Jump to content

TEst Occupation


Ole
 Share

Recommended Posts

Words retain their power.

 

Your alliance started an aggressive war against an overwhelmed opponent and now you're demanding they surrender their sovereignty to you and humiliate themselves in the process.

 

They said no. They continue to say no. Accept it, take what little remains of a gracious victory, and move on.

 

That's bullshit, because it's PnW.

IRL we'd have bombed every single piece of human flesh for good. End of story.

 

And here everyone will get tired of being bombed eventually. Today they're rebellious. in 3-4 months they're not active anymore.

Not our fault. I even sent their leader an alternative option other then the flag, no answer. I really don't care anymore. 

If that's how they want to play this game, then we're just happy to help.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words retain their power.

 

Your alliance started an aggressive war against an overwhelmed opponent and now you're demanding they surrender their sovereignty to you and humiliate themselves in the process.

 

They said no. They continue to say no. Accept it, take what little remains of a gracious victory, and move on.

 

thats one way to look at it. another way to look at it is they took an initial blitz on their top 30% of their alliance. the rest of their alliance did nothing except for a select few (that werent even fighting) came on the message boards spouting valor and heroism of their alliance. that they would not take this and they would die fighting (im paraphrasing). all peace talks on the board and behind the scenes were met with indifference from their leaders.

 

also lets not truncate that quote

 

 

Words will always retain their power. Words are the means to meaning, and for those who listen, the enunciation of truth

 

there is no meaning to what they say. there is no truth to what they say. they can claim that they will die fighting and not tolerate our occupation but actions speak louder than words and they have done nothing to give leverage to themselves in this situation. they have no fight. they have no truth.

 

there have been more posts from them saying they will not tolerate this war/occupation than there have been physical responses from them. if they want to choose an existence with a permanent glass ceiling fixated just over their heads than that is ok by us. a lot of us have even demilitarized...thats how unbothered we are by them.

 

if they dont want to agree to our terms that is fine. although it seems pretty silly to continually say/threaten that they will die fighting and whatnot when clearly they have no will, capacity, or aptitude to follow through with what they are saying.

 

i even laid out a lot of groundwork for them on how to physically respond to us (back when they could do something about it) the first time around they were talking hard

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16544-test-declaration-of-war/?p=280647

 

tldr 25 members of their alliance could attack test with impunity. all 25 of those members did nothing. if they really had pride in their alliance they would fight to defend it. and by fight i mean actually coordinate a counter attack - not just give us a metaphorical middle finger while proclaiming to be an able bodied army ready to go down fighting without ever hitting the 'attack' button

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Armentia loosely translates to farmers. Judging from the iconography, TEst wants to lynch all farmers. Very nice

 

Also I think you fail to understand that everyone in TFP above 2000 score will be subject to TEsts wrath. Everyone in TFP with missiles will be subject to TEsts wrath. Everyone in TFP with spies will be subject to TEsts wrath.

Armentia is closer to "blood" while Agricola is closer to farm/Farmer.

 

Source: 1st year latin, 3rd year greek

  • Upvote 2

"We pull in money, new recruits, all just to combat cipher, rubbing our noses in bloody battlefield dirt, all for revenge."

 

"Why are we still here? Just to suffer? Every night i can feel my leg, and my arm, even my fingers. The body i've lost, The comrades i've lost, won't stop hurting... it's like they're all still there... You feel it too, don't you?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say, the flag TEst is proposing is a lot nicer than the default San Marino one, and a lot nicer than what GPA got too.

 

After experience in GPA and recent events regarding them, I don't believe neutrality (or isolationism) is tenable on Orbis. The mechanics don't support it, with favouring the aggressor. Sort of a sad but pragmatic realisation.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like underdog stories so I'd probably be offering to tell TFP how to make trouble for Test if it wasn't for the fact that Test is already basically telling them. Oh well.

  • Upvote 2

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like underdog stories so I'd probably be offering to tell TFP how to make trouble for Test if it wasn't for the fact that Test is already basically telling them. Oh well.

 

We gave them tactics, numbers, stategies and even pointed out the individuall nations to pick.

We almost gave them actuall targetlists, i think its fair so say, we've done all we can for them.

Ole2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's bullshit, because it's PnW.

IRL we'd have bombed every single piece of human flesh for good. End of story.

 

And here everyone will get tired of being bombed eventually. Today they're rebellious. in 3-4 months they're not active anymore.

Not our fault. I even sent their leader an alternative option other then the flag, no answer. I really don't care anymore. 

If that's how they want to play this game, then we're just happy to help.

 

IRL we have an overpopulation problem, in PnW we have a handful of thousands.

 

The only true reason to attack neutrals is to force their hand in terms of involving themselves in politics. You've done your best, fought your war beyond your own interest, now end it. There's nothing left to be gained and everything left to lose.

 

thats one way to look at it. another way to look at it is they took an initial blitz on their top 30% of their alliance. the rest of their alliance did nothing except for a select few (that werent even fighting) came on the message boards spouting valor and heroism of their alliance. that they would not take this and they would die fighting (im paraphrasing). all peace talks on the board and behind the scenes were met with indifference from their leaders.

 

also lets not truncate that quote

 

 

there is no meaning to what they say. there is no truth to what they say. they can claim that they will die fighting and not tolerate our occupation but actions speak louder than words and they have done nothing to give leverage to themselves in this situation. they have no fight. they have no truth.

 

there have been more posts from them saying they will not tolerate this war/occupation than there have been physical responses from them. if they want to choose an existence with a permanent glass ceiling fixated just over their heads than that is ok by us. a lot of us have even demilitarized...thats how unbothered we are by them.

 

if they dont want to agree to our terms that is fine. although it seems pretty silly to continually say/threaten that they will die fighting and whatnot when clearly they have no will, capacity, or aptitude to follow through with what they are saying.

 

i even laid out a lot of groundwork for them on how to physically respond to us (back when they could do something about it) the first time around they were talking hard

https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16544-test-declaration-of-war/?p=280647

 

tldr 25 members of their alliance could attack test with impunity. all 25 of those members did nothing. if they really had pride in their alliance they would fight to defend it. and by fight i mean actually coordinate a counter attack - not just give us a metaphorical middle finger while proclaiming to be an able bodied army ready to go down fighting without ever hitting the 'attack' button

 

The waters are muddied for me here. I don't really want to defend a neutral but I do need to speak out against something I see as a folly, maybe even Amentia. ;)

 

I'm not defending their specific words or their actions or performance. I'm simply stating that to claim words will not have an effect on the outcome is untrue. You can remove someone's military and infra but you can't silence their Voice.

 

 

 

Words retain their power.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Words retain their power.

 

Your alliance started an aggressive war against an overwhelmed opponent and now you're demanding they surrender their sovereignty to you and humiliate themselves in the process.

 

They said no. They continue to say no. Accept it, take what little remains of a gracious victory, and move on.

 

We are not demanding they surrender their sovereignty.  Maybe a bit of good natured humor that would have cost them nothing other than a few eyerolls for a month.  If it were me, I'd have immediately put my big boy pants on and accepted a silly flag to save hundreds of millions, if not billions in damage that's been done to TFP.  We've even gone so far as to offer training instructors to them for future military conflicts and have been rebuffed at every turn.

 

If we had wanted them to surrender their sovereignty, we would have demanded reps (for the nukes that were used), tribute (on a weekly/monthly basis), a NAP, a limitation on arms they could have, and any other number of items that would ACTUALLY affect how their gameplay is done.  As it is, we've offered very easy terms.  Ones that we'd think anyone would be more than happy to agree to.

 

If they want to continue to "fight", great.  We're happy to utilize whatever means are available at our disposal.  If they want peace, all they really need to do is talk to us, propose something that would be mutually acceptable, and we'd be on our merry way.  This filth you keep spilling about how we're doing things to impinge on their ability to actually play the game is ridiculous and we're all dumber for having had to read it.  I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IRL we have an overpopulation problem, in PnW we have a handful of thousands.

 

The only true reason to attack neutrals is to force their hand in terms of involving themselves in politics. You've done your best, fought your war beyond your own interest, now end it. There's nothing left to be gained and everything left to lose.

 

 

The waters are muddied for me here. I don't really want to defend a neutral but I do need to speak out against something I see as a folly, maybe even Amentia. ;)

 

I'm not defending their specific words or their actions or performance. I'm simply stating that to claim words will not have an effect on the outcome is untrue. You can remove someone's military and infra but you can't silence their Voice.

 

 

 

Words retain their power.

 

precisely. and their words are dictating the present situation. this 'occupation' isnt some new concept or tactic we are employing. it is new window dressing for the situation as a whole. calling it an occupation is just putting a new definition on the 'perma war' idea. there are really simple terms they were offered. their response to these relatively lenient terms was to wholeheartedly deny them, become disrespectful, spiteful, and 'fight to the death'.

 

make no mistake - this isn't a new concept - it's just a fancier way to say 'we will remain at war'. it's probably more appropriate of a term really since we arent really in a war since they have put up practically zero resistance this entire time.

 

2000 is just the glass ceiling that if they pass, we would be able to downdeclare on them. spy ranges can go further. its all pretty standard war stuff really just with some flair for the dramatic. they still have full sovereignty. they choose this path rather than accept a temporary flag to fly and have offered us no concession beyond 'white peace or else'

 

if they arent willing to at least attempt to meet us halfway towards peace and insist on fighting to the death, why should we give it to them when they offer little threat to our alliance? as far as im aware even getting TFP leaders to communicate has been a challenge

 

 

but the power behind the words of the nonsense they keep providing like 'we will not tolerate this' is only empowering their demise. you speak as if it is some grand noble thing they are doing. but really its a bigger display of apathy and complacency than the valor and bravado that is alluded to

Edited by seabasstion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The only true reason to attack neutrals is to force their hand in terms of involving themselves in politics. You've done your best, fought your war beyond your own interest, now end it. There's nothing left to be gained and everything left to lose.

 

 

Based on your statement.....at least the part I've bolded and underlined......is there an ultimatum coming?

X4EfkAB.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You've done your best, fought your war beyond your own interest, now end it. There's nothing left to be gained and everything left to lose.

 

 

I'm not defending their specific words or their actions or performance. I'm simply stating that to claim words will not have an effect on the outcome is untrue. You can remove someone's military and infra but you can't silence their Voice.

 

I would to point out NPO, Alpha, UPN and Polaris, but then I equally don't wish to turn this into a shit flinging contest. However, my point is you fail to hold the same Philosophy for your opponents, while holding it for other alliances. (I don't really care who was the aggressor, point is the same)

  • Upvote 1

Jl0McAJ.gif

Mans two modes of existence can be thought of as his light and dark side. He is either the Protector or the Ravager. The Immovable Object or the Unstoppable Force.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would to point out NPO, Alpha, UPN and Polaris, but then I equally don't wish to turn this into a shit flinging contest. However, my point is you fail to hold the same Philosophy for your opponents, while holding it for other alliances. (I don't really care who was the aggressor, point is the same)

 

I can only imagine they'll say that "well, they attacked us!" as a reason to demand anything more than white peace.  I'm with you Rook.  Differences aren't really all that large.  In the past, typically it's been reps to end a war early or go a few extra rounds and end with a white peace + handful of humiliation items, regardless of whomever is the aggressor.  Every war's a little different, same with every peace deal that ends up being reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ITT: Terminus Est pretends to modify the status quo by claiming "occupation." In reality, this free raiding is already what's going on in the status quo. Nonetheless, good honor grab TEst, good honor grab.

 

I for one do like the offered flag, but it's clear that we've decided to go for the long "haul."

I mean, one thing we've proven ourselves extremely good at is semi-suicidal tendencies. As such, I do plan to rearm back up to 2k for the lulz alone. This is fun, if rather painful. Besides, I've got a long ways to go if I want to be the leader for most of my own infra destroyed by attackers.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We gave them tactics, numbers, stategies and even pointed out the individuall nations to pick.

We almost gave them actuall targetlists, i think its fair so say, we've done all we can for them.

I'm pretty sure doing this would just make them try to purposefully ignore you out of some sort of "spite" and instead do everything wrong.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly we payed for our "stupid Test flag" from  our own pocket, if they had been like change your flag for that relatively clean one and we are filling to give you the credits to do it, I would have been like fine, here is your  "our" new stupid flag and peace and profit. 
 
Also dear TEST, you've already done the flag think, try something new, I'd propose a forced anthem change to

 

Edited by kalev60
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly we payed for our "stupid Test flag" from  our own pocket, if they had been like change your flag for that relatively clean one and we are filling to give you the credits to do it, I would have been like fine, here is your  "our" new stupid flag and peace and profit. 

 

Also dear TEST, you've already done the flag think, try something new, I'd propose a forced anthem change to

 

 

Everyone here is more than aware of GPA's utter lack of testicular fortitude. No need to remind us of recent history :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would to point out NPO, Alpha, UPN and Polaris, but then I equally don't wish to turn this into a shit flinging contest. However, my point is you fail to hold the same Philosophy for your opponents, while holding it for other alliances. (I don't really care who was the aggressor, point is the same)

 

I once went to a wonderful pottery shop down a back alley in Cairo. A man came in while I was browsing the inventory and smashed an entire shelf of intricate pots yelling all the while at the owner in Arabic, he ended up arrested and had to pay for the damages he caused.

 

I've also seen a man come into the same shop on a different occasion who smashed pottery and held the owner at gunpoint demanding he change his logo.

 

It was a very odd trip.

 

Based on your statement.....at least the part I've bolded and underlined......is there an ultimatum coming?

 

I was referring to the loss of potential playerbase by driving them out of the game via permawar.

Edited by Holton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe

I would to point out NPO, Alpha, UPN and Polaris, but then I equally don't wish to turn this into a shit flinging contest. However, my point is you fail to hold the same Philosophy for your opponents, while holding it for other alliances. (I don't really care who was the aggressor, point is the same)

I can only imagine they'll say that "well, they attacked us!" as a reason to demand anything more than white peace.  I'm with you Rook.  Differences aren't really all that large.  In the past, typically it's been reps to end a war early or go a few extra rounds and end with a white peace + handful of humiliation items, regardless of whomever is the aggressor.  Every war's a little different, same with every peace deal that ends up being reached.

Well you're both entitled to your opinions, but I'd say that you're making a false equivalency by comparing TEst's unwillingness to offer white peace to TFP to BK's insistence on receiving reps from NPO and tC. In our case, we were attacked pre-emptively by a coalition of AAs and managed (with help from our allies) to win and therefore desire reps to make up our losses. TEst attacked TFP for fun (if I recall the CB correctly), unsurprisingly managed to win and is now demanding your opponent adopt a new flag or face an indefinite rolling. In circumstances where BK was an aggressor we have not demanded concessions and have generally settled for a simple admission of defeat (well we got $420 from Sparta when they pre-empted us during Pacifica, but I don't think they ever actually paid that). So yeah, while you might not feel the distinction between aggressor and defender is relevant, we do and, from our perspective, there is a fairly significant difference between our situation (which was forced upon us) and your situation (which was a war of choice you opted to wage because you felt like it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you're both entitled to your opinions, but I'd say that you're making a false equivalency by comparing TEst's unwillingness to offer white peace to TFP to BK's insistence on receiving reps from NPO and tC. In our case, we were attacked pre-emptively by a coalition of AAs and managed (with help from our allies) to win and therefore desire reps to make up our losses. TEst attacked TFP for fun (if I recall the CB correctly), unsurprisingly managed to win and is now demanding your opponent adopt a new flag or face an indefinite rolling. In circumstances where BK was an aggressor we have not demanded concessions and have generally settled for a simple admission of defeat (well we got $420 from Sparta when they pre-empted us during Pacifica, but I don't think they ever actually paid that). So yeah, while you might not feel the distinction between aggressor and defender is relevant, we do and, from our perspective, there is a fairly significant difference between our situation (which was forced upon us) and your situation (which was a war of choice you opted to wage because you felt like it).

 

I see you'r logic, i disagree, i would however preffer not to have that long a** argument again since its not the point really.

So ill give you the break down

We offer early peace in exhange for a token of good humor and a recognition of our victory to oponents whenever possible.

In the TFP case however that offer was met with dissrespect, dissregard and honestly a lack of interest in finding any common ground at all.

This pissed us off, like it would anyone im fairly sure.

Thus we wont back down on our demands and will keep them under the restrictions outlined untill they give us what we have asked.

So at this point its not about a concession for getting an early peace as its already late, now its a token of goodwill and regrett for the disrespect shown our representatives and generall membership.

Ole2.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well you're both entitled to your opinions, but I'd say that you're making a false equivalency by comparing TEst's unwillingness to offer white peace to TFP to BK's insistence on receiving reps from NPO and tC. In our case, we were attacked pre-emptively by a coalition of AAs and managed (with help from our allies) to win and therefore desire reps to make up our losses. TEst attacked TFP for fun (if I recall the CB correctly), unsurprisingly managed to win and is now demanding your opponent adopt a new flag or face an indefinite rolling. In circumstances where BK was an aggressor we have not demanded concessions and have generally settled for a simple admission of defeat (well we got $420 from Sparta when they pre-empted us during Pacifica, but I don't think they ever actually paid that). So yeah, while you might not feel the distinction between aggressor and defender is relevant, we do and, from our perspective, there is a fairly significant difference between our situation (which was forced upon us) and your situation (which was a war of choice you opted to wage because you felt like it).

 

Well said.  We're each entitled to our opinions.  I'd say that we've actually not done that much damage to TFP as have been done in most wars.

 

 

I see you'r logic, i disagree, i would however preffer not to have that long a** argument again since its not the point really.

So ill give you the break down

We offer early peace in exhange for a token of good humor and a recognition of our victory to oponents whenever possible.

In the TFP case however that offer was met with dissrespect, dissregard and honestly a lack of interest in finding any common ground at all.

This pissed us off, like it would anyone im fairly sure.

Thus we wont back down on our demands and will keep them under the restrictions outlined untill they give us what we have asked.

So at this point its not about a concession for getting an early peace as its already late, now its a token of goodwill and regrett for the disrespect shown our representatives and generall membership.

 

Pretty much this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys don't respect TFP. (Does anyone?) Why should they respect you? Because of your millitary prowess over them?

 

Neutrals ought to be brought to heel, or "pacificsts" if they prefer, but lets not pretend that "disrespect", "disregard" and "lack of interest" are reasons to continue this war or humiliate TFP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys don't respect TFP. (Does anyone?) Why should they respect you? Because of your millitary prowess over them?

 

Neutrals ought to be brought to heel, or "pacificsts" if they prefer, but lets not pretend that "disrespect", "disregard" and "lack of interest" are reasons to continue this war or humiliate TFP.

Who is asking them to respect us? They could post spam about us for all I care. Terms have not been met.

Amusing to see some of you guys to rush to their defense. Should I be militarizing right now due to the increased interest in seeing this conflict ending in white peace?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should I be militarizing right now due to the increased interest in seeing this conflict ending in white peace?

 

Yes, waste your money on us please. We'll win by attrition and perseverance. At some point you'll get bored with curbstomping us, and at that point, we will win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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