Sir Scarfalot

I probably shouldn't have, but there's three main issues to discuss and a centralized post would get messy imo

Obviously this is the most complicated question of all. Should Camelot pay reps? Be rolled out of the game? Should TFP and Rose be rolled out of the game for breaching the NAP first? Should they pay reps? Should we just let Camelot’s actions slide and not give nor take anything from them? Personally I’d like to let Camelot’s reputation damage be enough as long as they pay back their existing debts but I’d be interested in more possibilities.

Again, not simple, and it depends on the mindset of the actors going in. I don’t have enough evidence to rule either way myself, so I’ll wait for logs before posting my vote.

It’s not exactly a simple question since it depends on the definition of what it means to be proxied as well as the mens rea of the actors. I say that Camelot’s relationship with Samurai provides probably the best argument: if you can protect an otherwise pirate alliance that hits your pact partners without that being an NAP breach then TFP pressuring your other protectorates into dropping you isn’t a breach, and Rose simply encouraging hits against you isn’t a breach either. It could be a reason for diplomatic resolutions though.

I remember long ago in >bloc there was an alliance that blitzed someone they had an NAP with. They lost all their allies and the guy they blitzed got a ton of support from the rest of the game. Ironically they did this because they were convinced that he was going to blitz them, and he was pretty despised, but like I told them: pacts matter. If they’d waited for him to hit them, they’d have been awash in support from the most unexpected places and he’d have lost most of his power anyway. now, the cam situation is more complicated than that, since the NAP had an explicit exit clause (two actually). What we therefore need is something from IRL law: arbitration. The questions are simple: Was Camelot proxied by Rose/TFP, was “good-faith diplomacy” attempted before the invocation of the exit clauses, and what should be done about the answers to the preceding? These are important because we are in uncharted waters and the precedents that they set will affect our gameplay for years. As for how we answer these questions, I’ll set up forum threads for each; though ultimately it is up to the alliance leaders of the game to decide for themselves how to proceed on a concrete level.

Again, you're giving accusations and not evidence, and for that matter you haven't actually posted the embassy logs you claimed to have posted? And even if you were justified in breaking an NAP (which I'm convinced you were not), how does that justify defaulting on your debts? You were working secretly with Arrgh on the nuke auction to extort money from TFP, so why not use that money to service your debt? And for that matter, why isn't extorting money another violation of the NAP from your end, in spirit if nothing else?

I'm seeing a lot of accusations against Rose, but even ignoring the fact that TFP hasn't been even accused of wrongdoing there's no logs of "good faith diplomacy", which was specifically entered into the text of the peace treaty. Now, maybe I'm missing something, but there's a logical order of operations here: Alleged violations are to be dealt with by diplomacy and then withdrawal if that is honestly attempted and fails, not "we don't have to attempt diplomacy since X Y and Z, and therefore our obligations didn't matter in the first place". If Camelot had attempted diplomacy, and it was "true and acceptable" then "they wouldn't have hid it", now would they? 🤔

Yes

C’mon, it’s for the memes. Won’t someone think of the memes?

welcome to orbis~

Don’t grow food, go for other raw materials instead. Don’t even be afraid to run out of food even, it only damages your money income and less so than what it might cost to buy food

Nice cash reserves, make sure you ground battle that off him :3

True, their damage potential is limited relative to a conventional blitz, but Papers Please was long ago; Fortify hadn't even been nerfed at that point. And Arrgh survived that war along with I don't even know how many other wars. Extorting is even better than turreting, sure, but turreting is awesome and that's a fact

Can't be done. It's been tried, a lot, but you can't do damage to someone that has nothing to lose and doesn't need military to achieve their goals.

This kind of thing has been suggested before, and the primary problem is that national approval doesn't have a cap, so anyone that's been through a good global war either has upwards of +400% or below -800% approval rating and that doesn't even make sense. Basically, we'd have to rejigger the way approval works first.

Welcome welcome~

Congrats, take care~

Welcome to the forum ~

What's a limit?

Honestly, yes; if an alliance begs for peace then there's something wrong with that alliance. Turret until cultural victory!!!!

Ah, fair enough.

So leave VM then lol

Welcome to Orbis~

Nah, all you need is missiles :3

That’s no reason not to get more cash :3