Inquisition Flight 420 to Nassau - UPN Removed

[ComradeMilton]

Roq makes a nice point. I have no idea what the CB is, but I'm sure we have it filed somewhere.

[Them]

We'll be sure to get daddy BK and mommy NPO to sign off on the permission slip next time.

This seems fun. Why don't I also completely ignore the point of a post and take a portion of it out of context to misinterepret for the keks and lels?

Why is Rose so disloyal to their allies? Do they believe that it's right to leave a war without telling their treaty partners? Why do they pursue their individual interests to the detriment of their allies? I'll tell you. They're a bunch of self-interested pixel huggers.

____________

Anyways, I don't subscribe to the idea that UPN can only leave the war with coalition approval. It's their sovereign right to do as they please. What I am saying is  that the damage to the coalition's negotiating power in peace talks can't be ignored and that Inquisition leadership's grievances against UPN aren't completely unfounded. Pangui made a compelling case that UPN leaving eases the pressure on the remaing coalition members to peace out, although the infra cap expiring at the conclusion of the war seems to be intended to have UPN remain invested in the coalition's negotiations. Negotiations don't seem to be going well anyways and I doubt that much could convince Syndisphere to accept the white peace offer or for the Inquisition coaltion to accept defeat. Meh.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Them

[Buorhann]

I mean, that would imply we would have wanted to launch the war at that point independently of coming into the information when the intention before it was the mutual decom and hoping the build up would fizzle out. That's the part you keep not really acknowledging. It's not that we wanted to move at the time and needed a CB and that we expect everyone to say "yeah, that's 100% proof", it's more that was the actual precipitating factor. 

 

Really?  Mutual decom?  You're going to throw that bullshit out there now again?

 

Let's rehash that again, Roq, because your paranoia certainly gets in the way.

 

Mensa is already mostly militarized, even during peace.

Syndicate was only at "All Plane" build, which is their peace time build (It's also the only alliance you guys approached about mutual decom iirc)

Rose was built up to help defend VE in case Seeker and his 6 Protectorates decided to get froggy.

 

The rest were not even built up, up until we got info of your plans to attack/preempt us.

 

So let's recap here:  We have four alliances who were normally kicked around by us (CS, BoC, VE, and Acadia/DEIC/NAC), two alliances who are too scared to build up and fill up critical areas of their allies needs (HBE and NPO), and a couple of other alliances that were previous Protectorates turned MDPartners turned enemies (Chola and BK) - asking Mensa, Syndicate, and Rose to decom.

 

 

Asking us all to decom certainly leads to some suspicion.  If we didn't want you to militarize, we would've attacked you and your sphere ahead of time - and just pinned you down.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Buorhann

[Buorhann]

Anyways, I don't subscribe to the idea that UPN can only leave the war with coalition approval. It's their sovereign right to do as they please. What I am saying is  that the damage to the coalition's negotiating power in peace talks can't be ignored and that Inquisition leadership's grievances against UPN aren't completely unfounded. Pangui made a compelling case that UPN leaving eases the pressure on the remaing coalition members to peace out, although the infra cap expiring at the conclusion of the war seems to be intended to have UPN remain invested in the coalition's negotiations. Negotiations don't seem to be going well anyways and I doubt that much could convince Syndisphere to accept the white peace offer or for the Inquisition coaltion to accept defeat. Meh.

 

Peace terms get worse the longer you hold out in most cases.  If I recall, the initial offer was a white peace to both UPN and Acadia, but that was awhile ago and wasn't accepted (Or it stalled out).  Then there was the whole infra cap bit, which was different than asking them to pay out reps for dogpiling on Syndicate.

 

I may be wrong though, as Syndicate reps mostly led those talks since UPN was part of the initial 7 that declared on them.

 

As a coalition though, we've already dropped down all of our initial requests of reps we had lined up for a simple surrender.  That's the best compromise you'll get from us and we won't budge from that.

 

But lesson learned on my part:  Next time we'll start off with a list of demands, then work our way down instead of cutting through all the nonsense and getting straight to the point of ending a war.

[Them]

I didn't frequent the forums then (and I still don't really now) so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I vaguely remember NPO opposing a mutual decom to be part of the CB in NPO's First Time. They made similar arguments with saying that max military was their "peacetime build" and whatnot. If it worked for you then, I don't see why the reasoning is not valid here. Of course, that alone doesn't make a solid CB, but acting like it is immaterial isn't right either.

 

Edit: This is in response to Buorhann's post to Roquentin,  for clarification.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Them

[Them]

Peace terms get worse the longer you hold out in most cases.  If I recall, the initial offer was a white peace to both UPN and Acadia, but that was awhile ago and wasn't accepted (Or it stalled out).  Then there was the whole infra cap bit, which was different than asking them to pay out reps for dogpiling on Syndicate.

 

I may be wrong though, as Syndicate reps mostly led those talks since UPN was part of the initial 7 that declared on them.

 

As a coalition though, we've already dropped down all of our initial requests of reps we had lined up for a simple surrender.  That's the best compromise you'll get from us and we won't budge from that.

 

But lesson learned on my part:  Next time we'll start off with a list of demands, then work our way down instead of cutting through all the nonsense and getting straight to the point of ending a war.

Yeah, I've heard the "peace terms get worse over time" thing a few times already.

Also, although it might piss the other coalition off, initially demanding reps will have them believe you to be more willing to compromise and they might accept more favorable terms for your side. Nobody will take "we cut through all the nonsnse and are giving you the only terms we will, leave them or take them" as a sign that negotiations are worth it. Even if the Inquisition is essentially offering the same thing, they've still attempted to make an effort at yielding to your side's demands.

[Sketchy]

This seems fun. Why don't I also completely ignore the point of a post and take a portion of it out of context to misinterepret for the keks and lels?

Why is Rose so disloyal to their allies? Do they believe that it's right to leave a war without telling their treaty partners? Why do they pursue their individual interests to the detriment of their allies? I'll tell you. They're a bunch of self-interested pixel huggers.

____________

 

Anyways, I don't subscribe to the idea that UPN can only leave the war with coalition approval. It's their sovereign right to do as they please. What I am saying is  that the damage to the coalition's negotiating power in peace talks can't be ignored and that Inquisition leadership's grievances against UPN aren't completely unfounded. Pangui made a compelling case that UPN leaving eases the pressure on the remaing coalition members to peace out, although the infra cap expiring at the conclusion of the war seems to be intended to have UPN remain invested in the coalition's negotiations. Negotiations don't seem to be going well anyways and I doubt that much could convince Syndisphere to accept the white peace offer or for the Inquisition coaltion to accept defeat. Meh.

 

lmfao you triggered af

 

Rose is still in the war so I assume you are tryna make some point about UPN. 

 

I feel like everyone is ignoring the fact UPN has fought for over a month in your silly war. 

 

"the damage to the coalition's negotiating power in peace talks can't be ignored"

 

What damage? Its not like the terms we've presented have been anything but reasonable, UPN's exit does no more damage to you than Lordaeron or SK.

 

The terms haven't changed, the terms UPN took have had no effect on the peace talks at all. 

 

If you are gonna be butthurt at least apply your butthurt equally amongst all the people who have peaced out. 

[Them]

 

lmfao you triggered af

 

Rose is still in the war so I assume you are tryna make some point about UPN. 

 

I feel like everyone is ignoring the fact UPN has fought for over a month in your silly war. 

 

"the damage to the coalition's negotiating power in peace talks can't be ignored"

 

What damage? Its not like the terms we've presented have been anything but reasonable, UPN's exit does no more damage to you than Lordaeron or SK.

 

The terms haven't changed, the terms UPN took have had no effect on the peace talks at all. 

 

If you are gonna be butthurt at least apply your butthurt equally amongst all the people who have peaced out. 

The initial part was obviously an bait to show how ridiculous some things you say are  and this is my third time saying that I don't agree with publicly denouncing your colition partners. Is it that far-fetched to defend an idea that you don't completely agree with, but think has some merit? The terms do matter in this case and I'm sure I also stated why in my first post. I'm not ignoring UPN's contribution to the war effort, but suggesting that they didn't want to join the war or are in it merely due to a sense of obligation, as well as insulting their cause for fighting comes pretty close to doing so. I'm not butthurt. I'm trying to explain why some people on my side are.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Them

[Sketchy]

The initial part was obviously an bait to show how ridiculous some things you say are  and this is my third time saying that I don't agree with publicly denouncing your colition partners. Is it that far-fetched to defend an idea that you don't completely agree with, but think has some merit? The terms do matter in this case and I'm sure I also stated why in my first post. I'm not ignoring UPN's contribution to the war effort, but suggesting that they didn't want to join the war or are in it merely due to a sense of obligation, as well as insulting their cause for fighting comes pretty close to doing so. I'm not butthurt. I'm trying to explain why some people on my side are.

Then I recommend you allow those people to explain it for themselves. If its not your opinion, let the people who actually hold it defend it.

[Patty]

I just read this whole argument going on

 

10/10 would read again

[Patty]

Summary pls

My attention span only allows for 10,000 characters

Tl;dr - The hive is safe...thats all you need to know

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

Yeah, dude let me gin up the tens of billions that would take to correct the upper mid imbalance with one alliance and we're pixel hugging. Totally. Maybe instead of trying to pixel hug you could like not have joined the side with the upper tier advantage if we're going to take shots like that. It's always been a dumb argument as even if all our money had been spent on cities, it wouldn't be enough and that's not even taking into account warchests.  We're losing pixels either way; the difference is if we have a small number of nations in the mid tier than they're just easy isolated targets. That'd be convenient for you. It's not really pixel hugging to still take damage but simply not give the enemy every advantage possible.

Roq, if your alliance was 6 months old, I would agree and let this slide but you guys have been around for over 540 days, and you guys got a shit ton of seed money when you first formed. 

 

You all could easily be at 14-15 cities each, and when you get more cities you know what becomes much easier to do?  Build warchests!  More cities means more money and resources.  At 9 cities its almost impossible to build a decent warchest, because you aren't large enough to support yourself. 

 

Any econ issues that NPO claims to have are a function of NPO's own incompetence.

 

Frankly, 110 15 city nations is a much bigger headache to deal with in a war than 110 9 city nations.  Don't listen to me tho, please stay at 9 cities, and then you can flaunt your sweet damage ratio every war when you dominate that all important bottom tier!

[ComradeMilton]

Peace terms get worse the longer you hold out in most cases.  If I recall, the initial offer was a white peace to both UPN and Acadia, but that was awhile ago and wasn't accepted (Or it stalled out).  Then there was the whole infra cap bit, which was different than asking them to pay out reps for dogpiling on Syndicate.

 

Good luck with that.

[ComradeMilton]

When has NPO complained about that? I assume you've noticed they don't have a goal of building up and up in an uncontrolled manner. If I were you I'd worry a lot more about the complete lack of success for VE in war.

[Spaceman Thrax]

All of you guys are being pretty presumptuous trying to tell NPO they're doing things wrong. You just assume they have goals like "NPO allies/other alliances on their side winning a war (and/or having a stronger position after the war is complete)", when most of the evidence in those 540 days looks to me like they simply don't.

 

NPO is allied to more than half of the alliances who could be a threat to their tier. Why would they move to a higher tier, if none of their current allies seem to care? I mean, it would probably make the game more interesting to not have an entire tier that was a blob like that, which is what they keep accusing "THE hegemoney" of, but aside from that.

[Lordship]

When has NPO complained about that? I assume you've noticed they don't have a goal of building up and up in an uncontrolled manner. If I were you I'd worry a lot more about the complete lack of success for VE in war.

You guys have a bad habit of insulting the alliances bleeding beside you. SRD isn't even in VE

[durmij]

ComradeMilton, on 30 May 2017 - 10:57 AM, said:

 

When has NPO complained about that? I assume you've noticed they don't have a goal of building up and up in an uncontrolled manner. If I were you I'd worry a lot more about the complete lack of success for VE in war.

>Shit talking his ally in war.

>Not even his ally in war.

 

 

We've hit peak milton.

[Buorhann]

It wouldn't surprise me if this was the plan all along.  Get some Syndisphere friends to change sides, then get them stuck in a long ass war, and finally have them develop grudges between each other.

 

NPO has nothing to lose, but a lot to gain in such a situation.

[Shadowthrone]

It wouldn't surprise me if this was the plan all along.  Get some Syndisphere friends to change sides, then get them stuck in a long ass war, and finally have them develop grudges between each other.

 

NPO has nothing to lose, but a lot to gain in such a situation.

Heh, because this all evil Roq's plan and those alliances have no free choice to choose anymore.

 

Ffs the NPO baiting/Roq hating should be getting boring by now. It's made no difference to us, and I doubt its ever really going to change how we play ˆ_ˆ

[vonnorman]

Jesus christ close this thread. It was about UPN at one point

[Roquentin]

Roq, if your alliance was 6 months old, I would agree and let this slide but you guys have been around for over 540 days, and you guys got a shit ton of seed money when you first formed. 

 

You all could easily be at 14-15 cities each, and when you get more cities you know what becomes much easier to do?  Build warchests!  More cities means more money and resources.  At 9 cities its almost impossible to build a decent warchest, because you aren't large enough to support yourself. 

 

Any econ issues that NPO claims to have are a function of NPO's own incompetence.

 

Frankly, 110 15 city nations is a much bigger headache to deal with in a war than 110 9 city nations.  Don't listen to me tho, please stay at 9 cities, and then you can flaunt your sweet damage ratio every war when you dominate that all important bottom tier!

 

Um, here's the thing. When you're a mass invasion alliance, a lot of people are going to quit just like what happened with VE. You make a huge assumption we have a ton of people who were around for the 540 days. That's not true and we incurred losses early on since everyone was getting funded regardless of long-term commitment level. When we rushed cities for the first 6 months, that came at the expense of warchests and people on the other side rightly noticed that vulnerability and knew it'd be better to war us sooner rather than later, which they did. Alliances that are newer that are rushing cities have found out that their warchests didn't keep up, so this logic doesn't really make sense.  An alliance like BK has typically kept large stockpiles since they restricted growth until warchest goals were met.

 

There aren't 110 540 day old nations, so this argument goes out the window.

 

I don't really care if you think we're incompetent.

 

 

It wouldn't surprise me if this was the plan all along.  Get some Syndisphere friends to change sides, then get them stuck in a long ass war, and finally have them develop grudges between each other.

 

NPO has nothing to lose, but a lot to gain in such a situation.

 

I'm liking your conspiracy theory here. Ultimately, it comes down to your allies were tired of the status quo and they came to us, not the other way around. That's not really me hatching a scheme there.

 

I don't have any veto power over dragging it out or not and I don't intend to try to exercise it.

 

edit: fixed

Edited May 30, 2017 by Roquentin

[Insert Name Here]

IQsphere's approach: "we'll never surrender, but we'll shit talk the !@#$ out of our coalition partners".

[Roquentin]

IQsphere's approach: "we'll never surrender, but we'll shit talk the !@#$ out of our coalition partners".

Just to clarify I'm pretty sure Milton meant VE when he and SRD were in it and not their current performance. VE has been great in this war under Seeker.

[Insert Name Here]

Just to clarify I'm pretty sure Milton meant VE when he and SRD were in it and not their current performance. VE has been great in this war under Seeker.

 

 

I'm not just talking about Milton. I'm talking about several people on your side publicly shitting on alliances who fought for your coalition, such as tTO or UPN. Makes for a fun show, I'll give you that.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Insert Name Here

[Roquentin]

All of you guys are being pretty presumptuous trying to tell NPO they're doing things wrong. You just assume they have goals like "NPO allies/other alliances on their side winning a war (and/or having a stronger position after the war is complete)", when most of the evidence in those 540 days looks to me like they simply don't.

 

NPO is allied to more than half of the alliances who could be a threat to their tier. Why would they move to a higher tier, if none of their current allies seem to care? I mean, it would probably make the game more interesting to not have an entire tier that was a blob like that, which is what they keep accusing "THE hegemoney" of, but aside from that.

 

You have some serious gall to be saying this, especially when given you were behind attacking us for trying to do just that before. Here's the thing: if we get dropped by people every time they lose because they seem to think Syndisphere is invincible and they don't want to try anymore, it's not really a defect on our part to have  looked to our own defenses by securing ourselves in a tier where we can be competitive as opposed to the gangbang by the mid tier alliances and then getting pinned down by whoever you had in the lowers. As things looked to remain that way until your former allies got bored of running the game with your former alliance, it was the best orientation rather than open ourselves up to attacks like the one Mensa did on SK in December.

 

I mean, you can't really criticize us for consolidating when your side has made it clear it would consolidate the upper tier and your upper tier consolidation happened before our lower tier consolidation and has been a continual process. You even took out the only concentrated upper tier outside of your sphere. Given many of the usual bragposters reside in that tier, I doubt they'd be willing to sacrifice to make the game interesting for anyone else. It was already stated if the war had taken longer to happen, we would have tried going higher, so it happening now was suboptimal.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Roquentin