Rose's Surrender

[The Mad Titan]

Lol. We did. A mutually acceptable solution wasn't reached. Where do you think this 800mil number came from?

 

Good faith implies you wanted to reach a reasonable agreement. White peace is not a reasonable agreement, nor would any self-respecting alliance take that offer after being attacked.

[Fukataka]

Can someone give a TL:DR on the current negotiations.

 

And another question: How was the 1 billion calculated so that it was reasonable for rose.

 

I don't usually pay attention to game politics but just wondering why

[Charles Bolivar]

Lol. We did. A mutually acceptable solution wasn't reached. Where do you think this 800mil number came from?

 

I believe it would come from 10 days of taxes.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Night King

[Azaghul]

In some of the wars, the cost was drastically different. You guys came out way ahead in damage in the previous war and looting. It isn't that even in terms of outcomes. This one would be more of an exception in terms of the damage, but it's skewed a bit, but it was still a lot more even damage-wise than the last war.  The losing side ends up taking more time to rebuild if they're able to and the winning side can recover fully or go. In many of the wars, participants with nukes avoided going full nuclear and wars would usually peace before they used up their stockpiles.

 

I'm not sure how you think this is the case. Some alliance on the losing side have been able to rebuild, but if you look at some of the major anchor alliances, they haven't recovered much.  The damage usually is substantially higher for the losing side. Multiple losses have resulted in less recovery, less growth, reduced membercounts and more inactivity as some people get tired of just going to war to get ZMed. The balance of power has been altered long term, especially with the departure of alliances who were once part of the losing side(CS, BoC, TLF, CF, Phoenix it's not a comprehensive list btw). We had help with Pantheon which helped not make it seem as lopsided from some non-aligned alliances, but they weren't invested in the overall war.

It's true that loosing alliances take marginally more damage.  But a lot of this has been balanced by the fact that several of the alliances on your side sat out at least one of the wars (VE and UPN specifically) while we've had to fight every single war.

 

I know in this war many upper tier members of TKR have had more than half their cities nuked.

 

In the last two, and most of the previous ones, there aren't very far fetched alternative scenarios where the other side could have won.  Even something on the level of the other side having a better overall strategy for when and how you deployed alliances possibly could have swayed things.

 

 

I mean, if you want to doubt the sincerity, I'm not really sure I'm going to convince you otherwise. It's just pretty simple to point out that our side had split before and reunited temporarily with the addition of some alliances. That appears to have been a one time thing.  I wouldn't say it's premature to say we'd see another war against some of the alliances  though I would contest the fact that it'd be considered a big war. In any peace deal, we  are essentially returning to the situation we had before this war became a possibility where the most likely prospect was a curbstomp on a  smaller cluster. I don't want to pay reps because of the economic burden  especially not the level that is being demanded, but we're disincentivized significantly from paying anything by the political situation since we would be in an extremely precarious position after peace.

 

To be frank, I wasn't just blowing smoke when I made it clear what the stakes were for this war because it was the last time there were going to be enough alliances to oppose Syndisphere on paper. Even then it required a significant mobilization advantage and the element of surprise for us to have a legitimate shot over the activity advantage your side had.  Despite those advantages, it wasn't enough since not enough people on our side were active enough to take full advantage of it. There isn't really much of a chance of a radical change and your side is continuing to consolidate. The  result is an endgame scenario with one side completely dominant.

There are many ways you could improve your alliance's economic and political position after this war, even if you pay reps and operate under the assumption that you likely won't be in a winning position in the next war.  You're either too stupid to see it, which I'm not inclined to believe, or deliberately playing dumb.

 

If things really are entirely hopeless, why continue to play?

[Ayayay]

If things really are entirely hopeless, why continue to play?

What other game is there to shitpost for lols in?

[Prefontaine]

Good faith implies you wanted to reach a reasonable agreement. White peace is not a reasonable agreement, nor would any self-respecting alliance take that offer after being attacked.

If I were attacked and my side won I would be okay with white peace. I guess I don't have self respect

[Auctor]

If things really are entirely hopeless, why continue to play?

 

Nothing is hopeless. It'd merely be foolish for us to adopt conventional strategies to a situation in which conventional strategies aren't useful.

[Charles Bolivar]

Nothing is hopeless. It'd merely be foolish for us to adopt conventional strategies to a situation in which conventional strategies aren't useful.

 

I can assure you, NPO's current situation is very conventional as is the optimal solution.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Night King

[greatkitteh]

If I were attacked and my side won I would be okay with white peace. I guess I don't have self respect

 

You dont have respect

[Roquentin]

It's true that loosing alliances take marginally more damage.  But a lot of this has been balanced by the fact that several of the alliances on your side sat out at least one of the wars (VE and UPN specifically) while we've had to fight every single war.

 

I know in this war many upper tier members of TKR have had more than half their cities nuked.

 

In the last two, and most of the previous ones, there aren't very far fetched alternative scenarios where the other side could have won.  Even something on the level of the other side having a better overall strategy for when and how you deployed alliances possibly could have swayed things.

 

There are many ways you could improve your alliance's economic and political position after this war, even if you pay reps and operate under the assumption that you likely won't be in a winning position in the next war.  You're either too stupid to see it, which I'm not inclined to believe, or deliberately playing dumb.

 

If things really are entirely hopeless, why continue to play?

 

 

I'm going to keep this short since I wrote the post several times and I keep getting login key errors.

 

Typically, the losing side takes a lot more damage in the end than the winners. ie. Oktoberfest being a huge setback for the Covenant and the last war.  I posted the stats for the last war. Even if your members had their cities nuked this time and it induced heavy damages, it usually isn't as comparable. This war has been an exception for a variety of reasons.  Additionally, UPN only sat out proxy and VE never sat out a war in the last year.

 

The issue is, most of the time, it relied on things that weren't there in actuality. As you can see, Rose, VE, UPN are all smaller than they were before. The stats on paper didn't indicate the full story. The lack of willingness to go on the offensive also contributed to that, which is why we changed it this time, since even with a loss we could still do decent damage if we hit first in a surprise maneveur while the other side was still trying to build up as opposed to letting the other side get everyone ready over the span of 6 days like the last war for an offensive. 

 

As for the rest Auctor addressed it to some extent

 

 

You're so busy trying to spin plain english you're missing the point. Here, I'll try again.

 

If the entire point of our existence was to acquire profit at the expense of our own security, does anything we've done in the last ten months make any sense? Why should we place good faith in the hands of those who've shown only bad faith? What value is a temporary peace if the best we can hope for us that people we already know we can't trust and who have betrayed us in the past might let us be on their side? What good is growth if it only leaves us vulnerable to being picked off later? Why shouldn't we fight this out, knowing this is internally consistent with the wishes of our membership and that the political structure of this game has nothing to appeal to us outside of it?

 

It's also not just about paying reps. We made an offer that we felt we could bear for the sake of our allies and it was dismissed. Our allies were held in and now the money they agreed to is no longer on the table.

 

We play this game for a variety of reasons and plenty of alliances don't play just to hope to win the next coalition war. I find the mechanics an improvement on similar games and we enjoy helping to build a community.  Like Auctor said, it's not about it being hopeless. This trend is just one that'll eventually materialize of a consolidated power group that has no measurable opposition  because of tightly  knit relationships and a lack of tension. That's just something we have to deal with.  When I started playing this game, there was more dynamism despite there being power groupings. There were significant rivalries within clusters. Some of the people who were the best in the beginning ended up being toppled within months and the colorful characters stuck around. It's lamentable, but not a reason to quit. Quitting because you lost and you're not happy with the politics is probably the ultimate "salty" move. We can derive plenty of fun despite the situation. 

Edited October 4, 2016 by Roquentin

[Auctor]

Ok, question. If the intent is to punish us for this war, and us continuing to fight is bad for us and good for yall, then what is this argument even about? Try and answer this question without doubling back and pretending you care about our "suffering"(lol) after already stating the opposite.

[Aerys Targaryen]

 

I'm going to keep this short

 

Hey, at least you tried !

[Zaxon]

Seriously are we on page 29 of this drama already ?

[Ishmael]

Great job with this thread guys - keep up the good work! Onwards to page 30!

 

               

[Infice]

Ok, question. If the intent is to punish us for this war, and us continuing to fight is bad for us and good for yall, then what is this argument even about? Try and answer this question without doubling back and pretending you care about our "suffering"(lol) after already stating the opposite.

 

I doubt anyone actually cares about your suffering. Continuing the war obviously isn't good for us, but it is not as bad for us as it is for you is what they are saying. At the end of the day, no one really cares about the health of your alliance whatsoever. You guys started this war and piled 4 alliance on us but ultimately lost. BK is thus now looking for reps as compensation. We are not looking to let you off easily and that is why the government decided on that amount of reps. We couldn't care less that it affects your financial health whatsoever and sets you back for the next war. You started the war and now you are being held responsible, the end. You can cry about the state of Orbis affairs whatsoever but again, we couldn't care less in this situation. We only care about holding you responsible, and thus BK government decides that is the amount of reps they are going to hold you to. If you do not want to pay, that's another issue altogether and I'll just leave it to my government to decide on the next course of action.

 

I disagree with how our government is holding the rest of tC "hostage", but if they decided that's the way to go about treating the aggressors of the war, so be it, but the point is, no one gives a damn about your well-being. How you guys want to chart your future in Orbis is up to you, if you want to annoy the rest of Orbis and make NPO the butt of a joke for memes whatsoever, then go ahead.

[Roquentin]

I doubt anyone actually cares about your suffering. Continuing the war obviously isn't good for us, but it is not as bad for us as it is for you is what they are saying. At the end of the day, no one really cares about the health of your alliance whatsoever. You guys started this war and piled 4 alliance on us but ultimately lost. BK is thus now looking for reps as compensation. We are not looking to let you off easily and that is why the government decided on that amount of reps. We couldn't care less that it affects your financial health whatsoever and sets you back for the next war. You started the war and now you are being held responsible, the end. You can cry about the state of Orbis affairs whatsoever but again, we couldn't care less in this situation. We only care about holding you responsible, and thus BK government decides that is the amount of reps they are going to hold you to. If you do not want to pay, that's another issue altogether and I'll just leave it to my government to decide on the next course of action.

 

I disagree with how our government is holding the rest of tC "hostage", but if they decided that's the way to go about treating the aggressors of the war, so be it, but the point is, no one gives a damn about your well-being. How you guys want to chart your future in Orbis is up to you, if you want to annoy the rest of Orbis and make NPO the butt of a joke for memes whatsoever, then go ahead.

 

I don't think you really "get it". We're listing the reasons we're not incentivized to agree to your conditions. At this point, you threw away offers you already had on the table. You can keep up the whole righteous indignation thing which is hypocritical given your own actions, but we don't use that to make our own valuation and at this point it should be clear. The constant condescension doesn't help either. Our stance on the fact that we would see no reason to pay large amounts was made known prior to it and you knew what would happen when you demanded it.

 

If you want to keep thinking it's in our interest to kowtow to your demands, you'll know why we don't agree to them. Maybe things would be different if the negotiations had been handled differently and more realistically and you showed any amount of respectfulness during them. You didn't and that's why where we are at. There was never any reason for us to pay a proportionally higher amount than the high amounts already charged to alliances that have bigger economies and it'd be a horrible precedent to set.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Roquentin

[Beatrix]

What is there to respect about you anyways? Failed leadership in a failed war failing to take responsibility. 

 

You started a massive war against opponents who weren't built at all(tS) and opponents who were half built(BK) and somehow managed to get outplayed so hard. Now you refuse to surrender to the detriment of your own players - 31 of which haven't been active in the last 4 days.(Last time it was 29).

 

I'm genuinely curious, I'm not trying to talk shit - what is there to respect about NPO?

[Roquentin]

What is there to respect about you anyways? Failed leadership in a failed war failing to take responsibility. 

 

You started a massive war against opponents who weren't built at all(tS) and opponents who were half built(BK) and somehow managed to get outplayed so hard. Now you refuse to surrender to the detriment of your own players - 31 of which haven't been active in the last 4 days.(Last time it was 29).

 

I'm genuinely curious, I'm not trying to talk shit - what is there to respect about NPO?

 

If you wish to get concessions out of people, being respectful is key.  Given people on the other side have openly said that this loss isn't really NPO"s fault, I'm not sure really sure how you can state that as an objective assessment. If you can't see that, you won't figure out why I'm not getting much flak for this being a losing war.

 

The reasons why it wasn't a victory have been gone through in-depth. I don't really need to list them again. You do realize most of the 31 people you're talking about weren't particularly active before the war and multiple nations went inactive prior to it? The reason why we haven't purged should be obvious. Some of them are even people who had gone to VM before the war and didn't reset it back, so enjoy using that statistic when it has all kinds of holes.

 

Again, if you think talking down to people and expecting them to just eat whatever you throw them in some sort of Melian Dialogue style thing merely because you happen to win, you've got another thing coming. It's exactly what I was talking about and you're just proving me right here.

[Prefontaine]

I'm genuinely curious, I'm not trying to talk shit - what is there to respect about NPO?

As someone not associated nor ever associated with NPO, I can try to answer that from a fairly objective standpoint.

 

I, and many others shit on Alpha for not accepting white peace and continuing to fight. I've heard some people draw parallels to this situation, but they're not the same. From everything I've seen I believe NPO would accept white peace. So why should this situation garner respect? Well, there's two ways to look at it. First, knowing syndicate sphere and OO I can see them getting bored enough with the whole thing to just give up trying to get reps. There comes a point where your militarization costs outweigh what you would have gained in reps, combined with what nuke/missile/naval poking damage done. It could be seen as not a long hold out for white peace, which had some merit. Second case is establishing yourself. You can be viewed as the alliance willing to pay reps, or in this case not. This sets your alliance up in the future. If people see the lengths they have to go through to get reps out of you they might not bother with it.

 

Looking at things from those perspectives, one could find some amount of respect for NPOs action, and that's just off the top of my head. As I don't really think about NPO, I might be able to find a few more if I tried.

 

Now I have a question for you. How long are you willing to keep kicking a dead horse before letting it go without reps?

Edited October 4, 2016 by Prefontaine

[Beatrix]

If you wish to get concessions out of people, being respectful is key.  Given people on the other side have openly said that this loss isn't really NPO"s fault, I'm not sure really sure how you can state that as an objective assessment. If you can't see that, you won't figure out why I'm not getting much flak for this being a losing war.

 

The reasons why it wasn't a victory have been gone through in-depth. I don't really need to list them again. You do realize most of the 31 people you're talking about weren't particularly active before the war and multiple nations went inactive prior to it? The reason why we haven't purged should be obvious. Some of them are even people who had gone to VM before the war and didn't reset it back, so enjoy using that statistic when it has all kinds of holes.

 

Again, if you think talking down to people and expecting them to just eat whatever you throw them in some sort of Melian Dialogue style thing merely because you happen to win, you've got another thing coming. It's exactly what I was talking about and you're just proving me right here.

 

 

 

 Given people on the other side have openly said that this loss isn't really NPO"s fault, I'm not sure really sure how you can state that as an objective assessment. If you can't see that, you won't figure out why I'm not getting much flak for this being a losing war.

Perhaps because you were directly involved in the planning of this war, which was flawed and caused your loss? 

 

 

 

You do realize most of the 31 people you're talking about weren't particularly active before the war and multiple nations went inactive prior to it? The reason why we haven't purged should be obvious. Some of them are even people who had gone to VM before the war and didn't reset it back, so enjoy using that statistic when it has all kinds of holes.

Not sure how this is relevant to the point. I asked what there is to respect about NPO when almost a third of it is inactive, its leadership has been responsible to a losing war and now it doesn't even take responsibility to the detriment of their players. Your response is that these people are inactive anyways - not helping you.

 

 

 

Again, if you think talking down to people and expecting them to just eat whatever you throw them in some sort of Melian Dialogue style thing merely because you happen to win, you've got another thing coming. It's exactly what I was talking about and you're just proving me right here.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I have no reason to respect you, and I don't expect you to 'eat whatever you throw at them'. Perhaps you're unaware, but I'm not in a position of negotiating with you, and I certainly don't want to 'get' anything from you nor do I care what happens to NPO at this point.

[Beatrix]

As someone not associated nor ever associated with NPO, I can try to answer that from a fairly objective standpoint.

 

I, and many others shit on Alpha for not accepting white peace and continuing to fight. I've heard some people draw parallels to this situation, but they're not the same. From everything I've seen I believe NPO would accept white peace. So why should this situation garner respect? Well, there's two ways to look at it. First, knowing syndicate sphere and OO I can see them getting bored enough with the whole thing to just give up trying to get reps. There comes a point where your militarization costs outweigh what you would have gained in reps, combined with what nuke/missile/naval poking damage done. It could be seen as not a long hold out for white peace, which had some merit. Second case is establishing yourself. You can be viewed as the alliance willing to pay reps, or in this case not. This sets your alliance up in the future. If people see the lengths they have to go through to get reps out of you they might not bother with it.

 

Looking at things from those perspectives, one could find some amount of respect for NPOs action, and that's just off the top of my head. As I don't really think about NPO, I might be able to find a few more if I tried.

 

Now I have a question for you. How long are you willing to keep kicking a dead horse before letting it go without reps?

 

I actually don't disagree with any of your points. 

 

 

I just think that NPO is already at a cost vs benefit loss from this, and any day longer just makes it worse. Sure, maybe you can argue that at this point, after refusing to pay reps, it's not worth it anymore but I'm not quite sure that's the case once you take into account the potential income their over 800 cities could've had a day after the war.

 

 

 

Second case is establishing yourself. You can be viewed as the alliance willing to pay reps, or in this case not. This sets your alliance up in the future. If people see the lengths they have to go through to get reps out of you they might not bother with it.

 

Why is not paying reps a respectable thing, though, if it hurts your alliance as a whole more than otherwise? 

 

 

I'm also fairly certain that the Syndisphere will get bored with the whole situation and give up on reps or settle for a small amount.

 

 

Now I have a question for you. How long are you willing to keep kicking a dead horse before letting it go without reps?

It's all a matter of convenience. NPO is out of range for everyone with an army, so they can't keep punishing them. Their average infra is ~550 last I checked and they have no members above 1k TS, so even if you do hit their infra, it's not really beneficial. As evident by the ingame stat tracker, NPO is doing more damage than they receive for that reason alone. 

 

How long can I keep kicking? As long as it's worth the kick.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Beatrix

[greatkitteh]

>I'm going to keep this short

>Get some sleep Roquentin

[Auctor]

There's absolutely no requirement to be respectful at any point in life. But when you're attempting to gain a concession from a hostile party, it's generally not as effective to not at least fake it. It doesn't really matter in any case. It wouldn't materially affect the situation at this point.

 

I will note that you seem to be fairly emotionally invested for someone with no skin in the game, Beatrix.

[Prefonteen]

There's absolutely no requirement to be respectful at any point in life. But when you're attempting to gain a concession from a hostile party, it's generally not as effective to not at least fake it. It doesn't really matter in any case. It wouldn't materially affect the situation at this point.

 

I will note that you seem to be fairly emotionally invested for someone with no skin in the game, Beatrix.

More auctor comics would go a long way in refurbishing npo's public image.

[Roquentin]

Perhaps because you were directly involved in the planning of this war, which was flawed and caused your loss? 

 

Not sure how this is relevant to the point. I asked what there is to respect about NPO when almost a third of it is inactive, its leadership has been responsible to a losing war and now it doesn't even take responsibility to the detriment of their players. Your response is that these people are inactive anyways - not helping you.

 

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I have no reason to respect you, and I don't expect you to 'eat whatever you throw at them'. Perhaps you're unaware, but I'm not in a position of negotiating with you, and I certainly don't want to 'get' anything from you nor do I care what happens to NPO at this point.

 

When planning a war, you work with what you have not with what you wish to have. There are things that could have gone better and having more alliances ready would have been good, but the window was closing on the mobilization advantage rather quickly.  It was still by far a superior option to anything else available within the time constraints and it produced better results for us than the last war. You can armchair general all you want, though.

 

You're the one who has tried to say the inactivity is caused by people getting sick of the war when it's not. If you're trying to pin the fact that people are inactive on me, you'd be wrong. I'm not going to go in every case and reveal everyone's particular motivations for not being hugely invested in the game or not being able to commit time to it. I actually try to get to know our members, so I know many of them. Again, like I said, this is the best that could be accomplished given what was on hand. We have made it a far more meaningful loss than the previous war, so I feel zero guilt.

 

Who said I was demanding your respect? There's barely any even reason I should indulge you given your bias here, but I've been doing so for the sake of argument.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Roquentin