Jump to content

Britannian Three for One Special


Sylvia
 Share

Recommended Posts

To add to that, it's really bizarre to tie some gains achieved by internal reforms to a political shift. Basically the "got gud" constitutes the tiering change and purging. Most people in Rose who are capable of fighting now were capable in the past and you even have said that you had done well but not gotten flank coverage and in this instance your opponent got countered. I guess the guy who always went to VM is fighting this time, so I guess that's one change.  I would have loved to see the "getting gud"put to the test for real against the usual opponents Rose fought, but that's where the fa part factors in. It sucks that you pursue this line so vigorously, though, but I don't see joining Syndisphere as "getting gud".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to that, it's really bizarre to tie some gains achieved by internal reforms to a political shift. Basically the "got gud" constitutes the tiering change and purging. Most people in Rose who are capable of fighting now were capable in the past and you even have said that you had done well but not gotten flank coverage and in this instance your opponent got countered. I guess the guy who always went to VM is fighting this time, so I guess that's one change. I would have loved to see the "getting gud"put to the test for real against the usual opponents Rose fought, but that's where the fa part factors in. It sucks that you pursue this line so vigorously, though, but I don't see joining Syndisphere as "getting gud".

I completely agree with this.

 

Again, I beg of you Rose. Open the blast doors to your heart, and be the change you want to be...

Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry I'm not particularly interested in going the full stockholm syndrome route and pretending people who actively wished us harm and carried some serious vendettas were in the right the entire time nor do I think it would be productive. It's really never that black and white...

 

A little contradictory here. If it's not that black and white, those vendettas (if they even exist?) are only part of an overall picture you're choosing to ignore much of.

 

The alliances that "actively wished you harm" are the ones you've been sniping at since you joined the game, I think? :P

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little contradictory here. If it's not that black and white, those vendettas (if they even exist?) are only part of an overall picture you're choosing to ignore much of.

 

The alliances that "actively wished you harm" are the ones you've been sniping at since you joined the game, I think? :P

They do exist and they were openly posted about.  I'm not going too elaborate too much there since you will dismiss out of hand.  The deeper seated issues have also been brought up to me in private by third parties. You chose to ignore them and said I was making it up. I mean it's not black and white because I'm sure people in those alliances see themselves as being right as well and me being the bad guy. The thing though is mostly they're not objectively good guys and we're not objectively the party in the wrong. There isn't gonna be a capitulation there and no one is going to pretend they were in the right and it would be an awful basis for anything. Any resolution to issues has to be mutual and not on the basis of "I couldn't beat them so they were in the right," which is usually what is expected. If they want to insist on being enemies, we're going to try to get the best outcome for ourselves.

 

Not really sure how that's the case.  I don't really remember ever sniping at TKR until they made their stance clear. I didn't care about Mensa until they kept making issues and there's a huge track record there but it was always them starting it one way or another.  With tS, as a casual player I wasn't a huge fan, but never really did much about it. I'm sure you'll bring up the GR convo but I genuinely barely cared about PW then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What issues did we keep making again, Roq?

Manthrax was talking about since I started playing the game, so I was referring to the hits on my alliance.  As far as Mensa-NPO: open threats post Paragone, call out threads and constant antagonization every single point forward. Pretty much every indication of wanting to war us if the opportunity arose.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to show any examples of threats to NPO?  Pretty sure all you'll find is heavy critique of your lack of building up.

 

EDIT:

 

I'm not denying that we have threaten alliances before.  That's nothing new, but NPO?  Pretty sure we only criticized you guys over your build despite being a large alliance.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean. Let's look at TKR. This is my opinion, and if someone from TKR wants to correct me/add details, they totally should:

 

You sniped at TKR while allied to them by signing virtually all of the alliances that were trying to politically rival them. This boiled over when you signed UPN, who had just attacked them in the previous war. That all happened before the war your people keep complaining about getting backstabbed in, and before you'd ever done anything to actually help TKR as an ally.

 

I don't think there's any other ally of TKR's who's had trouble with them like that, because they're incredibly straightforward to deal with. I think that if you'd represented your goals to them clearly that entire situation would have played out entirely differently.

 

The seed of TKR-NPO issues was planted and watered by you. I agree that they should have cancelled their treaty with you before that war, but I still totally understand where they were coming from and why. 

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Care to show any examples of threats to NPO?  Pretty sure all you'll find is heavy critique of your lack of building up.

 

EDIT:

 

I'm not denying that we have threaten alliances before.  That's nothing new, but NPO?  Pretty sure we only criticized you guys over your build despite being a large alliance.

 

The major example was the reaction from Mensa when Paragone happened. The target had apparently shifted and I was told in the open by your current head that I should hope for a better performance and he'd be looking forward to fighting us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean. Let's look at TKR. This is my opinion, and if someone from TKR wants to correct me/add details, they totally should:

 

You sniped at TKR while allied to them by signing virtually all of the alliances that were trying to politically rival them. This boiled over when you signed UPN, who had just attacked them in the previous war. That all happened before the war your people keep complaining about getting backstabbed in, and before you'd ever done anything to actually help TKR as an ally.

 

I don't think there's any other ally of TKR's who's had trouble with them like that, because they're incredibly straightforward to deal with. I think that if you'd represented your goals to them clearly that entire situation would have played out entirely differently.

 

The seed of TKR-NPO issues was planted and watered by you. I agree that they should have cancelled their treaty with you before that war, but I still totally understand where they were coming from and why. 

 

Oh no. You do not want to get into this.  It is way deeper than that.  NPO allied VE and Alpha at the same time as TKR.  We did sign UPN after TKR backed a war on our ally, but the thing is a very important thing came to light after that. I'll be frank the treaty had no real political basis and it was based on faulty expectations and misintrepreation ie. TKR doing their own thing at some point.

 

Our goal was presented clearly: we had security concerns and it would be more viable to coordinate our interests with an alliance like UPN.

 

But anyway, what came out during all of that was there had already been a lack of trust based on past history Not really interested into getting into that past history, but it confirmed a suspicion I had and it was clear a lot of it was personal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's all?  We did far far worse with Rose.

It's not like a contest and the Rose stuff had more of a personal basis with the Pfeiffer/Oblige/chickenguys stuff. You posted the callout topic after Paragone and there were constant snipes and it has continued, so it would be difficult to interpret your intentions as anything but hostile.

 

edit: sorry for double post

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But anyway, what came out during all of that was there had already been a lack of trust based on past history Not really interested into getting into that past history, but it confirmed a suspicion I had and it was clear a lot of it was personal.

 

If this were true (I'm gonna assume it's true but mutual), why not drop TKR rather than moving against them in backchannels and then acting wounded that they did the same?

  • Upvote 1

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this were true (I'm gonna assume it's true but mutual), why not drop TKR rather than moving against them in backchannels and then acting wounded that they did the same?

 

Idk how we moved against them in backchannels. There wasn't any real planning aside from "what if we get hit or someone else we're allied to does".  I mean end of the day, the treaty was non-chaining and we were never going to be on the same side given treaty lines, so I didn't really have too much against them being on the other side. The main reason for being upset about what happened was that it was a direct hit on us and there was a lot of evasion. Even with concerns, there was no hostility to the level where the situation would be reversed. I was never really interested in dragging past stuff into the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Idk how we moved against them in backchannels. There wasn't any real planning aside from "what if we get hit or someone else we're allied to does".  I mean end of the day, the treaty was non-chaining and we were never going to be on the same side given treaty lines, so I didn't really have too much against them being on the other side.

 

You had just founded. You drew literally all of those treaty lines. So... if you were never going to be on the same side, that was your call, not theirs.

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had just founded. You drew literally all of those treaty lines. So... if you were never going to be on the same side, that was your call, not theirs.

 

That only became evident later on and they knew Alpha-tS relations at the time as well so it'd be their call as well. However, at the time people perceived TKR to be dissatisified with the political situation. They were telling other alliances they were less pleased with their side than with Paracov. Maybe it was just a momentary reaction to 168 day/Pfeiffer, but not sure. Anyway, like I said, this isn't a victim style thing. The point is with these issues, by default we'll work better with people who don't have them rather than with those who do rather than it being a "NPO IS RALLYING AGAINST THE hegemoney INSTEAD OF MOVING FORWARD" style deal. Like I said, I'm sure i'm the villain for these but it's a two-sided thing there isn't gonna be a concession of wrong-doing on our part to parties that dislike us simply on the basis of us not being able to beat them. It wouldn't be genuine for sure.  We've been willing to move past issues with people who are willing to do the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"we couldn't beat Syndisphere despite coming close to it, so since we can't win against them, let's adopt their narratives wholesale and join them since there's a seat waiting for us". You don't really know the extent of the issues involved and how personal it gets in some cases. The fact that you buried the grievances you had doesn't mean they were never seen as legitimate. It's always been a matter of who was wiling to move on and who wasn't. The fact that the people who had been in the Syndisphere who weren't frothing at the mouth about NPO(even people we hit directly and damaged like BK) could see we're not that bad and were willing to even ally us should speak volumes. I'm sorry that it's not that appealing to have the best case scenario of joining Syndisphere and helping them perpetuate grudges against whatever entities they decide to carry them against. 

 

Durmij went a little overboard with the Silent war stuff, but besides that. please point me to the narratives we have "adopted wholesale" ayy, I'd love to get a refresher course on them because I must be rusty. I think you are trying to connect dots that don't exist out of your own preconceived notions about Rose and our place in the "Syndisphere". Durmij and I say what we think. Sometimes our opinions differ, but mostly we tend to agree, and it isn't us reading off party line cue cards or some shit. 

 

Also we didn't bury our grievances, we moved past them. I've personally been on the receiving end of a great deal of hostility from former allies on your side simply for leaving and "switching sides" as you put it (even tho we only had one ally at the time VE). Maybe instead of holding onto all the negative viewpoitns and paranoia some of them should actually try it. That doesn't extend to NPO btw, you guys were able to crush your beef with BK, which is respectable, but don't try to pretend that situation is any different or better.

 

 

To add to that, it's really bizarre to tie some gains achieved by internal reforms to a political shift. Basically the "got gud" constitutes the tiering change and purging. Most people in Rose who are capable of fighting now were capable in the past and you even have said that you had done well but not gotten flank coverage and in this instance your opponent got countered. I guess the guy who always went to VM is fighting this time, so I guess that's one change.  I would have loved to see the "getting gud"put to the test for real against the usual opponents Rose fought, but that's where the fa part factors in. It sucks that you pursue this line so vigorously, though, but I don't see joining Syndisphere as "getting gud".

 

Just to briefly touch on this since you don't really know, we didn't simply implement tiering and kick a few people and call it a day. We completely recycled the bulk of the alliance and replaced them with more active and capable members (who we grew from the ground up), replaced the bulk of our government, lost most of our whales and through rigorous econ planning were able to build back most of the city and income losses we took because of that. All this was done between Silent War and now.

  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Durmij went a little overboard with the Silent war stuff, but besides that. please point me to the narratives we have "adopted wholesale" ayy, I'd love to get a refresher course on them because I must be rusty. I think you are trying to connect dots that don't exist out of your own preconceived notions about Rose and our place in the "Syndisphere". Durmij and I say what we think. Sometimes our opinions differ, but mostly we tend to agree, and it isn't us reading off party line cue cards or some shit. 

 

Also we didn't bury our grievances, we moved past them. I've personally been on the receiving end of a great deal of hostility from former allies on your side simply for leaving and "switching sides" as you put it (even tho we only had one ally at the time VE). Maybe instead of holding onto all the negative viewpoitns and paranoia some of them should actually try it. That doesn't extend to NPO btw, you guys were able to crush your beef with BK, which is respectable, but don't try to pretend that situation is any different or better.

 

 

 

Just to briefly touch on this since you don't really know, we didn't simply implement tiering and kick a few people and call it a day. We completely recycled the bulk of the alliance and replaced them with more active and capable members (who we grew from the ground up), replaced the bulk of our government, lost most of our whales and through rigorous econ planning were able to build back most of the city and income losses we took because of that. All this was done between Silent War and now.

 

I mean that's one. In general, the way I read his thing about the whole Rose being the cause of its issues was that having the previous issues with tS/Mensa was more a fault of Rose's than of their's. I could have misread it, but it seemed like the whole doing fa for Rose instead of FA against someone was a repudiation of the reasons that had existed for the grievances.  It kind of ties into his assessment of what happened here, which was pretty much  that we're repeating the same stuff even if it won't get us good results instead of just giving up and trying to be friendly with alliances that aren't.

 

 

 

When I referred to purging, I knew the scale was pretty big and it had already started under Keegoz and then increased after. You have newer members, but I'd say the core of the upper/mid tier you have had been around before. The point was mainly most of the people who are capable at fighting in Rose now were capable before. You got rid of a lot of fat, but without a core group of active members already there, most alliances would struggle at getting good results.  It wasn't a knock on Rose. It was more the latent capability that had shined somewhat in the past could shine more with the tiering and purging.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean that's one. In general, the way I read his thing about the whole Rose being the cause of its issues was that having the previous issues with tS/Mensa was more a fault of Rose's than of their's. I could have misread it, but it seemed like the whole doing fa for Rose instead of FA against someone was a repudiation of the reasons that had existed for the grievances.  It kind of ties into his assessment of what happened here, which was pretty much  that we're repeating the same stuff even if it won't get us good results instead of just giving up and trying to be friendly with alliances that aren't.

 

Well yer, as I referenced above, durmij and I usually agree on most things, but this would be one of the exceptions. I don't really believe in "good guys" and "bad guys", both sides had their faults and their grievances.

 

I was simply rebutting the narrative that Rose "switched sides", and shilled out for the Syndisphere that I keep hearing, often from alliances who I've had almost no beef with at all since we split from them. If you carry resentment and butthurt over the actions of the last 2 rose governments despite no continued hostility or any real beef between us, then tough titties. That is the whole "holding on to butthurt" thing I've constantly been talking about. While that is a broad statement and doesn't necessarily apply to NPO or you, you did basically just list off all the usual rhetoric that comes attached with that viewpoint.

 

I have no problem having cordial relations with any alliance who wishes to, but people who want to whine about something that happened like 8-12 months ago under a completely different government with a completely different membership to our current one, can lick the crevices in my butt and save me some toilet paper.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If TKR had been preempted, alliances on our "side" were aware that we would have been obligated to defend them.

But not if T$ got hit, then you guys would just ignore Zodiac's treaty, sort of like how BK ignored Mensas? Is that about right? I don't see how it would make any difference who exactly you pre-empted. Any ally worth a teaspoon of salt would know that the specific target in a coalition based warfare is far less important than the overall goal. In this case, it was the removal of T$, TKR, Mensa etc, from power, apparently out of fear of being rolled. 

 

Even by coming up with some extraordinarily weak and poorly matched counters to TKR, it's not like TKR and co. don't know who led the coalition, and what the aim of the conflict was (to weaken their ally, to weaken their side etc.) The mere suggestion that things would've been different if TKR was the target is a steaming pile. Everyone with a brain on your side should be able to conclude that the aim was not to help TKR, but to harm it. Hell, if TKR had been preempted, the coalition would have just weedled their way out of their treaties in the same way BK did. If they didn't have the spine for that, how ever did anyone on the IQ side think this war would ever amount to any good? It's no wonder alliances have already left the battlefield, they have no respect for the cause, and were in some cases apparently manipulated into war (tTO)

FX6Lzru.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But not if T$ got hit, then you guys would just ignore Zodiac's treaty, sort of like how BK ignored Mensas? Is that about right? I don't see how it would make any difference who exactly you pre-empted. Any ally worth a teaspoon of salt would know that the specific target in a coalition based warfare is far less important than the overall goal. In this case, it was the removal of T$, TKR, Mensa etc, from power, apparently out of fear of being rolled.

 

Even by coming up with some extraordinarily weak and poorly matched counters to TKR, it's not like TKR and co. don't know who led the coalition, and what the aim of the conflict was (to weaken their ally, to weaken their side etc.) The mere suggestion that things would've been different if TKR was the target is a steaming pile. Everyone with a brain on your side should be able to conclude that the aim was not to help TKR, but to harm it. Hell, if TKR had been preempted, the coalition would have just weedled their way out of their treaties in the same way BK did. If they didn't have the spine for that, how ever did anyone on the IQ side think this war would ever amount to any good? It's no wonder alliances have already left the battlefield, they have no respect for the cause, and were in some cases apparently manipulated into war (tTO)

Im pretty sure roq was referring to a different, older war here. Back when tkr and npo were allied.

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure roq was referring to a different, older war here. Back when tkr and npo were allied.

Oh are they talking about the war where NPO wanted TKR to break their non-aggression pacts and declare on their own allies then? 

It's so hard to follow these discussions.

FX6Lzru.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 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.