Jump to content

How long will this war go on for?


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Miller said:

Actually that would be when the pastries on your side decided to make this Knightfall lite. 

Yo @Sphinx when the frick did you become a pop tart? Better be wild berry or chocolate fudge.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Akuryo said:

Yo @Sphinx when the frick did you become a pop tart? Better be wild berry or chocolate fudge.

I agree with you on the wild berry, but Chocolate fudge? What kind of Bouggie ass frick eats chocolate fudge poptarts?

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Yo @Sphinx when the frick did you become a pop tart? Better be wild berry or chocolate fudge.

Oi..... I'm an Apple Crumble thank you very much.

Its also so I don't need to pack any food for the road, just break off an arm and have a gnaw.... It makes everyday much handier. (Pardon the pun). 

Edited by Sphinx
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

If by hide in the upper tier you mean sell 3.8 billion in infra and only buy planes to keep your NS low you are correct, you are hiding from us.  As for your military competence, the 3 dudes you sent after me last round (including yourself) you lost all your planes, one dude ran out of gas/munitions mid fight, and the last guy, that actually had me dead to rights, shot missiles and nukes at me.  You boys are at the top of your game.

My Infra was doomed anyway, it was a better use of our coalitions only mega whale (I'm 4 cities bigger than the next largest on our side, Who also happens to be a tCW member) if I dropped score and helped out people with suicide hits in the lower tier and mid tier, winning the war and helping my alliance and coalition allies is my main priority so I'm willing to make whatever sacrifice I must to ensure that happens. Not every hit has gone well for tCW, but knowing tCW is the only alliance on our side with any decent number of whales (Apart from a few guys in AK) with the capability to hit the largest in KERCHTOGG means that we've got a vital role to play, we adjusted our normal military start to run only planes because doing anything other than that would put us even more out of range of allied support and we want to be a useful addition to our allies, which was the whole idea of what I wanted when I originally said I hoped to "restore tCW's military reputation", since the rep I wanted to restore wasn't what war enemies thought of us (I don't care if they think we're trash). Instead the rep I wanted to restore was our reputation towards allies. Since in KF we fell apart and were pretty much a dead weight for Grumpy, TKR and Guardian. Since tCW is still remaining strong 2 months after this war started, our morale is rock solid and our member numbers are unchanged and infact grown slightly its safe to say we've had a massive improvement since KF, but more work is still needed but tCW is back in business. 

Edited by Sphinx
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Correct. Your actions make sense. It's your narrative that's a mess, because you keep trying to deny the simple logic. :P

Your governments "CB" for starting GW5 was based on nothing more than NPO sending out recruitment messages to their playerbases in NS and CN. At least the CB NPO is using is acceptable.

  • Like 2

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Malal said:

Your governments "CB" for starting GW5 was based on nothing more than NPO sending out recruitment messages to their playerbases in NS and CN. At least the CB NPO is using is acceptable.

Uhhh if you're talking about what I think you're talking about, you're wrong. But that doesn't surprise me, since you're you.

Edit: But I guess the fact that all you can think of is some crap from multiple years ago (about CN of all of things?) that is still wrong is a compliment, so thanks.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Haha 1

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Uhhh if you're talking about what I think you're talking about, you're wrong. But that doesn't surprise me, since you're you.

Edit: But I guess the fact that all you can think of is some crap from multiple years ago (about CN of all of things?) that is still wrong is a compliment, so thanks.

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/13348-a-quick-partisan-note-to-npo/&

This was your CB in case you forgot. A meme from PnW carrying over to CN and a (now deleted) recruitment message from NS NPO. Quite honestly the worst CB ever used, even no CB is better than that out of game drama bullshit.

You complaining about NPO's "bad" CB when you were part of the worst CB ever used in this game is honestly disgusting and the reason I'm bringing it up.

Edited by Malal
  • Like 2

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, while I'm here, I'll post a list of every CB used in a Great War (as well as a few other wars)

TC-TAC: leaked logs of coalition buildings
Hypocrisy: Fear of TC
GW1: Leaked plans to roll VE and then followup by rolling allies
GW2: Mensa raiding paragon allies to bait into a war
GW3: TC worried about leaked ts logs planning to hit them
GW4: Mensa raiding Rose allies again to try to bait into a war
TS/Test vs Alpha: Steve is a dumbass
GW5: NPO recruitment messages were a bit too hostile sounding
Mensa/TEst vs GPA: Neutrals have a ton of money
GW6: Fear of EMC
GW7: Leaks
GW8: [No CB]
GW9: EMC is too aggressive/big/threatening
GW10: More Leaks

Edited by Malal
  • Like 1

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

-blah blah blah-

That is quite possibly the most concentrated pile of bullshit I've seen out of you yet. Every sentence of that is logically invalid.

3 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

I have multiple times.

No, you've attempted to push your bullshit narrative multiple times, each time backing it up with complete fantasy.

3 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

There was a credible threat, and sitting and waiting by is something we'd have preferred not to have done. We expanded accordingly.

No, there wasn't; the only reason you could possibly have had to expand was to fulfill your paperless obligations to BK. Our coalition was even willing to let you get away with (ineffectually) hitting Guardian and Grumpy; if there was ANY form of threat from us we would not have been so insanely accomodating. We literally couldn't have been more cooperative or less hostile, but you shifted your own narrative and dunked on your actual paper allies' promises when it became clear that we weren't taking your bait. You know this perfectly well.

3 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

I've also stated the only logs that I do have are from folks who are trusted sources, and there are enough people in NPO government including Roq, who concur with the validity of the threat and hence we did what we had to.

There's no logs backing that up at all. There could not be any such logs because no such logs exist. Even I was arguing quite strenuously that I agreed with the general analysis of NPO's actions being bait and that we shouldn't attack NPO as long as N$O kept their word on not expanding the war.

Of course, you can't afford to believe that, so whatever. I'm just posting it here so there's a record of the actual truth.

3 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

I said there are those who've agreed and those who have not. Those who've heard us out entirely and know how we've operated and trust our word, know there are solely special circumstances when we act, and have agreed and there are those who like yourself, who do not.

Alright, I'll grant you that the people who "trust your word" agree with how you acted. Everyone that wasn't born yesterday though can plainly see that "special circumstances" means "paperless ties to BK" and not "phantom threat from a coalition that literally could not have been more cooperative".

3 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

It's not a blanket system, its the truth. People have agreed and people have disagreed, but thats how it is, and that is okay. 

It is in no way the truth, and it is not at all okay if people 'agree' with verifiably false facts.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean its one of the upper gov/high gov of TGH publicly posting it. I don't see anyone from TGH denying thats the prevailing opinion and then you had the Scarf meltdown on the OWF declaring that we should be disbanded etc. Neither Sketchy nor anyone else from TGH has taken those words back and their member(s) actions have continued pushing that narrative over here on the boards.

I legit denied it multiple times.  Last night on my show, and on my previous show before that.

I couldn't give a rats ass that NPO/BK are allied up.  I just find it hilarious that you guys went the distance on pointing fingers at TKR and Friends on maintaining secret treaties and here you are being hypocritical.

If your alliances want to jerk each other off, more power to it.  Just own up to it.  Don't be hypocrites about it.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

-snip-

It is quite funny how they're quoting Scarf/Sketchy's responses AFTER NPO entered the war.  Pretty sure a lot of us stated that we weren't coming for NPO before the war started.

 

But, y'know, there were credible threats or something.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

That is quite possibly the most concentrated pile of bullshit I've seen out of you yet. Every sentence of that is logically invalid.

I mean I'm quite certain every sentence is logically valid. Far more valid than claiming BK supports slaves. But I mean go on, teach me how to english senpai. 

 

5 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

No, you've attempted to push your bullshit narrative multiple times, each time backing it up with complete fantasy.

That's not true. There's no real fantasy over why we've entered. You can disagree with the reasons, does not make it a "fantasy" lol. 

 

5 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

No, there wasn't; the only reason you could possibly have had to expand was to fulfill your paperless obligations to BK. Our coalition was even willing to let you get away with (ineffectually) hitting Guardian and Grumpy; if there was ANY form of threat from us we would not have been so insanely accomodating. We literally couldn't have been more cooperative or less hostile, but you shifted your own narrative and dunked on your actual paper allies' promises when it became clear that we weren't taking your bait. You know this perfectly well.

I mean that is not true. We entered because we believed in TKR looking to roll us, and had people tell us the same. The question at the end of the day is how much trust/faith you place in the words of folks and in this case, the events made sense. We looked at how things played out and the options on the table and what could happen, and took the one we believe was our best choice. We spoke to tS/HS about it at length, but at the end of the day, we were threatened and took the best option to defend ourselves. 

 

5 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

There's no logs backing that up at all. There could not be any such logs because no such logs exist. Even I was arguing quite strenuously that I agreed with the general analysis of NPO's actions being bait and that we shouldn't attack NPO as long as N$O kept their word on not expanding the war.

Of course, you can't afford to believe that, so whatever. I'm just posting it here so there's a record of the actual truth.

No logs of what? My DM's with folks? Those exist, those were shared with relevant parties. I'm not burning friends for your pleasure. Those conversations that were in my DM's were shared and we ran a different set of arguments, looking at our options. Given that non-expansion of the war at that point was counter-productive for our safety, given the knowledge of TKR wanting to eventually swing around to hit us, made us act lol. I'm just posting how things were received by the NPO and how the information added up. 

 

6 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Alright, I'll grant you that the people who "trust your word" agree with how you acted. Everyone that wasn't born yesterday though can plainly see that "special circumstances" means "paperless ties to BK" and not "phantom threat from a coalition that literally could not have been more cooperative".

Lol. I wish I had a paperless tie to BK at this point just to troll you tbh. But the only agreement that was ever made was something discussed with Kayser on defending mini-spheres, regardless of whom. That went to shit when he went AWOL and seemingly didn't mention it to everyone involved when the sphere was being created. Lessons learnt :) 

6 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

It is in no way the truth, and it is not at all okay if people 'agree' with verifiably false facts.

Lol okay.

 

5 hours ago, Hodor said:

On the first paragraph, I believe I addressed it in my above response. For the rest, permawar and harsh terms are directly threatening to the existence of an alliance. While these threats have been made out right, we are not surrendering.

Which brings me to NPO. Again I agree with Thrax, logic doesn't mean what people think it means. You can act on incorrect assumptions and still be logical, and this is the argument we make. If the assumptions made by NPO were true, they'd be correct. They are not and are not founded on strong evidence, so we find the assumption lacking and cannot agree with the following assumptions.

I mean if you want to start peace talks, feel free to lay your terms to the appropriate parties. Aragorn/Sphinx have spoken what they'd like to have seen, but we're a coalition and at a coalition level is where the peace works. If you want a victory condition, it's quite straight forward. I've always considered operational control as the key factor to deciding a war. We have operational control and access to keep pushing up, while your coalition is on the backfoot, with far lesser number of planes, and definitely not destroying more planes than we're able to rebuy in a day. You aren't able to maintain the said control across the board. 

While the war is no way yet decided, seeing the trends, I do believe we can maintain operational control and ensure that your nations sit in the grinder for however long you wish them to be there. Given that GoB is sitting pretty and those whales are far too busy hiding from getting down to help folks, and that the only real number of nations left are about 20-25 in Guardian/GoB and about 8-9 coalition wide, its a valid assumption to make that we have the command of the commons as such within this war~ 

Our assumptions are not incorrect, as much as you'd wish them to be incorrect. There is no level evidence that you'd find acceptable given the fact that we are in the position of warring you. There is no PR to be found within KETOGG/Chaos for the NPO and none that we want either. We believed that TKR posed a threat, we received information regarding their intent, and we acted upon it. It's at the end of the day down whether I believe Adrienne with her word, and I do not. 

Akuryo asked earlier why I point to Roq agreeing with the information? From my dealings with him for the better portion of the last decade, he's probably the hardest individual I've come across when its dealing with information. Our gov has seen all of the information and it has been vetted and we are in agreement that there was a credible threat. It's not ideal when I had to tell them I don't have the specific logs of Adrienne but there is this information and looking at how the war was playing out, we believed it was credible. It wasn't the easiest decision to make, but I for one have zero regrets and do not believe our information was bad. 

5 hours ago, Hodor said:

In sum, we won't surrender, you won't end the war unless we surrender. I am open to any and all talks without precondition, which is not what is being proposed by the opposition, and as far as I am aware is not the united front of the opposition, just BK and TCW.

I mean I haven't seen any precondition here. We aren't interested in approaching y'all for peace yet, and you are content to continue the war, so I don't see where the question of peace arises at the moment. We're content to keep it going as long as you want it, and if you want to start peace talks, feel free to hit up the coalition through official channels. Given how there has been minimal discussion regarding peace and the conditions of it as a coalition wide level outside of jokes/troll terms, I find it weird to assume we have specific preconditions or have designed a set of terms (we have not done either iirc). With regards to the NPO's stance, I'll leave that for Roquentin to answer via the multiple communication channels you have to reach him. 

4 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I legit denied it multiple times.  Last night on my show, and on my previous show before that.

I couldn't give a rats ass that NPO/BK are allied up.  I just find it hilarious that you guys went the distance on pointing fingers at TKR and Friends on maintaining secret treaties and here you are being hypocritical.

If your alliances want to jerk each other off, more power to it.  Just own up to it.  Don't be hypocrites about it.

I haven't seen any of your denials up till this post. If you have posted elsewhere, I may have missed it, but up till this post, it seemed Sketchy's opinion on how to run the war was an acceptable position of TGH. 

NPO/BK do not do secret treaties. If I wanted a treaty with BK, I'd sign it. The only real relationship that exists between BK and the NPO at this point is that we are in the same coalition together ?‍♀️

3 hours ago, Buorhann said:

It is quite funny how they're quoting Scarf/Sketchy's responses AFTER NPO entered the war.  Pretty sure a lot of us stated that we weren't coming for NPO before the war started.

 

But, y'know, there were credible threats or something.

Let's break this down shall we?

1) Someone posted claiming we're toxic since Roq/Leo (specifically) were rooting for perma-war and disbanding alliances. I pointed out how that's false and the only leader to publicly state that was Sketchy here on the boards. 

2) If you're really trying to twist what I've said, try harder. I'd say Paksy has a better grasp of doing that, than you at this point. 

3) Yes, from TKR. Never once did we state the threat arose from TGH/KT/Empyrea. The original entrance on GoB/Guardian and the N$O plan hinged on fighting upper tier consolidation. Given what we heard from TKR, it became imperative for the NPO to expand, N$O disagreed but that was our call at the end of the day. There was a credible threat from TKR. You have not seen me mention threats from KT/TGH/Empy because I have not heard of any. What I have seen though is your leader calling to salt the earth and your member(s) calling for our disbandment. The latter is out of your control, the former like I mentioned above I haven't seen denied up till the post. Let me point you back to point number 1) as to why I brought up Sketchy, rather than trying to extrapolate an argument that does not exist ;) 

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CandyShi said:

That sounds suspiciously like “if you don’t agree with us you’re not listening”.

If you don't agree with us, that's your right. But did you first attempt to reach and have us explain things? If yes, then that's okay (even if you disagree with our motivation for the war). If no, continue with your circle jerk, I don't really need to respond to that :v 

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think the issue is, you don't want to believe us. We're standing our ground on the matter. We didn't expect you to agree with what we did. You had your own goals and us acting in what we perceive to be our best interest runs contrary to them. The problem is there are three possibilities: what is said by us is in good faith or I totally made it up  or we hallucinated it and it didn't happen.  The only positions I've seen most people on the other side earnestly take are #2 and #3 and in a partisan environment that's to be expected, but also means we don't have to be concerned as much with what those people think as it's a lose-lose and the other thing we learned is if they get an edge even if they thought the odds were initially against them they'll go for the jugular instead of not pushing their luck. 

The reason I didn't bother replying to Adrienne's post is 1. I stopped reading the topic after I posted the last time to avoid wasting further time on circular arguments. 2. It's pretty clear that the response would be that evidence was tampered with.  3. It ends up with two people who spoke with Adrienne and derived the same impression despite not having any ill will towards her at all having been the ones wrong as opposed to just Adrienne. I know who I'm inclined to believe. You're inclined to believe and your coalition chose to rally around TKR.  That was your decision.

Personally given the history of limited fronts, I was never inclined to believe there would be no retaliation and other people pointed out what had happened. So everything was reliant on a non-existent level of  trust, but it wasn't really the same as just thinking that it would be opportune to pursue a separate conflict when the main opposition was brought down and they would pursue a divide and conquer approach and get the big fish they were constantly antagonizing. No one would have taken the external posturing as non-hostile and the gladhanding last minute doesn't really count as removing any suspicion.  For me, knowing there was a goal of removing peripherals meant many actors would be left unoccupied and many were available to counter when we entered. They weren't all selling down or doing anything against Cov/BK.

On the secret treaties topic, you can see with all the exits and clashes that this wasn't a cohesive group from the get-go while coalition unity has been more or less 100% on the other side. When Arrgh did a bank robbery in the last war and CoA pointed out it was their money, no one gave a hoot  outside of their direct allies, us, and HS and the worst that happened was an inconsequential term was removed while they got all the money from the heist. In this war, Arrgh complied with their coalition's wishes.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Malal said:

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/13348-a-quick-partisan-note-to-npo/&

This was your CB in case you forgot. A meme from PnW carrying over to CN and a (now deleted) recruitment message from NS NPO. Quite honestly the worst CB ever used, even no CB is better than that out of game drama bullshit.

You complaining about NPO's "bad" CB when you were part of the worst CB ever used in this game is honestly disgusting and the reason I'm bringing it up.

 

Wrong. The cb was a the recruitment message specifically naming ts as an enemy in a political context of gradual consolidation of treaties among paragon, covenant and more recently, npo (who paired with alpha whom we'd had a falling out with and allied specific paracov majors/rivals of tS). 

 

The meme carryover was in bad taste but its not why we went to war. We went to war because we identified a very specific threat to our security. I'd say the cb was better than half we have seen in this world. 

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Hodor said:

As high gov, this is as good as stating permawar. This is one piece of why peace talks have not and will not happen in the foreseeable future. The other piece is this war is not yet decided. There has still not been any sort of description from the other side as to what their definition of victory is. We've submitted our narrative and it's relatively digestible. I am eagerly awaiting your metrics for how we are losing the war and will lose decisively. I think I've made it clear to at least one member of your coalition's high gov that I am for white peace, because the best we believe you can hope for is a draw, and a draw in 3 months.

Basically you are saying that you won't approach the defending coalition for peace. If you want to start peace talks, no one is hindering you from starting them. To be fair, decisively you guys just keep losing your whales one by one. At this rate there won't be anyone untouched on your side. So if you want to ignore the fact that we are sitting on 96.6% of your coalition, that's your problem. It's also a very naive response. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean I haven't seen any precondition here. We aren't interested in approaching y'all for peace yet, and you are content to continue the war, so I don't see where the question of peace arises at the moment. We're content to keep it going as long as you want it, and if you want to start peace talks, feel free to hit up the coalition through official channels. Given how there has been minimal discussion regarding peace and the conditions of it as a coalition wide level outside of jokes/troll terms, I find it weird to assume we have specific preconditions or have designed a set of terms (we have not done either iirc). With regards to the NPO's stance, I'll leave that for Roquentin to answer via the multiple communication channels you have to reach him. 

Literally these were posted in THIS thread mere posts above your own:

19 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

No you haven’t cause I haven’t said it. All I’ve said is we’ll go till the other side breaks. If that’s perma war then that’s up to your side. 

 

18 hours ago, Sphinx said:

Apart from some groups only seeking an agreement for themselves and not the entirety of KERCHTOGG no one has approached us for peace so it seems your side is willing to fight even in a war that its clear the outcome has been decided judging by the attempts of whales to hide in the upper tier and allow others to take the punishment. Your side is more than welcome to hit up Roq, Thanos myself or another leader and have a chat you'll find we aren't looking to "salt the earth" Sketchy style. There is no reason for us to surrender or offer white peace in a defensive war (Only Chaos can claim it was a pre-empt), we'll continue until your side comes to us and offers us terms. Some in your side might be like us in which they are no stranger to long wars, but many aren't and they'll want out sooner rather than later, if some alliances refuse to see the writing on the wall and know when its time to call it quits then that's their fault not ours.

I'll make the same statement I usually make. I'll assume you're arguing in good faith and eager and that's why you didn't actually read my post in detail. I made clear my stance and you seemed to miss that part.

As for operational control, I do think this is a good metric, thank you for presenting it. The counter argument I've made to this is two fold. Operational control *should* be reflected in the stats. If you are preventing military buildup, while still inflicting damage, you will be netting small gains in net damage. This is supported by what the stats show right now AND what we've been saying that you may have operational control but the rate at which you do damage once it's established is so slow that you won't flip damages for months, if ever. Additionally, in order to continue to exert operational control it requires a relatively large amount of effort and coordination that is also a drain on economic activity for both sides.

I've posed this to Roq and I'll pose it here. NPO entered due to fear of CHAOS/KETOG taking advantage of the fact that their whales lost their infra and they would use this advantage to hit NPO to minimize damage to themselves. You've pulled our whales (except the ones you actually wanted), so you've created the insecurity you were afraid of. Low infra whales with not much to lose who are able to thwart an all planes strat with ground and naval buys.

In sum (this is the important stuff), I don't expect to convince you of our narrative, and you shouldn't hope to convince me. We have our rationales for our actions. What's important is we understand that neither is talking out their ass and is engaging in dialogue in good faith. There are few people in this game's leadership that I know of that lack that ability, so I'm optimistic.

 

16 minutes ago, Khai Jäger said:

Basically you are saying that you won't approach the defending coalition for peace. If you want to start peace talks, no one is hindering you from starting them. To be fair, decisively you guys just keep losing your whales one by one. At this rate there won't be anyone untouched on your side. So if you want to ignore the fact that we are sitting on 96.6% of your coalition, that's your problem. It's also a very naive response. 

No. Your reading comprehension is lacking. I literally said " I am open to any and all talks without precondition" I'm not sure what is more clear than that? I'm not really sure what the word decisively is supposed to mean in this post...

I addressed the rest of your points above.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's ironic that Hodor is this eloquent. I doubt I'll be at the table, but if you guys are serious about a white peace message Sphinx and put forward your offer. It's unlikely this war will end without concessions because of how much antagonism was brought to the forefront, but perhaps those can be mutual. A sort of lose-lose, given neither side can let the other achieve total victory.

:sheepy: It's an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Epi said:

It's ironic that Hodor is this eloquent. I doubt I'll be at the table, but if you guys are serious about a white peace message Sphinx and put forward your offer. It's unlikely this war will end without concessions because of how much antagonism was brought to the forefront, but perhaps those can be mutual. A sort of lose-lose, given neither side can let the other achieve total victory.

:sheepy: It's an idea.

Antagonism begets antagonism, that much is obvious. If antagonism (concessions) is the the tool to discourage antagonism, we’re going to be stuck in the cycle forever.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hodor said:

I'll make the same statement I usually make. I'll assume you're arguing in good faith and eager and that's why you didn't actually read my post in detail. I made clear my stance and you seemed to miss that part.

I did not. I would prefer if you did not presume what I said, since it comes off as sanctimonious and cheapens your arguments. 

Sphinx, Aragorn and the operative portions of my rebuttal point to the same strain of logic. We aren't interested in opening peace talks, and are content continuing the war. If you want peace, send your terms through the official channels and the coalition will be alerted and respond as and when that offer is received. If the condition is we're not interested in peace, but if you are and hit us up, guilty as charged. 

3 hours ago, Hodor said:

As for operational control, I do think this is a good metric, thank you for presenting it. The counter argument I've made to this is two fold. Operational control *should* be reflected in the stats. If you are preventing military buildup, while still inflicting damage, you will be netting small gains in net damage. This is supported by what the stats show right now AND what we've been saying that you may have operational control but the rate at which you do damage once it's established is so slow that you won't flip damages for months, if ever. Additionally, in order to continue to exert operational control it requires a relatively large amount of effort and coordination that is also a drain on economic activity for both sides.

NPO has been net positive continuously since the 10th of July? The last couple of weeks, we've been killing roughly 5x planes of your coalition, in comparison to the planes lost by us. We alone have what the total plane count as your entire coalition and that is giving us control that you do not have. If the question comes to other military units, you may have a solid argument to make regarding that, but I'd say the fact that we have overall control and can switch builds and move into other into the other commons when we desire, gives us unrivaled control and a luxury your coalition does not have at the present moment. 

Operational control is not to flip damage counts. Firstly, that argument falls flat here because of the following reasons:

1) Given the damages done in Surfs Up and barely any rebuilding, that damage is something your coalition has eaten and hardly recovered from. Expecting us to cover that damage done is unrealistic and disingenuous, given there is nothing there to damage. 

2) Our coalition isn't looking to flip damages, since point 1) holds true. What we see is, if the damage done in Surfs Up is added to your damage eaten (given little or no rebuilding for the vast number of members of your coalition), we maybe behind, but not by the sums that you're going off. 

If 1) and 2) hold good, then we're taking about a few billion in damages that can be done, given we've reached nations on within KETOGG who didn't eat much damage during Surf's Up and therefore that's fresh damage, which gives us enough *actual* damage to flip the total damage done to your side. It may not have been done entirely by us, but that's what you get for trying to run two back to back wars. Damage has been done, you've eaten those losses, and we're nailing you down with more losses your sphere (KETOGG) specifically haven't eaten. 

That being said, our coalition does not consider the total damage metric as a sign of victory, unless you account for the damage you've already eaten during Surfs Up + the fresh damage this war has done, that gives you the best picture of the total damage your coalition has eaten and therefore the real economic terms of damage you've eaten. If all of that somehow still showcases 350 billion+ in a damage gap, I'd be surprised, but running the plain numbers off the top of my head, I don't think that would be the case. 

So even then by your own metric, given the real value of damage you've eaten, combined through these set of wars, you're at a far greater handicap. You may respond with the usual "upper" tier argument and I can partly buy that in the case of KETOGG, but Chaos/Rose can't really claim that, unless of course GoB is going to be funding all their rebuilds too, and you've officially moved into a single sphere format. If that's the case, it's fine, but given that we're able to damage GoB, it'll reduce their capabilities to do so, and in the long run, hurt them more than it'd hurt us, since we're basically hitting your piggybank at that point. 

tl;dr Operational control is all that really matters and given that we have that, we can continue pushing forward and you folks don't have the luxury of responding to the plethora of options available to coalition B. Even if you disagree with that premise, given the damages you've eaten since May, you'd have a far better picture of the real damage done to your coalition, and the gap between ours won't be so wide as you'd like to claim. Any additional damage we do over and above that starting point, is in essence covering the tiers you didn't have an issue with earlier, and that's a huge setback. 

3 hours ago, Hodor said:

I've posed this to Roq and I'll pose it here. NPO entered due to fear of CHAOS/KETOG taking advantage of the fact that their whales lost their infra and they would use this advantage to hit NPO to minimize damage to themselves. You've pulled our whales (except the ones you actually wanted), so you've created the insecurity you were afraid of. Low infra whales with not much to lose who are able to thwart an all planes strat with ground and naval buys.

NPO entered due to the credible threat of Chaos/TKR attempting to hit us, and we have no tools to keep them down if that happened. It isn't solely low whales with no infra. The insecurity you claim that we were worried of, is inherently false and based of your assumptions, that has no rational basis in our operational strategies. Low infra whales and dealing with them is something we've accounted for and don't mind. Your whales aren't thwarting much at this point, and given the extension of this war, it gives us time to switch focuses/strategies as we need to and that is a luxury we enjoy, that you do not. The command of the commons within this game is always important, and as long as we're able to maintain that, low infra whales would not be as big an issue as you seem to be implying. 

3 hours ago, Hodor said:

No. Your reading comprehension is lacking. I literally said " I am open to any and all talks without precondition" I'm not sure what is more clear than that? I'm not really sure what the word decisively is supposed to mean in this post...

I addressed the rest of your points above.

Again if the precondition is when you're ready for peace, send your offer over, then guilty as charged. If there are any other specific conditions, I have heard of none. I have seen Sphinx's screenshot regarding North Point, and he cleared that claim out here in this thread earlier. If you believe Aragorn's implying anything nefarious within his post outside of he's not really keen on peace or offering anything at this moment, but if you are, knock yourself out, feel free to bring those specific issues to my DM's' and that could be easily remedied. 

2 hours ago, Hodor said:

Antagonism begets antagonism, that much is obvious. If antagonism (concessions) is the the tool to discourage antagonism, we’re going to be stuck in the cycle forever.

I'd say the problem with that statement lies with your coalition in begetting this level of antagonism. We could have been better in answering the said provocations with lesser bravado and counter-threats but alas, when people are pushed with continuous threats of disbandment, rumours regarding reparations/breaking up spheres unilaterally/ punitive terms for some sort of revenge from Knightfall floats around, you wouldn't expect any good to come out of it. Just a couple of nights ago in the PnW discord channel, Akuryo basically flat out stated that the terms were going to be reps/ revenge terms from Knightfall on BK and co. Given that, and given when you were in a position of victory, to come out, with your very own leader calling for disbandment/salt the earth terms that have never really been denied up till last night by your 2IC and I imagine yourself, its hard to believe we'd have to be the "better" people. Like Roq said, when you were in a position of victory, your leaders publicly and privately have stated of wanting to go for the jugular. You have given us no reason to return those proclamations with good will and faith. 

Moreover, your own coalition has spent time gaslighting and posting OOC nonsense of NPO's Emperor, and given those individuals were enabled and promoted at some level by your very own coalition leaders, it's hard for me to suddenly find kindness in dealing with your coalition. If you want good will, it'd be best trying to build that good will with your opponents, rather than running a toxic and vile attempt at going after Roq in an OOC manner. Yes, the issue might have died down, and it has been a few weeks, but the actions of a few still sting, given in some sense it continued post the said video itself. So if you really want to cut the cycle of antagonism, holding your own coalition leaders to a higher standard would help. 

If there are grievances against Coalition B leaders, I'm all ears, and I can't promise changing their behaviour much, but sure as hell let them I disapprove of said behaviour. So I mean it works both ways, but here I'm pointing out the specific conditions and a small set of events that your specific coalition has carried out that is a huge sticking point, if you truly want to break this cycle, this a good starting point.

 

EDIT: Apologies for any grammatical errors you may find in the post.

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

 

Wrong. The cb was a the recruitment message specifically naming ts as an enemy in a political context of gradual consolidation of treaties among paragon, covenant and more recently, npo (who paired with alpha whom we'd had a falling out with and allied specific paracov majors/rivals of tS). 

 

The meme carryover was in bad taste but its not why we went to war. We went to war because we identified a very specific threat to our security. I'd say the cb was better than half we have seen in this world. 

The picture is gone, but TS was not named in it. It was a generic "enemies of npo" type deal.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
27 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I did not. I would prefer if you did not presume what I said, since it comes off as sanctimonious and cheapens your arguments. 

Sphinx, Aragorn and the operative portions of my rebuttal point to the same strain of logic. We aren't interested in opening peace talks, and are content continuing the war. If you want peace, send your terms through the official channels and the coalition will be alerted and respond as and when that offer is received. If the condition is we're not interested in peace, but if you are and hit us up, guilty as charged. 

NPO has been net positive continuously since the 10th of July? The last couple of weeks, we've been killing roughly 5x planes of your coalition, in comparison to the planes lost by us. We alone have what the total plane count as your entire coalition and that is giving us control that you do not have. If the question comes to other military units, you may have a solid argument to make regarding that, but I'd say the fact that we have overall control and can switch builds and move into other into the other commons when we desire, gives us unrivaled control and a luxury your coalition does not have at the present moment. 

Operational control is not to flip damage counts. Firstly, that argument falls flat here because of the following reasons:

1) Given the damages done in Surfs Up and barely any rebuilding, that damage is something your coalition has eaten and hardly recovered from. Expecting us to cover that damage done is unrealistic and disingenuous, given there is nothing there to damage. 

2) Our coalition isn't looking to flip damages, since point 1) holds true. What we see is, if the damage done in Surfs Up is added to your damage eaten (given little or no rebuilding for the vast number of members of your coalition), we maybe behind, but not by the sums that you're going off. 

If 1) and 2) hold good, then we're taking about a few billion in damages that can be done, given we've reached nations on within KETOGG who didn't eat much damage during Surf's Up and therefore that's fresh damage, which gives us enough *actual* damage to flip the total damage done to your side. It may not have been done entirely by us, but that's what you get for trying to run two back to back wars. Damage has been done, you've eaten those losses, and we're nailing you down with more losses your sphere (KETOGG) specifically haven't eaten. 

That being said, our coalition does not consider the total damage metric as a sign of victory, unless you account for the damage you've already eaten during Surfs Up + the fresh damage this war has done, that gives you the best picture of the total damage your coalition has eaten and therefore the real economic terms of damage you've eaten. If all of that somehow still showcases 350 billion+ in a damage gap, I'd be surprised, but running the plain numbers off the top of my head, I don't think that would be the case. 

So even then by your own metric, given the real value of damage you've eaten, combined through these set of wars, you're at a far greater handicap. You may respond with the usual "upper" tier argument and I can partly buy that in the case of KETOGG, but Chaos/Rose can't really claim that, unless of course GoB is going to be funding all their rebuilds too, and you've officially moved into a single sphere format. If that's the case, it's fine, but given that we're able to damage GoB, it'll reduce their capabilities to do so, and in the long run, hurt them more than it'd hurt us, since we're basically hitting your piggybank at that point. 

tl;dr Operational control is all that really matters and given that we have that, we can continue pushing forward and you folks don't have the luxury of responding to the plethora of options available to coalition B. Even if you disagree with that premise, given the damages you've eaten since May, you'd have a far better picture of the real damage done to your coalition, and the gap between ours won't be so wide as you'd like to claim. Any additional damage we do over and above that starting point, is in essence covering the tiers you didn't have an issue with earlier, and that's a huge setback. 

NPO entered due to the credible threat of Chaos/TKR attempting to hit us, and we have no tools to keep them down if that happened. It isn't solely low whales with no infra. The insecurity you claim that we were worried of, is inherently false and based of your assumptions, that has no rational basis in our operational strategies. Low infra whales and dealing with them is something we've accounted for and don't mind. Your whales aren't thwarting much at this point, and given the extension of this war, it gives us time to switch focuses/strategies as we need to and that is a luxury we enjoy, that you do not. The command of the commons within this game is always important, and as long as we're able to maintain that, low infra whales would not be as big an issue as you seem to be implying. 

Again if the precondition is when you're ready for peace, send your offer over, then guilty as charged. If there are any other specific conditions, I have heard of none. I have seen Sphinx's screenshot regarding North Point, and he cleared that claim out here in this thread earlier. If you believe Aragorn's implying anything nefarious within his post outside of he's not really keen on peace or offering anything at this moment, but if you are, knock yourself out, feel free to bring those specific issues to my DM's' and that could be easily remedied. 

I'd say the problem with that statement lies with your coalition in begetting this level of antagonism. We could have been better in answering the said provocations with lesser bravado and counter-threats but alas, when people are pushed with continuous threats of disbandment, rumours regarding reparations/breaking up spheres unilaterally/ punitive terms for some sort of revenge from Knightfall floats around, you wouldn't expect any good to come out of it. Just a couple of nights ago in the PnW discord channel, Akuryo basically flat out stated that the terms were going to be reps/ revenge terms from Knightfall on BK and co. Given that, and given when you were in a position of victory, to come out, with your very own leader calling for disbandment/salt the earth terms that have never really been denied up till last night by your 2IC and I imagine yourself, its hard to believe we'd have to be the "better" people. Like Roq said, when you were in a position of victory, your leaders publicly and privately have stated of wanting to go for the jugular. You have given us no reason to return those proclamations with good will and faith. 

Moreover, your own coalition has spent time gaslighting and posting OOC nonsense of NPO's Emperor, and given those individuals were enabled and promoted at some level by your very own coalition leaders, it's hard for me to suddenly find kindness in dealing with your coalition. If you want good will, it'd be best trying to build that good will with your opponents, rather than running a toxic and vile attempt at going after Roq in an OOC manner. Yes, the issue might have died down, and it has been a few weeks, but the actions of a few still sting, given in some sense it continued post the said video itself. So if you really want to cut the cycle of antagonism, holding your own coalition leaders to a higher standard would help. 

If there are grievances against Coalition B leaders, I'm all ears, and I can't promise changing their behaviour much, but sure as hell let them I disapprove of said behaviour. So I mean it works both ways, but here I'm pointing out the specific conditions and a small set of events that your specific coalition has carried out that is a huge sticking point, if you truly want to break this cycle, this a good starting point.

 

EDIT: Apologies for any grammatical errors you may find in the post.

Now you need to hope they can understand all this, I'm betting they can not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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