Arthur Wellington

1. In coal b there are no 'random' members, we have names 2. None of us are actually irl government. Olafr spoke truth about forum warriors. 3. I like reading posts like the op, it might seem there is much to it but its really a simplistic message. 4. I like summing stuff up using number. 5. Two is the loneliest number.

Prefonteen might be way better at phrasing this but to continue my previous post: 1. Coal A doesnt like the way the terms are presented. 2. Coal B is really stupid and mean (hodor can perhaps make another song/rap/poem about it?) The answer could be: 3. Coal A dislikes, thinks its unfair but still just accepted the (stupid, awful) way the terms are presented. And they got peace out of it. Or 4. Keep explaining 1 and 2.

Do you really need this much text to say: 1. Coal B wont present all terms at once, we dont like that, we want them all at once! 2. The enemy is stupid and nasty! We act in good faith, they are bad!

There you go, happy?

I think one of the problems is the OWF being a megaphone. It blasts so loud that it gets confusing. As for the abdicating, twas sort of a jest but not completly. Seeing how many people (both sides) are leaving and how much score and infra is lost, it amazes me there is no consequense for that. Also, t$ might be a different story, but the outcome is still the same as you say. The losing side (sure, both sides) is using a megaphone (again, perhaps with correct statements, I really still dont know) and that seems weird to me.

I get what you are saying but dont you think alot of words are used to describe a simple situation, coal A is loosing more then it is winning? Game mechanics make it so that it not that clear but no one is making the case coal B is losing. IF you agree on that then the OWF is pretty strange. So many posts about the start of the war and why some people are really stupid. Even if all that is true, isnt the simple fact (coal A is losing more then it is winning, coal B is not losing) worth a different attitude, not throwing more wood onto the fire but trying everything, even if you dont agree, to get peace? And I dont know alot of pnw war history but wouldnt it be normal for example TKR leadership to step down because of lost wars? By dictating I meant the tone of the debate, rather then the effort. I only rerolled some 2.5 months ago but since I started out there was there never a moment when anyone thought that coal B could loose. Reading the OWF sometimes is like its the other way around. And perhaps yes, being mute for some time in this topic (peace) would actually move things in a better direction then things are going now (not you personally)

Im not part of any government but: IF coal B is the winner of this war (thats why there are 2 sort-of-surrender posts, right?) then why is coal A. dictating stuff? Why keep making threads and posts on how evil, bad, dodging, lazy, lowsy and so on, and so forth, coal B is? (Even if you are right, you guys might really be, I have no clue) I think many non gov players feel one way or the other about peace but gov members of a losing side talking trash (even if you believe them to be correct and right) seems weird. If you want peace, swallow your objections, impatience, and bravado. Save it for the next global war? Also: in soccer if a trainer looses too many matches, they are fired by their club and some choose to leave themselves. ?

I was kidding on the last part but the rest might, and I may be wrong, have something. Coal A made Coal B wait for many weeks, then posted on the 2nd instead of the 1st (not regarding what one might think about that time thingy). Now because coal B isnt responding quick enough or in the right way people get frustrated? Seems odd. Again, I might be wrong.

Perhaps this has something to do with it: 1. The War part of this was won by coal B for some months now (im pretty new and at my start it was clear coal A could not win). Coal A did not give up for many weeks after their defeat was pretty clear. 2. Based on the OWF, the Polics side (how wrong are the actions of Coal B in coal A's eyes) is won by coal A. Moral high ground victory if you will. Especially after the admission if defeat on the 2nd nov. Coal A felt no rush after part 1 was apparent for all involved. Coal B feels no rush after part 2 was apparent. Coal B feels pretty strongly about part 1 being apparent importany and thus should dictate peace talks. Coal A feels part 2 is being important and thus should dictate have a large say in peace talks. To be clear, as a pretty neutral PnW player since im new: coal B is right and coal A should be humble, patient and beg a bit more.

How long between the first call for a surrender and the actual (sort of) surrender?

Edit: nevermind. Have fun!

Like those that cost thousands of rss? Or the need of mucho infra to get more then 2 or 3? Yeah, whales really do have a tough time I agree, good idea to nerf power in favor of new nations!

A nice suggestion with one problem, new nations suffer difficulty getting the land req. Id say make changes so it favors new small nations and is more expensive or even punishes big nations: more infra is damaging.

Peace would also mean that these threads could not be filled with righteous walls of text proving the Right and Wrong of people and things. Perhaps agreeing before hand that these kind of threads will be kept available to show Correctness on one side and Awfullness of the other side is what will help this along?

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=99210 Goering/goring was a high ranking nazi

Coal B already does claim you lost, besides, sticks and stones? Its okay to not say: 'we lost' if you dont think you lost but nothing happens if you say 'we surrender, we lost'. Its not a mechanic that leads to huge repair payements, an automatic 6 or 9 month nap or anything else. Again, is that last part needed? Do you tell your alliance mates what to say on the owf? Do you really think aragorn or george tell me what so say?

Thx for your reply altough I wonder if that last sentence was absolutly nessesary ? And, Well, im under the assumtion Coal. B. already says what you suggested. But even if they are not, what would it matter? If I read this thread correcly, and DO correct me if im wrong, the general idea is that coal A. lost but that Coal B. will present nasty terms (and waged the war dirty, but that is the confusing part). There are no game mechanics the make sure that wars cannot be waged after a post on the forums says: 'we surrender, now tell us what you want!'.

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.

Have fun!

How about being able to hit planes with a new unit: The USS Enterprise! Map cost: 14 points. Dmg: 150% of total infra in target nation for 4/3 of its cities Bonus effect: the nation can never again ask for tanks with anti air

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=180693 Offensive nation name

Lamenting CB's is a nice pass time, it however doesnt change much to the position orbis now is in. Why not formulate how to go on from here after stating once: 'hey! We didnt like that CB one bit!'. After that, consider what is best to do from this moment on? If the answer: lament some more, have fun!

Its a reaction to many summons to leave BK. And I believe TKR sucks?

Whats hidden about those costs?

Duke Arthur https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=174213