Jump to content

Batavus

Members
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Batavus

  1. 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.
  2. Batavus

    peace talks

    So...tomorrow it will have been a week. Have terms been presented? Without terms it’s impossible to negotiate.
  3. 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.”
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. So Malal, the NG - who are included on both sides?
  8. 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.
  9. Seriously though, can BK, NPO and Fark government both clarify which alliances are included and if indeed the NAP for other alliances depends on keeping the treaty with them? Usually after a war it's the warring alliances, but since you guys peace out over... I guess... rumors... Was it the list of alliances I posted? On Meme-sphere side, only alliances still fighting in the global war or also allies currently at peace? Am I correct Dark Brotherhood isn't part of the NAP for instance? And in Farksphere, all allies? Including RnR for instance or are they still fair game? I'd prefer confirmation of the lists I posted earlier or two other short, mutually confirmed lists of alliances over lots of complaining and whining on the forums in a couple months time, when you guys go to war over some incident at your minor allies and dispute which alliances were covered by the NAP.
  10. On a serious note: which alliances? I assume it is a NAP until April 6th 2020 between on the one hand: TCW, Acadia, UPN, BK, GoG, Camelot, Electric Space, THL, Goon Squad, Goons, NPO, Guinea Pigs, AK, Solar Knights, Mythic, ODN, Info Wars and on the other hand: Farkistan, the Immortals, Pantheon, World Task Force, Horsemen, the Originals, Schrute Farms, Teutonic Order, Central Imperial Union, Deathly Hallows, Respublica Romana, Ragnarok, Ignis Aternum, Taith, The Regiment, The Enclave, Dunder Mifflin, The Lost Empire, The Sons of Thunder, Marina Bay Banking, Beacon Inc and the Federation?
  11. One of the three nations attacking me at this very moment, on behalf of coalition B, is a war dodger. So spare me this. Will anyone in Coal B deal help me defeat that war dodger? Any plans against his alliance? Or do nations stop being war dodgers the moment they join and fight for coalition B? Unless you guys deal with all those war dodgers coal B has gathered, spare us this. Hypocrisy - the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case
  12. Pacta sunt servanda - every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be honored. Sad NPO doesn't feel like acting honorably - and you are using an allies temporary weakness to attack their protectorates. And sad that you're showing a 1000 Guinea babies the NPO way of treating allies and treaty obligations. Many warned T$ for you - we were foolish enough to treaty you anyway. Have fun in IQ. PS: to end on a positive note, congrats, about 1 in 4 active players of this game are now a member of Guinea/NPO. And Guinea is still growing. Impressive recruitment drive.
  13. Batavus

    Slot filling

    So, timeline: 07/16/2019 11:59 pm: MrBooty war declaration 07/17/2019 01:32 pm: Batavus (me): war declaration 07/18/2019 12:17 pm: Kilgore: war declaration 07/19/2019 03:47 am: MrBooty defeated by Indonesia I don't know why there weren't more people trying to get this treasure. I noticed Indonesia had a treasure and open slots for a while and I attacked to get the treasure. I was also surprised how, especially after I declared war on Indonesia, nobody else attacked. And that you didn't get a fellow alliance member to support you in your attack. You had more than a day to get an ally to join in the attack (initially you could even have brought in 2 allies). With one ally you could already have won easily. Initially we were fighting an unarmed nation if I'm not mistaken. I didn't want to help you win the war because I wanted the treasure myself, so after initial attacks I wanted to save some MAPs and let you fight it out with him. Instead I was asked by my alliance to back off, 20 or so hours ago, so I immediately after their request I offered Indonesia peace.
  14. MDoAP GodFury - Pantheon Blessed by the Gods Preambule The Gods of GodFury and Pantheon enjoy working on matters divinely inspired. And nothing is more divinely inspired than a treaty that unites the Gods! No Titanomachy for us - the gods of Titan and Zeus, side by side, celebrating Loyalty, Comradery and Freedom! High on Mount Olympus we drink an ambrosia to celebrate this treaty. Article I: Sovereignty The signatories of this treaty promise not to infringe on the sovereignty of each other, and agree to mutually respect the right to conduct one’s internal affairs without external interference. Article II: Non-Aggression The signatories of this treaty guarantee the cessation of any and all forms of hostile activities that may be directed towards each other. Should an incident occur between the signatories, both parties agree to seek diplomatic solutions through private channels. Article III: Intelligence The signatories of this treaty agree to share relevant intelligence with the intent of improving the safety and stability of both parties. If either signatory alliance collects intelligence regarding a security breach or a credible threat concerning the other signatory alliance, the acquiring signatory alliance will convey all pertinent information in their possession to the other signatory alliance. Information provided by third parties who are bound to one of the signatories by other agreements and have declared said information as "confidential", cannot be shared without explicit permission of these third parties. Article IV: Mutual Defense Both parties are Obligated to come to each other’s aid in the case of an attack by an external aggressor under any circumstances. The degree of military and/or monetary aid to be provided as per this clause is contingent on the request placed by the defendant. Article V: Chaining In any scenario where either signatory finds itself attacked as a consequence of fulfillment of third party obligations, the Mutual Defense clause as stipulated by article III becomes void. A request for assistance may still be made by the defending party, though its fulfillment wil be optional. Article VI: Cancellation 72 hours of notice must be given in the event that either signatory wishes to cancel this treaty. All clauses within this document will remain in full effect until the conclusion of these 72 hours. Article VII: FA Agreement Both parties agree to consult each other before signing any other M-Level treaties. Article VIII: Optional Aggression Either party may request assistance with the planning and execution of a raid or an offensive war against a third party. Such assistance, though encouraged, is not mandatory. 14 day clause The signatories of this treaty agree that for the first 14 days after ratification, any military assistance is optional. After 14 days,full terms are in effect. Signatures GodFury Basileus: Richard Payne III Regent: Sir Oliver FA Officer: Austin Richards Pantheon The Emperor: Titan Rexus Batavus: Olympian of Foreign Affairs Kaira de -Kara: Olympian of Defense Melyaj Vijsopj: Deity of Internal Affairs Matthew the Great: Deity of Internal Affairs Tcase: Deity of Defense David Jr.: Deity of Defense Tartarus: Deity of Economics Ridcully: Wizard of Some Repute
  15. Congratulations, good move!
  16. Cheers! Looking forward to working with you guys!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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