Darzy
-
Posts
57 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Darzy
-
-
11 minutes ago, Tequila said:
Just quit
At least you're being direct about it
-
1
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:
You have to start with one term and then go to a second.
Is there a reason/has it been disclosed to CoA leaders privately? This seems to be the main issue.
-
4 hours ago, Rosey Song said:
I think you are silly and deserve a downvote, but thanks.
Vote thanks and write this ^ to downvote.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Tiberius said:
Yes, stalling is absolutely okay. Stalling in general happens a lot more than you think. Just one example of stalling from Coalition A would be that they stalled in agreeing to surrender for a while. It was pretty clear after the first month that Coalition B would be winning this war. Yet they stalled for 4 months before agreeing to surrender. Just because Coalition A at that point wanted terms doesn't mean Coalition B needs to start talks until they are ready to do so.
I may not agree with your response completely but at least I got a civil response. Thank you!
-
15 hours ago, Tiberius said:
'Despite any stalling'
Third party here. Glad someone on colB is finally addressing the stalling.
My question to you is, do you think the stalling (which has been shown to be intentional not circumstantial by the logs unless you can prove otherwise) is okay?
I think the main argument from coA is that stalling is bad faith negotiation, especially when done 'so we can get two months more of infra grinding.'(underlordgc) In the past I believe that peace negotiations have been swift and have never heard of intentional stalling before which I too, would feel like was done in bad faith if I had to experience it.
What is your sides pov?
-
The main issue seems to be that roq claimed the reasons for sending the terms one by one were discussed in private with coA leaders.
If we were to be privy to that discussion or, more precisely, able to understand why the terms are being given one by one, instead of all at once as has been the precedent, better understanding of the underlying situation could be achieved.
-
14 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:
CoA is really doing it. You're just more friendly towards CoA than CoB so you're blaming based on that.
Victory. As for the targets, it sucks, but CoA is hideously depleted, but haven't completed peace terms so we continue to attack them.
How do you complete peace terms that haven't even been approved yet? (According to kastor)
-
5 hours ago, Prefonteen said:
ColB: "WE CONSIDER YOU A SEPERATE FRONT"
TS: "okay we surrender. Can we have our terms?"
ColB: *crickets*
ColB in public: THEY'RE DRAGGING SHIT OUT
TS: "these guys aren't really letting us surrender"
ColB: "IT'S ALL UP TO THE DECISIONS OF YOUR COALITION PARTNERS. ALSO frick YOU FOR DISPROVING MY LIES. HAVE SOME MORE WAR"
okay then friend. Keep it up.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but what I am seeing, as an outsider with no knowledge of the negotiations, is that some people said (on another thread) that they wouldn't surrender because the surrender terms are worse than surrendering itself.
Which is true? That they did not let you surrender? Or that the surrender terms were too harsh for you to accept. Or is it that they ignored you when you looked to negotiate the surrender terms?
I have heard reports of negotiation attempts being trolled, logs of such trolling would be very informative to the wider community, although I accept the reality that they may be private/deleted. Maybe I missed them, apologies if I did.
To be clear I am taking no sides, just looking for facts.
I think it is very clear that:
a) If Coalition B is not letting you surrender that is an act of very bad faith for this game. This will lead to the death of your sphere, either by quitting or disbandment.
b) If the terms are too harsh for your liking but they refuse to negotiate them down then that is also in bad faith for the game, i.e. people will want to quit more due to having an effectively dead nation, however, they are winning the war so it seems they should have more power at the negotiation table at the very least.
c) If they have laid out terms and you are attempting negotiation but cannot come to an agreement then that is a very unfortunate situation.
d) If they are trolling your negotiation attempts then it is similar to a)
Anyway, all the best.
Edit: Just read surrender terms in Kastor's post. Seems that an unfortunate scenario has occurred. I am free to be corrected.
Edit 2: Seems like the term withholding is due to non approval. Looks like bad faith to me but feel free to refute coalition B.
-
1
-
2
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Akuryo said:
I mean they are just normal members who had nothing to do with the trafficking, ya can't blame them if they don't want to be party to the punishment for an action they didn't take. That just sounds normal to me.
Oh, true I guess. Well, I wouldn't hold it against them to leave then.
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Nokia Rokia said:
sorry we aint losing and panth is a really bad alliance currently fighting with worse aas
Giving up already bud? Three months?-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:
You still get the penalty of losing a percent of your resources and infra in all your cities when losing an offensive war though...
Yes, but there's a reason it's called a suicide attack. In fact, losing infra in all cities is likely a benefit with the strategy.
-
2 hours ago, Flame of the Flawed said:
t$ has always been about losing. We've just been highly unsuccessful at it
-
32 minutes ago, Akuryo said:
Because the /s was after the sentence wherein he said "so glad I spent an hour catching up".
I've been awake 31 hours man c'mon, ya can't miss that stuff! ?
Oh god, I think I should sleep too holy shit...
-
57 minutes ago, Akuryo said:
It means sarcasm.
I meant, why the sarcasm? This thread is already a dumpster fire
-
On 6/26/2019 at 6:56 PM, Codonian said:
Well i'm glad I just spent an hour catching up on this dumpster fire of a thread (/s). The only person that said anything with a shred of common sense was Ivk when he said that each side is going to have their preconceptions and that's it's useless trying to change each others mind. Going to go lie down in a dark and quiet room now...
Why the /s :?
-
On 6/20/2019 at 12:45 PM, Thalmor said:
I get it P&W is in another world war, but my nation is a trading nation only. I only fight back when attacked, I do not attack other nations. I am only in the alliance I am in so that when nations attack I can get backup. I don’t know how you fell about wars but considering you attacked me I figured you’re the kind of person who enjoys it. That’s fine when it doesn’t affect me if you actually want to fight a war I can point you to a few people who enjoy that part of the game.
I however hate the war part of the game. As a result whenever a nation attacks me I place and embargo and hand their information to my alliance for people who like to raid. I’ve been informed that you currently have your war slots full but Acadia raiders will probably give you trouble for the rest of the war until the war ends or you have someone within the alliance asks on your behalf for you to be left alone
I’ll be online every day this week to do as much damage as I can to defend myself. But we can end this quickly and peacefully, and I’ll remove your information from war suggestions if you accept my peace offer or send me one yourself should you regret your decisions later.
Where is this quoted from 0_0
-
4 hours ago, Theodosius said:
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=33898 24 cities
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=15173118 cities
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=109719 23 cities
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=51519 20 cities
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=123082 23 cities
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=109464 21 cities
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=131661 22 cities
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=109847 21 cities
https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=135129 18 citiesThese are the nations that profited the most. Some of these got billions, some others less. Some, maybe I missed.
Majority of Nova nations are lowbies at like 10 cities. A lot of them are from the Federation, probably as clueless as the Nova lowbies. They're all gonna be part of this witch hunt for months because of these people that I linked above. And because Sheepy is not willing to uphold the 2015 precedent and ban directly responsible persons, and reset the rest to 10 cities at the very least.
Yo, not sure how y'all are gonna react to this but I am this guy, https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=109464 and I got granted one city by nova riata, I don't believe it is fair to say I 'profited the most' but feel free to take that city plus one more away if you want, I didn't have any reduced because nova granted me the money to buy it before the resource injection.
-
On 5/4/2019 at 1:34 AM, Ignatius said:
Is this part of that Micro Justice League I keep hearing about?
Legitimately got clickbaited by this thread by this profile picture >_>
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Kevanovia said:
The OWF would get real boring real quick if the only content people were posting were ‘nice’ things about one another.
In fact, I would argue that doing this would be far more damaging to the community than Akuryo waltzing around talking out of their ass and acting self-important.
I see your point I guess, have fun doing what you do then.
-
1 minute ago, Sisyphus said:
My advice remains the same.
Fair enough.
-
Just now, Sisyphus said:
If you really care about the standards of this community I highly suggest you simply stop acknowledging Akuryo.
I'm responding on behalf of someone else.
-
2 minutes ago, Akuryo said:
I find much amusement you went through the effort to write paragraphs about it for me to go through the 'effort' of not reading it.
I don't care mate, your time is wasted, move on. ?
Really? I thought you said you spent a lot of time on this game on your alliance? What would you to if it were to all be gone? Is your negative attitude, pride and ego, worth more than all the hard work I'm sure you've put into this game?
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, JordyHamsVII said:
Oh how times have changed...
THEN: KNIGHTFALL
NOW: NOVA'S NOT SO SECRET WAR or MATTHEW THE GREAT'S WAR *depending on who you talk to*
Stay fun guys ?
HAHAHA that's pretty fricking good
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, Akuryo said:
Yeah I'm not gonna lie to people when the truth just comes so naturally to me. Your own fault yah can't handle it. I handle the fact I'm an !@#$ just fine.
I can handle it just fine, I don't expect you to lie, I didn't expect you to say 'pantheon is doing really well!'
However, I'm trying to say that it would be most beneficial for the survival of the community to adopt the attitude that if you don't have anything nice to say, especially on the OWF, then why say it? Of course, you have free will to do what you want but I intend to keep the best interests of this game at heart and hope you do too.
-
1
-
2
-
[DOW] TR Sparks Boogaloo With Opus Dei
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Yep, Alex is probably wrong and Wiggum is right. Regardless of Alex's rules, there are some things that are illegal anywhere, e.g. plotting the assassination of a world leader (via war declarations, ridiculous as it sounds.)