Rose's Surrender

[Auctor]

It's good to see that we have found that our viewpoints may not be so different. I assume that you too conducted a cost-benefit/risk-reward analysis with regards to military benefits vs PR losses and risk if losing. I imagine that being an experienced player, the thought of being made to pay reps crossed your mind when you made said analysis?

PR is someone else's game. Our consideration was one of making the best of the chances we get. Get in, do a lot of damage, and if we win, great. If we don't, we couldn't possibly end up in a worse position because we were isolated and being set up for a rolling anyway. Reps were considered, but have since been discarded because the cost is a lot and the benefit is a very little. 

[Guest Frawley]

That said; when I pulled the trigger on pushing for a strike on you guys in the previous war, I most certainly did so with the knowledge that if the gamble failed, we would have been torn to shreds and forced to pay large reps. We also made the calculation of military benefits vs giving up the moral high ground to an extent.

Anyhow; now you made the same considerations and pulled the trigger on us. Yet... our guys are not allowed to feel the same way? You made a calculation and it didn't pan out. So now we should go out of our way to make it easier on you?

 

More importantly: does your sides rhetorical flip flop mean that I am now no longer considered evil for my actions?

 

OOC: If the Order had been in P&W for a long time this would probably make sense.  The fact is however, right up until we were rolled in the last war, from our perspective we had done absolutely nothing to 'Syndisphere', we had radio silence for months, deliberately staying clear of the boards as not to antagonise folks, and still we were hit.  Your actions were practical, but to suggest that they have no bearing on our future defensive posture, in particular with relation to BK is tenuous at best.

[Auctor]

OOC: If the Order had been in P&W for a long time this would probably make sense.  The fact is however, right up until we were rolled in the last war, from our perspective we had done absolutely nothing to 'Syndisphere', we had radio silence for months, deliberately staying clear of the boards as not to antagonise folks, and still we were hit.  Your actions were practical, but to suggest that they have no bearing on our future defensive posture, in particular with relation to BK is tenuous at best.

But we signed a treaty with someone tS was also trying to sign a treaty with and BK held a treaty with so we were basically asking for it.

[Prefonteen]

When were you ever humble? If anything, the hubris on your side has only increased. Your side has never shown an ounce of good will in victory. You have been like the worst possible winners you could be.

 

Not again. Speaking for tS:

 

Every single war: - white peace to fringe players.

Proxywar (where we were pre-empted): - white peace to Rose

Oktoberfest  (all out assault on tS/SK/TEst): - Peace for fringe players. Reps for main culprits

168 (Rose hit on Mensa): - White peace for everyone

NPO's first time (what a shit name): - Just the arrgh NAP lifted.

 

Sphere-wise, I believe that reps for VE in proxywar, enforced by the (not guardian) sphere to help kickstart Guardian's rebuild after they got pre-empted in a war they had already been incredibly hesitant on should be added to the list. In this case, Guardian received the exact 100 mil which had been extracted from them and given to VE in the previous Guardian-VE war.

 

All in all though, that's far, far from being 'sore winners'. Moreover, one can identify multiple points where tS went the 'goodwill' route and got spit in the face for it.

 

Think:

- We had a legitimate case for Rose reps in Proxy and could have demanded at least a small sum. Doing so would have been to our benefit as a lot of the damage we had done had been negated by the rollback (while damage taken by tS was primarily taken in the first days that werent rolled back). We didn't. Reason: Goodwill.

- That was followed by being pre-empted at oktoberfest right after rebuilding. Admittedly, we take more of a 'scorched earth' approach there, and demanded a substantial sum of reps at the time. While we had our reasons, I won't count that as goodwill.

- Rose who had consistently claimed to want peace since proxyfest (remember our white peace for goodwill?) had used oktoberfest to build. In 168, they came for us (we quoted this in our DoW). So far for that goodwill. We had  a legitimate reason to extract heavy reps from Rose in 168. We also had all the leverage needed to enforce it. We didn't and instead opted for white peace.

- This was followed by both VE and UPN (who we had been working hard on since oktoberfest to normalise relations and even look at future options. You know the details by now) slamming the door on us (thats what it looked like) and consolidating with NPO in a monsterblob. So we pre-empted (not going over the alpha debacle, since that is a story of its own). Again, white peace was given.

- And now this war.

 

I mean... not sure what you were referring to, but on a gov-gov level we have for the gross majority of the wars tried to give your side the easy out, and have tried to 'play nice' in hopes of setting up some more cordial dialogue. In most cases, it backfired.

[Charles Bolivar]

Didn't we reach out to NPO only to be rebuffed in favour of our traditional enemies? 

 

Associates with enemies, acts like an enemy, signs treaty with enemies. Usually is an enemy in my book.

 

If you didn't want to be viewed as an enemy, don't associate yourselves with our enemies and then whinge about it when you are treated as such.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Night King

[Auctor]

Didn't we reach out to NPO only to be rebuffed in favour of our traditional enemies? 

No.

[Prefonteen]

PR is someone else's game. Our consideration was one of making the best of the chances we get. Get in, do a lot of damage, and if we win, great. If we don't, we couldn't possibly end up in a worse position because we were isolated and being set up for a rolling anyway. Reps were considered, but have since been discarded because the cost is a lot and the benefit is a very little. 

 

My reference to considering reps regarded the notion that you might be made to pay reps if you took the gamble of hitting us an lost. Similar to how I made that calculation in the previous war.

OOC: If the Order had been in P&W for a long time this would probably make sense.  The fact is however, right up until we were rolled in the last war, from our perspective we had done absolutely nothing to 'Syndisphere', we had radio silence for months, deliberately staying clear of the boards as not to antagonise folks, and still we were hit.  Your actions were practical, but to suggest that they have no bearing on our future defensive posture, in particular with relation to BK is tenuous at best.

 

I'm not suggesting that the hit on NPO had no bearing on your future defensive posture. And no, in the literal sense you had done nothing to Syndisphere. That's not what this argument is about though: I've explained time and time again that you ended up in our crosshairs because you were a rising power which quietly positioned itself politically as an opposing force. By signing VE, who had historically opposed us, by signing Alpha, by signing UPN. Two of these were the lynchpins of the Paragon/Covenant Union.

 

In the cases of UPN and VE; as mentioned before, we were wary of the initial movements following 168 (your treaties with VE/Alpha), but our own efforts to sign with UPN or VE (in order to set the first step towards something new. It was a feeler which failed in the end) got torpedoed. In VE's case, they died a gradual death. In UPN's case, they died because Hans became active again and started driving a profoundly anti-tS agenda (we received the screenshot in which he proclaimed us UPN's gravest enemies).

 

Then Hans, following our receipt of that screenshot, won the elections in UPN and took power. Then the UPN-NPO treaty was signed.

 

That naturally pushed me into making a move. In light of the above, NPO's treaty to UPN (which despite our relations with previous UPN govt, we were completely and utterly unaware of.) looked like a hostile consolidation. We've always been practical so there we went.

 

So circling back to your point: You did not antagonize us in public and you did a good job keeping radio silence. You also did not make any direct moves against us (read: direct aggression). What you did do, was surround yourself with enemies of tS and firmly position yourself on that side. Increasingly so. If that was deliberate, then you knew full well the possible consequences. If it was not deliberate: You were naive.

 

But we signed a treaty with someone tS was also trying to sign a treaty with and BK held a treaty with so we were basically asking for it.

 

Please view the above.

[Prefonteen]

Didn't we reach out to NPO only to be rebuffed in favour of our traditional enemies? 

 

Seems like a good enough reason to assume someone is an enemy. 

 

Associates with enemies, acts like an enemy, signs treaty with enemies. Usually is an enemy in my book.

 

Nah, we never reached out for a treaty. We did uphold cordial communications when NPO first started out, including gov-gov channels. We refrained from reaching out beyond that as we hoped NPO would make something outside of the present dynamic happen.

 

They didn't.

[Auctor]

My reference to considering reps regarded the notion that you might be made to pay reps if you took the gamble of hitting us an lost. Similar to how I made that calculation in the previous war.

 

I'm not suggesting that the hit on NPO had no bearing on your future defensive posture. And no, in the literal sense you had done nothing to Syndisphere. That's not what this argument is about though: I've explained time and time again that you ended up in our crosshairs because you were a rising power which quietly positioned itself politically as an opposing force. By signing VE, who had historically opposed us, by signing Alpha, by signing UPN. Two of these were the lynchpins of the Paragon/Covenant Union.

 

In the cases of UPN and VE; as mentioned before, we were wary of the initial movements following 168 (your treaties with VE/Alpha), but our own efforts to sign with UPN or VE (in order to set the first step towards something new. It was a feeler which failed in the end) got torpedoed. In VE's case, they died a gradual death. In UPN's case, they died because Hans became active again and started driving a profoundly anti-tS agenda (we received the screenshot in which he proclaimed us UPN's gravest enemies).

 

Then Hans, following our receipt of that screenshot, won the elections in UPN and took power. Then the UPN-NPO treaty was signed.

 

That naturally pushed me into making a move. In light of the above, NPO's treaty to UPN (which despite our relations with previous UPN govt, we were completely and utterly unaware of.) looked like a hostile consolidation. We've always been practical so there we went.

 

So circling back to your point: You did not antagonize us in public and you did a good job keeping radio silence. You also did not make any direct moves against us (read: direct aggression). What you did do, was surround yourself with enemies of tS and firmly position yourself on that side. Increasingly so. If that was deliberate, then you knew full well the possible consequences. If it was not deliberate: You were naive.

 

 

Please view the above.

 

Pretty wordy way of saying you wanted to take revenge for (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) like you said you were going to, but ok.

[Prefonteen]

Pretty wordy way of saying you wanted to take revenge for (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) like you said you were going to, but ok.

 

Because everyone around me knows i'm so invested in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 

[Roquentin]

Not again. Speaking for tS:

 

Every single war: - white peace to fringe players.

Proxywar (where we were pre-empted): - white peace to Rose

Oktoberfest  (all out assault on tS/SK/TEst): - Peace for fringe players. Reps for main culprits

168 (Rose hit on Mensa): - White peace for everyone

NPO's first time (what a shit name): - Just the arrgh NAP lifted.

 

Sphere-wise, I believe that reps for VE in proxywar, enforced by the (not guardian) sphere to help kickstart Guardian's rebuild after they got pre-empted in a war they had already been incredibly hesitant on should be added to the list. In this case, Guardian received the exact 100 mil which had been extracted from them and given to VE in the previous Guardian-VE war.

 

All in all though, that's far, far from being 'sore winners'. Moreover, one can identify multiple points where tS went the 'goodwill' route and got spit in the face for it.

 

Think:

- We had a legitimate case for Rose reps in Proxy and could have demanded at least a small sum. Doing so would have been to our benefit as a lot of the damage we had done had been negated by the rollback (while damage taken by tS was primarily taken in the first days that werent rolled back). We didn't. Reason: Goodwill.

- That was followed by being pre-empted at oktoberfest right after rebuilding. Admittedly, we take more of a 'scorched earth' approach there, and demanded a substantial sum of reps at the time. While we had our reasons, I won't count that as goodwill.

- Rose who had consistently claimed to want peace since proxyfest (remember our white peace for goodwill?) had used oktoberfest to build. In 168, they came for us (we quoted this in our DoW). So far for that goodwill. We had  a legitimate reason to extract heavy reps from Rose in 168. We also had all the leverage needed to enforce it. We didn't and instead opted for white peace.

- This was followed by both VE and UPN (who we had been working hard on since oktoberfest to normalise relations and even look at future options. You know the details by now) slamming the door on us (thats what it looked like) and consolidating with NPO in a monsterblob. So we pre-empted (not going over the alpha debacle, since that is a story of its own). Again, white peace was given.

- And now this war.

 

I mean... not sure what you were referring to, but on a gov-gov level we have for the gross majority of the wars tried to give your side the easy out, and have tried to 'play nice' in hopes of setting up some more cordial dialogue. In most cases, it backfired.

 

That's not really how I remember it.

 

First of all, your ally started a war without much cause in Proxy and we just had to eat it despite being the aggrieved party. We've been over the Rose preempt of tS a million times and I remember specifically that people just didn't want to fight after the roll back, so could you have pushed for more if you weren't keen on continuing to fight? No one was. Basically, what your side did was take a giant dump on us and we had no recourse in that instance besides to have Rose and VE deploy creatively. You can continue pushing the innocence line, but I don't buy it.

 

The reps for Covenant were substantial and they were pretty hobbled in their ability to do much for a while besides UPN to the extent UPN kept the Covenant out of 168 day war. It wasn't exactly a good will gesture.

 

You didn't have the leverage to enforce reps in 168 day war. You would have pushed for a surrender if you had and it was a white peace for a reason. A lot of details about your state of preparedness during that have come out since.

 

VE pretty much signed Alpha right after the 168 day war and I'm not sure what you were expecting given the anti-alpha sentiment coming out from you.  I can't speak to the specific reasons why people didn't trust tS in UPN, but it's not easy for people to move on from paying reps to an alliance that they felt plotted against them in the first.

 

I'm just really not seeing what you're referring to here. You typically tried to dodge scenarios that could have turned out unfavorably and then you punished people for fighting you when they could.

 

There was zero good will in the last war and the constant attempts to extend it and take advantage of the early Rose peace just alienated people further.

 

 

 

My reference to considering reps regarded the notion that you might be made to pay reps if you took the gamble of hitting us an lost. Similar to how I made that calculation in the previous war.

 

I'm not suggesting that the hit on NPO had no bearing on your future defensive posture. And no, in the literal sense you had done nothing to Syndisphere. That's not what this argument is about though: I've explained time and time again that you ended up in our crosshairs because you were a rising power which quietly positioned itself politically as an opposing force. By signing VE, who had historically opposed us, by signing Alpha, by signing UPN. Two of these were the lynchpins of the Paragon/Covenant Union.

 

In the cases of UPN and VE; as mentioned before, we were wary of the initial movements following 168 (your treaties with VE/Alpha), but our own efforts to sign with UPN or VE (in order to set the first step towards something new. It was a feeler which failed in the end) got torpedoed. In VE's case, they died a gradual death. In UPN's case, they died because Hans became active again and started driving a profoundly anti-tS agenda (we received the screenshot in which he proclaimed us UPN's gravest enemies).

 

Then Hans, following our receipt of that screenshot, won the elections in UPN and took power. Then the UPN-NPO treaty was signed.

 

That naturally pushed me into making a move. In light of the above, NPO's treaty to UPN (which despite our relations with previous UPN govt, we were completely and utterly unaware of.) looked like a hostile consolidation. We've always been practical so there we went.

 

So circling back to your point: You did not antagonize us in public and you did a good job keeping radio silence. You also did not make any direct moves against us (read: direct aggression). What you did do, was surround yourself with enemies of tS and firmly position yourself on that side. Increasingly so. If that was deliberate, then you knew full well the possible consequences. If it was not deliberate: You were naive.

 

 

Please view the above.

 

 

Yeah, like Auctor said we don't buy this as the reason. You attempted to single NPO out and we know you tried to strike deals with constituent alliances to diminish our support. If it was about Paracovenant, you wouldn't have done so.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[Roquentin]

edit: doublepost 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[Auctor]

Because everyone around me knows i'm so invested in (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) 

Cared perfectly well June 7th at 2:01 AM.

[Prefonteen]

Ofcourse I tried to strike deals when war rolled around since by that time we had already decided that your sphere had consolidated to the point where it was no longer tenable to let you continue. I know which alliance you are referring to. Let me ask you this: If you saw a chance on the eve of war to both accomplish a victory and alter the overall political dynamic of the game by pulling a major player into neutrality and permanently out of their sphere. Wouldn't you take it?

 

That alliance moving out would have, besides ensuring victory in what was going in a fight in which we were numerically inferior, also given us an alleyway to change the politics of the game. Would've been entertaining to all.

 

But ho hey, that doesn't fit your narrative. How dare I even try different things!

Cared perfectly well June 7th at 2:01 AM.

 

Yeah. Hopped on to throw some shade. Then forgot to log into my nation for 2 weeks. Kind of like i'd been doing for a long time. Such care.

[Charles Bolivar]

Nah, we never reached out for a treaty. We did uphold cordial communications when NPO first started out, including gov-gov channels. We refrained from reaching out beyond that as we hoped NPO would make something outside of the present dynamic happen.

 

They didn't.

 

Yeah, I distinctly remember we reached out in some manner to keep relations positive in some manner or fashion but that it didn't go anywhere and here we are.

 

Yeah, like Auctor said we don't buy this as the reason. You attempted to single NPO out and we know you tried to strike deals with constituent alliances to diminish our support. If it was about Paracovenant, you wouldn't have done so.

 

 

To be frank, it doesn't matter if you buy it as a reason or not. We have stated our stance and you aren't in a position to do anything about it.

 

#hardtruths

Edited October 2, 2016 by Night King

[Auctor]

"Nothing I said at the time is actually for real and it's actually all these other reasons that I made up afterwards."

[Roquentin]

Ofcourse I tried to strike deals when war rolled around since by that time we had already decided that your sphere had consolidated to the point where it was no longer tenable to let you continue. I know which alliance you are referring to. Let me ask you this: If you saw a chance on the eve of war to both accomplish a victory and alter the overall political dynamic of the game by pulling a major player into neutrality and permanently out of their sphere. Wouldn't you take it?

 

That alliance moving out would have, besides ensuring victory in what was going in a fight in which we were numerically inferior, also given us an alleyway to change the politics of the game. Would've been entertaining to all.

 

But ho hey, that doesn't fit your narrative. How dare I even try different things!

 

Yeah. Hopped on to throw some shade. Then forgot to log into my nation for 2 weeks. Kind of like i'd been doing for a long time. Such care.

 When that alliance was equally part of the consolidation you considered as worrying and had signed the same exact alliance we had before, it was very clear, you wanted to make it personal with NPO and that increased resentment.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I distinctly remember we reached out in some manner to keep relations positive in some manner or fashion but that it didn't go anywhere and here we are.

 

 

To be frank, it doesn't matter if you buy it as a reason or not. We have stated our stance and you aren't in a position to do anything about it.

 

#hardtruths

 

You guys seem pretty upset about what we did about it, so idk about this one.

 

Besides, this isn't the real world and as long as we're around we can contest your narrative every step of the way. You can win on the battlefield, but you can't control our thoughts and deny us a stance.  

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[Prefonteen]

That's not really how I remember it.

 

First of all, your ally started a war without much cause in Proxy and we just had to eat it despite being the aggrieved party. We've been over the Rose preempt of tS a million times and I remember specifically that people just didn't want to fight after the roll back, so could you have pushed for more if you weren't keen on continuing to fight? No one was. Basically, what your side did was take a giant dump on us and we had no recourse in that instance besides to have Rose and VE deploy creatively. You can continue pushing the innocence line, but I don't buy it.

 

The reps for Covenant were substantial and they were pretty hobbled in their ability to do much for a while besides UPN to the extent UPN kept the Covenant out of 168 day war. It wasn't exactly a good will gesture.

 

You didn't have the leverage to enforce reps in 168 day war. You would have pushed for a surrender if you had and it was a white peace for a reason. A lot of details about your state of preparedness during that have come out since.

 

VE pretty much signed Alpha right after the 168 day war and I'm not sure what you were expecting given the anti-alpha sentiment coming out from you.  I can't speak to the specific reasons why people didn't trust tS in UPN, but it's not easy for people to move on from paying reps to an alliance that they felt plotted against them in the first.

 

I'm just really not seeing what you're referring to here. You typically tried to dodge scenarios that could have turned out unfavorably and then you punished people for fighting you when they could.

 

There was zero good will in the last war and the constant attempts to extend it and take advantage of the early Rose peace just alienated people further.

 

 

- We have indeed been over this many times, and yet again you are:

1. Treating Mensa and tS as *one* political entity and our sphere as an integated being. I'm not sure if this is intentional but at the time, we were far from the big bad bully side you make us out to be. We were smaller than Paragon's sphere. We were smaller than Covenants sphere. BK and TKR were both smaller and BK was allied to both Rose and UPN. Moreover, BK only joined our side when Rose pre-empted us.

2. lamenting tS' for its passive support of Mensa without holding UPN to the exact same standard. As i've explained before: Both UPN and tS refused to hit anyone aggressively (despite being asked to). Both UPN and tS made it clear that they would defend Mensa from counters.

 

What drove you to hit tS and Guardian is *not* tS' passive defense. If we had fought in a vacuum without Covenant interference, you would have been able to call in both Alpha and Asgard due to traditional treaty chains. You would have easily pulled the trigger and hit Mensa, and then just waited for the counter and countered that. You could not do so because of the looming threat of UPN snowballing down on you if you went directly at Mensa.

 

So you hit tS.

 

It's a practical decision. Your consistent spinning of this as all being tS/tS' side's fault is tiring though. Especially as we were pre-empted. Not UPN. And especially as your side then allied UPN's bloc, and UPN came at us next. But let's blame tS anyways .

 

I already stated that the reps to UPN werent a goodwill gesture? Reread my statement please.

 

We could have forced something. You were equally unprepared and on your ass in 168 day.

 

Re: UPN. I don't think you are knowledgeable enough of UPN-tS relations to make an accurate assessment of that situation. It's also not that relevant: The part that is relevant is that an (official) treaty was put on the table and yanked out because of 'internal issues' a day before signing (after an initial 10 day extension of the signing date). Right around the same time we received  screenshot of the culprit of these internal issues. It turned out to be the old alliance leader who had led an all out assault against us in oktoberfest and who likely still held a grudge from paying reps + the cynic leak. That was followed by his election, and the UPN-NPO treaty.

 

Now again: Don't blame em. They have the right to do what they want. But my stance is damn well going to change based on what I see going on in the world.

 

 

I'm just really not seeing what you're referring to here. You typically tried to dodge scenarios that could have turned out unfavorably and then you punished people for fighting you when they could.

 

 

Can you tell me how exactly I have been risk averse? Must I remind you of the numbers in the first few wars? The only reason we got an advantage is by turning around unfavorable scenarios. And yes, there have been a few instances where we 'punished' people for coming after us. There's also been plenty of instances where we didn't. You're grasping at straws.

 

As for last war: Peace extension was a miscommunication. This has been relayed to you.

I'm just really not seeing what you're referring to here. You typically tried to dodge scenarios that could have turned out unfavorably and then you punished people for fighting you when they could.

[Prefonteen]

 

 When that alliance was equally part of the consolidation you considered as worrying and had signed the same exact alliance we had before, it was very clear, you wanted to make it personal with NPO and that increased resentment.

 

 

 

 

 

You guys seem pretty upset about what we did about it, so idk about this one.

 

Besides, this isn't the real world and as long as we're around we can contest your narrative every step of the way. You can win on the battlefield, but you can't control our thoughts and deny us a stance.  

 

 

That's primarily because that alliance has privately voiced resentment to the point where they were legitimately considering a break. Moreover, they were fairly agreed but refused to move if a certain other ally wouldn't come along. That other ally chose to stay and that was the end of that.

 

I'm sure it increased resentment in NPO. That's not something that was or is really relevant to me. Again: By that time we had identified you as an enemy. Your silence actually made us perceive you as more dangerous as we saw your movements but had no way to measure your M.O, whereas we knew exactly what to expect from all others. You were a wild card.

 

 

re: the second part: okay... good on you I guess? 

[Roquentin]

- We have indeed been over this many times, and yet again you are:

1. Treating Mensa and tS as *one* political entity and our sphere as an integated being. I'm not sure if this is intentional but at the time, we were far from the big bad bully side you make us out to be. We were smaller than Paragon's sphere. We were smaller than Covenants sphere. BK and TKR were both smaller and BK was allied to both Rose and UPN. Moreover, BK only joined our side when Rose pre-empted us.

2. lamenting tS' for its passive support of Mensa without holding UPN to the exact same standard. As i've explained before: Both UPN and tS refused to hit anyone aggressively (despite being asked to). Both UPN and tS made it clear that they would defend Mensa from counters.

 

What drove you to hit tS and Guardian is *not* tS' passive defense. If we had fought in a vacuum without Covenant interference, you would have been able to call in both Alpha and Asgard due to traditional treaty chains. You would have easily pulled the trigger and hit Mensa, and then just waited for the counter and countered that. You could not do so because of the looming threat of UPN snowballing down on you if you went directly at Mensa.

 

So you hit tS.

 

It's a practical decision. Your consistent spinning of this as all being tS/tS' side's fault is tiring though. Especially as we were pre-empted. Not UPN. And especially as your side then allied UPN's bloc, and UPN came at us next. But let's blame tS anyways .

 

I already stated that the reps to UPN werent a goodwill gesture? Reread my statement please.

 

We could have forced something. You were equally unprepared and on your ass in 168 day.

 

Re: UPN. I don't think you are knowledgeable enough of UPN-tS relations to make an accurate assessment of that situation. It's also not that relevant: The part that is relevant is that an (official) treaty was put on the table and yanked out because of 'internal issues' a day before signing (after an initial 10 day extension of the signing date). Right around the same time we received  screenshot of the culprit of these internal issues. It turned out to be the old alliance leader who had led an all out assault against us in oktoberfest and who likely still held a grudge from paying reps + the cynic leak. That was followed by his election, and the UPN-NPO treaty.

 

Now again: Don't blame em. They have the right to do what they want. But my stance is damn well going to change based on what I see going on in the world.

 

 

 

 

Can you tell me how exactly I have been risk averse? Must I remind you of the numbers in the first few wars? The only reason we got an advantage is by turning around unfavorable scenarios. And yes, there have been a few instances where we 'punished' people for coming after us. There's also been plenty of instances where we didn't. You're grasping at straws.

 

As for last war: Peace extension was a miscommunication. This has been relayed to you.

I'm just really not seeing what you're referring to here. You typically tried to dodge scenarios that could have turned out unfavorably and then you punished people for fighting you when they could.

 

 

Mensa and tS were in part together because of their animosity towards Paragon. You had to know it would lead to something. Pretending it was innocent to sign them was disengenuous.

 

I'm not sure how we would have called in Alpha or Asgard on Mensa when we had no treaty with Alpha and Alpha didn't have a treaty with tS, so basically you would have wanted Asgard to solo Mensa?  We were selected as the target due to the fact we had no treaties outside of Paragon and hitting us would avoid Rose's Covenant treaty with DEIC.

 

With UPN, here goes: they don't have a pattern of screwing us over.  The Proxy War stance they took was largely based on the fact they didn't like either tS or Rose at the time from what I can tell.  You have caused us problems in multiple instances and continued to enable aggression against us. Simple as that. With each instance increasing resentment. UPN achieved a more amicable state of relations with their prior rivals/enemies in VE/Rose(Marionette War) after.  You didn't.  iirc you had the Christmas NAP and shot down their effort to extend it.

 

You couldn't have and some people feel it was a mistake for our side to peace out when it did. We'll just disagree.  I'll correct something you've said in prior posts on the forums: we did ask Rose for help. They didn't just stumble in so they really weren't just using the situation as an excuse. Carter asked them for help when the raids started happening.

 

Yeah, I mean alluded to the reasons why they were skeptical of tS. You've cited them just now. I don't know enough about the finer details, but you're even saying you don't blame them.

 

It's not really  about being risk averse or not in absolute terms. You minimized risk where you could and that's not particularly daring. I don't consider us to be daredevils for taking our best option in this war. Hitting us first knowing the general sluggish of the Paracovenant side increased your chances of winning. Knowing Paracovenant was just letting you build up also increased your chances of winning. Trying to diminish our support by attempting to sideline a prominent alliance was another example.  It's just not particularly "wow that's a gamble." You tried to get the best scenario you could and that means you dodged unfavorable scenarios be it that one or the attempt to get Rose vs Mensa one on one despite there being no resolution to the Vanguard issue because you weren't fully confident you could win.

 

You were willing to peace out a major alliance with white peace. If it was a mistake to entertain it from us, it makes it clear you wished to punish the other alliances and us further. How does that not increase resentment or engender good will?

 

 

 

 

That's primarily because that alliance has privately voiced resentment to the point where they were legitimately considering a break. Moreover, they were fairly agreed but refused to move if a certain other ally wouldn't come along. That other ally chose to stay and that was the end of that.

 

I'm sure it increased resentment in NPO. That's not something that was or is really relevant to me. Again: By that time we had identified you as an enemy. Your silence actually made us perceive you as more dangerous as we saw your movements but had no way to measure your M.O, whereas we knew exactly what to expect from all others. You were a wild card.

 

 

re: the second part: okay... good on you I guess? 

 

Here's a funny thing Partisan: I'm pretty sure that you started talking to that alliance about us before we signed the UPN treaty and before they themselves knew about it.

 

Then don't talk about how you engendered good will in your handling of wars. Lmao. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[Yosodog]

Well, you guys really did it this time. You dragged Partisan out of retirement.

[Cypher]

I have no special knowledge of the current peace dealings, but from what I'm getting out of this move, BK wants to avoid a guerilla situation similar to when tS was fighting Alpha in the mud for a month prior to the last war because they couldn't agree on peace terms.

 

They made it a group deal instead of an individual alliance deal, because the more alliances tied down in fighting, the less chance that all the alliances together will be okay with rolling around in the mud like Alpha did. Makes sense to me, if anyone who actually knows about the deal wants to chime in that'd be nice

Eh, we were offered a one month NAP. We wanted two because we knew tS was most likely going to hit us again in the Pacifica War. Turns out something similar happened when your sphere hit ours, which was more or less one month from the start of the war or peace discussions. Partisan/Steve would know more about it.

[Bollocks]

ParaCov should be renamed SaltMine

[Roquentin]

ParaCov should be renamed SaltMine

 

Yeah, Freddie, like there's no "salt" from someone that called this Karma 2,  I'm sure of it.

[Prefonteen]

Eh, we were offered a one month NAP. We wanted two because we knew tS was most likely going to hit us again in the Pacifica War. Turns out something similar happened when your sphere hit ours, which was more or less one month from the start of the war or peace discussions. Partisan/Steve would know more about it.

 

Please please please dont make me revisit our talks with Steve in that war. They drove Valakia to quit. Im not sure if I can handle it a second time. :'(

 

@Roq- i'll reply later. Something to do with having stuff to do