Ripper

Damn... And I thought I had it tough. xD

Alliances that are trully paperless, have no treaties whatsoever. They can have friends and they can collaborate with others (see CoS, TEst, SK and Arrgh in this war). However, they can as well attack the next day the very same alliances they supported the day before. Paperless are fluid. Then, you have "paperless ties" (we even get the oxymoron term "paperless treaties") - ties that were never made formal in any way: either in an attempt to hide them or due to them just appearing and not being something formal or set on stone For the first case: Since Sparta hit GOB, it has been proven again and again (and admitted by their members) that GOB and Guardian are allies. Indicatively, at this war, you can see that Guardian didn't get assistance from two of its MDPs, but did get assistance from GOB, with which, supposedly, it has no official ties. That's a secret paperless treaty. For the second case: Paperless ties may just appear due to the nature of two alliances, their history, circumstances, etc. For example, Arrgh and Typhon have/had a similar play-style and it makes no sense raiding raiders. Naturally, the two alliances didn't hit each other and cooperated indirectly. That's a natural, unofficial tie created by the environment. Regarding the participation of the trully paperless to this war, this is no treaty, as there is just a temporary agreement set for this specific war. For example, CoS attacked SK a few months before this war, but SK assisted CoS to its front (against Tesla) in this current war.

Yeah, treaties expire after 6 months or so.

Arrgh! Following the TKR manual, since you are pirates, have no military and no alliances to protect you, we will just use you for training our new members and perma-war you, even if you don't attack us at all. Edit 1: It's amazing how you forgot to add in the flag Tesla, an alliance with which you have an MDP, but you didn't forget to add GOB, an alliance which is "paperless". Edit 2: I am glad you get to experience the pirate life. It's the best kind of play-style in the game (for an individual).

One part is to make sure the negotiations are transparent and the members of both sides know how things are. The other part is that I thought it would be more interesting (for the community as a whole) having a discussion here. As I said, all discussions here are not part of the negotiations. You should (or, more specifically, there is no reason that you shouldn't), because you enjoy discussing things. That's a purpose of this thread. Offering you something to discuss.

Great arguement and demonstration of logic. Let me use it. "Consider two hypothetical situations. One is a univere where I raid profitable targets (you included?), another is a universe where, with no other changes, I do not go for the raids. Universe 2: I do not make additional money, rest of world does not lose additional money. Universe 1: I make additional money, rest of world loses additional money. Now, let us add a third universe. Let me pay reps equivalent to the gain of the raids to raidees, but I continue to raid people. Universe 3: I make additional money, rest of the world loses additional money THEN reps are paid, so that I make no money and the rest of the world loses no money. In this case, is Universe 3 equivalent to Universe 2? Obviously, small details (i.e, perceptions, labor involved in paying reps, reputation, etc) are different, but Universe 2 is also equivalent to Universe 3, hence the non-initiation of raids is equivalent to reps." So, Universes 2 and 3 are the same! Thus, when I do not raid people and I do nothing, it's the same with paying reps! You are welcome, Orbis!

I think that the "intentions" part has been discussed a lot already, so I will skip it. The reason we also added the option for war-VMers to sell their infra was to cover all options and let your side have another way out of letting your members get hit. We understand that you may not want OoC non-war-dodgers to just sit there and get hit by others. So, we just added the selling infra option. The thing that I still cannot understand is this, at least for TKR: If you have 2 nations at 1,700-infra builds in VM, what's the reason they cannot sell their infra and then get rebuilt (or not, if you don't think they deserve it)? Why are you against this option exactly? Does it have to do something about pride (e.g. you don't want others to "make" your members do anything, no matter how little, that is against their or your will)? Does it come down to the fact that you want to save that little infra as you say and don't want to pay for their rebuild? What's the reason you cannot accept getting nations to sell down to an X ammount of infra and then insta-rebuild? I think that's the question that has been dodged more than it should. The same way you are asking about our intentions I think it's fair to ask for yours.

Quoting the terms served to TGH/KT at the previous war, terms that your alliance and TKR within the coalition of that war supported: "- CB Validations (recognize their legitimacy to pursue this war) - Thalmor apologizing to Queen M (for OOC reasons) - Buorhann apologizing to Felkey - TGH flies a flag by custom design of TCW for a month (Without us knowing, TCW got a similar term in this war!) - KT flies TRF war flag for a month - Knights Templar place 2 pictures on their alliance page for a month (https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/464071431974551571/470625344983007252/image.jpg, https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/464071431974551571/470625371939799050/image.png) - KT puts TRF war flag on their alliance page for a month - KT puts up a text "Revolution was here" on their alliance page for a month - KT puts an image on their alliance page of TRF pissing on the KT flag on their alliance page for a month - KT/TGH write a glorifying story about TRF and Queen M on the OWF" I thought you liked ending wars with white peace. Probably that's the case only when you are losing. I didn't know about the terms till yesterday, but now I am not surprised at all that your side did accept Articles I, II and III, at least at the beginning of the negotiations. Such kinds of terms were already familiar to you. Although ours are less "punishing".

looks around whispers We can arrange something.

Because this is not a social or trade contract. It's demands of one side to another.

The answer a few posts above... Plus... I see no reason to include VMers of our side in the peace treaty, since the terms are demands towards the other side... Why would they sign a paper about our own VMers? We will deal with them on our own anyway.

No one is going after them. They have the option to sell their infra, as you can see in the terms. If their alliance loves them so much, they can just rebuild them with their own funds. Sell down to 1k and then just rebuild. That easy. I see no reason (from an IC point of view) to let nations again and again VM and then get "punished" by their alliances by getting taxed. These taxes are used to rebuild faster the alliances that were hit. Believe it or not, some alliances want to cause as much damage as possible to the opposing side and having VMers coming back post-war to rebuild the rest is not really appreciated. Also... these nations are not punished. They get exactly the same treatment as their team-mates. The non-VMed TCW nations are at 1k infra level. The VMers will get to that level too. "Punishment" would imply that they get special treatment and worse terms than their team-mates, which is not the case.

Could you please pin-point the punitive terms?

I am sure they will be devastated if they have to delete a bot in the future or sign more treaties due to future peace terms. xD

The times I've offered peace by accident while I was just trying to check the war timeline...

All of the terms submitted have been accepted by all the members of the coalition, while others have been rejected. Proposed terms that give any kind of military, economy or political advantage after this war never passed through this filter.

Everything looks fine now, so I guess that's what it was. Thanks.

@Frawley were the stats nuked?

You can check Apendix I.

Dear citizens of Orbis, Since the terms that are the main topic of the peace negotiations for the current on-going war are no secret (and the corresponding document has been circulated openly to the membership of several alliances), it has been decided to officially present them to the public. This thread is by no means a part of the official negotiations, for which a Discord server is already used by leaders and representatives of alliances participating to the war. Enjoy debating. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Article I - Cessation of hostilities Article II - Official Surrender Article III - Public Statements / Announcements Article IV - Color Blocs Article V - War-dodgers Article VI - Fairness in Trading Article VII - Secret Treaties Article VIII - Giving Piracy a Chance Apendix I- Coalitions Apendix II - War-dodgers

The only things I can think of are that a. you don't have cash or b. you don't have enough oil on you right now. Even if you have positive oil production, your cities will go out of power if you start a turn without oil. In other words, during a turn, you consume oil and after that you produce it. Thus, if you have 0 oil in a turn, you go out of power.

Bad Alexio

Pun intended?

That was a counter for our dear Pacifist friends. We could never make them go to war.

Frawley has already provided stats for the TGH/KT/TRF war, at the corresponding peace announcement in Foreign Affairs.