Azaghul

Again: A change of scenery. Something different to do after months of doing the same thing over and over. You only seem to be able to think in terms of stats. You really just don't get it.

It's not about war being inherently bad or good. It's that any one thing, whether it be war or peace, whether it be one grouping of alliance or another group being relatively dominant, grows tiring and monotonous when it lasts too long. You said you gain nothing from peace? What you get is what everyone else gets too. A change of scenery. Something different to do after months of doing the same thing over and over.

This really says it all. You see nothing beyond your self interest and can't understand any other way of viewing the world. The idea of ending a war because long wars are tedious for all involved doesn't matter to you. The idea of a war being something where you have fun fighting it out and then shake hands afterward doesn't occur to you. It's not about fun or community. Domination is the only thing that matters. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if this war goes on until enough people get sick of it and leave your coalition that you start loosing, and you're forced to give up on trying to eliminate any possible threat.

This thread is going to make me start running out of reactions again.

Welcome to the party!

Amazing

One reason planes are so powerful is that that they take a long time to rebuild. 6 days, vs 3 for soldiers, and 5 for tanks and ships. Plus the fact that you can airstrike another unit AND take out someone's planes in the same attack. Giving people more space to rebuild planes without them being immediately killed would help make plane battles more competitive. Hence my suggestion here:

This is trying to have your cake and eat it too. If the "anti-communist" aspect of the cause Afrika Korps fought for is relevant so is the Nazism and genocidal racism. And the Afrika Korps primarily fought the British and the Americans, not communists.

This is the first time I've ever embargoed anyone.

Well yes, there was bad blood between TKR and NPO as a result of drama in this world. Drama generally having to do with us being on different sides and peace negotiations when NPO was losing, not what NPO does when it's on top like it is now. Most of TKR never played in that other world. The benefit of the doubt is in regards to separating NPO from it's history in past worlds. If you want to point to my past posts, there's a thread where Roquentin talked about separating NPO from its history in past wars and I posted this:

If you don't want people to connect what you are doing to your actions in an outside world, quit doing the same things you did in that other world. There were a lot of people, myself included, who gave NPO the benefit of the doubt* and hoped that you would behave in a different manner. You had the chance with how you handled peace in this war to show that you weren't going to do the things in victory that people disliked so much about NPO in other words, and you failed miserably. It's ironic that you complain about people not liking or trusting NPO when you seem to be going out of your way to give people reasons to dislike and distrust you. I'm sure you'll try to twist my words as evidence of our side's undying hatred of NPO (even though I'm only low gov econ in one alliance) and desire to destroy NPO. I don't want to destroy NPO. In spite of this crap, there are good things about NPO and I do think you add something to the world. But your actions have given myself and many others great reason to oppose NPO dominance in the broader global sphere. Instead of complaining about it, you should do some introspection about how your actions feed that attitude. *Yes I had issues with Roq but that wasn't NPO specifically, I was supportive of TKR's NPO ties before Roq became Emperor.

The difficulty of properly cycling people should be considered. And the potential cost if the person is question is able to fight back at all. One change I would support to beige is that you have a certain amount of time before you can leave beige. Could be done a number of ways: 1) You have to less than 24 turns left of beige in order to leave beige. 2) Each time you are beiged your "minimum" time in beige is extended by 12 hours. The point being to limit the use of beige to provide cover for short term offensive wars.

I'm not sure what the "3.5" vs "4.5" your talking about even is. Any 'advantage' you are eaking out this point is very marginal unless it is to drive players from the game. All the expensive infra has been blown up. You can't force anyone to spend their warchest and it's easy for us to fund ourselves just by raiding. Both sides are limited in what they can rebuild. The larger point that you are missing, and in my experience have always missed in this world and in previous worlds is that this is a game. It's not just about stats or eliminating all potential threats. It's about having fun and having a good community. Competition is fun. The seesaw of different alliances and groups going in and out of power and different coalitions forming is fun. Wars that involve months of both sides mostly just bombing and rebombing rubble aren't fun. If all you're concerned about is "strategic incentives" you're missing all that. Especially since as I said above, the actual in-game advantage you get from extending this war is very marginal.

Having been in gov with a close ally of an alliance Roq led for many years in another world, he is very paranoid and no level of statistical advantage or dominance is going to likely ever be enough for him to feel "safe". I say this not in an attempt to attack him but to provide context for his viewpoints and NPOs actions. No matter how much he hurts an opponent he's never going to be happy that they aren't a future threat, so he's never going to be happy with a peace agreement.

100s of millions is too much because people can buy rebuy a decent number of improvements with relatively cheap infra. But overall I like the idea.

It's been very slow the last 30 minutes or so and was completely down for a couple of minutes.

/ Thread This seems to be a classic instance of someone projecting their own motives and thinking onto others. They can't imagine other people not thinking the way that they do. Lost in all of it is the point that this is a game. The point isn't to establish permanent security and dominance at all costs. Neither victory nor defeat is permanent

When you have air control you already have a great advantage against people buying soldiers because you can maintain tanks without them getting bombed and also bomb their soldiers. If the losing side is able to overcome that with better tactics to make use of their soldiers, that's good for the game and makes it more interesting.

First time in this world though. And NPO has been desperate to convey the idea that they aren't the same as they are in other worlds and should be given a clean slate in this world. If that was the case, they wouldn't be acting in a way that is so unprecedented in this world and unique to them in other worlds.

Because it bears repeating: This is the first time in this world that anyone has tried to insist on doing terms this way. I've seen it done by NPO (and only NPO) in other worlds, but that's it.

The amount of complaining by Col B about how Col A made things public just serves to prove that it was an effective move. For those in Coalition B who actually want peace, they need to think about what they would play along with if they were in our shoes. I very much doubt many of them would be reacting much differently than we are. Wars in this world are simply too mutually destructive in both net damage and opportunity cost for the winning side to have the leverage to make the other side do whatever it wants.

It's very normal for there to be public announcements and informal arguments on these forums over peace terms in addition to formal discussions taking place privately. Especially when they are stalled, and these are more stalled than most because your side was/is deliberately stalling.

The golden age of MK, crazy that it's 10 years ago! I was sad when you left.

This sounds right. I think James was generally over all econ, I was deputy for internal programs, and inst was deputy for finding (mostly external) tech sellers. While quirky about it Inst was good at it because he had the drive needed to do the great amount of busy work it required to do well.

On the contrary, CoBs duplicity and stonewalling made going public the only productive option.