Rose's Surrender

[hadesflames]

This is so wrong it could be an article on the Onion.

 

Black Knights aggressively sign a new treaty in an attempt to provoke newly-separated ParaCov.

The only thing worthy of the Onion here is how disingenuous you're being.

 

First they cry that they're all totally beaten and splitting up, and as I start to actually believe it I wake up to a surprise attack.

 

Now they're say that they're quitting the game and not even going to play anymore. But for some reason, I'm not letting my guard down.

They split up, you consolidate your sphere even further. What are they supposed to do, wait for you to roll one sphere without any effort before turning your sights on the other? Your side's position on this is just laughable. You're all literally saying that we should have aided your sphere in a divide and conquer that would have utterly crushed both new spheres without yours getting even so much as a scratch against.

Edited October 2, 2016 by hadesflames

[Pangui]

This is so wrong it could be an article on the Onion.

 

Black Knights aggressively sign a new treaty in an attempt to provoke newly-separated ParaCov.

Your treaty further consolidated your sphere. 

 

The only threat to Paragon or The Covenant+NPO is the Syndisphere. 

 

Syndisphere shows no sign of untethering, thus making the union of Paragon and The Covenant as logical. 

[Eumirbago]

Bahahahaha just reengage VE/Rose/whoever the hell already got peace. Don't give them peace till everyone agrees on a deal.

[Guest Curufinwe]

Can we stop this disengenous garbage about how the only reason the same war keeps on happening is because of ParaCov, and that you people were totally not planning to hit them? I mean sure maybe you weren't planning to hit them within a week or two of when the war happened, but unless you're telling me you were planning to split your sphere in half and hit each other for lulz, you know for a fact that eventually you would have rolled Paragon or Cov, and then after destroying one effortlessly, turned your sights on the other to do the same. This war was forced by the fact that when ParaCov tried to split, all tS-OO did was further consolidate among each other. What exactly are we supposed to extrapolate from that? lol.

 

 

Actually at the time we were attacked BK at least (I can't speak for the other AAs on our side, since I'm not privy to their internal conversations) was looking forward to some peaceful growth - seriously planning for a future war against anyone wasn't remotely on our radar yet.  It's you guys that chose to initiate this war at the time and place you did, not us.  Don't try to flip it around and try to claim we somehow forced you to attack when it's you guys who chose to buildup, chose to launch a pre-emptive attack and then chose to prolong the war by not paying the reps we requested (well, HBE didn't prolonged it since they peaced out early and left their allies still facing us to burn, but UPN/NPO have anyways).

 

 

The next war will surely be loads of fun. tS and OO hitting the inactive remains of whatever's left of the world not in your sphere...I can see the circlejerk already!

 

It seems rather odd to lament that the war you started and lost will negatively impact the activity of your bloc, but okay.

 

 

The thing is, we did untie ourselves. Paragon and The Covenant separated, it was Paragon's way to try to create a more interesting game. SK then joins with them. "Yay less treaties, more spheres!"

 

The Syndisphere's next major move? BK signs with Mensa to even further consolidate your sphere. What I see a lot of is "You guys are too big so you guys should separate, and you FORCE us to do things because you won't separate". No, you are actively choosing to consolidate your sphere regardless of what we do. Your treaty with Mensa is proof of that. Just like you can't force us to accept reps, we can't force to you to sign alliances. 

 

Let me flip the script for you. Maybe that Syndisphere's consolidation FORCED ParaCov to align again? 

 

I think the point is more that the decision to recombine ParaCov and try to take us down has had the opposite effect to what you apparently intended.  Now (at least for the forseeable future) whenever someone on our side suggests taking a more independent course, everyone else is going to be like "yeah, but you remember that time ParaCov split up and encouraged us to do the same but then recombined for a surprise attack a month later?  Let's stick together because we obviously can't trust them not to do it again."  So yeah, whatever your intentions or our (perceived) provocations, you've accomplished the opposite of what you've set out to do.  Well played?

 

 

They split up, you consolidate your sphere even further. What are they supposed to do, wait for you to roll one sphere without any effort before turning your sights on the other? Your side's position on this is just laughable. You're all literally saying that we should have aided your sphere in a divide and conquer that would have utterly crushed both new spheres without yours getting even so much as a scratch against.

 

I guess you showed us?

Edited October 2, 2016 by Curufinwe

[Woot]

I barely even noticed when BK signed a random treaty with Mensa, but apparently it's the sign of the end times, proof that the game is dead, and a CB for every alliance in the game to rally against us.

[hadesflames]

Syndisphere shows no sign of untethering, thus making the union of Paragon and The Covenant as inevitable.

FTFY. Honestly not sure what the other side was expecting. "Great job, you guys finally split up. Now just wait for us to get ready to roll you all individually, because we're sure as !@#$ing not going to do anything new!"

[Pangui]

I barely even noticed when BK signed a random treaty with Mensa, but apparently it's the sign of the end times, proof that the game is dead, and a CB for every alliance in the game to rally against us.

Nah, that was the UPN-NPO treaty. 

[Eumirbago]

Your treaty further consolidated your sphere.

 

The only threat to Paragon or The Covenant+NPO is the Syndisphere.

 

Syndisphere shows no sign of untethering, thus making the union of Paragon and The Covenant as logical.

It's great man. Winning like cray :3

[Auctor]

Actually I'd argue that it's you that's being disingenuous here by implying that our decision to order a buildup is what led to the war breaking out.  We ordered a buildup less than 20 hours before we were hit and that was only in response to the fact that AAs on your side of the treaty web had been building for about a week at that point.  In that sense, our decision to mobilize was purely reactive - we were responding to a decision made by your coalition partners, not the other way around.  Whatever your opinion on hypothetical future wars that may or not broken out at some time in the future, the fact remains that you and your allies deliberately choose the time and place of this one - trying to turn it around and claim that you only attacked us because we ordered a buildup completely overlooks that we were responding to a cycle of events you and your friends initiated.  

 

You're mischaracterizing what I wrote. I don't really care if you were militarizing then or some other time. But if we're going to play off this interpretation, I have an entire whole war before this one to tell you about.

[hadesflames]

Actually at the time we were attacked BK at least (I can't speak for the other AAs on our side, since I'm not privy to their internal conversations) was looking forward to some peaceful growth - seriously planning for a future war against anyone wasn't remotely on our radar yet.  It's you guys that chose to initiate this war at the time and place you did, not us.  Don't try to flip it around and try to claim we somehow forced you to attack when it's you guys who chose to buildup, chose to launch a pre-emptive attack and then chose to prolong the war by not paying the reps we requested (well, HBE didn't prolonged it since they peaced out early and left their allies still facing us to burn, but UPN/NPO have anyways).

Right, we were supposed to wait for you all to get bigger and stronger and THEN take our beating. Silly me. /s

I already said that not having a war in mind doesn't mean you were never going to attack us again. Stop being disingenuous, it's pointless. Unless you're telling me that you were planning to never fight a war again, or that you were planning to split your sphere and half and fight each other, then this point is just complete garbage.

 

It seems rather odd to lament that the war you started and lost will negatively impact the activity of your bloc, but okay.

Lamenting how the game is pretty dead, not the sphere. Not that you all care of course.

 

I think the point is more that the decision to recombine ParaCov and try to take us down has had the opposite effect to what you apparently intended.  Now (at least for the forseeable future) whenever someone on our side suggests taking a more independent course, everyone else is going to be like "yeah, but you remember that time ParaCov split up and encouraged us to do the same but then recombined for a surprise attack a month later?  Let's stick together because we obviously can't trust them not to do it again."  So yeah, whatever your intentions or our (perceived) provocations, you've accomplish the opposite of what you've set out to do.  Well played?

You left ParaCov no choice, and then act like victims. It's quite amusing. But then again, it's not like we started this. NPO had a treaty with TKR, then signed one with UPN and was immediately crushed as a result in the last war. Stop playing the victim card because it's just beyond disingenuous. Either side has 0 reason to trust the other because neither side has given any reason for the other to trust them.

 

I guess you showed us?

Sure.

Edited October 2, 2016 by hadesflames

[Roquentin]

While I appreciate being mentioned in a Roq Wall of Words, I do have to correct one thing. I don't think I somehow influenced NPO to offer reps. I petitioned BK gov to ask for them.

 

 

 

 

I quoted these two because they're an excellent summary of the arguments thusfar without being overtly wordy.

 

 

I know we're doing the whole narrative/propaganda thing right now but I really can't let this one slide.

 

Look at who your Emperor is and get back to me on how old and gone the people who have demanded crazy reps are.

 

It wasn't even just Mensa-BK. TKR-Pantheon/BoC Chola. No signs of splintering. More people trying to move over even TLF ODP with BoC. 

 

Now I'm kind of curious since I've never demanded crazy reps from anyone and never have pursued them for my alliance. The closest things I could be associated with where substantial reps were charged are Karma(how ironic when this is brought up here) and BiPolar, but people on your side have their hands equally dirty there.

 

edit: Oh, I guess you could count some of the stuff GOONS did, but again your side is equally complicit there. Though that was mostly cash and not tech.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[Pangui]

I think the point is more that the decision to recombine ParaCov and try to take us down has had the opposite effect to what you apparently intended.  Now (at least for the forseeable future) whenever someone on our side suggests taking a more independent course, everyone else is going to be like "yeah, but you remember that time ParaCov split up and encouraged us to do the same but then recombined for a surprise attack a month later?  Let's stick together because we obviously can't trust them not to do it again."  So yeah, whatever your intentions or our (perceived) provocations, you've accomplished the opposite of what you've set out to do.  Well played?

It doesn't matter what we(ParaCov) tries to do. We split up, and when we did Syndisphere had no enemies that could challenge them. BK itself did not try to forge their own, they did not go out to change the way the game is, they only furthered continued the game's consolidation. We had meetings in which our viable forward options was nuke turtling since going at it conventionally was impossible at the time Paragon split from us. We attacked you, not to try to seperate you, we attacked because you guys aren't going to break up anyways, and talking like you would have is crap because your actions prove differently. 

[Guest Curufinwe]

You're mischaracterizing what I wrote. I don't really care if you were militarizing then or some other time. But if we're going to play off this interpretation, I have an entire whole war before this one to tell you about.

 

I remember that war very well - I fought in it (against you, among other people).  However, if your argument is NPO attacked us because of a hypothetical future war when BK may or may not built up with the intent of maybe or maybe not attacking you in what could or could not have been a deliberate pre-empt at an unspecified date, that yeah, I perhaps I misunderstood your statement.  However, if you're trying to claim that our decision to start mobilizing shortly before update on the 9th (completely in response to the buildup on your side) somehow justified your decision to pre-empt before update on the 10th, then my response remains valid.  

[hadesflames]

I remember that war very well - I fought in it (against you, among other people).  However, if your argument is NPO attacked us because of a hypothetical future war when BK may or may not built up with the intent of maybe or maybe not attacking you in what could or could not have been a deliberate pre-empt at an unspecified date, that yeah, I perhaps I misunderstood your statement.  However, if you're trying to claim that our decision to start mobilizing shortly before update on the 9th (completely in response to the buildup on your side) somehow justified your decision to pre-empt before update on the 10th, then my response remains valid.

Except that's never been our argument...You may not have been planning to attack us then and there, but you SURE AS !@#$ were going to attack us AT SOME POINT. Why would we wait until you're bigger and stronger and ready to hit us on your terms? Your side continued to consolidate after ours broke up. That left ours with no choice but to get back together for a pre-emptive strike when we had even some kind of chance. We lost. Oh well. Please tell me more about how waiting for you to decide you were ready to roll us individually would have been a better idea.

[Apeman]

I think reps are silly. It only cements the fact your opposition will not be able to ever take on anyone. I know as the bloc gets secured with more and more alliances, it will become stale. The side will eventually run out of enemies. World peace and all that jazz. Maybe sheepy will introduce aliens but until then this action will kill the war aspect of Politics and war.

[hadesflames]

I think reps are silly. It only cements the fact your opposition will not be able to ever take on anyone. I know as the bloc gets secured with more and more alliances, it will become stale. The side will eventually run out of enemies. World peace and all that jazz. Maybe sheepy will introduce aliens but until then this action will kill the war aspect of Politics and war.

It's fitting though isn't it? The politics aspect died ages ago already. =p

[Who Me]

With this power to predict the future that you all claim to have perhaps you should all go play the lottery.

[hadesflames]

With this power to predict the future that you all claim to have perhaps you should all go play the lottery.

I think the issue is less that we have the power to predict the future and more the fact that you're either blind or so disingenuous to the point where you seem to be more trying to convince yourself than any of us.

[Guest Curufinwe]

It doesn't matter what we(ParaCov) tries to do. We split up, and when we did Syndisphere had no enemies that could challenge them. BK itself did not try to forge their own, they did not go out to change the way the game is, they only furthered continued the game's consolidation. We had meetings in which our viable forward options was nuke turtling since going at it conventionally was impossible at the time Paragon split from us. We attacked you, not to try to seperate you, we attacked because you guys aren't going to break up anyways, and talking like you would have is crap because your actions prove differently. 

 

Well I guess we won't find out now, but that's as much on you as it is on us.  After all SK chose to move to another sphere a couple of weeks after your decision to break up ParaCov and Sparta opted to merge into TEst, both of which represented losses to the relative power of our side. No we'll never know if other AAs would have followed, since you've successfully provided a very compelling argument against doing so.  So yeah, rather than being patient and seeing how things played out, you opted to lash out aggressively and ensured that a suboptimal outcome would occur.  So once again, if your goal was to dramatically change the game's politics (which was the point of breaking up ParaCov, as I recall), you've accomplished the opposite.

 

 

Right, we were supposed to wait for you all to get bigger and stronger and THEN take our beating. Silly me. /s

I already said that not having a war in mind doesn't mean you were never going to attack us again. Stop being disingenuous, it's pointless. Unless you're telling me that you were planning to never fight a war again, or that you were planning to split your sphere and half and fight each other, then this point is just complete garbage.

 

 

Once again, and like NPO, you're arguing that a hypothetical future war that may or may not have occurred justifies the current one that did actually occur.  Would our side have attacked your side at some point in the future?  I have no idea.  Lots of stuff can change in a couple of months.  But the fact remains that you guys started this one and you lost.  That's on you, not us.

 

 

Lamenting how the game is pretty dead, not the sphere. Not that you all care of course.

 

 

Maybe if your side didn't get itself wrecked by our side every few months, your side would be healthier - any 'deadness' in the game is as much your fault as it is ours, so if you could stop pretending that no one on your side bears any responsibility for the events that have occurred that would be great.

 

 

You left ParaCov no choice, and then act like victims. It's quite amusing. But then again, it's not like we started this. NPO had a treaty with TKR, then signed one with UPN and was immediately crushed as a result in the last war. Stop playing the victim card because it's just beyond disingenuous. Either side has 0 reason to trust the other because neither side has given any reason for the other to trust them.

 

 

You launched an aggressive war that saw our side pre-empted by your side.  We aren't playing the victims - we are the victims.  Just because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

 

Sure.

 

I'm glad we can agree on that.

[Roquentin]

I remember that war very well - I fought in it (against you, among other people).  However, if your argument is NPO attacked us because of a hypothetical future war when BK may or may not built up with the intent of maybe or maybe not attacking you in what could or could not have been a deliberate pre-empt at an unspecified date, that yeah, I perhaps I misunderstood your statement.  However, if you're trying to claim that our decision to start mobilizing shortly before update on the 9th (completely in response to the buildup on your side) somehow justified your decision to pre-empt before update on the 10th, then my response remains valid.  

BK didn't need a lot of time to mobilize. I've explained this before. You guys had the highest reqs of any Syndisphere alliance and were the most potent alliance consequently on a military numbers level. tS, Mensa, TKR all began buying up stuff. Maybe it was in response to Rose/VE trying to enforce requirements for planes and such, but given your side has a tendency to move when mobilized we chose to strike when we did to avoid maxing on your part. If it didn't factor into the timing, we would have hit you sooner before the rest had started getting deeper into their builds.

 

 

 

I think reps are silly. It only cements the fact your opposition will not be able to ever take on anyone. I know as the bloc gets secured with more and more alliances, it will become stale. The side will eventually run out of enemies. World peace and all that jazz. Maybe sheepy will introduce aliens but until then this action will kill the war aspect of Politics and war.

 

The reps just make it even worse. It's already over because there aren't enough competitive alliances out there and losing usually incentivizes trying to avoid war or disassociation from the losing side. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[Pangui]

Well I guess we won't find out now, but that's as much on you as it is on us.  After all SK chose to move to another sphere a couple of weeks after your decision to break up ParaCov and Sparta opted to merge into TEst, both of which represented losses to the relative power of our side. No we'll never know if other AAs would have followed, since you've successfully provided a very compelling argument against doing so.  So yeah, rather than being patient and seeing how things played out, you opted to lash out aggressively and ensured that a suboptimal outcome would occur.  So once again, if your goal was to dramatically change the game's politics (which was the point of breaking up ParaCov, as I recall), you've accomplished the opposite.

Sorry, I forgot that my only role in the this game is the bow down to the hegemon. 

 

We had less nations, a smaller upper tier if we were going alone. Tell me more about this waiting game, because you pre-empting us last time you thought we were "threat", while we had a MDoAP with you.  

 

You have shown through you actions that the deconsolidation of the Syndipshere is not your prerogative. You don't want us to hit, but you are free to hit us whenever you want. We didn't do this to change the political landscape, we did this to take out a collection of alliances that are just going to further tie themselves to each other, because we thought that by achieving victory we could make the game a little better. 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Pangui

[War Hawk]

I think reps are silly. It only cements the fact your opposition will not be able to ever take on anyone. I know as the bloc gets secured with more and more alliances, it will become stale. The side will eventually run out of enemies. World peace and all that jazz. Maybe sheepy will introduce aliens but until then this action will kill the war aspect of Politics and war.

 

Reps are perfectly acceptable when extracted from the aggressors.

 

Also, BK and friends have no responsibility to keep the game from getting "stale," especially when they're attacked for no reason. ParaCov knew the potential consequences of their attack, but they did it anyways. 

 

"You reap what you sow," I guess. 

[hadesflames]

Once again, and like NPO, you're arguing that a hypothetical future war that may or may not have occurred justifies the current one that did actually occur. Would our side have attacked your side at some point in the future? I have no idea. Lots of stuff can change in a couple of months. But the fact remains that you guys started this one and you lost. That's on you, not us.

You mean how like NPO signing UPN justified your side hitting them both? That was okay but our justification isn't? lol.

 

Maybe if your side didn't get itself wrecked by our side every few months, your side would be healthier - any 'deadness' in the game is as much your fault as it is ours, so if you could stop pretending that no one on your side bears any responsibility for the events that have occurred that would be great.

Please quote where I said ParaCov is blameless? I'm glad we can at least agree it's not just ParaCov's fault. It's too bad we can't agree that it's up to both sides to bury all this bullshit and actually try to fix the game.

 

You launched an aggressive war that saw our side pre-empted by your side.  We aren't playing the victims - we are the victims.  Just because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean it isn't true.

I guess you just don't understand what a victim is. Fair enough, I'll drop the point and you have my apologies.

 

I'm glad we can agree on that.

Always great to find common ground.

Edited October 2, 2016 by hadesflames

[Auctor]

I remember that war very well - I fought in it (against you, among other people).  However, if your argument is NPO attacked us because of a hypothetical future war when BK may or may not built up with the intent of maybe or maybe not attacking you in what could or could not have been a deliberate pre-empt at an unspecified date, that yeah, I perhaps I misunderstood your statement.  However, if you're trying to claim that our decision to start mobilizing shortly before update on the 9th (completely in response to the buildup on your side) somehow justified your decision to pre-empt before update on the 10th, then my response remains valid.  

After setting a precedent that having max mil is an acceptable feature of a CB, it's now unacceptable. Got it.

[Guest Curufinwe]

 

BK didn't need a lot of time to mobilize. I've explained this before. You guys had the highest reqs of any Syndisphere alliance and were the most potent alliance consequently on a military numbers level. tS, Mensa, TKR all began buying up stuff. Maybe it was in response to Rose/VE trying to enforce requirements for planes and such, but given your side has a tendency to move when mobilized we chose to strike when we did to avoid maxing on your part. If it didn't factor into the timing, we would have hit you sooner before the rest had started getting deeper into their builds.

 

Actually when we noticed that VE and Rose were building up we made inquiries and accepted the response that they were simply meeting new military standards - it's why BK didn't start building up a week earlier.  It's only when it became apparent that your side was moving toward being fully mobilized that we elected to act.  Our moves were completely in response to your moves and a look at the pre-war moblization levels of the various AAs clearly demonstrates that you guys started mobilizing several days before we did.

 

 

Sorry, I forgot that my only role in the this game is the bow down to the hegemon. 

 

We had less nations, a smaller upper tier if we were going alone. Tell me more about this waiting game, because you pre-empting us last time you thought we were "threat", while we had a MDoAP with you.  

 

BK has never pre-empted UPN, either when we had a treaty or afterwards.  If you're referencing the fact that one of our allies pre-empted you last war, well, it can be argued that UPN pioneered that particular trend in Oktoberfest, so I'm not sure you really have the moral high ground there.

 

 

You mean how like NPO signing UPN justified your side hitting them both? That was okay but our justification isn't? lol.

 

 

Yeah, except the difference is you guys lost and now you're refusing to accept responsibility for your actions and end the war, so that's on you.

 

 

Always great to find common ground.

 

I agree - Orbis needs more constructive dialogue.

 

 

After setting a precedent that having max mil is an acceptable feature of a CB, it's now unacceptable. Got it.

 

I thought you attacked us because of the hypothetical future war and I was being disingenuous for suggesting otherwise?  You should really stick to one position here if we're going to argue - it makes things simpler.