Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Batavus

  1. 1 hour ago, Archibald said:

    I mean that doesn't really help me but fair enough.

    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. 44 minutes ago, Epi said:

    (...) IQ doesn't like making concessions in private, screw doing it on the world stage. (...)

    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). 

  3. 31 minutes ago, George Clooney said:

    If the people who think I'm "toxic" (whatever the hell that means), actually cared if their alliance mates were deleting, they'd do what was necessary to end the war on survivable terms, not extend it to the bitter end.  My conscious is clean.

    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.

  4. 27 minutes ago, Singha said:

    Now you can say it's been days since the announcement of surrender.

    Don't start saying it's been weeks when it's only been a week since the big announcement. 


    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.

    • Upvote 2

  5. On 11/4/2019 at 10:11 PM, Singha said:

    Dude it's only been 2 days (Saturday). Stop trying to make it sound like it's been a week or something ? 

    Let them negotiate and work it out now. 

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

  6. 21 minutes ago, Pop said:

    If the war isn't enough of a burden to overwhelm other aspects of the game like your loyalty to your alliance then how can it be damaging to the health of the game like you were spouting earlier?

    I wouldn't leave my alliance over a little rolling which is my point. The war is a completely natural part of the game that has continued for so long with the consent of all parties involved. All these moral appeals to Game Health from your Coalition are baseless and hold no value.

    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.” 

  7. 5 hours ago, Sphinx said:

    Haven't said anything in this thread, until now so I'll add our thoughts as Colo B's rep.

    Firstly It should be obvious to people that making angry forum posts wont help in your current predicament, neither will trying to wriggle your way out of the situation by holding out in the hope for a change in circumstances. We've outlined repeatedly we require an admission of defeat before talks can commence. When your side talks the amount of shit they did, don't expect people to just allow that to be swepped under the rug and forgotten about, you don't have anyone else to blame for that than those who contributed to this grudge match. We never said we wanted an unconditional surrender, you are more than welcome to reject the terms and continue fighting, much like Germany had the option of doing so after WW1, but we won't budge from our outlined position. Also to reiterate and push back against the fake news surrounding what we (Colo B.) want from peace talks, anything you potentially might've heard is simply hearsay. Before he made this thread Seb spoke to me about some of these rumours including rumours that we wanted among other things to restrict the entire KERCHTOGG block from trading with anyone that isn't IQ. That and many of the other rumours floating around are demonstrably false, at this stage unless its confirmed by NG and I its not officially supported by Coalition B. I see some genuine concerns from both rank and file KERCHTOGG members right through to gov and high gov about such terms and I know that this fake news is contributing as a roadblock for any progress for the possible peace terms. So I'd advice any KERCHTOGG member concerned about things to hit NG or I up in DM's and we'd clear up any misconception. 

    Secondly at this point its egos and pride which is holding back people from making rational decisions about the military realities of the war and coming to terms with their outcomes. IMO the war's gone on far too long, but we're (Coalition B.) willing to see this through well into new years and beyond so holding out to see if our resolve will break isn't going to get you anything either. 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 since we aren't the people holding out for some non-existent chance to get a white peace. 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. But KERCHTOGG gains nothing but wasting their time and hurting the retention of their player-base by holding out and refusing to admit defeat, it costs you nothing to accept defeat and move on, whilst holding out for longer periods of time will cost you much much more.

    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.


    • Upvote 2

  8. 4 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

    Alliances with their flags in the graphic + allies. So if Camelot broke off from BK, I guess technically they wouldn't be bound by it. 

    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.


    15 hours ago, Robert Taber said:

    I hope that NAP extends to your protectorates* 



    15 hours ago, souparmon said:

    It does!


    15 hours ago, Pruss said:

    coalition B (NPO, BK, Covenant and allies) etc


    8 hours ago, souparmon said:

    Love you man #microlivesmatter

    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. 3 hours ago, Daveth said:


    What a shame, I was hoping this would be a war declaration from the title.

    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?    

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3

  11. 3 hours ago, Malleator said:

    1. War dodgers exist. 

    2. Coal B attacks them as all war dodgers should be. 

    3. t$ defends war dodgers, an illegitimate move in my eyes. 

    4. Coal B defends against t$ aggression and illegitimate counters. 

    5. t$ calls in allies to help defend war dodgers. 


    There's no feckin' way you're serious, t$. 

    They're WAR DODGERS. 


    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

    • Haha 1

  12. 1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

    The $yndicate formally points out that the following alliances are not directly allied to The Black Knights, and therefore have entered upon The $yndicate without semblance of just cause. Fortwith, The $yndicate formally calls upon The New Pacific Order to honor its agreement and enter into a state of war against these aggressors:

    - United Purple Nations 

    - Acadia

    - Solar Knights


    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.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 3

  13. 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.

    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  • Create New...

Important Information

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