Jump to content
Ripper

Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

I think theres a cultural issue with regards to peace terms, and that is folks don't seem to like losing tbh. Wars are won/lost, and thats the point of the politics. Take your defeat, move on, the rest of the terms in Orbis today revolve around joke terms and/or pranks. None of the terms are designed in such a manner that have been repressive from what I've seen, and are enforced to completely destroy or neuter an alliance comprehensively.

 

Nevertheless, it adds a valid political process, which can lead to better outcomes, both internally and externally. I mean a bunch of members of our present coalition, have paid reps, had infra caps and treaties to be nullified, including previous peace agreements, and wars have ended much sooner. Especially when folks were willing to work within the political process to achieve an outcome. Take the defeat, find a mutual point on the peace process which does not involve the constant changing of minds, and continuously negotiating in bad faith, and you wouldn't be here. The problem really isn't with the idea of peace terms for the most bit tbh. 

I've seen NPO refuse a peace offer for weeks and even months holding out for better terms several times both in this world and in others.  And be a lot more stubborn about it than most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you're trying to outstubborn someone you've acknowledged as extremely stubborn? Or is it the hope that the opposing coalition will fall apart soon? As is, the total war damage is 250bn (ignoring infrastructure) on your side of the coalition, not including damage inflicted by players that have just quit. TKR proper has lost 40% of its members (to the alarm of some contacts on the opposing side of the war). Where exactly is TKR-sphere's red line? When you dropped to 89 (94 including VM), you definitely dropped below my red line for acceptable damages. Or is your intent to keep this war going until you disband, in a sort of "improved dolphinplan"?

 

I'm starting to worry that you have no exit strategy in the event that you break before the opfor breaks. I was hoping you'd be able to reach 29bn in net damages soon so that you could have "peace with honor", but at some point your resistance goes from "heroic" to "suicidal". I sincerely hope that, if you begin to approach the point where resistance becomes impossible, you have a plan for making sure that TKR and its allies survive in the long-term.

Edited by A Boy Named Crow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

TKR is now down to 89 members on the main AA. This represents roughly a 40% loss from pre-war numbers. If they were to peace today, I wouldn't be surprised to see them at 75 members within 2 months, or even less.

Shhh they're catching up, we're almost out of resources, and T$, IQ, and CoS are all ready to fight each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2019 at 4:47 PM, Edward I said:

I fundamentally disagree. Peace terms are an essential part of the bridge between politics and wars. Without delving into the fact that, yes, TKR has had a hand in imposing terms on numerous alliances in the past, your basic premise is wrong for two main reasons.

1) Wars establish or reinforce grudges and rivalries.

The Mensa-Rose rivalry is probably the most famous so far, and it was built in part on peace terms. Rose signing a treaty with Mensa had more significance because of the $1 billion in reparations Rose paid Mensa when it surrendered in the Silent War.

A lot of the Article III terms were added because alliances in TKR's coalition successfully imposed similar terms on alliances in our coalition in the past.

The Article IV terms are about rivalries in naming color blocs. No one is going to go to war over the name of color, but that doesn't mean that Acadia, TCW, SK, and TKR aren't slightly annoyed that their preferred color names aren't always chosen.

These aren't bad things. They make politics more interesting. I don't know if there's evidence to support your claim about driving players away, but there is evidence that public arguments like these are the most politically engaging parts of the game for most players. Consider this: the two topics with the most views and the most replies in Alliance Affairs are this one and Rose's Surrender from the Silent War, which is where NPO and BK had a 30-page argument about the reparations BK was trying to (and did) impose on NPO.

2) Peace terms are the most reliable way to establish and enforce informal rules.

The precedent on reparations, for example, is that only aggressors should be forced to pay them. This was the case in the Great VE War and in the Silent War, and was cited as a justification for reparations in both.

The terms surrounding Arrgh after UPN defeated them, after Syndisphere defeated UPN's coalition a few months later, and in Article VIII here are attempts to curtail or protect Arrgh's brand of piracy. Arrgh's success - and, by extension, the viability of full-time raiding - is partly built on Arrgh's ability to make major alliances willing to help Arrgh via peace terms.

The terms in Articles V, VI, and VII are our coalition's attempt to set precedents regarding war dodging, trade bots, and secret treaties. Article V has a partial precedent in Rose's surrender in the Silent War - Belisarius and Oblige were subjected to additional wars because Rose's opponents felt they hadn't been damaged enough. Trade bots aren't illegal, but we dislike them; so, we're trying to get rid of TKR's bot. Exposing GOB's charade about being "paperless" is in keeping with both traditional and paperless alliances' conception of treaties: regardless of their formality, we feel all treaties should be made public.

Part of the reason for the war was the power that TKR-sphere derived from bloat - massive warchests from bloated nations that hadn't fought a difficult war in years; power from maintaining treaties off the books with GOB, t$, or others despite public claims that they'd removed their FA bloat by "cancelling" most of their EMC treaties. If it's somehow unacceptable for our coalition to alter this status quo with peace terms, why was it acceptable for TKR-sphere to engage in these practices in the first place?

 

The solution to displeasure with the current political dynamic is to change it, through force if necessary. The solution isn't to say that we should remove political consequences from wars, especially since wars are fought to address problems other than those posed by unchecked military power.

I do think one important distinction between the wars you're referencing, and this one, is that in those wars, the loser was the aggressor, and wanted pre-mature peace before our side had a chance to take out their whales through submarine warfare (this was at a time when our side was outnumbered about 3:1 in the upper tier). In the wars that did not end in white peace, the additional terms were essentially in exchange for sparing their whales' infra and tanks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH at this point I am tired of hearing the big egos over on one side blaming the big egos on the other side as the reason there's no peace. Both sides are equally to blame for the lack of a peace. one side refuses to accept white peace cuz they want the other side to bend over and take in the you know what... the other side claims whatever.... in the mean time you see more and more people either zeroing and sitting it out, CMing or just leaving the game in disgust over the whole sorrid mess. both sides, swallow pride, take a white peace and move on... TKR side got their asses kicked yay for IQ side (it only took 5 ot 6:1 odds for you to do it), IQ side, you got what you wanted, TKR dethroned, be happy with that and move on. You have all the top spots now, be happy with that -- But noooo.. both sides are all like

004.jpg

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you know how coalition peace deals work. It just comes off as the whole 'why cant we just nuke the people we don't like' schpiel. Uninformed and naive

There is a wide range if grudges in play here, from the trade bot, to mensa, to non-true paperless alliances. A white peace isnt going to resolve those issues. In all honesty, TKR would be wise to accept the terms as they are, to resolve the the grudges where the can rather than further inflame those grudges. But I'm just from an irrelevant micro, so what do I know.

Edited by Spectral

Share this post


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

I do think one important distinction between the wars you're referencing, and this one, is that in those wars, the loser was the aggressor, and wanted pre-mature peace before our side had a chance to take out their whales through submarine warfare (this was at a time when our side was outnumbered about 3:1 in the upper tier). In the wars that did not end in white peace, the additional terms were essentially in exchange for sparing their whales' infra and tanks. 

I'm not sure which wars you're referring to, since as far as I know you've always been in Guardian, and this is the first war in years where Guardian hasn't fought in a coalition with overwhelming upper tier superiority.

If the only terms you're talking about are reparations, then you're right. The Great VE and Silent Wars were lost by the aggressors, and are the only instances I'm aware of in which anyone received monetary reparations. But peace terms in general have definitely not been restricted to losing, aggressive coalitions. And, in the sense that these terms are designed to address things that can't or aren't being addressed purely by war - terms to deal with VM usage, secret treaties, etc. - they actually represent a continuity, not a break, with the past terms you brought up.

Share this post


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

I'm not sure which wars you're referring to, since as far as I know you've always been in Guardian, and this is the first war in years where Guardian hasn't fought in a coalition with overwhelming upper tier superiority.

If the only terms you're talking about are reparations, then you're right. The Great VE and Silent Wars were lost by the aggressors, and are the only instances I'm aware of in which anyone received monetary reparations. But peace terms in general have definitely not been restricted to losing, aggressive coalitions. And, in the sense that these terms are designed to address things that can't or aren't being addressed purely by war - terms to deal with VM usage, secret treaties, etc. - they actually represent a continuity, not a break, with the past terms you brought up.

I mean, their own allies attempted it in the last war lol. Just because we managed to get out of it doesn't mean they didn't try to impose terms as an aggressive coalition upon us.

They certainly weren't dropped out of compassion or empathy towards not enforcing terms on a side on the defensive side of a war.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I mean, their own allies attempted it in the last war lol. Just because we managed to get out of it doesn't mean they didn't try to impose terms as an aggressive coalition upon us.

They certainly weren't dropped out of compassion or empathy towards not enforcing terms on a side on the defensive side of a war.

Definitely such magnanimous victors! Joke term and admission of defeat. Definitely not the TKR and friends standards whatsoever. They’d have gotten away with it too if it wasn’t for the dreaded sheep and his crew!

 

I mean it’s just funny TKR folk are giving us a lecture on acceptable terms when for the past three years or more, they’ve supported and written and enforced similar terms on a consistent basis. But do go on, it’s fun to watch your continued lectures. 

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

I'm not sure which wars you're referring to, since as far as I know you've always been in Guardian, and this is the first war in years where Guardian hasn't fought in a coalition with overwhelming upper tier superiority.

 

Didn't their coalition have upper tier superiority when Knightfall started?

Edited by Dane Hunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dane Hunter said:

Didn't their coalition have upper tier superiority when Knightfall started?

Roughly equal in upper tier, they were superior in whale tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's talking about when they fought Rose/Paragon, and Rose and friends had like 10-15 nations with a 3-4 city advantage on Syndisphere's biggest guy so that's what he's referring to.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

He's talking about when they fought Rose/Paragon, and Rose and friends had like 10-15 nations with a 3-4 city advantage on Syndisphere's biggest guy so that's what he's referring to.

We were outnumbered around 120-60 in the upper tier and 40-10 in the whale tier by ParaCovenant during those wars (Proxy War, Oktoberfest, 168 Day War, NPO's First Time) and were still outnumbered in the upper tier during Silent War although not quite as much.

ParaCovenant lost their upper tier advantage because Rose joined our sphere, most of VE's upper tier left to form Grumpy and were joined by several of UPN's upper tier, others joined Pantheon and GPA where they got rolled, and others fell behind because they had to rebuild their alliances' mid tier, took heavy damages themselves, or didn't manage their growth properly, and some quit the game.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a hundred days. This is the largest, most costly, longest war anyone has seen in PnW. Why has peace not been achieved yet? I'm not asking for six month peace treaty. I don't understand why this war is continuing. Have I missed an important detail? Is TKR just that stubborn and won't accept they've been blasted out of the water?

Some of the proposed articles are a little rough, yet that can't be the only reason Knightfall continues. Let me farm my pixels without worrying about another nuke blowing me up. Here's a picture of my dog so no one can say mean things to me. What evil fiend talks crap when there's a dog?

 

picture.jpg

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TKR is just stubborn. So stubborn they'll happily kill their ally over it. TCW is on track to reach 70% member loss, by admission of TCW itself.

That's not fat trimming, that's hacking off limbs. They're staying in the war for you, partly because if they left separately they may lose their allies, and they'd die from that. Ironically at this rate staying by your side is what will end them.

This whole fat trimming thing is a really old  and shitty face saving measure. Inst a few days ago said TKR was at 40% loss. Counting your red and purple inactives out, it's actually more like 50%. Those are some serious wounds, and 70% is a look at ones mortality.

Honestly the fact they have allies at all after this is ridiculous. You're just dragging the corpse around and becoming one yourself.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Who are you, Tulles?  How long have you been around in the game?

What a bully. 

4 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

TKR is just stubborn. So stubborn they'll happily kill their ally over it. TCW is on track to reach 70% member loss, by admission of TCW itself.

That's not fat trimming, that's hacking off limbs. They're staying in the war for you, partly because if they left separately they may lose their allies, and they'd die from that. Ironically at this rate staying by your side is what will end them.

This whole fat trimming thing is a really old  and shitty face saving measure. Inst a few days ago said TKR was at 40% loss. Counting your red and purple inactives out, it's actually more like 50%. Those are some serious wounds, and 70% is a look at ones mortality.

Honestly the fact they have allies at all after this is ridiculous. You're just dragging the corpse around and becoming one yourself.

 

 

I don't see why any of us should complain about an alliance choice to let themselves die.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

What a bully. 

 

I don't see why any of us should complain about an alliance choice to let themselves die.

For a variety of reasons that shouldn't be hard to see, but I overestimate people here all the time so I'm not surprised.

Surely major, active alliances committing suicide and hemmoraghing active players is not a bad thing at all, no siree Bob. Well, once active, the suicide has made them fall off the face of the Earth.

Oh and of course when their suicide is done such a way as to screw over the entire game by freezing it around their asisine act of self destruction, that too sounds bad. 

Some people also care about shitting on Takes would-be Noble attitude with their own hypocrisy, or anybody's attitude for that matter.

You wanna commit suicide with your alliance do it quietly and internally like every trash micro. Don't freeze the whole game over it.

 

Share this post


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

For a variety of reasons that shouldn't be hard to see, but I overestimate people here all the time so I'm not surprised.

Surely major, active alliances committing suicide and hemmoraghing active players is not a bad thing at all, no siree Bob. Well, once active, the suicide has made them fall off the face of the Earth.

Oh and of course when their suicide is done such a way as to screw over the entire game by freezing it around their asisine act of self destruction, that too sounds bad. 

Some people also care about shitting on Takes would-be Noble attitude with their own hypocrisy, or anybody's attitude for that matter.

You wanna commit suicide with your alliance do it quietly and internally like every trash micro. Don't freeze the whole game over it.

 

That's iconic. 

Your side can take white peace and end it. But you're also not putting that as an option. 

Put your ego aside and also note that both parties are equally contributing to the horrible meta atm. 

Don't bully micros, they're always competent 😞 

Share this post


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

TKR is just stubborn. So stubborn they'll happily kill their ally over it. TCW is on track to reach 70% member loss, by admission of TCW itself.

That's not fat trimming, that's hacking off limbs. They're staying in the war for you, partly because if they left separately they may lose their allies, and they'd die from that. Ironically at this rate staying by your side is what will end them.

This whole fat trimming thing is a really old  and shitty face saving measure. Inst a few days ago said TKR was at 40% loss. Counting your red and purple inactives out, it's actually more like 50%. Those are some serious wounds, and 70% is a look at ones mortality.

Honestly the fact they have allies at all after this is ridiculous. You're just dragging the corpse around and becoming one yourself.

 

The amount of damage I'm doing has only been increasing in the last couple months as I'm fine tuning my strategies, and Guardian's activity has also gone up in the last couple weeks. At this point my weekly net damages are about 5x what my weekly income was before the war. 

I'm curious to know why you devote so much time to arguing why TKR should surrender. You seem really pressed about the fact that they haven't.

2 hours ago, Akuryo said:

For a variety of reasons that shouldn't be hard to see, but I overestimate people here all the time so I'm not surprised.

Surely major, active alliances committing suicide and hemmoraghing active players is not a bad thing at all, no siree Bob. Well, once active, the suicide has made them fall off the face of the Earth.

Oh and of course when their suicide is done such a way as to screw over the entire game by freezing it around their asisine act of self destruction, that too sounds bad. 

Some people also care about shitting on Takes would-be Noble attitude with their own hypocrisy, or anybody's attitude for that matter.

You wanna commit suicide with your alliance do it quietly and internally like every trash micro. Don't freeze the whole game over it.

 

Are you saying that IQ are frustrated at the fact that we haven't surrendered but just don't want to admit it for fear of looking soft? I just don't understand what you're getting at. Alliances not involved in the war can feel free to go on about their business.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

You wanna commit suicide with your alliance do it quietly and internally like every trash micro. Don't freeze the whole game over it.

 

No one is freezing the game from this war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

No one is freezing the game from this war.

Yes when most of the active game is at war for 100 days everything proceeds as normal as if no war were there.

Except that it doesn't. 

 

Also how the hell is a 13k infrastructure TCW nation the second highest net income wtf XD

Edited by Akuryo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spheres unaffected: TGH-KT bloc, VG-bloc.

 

Arrgh can be said to be partially unaffected because they're in permanent war.

 

So the longer this war goes on, the more TGH-KT will be in expansion mode, and VG to a lesser extent given VG's smaller size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 10:01 AM, Justin076 said:

Going on February and this war from October still ongoing? What a fricking pathetic disgrace all sides of this war are. Like seriously? Four fricking months? This is setting a terrible precedent for the future of this game. People talking about this game getting a second life but holy shit this is probably the lowest of all time. People who complained about a 6 month nap, well how about one side of a global sitting on the other for four months. IQ/Syndi(not all of Syndi cause I know some want out) suck a dick. TKR/TCW, swallow your pride and accept terms because you’ve been clearly beat. 

 

*waits for movement from bobber, places rod in holder and cracks a beer*

Not only they should accept the terms but even the awards that they're currently denying and hiding. I think it's best for both ends to meet in the middle. Don't you say? 👿

Edited by Madden8021

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.