Jump to content
Ripper

Global War Peace Terms - Discussion

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

Our side doesn't care if they're legitimate or not. Same damage for all.

33 minutes ago, The Mad Titan said:

"Burn them all, TKR will know their own"

3 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

For me, maybe not everyone, the point of enforcing VM-ers selling off infra is because is to send a message that you can't hit that VM button and come out unscathed.

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.

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.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/2/2018 at 11:21 AM, The Mad Titan said:

Wheres my money, punk.

These aren't punitive at all lol. Just because your side wants to protect deserters doesn't make everyone else evil. 

We haven't enough offensive slots to occupy you all.  Sorry.

We'd like to, but we can't accept your surrender.

Was there anything else?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 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.

We're a group of collectives. Those collectives have different goals, and even inside of those collectives there are different goals as well. There's more than one reason behind it, and depending on whom you ask you'll get a different reason. In the quote of mine you have I even said "for me, maybe not for everyone". It's the main reason I'm in favor of it. If you ask me why, that's what you'll get. If you ask someone in IQ you might get "so you all take x damage" etc.. etc.. 

 

36 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

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.

You can call them whatever you like. The classification is irrelevant, they're under the same blanket regardless. As I previously stated whether the VM was legitimate or not they're all subject to the same result. Since there is no differentiation between actual dodgers and the ones you don't wish to see labled as such, there's no need for a differentiation is our classification of them; the result is the same. It'd be like saying all people who have last names starting with the letters A-M get $50 and all people who have last names starting with the letters N-Z get $50. We're just saying all people who have last names starting with A-Z get $50 because there's no reason to separate the two as they are beholden to the same outcome. 

It is your alliance, you are free to keep them at war as long as you want to protect yourself from labeling those nations as war dodgers. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, 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.

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.

Pre touched on this but with such a diverse coalitions you will have many different reasons for certain actions, that term is a coalition term that reflects its will. So while many people may have different reasons for why  they want it, they all want it nonetheless. 

The "War Heros" remark was simply a facetious comment on the excessive E-Lawyering occurring in the peace talks. At the end of the day it doesn't matter why they didn't fight only that they did not take damage they would have otherwise taken. You are completely right in that it is your responsibility to find the real ones, but that doesn't excuse the legit ones from taking no damage in a war.

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

We haven't enough offensive slots to occupy you all.  Sorry.

We'd like to, but we can't accept your surrender.

Was there anything else?

So war dodging is cool now?  At least for the losing side?

This seems to resemble something...  like every other bloody time people cry out about people VM'ing, just this time people are following through on their threats.  Good for them all.

Share this post


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

So war dodging is cool now?  At least for the losing side?

This seems to resemble something...  like every other bloody time people cry out about people VM'ing, just this time people are following through on their threats.  Good for them all.

Kid, you're clearly too young for this game, so why don't you go right on ahead, delete your nation and crack the colouring books back out for yourself.  Let someone who got the reference respond.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2018 at 1:42 PM, Prefontaine said:

Snip

 

On 12/4/2018 at 5:37 AM, The Mad Titan said:

Snip

When I first heard the peace terms I was 100% opposed to any peace and I still am (If our peace representatives choose to accept them, I'll respect that wish but my own thoughts on this peace are so follows)

I've got no problem with Article's I - IV, but Article's V on-wards are complete rubbish.

I'd like to tax the war-dodgers for as many days as they spent in VM not fighting, now obviously you don't want this as it will go to help our rebuild. So instead of writing elaborate posts trying to explain this "logic" behind your reasoning you could've just summarised it as your side wanting to inflict as much punitive damage on our sphere as possible, whilst hiding behind a veneer of "punishing the war dodgers", and breaking our so called "monopoly". Additional many of the so called "War-Dodgers" are in VM for legit reasons, I understand that you wouldn't know the exact details of why a person is in VM, but to tar all of those in VM as "war-dodgers" isn't acceptable. From tCW's perspective with -$45b in net damage we've been pushed down the stairs and now you just want to stab us to make sure we're as dead as we can be.

Likewise Article VI is probably the most illogical article in the entire "peace treaty", as its babysitting IQ for when they make mistakes. If Alex ok'd the bot then stop complaining and just maybe you should teach people to double check their trades. I've personal messed up trades and had others take advantage, but what I do in that case is message the person to see if they would be willing to refund both parties, if not (entirely within their rights to choose to not refund them) then I must eat the loss. 

Article VII is probably the most egregious of all, since you don't get to choose our FA paths and whomever in our sphere chooses to sign or not sign with. 

And that Arrgh article is also garbage. If you hit us in a pirate raid expect a response which may or may not include assistance from other alliances in our sphere. I'd really like to know what kinda drugs the person was on who wrote that article.

 

Edited by Sphinx
Typo
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if losing, I would consider anything past Article 1 & 2 unacceptable. So would kill any chance of me joining the alliances getting rolled if they’d actually accept terms like this. I would reject the terms on there being to many requests without needing to read them all if I was a leader on the side being offered these terms 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of you guys seem to not understand the point of a winning a war.

The fact that IQ can and should exercise greater vigilance in trading isn't relevant. They were part of a force which won an absolute victory over your side, if this were EU4 it'd be 99% warscore, only because 100% here is impossible. Alex might allow the bot, but he also allows alliances to make whatever peace terms they want. You're in fully within your rights to refuse a refund, but IQ is within theirs to take whatever action they desire against you for it, including this. So I say to you what you say to them; get over it. This time you're the ones who lose and get screwed over, deal with it. It's no less unfair than the bot is.

The part about arrgh isn't saying you can't counter them. It's saying you, specifically TKR, cannot constantly and endlessly Target arrgh unless arrgh is raiding them. Kinda like Polaris is doing to me now. I have no offensive wars, theyre just bored and figured I gave then trouble before so why not. That's what that article addresses. I don't honestly think you can in the good faith you're all talking about say you don't get their preference to not be mercilessly hunted down for a perfectly valid playstyle that doesn't harm the game a bit. If you honestly think that crap about VM nation's is punishing I have to wonder why this has gone on for 8 months. 

 

Frankly I view all of this as weaksauce anyway, as I am thoroughly with shifty on the subject of peace terms in general, beyond this war.

Edited by Akuryo
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one issue with this game which isn’t really IQ’s fault is almost everyone not aligned with IQ had a losers mindset. So it’s either join IQ or just keep losing; since nobody not aligned with them thinks beating them is possible. 

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Alot of you guys seem to not understand the point of a winning a war.

The fact that IQ can and should exercise greater vigilance in trading isn't relevant. They were part of a force which won an absolute victory over your side, if this were EU4 it'd be 99% warscore, only because 100% here is impossible. Alex might allow the bot, but he also allows alliances to make whatever peace terms they want. You're in fully within your rights to refuse a refund, but IQ is within theirs to take whatever action they desire against you for it, including this. So I say to you what you say to them; get over it. This time you're the ones who lose and get screwed over, deal with it. It's no less unfair than the bot is.

The part about arrgh isn't saying you can't counter them. It's saying you, specifically TKR, cannot constantly and endlessly Target arrgh unless arrgh is raiding them. Kinda like Polaris is doing to me now. I have no offensive wars, theyre just bored and figured I gave then trouble before so why not. That's what that article addresses. I don't honestly think you can in the good faith you're all talking about say you don't get their preference to not be mercilessly hunted down for a perfectly valid playstyle that doesn't harm the game a bit. If you honestly think that crap about VM nation's is punishing I have to wonder why this has gone on for 8 months. 

 

Frankly I view all of this as weaksauce anyway, as I am thoroughly with shifty on the subject of peace terms in general, beyond this war.

I understand quite clearly that we lost this war, and it was good fun regardless especially fighting Rose who did very well in locking many of us down in perma blockade cycles. Yes IQ has every right to want to take action but once again they cannot force TKR to remove their bot much like any of our sphere cannot be forced into doing something by your coalition. While I'm not in the peace talks, if our negotiators want to walk away like they've done once before or come back to the negotiating table then they have my full support regardless. 

TKR doesn't endless target Arrgh, only when Arrgh harasses its members or its allies members does Arrgh get rolled. If they expect to be given a free pass whilst raiding others with impunity with the knowledge that a counter from TKR members will only come if TKR is hit, then they are wrong. 

Share this post


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

I think one issue with this game which isn’t really IQ’s fault is almost everyone not aligned with IQ had a losers mindset. So it’s either join IQ or just keep losing; since nobody not aligned with them thinks beating them is possible. 

How much of a noob are you? This is literally the first war NPO or IQ has ever won. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I understand quite clearly that we lost this war, and it was good fun regardless especially fighting Rose who did very well in locking many of us down in perma blockade cycles. Yes IQ has every right to want to take action but once again they cannot force TKR to remove their bot much like any of our sphere cannot be forced into doing something by your coalition. While I'm not in the peace talks, if our negotiators want to walk away like they've done once before or come back to the negotiating table then they have my full support regardless. 

TKR doesn't endless target Arrgh, only when Arrgh harasses its members or its allies members does Arrgh get rolled. If they expect to be given a free pass whilst raiding others with impunity with the knowledge that a counter from TKR members will only come if TKR is hit, then they are wrong. 

One thing I hated in BC is they would let Arghh off the hook for attacking members, when I always thought a full counter offensive would be best policy. Maybe TKR might be more my kind of alliance, lol

3 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

How much of a noob are you? This is literally the first war NPO or IQ has ever won. 

Then I don’t see why everyone fears them so much who’s not already fighting them, lol

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


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

One thing I hated in BC is they would let Arghh off the hook for attacking members, when I always thought a full counter offensive would be best policy. Maybe TKR might be more my kind of alliance, lol

Attacking Arrgh is somewhat like the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, it could cost you a lot more than you would gain from dealing with them. So whenever Arrgh hits we just roll the attackers only. This is mostly for the normal odd raid here or there. But if they launch of bunch of simultaneous raids that's when I think you should fully roll them, as you don't want to kowtow to pirates as they make you a regular target.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe I should join Arghh then, lol. Attack who I want, with pretty much no consequences . XD

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


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

Then I don’t see why everyone fears them so much who’s not already fighting them, lol

 

I mean everyone hates IQ? :P Like thats the usual prevailing topic at hand 90% of the time lol.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Maybe I should join Arghh then, lol. Attack who I want, with pretty much no consequences . XD

Got nothing against Arrgh personally as they are pirates its what they do, (And they're good at it too) and its annoying when you or your friends are being raided by them. But if someone is stupid enough to allow a successful raid (Providing it wasn't due to circumstances beyond their control) then they deserve to be looted. Cough Polaris, @Akuryo

Raiding just isn't my play style but Arrgh are still a good alliance as they do shake things up and keep the bankers and hoarders on their toes. But if you're good at the pirate's play style then you can certainly make a motser with doing coordinated raids. Ripper, Boyce and Bluebear can certainly tell you how lucrative raiding Plebs is.

Edited by Sphinx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

 

I mean everyone hates IQ? :P Like thats the usual prevailing topic at hand 90% of the time lol.

Is is impressive you guys are winning so effectively despite that & everyone who hates you guys sit on their hands doing nothing until taken out individually. Keep it up & you guys will win the game. Lol ;)

  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

 I'm not going to dive through 40ish cases of VM to determine which are legitimate or not.


 

While I agree with your other points, I would just like to point out to you that it wouldn't just be you looking through those cases but instead, several, both from your side and TKRsphere, since they are likely to investigate why their own members VM'ed during the war too. 

 

No hard feelings, just pointing out that the logistics of figuring out who legitimately VM'ed would be relatively simple.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways, anyone opposed to IQ & calling this war Global; I’ll have no sympathy for if they get rolled later with no assistance. I think all of them will have brought it upon themselves & shouldn’t expect help when it’s them getting rolled. 😛

  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 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.

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.

I think that the "intentions" part has been discussed a lot already, so I will skip it. The reason we also added the option for war-VMers to sell their infra was to cover all options and let your side have another way out of letting your members get hit. We understand that you may not want OoC non-war-dodgers to just sit there and get hit by others. So, we just added the selling infra option.

The thing that I still cannot understand is this, at least for TKR:

If you have 2 nations at 1,700-infra builds in VM, what's the reason they cannot sell their infra and then get rebuilt (or not, if you don't think they deserve it)? Why are you against this option exactly? Does it have to do something about pride (e.g. you don't want others to "make" your members do anything, no matter how little, that is against their or your will)? Does it come down to the fact that you want to save that little infra as you say and don't want to pay for their rebuild?

What's the reason you cannot accept getting nations to sell down to an X ammount of infra and then insta-rebuild?

I think that's the question that has been dodged more than it should. The same way you are asking about our intentions I think it's fair to ask for yours.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Term you guys have free reign to attack them & they can’t respond I would consider even more of a deal breaker. Not a real peace deal if attacks can continue imo

  • Downvote 5

Share this post


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

Even if losing, I would consider anything past Article 1 & 2 unacceptable. So would kill any chance of me joining the alliances getting rolled if they’d actually accept terms like this. I would reject the terms on there being to many requests without needing to read them all if I was a leader on the side being offered these terms 

You reject terms because there's too much to read?

 

You realize this is a text based game, right?

 

You realize that the politics part comes from reading, right?

 

I weep for any alliance that might have you as gov.

 

vRw9I9e.gif

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Prefontaine said:

You reject terms because there's too much to read?

 

You realize this is a text based game, right?

 

You realize that the politics part comes from reading, right?

 

I weep for any alliance that might have you as gov.

 

vRw9I9e.gif

To many terms, I don’t like a huge laundry list of terms to go through just for peace

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


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

To many terms, I don’t like a huge laundry list of terms to go through just for peace

I mean it's not really any different than each alliance in the coalition having their own term associated with their respective peace deals. What apparently is too much for you is that they are all grouped together in one document instead of a dozen different ones.

  • Like 1

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.