepting the 10B as lost. Even if coal A distances itself from my Terminal Jest, coal B is not obligated to hand back the cash. Another example might be that coalition B desides to break the NAP itself, in which case the 10B is also lost. I am aware that you may state that this will not occur, but from our perspective we have a lot of reasons to suspect it will, and unlike us, there is no collateral holding you back.

Nice to see that you're so dense that you can't even understand the difference between starting figures and final ones. You know as well as I do that Coalition A will end up paying 60% of that at most, but want to paint this narrative that Coalition B is unwilling to negotiate. You're being dense on purpose and quite honestly it's starting to annoy me. Sphinx (who is now in your coalition) kicked everyone, not us. This will never happen, enjoy perma war.

*Coalition B not Opus Dei alone but since you asked nicely.... 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the KERCHTOGG half of Coalition A to Coalition B 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the Starksphere half of Coalition A to Coalition B 500m from TGH to GOONS 500m from CoS to UPN (already paid) 50m from Soup Kitchen to UPN 300m from Soup Kitchen to TCW ~15b in money/resources from KT to Polaris 2b combined from KT/TKR/t$ to UPN 2b from CoA to The Covenant 5b from CoA to BK 50m from CoA to UPN An undisclosed amount from t$ to Coalition B (Gringotts Bank term) That all adds up to ~45.45b w/o the Gringotts term and that's just Coalition A and not TCWsphere.

We didn't leave. We stayed there, trying to negotiate with you and figure out a way past the KT issue. It was you guys that walked out of that conversations over a week before Sphinx did anything. Our server is gone now apparently but t$'s is still there and there's still communication that way. Or via DMs. Instead, you're going around to a number of alliances trying to negotiate individual surrenders, which is very amusing to me since you're trying to disallow KT's individual peace and use their split from our coalition as an excuse to continue to hold us at war. We also didn't drag anyone else in. You did.

RIP CoS ;( I had great time in CoS with such great people ❤️ And what is important I will stay loyal to Evil Bo! Hail Evil Bo!

lol. Please dude. You've done so many bad things this war that we smell like roses in comparison at this point. There is no such thing as an illegitimate CB. If we saw you as a threat to competitiveness by having an easy curbstomp then it was valid to not let you decisively crush one side. You've focused on the proximal reason and we had enough reasons to believe TKR's tension with us would escalate. . We didn't break the NAP Kitschie and Immortals decided the NAP was dead because of TMC. This was a thin pretext for them to justify breaking it and entering to help you or TCW. They acted in bad faith with regards to the NAP. You complain so much about game health but an upwards transfer of wealth of that scale from a larger amount of people to one person is terrible for it. Given the viciousness and sanctioning of actual bank theft, tricking people to help you, rigging wars, and so on, it's hard to make this case at this point. Anyone who did anything wrong becomes a saint in your eyes as long as they screw us. You embraced EM when he broke his own deal. You canonized Gorge. This pattern just increases the need for these terms. You've justified everything on the basis of being hunted to extinction when your own aspirations for dominance are the true motive. -----

Ok before this whole reps debacle continues, I think it’s important to note the point of reps isn’t to give some sort of economic advantage to the winner but rather to punish a losing side for what was seen as unfair play. We’re talking about putting 50 billion in reps, @Do Not Fear Jazz you know I love you man but 30 ain’t much different, on a coalition that entered preemptively or was hit in the case of T$. @Alexio15 has the logs on the validity of the CB, so we’re talking about rightful warfare here. And for a time, coalition B won and accomplished its war goals which were to damage Chaos albeit on Chaos’ timeline versus rebuild. There isn’t a pretext for reps between the constant stalling and purposeful attrition coalition B has engaged in. Rather, what this is, is a shameful corruption of yet another precedent by OD in how peace negotiations function. Illegitimate CBs, breaking treaties, breaking NAPs wasn’t enough. Every political institution we know is being exploited for the sake of realpolitik, and this is ironic given that NPO are the ones who espouse an ideology of working within a formalized framework. If Polar got it’s bank hit, that is their fault no matter how much their FA gov might be great or want it back. War better and play better. Don’t utilize reps for something their not meant for because assuredly you’re setting a precedent that won’t be helpful for anyone, including you, in the future. Its shameful really how desperate things have become. Shame on everyone who wishes to instigate this dynamic and allow for reps to be a vehicle for personal piggybank, and I hope you don’t have to experience it as a taste of your own medicine.

Jazz is so good he is good cop and bad cop at the same time.

The Manhattan Cartel was not in "Farksphere" when the NAP was signed, and is not considered a part of Farksphere: https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/Farksphere Meanwhile TLE LITERALLY broke a NAP w/ GOONS to hit us and your side is cheering them on. Get bent, because we are going to continue to sit on you forever now.

Time's like this I miss the downvote....

Best news server in orbis yet so much bs and wrong Information in one article. I'm going to print this out and line my cats litter box with it.

The Regiment and The Federation have both invoked Clause 5, and are hereby bound to the NAP. The OP has been updated.

I've taken negotiation classes in business school and have been involved in union contract negotiations. I can tell you that proposing unrealistic terms isn't negotiation. When making a proposal, ask yourself if you really think they're realistic and in good faith, heck ask yourself if you'd ever accept them. Walking into negotiations with the terms ya'll have had prove that you really aren't interested in peace or ending the conflict, so why should anyone on our side sit down with you and listen to what you have to say. Your side has to show some sort of willingness to end the war, and be real with our side. Both sides have to try and mend some sort of relationship and lower the toxicity levels enough to sit down and have a real talk to end the war, but the first step has to be taken by your side in proposing real terms so that our side has a willingness to open their ears and have a real conversation.

As inst once suggested: Perhaps the term should be changed from "moderation as a weapon" to "rules-related blackmail"

(oh how I love that we never get talked to before we get a strike without even being able to defend ourselves and I'll just send over what i wrote on another forum without realising this one existed....) So, my inability to retaliate properly after being countered and having lost the ability to continue naval blockades, you consider this war to simply be slot-filling, yet just because I couldn't fight back the whole time despite him being on 2 resistance when you sent a strike. Plus, with having lost most of my money from constant ground attacks against myself, I was unable to rebuild and lost the ability to continue my blockade yet The Terapin Federation just sat there without retaliation, surely if you had a large air force you would've taken down my air force first instead of sitting there most of the time with the ability to win the war yet never took it? yet I am to suddenly blame? Yet instead of actually seeing what's happening on my nation due to being countered and over extended you consider this to be slot filling... when quite clearly it isn't since I have no inclination to want to support our alliances enemies and quite frankly would be rather stupid of me to do it. With the whole point of a blockade to whittle down an enemy so that we can then reduce his military within our range... I had almost full planes during the start of the war and was waiting on allied support to lower his air force down which didn't work since I was countered and my 2 other guys I had declared on were rebuilding too, so without even looking at the entire nation and simply at this single war you still send a strike? I also think basing a strike on a nation for slot filling solely on Infra destroyed is highly ignorant of an action.

We understand and are empathetic to the situation your alliance was put into, and we wish you all of the best in peace going forward. Thank you for working with us to resolve this conflict amicably.

Coalition B: "Our side has less liquidity." Charles: "Should have blown it on more cities in NPO. Coalition B: "it's not for NPO". Charles: "This is a referendum on NPO tiering." Coalition B: "The other side has had the ability to keep individuals out of wars whereas isolated upper tier wouldn't be getting big returns on 3000 infra+" Charles: "Should have spent more." Coalition B: Most alliances on our side do not tier like that or have 100/100 nor have they had as much time with income levels. The highest liquid alliances barely fight or hadn't fought losing wars before. Charles: "This is an admission of incompetence." Best of luck tFed/Reg.

https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/Oktoberfest "BoC will pay $50,000,000 each to SK and tS as reparations for the damage done" "UPN agrees to pay a total of $300 million, 30k gasoline, and 30k munitions to Seven Kingdoms, The Syndicate, and Terminus Est, as reparation for damages done." 'DEIC agrees to pay a total of 25k steel, 25k gasoline as reparations for damages done. DEIC also agrees to pay a total of 350million (300mil as reparations for damages, and 50million as a fine to Mensa for DEIC being !@#$)" It's not our problem that members of your coalition have decided that reps are bad now that you're on the losing side

Both sides could have handled negotiations better. The complaints from our end is that Coalition B has not been negotiating in good faith. It appears the complaints from your end is that Coalition A are being little !@#$es about the negotiation process. Perhaps each Coalition should pick someone from the opposing side that they would like to represent the opposing Coalition. For example: -Coalition A picks Jazz to represent Coalition B -Coalition B picks Mhearl to represent Coalition A That way concerns are addressed and we can have a productive negotiation which will hopefully end this war.

I mean revenue is almost directly proportional to city count, and in this metric NPO beats all. I think pre-war NPO was at 2800 cities, most at 2k infra. You're talking about basically 2 billion per day, and the alliance collects ALL of it. With BK, it's a similar story in the range of 1.7 billion at 2400, 2k infra cities. Pre-war TKR had a lot of cities below 2k infra and wasn't at full capacity yet with 1900 cities, so likely around 1 billion. T$ was around 1700 cities albeit at higher infra levels, so probably closer to 1.5 billion. In the previous two examples though, their taxes aren't even close to 100/100. This whole debate about wealth is stupid because in terms of actually wealth generation, no one has or is beating NPO, BK and GOONS. Once those GOONS are tiered to C15 and eventually C20 at 2k infra, that's probably the better part of 10 billion a day between just those three alliances. Every single day of peace, these alliances tier closer and closer to the upper tier and generate more revenue in a more efficiently-used manner. Forcing my members and those of Coalition A to pay for the advancement of NPO from 2 cities to 3 cities ahead of TKR in average city count isn't really solving things just further entrenching the wealth creation divide that exists right now. Props to NPO for having a great econ, but don't gaslight us into thinking that you're somehow poor given that you're literally the only alliance in the game who can single-handedly fund an entire coalition.

off-topic: off-topic posts have been nuked. Here is an advice for future reference: When you are in page 3+ of a thread and your message exceeds 10 lines, take a deep breath, check the topic again and ask yourself whether your current post is off-topic. Due to cascading effects, the probability this is the case is quite high. At that point, respect the OP and either stay on topic or say nothing and continue your debates to other threads. on-topic: I really enjoy the current war/state of events. Nothing better than coming back home, opening the P&W forums and seeing 173 reports to go through.

From as far as I can see, KT is still an alliance and t$ is not allied to it. We vet our members on an individual basis. If you have issues with an individual member on an OOC basis, then you are free to contact me and we will look at it. Until then you do not dictate who gets to play the game or not.

lol how did GOONS become experts on Orbis geopolitics after joining like 4 days ago

Seriously man? You're working with people who have tried to destroy my community and you're asking how much I enjoy trying to fricking keep it together? Not cool.

So preempting a planned attack on you is the right thing to do? I guess an apology is owed to Chaos, then.

It's almost as if TI still hasn't figured out why their allies are abandoning them and are still pushing the same lie.

no thanks

You too Kosta, have a good rebuild mate!

One thing I have enjoyed this war is the mini-sphere project come to prominence. We've had Chaos - Ketog vs BK Sphere - N$O vs Farksphere - Schrutesphere - Cockblock. One global war comprising of a war triangle of multiple mini-spheres.

Hail The Federation! o/ May you recover now in peace and prosperity.

Best of luck to you and The Federation going forward, Kosta. May a quick and easy rebuild be on your horizon.

Funny enough I'm almost on the nukes eaten leaderboard, we should try to hit each other sometime.

This is blatantly false as I have somehow ended up as chief negotiator for memesphere even though I'm not even a fricking rep. If you choose to be this dense then enjoy the hellfire of war for eternity while TKR crumbles, we can keep this up indefinitely. This. I would unironically be okay with negotiating with Mhearl.

Give or take that puts you back what a month, maybe a month and a half? Then you have a huge NAP period, which historically has always been adhered to, to rebuild thoroughly. Is that really that bad it's worth losing further members for?

Pretty sure SIN died

Your enemies are now your allies

It's rather difficult to consider a war enjoyable, when the opposition's gov have made it perfectly clear that they would prefer annihilation of your community and treated you with contempt even when you were fighting for them. When you can't have an honest and enjoyable back and forth with the opposition - like we once had when we were fighting Coalition A - and the war degrades to the levels of toxicity it has, it's just all a bit boring.

This is just a modern T$-Panth tie.

Sorry for the late response. The last active war, https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=588560 is, by my judgement, war slot filling. An Attrition war was declared, but only 133 Infra was destroyed? Given the potential motivations for war slot filling here, the lack of damage, and prolonging of the war, I am issuing a nation strike and forcing peace for the war.

Any time a nation is at war, they can declare 'surrender'. In that mode, they cannot attack, and the first attack against them in every war instantly ends it with the current victory/defeat system. While in 'surrender', the nation cannot declare more wars nor can wars be declared against them, and once their current wars end they get exactly one week of security before their safety expires. Surrender mode can only be invoked again after a full month passes. And there you go, a safety mode that leaves you in the meatgrinder for a solid month before you get a single rebuild. Which fully allows you to get into the fight, so you still can't be fully destroyed. Nobody's unhappy, unless they're disingenuous toxic !@#$ that just want mechanics that enable them to fully sit on their opponents forever with no possibility of rebuilding ever.