Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

[Prefontaine]

2 minutes ago, Ryan1 said:

I never said their side wasn't winning. They are, and by a total landslide. But SK is in NEGATIVE net damage. You say that war stats don't matter, and most of them really don't. But the big bold number that says if they are winning or losing does.

 

I'm not sure if you're trolling, or stupid. 

[Ryan1]

1 minute ago, Prefontaine said:

I'm not sure if you're trolling, or stupid. 

What part of my reasoning is stupid?

[Prefontaine]

Just now, Ryan1 said:

What part of my reasoning is stupid?

Oh dear, you weren't trolling. 

 

If you don't understand, then I fear I cannot explain such simple concepts any easier than have already been explained. 

[Ryan1]

 

30 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Santa Pre, here to drop some knowledge on you dumb scrooges. Lets say this war continues until this time next year. Who do you think will be better off? Do you think TKR and friends will be growing faster than the winning side?  Sure, maybe you'll cause a few nations some long term damage over that year, and maybe you'll hit a bank shot or two. But overall you're effed harder than Acadia with Clarke leading. Not to mention your warchests be will exhausted. Your rebuilding funds gone, maybe save a few. You'll have no allies that aren't a smoldering pile because no one will want to ally you while you're still in an active war. Then, lets say we finally go "A year of you not accepting cosmetic peace terms and (well by this point all your VMers are out of VM) any VMers left we can finally let skate, we will give you white peace now", then you have to rebuild. 

I'm sorry, but did I  ever say that TKR wasn't fricked over? No, I didn't. You seem to be under the impression that I think TKRsphere is winning this war, when they clearly aren't. My point was that SK/CoA are shoving terms forward when they are suffering losses in this war, unlike alliances who are winning but not shoving terms forward, i.e. Rose.

[Parrish]

This post has surely exploded with Commenters.

[Prefontaine]

4 minutes ago, Ryan1 said:

 

I'm sorry, but did I  ever say that TKR wasn't fricked over? No, I didn't. You seem to be under the impression that I think TKRsphere is winning this war, when they clearly aren't. My point was that SK/CoA are shoving terms forward when they are suffering losses in this war, unlike alliances who are winning but not shoving terms forward, i.e. Rose.

I'm sorry, I didn't quote you in that post and thus wasn't directing my comments at you what so ever. Not everything is about you. If I was talking to you I would have quoted you, or said your name, Ryan. As I am currently. 

 

Can you grasp this simple concept? 

 

Ho ho ho-lyshitballs you're dim. 

 

EDIT: Oh, I see the confusion. I stated I was talking to "Dumb scrooges", the dumb part must've gotten you to think I was talking about you.

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by Prefontaine

[rollo]

8 hours ago, Ryan1 said:

What makes Seven Kingdoms and Church of Atom think they have the right to push (some of the most demanding) peace terms on TKRsphere, when SK/CoA are both billions in negative net damage? Rose, who has nearly double the net damage of anyone else, isn't presenting any peace terms, not counting the defeat of TKRsphere. 

Cry more.

 

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

3 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Santa Pre, here to drop some knowledge on you dumb scrooges. Lets say this war continues until this time next year. Who do you think will be better off? Do you think TKR and friends will be growing faster than the winning side?  Sure, maybe you'll cause a few nations some long term damage over that year, and maybe you'll hit a bank shot or two. But overall you're effed harder than Acadia with Clarke leading. Not to mention your warchests be will exhausted. Your rebuilding funds gone, maybe save a few. You'll have no allies that aren't a smoldering pile because no one will want to ally you while you're still in an active war. Then, lets say we finally go "A year of you not accepting cosmetic peace terms and (well by this point all your VMers are out of VM) any VMers left we can finally let skate, we will give you white peace now", then you have to rebuild. 

 

You guys are going to be so far ahead of us. Please, keep it up. You've got this in the bag.

They'd rather stand on senseless pride and "honor" for the gain of nothing to prevent a change they cannot prevent.

They don't want to be bothered to play actual politics and go the long way of doing things, remembering grievances and taking opportunities, finding the hidden advantage for the future in a bad situation.

 

[James II]

3 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

They'd rather stand on senseless pride and "honor" for the gain of nothing to prevent a change they cannot prevent.

They don't want to be bothered to play actual politics and go the long way of doing things, remembering grievances and taking opportunities, finding the hidden advantage for the future in a bad situation.

 

They aren't even nuking en masse, or winning in any tiering. They are just flailing about.

[SteuartGeharon]

I lay odds 3:2 we get a unified Korea and an end to this war in 2019. 

[Lu Xun]

Oh hey, Prefontaine is publicly advertising his lack of manhood again.

[Aksel]

Can we get an update on where exactly peace discussions are currently? (without the aggro sass)

I don't feel like running through 19, near 20 pages.

[Avakael]

On 12/25/2018 at 6:46 AM, TheRebelMan said:

I'm not sure you understand. 

TKR cannot be hurt from here on out unless they do something stupid. 

Your side on the other hand, has plenty of 2k+ infra. 

Only matters if you're causing more damage than the rest of us are earning. Quite a few have rebuilt.

[Lu Xun]

1 hour ago, Mad Max said:

Can we get an update on where exactly peace discussions are currently? (without the aggro sass)

I don't feel like running through 19, near 20 pages.

TLDR Version:

 

"Substantial" Updates

 

-No Christmas truce.

-BK complains that TKR-sphere blew off negotiations TKR-sphere itself had scheduled.

 

Leaks:

 

-If you're naive enough to believe that neither side is stalling, it's primarily the VM that's holding things up.

-If you're not naive enough to believe that, TKR-sphere makes progress by nuking high infra nations for war stats, SynDIQ makes progress by getting TKR-sphere nations to go inactive and delete. You can count progress on the SynDIQ side by counting TKR member count; over the last two weeks, seems to be a loss of 10 members (including VM), some of whom were moved into the applicant AA. You can count progress on the TKR-sphere side by checking out NPO's war stats:

 

https://npowned.net/pw-war-statistics/conflict/1

Edited December 26, 2018 by Inst

[Prefontaine]

1 hour ago, Mad Max said:

Can we get an update on where exactly peace discussions are currently? (without the aggro sass)

I don't feel like running through 19, near 20 pages.

The only progress is no progress. Our side isn’t budging on terms. Their side won’t accept them. The war will continue until they decide to accept them. From everything I’ve seen on our side of things no one is in a hurry to rescind the current terms. 

[Dane Hunter]

21 hours ago, Ryan1 said:

What makes Seven Kingdoms and Church of Atom think they have the right to push (some of the most demanding) peace terms on TKRsphere, when SK/CoA are both billions in negative net damage? Rose, who has nearly double the net damage of anyone else, isn't presenting any peace terms, not counting the defeat of TKRsphere. 

Which of SK's terms are you referring to as the most demanding? The Cinnamon Toast Crunch or the Colour Block name change? They're not exactly the terms that are dragging the war  out.

[The Mad Titan]

3 hours ago, Mad Max said:

Can we get an update on where exactly peace discussions are currently? (without the aggro sass)

I don't feel like running through 19, near 20 pages.

Alright so I’ll give this a stab and try to be fairly even. 

Our side has not budged on any terms outside of two counter offers on the bot terms which were rejected then summarily rescinded. Our side feels no need to peace out as most of our economies, while obviously not at 100%, are still substantial and most people are already replacing their used warchests. 

Their side has accepted all the joke terms, except for Grumpy/GOB which was accepted then SRD later reneged on. VM nations have had no progress as they feel we are unfairly targeting their VM members. They also have rejected the bot demand on essentially the grounds of have your members “Git Gud”, and the art is part of their alliance culture. Guardian/GoB tie hasn’t even been discussed yet. 

The normal progression of these is they contact us to begin talks, a time is agreed upon we, we show up, we yell at each other for an hour, then they walk away. Previously they lasted 3 weeks before contacting us again, this time one week, though they didn’t show up to their scheduled time so you could argue it’s longer. 

For rational of continuing the war, our side sees no reason to end the war when we see their member count continuing to dwindle. Additionally they are making no money versus ours being reduced, so economically they are being set back more and more. 

From their perspective they probably are hoping that they can drag out it out for better deals. Additionally, they can have better damage proportions due to them having more targets, with them being more intact. However this is misleading as certain alliances are rebuilding infra, and making themselves targets so this differential is skewed by certain alliances. 

Well see how long they hold out, but since every day they do it sets them back more our side is content. I expect war stats to encourage them to hold out longer as well. 

Edited December 26, 2018 by The Mad Titan

[Adrienne]

19 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

Previously they lasted 3 weeks before contacting us again, this time one week, though they didn’t show up to their scheduled time so you could argue it’s longer

Sure, we did walk off for three weeks but that's already been discussed on here. That was an intentional walk off because we weren't done fighting, you all said you weren't done fighting, and we weren't happy with the terms, the progress of the discussions, or any of you really. 

Trying to paint us as flaky since returning is ridiculous. We talked and scheduled a time on a Sunday and arrived on that. No one walked away for a week after that. Your side asked about  the next Sunday for a time, which we weren't sure we could make because of the holidays and so proposed the running talks instead, which you all agreed to.

I was going to try and sit down to get something up and post sometime on Sunday but when I hadn't managed to find the time to do so by update, you decided that meant I was skipping a meeting. I didn't even think there was one because we'd swapped those for running talks. And then your side decided we should just wait until after the holidays, which is fine because who wants to deal with PnW instead of spending time with their families at Christmas? Definitely not me.

But we're there and we're trying to work on things with you guys. You're free to continue reading into our actions and completely misunderstanding us. Or you can actually talk to us and ask what's up. My DMs are always open, Leo.

[Apeman]

Get your own tactic. Nukes suck. Where are we on individual surrenders? 

[Keza Purple]

me when you see another 19 pages 

[Ripper]

1 hour ago, Apeman said:

Get your own tactic. Nukes suck. Where are we on individual surrenders? 

No individual surrenders have been offered or discussed, and no such surrenders would get accepted, most probably.

[Dusty]

20 pages Christ....

[Ripper]

2 hours ago, Keza Purple said:

me when you see another 19 pages 

 

37 minutes ago, Bluedart said:

20 pages Christ....

At least 2 of those pages are just posts of people commenting on the length of the topic.

[Aksel]

7 hours ago, The Mad Titan said:

Alright so I’ll give this a stab and try to be fairly even. 

Our side has not budged on any terms outside of two counter offers on the bot terms which were rejected then summarily rescinded. Our side feels no need to peace out as most of our economies, while obviously not at 100%, are still substantial and most people are already replacing their used warchests. 

Their side has accepted all the joke terms, except for Grumpy/GOB which was accepted then SRD later reneged on. VM nations have had no progress as they feel we are unfairly targeting their VM members. They also have rejected the bot demand on essentially the grounds of have your members “Git Gud”, and the art is part of their alliance culture. Guardian/GoB tie hasn’t even been discussed yet. 

The normal progression of these is they contact us to begin talks, a time is agreed upon we, we show up, we yell at each other for an hour, then they walk away. Previously they lasted 3 weeks before contacting us again, this time one week, though they didn’t show up to their scheduled time so you could argue it’s longer. 

For rational of continuing the war, our side sees no reason to end the war when we see their member count continuing to dwindle. Additionally they are making no money versus ours being reduced, so economically they are being set back more and more. 

From their perspective they probably are hoping that they can drag out it out for better deals. Additionally, they can have better damage proportions due to them having more targets, with them being more intact. However this is misleading as certain alliances are rebuilding infra, and making themselves targets so this differential is skewed by certain alliances. 

Well see how long they hold out, but since every day they do it sets them back more our side is content. I expect war stats to encourage them to hold out longer as well. 

 

7 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Sure, we did walk off for three weeks but that's already been discussed on here. That was an intentional walk off because we weren't done fighting, you all said you weren't done fighting, and we weren't happy with the terms, the progress of the discussions, or any of you really. 

Trying to paint us as flaky since returning is ridiculous. We talked and scheduled a time on a Sunday and arrived on that. No one walked away for a week after that. Your side asked about  the next Sunday for a time, which we weren't sure we could make because of the holidays and so proposed the running talks instead, which you all agreed to.

I was going to try and sit down to get something up and post sometime on Sunday but when I hadn't managed to find the time to do so by update, you decided that meant I was skipping a meeting. I didn't even think there was one because we'd swapped those for running talks. And then your side decided we should just wait until after the holidays, which is fine because who wants to deal with PnW instead of spending time with their families at Christmas? Definitely not me.

But we're there and we're trying to work on things with you guys. You're free to continue reading into our actions and completely misunderstanding us. Or you can actually talk to us and ask what's up. My DMs are always open, Leo.

Thank you both for the detailed responses. 

[Lu Xun]

@The Mad Titan

This is only a suspicion, but part of the point of dragging out these war negotiations is to make sure everyone knows that declaring war on TKR-sphere is a pain in the ass; even if you win, you will be stuck fighting an Arrgh-type or VietTKR war for months after substantial combat operations are over, all while taking nukes.

The problem is how well a coalition employing this strategy can hold out. At first, the members who leave will be garbage, EMC-type members. Next you get vacillators who fought it out for a while, but then decided they were bored of the game and weren't really contributing much anyways. But where this starts to hurt is when quality members begin to leave.

 

I am basically a "pixels mean nothing" type of guy, but the third imposes substantial losses since the lifeblood of an alliance is its members and organization. Bleeding out bad blood isn't a problem, but when you start losing healthy members, you have a more serious problem than any of the damage SynDIQ has inflicted on a statistical basis. I think TKR-sphere has already bled off their EMCers, and is either bleeding vacillators or quality members right now, depending on who you ask. What's worse is the post-war losses, i.e, there will be some members who decide not to rebuild and decide to quit instead.

I think TKR-sphere can hold out at least to breaking the DDR / "69" days war record, maybe to 3 months or more. But they are better off ending this before they reach the breaking point. I like TKR-sphere, I obviously don't want to see them get rerolled, but excess qualitative bleed isn't good either.

 

@Apeman

 

There was an ex-TCW nation that, I believe, deleted, but the gentleman or lady involved left TCW for TFP. That's sort of an individual surrender, but the nation was promptly attacked by SyndIQ assets after joining TFP.

 

Re: Prefontaine:

Angry screaming about how you're losing, my balls are bigger than yours, and that you should kneel down and obey isn't conducive to good peace negotiations. And to insightful people, it just makes the party doing so look bad, i.e, a party roused to anger is often impotent. The Mad Titan, at least, is talking about the real damage that TKR-sphere is taking, and is focusing on that. But then again, what I'm told is that Prefontaine isn't formally part of these negotiations.

Edited December 26, 2018 by Inst