Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

67 Excellent

1 Follower

About Batavus

  • Rank
    Casual Member

Profile Information

  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    The Syndicate

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Always happy to help out a new player. Try the ingame search button - you’ll know who he is in no time. If you don’t know where the button is, ask your alliance. If your alliance can’t help you, join somewhere else.
  2. Congrats Six, Kosta, Tyrion, Nintendo & friends! Well done!
  3. Nobody likes making concessions. CoalA has taken the world stage to say: we are willing to admit defeat as part of a peace deal. At some point IQ also has to move. To start: seriously be available for talks. Or we can continue to fight the same war with roughly the same sides forever, except for the occassional alliance leaving CoalB in a coffin (Electric Space, Hanseatic League) or under fire (Carthago, OWR).
  4. Good luck old friends, may the Gods be with you :)!
  5. Sorry, didn’t know you didn’t know what toxic means. Try google. Toxic is a group of people who are rude and can't be nice. They are not true to people around them. They need an attitude check. Their personalities are so unappealing its make the people around them suffer and turn rude as well (urban dictionary). Happy your conscious is clean. I hope your conscience is as well. And yes, I care when a player after 1000+ days deletes. Try the same. And check the posted logs if you think Coa A isn’t trying to end the war.
  6. Do you know G Nations personal story? Do you react like this to every deletion? Exactly the toxicity this game needs to lose. A shame such an old alliance has ended up with such a toxic representative.
  7. Read more, troll less Comrade and you would know what you’re saying is nonsense.
  8. Batavus

    peace talks

    Last time you said “stop trying to make it sound like it’s been a week”. Well, by tomorrow it has been a week. I didn’t say “weeks” as you can read. The whole argument was that peace terms would be presented once a first term, “admit defeat”, was accepted as part of the final deal. Than further peace terms would be presented. Yet strangely enough, even though “admit defeat” has been accepted as a first term, no further peace terms seem to have been presented. It’s oddly silent. No response by Coalition B to “the big announcement” by Coalition A. That’s odd.
  9. Batavus

    peace talks

    So...tomorrow it will have been a week. Have terms been presented? Without terms it’s impossible to negotiate.
  10. Batavus

    peace talks

    Sphinx, coalition B negotiator, only 2 pages ago, also said such long wars are bad for the game, although he of course blames Coal A. I agree with him that such long global wars are bad for the game by the way - and I’m neither coa A or B. So you can’t just blame Coa A for saying such a long war is bad for the game. Coa B voices and neutrals also see this. You just don’t. And don’t say “consent of all parties involved”. Just a couple players on both sides decide - and those leaders in many cases have little choice. You fight with your fellow alliance members and allies (leaving N$O as a topic for another day). Their members mostly do what their alliance does. Little consent there. Sphinx: “IMO the war's gone on far too long (...)” “To use an argument some from KERCHTOGG have used; the game's lost some good people from this war, but you cannot in good conscious blame Coalition B for that (...)” “I agree that such long wars are bad for the game and in hindsight its something we all as a community can work on when the next conflict comes around.”
  11. Batavus

    peace talks

    Hi Sphinx, thanks for clarifying your views on this. On the one hand I guess you're saying you're side isn't asking an unconditional surrender (or at least that you never said you wanted that :-)) and that rumours about some harsh terms (or any terms in general) are demonstrably false. This implicitly suggests that terms won't be excessive. But without knowing actual terms, all anyone can do is just guess… And you do state that coalition A can "reject the terms and continue fighting", just like " Germany had the option of doing so after WW1". This is an interesting comparison. The Versailles treaty meant Germany had to accept all responsibility for the war, lost much territory, received severe restrictions on the size of its military, lost control of part of its industry to its victors. The 1919 treaty suggested huge reparations payments until 1988 (!). British delegate Keynes and others knew in advance that harsh peace terms would mean trouble for the next generation. And they were right as global war 2 showed. This short reference to WW1, but also harsh words about the grudge match for which "you don't have anyone else to blame" and which won't be "forgotten about" suggests terms "won't forget about" this either and be more than just another global peace treaty. You can hardly blame rank and file reading "Vengeance" into some of these words, besides much more severe existing mutual distrust and toxicity. Some will expect the worst. That in earlier exit negotiations for instance infra limitations were said to be a topic is also unlikely to set minds at ease. I think one lesson of WW1 was that you don't just need to win the war - you also need to win the peace. And you don't do that with a "Carthaginian" peace treaty which crushes the enemy even postwar. Which - by the way - also alienates and warns neutral bystanders and even worries some on your own side (or so I hear). There is a recent example which might help. During Knightfall my alliance leader held a serious grudge against TCW and against you in particular. As FA at the time, with no history with you, I'm glad how despite this grudge the peace treaty didn't demand much more than admittal of defeat and the usual quirky demands about flags etc (and something about a trade bot). At least no big payments, infra limits or cripling demands like that. Something that by the way (I think) was agreed to as a package deal. This made for a good peace after a good war. It would really help the peace process if you could clarify all your demands, at least to coalition A. Do they need to agree they've lost first? Doing so in logs which can be leaked, means them giving something without knowing what they'll get in return. It means running the risk of it being leaked by the enemy and used to hurt their war effort. So just talk about the package deal as a whole. Show your side, the enemy and all of Orbis that besides winning the war, you can also win the peace. And do it in style.
  12. I agree with I guess everyone here: this looks interesting, please, please implement this. I don’t think it should matter there’s a global war going on.
  13. Batavus

    peace talks

    Going back to Sebs initial question... I'd like to argue endlessly having the same alliances fighting each other gets boring after 4+ months and that that drives players from the game. Even winning against essentially beaten enemies gets boring after a while. So unless a goal is boring repetition driving players from the game, peace talks for this global should get going. So both peace and new alliance wars can offer players something fresh. I don't say this because I want peace or love pixels (I love how I've been getting beiged and nuked recently). I don't say this because I'm losing (I beat my enemies armies). But because endless repetition is boring. And it's not like we don't know which alliance (yes, without the "s") has won in recent months. Looking at score, amount of members and protectorates NPO has won the game. Congrats guys. And with that coalition A is unlikely to turn around the war. Why has NPO won? And why single out NPO? 1) Score: Guinea Pig and NPO combined (569k) are twice as big as BK or T$, let alone coalition A alliances. 2) Members: just Guinea Pig and NPO combined (1300 members) have as many members as all other alliances combined up to #23. Take into account NPO protectorates like Goons and we're talking up to #30 or more. 25-30% of active players is GPWC/NPO member. 3) Other major alliances have been weakened: yes, coalition A has suffered losses in terms of members and score and activity. But major alliances tied to NPO or fighting alongside it have also suffered some losses. BK lost important treaties (Carthage etc). High tire heavy TCW is fighting against pretty much everyone else in that tier - and losing. And HS and T$ are facing bad odds in the midtier. While NPO has been adding quickly growing protectorates and been safe in the midtier it rules with BK and the lowest tier GPWC owns. 4) Thanks to 6-month long NAPs with Farksphere and RnR, we know no other large alliances are likely to enter this global. So this is it. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." Roq, you argue yourself this global war has been won. I agree. Your enemies, allies and those fighting alongside NPO alike have all suffered to some degree. NPO/GPWC is largest by far. This war will easily end up the biggest and longest. Offer reasonable terms publicly, let everyone know what NPO/GPWC wants - let alliances fly those guinea pigs in their flag for a week - and let players move on to something new and more interesting. Before even more players leave this game bored and you are forced to let your 1300 Guinea Pigs (and counting) fight each other.
  14. So Malal, the NG - who are included on both sides?
  15. The three largest allies of NPO are the Syndicate, House Stark and Dark Brotherhood. Somehow, I don't think those three are part of this treaty. And I have my doubts about Guinea Pig Whaling Corporation.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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