Jump to content

japan77

VIP
  • Content Count

    155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

142 Excellent

About japan77

  • Rank
    Doesn't sleep enough

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    The Knights Radiant
  • Leader Name
    japan77
  • Nation Name
    Terminus Est
  • Nation ID
    25907
  • Alliance Name
    The Knights Radiant

Recent Profile Visitors

703 profile views
  1. well then. This is just going to increase toxicity or forum bans. lots of people downvote instead of responding because quite frankly, they want to say things that would be very impolite to state in public. You forcing them to respond instead is almost certainly going to result in much more offensive and OOC attacks because surprise, people are !@#$.
  2. cool. Apparently, claims made by 3rd parties are relevant. Alright, time to leave our AAs, state outright absurd things and have them accepted as evidence.
  3. This may be news to you, as you are new here, but spying actions in this game are commonly considered an act of war, and have been cited in RoHs and DoWs in the past.
  4. For D,E,F, there was a set of publicly posted logs that literally contained all of those. As for A, given that any and all OWF postings were made months after negotiations were attempted,. This happened before anything was posting. As for B, agreed upon mainly because yet again, we're trying to communicate and will take any offer to communicate if it's available. As for C, yet again, we've trying to communicate and obtain terms for months, and yet again we've gotten nothing beyond the basic surrender term (we literally found out about more terms from leaks than from your official negotiators). As such, please go educate yourself on what's actually happening instead of parroting random talking points like a broken speechbot.
  5. From publicly available information, this is straight up false. (For reference, Go see T$'s entire post on this issue)
  6. "Patience is a virtue" There's patience and then there's waiting around for a miracle to happen. In this case it's the latter, as we can see from publicly available information. A. Any and all attempts to negotiate have been trolled B. Only happen on the first of every month C. Despite surrenders on the OWF, no terms have been offered and no attempts to have communication between parties has been established properly (t$ literally hasn't gotten a server and has been kicked out of one) D. ColB leadership wishes for disbandment of ColA alliances. (No alliance in this game is every going to voluntarily disband from an external mandate, this is not CN) E. Apparently despite having literal months at this point, ColB hasn't figured out what terms it wants F. ColB leadership believes that T$ hasn't fought long enough and wants to continue the war against them And there's more, but I'm not going to bother with it since I have other things to do.
  7. Ah yes. Another mosquito incident. Why are we the only alliance that manages to get these?
  8. japan77

    peace talks

    Let's be very explicitly clear here. Chaos+KETOG+Rose literally had less fire power than BK-sphere on its own. The way that power separated after knightfall was problematic in the sense of there being two huge blocs (N$O and BK-sphere), two smaller spheres (Chaos, KETOG), and one very small sphere (Rose). The last three had to team up if they ever wanted to beat one of the big two from a sheer numbers perspective (Skill can make up a difference, but it's rather limited due to how this game is designed). Honestly Rose-sphere's firepower isn't so much a sphere as Rose and a few friends. Ideally, T$ would've anchored a different sphere from NPO, and similar so for BK and TCW. So there would've been 7 spheres, but I digress. As soon as it became evident via leaks that BK-sphere planned to roll us with their literal 3:1 city advantage, we had two options, either ask for help rolling them or roll over and die. We did the former because that's rational. I believe we did reach out to someone in N$O with regards to this. We're merely stating that you had the opportunity to convince the world that N$O and BK-sphere were not allied in any way. Given your literal treaty obligations pre-war, there's no MD-level treaties for your entrance, and you never claimed entrance off your OD-level treaty with Polaris, which is the only treaty joining the two spheres, the world would have a 3+sphere system. (Let's not forget that KETOG and Chaos were happy beating up each other until the leaks happened). Your alliance's actions single-handily returned the world to a 2-sphere system. While you could and you appear to be arguing that Chaos's actions reduced the world from a 5-sphere thing down to 3, as I pointed out earlier, in terms of fire power, it was already that. For there to have been truly more than 3 spheres, BK-sphere and N$O would have had to be smaller. Thanks for confirmation that your interests literally placed a non-treaty partner over a MD-level partner. It's very enlightening, and makes it apparent that unless your name is BK, one should not even bother with considering NPO as an ally, as otherwise they'll stab you in the back if your actions threaten BK.
  9. japan77

    peace talks

    the definition of the term surrender is "cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority." So to be clear, you're asking for an admission of defeat, not a surrender. So, we could still keep fighting after admitting defeat? are you really trying to emulate the allies handling of the central powers in ww1? lmao. we all know that was effectively an unconditional surrender in all but name. Basically, your stance is that it isn't a "unconditional surrender" on a very minor technicality since if we admit defeat, how exactly are we supposed to oppose terms we don't like? fight?
  10. japan77

    peace talks

    So we'd be surrendering, then getting the terms of surrender yes? We have no guarantees of what those terms could be. You could literally insert "All of you disband and delete" as a surrendering term, and because we surrendered, we'd have to abide by it. Also, there's literally no reason You couldn't make one of the terms "I now control your armies and I get to reorganize your alliances any way I want". That's pretty clearly an unconditional surrender.
  11. japan77

    peace talks

    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.
  12. japan77

    peace talks

    The game died when NPO literally murdered the entire multi-sphere project with their decision to back BK. Due to their actions, and refusal by BK et al to turn on them, we have two fairly prominent alliances that we can literally never trust to not be on the same side. (This is ignoring speculation that BK sphere's plan to hit Chaos wasn't pre-approved by NPO). Given NPO and BK's basically guarantee to always be on the same side, there's really not enough sphere-centering alliances to create a multi-sphere game, at-best we might have 3 spheres, and more realistically, the game has been forcibly regressed into a 2-sphere game. (3-spheres isn't really sustainable, we need something similar to the 5-sphere setup we had before this war for a sustainable multi-sphere game). This is ofc ignoring NPO managing to bring over GPWC and GOONS, although who knows what they'll do from here. All the information we have both alliances is very limited, and it's certainly possible they could turn on NPO, but even this still doesn't break our 2-sphere problem unless something truly drastic happens. I'm mainly here at this point because I like fellow members of Chaos and esp tkr, and because I'm working on improving some basic bots (because I find that interesting), as well as watching to see just how badly can the actions of a single alliance kills a game, so the next time I play this kind of game, I can begin planning around such actions.
  13. japan77

    peace talks

    Bwahahaha. Nearly every sentence in that paragraph is wrong. Impressive. Let's talk about history and unconditional surrenders. There has never been and never will be a unconditional surrender in which the loser did not wind up agreeing to all terms imposed by the victors. That's how that works. Let's note that coalition B has refused to talk about any potential terms until after coalition A's surrender. That is by definition a unconditional surrender. You seriously expect people to be willing to surrender unconditionally when the opposing coalition contains actors known to have imposed ridiculous terms. And don't give me any of the NPO isn't the same as NPO nonsense. Either own your name or change it. Similarly, given that BK has put rather ridiculous terms on the table in the past, an unconditional surrender to any coalition containing either alliance is a bad idea. Let's next talk about precedent. This particular game has never had unconditional surrenders, and establishing that precedent will lead to longer wars as the best possible victory condition has changed dramatically. There's also the fact that coalition B winning would encourage longer wars, as we have opened up a path to victory of literally just waiting out an opponent instead of smashing through their infra, although given how long the last few globals have been, this isn't truly a new idea, but it would be the first time it worked. Up until now, dragging out a war has at most resulted in white peace, but the precedent of improving conditions by dragging out a war has resulted in longer wars. Thirdly, it would establish that having net negative damage, rolling coalition allies, having secret arbitrary treaties that one can twist into a CB, and bullshit CBs are valid things along a path to victory. If you truly believe these are not bad precedents for the game as a whole, give me what you're smoking because I need to escape reality.
  14. Awww, my nation's namesake is back
  15. It's only the same tactic if you abstract so far as to not consider the alliances involved. So shut up. There's a major difference between attacking members of the enemy coalition and attacking those uninvolved. The latter should be taking such decs as potential war actions against their AAs, and as such they'd be contacting your FA department and arranging peacing out or joining the war against you, as they're uninvolved. After all, your actions are Hostile actions against them, and as such would be more than adequate for an RoH. The fact that we're yet to see any such actions is interesting, and suggests that they're getting some kind of benefit from beiging you at minimum. The former is a literal standard war action, and given current game mechanics, it's up to your coalition and coalition milcom to effectively beige cycle those nations. As such, in the first case, you would get beige cycled by anyone comptent, in the 2nd, you're effectively extending the war to include these uninvolved AAs.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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