Jump to content
Ripper

Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I see it as contradictory too.

Even so, it'd help clarify the stances of the three different sides in the coalition as well, so TKR and their allies will know what to expect come the future after the war and how to adjust their FA game.

I may discuss this verbally on my show, but there is (at least to me) a difference in how to approach alliances that are set forth in doing either "blanket damage" or "punishing legit dodgers".

For example:  If NPO, BK, TEst are pushing for blanket damage and Rose, Syndicate, CoS are pushing for punishing legit dodgers - then it would allow TKR and Friends to know exactly how to approach any of those alliances in the future if a conflict comes around and they're on the victorious side against them (Or what to expect if they're working alongside with them).

It would also let those sitting on the sidelines watching the expectations from these alliances as well.

 

Personally speaking, I'm awfully curious about how this will be settled.

It’s to slow their rebuild, rather than assist in punishing members who didn’t help in the war. While it’s possible not all were in favor of the term, pretty sure it’s about hurting rather than helping them for all who want the term. 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As we've said before, the question for SynDIQ is whether this war means anything at all. If TKR-sphere just rebuilds instantly at zero cost, what's the point? And moreover, if TKR-sphere poses enough of a threat, it becomes concomitant upon SynDIQ to avoid splitting and take down TKR-sphere again.

 

I think TKR knows this, which is why the current combat situation is perfectly acceptable to it. Hell, I'd not be surprised that even if SynDIQ offered TKR-sphere white peace, TKR-sphere would elect to continue to fight.

 

Reps are one way of neutering TKR-sphere, but it's not "confirmable" unless the reps are truly massive and crippling. Attritional losses and delayed rebuilding, on the other hand, are concrete and undeniable evidence of TKR-sphere's neutralization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Inst said:

As we've said before, the question for SynDIQ is whether this war means anything at all. If TKR-sphere just rebuilds instantly at zero cost, what's the point? And moreover, if TKR-sphere poses enough of a threat, it becomes concomitant upon SynDIQ to avoid splitting and take down TKR-sphere again.

 

I think TKR knows this, which is why the current combat situation is perfectly acceptable to it. Hell, I'd not be surprised that even if SynDIQ offered TKR-sphere white peace, TKR-sphere would elect to continue to fight.

 

Reps are one way of neutering TKR-sphere, but it's not "confirmable" unless the reps are truly massive and crippling. Attritional losses and delayed rebuilding, on the other hand, are concrete and undeniable evidence of TKR-sphere's neutralization.

I think they’d take white peace & less chance of bad blood between sides if it ends that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the war aims is a TKR surrender. White peace means that war aims have not been achieved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I see it as contradictory too.

Even so, it'd help clarify the stances of the three different sides in the coalition as well, so TKR and their allies will know what to expect come the future after the war and how to adjust their FA game.

I may discuss this verbally on my show, but there is (at least to me) a difference in how to approach alliances that are set forth in doing either "blanket damage" or "punishing legit dodgers".

For example:  If NPO, BK, TEst are pushing for blanket damage and Rose, Syndicate, CoS are pushing for punishing legit dodgers - then it would allow TKR and Friends to know exactly how to approach any of those alliances in the future if a conflict comes around and they're on the victorious side against them (Or what to expect if they're working alongside with them).

It would also let those sitting on the sidelines watching the expectations from these alliances as well.

 

Personally speaking, I'm awfully curious about how this will be settled.

Yeah, I don't know what the arguing is about. Anyone who dodged should be kicked from the alliance and rolled. If my enemies were willing to do it for me, all the better. The worst thing TKR and TCW could do is say "This behavior is not only acceptable, but we will defend you in peace negotiations too."

That is just dumb. And while I've been told nobody in GoG dodged (one person was quit the alliance a week before I was even aware of a war, another person went into VM weeks into the war, and a third person deleted a month into the war) I'd still want them kick-rolled even though we won. Quite frankly, if they fear our enemies more than reprisal for cowardice that's a problem. They should fear reprisal far more.

 

"But what if they had a good reason."

We shouldn't have to judge people's stories. Weigh stories against each other and say "We like your story more than his story so you won't get kick-rolled." I think the litmus test is pretty simple. If you went into VM or went to another alliance very soon after realizing there'd be a war or very soon after a war starting, you get kick-rolled. Period. Even if you had a nice story. Even if you had proof of your nice story. Because people need to understand that they won't be able to get out of it by ensuring they have a good excuse at all times. Which is something people could do. Or if they do want to do that, they should be in another alliance.

Edited by Ashland1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between people who dodged war, and people who had serious outside commitments and contacted their gov for permission. Not all VMers are war-dodgers.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Inst said:

There's a difference between people who dodged war, and people who had serious outside commitments and contacted their gov for permission. Not all VMers are war-dodgers.

I acknowledge there's a difference. I acknowledge that a very very small number of innocent people will be caught in the sausage grinder. I acknowledge that that is unfortunate. But I still believe it is necessary to preserve the integrity of the alliance going forward and to minimize as much as possible people doing that.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of these VM nations are likely banks or would generate income for taxes. I’m not convinced this is about some other purpose, or winning side would be expel & war their VM nations as well for dodging the war. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Noctis said:

Most of these VM nations are likely banks or would generate income for taxes. I’m not convinced this is about some other purpose, or winning side would be expel & war their VM nations as well for dodging the war. 

I 100% agree and if it becomes clear that anyone in GoG went into VM soon before or soon after the war began for *any* reason I would advocate as strongly as I could for their being kicked and rolled. I'm not in gov, but as a member who did his part and fought in the war that's what I'd believe. And I think it's a slap in the face to members who did their part to do otherwise.

If you don't have time to log in 3 minutes a day for months you shouldn't f***ing be playing, should you? So do the honorable thing. Delete and save us the gas and munitions.

Edited by Ashland1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashland1: it's different from your side and the losing side. On the winning side, you can just be vectored in by gov without having to worry about serious counter-attacks. If serious counters happen, reinforcements are further vectored in by gov on the attacker.


On the losing side, you just have no guarantee of that. If you want to fight seriously, you have to adjust your schedule, meet update, etc etc etc. The activity needed isn't as trivial as you claim when you're losing.

 

===

 

Likewise, I'll also point out. Good alliances are not merely there for PnW. They're also online communities that sometimes even do real life meet-ups. Alliances seriously will retain non-combat members who are too busy to play just to keep in touch and get cash off them. I'm aware that some alliances on your side utilized farms of semi-inactive players to help generate resources, helped by your 100% tax rate.

Edited by Inst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ashland1 said:

I 100% agree and if it becomes clear that anyone in GoG went into VM soon before or soon after the war began for *any* reason I would advocate as strongly as I could for their being kicked and rolled. I'm not in gov, but as a member who did his part and fought in the war that's what I'd believe. And I think it's a slap in the face to members who did their part to do otherwise.

If you don't have time to log in 3 minutes a day for months you shouldn't f***ing be playing, should you?

As long as you’re consistent on it, I don’t fault your view on it. Everyone should fight unless there is a special reason they can’t. Maybe make all VM nations from both sides come out for a round. Lol

Edited by Noctis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Inst said:

Ashland1: it's different from your side and the losing side. On the winning side, you can just be vectored in by gov without having to worry about serious counter-attacks. If serious counters happen, reinforcements are further vectored in by gov on the attacker.


On the losing side, you just have no guarantee of that. If you want to fight seriously, you have to adjust your schedule, meet update, etc etc etc. The activity needed isn't as trivial as you claim when you're losing.

 

===

 

Likewise, I'll also point out. Good alliances are not merely there for PnW. They're also online communities that sometimes even do real life meet-ups. Alliances seriously will retain non-combat members who are too busy to play just to keep in touch and get cash off them. I'm aware that some alliances on your side utilized farms of semi-inactive players to help generate resources, helped by your 100% tax rate.

Let's break this down:

1: I don't think it's different at all. Maybe losing is harder. But you can still at very least log in for three minutes and do something. Anything. With that bare minimum I will be satisfied.

2: Stop saying vectored. Jesus. F***ing tacticool speak is so dumb.

3: I'm all for redistributing resources from inactive players to active players. But if you go into VM for war you do more harm than good and shouldn't be in the alliance for any reason. Because other players will see they can get away with it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to remind everyone that this is a game and that pixel huggers are the most pathetic breed of humans in this game.  

The principle of the thing is; everyone would have been rolled and the winning side feels like the losers should force the VMers to have the same damage as the rest of the alliance.

 

Why are we still discussing this?  How petty are people over pixels?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how IQ does it, but I'd rather have nations in VM and butchered on their way out than having members who can't really fight for activity reasons get beaten down every time they rebuy. It's bad for warstats and it looks better to have non-combatants hiding in VM than to have non-combat capables just get raided throughout the war. Hell, there's a very simple reason these guys are going into VM. If you let them out, they impose a drain on alliance logistics, because they will need resupply to even be theoretically capable of fighting, and they will constantly leak resources out to opfor when they get inevitably beiged.

 

As far as tacticool speak, we are playing a war-game. If you are playing an FPS, you actually want to be around the people who talk about fireteams, suppression, center of gravity, defeat in detail, critical vulnerability, and so on, because they're likely to be the people who have actual infantry tactics training. If you are playing a simulator of planetary war, you'd want to be around the people who use the needed technical terms because their tactics are likely to be more than "imma go get a coalition 2 times my opfor's size and facesit them". Useful when you're winning, useless when you're losing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ashland1 said:

Yeah, I don't know what the arguing is about. Anyone who dodged should be kicked from the alliance and rolled.

I’m of a different mindset.  I don’t really mind if players VM, because in the end - this is their game.  And they’re stuck in VM for at least 2 weeks.

Pursuing them harder than necessary is what pretty much kills the game/community.  All for what?  To prove a point in a browser game?

Sure, I’ll be annoyed at war dodgers, and in repeat cases - I’ll most likely just Tax em 100/100 till they leave on their own.  As long as they’re not repeat offenders, then I don’t care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ho ho ho!

 

Santa Olafr is in town bearing gifts from Relic Entertainment.

 

Want to continue fighting? Hook up on Steam and shoot eachother to pieces in Company of Heroes 2. 🙂

 

https://store.steampowered.com/sale/coh2_giveaway_weekend/

 

You're welcome. Best of 365 to determine the peace terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Me personally on the Grumpy term... the point I'm hoping gets hit with that one is "if you are going to unflinchingly tie enough upper tier alliances together that you are effectively making an upper tier version of IQ, you should at least take ownership of the fact that you've done that rather than purport to be paperless."

It hasn't really been debated as far as I know, but that's where I'm coming from, at least. :P

 

We have 0 paper treaties which by definition makes us paperless, but I still have friends that I work with.  If i was interested in making an upper tier version of IQ, I would have talked to CoS/TCW/Test/Rose and any other upper tier alliance about allying up, but I didn't.  I work with people that have earned my trust and people I like to work with, its why Grumpy has very few ties.  I am also smart enough to know that we are a target if we have 0 ties with anyone, so I have no interest in making it easy to take us down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I see it as contradictory too.

Even so, it'd help clarify the stances of the three different sides in the coalition as well, so TKR and their allies will know what to expect come the future after the war and how to adjust their FA game.

I may discuss this verbally on my show, but there is (at least to me) a difference in how to approach alliances that are set forth in doing either "blanket damage" or "punishing legit dodgers".

For example:  If NPO, BK, TEst are pushing for blanket damage and Rose, Syndicate, CoS are pushing for punishing legit dodgers - then it would allow TKR and Friends to know exactly how to approach any of those alliances in the future if a conflict comes around and they're on the victorious side against them (Or what to expect if they're working alongside with them).

It would also let those sitting on the sidelines watching the expectations from these alliances as well.

 

Personally speaking, I'm awfully curious about how this will be settled.

Once again, no, the two motivations are not contradictory. If one sub-group of our coalition were demanding that Radiantsphere do one thing and another sub-group were demanding that Radiantsphere do a different thing, then they would be contradictory. Instead, our entire coalition is demanding that Radiantsphere do one thing that satisfies all our various goals.

While I'm not opposed to the alliances arrayed against Radiantsphere each indicating why they're in favor of the term regarding VM users, it doesn't change the immediate situation at hand: we have indicated a course of action that Radiantsphere can take which will satisfy the demands of each and every one of our coalition's constituent alliances, regardless of each alliance's respective motivations for making those demands.

TKR's present stance amounts to deflection. If TKR had said that it cannot agree to the VM term without knowing exactly why each alliance in our coalition demanded it, for their own future reference, that would be one thing. Instead, they incoherently claim that they can't agree to the proposed term or offer any counter term of their own without knowing which motivation - damaging VM users or punishing them - is the fundamental one. Obviously it's possible to reconcile those two motivations because we did it for them when we proposed the VM term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Edward I said:

If TKR had said that it cannot agree to the VM term without knowing exactly why each alliance in our coalition demanded it, for their own future reference, that would be one thing.

Instead, they incoherently claim that they can't agree to the proposed term or offer any counter term of their own without knowing which motivation - damaging VM users or punishing them - is the fundamental one.

Obviously it's possible to reconcile those two motivations because we did it for them when we proposed the VM term.

Wait, hold on.

This particular statement seems off.

If you're going to argue that your term isn't contradictory due to it reaching the same conclusion regardless of reason, then what's the difference with what TKR wants clarification from on it then?  Doesn't it end up reaching the same thing?

I'll agree that "incoherently" was used properly there, haha.  There was definitely some trouble during our talks too.  So I feel you on that one.  (Didn't @Nizam Adrienne state that TKR had a counter term though?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

I'll agree that "incoherently" was used properly there, haha.  There was definitely some trouble during our talks too.  So I feel you on that one.  (Didn't @Nizam Adrienne state that TKR had a counter term though?)

The "counter term" was essentially saying that they would evaluate the claims themselves and tell us who they deemed deserved to be reduced. We are supposed to trust that they will handle it and that all of the 50+ VM nations are legit. Given we have TCW gov in this thread remarking on how they are going to use those VM nations for their rebuild, our obvious denial of that has been vindicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

We have 0 paper treaties which by definition makes us paperless, but I still have friends that I work with.  If i was interested in making an upper tier version of IQ, I would have talked to CoS/TCW/Test/Rose and any other upper tier alliance about allying up, but I didn't.  I work with people that have earned my trust and people I like to work with, its why Grumpy has very few ties.  I am also smart enough to know that we are a target if we have 0 ties with anyone, so I have no interest in making it easy to take us down.

I appreciate the response, but here's where I'm coming from. TCW was on your side regardless. I know you also tried to make agreements with tC. So. Putting intentionality aside in why you got the people you did, it's still clear that you would have "your side" be at least Guardian, TKR, tC, Grumpy, and, via TKR, TCW/Tesla. That is a virtually unassailable, IQ-like upper tier grouping.

To counter it, we had to get the jump on you, use virtually every available alliance remaining in the political sphere, AND still initially lose.

Some elements of IQ claimed they didn't want to result in such a game-stifling grouping when they made IQ, but that didn't stop them from doing it.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

The "counter term" was essentially saying that they would evaluate the claims themselves and tell us who they deemed deserved to be reduced. We are supposed to trust that they will handle it and that all of the 50+ VM nations are legit. Given we have TCW gov in this thread remarking on how they are going to use those VM nations for their rebuild, our obvious denial of that has been vindicated.

Ah, yeah that would be tricky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

Wait, hold on.

This particular statement seems off.

If you're going to argue that your term isn't contradictory due to it reaching the same conclusion regardless of reason, then what's the difference with what TKR wants clarification from on it then?  Doesn't it end up reaching the same thing?

I'll agree that "incoherently" was used properly there, haha.  There was definitely some trouble during our talks too.  So I feel you on that one.  (Didn't @Nizam Adrienne state that TKR had a counter term though?)

In the strictest sense, I suppose the two motivations are "contradictory" in that they aren't the identical. However, that's not quite what Adrienne argued in here.

This first quote is the starkest instance of her claiming that our motivations are irreconcilable ("don't work together", in her words):

23 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

I believe I've already answered this question but if I was unclear, allow me to clarify. The issue isn't to do with money or pride. The issue is you're presenting two contradictory goals. Either you care about addressing war dodging culture and want to accept our offer to help you actually deal with legitimate war dodgers or you just want to damage everyone equally and you don't care whether they're real war dodgers or not. We can work with either one but those two goals, as represented by the term, don't work together and I'm not okay with letting you set a false precedent for war dodgers. By trying to push both goals, that's what this is turning into. 

Clearly they do "work together" and are reconcilable, since we presented a term that every alliance in our coalition agreed to regardless of their motivation for seeking it.

She laid out the rest of TKR's objections in prior posts:

On 12/3/2018 at 5:51 PM, Nizam Adrienne said:

Per that understanding, when talks first started and we were presented the terms document, our coalition accepted four of the eight terms nearly immediately. It wasn't until we reached discussion on the fifth term that we really started to have issues.

The term I'm referencing immediately starts off by insulting our members and directing what we do with "war dodgers". War dodgers have traditionally been defined by this community as individuals who have an established pattern of behavior in avoiding wars, either through VMing or deserting. This is something we all recognize as an issue in the community and, per that belief, we each have our own internal methods for handling war dodgers. Our issue with this term is that, given our knowledge and understanding of our members, we fundamentally disagree with the opposition that all of the members they specifically outlined in their terms were true war dodgers. If holding war dodgers to the same standard as their non-war dodging alliance mates was the goal, no research was done to determine if there was a historical reason to classify those members as war dodgers. Additionally, given that the opposition has accepted war deserters from our side into their alliances and sent messages to our members to try and encourage them to desert, we believed the perceived intent behind this term to be misguided and hypocritical. Based on that viewpoint and despite our feelings regarding the opposition's actions with our war dodgers/deserters, a counter to the term was suggested, which outlined our plans for dealing with our actual war dodgers. It ultimately got rejected.

This is a bit misleading.  We laid out our definition of "war dodgers", which can be referenced in the OP.  It is clear it was accompanied by research, the results of which can be found in Appendix II, which is referenced in the OP, although Ripper didn't quote the contents of it.  According to Adrienne, we're not using a definition of "war dodger" that is satisfactory to TKR.

On 12/3/2018 at 10:41 PM, Nizam Adrienne said:

This was one of the examples of the switching goals thing. I asked you all specifically which one was your goal - damage parity or making an example of "war dodgers" and I essentially got a non-committal "we're too big of a coalition, there are too many goals/expectations/intents" as a final response. First, Leo/Ripper stated that the goal was to get everyone under 1k infra, as Leo said above. When that was said, we thought we were starting to understand what it was you were looking for and were discussing it. Then, the next day, we get a different answer that one of the goals is "setting a precedent for strategic use of VM" or making an example of "war dodgers", which we have issues with for the reasons stated above.

As I've explained above and as both myself and others have explained in numerous posts in this topic, a variety of motivations is not the same as switching motivations.  While I'm sure it's frustrating and may even have been (understandably) confusing at first, we've repeatedly indicated that the variety of motivations for the VM term stems from the disparate composition of our coalition.

Quote

I can only speak for TKR when I say this but I was willing to discuss and work on something to address the damage parity/rebuilding concerns in spite of the somewhat silly implication that two 21-city nations with 1700-infra builds would be able to rebuild TKR. However, I will never agree to label the nations you wanted to call war dodgers as such, given their contributions to TKR over their time with us. They neither fit nor deserve the title. And your side's gibe that we can call them "war heroes" and the accompanying trolling rewrite of the term during the talks only reaffirms my point about your unwillingness to work with us.

If the label for the nations in VM mode was truly TKR's primary objection, I suspect they would have quickly arrived at the same alternative I did.  Assuming I'm wrong, I suggest they refer to those nations the same way I've referred to them here: VM users.

Quoted for reference:

53 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

The "counter term" was essentially saying that they would evaluate the claims themselves and tell us who they deemed deserved to be reduced. We are supposed to trust that they will handle it and that all of the 50+ VM nations are legit. Given we have TCW gov in this thread remarking on how they are going to use those VM nations for their rebuild, our obvious denial of that has been vindicated.

 

So, to directly answer your original question @Buorhann, the main substantive hangup TKR seems to have is the use of the term "war dodgers" in reference to the nations in VM. However, as I just pointed out, there's a pretty easy, pedantic way to remedy this, which is to refer to them as "VM users" (if TKR has a problem with even this, then I can't help them). Beyond that, they don't seem to have any substantive issues with proposed terms.

Per the top quote from Adrienne in this post, TKR is fine with either motivation - punishing VM users or dealing damage to them - individually, but not together.

Contrary to her claim, they're reconcilable in the form of the proposed VM term quoted in the OP.

The fixation on the term "war dodger" has no apparent relation to the coexistence of our coalition's dual motives - it can be addressed without establishing a sole motivation for the VM term and, per Adrienne, TKR isn't categorically unwilling to agree to terms explicitly aimed at punishing VM users.

Edited by Edward I
Grammar fixes
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Noctis said:

Most of these VM nations are likely banks or would generate income for taxes. I’m not convinced this is about some other purpose, or winning side would be expel & war their VM nations as well for dodging the war. 

 

5 hours ago, Ashland1 said:

I acknowledge there's a difference. I acknowledge that a very very small number of innocent people will be caught in the sausage grinder. I acknowledge that that is unfortunate. But I still believe it is necessary to preserve the integrity of the alliance going forward and to minimize as much as possible people doing that.

 

5 hours ago, Inst said:

There's a difference between people who dodged war, and people who had serious outside commitments and contacted their gov for permission. Not all VMers are war-dodgers.


All three of the above are true. Here is what I think the solution would be that makes everyone happy:

1. A cost must be paid for all war-dodgers.. intentional or not.

2. That cost can be paid by the war-dodger or the alliance collectively at their discretion. They know who has and who has not been a coward more than anyone and it should be at the discretion of the alliance of which the war dodger is a member as to who pays the toll, they collectively.. or the war-dodger personally.

This solves the dilemma of war-dodgers not being accounted for and allows the alliance host to treat the war dodgers on a case by case basis internally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

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