Jump to content

How long will this war go on for?


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Well I was told your motivation for the war was GOB from the get-go by Prefontaine. There were specific issues there. I wasn't aware that even you personally had been briefed on the arrangement between Partisan and I as it was made before you were brought in, so I only really figured it out when you said closing the gap wasn't your motivation behind the war. I had the nasty surprise that interest in fighting upper tier alliances had been actually limited and the war was sold to people as fracturing IQ. This is also why I've had skepticism towards everyone's positive intentions since if a good chunk of people only wanted to fight upper tier nations to break up IQ, would they ever do it again? It didn't look to be the case.


Knightfall began when I returned, INH brought me back with the intention to reform TEst with the specific goal of taking down TKR. I originally wanted to do that by teaming up with TKR and possibly pulling them away from their allies, bring them over to the evil side of things and let become the villain I hoped they'd be. Would have been a more interesting way doing things, but highly unlikely. So when that didn't produce any results I started looking at allies who would want to take down TKR. CoS was the first ally in that. Ripper and I talked in vague terms about "taking down those whom had never lost". That was his goal from the beginning. Ripper didn't care too much about the post-war plans much, similarly with TEst. We even talked about having a fight between ourselves sometime after the goal was completed. The sides which cared the most about the post war climate were yourself, and Partisan even more so. Partisan had the requirement of IQ, BK-NPO ties specifically being a thing of the past post war. CoS and TEst were just there to see the side which had never lost, lose. Thus, we offered IQ and tS-sphere whatever they needed to get the job done and work together with us on this. The final idea was NPO, to help foster a more positive political climate post war would break off from BK, sign tS and keep one or two of their smaller allies along with tS keeping one or two allies and create a new sphere. During this formative phase TEst and CoS would protect this new sphere. However with Partisan being a key piece of this plan as only 4 people knew of it and then retiring abruptly, that plan sort of fell to shit. Combine that with my departure from a meaningful existence around here and TEst's near merging into CoS and Knightfall itself dragging on for far too long, the plan became very muddied.

 

When you say the war was sold as "fracturing IQ", that was only part of it. It was creating a new political world where the sphere which had been strangling power for the last 2 years was badly beaten, and the bloc which had strangled the power in the mid-tier was scattered. To have this world both things needed to happen. The toppling of the EMC remnants came with the war, the fracturing of IQ was a political condition -- specifically of Partisan/tS -- that made rolling TKR sphere possible. 

 

One of the first conversations you and I had about taking down TKR was along the lines of "Do you want me to hand you the game?" TEst and CoS (see: Ripper) were of a similar mindset. We didn't care who won the political maneuvering side of the war, we just wanted to fight TKR and their allies with a chance of getting a win. The politics of things were up to Partisan and yourself, honestly. We were just providing the opportunity for a new political dynamic to take hold in the game.

 

tl;dr Ripper didn't have any intentions in Knightfall outside of beating TKR and their allies. 

  • Upvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Kastor said:

@Roquentin you might’ve missed this

Oh, probably Oblivion then. I also want to get to addressing Akuryo's post.

I mostly meant I don't trust the alliances to not take advantage of vulnerability and we never got the assurance directly they wouldn't use the power vacuum created by BK getting steamrolled or that they had any goals in addition or besides rolling BK that would avoid the anticipated shift to us. Usually on other topics some have people that are willing to level with people like Keegoz, Hodor, Zevfer,  Kev/Charlie, Sketchy and Abbas sometimes  and others. I usually wanted to believe Adrienne on stuff but there was always something that muddied the waters with her. Has it all been a bunch of coincidences? idk. Even Manthrax can be pleasant to talk to on the right topic. :P

 

1 hour ago, Akuryo said:

Around 800-850 nations was the peak strength of KERCHTOGG iirc, while for BKsphere it topped out at 1500. 

I'll try this myself for our side to get an accurate picture of what we both see.

Rose - 72
TKR - 105
KT - 65
TGH - 40
CoS/Val - 49
SK - 28
Soup - 51 (Unproven) No offense Soup bois, but Fark ain't the same as a global :P
Total:410

 

I left out the micros on our side plus Empy et Ming. Not they're all useless or get in the way, but, rightly not much was expected given their tier being solidly BKsphere controlled. Empy has fought in prior wars before but they're not really the old Roz Wei, and i know there's plenty on both sides who question their actual ability. For that bit of grey area, add 39 or don't to the total. Ming is less of a grey area, their government has the 'spark' if you will but it hasn't connected to their membership fully, and this i feel leads to combat performance below what should be expected.
I also left out Guardian and Grumpy, this because a significant portion of both alliances were not particularly combat relevant after the initial blitz knocked out enemy upper tier.

I think this is a fair assessment of your side's capacity. Maybe a quarter of Guardian would count as well.  It's just the peak of BK was a lot less permanent in terms of who'd stay in/be viable. One side is mostly alliances tied into a sphere/bloc and the other had a lot that weren't.

 

Quote



Painted this way, the numbers definitely don't look nearly as bad. There's a horrendously blatant skill and experience gap, as well as that aside from Soup, all those alliances average around the 20 city mark, while a large number of Coal B alliances are at around 16. 


However i still don't characterize this as entirely fair for many reasons. This war has proven some alliance to be more useless than expected but also proved the opposite. TSL was an absolute nobody micro, and yet, learned basic discipline very rapidly while under fire. NP entered 3 days after being couped and needing help to fuel it's WC, but then managed to both neutralize an enemy alliance and survive multiple counter attacks it had no business at all surviving against.

I use these two examples for a reason. One, obviously, it makes me feel better about myself. ;):P

But the second is that ineffective micros are, frankly, a result of their protectors. NPO became the protector of TSL mid war and the effects of that were rapid, significant, and very obvious. Rose also took a very keen eye to heavily aiding gov training in NP, particularly before it was couped, training that may have been focused on members from SCP, but that absolutely benefitted those who remained to go to NP after the coup.

The conduct of these two protectors resulted in micros who, despite the lack of any expectations for them, proved absolutely capable of holding their own, even if they needed material support to fund it. So while our charts do help add another dimension of thought to the picture, it's still inaccurate to not include everyone. If one side has alot of crap micros who can't, won't, or haven't learned; that's the fault of their protectors. If one pays for the mistakes they make, then these protectors paid for theirs when these micros became a severe hindrance to their war effort. OFA comes to mind with its protectors UPN and Acadia, though Amon is certainly a... special sort of case. If they refuse to learn, though, they should have been dropped, and that in itself too, is a mistake by the protector.

 

So yes, KERCHTOGG had the advantage in tiering and experience, both coalition wise, and in a side-by-side with the capable alliances of Coal B. However, it is the alliances of Coal B's own fault if 2/3 of their number were little better than meatshields, and stayed that way. I think it's been proven that meaningful growth and change can be achieved even while under fire, if a protector is unwilling or unable to provide this, it should be questioned if they are ready to protect others just yet.

Well North Point has experienced players like you and Anneal and it's small enough where one on one men mentoring is feasible so a turn around was viable. I"m not sure of many turn arounds like that. Usually the thing is, most micros don't turn it around and that's why we had a lot of issues with people like Axis Accord/OFA/Sox Shop/GPC where they couldn't do much or hurt the cause, which KERCHOGG didn't have.

It's usually to some extent permissiveness, but it's hard to tell when people will react well under pressure and dropping mid-war is usually too late. GoG  had to get tough on TAA despite them doing well early on, but they made every effort to fix it before dropping.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ripper said:

> SRD gets mad CoS rolled him and stole his TKR-toy, so hits CoS after that war.

To say that CoS rolled us a bit of a stretch, to say that your entire coalition rolled us would be more accurate.  Also I didnt mind the getting rolled part, I knew we had it coming and we gave your side our best shot.  What pissed me off was the bullshit reps you guys pushed afterwards.  I will also admit I was pretty annoyed that you got TKR to downgrade its allies tho.

But you did me a favor, and gave me an enemy to focus on, and games like this are more fun when you have an enemy.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Oh, probably Oblivion then. I also want to get to addressing Akuryo's post.

I mostly meant I don't trust the alliances to not take advantage of vulnerability and we never got the assurance directly they wouldn't use the power vacuum created by BK getting steamrolled or that they had any goals in addition or besides rolling BK that would avoid the anticipated shift to us. Usually on other topics some have people that are willing to level with people like Keegoz, Hodor, Zevfer,  Kev/Charlie, Sketchy sometimes  and others. I usually wanted to believe Adrienne on stuff but there was always something that muddied the waters with her. Has it all been a bunch of coincidences? idk. Even Manthrax can be pleasant to talk to on the right topic. :P

 

I think this is a fair assessment of your side's capacity. Maybe a quarter of Guardian would count as well.  It's just the peak of BK was a lot less permanent in terms of who'd stay in/be viable. One side is mostly alliances tied into a sphere/bloc and the other had a lot that weren't.

 

Well North Point has experienced players like you and Anneal and it's small enough where one on one men mentoring is feasible so a turn around was viable. I"m not sure of many turn arounds like that. Usually the thing is, most micros don't turn it around and that's why we had a lot of issues with people like Axis Accord/OFA/Sox Shop/GPC where they couldn't do much or hurt the cause, which KERCHOGG didn't have.

It's usually to some extent permissiveness, but it's hard to tell when people will react well under pressure and dropping mid-war is usually too late. GoG  had to get tough on TAA despite them doing well early on, but they made every effort to fix it before dropping.

Aye, that is true. Even still, experienced players have failed before due to the same unwillingness to learn as many micros, i was very nearly one myself.

Though in defense of your point, we've spent this entire war with 3x more command staff than Rose has while being 1/4 the size, so i suppose it should be expected. :P

I still believe it can be done though, and i intend to try it myself soon enough. Perhaps if i fail i'll be convinced, but i suspect i'll merely pin it on myself and try again.

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

3 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

To say that CoS rolled us a bit of a stretch, to say that your entire coalition rolled us would be more accurate.  Also I didnt mind the getting rolled part, I knew we had it coming and we gave your side our best shot.  What pissed me off was the bullshit reps you guys pushed afterwards.  I will also admit I was pretty annoyed that you got TKR to downgrade its allies tho.

We got TKR to downgrade its allies? News to me!

5 hours ago, Roquentin said:

The rest is kind of redundant since you started from a misunderstanding, but Keshav himself was specifically told last summer by another alliance involved that an old leader was brought out of retirement to take part in  the KT/TGH negotiations. I didn't concoct the story and was also told at the time by someone who had interacted with that person that they had intentionally stirred up discord internally to kill the treaty talks as well.

I can confirm this. I have the logs for this lying around in my DM's. I'll go find them tbh. But yeah given that any real concrete talks with TKR led to Azaghul's sniping here on the boards, followed by Kayser's immediate demotion/leaving TKR, didn't leave us much to go on. If it was "trust" in TKR's word, at that point in time (a year or so ago) there was none. Any goodwill/trust was built up later in the year that seems to be a waste of my time given I was interested in changing things up. 

What's news to me is the sudden backtrack by Ripper with his reasons for entering KF and trying to place the blame on Roq. We had no secret agreement with BK. We were up front with the entire tS gov during negotiations that we sure as hell would not support a rolling of BK at the end of IQ, given how we were literally breaking apart a security blanket for BK, and leaving them weaker in the sense right after building a lot of hate from KF. We were clear we aren't throwing them to the wolves, given the history and the moves Curu specifically undertook in 2017. 

What that did not rule out is future conflict if it arises, and the natural decay of BK-NPO's relationship and different wars. Just not this one straight out the end of IQ's split. If you think that's a lie, there's an entire server filled with those chats, that the entire tS gov was a part of when we were discussing creating this bloc, despite Partisan's withdrawal from tS and the game and that it would have to be a process started from scratch. 

But I like how we're being blamed for everything so far. I guess we are the centre of your universe ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

SRD joined a bloc after its course had already been plotted.  If you're saying all of KETOG rolled out against Chaos so SRD could get revenge on you, then I'm impressed SRD got that out of Keegoz.

"Ri/Manthrax joined a bloc after its course had already been plotted. If you are saying Chaos formed so SRD could get revenge on you, then I'm impressed Ri/Manthrax got that out of the rest of us." 

As I said, try to be consistent with your spins, else it gets pointless.

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Nope. It wasn't just him and it's not hating. It's more that it was something you were willing to do conditionally so you felt entitled. I really hate that I had to do this but that's not what I got here.

fCTgD1DK.JPG

Not sure what you hate you did. If you are talking about throwing logs, I am 100% fine with that. I never asked you or t$ to hide anything and I never hid my agenda. And, apparently, it may shock you, but I am not cryptic as most of the leaders playing this game.

Not sure what you don't understand from the "a reason" part. IQ splitting was a great bonus. So, it was one more reason for us to roll with it, without any fear of you doing to the game exactly what you are doing right now. I see nothing contradictory.

As I said, your statement doesn't add up:

> Did TEst/CoS strart planning? Yes.
> Was IQ-NPO one of the first alliances to join? Yes.
> Did TEst/CoS accept you joining the war based on certain conditions imposed on you? No.
> Was t$ waiting to join the war till they got assurance from you you would split? Yes.
> Would we have started the war regardless? Yes, since what we cared about mostly was not t$ joining but t$ fighting against that (and that was secured it would happen)

So, from a timeline point of view, your whole arguement that TEst/CoS accepted you (!!!) to paticipate in Knightfall 2 months before the start of the war because you made an agreement with Partisan a few weeks before the war makes 0 sense. As you say: "Two different timelines".

I mean, seriously, I don't get it. What do you imply? That if you hadn't agreed on the t$ thing, TEst/CoS would kick you from the coalition? Or that TEst/CoS would cancel the plans they've been working on for months? I think you see both scenarios are ridiculous.

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I'm not resenting Partisan at all since he was upfront but the fact that other people felt they were entitled to things and weren't involved in the discussions between him and I but feeling we had an obligation imposed was something else. Pre was also there and he told me way later on that if we didn't split, he'd ally Guardian but then he also acknowledged the deal was dead when Partisan quit.

The only "obligation" you had post-war, was to follow-up with the "deal" you've made with Partisan, Pre and I, and as I've proven/said, that was independent of the war. Even if the war hadn't happened, I would still go with it. What I was giving in the deal was making my alliance non-paperless for the first time in order to protect two alliances that I wouldn't necessarily profit from in the future (needless to say that's a lot to ask from our members). What you were getting was a chance for something new, since you supposedly wanted new people to work with, turn a page, etc. etc. And what Partisan wanted was a strong ally and to break the fronts of the game to something new and non-repetitive (that's where his interests alligned with Pre's and mine).

Like Pre, I never said you were "obliged" to follow-up after Partisan quiting. It's right there in the logs you threw:

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

fCTgD1DK.JPG

"I am ok with starting from scratch." / 
"I want to trust you." / "I want to work with you in that front." / "I won't hide my agenda from you."

I don't know what else you could ask from an non-allied-to-you alliance with no past history of cooperation. I followed up with all of my statements. As I said, CoS has to prove nothing to anyone. After all we've done for the game and your community (I care more about your members than the alliance per se) to help, and after sympathizing with your partial external political isolation, I will be honest, I am shocked when you accuse CoS of hating you/plotting agaist you/ using you or whatever.

We've been talking (you and me specifically) for literally months for the war and your future plans, and the only thing you do is going ahead and pretending I don't exist just to prove how CoS is not nice towards you. The only things you have to say is how Manthrax who isn't a leader since May-June 2018 doesn't like you or The Covenant, or how Bezzers that became leader during this war also had issues with you while he was in AIM.

At least you remembered the above logs you threw. And thanks for posting them, further proving my points and how as an alliance we've been following a straght line based on sincerity, being open to work with others, and trusting them about their motivations.

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Um, we didn't hit GOB initially and I was worried about people being in range of them through high score and that ruining the other fronts. I don't think i ever said we shouldn't hit GOB at all if it was viable. I'm trying to find where I was scared of getting GOB into the war, but I don't think I'd have been worried aside from people fighting Guardian getting wiped in  the process.

Well, I also am not "scared" about anything. I just have "worries". That's the way I will put it from now on. Thanks for worrying for us though.

Edited by Ripper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

To say that CoS rolled us a bit of a stretch, to say that your entire coalition rolled us would be more accurate.  Also I didnt mind the getting rolled part, I knew we had it coming and we gave your side our best shot. I will also admit I was pretty annoyed that you got TKR to downgrade its allies tho.

Your aren't wrong. That was just a small jab to tease you. It's a common secret we actually love each other and were never planning to fight each other. The last two wars between us are just a plot to throw ash to the eyes of the public in order to make them think that the high-tier nations fight each other. Either that or a plot that is based on what NPO will have for breakfast or what their future plans are. :v

Quote

What pissed me off was the bullshit reps you guys pushed afterwards. 

I never pushed reps. I pushed fun terms even if other members of the coalition wanted actual reps.

That's what I hate about you. You have no humour. This relation cannot go on.

Quote

But you did me a favor, and gave me an enemy to focus on, and games like this are more fun when you have an enemy.

From a player's point of view, I am happy about you feeling like this. Honestly. ❤️

 

 

Edited by Ripper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I didn't say he formed a bloc to kill NPO. I said he didn't like NPO and partially formed the bloc because he was upset with other coalition members.  I said it was a reason we had to be suspicious of CoS motives though. 

Well I was told your motivation for the war was GOB from the get-go by Prefontaine. There were specific issues there. I wasn't aware that even you personally had been briefed on the arrangement between Partisan and I as it was made before you were brought in, so I only really figured it out when you said closing the gap wasn't your motivation behind the war. I had the nasty surprise that interest in fighting upper tier alliances had been actually limited and the war was sold to people as fracturing IQ. This is also why I've had skepticism towards everyone's positive intentions since if a good chunk of people only wanted to fight upper tier nations to break up IQ, would they ever do it again? It didn't look to be the case.

I didn't say that part either. There are limited numbers of groups they could engage. 

Well the official reason given to me was boredom but I'd say it's also partially because they didn't get sufficient buy-in for the BK war. The DoW also had a call out that implied  that they though Chaos would be up for a "fun war' and "everyone else could learn a lesson", so it was an effective call out to us for not hitting BK.

---

I understood you've been travelling and eating rodents but a lot of the stuff we're talking about has been repeated a ton though this post will have some new content introduced for the first time. :P

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Ripper said:

> Roq: "SRD is one person. He doesn't define the policy of an entire alliance or a bloc."
> Roq: "Manthrax hates me. He is the secret leader of CoS and defines the policy of CoS and the Chaos bloc."

Try to be consistent with your spins, else it gets pointless.

You are yet again mixing up two different things. The "deal" Roq was for TEst/CoS to protect you and t$ post-war to form your thing. The actual war was not part of the deal. The deal existed independently of the war, as far as CoS goes. If you want to blame someone for "making" you "drop" people/sign new people based on you joining the war, blame t$. Actually, the only alliance that had linked this deal with its participation to the war was t$. Partisan didn't want t$ to join the war unless NPO was to split from IQ. I am not Partisan. Pre is not Partisan. So, you are barking at the wrong tree.

Keep in mind that TEst and CoS were the first alliances to plan this war. You were called in this war and accepted to participate from the very beginning because you wanted to roll TKR. Regardless of "the deal" with t$. NPO joined the war effort first (right away) and t$ joined the coalition later, after Partisan getting assurance from you that you would leave IQ, etc. So, the same war would have happened, regardless of what you did with IQ. The only difference would be whether t$ would have joined or not. 

And while we are at it, I remind you that you were one of those that were afraid of actually getting GOB in the war and Pre and I were the ones that insisted in adding them to the targets.

 

6 hours ago, Prefontaine said:


Knightfall began when I returned, INH brought me back with the intention to reform TEst with the specific goal of taking down TKR. I originally wanted to do that by teaming up with TKR and possibly pulling them away from their allies, bring them over to the evil side of things and let become the villain I hoped they'd be. Would have been a more interesting way doing things, but highly unlikely. So when that didn't produce any results I started looking at allies who would want to take down TKR. CoS was the first ally in that. Ripper and I talked in vague terms about "taking down those whom had never lost". That was his goal from the beginning. Ripper didn't care too much about the post-war plans much, similarly with TEst. We even talked about having a fight between ourselves sometime after the goal was completed. The sides which cared the most about the post war climate were yourself, and Partisan even more so. Partisan had the requirement of IQ, BK-NPO ties specifically being a thing of the past post war. CoS and TEst were just there to see the side which had never lost, lose. Thus, we offered IQ and tS-sphere whatever they needed to get the job done and work together with us on this. The final idea was NPO, to help foster a more positive political climate post war would break off from BK, sign tS and keep one or two of their smaller allies along with tS keeping one or two allies and create a new sphere. During this formative phase TEst and CoS would protect this new sphere. However with Partisan being a key piece of this plan as only 4 people knew of it and then retiring abruptly, that plan sort of fell to shit. Combine that with my departure from a meaningful existence around here and TEst's near merging into CoS and Knightfall itself dragging on for far too long, the plan became very muddied.

 

When you say the war was sold as "fracturing IQ", that was only part of it. It was creating a new political world where the sphere which had been strangling power for the last 2 years was badly beaten, and the bloc which had strangled the power in the mid-tier was scattered. To have this world both things needed to happen. The toppling of the EMC remnants came with the war, the fracturing of IQ was a political condition -- specifically of Partisan/tS -- that made rolling TKR sphere possible. 

 

One of the first conversations you and I had about taking down TKR was along the lines of "Do you want me to hand you the game?" TEst and CoS (see: Ripper) were of a similar mindset. We didn't care who won the political maneuvering side of the war, we just wanted to fight TKR and their allies with a chance of getting a win. The politics of things were up to Partisan and yourself, honestly. We were just providing the opportunity for a new political dynamic to take hold in the game.

 

tl;dr Ripper didn't have any intentions in Knightfall outside of beating TKR and their allies. 

Greetings, friends! For the most part I think you have my motivations and stances in the leadup to knightfall correctly. For those following these discussions and thinking to themselves" GOSH DARNEST ITS ALL PARTISAN AGAIN", I will provide you with a beautiful bullet point overview of why t$ is the most straightforward, friendly and relatable entity out of all the knuckleheads involved:

1. When Chaunce gave me the reigns, I was given a mandate to bring t$ out of paperless. There was a myriad of options, but decisiveness was required as (from my personal pov), t$ needed to jump out of its slumber.

My personal agenda upon taking over was to end EMC-IQ. Which pathway to take would depend on how relations and politics develop.

2. In Rose and HS we found partners whose objectives overlapped in the sense that they ideally wanted no part of either EMC, or IQ. I can not speak as to whether they were motivated to *end* that dynamic, but at the very least their agendas aligned. We situated our sphere in the middle tiers to facilitate this. We had enough bodies to hypothetically bolster IQ and defeat TKR. On the flip side, we had the bodies to flip the other way and downdeclare on IQ, effectively recreating ToT. We also invested heavily in e$ while signing a large(r) quantity of protectorates and Pantheon.This was intended as the beginning of *some* degree of ability to compete with IQ.

Ultimately, I intended to capitalize on the bipolarity of the game by turning our third sphere into the wild card factor, and using that as bargaining power. If no bargain came: We'd continue to pull dissenting parties into our orbit, and we'd use our momentum to consolidate. There was no real need for quick action. Both EMC and IQ could take us out at any moment, but doing so would mean utter defeat at the hands of a merged coalition down the road. 

3. When the war on TKR was pitched to me, I made it clear (first to pref and later to roq) that beating EMC was not a priority for t$. I also clearly stated that t$ FA did not distinguish much between IQ and EMC in terms of threat assessment. They were different types of hypothetical threats, but threats nonetheless.

4. Our interest was in breaking up IQ/EMC. This agenda did not align with either NPO or the EMC alliances- we'd already stepped on toes by canceling our paperless tie and i'm fairly sure some ex-EMC still resent me for that-. For NPO, what I understood was that they saw IQ as their safety net in a world which they view as inherently hostile to them. While I don't agree with their assessment, I do understand the logic behind it.

5. Long story short: We went back and forth in multiple, very lengthy discussions. prefontaine just wanted his EMC fight, and so acted in a facilitating role. Roq sought to protect his interests, I sought to protect mine. Rolling TKR came across as a prerequisite to any further movement on NPO's end. On my end, I made breaking the BK-NPO tie a prerequisite for any t$ involvement. Neither the war nor a sphere could continue without those 2 items being either agreed to or compromised on.

6. Ultimately, we agreed to the war, and a post-war shakeup in which NPO and t$ would link up. Dropping BK was a component of this initial deal. The concept was to sit down during the war and post war and balance who we would invite to our sphere. Roq and I both had concerns about potential imbalance in power dynamics if the other party was able to bring more allies. Practically speaking, I envisioned a tooth-for-tooth kind of thing, in which we'd bring a roughly equal amount of firepower initially. Enough to be a foundation and force a new political playing field, but not enough to be hegemonic in nature. If anything, our tier distribution would already mean a more competitive playing field than the status quo.

7. CoS-TEst were agreed to protect our sphere during the transition (as mentioned, we would not be large enough to singlehandedly take on IQ remnants and EMC)

8.During the war, Roq and I worked pleasantly and I can't think of any real moments where he broke word or trust. There were various speedbumps however, with squabbles over targets, misalignment of sphere interests etcetera. t$ clashed with BK on a few occasions, but I suppose that is to be expected with such a rag-tag coalition.

 

With regards to how things were pitched:

I think all 4 individuals had their own perspectives and agendas on knightfall. Misinterpretation might have occurred, but I do think our stances were clear to one another going into this. 

 

EDIT:

This breakdown was *my* agenda. Hilmes' agenda overlapped but I suspect his stance was less hardline when it came to the BK-NPO ties/relations. I can't speak much on what happened after my departure. I heard the deal died in the water when I left (which is understandable). The current NPO-t$ relationship is as I understand it based on my deal with roquentin, but it is not the exact same. Anything post-my departure is better explained by t$ gov.

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Like 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

When last summer were we supposedly trying to improve KT/TGH relationships? When we declared war on them? When they were dragging us/our coalition through the mud on the OWF?

Oh sweet sweet memories, look how far we've come ?

@Roquentin, I don't give two shits about history and the semantics of why you did or did not enter this war, we're all talking past each other. As anyone can tell my concern has now shifted to how we intend to end this thing. I think Kastor (frick me man) put it well, you've achieved all your goals, but one of your key goals was to prevent an unbalance developing. This war has now been bogged down into a draw by your entry. So, do you exit? Do you push for punitive reps as others have suggested and tip the balance the other way? You've got all the leverage here. For all the big talk of your coalition members, you saved their asses and your word should matter most. They were utterly flattened when you swept in, but you've been pretty quiet on this point so I'd love to hear your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Greetings, friends! For the most part I think you have my motivations and stances in the leadup to knightfall correctly. For those following these discussions and thinking to themselves" GOSH DARNEST ITS ALL PARTISAN AGAIN", I will provide you with a beautiful bullet point overview of why t$ is the most straightforward, friendly and relatable entity out of all the knuckleheads involved

Rereading some posts, it may have sound like you/t$ are blamed for something, but I assure you that was not my intention. :P
I don't think me or Pre have written something that is not aligned to your testimony.

Thanks for the timeline-presentation, Parti.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I think the way bigger news that everyone missed is that Roquentin only trusts Oblivion. A small, mostly less than 10 person alliance. 

 

He trusts them over every other alliance on the other side. 

IMG_2989.png?ex=65e9efa9&is=65d77aa9&hm=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kastor said:

So I think the way bigger news that everyone missed is that Roquentin only trusts Oblivion. A small, mostly less than 10 person alliance. 

 

He trusts them over every other alliance on the other side. 

Ockey is a great guy

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a really quick note.

I don't trust you, Roq. I think you're overly concerned with a kind of technical, semantic-based truth and never work on faith, so I find dealing with you tedious (that's where I come from calling you disingenuous. You seem to take it quite personally when I say you lie... I think you try very hard not to, but I do know that what you said about TKR plotting against you is flatly untrue, so that's where that was coming from). I also think our goals and ideologies don't align, because I think you are unable to conceive of anything other than bipolarity (and it seems like your idea of bipolarity always has the same people on the same sides), which is something which bores me. I find it frustrating, because it's hard to politic around a gigantic, stationary stone. And when you lie about my allies in the same narrative you're pretending you can't notice that BK and UPN are toxic, I kinda throw my hands up. There isn't much middle ground there. I've had logs thrown out at me by you out of context more times than I can count, so I do my speaking to NPO in public now, and the way I see it, you've reneged on your word enough times that it's just not particularly fruitful or wise to make deals with you.

...clear? Good. Deep breath.

Because the next part is that it doesn't matter. I'm not the ring leader of my sphere; I'm someone who recognized a while ago that my own opinions and grudges, though I do think them legitimate, could be stifling to my alliance, for one, and the game as a whole. In recognizing that, I passed FA authority to a different player, and he's had his own agenda ever since: one aligned with many of my goals, but far fewer of my historical friends and enemies. In this respect I relate with you, and it's damned easy for me to get frustrated with you, because I have the same flaws.

If you find a way to actually let go of some of this, you may be surprised. Don't talk to me: we have a lot of people on our side who can do a better job. While I've certainly been critical, I believe that you're disappointed with how this war turned out, actually. Start from there, perhaps, if you have a mind to.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Like 3

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

If you find a way to actually let go of some of this, you may be surprised. Don't talk to me: we have a lot of people on our side who can do a better job. While I've certainly been critical, I believe that you're disappointed with how this war turned out, actually. Start from there, perhaps, if you have a mind to.

If this psychology session ends up with all of us hugging, it will be really touching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ripper said:

 

Rereading some posts, it may have sound like you/t$ are blamed for something, but I assure you that was not my intention. :P
I don't think me or Pre have written something that is not aligned to your testimony.

Thanks for the timeline-presentation, Parti.

I know i wasn't. You're my favorite pirate, ripper Friend!

  • Like 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hodor said:

This war has now been bogged down into a draw by your entry. So, do you exit? Do you push for punitive reps as others have suggested and tip the balance the other way? You've got all the leverage here.

I mean its been made pretty clear that your government made it more than just an intervention and into a death match. Your own rhetoric pushed NPO to take a more hardline stance than they would have otherwise based on what Roq and Keshav has said. I don't think asking for mercy when it was clear they would be given none is a viable tactic on your end.

 

2 hours ago, Kastor said:

So I think the way bigger news that everyone missed is that Roquentin only trusts Oblivion. A small, mostly less than 10 person alliance. 

 

He trusts them over every other alliance on the other side. 

Ockey is exactly what he says he is. We may fight against him, but he has always been honest, something quite unique to him.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

I also think our goals and ideologies don't align, because I think you are unable to conceive of anything other than bipolarity (and it seems like your idea of bipolarity always has the same people on the same sides), which is something which bores me. I find it frustrating, because it's hard to politic around a gigantic, stationary stone.

Nominally at least, this bit is the core of what the war is supposed to be about. There are plenty of people whose motivations for fighting or propagandizing are more cynical than their stated aspirations here, but I think it's worth making at least one post about it that isn't a wall of text.

"Bad actors" are probably the best way of framing the stated issue. You say Roq, and by extension NPO, only want bipolarity, making us a bad actor in your eyes and the eyes of everyone who highly values the reality or the appearance of multipolarity. We, on the other hand, saw ostensible multipolarity as an unsustainable construct waiting to be messed up by a bad actor who refused to play by the rules of the system, which are largely unenforced. When I said earlier that a doctrine of intervention against inter-sphere coalitions was the best way NPO knew how to maintain the system, I meant it. It was the only way NPO's leadership could think of to counteract the potential for abuse inherent in multipolarity.

Even if you disagree with me here - if you think I or Roq or NPO are lying, if you think we're the real bad actor who messed everything up for all the well-intentioned people - my point still stands. If you or NPO or anyone else want to build a better world, the bad actor problem will have to be addressed. Any new construct for diplomacy needs to include some credible assurance that it can't be corrupted by someone who isn't playing by its rules. This could be done by broad consensus, the threat of overwhelming force, or something else. But it needs to happen or, sooner or later, someone will decide their interests are best served by breaking things.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Edward I said:

Nominally at least, this bit is the core of what the war is supposed to be about. There are plenty of people whose motivations for fighting or propagandizing are more cynical than their stated aspirations here, but I think it's worth making at least one post about it that isn't a wall of text.

"Bad actors" are probably the best way of framing the stated issue. You say Roq, and by extension NPO, only want bipolarity, making us a bad actor in your eyes and the eyes of everyone who highly values the reality or the appearance of multipolarity. We, on the other hand, saw ostensible multipolarity as an unsustainable construct waiting to be messed up by a bad actor who refused to play by the rules of the system, which are largely unenforced. When I said earlier that a doctrine of intervention against inter-sphere coalitions was the best way NPO knew how to maintain the system, I meant it. It was the only way NPO's leadership could think of to counteract the potential for abuse inherent in multipolarity.

Even if you disagree with me here - if you think I or Roq or NPO are lying, if you think we're the real bad actor who messed everything up for all the well-intentioned people - my point still stands. If you or NPO or anyone else want to build a better world, the bad actor problem will have to be addressed. Any new construct for diplomacy needs to include some credible assurance that it can't be corrupted by someone who isn't playing by its rules. This could be done by broad consensus, the threat of overwhelming force, or something else. But it needs to happen or, sooner or later, someone will decide their interests are best served by breaking things.

I mean, yes. When you are the largest actor alliance the game and you decide you want to force bipolarity by maintaining ties to the second largest while purporting to buy into a new ally grouping that believes in multipolarity, I am going to say you were the "bad actors". Did you want to go back to the drawing board all along? NPO never expressed this... they just hit us again, after BK planned to. :P

There's no inherent tendency towards one thing or another. We're all actors in a blank, ideological space.

"When I said earlier that a doctrine of intervention against inter-sphere coalitions was the best way NPO knew how to maintain the system, I meant it." I am sure you can appreciate the irony here? Even the way that these "multisphere coalitions" was counted by your alliance seemed like a construct to justify you folding into BK against TKR. You always counted Covenant, Citadel, and BK as one sphere, for example. On the whole your alliance just.... doesn't seem to have problems with anything BK does, and I think that's by design. You may put stock in your own government's justifications there... I'm more cynical, and see them as fabricated. They start from the conclusion "we need to help bk!" and then work backwards, in my eyes.

I don't really have much idea how much you expressed the inherent flaws in multi polarity to your current allies. I was working more from the intent of the deal brokered by Partisan, Pre, and Ripper, which in my eyes you completely and deliberately violated the intent of. But your current allies have certainly been acting fairly flabbergasted, so it's incredibly difficult for me to give you the benefit of the doubt...

...even, again, putting aside the fact that you declared this war based on a justification I believe to be a lie.

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
4 hours ago, Hodor said:

Oh sweet sweet memories, look how far we've come ?

@Roquentin, I don't give two shits about history and the semantics of why you did or did not enter this war, we're all talking past each other. As anyone can tell my concern has now shifted to how we intend to end this thing. I think Kastor (frick me man) put it well, you've achieved all your goals, but one of your key goals was to prevent an unbalance developing. This war has now been bogged down into a draw by your entry. So, do you exit? Do you push for punitive reps as others have suggested and tip the balance the other way? You've got all the leverage here. For all the big talk of your coalition members, you saved their asses and your word should matter most. They were utterly flattened when you swept in, but you've been pretty quiet on this point so I'd love to hear your opinion.

I like how after members of your coalition have called NPO's leadership deranged (Manthrax), liars/disingenuous (Buorhann/Manthrax), dishonest (Smith) and threatened to target them relentlessly and anyone who is allied to them (Sketchy), you're now appealing to NPO to end the war on easy terms for your side.  You guys may want to work on the consistency of your messaging, since I'm not sure heaping abuse on NPO is the best way to get them to give you what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

I like how after members of your coalition have called NPO's leadership deranged (Manthrax), liars/disingenuous (Buorhann/Manthrax), dishonest (Smith) and threatened to target them relentlessly and anyone who is allied to them (Sketchy), you're now appealing to NPO to end the war on easy terms for your side.  You guys may want to work on the consistency of your messaging, since I'm not sure heaping abuse on NPO is the best way to get them to give you what you want.

You seem afraid. It would be a real shame if actual diplomacy happened and left you having to fight your own conflict without anyone to bail you out, wouldn't it.

Edit: all of that happened after they attacked us for what we perceive to be a fake reason, by the by. I wouldn't be expecting much in the way of pleasantries.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 minute ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

You seem afraid. It would be a real shame if actual diplomacy happened and left you having to fight your own conflict without anyone to bail you out, wouldn't it.

You're mistaking fear for amusement at the hypocrisy of you guys (including you) overdosing on anti-NPO salt and then turning around and asking NPO to help you out.  Keep doubling down on the saltiness though - I'm sure you've got a winning strategy there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Curufinwe said:

You're mistaking fear for amusement at the hypocrisy of you guys (including you) overdosing on anti-NPO salt and then turning around and asking NPO to help you out.  Keep doubling down on the saltiness though - I'm sure you've got a winning strategy there. 

I didn't ask NPO for help. I asked for their opinion on how this war should end. Roq has cited our animosity as reason to act on certain intel and or impulses, but he's yet to say it's his reason for staying in the war having accomplished his goals. If it's now his position that it's perma war or surrender, that's really good to know and that's why I'm asking.

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.