Jump to content

How long will this war go on for?


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, TheNG said:

Of course not, NPO wanted the cool enemy bloc to look their way. Not pictured in this image is KETOG crying even further back ?

zluaAex.png

We’re just crying in happiness over how lovingly TKR and BK are looking at each other.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Nope. I just know you guys are pretty cutthroat and pragmatic. It's hard to just forget the ruthless pragmatism in TGH/KT/Rose all planning Ayyslamic Crusade war to get at people who had spent billions rebuilding their infra after having fought Terminal Jest. The TRF war even though you didn't impose harsh terms on them was also pretty opportunistic as well. 

You’re not wrong on that first statement, but let’s remind the audience on a couple of things:  You struck us first after we’ve made it abundantly clear we had no beef with you and held no intentions on attacking you.

Despite N$O’s opportunistic hit on our allies of Guardian and Grumpy, we followed our word, and indirectly the “rules” (lol) that @Sisyphus established.

You’re also the one who is constantly bringing up the past to try and justify your actions now, instead of looking at the more recent (Well, since late last year) attempts of fostering better relations.

You also admittedly worked alongside with @Prefonteen who was the “mastermind” behind Terminal Jest in your reply quoted.

Huh...  isn’t that weird?

(Sidenote: There were no terms on TRF other than a surrender iirc, so yeah - no harsh terms.  In fact, the -only- terms TGH/KT ever attempted were either white peace or surrenders.  There was that one on Polaris for attempting to hide their bank on a VM nation, but that was TGH only)

Why would anyone take you serious moving forward?

I like @Hodor, and I trust his word.  If he’s to tell me that he has something worked out, I’ll listen to him and more times than not, I’d follow it.

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

58 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

You’re not wrong on that first statement, but let’s remind the audience on a couple of things:  You struck us first after we’ve made it abundantly clear we had no beef with you and held no intentions on attacking you.

Despite N$O’s opportunistic hit on our allies of Guardian and Grumpy, we followed our word, and indirectly the “rules” (lol) that @Sisyphus established.

You’re also the one who is constantly bringing up the past to try and justify your actions now, instead of looking at the more recent (Well, since late last year) attempts of fostering better relations.

You also admittedly worked alongside with @Prefonteen who was the “mastermind” behind Terminal Jest in your reply quoted.

Huh...  isn’t that weird?

(Sidenote: There were no terms on TRF other than a surrender iirc, so yeah - no harsh terms.  In fact, the -only- terms TGH/KT ever attempted were either white peace or surrenders.  There was that one on Polaris for attempting to hide their bank on a VM nation, but that was TGH only)

Why would anyone take you serious moving forward?

I like @Hodor, and I trust his word.  If he’s to tell me that he has something worked out, I’ll listen to him and more times than not, I’d follow it.

So you basically saying you weren't following wilhelm's rules was indicative of never attacking us? I mean Keegoz indicated he wanted to avoid  breaking them to Wilhelm but it wasn't definitive to me. Whatever backchannel chats with Sisyphus or anyone else you had weren't to me and Syndicate's external contacts(post-Kayser) aren't our friends for the most part.  You're saying now you indirectly followed them, but your tone was a lot different back then. 

The reply wasn't about Terminal Jest. Terminal Jest was its own thing. It was about you double tapping after Terminal Jest, which he actually pointed out at the time. That is why a NAP was demanded by our side.(He didn't like it though0

I mean, I don't know what the statute of limitations is on having preconceptions about people on actions taken.  Did you have some sort of damascene conversion on the subject of hitting people who had been previously engaged and rebuilt unprovoked? Like I don't think the mindset where you guys will take advantage of vulnerability has changed, which is why I was concerned about it.  It's just I see it this way: if we're not in direct alignment with KETOG then it carries the risk of taking advantage of weakness. I got plenty of gotchas from people on the same coalition, so the narrative was being built up. That's then combined with the indication that tS is seen as a way to keep us out for later hitting, but since it's someone you don't like's word vs a coalition partner, it's natural you'd go with the latter.

If we have go more recent there was a lot of commentary towards Kayser at the time about he wasn't actually doing a mini-sphere and criticism of people if they stayed near it. So if people still saw even N$O as too big, it would be a problem no?

I acknowledged there were no terms on TRF. You did however try to demand treaty cancellation from ODN in AC.

I've had discussions with Hodor where I leveled with him on all of these topics before without any potential "gotchas" being got against the people I brought them up against but I don't see him as the final representative of the KETOG alliances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Roquentin said:

1. It hadn't been plotted. She joined it as the biggest member and she gave her rationale for doing so in the leaked screenshots that the cluster she was a part of needed to see the "big picture" so IQ could go down and she was taking the opportunity.

2. If you had Chaos plotted before Manthrax was upset and all the internal coalition fights then, you were making it during the war, which is also a problem.

1. But... IQ doesn't exist, so what's the problem exactly?

2. I guess the "plotted" part is for different things. It just happens that you love the word and use it everywhere! In any case, one does not "plot" a bloc. They form it.
Regarding this "if scenario"... I don't know Roq, just get in our shoes and think what would Roq do and why? Why would Roq fight/impose terms/press on the terms if he was already "plotting" to form a bloc (and a greater coalition?) with the alliances he is fighting.

I mean... CoS asked for TKR to sign Guardian/GOB till the end of the war, without ever withdrawing the term. And when TKR got invited to Chaos bloc, it was asked to drop all of its ties with other alliances (including the ones they had just signed!)

If that looks like to you that we were "plotting" all along, I don't really know what to say. The 5D chess is strong with this one.

Quote

During the war there were multiple instances where you tried to make it out like getting TKR to make concessions would be impossible and then you said at one closing the gap wasn't a concern.

Uhm... Did I take any terms back?
Also, I didn't know it's illegal to state your opinion about whether the opponent alliance will accept terms or not.
And if you had a problem with that... then tell me then and/or make a motion to remove me from negotiations?

Quote

1. I didn't mean to have to drop the logs .

2. The a reason part is part of the problem. It shouldn't have been a reason because you already wanted to do the war. I don't know if it's a cultural difference in terms of why you don't get how it came off as trying to pressure me into doing the tS thing on a desired timetable. You said you were fine starting over but that you had an expectation something would come from it. I'm not saying you had it as your rationale the entire time, I'm saying you either didn't and retconned it as a rationale or you did. Either way it was deployed against me in that convo to try to guilt trip me...  Partisan was gone and you didn't inquire about it until well after.  No one else in NPO gov who saw it interpreted differently.  You were upfront that you wanted to do the split and you were willing to work on that without an actual part of the mini-sphere.
In the logs,  I didn't do what you wanted when  you wanted which is how it came to off me in terms of your interpretation.

1. Drop them all you want. I don't see how they counter anything I said before. Here, let me quote myself too.

fCTgD1DK.JPG

2a. What I get from that point is that you felt "pressure" from me and understood that I was trying to make you feel guilty because... I asked you whether you would follow-up with the pre-war deal?

"I am ok with starting from scratch."   /   "What I want is to see whether this will happen or not."

Well... my apologies if these two sentences made you feel pressure. Do tell me what part of them made you feel pressure and guilt. No idea where this "do what I want when I want" part you are talking about comes out of the logs you posted. Maybe try with better logs.

2b. Again, regarding the "a reason" part, I think I made myself clear at my previous post.

Quote

... and it gave me a lot of misgivings when you went onto sign Chaos.

You then went onto sign an alliance on the other side of the last war and made an entirely new sphere. It was framed to me as being a consequence of not having done the tS thing by that point by Kayser based on his communications with you and that you were operating on the premise that I had lied the entire time. See how it looks?

Since you post logs, I guess it's ok I post some myself (in my case, just to prove the timeline I am talking about is right):

WrOpgRy.jpg

 

I guess Sans (= Hilmes) also pressed you a lot by asking for your opinion, just like me...

In any case, that's the last thing I saw from our mutual discussions for the formation/support of your new sphere. That's at the end of January. I presume you took the conversation elsewhere and just removed me from the exchange of messages for your own reasons (which is understandable). After that, I asked t$ multiple times whether they were seeing light in the tunnel and the answer I was getting was not very supportive.

In any case, as I said, NPO is not the center of the world. Instead of waiting and spending more of my time in your alliance rather than mine, I just decided to make things interesting for my members, find some nice comrades and try to make something new. Chaos formed two months later.

If you removing me from the N$O negotiations and me signing Chaos two months later "gave you a lot of misgivings"... Well, this sounds like a you problem. I don't know what you expected from CoS.

-------------------------------------------

To me it looks like that whatever anyone tells you can be spinned as trying to press you, make you feel guilt, use you, plot against you, etc. Either you have trust issues, or want to pretend you have trust issues to justify your actions, or that's just how you work and just assume that others do the same.

Edited by Ripper
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Buorhann said:

You’re not wrong on that first statement, but let’s remind the audience on a couple of things:  You struck us first after we’ve made it abundantly clear we had no beef with you and held no intentions on attacking you.

Despite N$O’s opportunistic hit on our allies of Guardian and Grumpy, we followed our word, and indirectly the “rules” (lol) that @Sisyphus established.

You’re also the one who is constantly bringing up the past to try and justify your actions now, instead of looking at the more recent (Well, since late last year) attempts of fostering better relations.

You also admittedly worked alongside with @Prefonteen who was the “mastermind” behind Terminal Jest in your reply quoted.

Huh...  isn’t that weird?

(Sidenote: There were no terms on TRF other than a surrender iirc, so yeah - no harsh terms.  In fact, the -only- terms TGH/KT ever attempted were either white peace or surrenders.  There was that one on Polaris for attempting to hide their bank on a VM nation, but that was TGH only)

Why would anyone take you serious moving forward?

I like @Hodor, and I trust his word.  If he’s to tell me that he has something worked out, I’ll listen to him and more times than not, I’d follow it.

Yes, I'm a mastermind. What of it? 

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Roquentin said:

-snip-.

Oh, my tone was definitely different then and I still very much back a lot of what was said then.

However, none of that matters on how much full of shit you are and how others may sit there and try to play with you still.

The main points you keep conveniently ignoring is that you weren’t under threat (Whether we flat out told you, or the fact it was nearly logically impossible as @Shiho Nishizumi attempted to educate you on, or the SIMPLE fricking FACT that multiple of us attempted to play “nice” with you) and you entered into a conflict with some cockeyed bullshit excuse, which you’re still arguing about.

At least the hits on Guardian or Grumpy (hitting whales) was something, but TKR?  Good god man.

Just admit you feared losing your connections to BK and the rest of the gang.

I do have to give you props on the multiple misdirects you’re throwing out for others to reply to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ripper said:

1. But... IQ doesn't exist, so what's the problem exactly?
 

The problem with you guys is you wipe away any hostile comments said about individual alliances with it just being IQ. If someone clashes with specific alliances, it's not IQ. It's a problem wit those alliances. IQ isn't a solid entity. It's like if I said I distrusted Chaos bloc but not any of the alliances in it. It's a really weird claim. Throughout its existence those alliances were hated/disliked for specific things. To pretend they just went away with a bloc's dissolution is really hard to contemplate. The fact that you were willing to do plotting against an abstract entity is the hardest line your side has to sell.

Quote

2. I guess the "plotted" part is for different things. It just happens that you love the word and use it everywhere! In any case, one does not "plot" a bloc. They form it.
Regarding this "if scenario"... I don't know Roq, just get in our shoes and think what would Roq do and why? Why would Roq fight/impose terms/press on the terms if he was already "plotting" to form a bloc (and a greater coalition?) with the alliances he is fighting.

I mean... CoS asked for TKR to sign Guardian/GOB till the end of the war, without ever withdrawing the term. And when TKR got invited to Chaos bloc, it was asked to drop all of its ties with other alliances (including the ones they had just signed!)

If that looks like to you that we were "plotting" all along, I don't really know what to say. The 5D chess is strong with this one.

Uhm... Did I take any terms back?
Also, I didn't know it's illegal to state your opinion about whether the opponent alliance will accept terms or not.
And if you had a problem with that... then tell me then and/or make a motion to remove me from negotiations?

1. Drop them all you want. I don't see how they counter anything I said before. Here, let me quote myself too.

fCTgD1DK.JPG

2a. What I get from that point is that you felt "pressure" from me and understood that I was trying to make you feel guilty because... I asked you whether you would follow-up with the pre-war deal?

"I am ok with starting from scratch."   /   "What I want is to see whether this will happen or not."

Well... my apologies if these two sentences made you feel pressure. Do tell me what part of them made you feel pressure and guilt. No idea where this "do what I want when I want" part you are talking about comes out of the logs you posted. Maybe try with better logs.

2b. Again, regarding the "a reason" part, I think I made myself clear at my previous post.

Since you post logs, I guess it's ok I post some myself (in my case, just to prove the timeline I am talking about is right):

WrOpgRy.jpg

 

I guess Sans (= Hilmes) also pressed you a lot by asking for your opinion, just like me...

In any case, that's the last thing I saw from our mutual discussions for the formation/support of your new sphere. That's at the end of January. I presume you took the conversation elsewhere and just removed me from the exchange of messages for your own reasons (which is understandable). After that, I asked t$ multiple times whether they were seeing light in the tunnel and the answer I was getting was not very supportive.

In any case, as I said, NPO is not the center of the world. Instead of waiting and spending more of my time in your alliance rather than mine, I just decided to make things interesting for my members, find some nice comrades and try to make something new. Chaos formed two months later.

If you removing me from the N$O negotiations and me signing Chaos two months later "gave you a lot of misgivings"... Well, this sounds like a you problem. I don't know what you expected from CoS.

-------------------------------------------

To me it looks like that whatever anyone tells you can be spinned as trying to press you, make you feel guilt, use you, plot against you, etc. Either you have trust issues, or want to pretend you have trust issues to justify your actions, or that's just how you work and just assume that others do the same.

 

We removed you because we determined it was inappropriate for you to be involved. It was suspicious the entire time during the war that you usually spoke positively of TKR and then you  went onto sign them. No one in NPO present thought it made sense for you to initiate the discussion before the war was even over. The bloc leaks show Chaos is in discussion less than 2 months after peace is signed. That's not really the time table I'm skeptical over. I don't care about when it went public. Our reservations about how Chaos was formed were made clear Kayser and tS from the get-go. The whole 2 months thing doesn't really do it justice when you are making big moves as part of an effort to pool resources against the people you had been working with not too long prior. The whole potemkin spheres thing was also known well before the Sphinx logs were dropped on here. These things all add up.

 

I don't see a point in arguing further now that everything is just dismissed as me making it up ex post facto.

 

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

Oh, my tone was definitely different then and I still very much back a lot of what was said then.

However, none of that matters on how much full of shit you are and how others may sit there and try to play with you still.

The main points you keep conveniently ignoring is that you weren’t under threat (Whether we flat out told you, or the fact it was nearly logically impossible as @Shiho Nishizumi attempted to educate you on, or the SIMPLE fricking FACT that multiple of us attempted to play “nice” with you) and you entered into a conflict with some cockeyed bullshit excuse, which you’re still arguing about.

At least the hits on Guardian or Grumpy (hitting whales) was something, but TKR?  Good god man.

Just admit you feared losing your connections to BK and the rest of the gang.

I do have to give you props on the multiple misdirects you’re throwing out for others to reply to.

Don't play with me then. I'm cool fighting as long as everyone else wants to and for as long as everyone else wants to, so there's your answer. I just have no reason to go out of my accommodate your constant shittalk and the fact that you literally ignore most of what I said. I just have no reason to have any compulsion to agree to any rushed deal with an entity that has this perspective. I don't intend to be a TRF and will take as many precautions as I can. 

At the time, the BK/Cov group was only recovering to around 900-1200 air. People were able to sell down and suppress those efforts and it was evident there wouldn't be a recovery if it stayed the same. if the war objectives of pulling people out could be achieved and I've shown the nation counts of the people who are actually fighting and actively have been fighting the war and not counting people who were not genuinely fighting and were statpads due to OOC issues or whatever reason, then it would have been an easy transition once the core was sufficiently down. Given people on your side were saying BK was losing and needed outside intervention, I'm sure you would have been taking some hits in super low score areas if it meant having the 16-25+s in BK/Cov/etc. suppressed.

Here's the other thing your spin is constantly that I think TKR was going to hit us on their own. I never said that's all the intel I had was them and Chaos doing it later on. It never was meant to be oh they're going to do it on their own and no one will help them. If i had the same convo about TGH or KT, then I'd have hit TGH/KT.  I would have much preferred to hit CoS/Valinor along with TKR as CoS/Valinor had a lot of people that were problematic score-wise or your entire coalition all at once. I didn't have the capacity to do that though and my concerns were not shared by the other alliances as they traditionally had friendly relations with those alliances and TKR especially with Kayser gone. The fact that we distrusted both Chaos and KETOG's intentions was always explicitly laid out within our sphere.  I was pretty clear in the DoW that the imbalance the war's trajectory was introducing was severely problematic and that I did not see it as strategically beneficial to stay out.

I've been pretty clear that I feared the collapse of the only sphere that stood in the path of a collective that I saw as friendlier to each other than to our interests.  This is also the reason for the doctrine we had in place as this was an almost inevitable outcome regardless of feigned indignation over the leaks. I would have much preferred to just stay on the whales had there been a possibility of it stalemating at minimum on other fronts. I said it in reply to Shiho that I would not expect assistance if the scenario were reversed as it would put us in the place where they could not be in position to help or not desire to help due to the historical examples I gave.  You've also used that Partisan line about "maintaining contacts in BK" when it was never something I ever stated. That was someone else's interpretation even though I wasted tons of time on restating all the concerns about Chaos and KETOG within the sphere we had previously brought up.

I've tired of wasting energy on these discussions so my replies from now on will be mostly troll responses from now on just to treat you and everyone else who responds similarly with the level of respect they merit.

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

58 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

We removed you because we determined it was inappropriate for you to be involved. a. It was suspicious the entire time during the war that you usually spoke positively of TKR and b. then you  went onto sign them.

So, let me get this straight:

1. Ripper states (?) that the war will last for many more months due to TKR not accepting terms. This makes Roq suspicious of Ripper, since showing respect to your enemies is unheard of. Ripper pushes all the terms on TKR regardless, some of which would actually prevent the formation of Chaos (TKR signing Guardian or GOB).
2. The war ends and the talks for the formation of N$O start, with both t$ and NPO including Ripper in the negotiations, because trust (?) till the 29th of January.
3. Something magic happens.
4. Ripper gets removed from the talks on the 29th.
5. Ripper forms with others Chaos two months later.
6. Roq states that he removed Ripper from the talks because Ripper would have formed Chaos 2 months later (probably Roq is a prophet).

Can you make it more clear what happened in #3? I am really lost here. Do tell me what changed from the 29th of January to the 30th. I may have to work on something I am unaware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Roquentin said:

The problem with you guys is you wipe away any hostile comments said about individual alliances with it just being IQ. If someone clashes with specific alliances, it's not IQ. It's a problem wit those alliances. IQ isn't a solid entity. It's like if I said I distrusted Chaos bloc but not any of the alliances in it. It's a really weird claim. Throughout its existence those alliances were hated/disliked for specific things. To pretend they just went away with a bloc's dissolution is really hard to contemplate. The fact that you were willing to do plotting against an abstract entity is the hardest line your side has to sell.

The reason that war only would have applied to IQ and not to the original alliances making up IQ was because the reason for wanting the war in the first place had to do with your bloc's refusal to split and do something different. We wanted to do minispheres and, as a group, you didn't seem to be on board. It wasn't born of any issues with any individual alliance. That's why when you broke up IQ to form N$O, the war plans died. That's why I said I was interested by the move and wanted to see how things played out.

Edited by Nizam Adrienne
Typo >.<
  • Upvote 2

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ripper said:

So, let me get this straight:

1. Ripper states (?) that the war will last for many more months due to TKR not accepting terms. This makes Roq suspicious of Ripper, since showing respect to your enemies is unheard of. Ripper pushes all the terms on TKR regardless, some of which would actually prevent the formation of Chaos (TKR signing Guardian or GOB).
2. The war ends and the talks for the formation of N$O start, with both t$ and NPO including Ripper in the negotiations, because trust (?) till the 29th of January.
3. Something magic happens.
4. Ripper gets removed from the talks on the 29th.
5. Ripper forms with others Chaos two months later.
6. Roq states that he removed Ripper from the talks because Ripper would have formed Chaos 2 months later (probably Roq is a prophet).

Can you make it more clear what happened in #3? I am really lost here. Do tell me what changed from the 29th of January to the 30th. I may have to work on something I am unaware of.

You initially wanted us to consider white peace instead of surrender.  War dragged out and everyone including you wanted non-white peace and your terms also cause SRD and co not to want to give in rather than your initial concern about surrender out. 

You historically have positive relations and views on TKR. During someone(not IQ) proposed an idea for the POW and it was about closing the gap between TKR/and presumably the others and the coalition. "That's not my intent behind the war".

I removed you because your intent behind trying to push it before the war was resolved wasn't really seen warmly by us as a group. The mini-sphere at that point as described as being solely tS/NPO to start with. I had no real expectations of getting people to cancel all of their treaties to join it and when it was tried later on, it didn't work. You didn't want to be part of it and went onto join a bloc that was actually bigger than the two tS/NPO alliances. I was also told by Kayser that CoS saw tS as too OP to be with normally and that people didn't see NPO as someone they wanted to work except on a super short-term basis  and that I wasn't really mistaken about my perceptions of how they felt.

I'm not sure if you were present in the specific convos before but the intent of the post-war plans wasn't for anyone to sign EMC in the 2 months after. It was like a huge wtf. The rationale given by Kayser for the creation of Chaos was that we were doing too much mid-tier consolidation and that it would have no purpose if we cut ties with everyone close to IQ. I didn't really buy that a bloc would simply dissolve overnight or that people would balkanize upper tiers in response.

Anyway I don't want to go in circles with this.  If you were a nice guy all along with your intentions and these were all just unfortunate misunderstandings then I just don't know.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember when NPO said they did everything they could to prevent this in their DoW on TKR?

You've literally put more work into spin on this thread than you did actual diplomacy in the entire period since you supposedly broke from BK.

Edit: Roq your anti-TKR grudge positively bleeds off of your last post. The truth is, Chaos broke TKR away from their upper tier buddies. That was a real break, not the fake one you did from BK. So don't expect anyone to take your word anymore, absent some genuine action.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Like 3
  • Haha 2

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Edit: Roq your anti-TKR grudge positively bleeds off of your last post.

Notice how he intentionally ignores Niz in this topic. She doesn't fit into his 4D chess. blobshrug.png

Edited by alyster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

You initially wanted us to consider white peace instead of surrender. War dragged out and everyone including you wanted non-white peace and your terms also cause SRD and co not to want to give in rather than your initial concern about surrender out. 

lol, what? It gets tiring if you even decline the facts.

The war started on October 19th, 2018. Two weeks later...

LB1aN3F.jpg

VYztIL9.jpg

We may not have had treaty terms on day 1 (hell, we didn't even know whether we would win), but were the first alliance to post terms. And regardless of terms, we would never accept to end the war before getting all the whales to go down. For which we knew it would take months.

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

You historically have positive relations and views on TKR.

lol, what? #2

a. Do you mean the time when I was in Arrgh and was raiding them all the time... then joined CoS... didn't fight for them at any war... then plotted to get EMC down... then imposed the treaty term on them which was one of the hardest to accept?
Again, no idea what you have in mind. I beg you, enlighten me on that part too. What historical events do you have in mind?

b. Even that was true... So what? You decide whether you will work with others based on their relations with TKR? This is some weird obsession you got there.

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

1.  During someone(not IQ) proposed an idea for the POW

2. and it was about closing the gap between TKR/and presumably the others and the coalition. "That's not my intent behind the war".

1. It wasn't IQ, it was peripheral-IQ (more specifically, Malal)  that suggested it. PoWs... suck. I hope I don't have to elaborate on that?

2. Yeah, you got this right. I wasn't getting my neutral alliance to spend all those resources and time for IQ to profit from the war and "close the gap". Our intent behind the war are/were in our DoW. See, we have no backrooms as you may be used to.
But since you are not happy that this was not my intention, this means that your reason to go for this war was to "close the gap".

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I removed you because your intent behind trying to push it before the war was resolved wasn't really seen warmly by us as a group

??? We made a deal before the war, talked nothing about it during the war and contacted Hilmes about it right after the war. Again, zero idea what you are talking about.
As I said, tell me what changed from the 29th of January to the 30th and stop trying to dodge the question.

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

The mini-sphere at that point as described as being solely tS/NPO to start with. I had no real expectations of getting people to cancel all of their treaties to join it and when it was tried later on, it didn't work.

Nothing was "described" or determined up to the point you cut communications with me. Also, are you implying I "pressed you"/ imposed such a term on you? The only ones that talked about dropping extra ties were you (see Keshav's comment):

poo5DSi.jpg

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

1. You didn't want to be part of it and...

2. went onto join a bloc that was actually bigger than the two tS/NPO alliances.

1. Yes, I didn't want to... and never said I did. And you knew that even before Knightfall. The deal between TEst/CoS/t$/NPO was about a 2 months protection.

2a. Sorry for not asking you! But as I said, NPO is not the center of the world.
2b. Yes, I did it... After you removed me from the negotiations. Meaning that you didn't want to work with me.
2c. 40 members for SK, 40 for Soup, 40 for CoS and 120 for TKR adds up to 240 members. 130 for NPO and 90 for t$/e$ alone adds up to 220. That's 1:1 ratio. Maybe check your math again

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

1. I was also told by Kayser that CoS saw tS as too OP to be with normally and...

2. that people didn't see NPO as someone they wanted to work except on a super short-term basis  and that I wasn't really mistaken about my perceptions of how they felt.

1. Yes, NPO/t$ and allies PLUS CoS would be too OP. t$ already had a high-tier. Supposedly, we were in the process of forming new blocs, not a new hegemony.

2. And yet I got them to fight with you in Knightfall and accept protecting you for 2 months, while CoS was paperless. You are welcome!

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I'm not sure if you were present in the specific convos before but the intent of the post-war plans wasn't for anyone to sign EMC in the 2 months after. It was like a huge wtf.

a. I cannot know what you discuss with others in backrooms. It's the first time I hear about this. Even if I was in the discussions, I don't see why my alliance's FA should be restricted by your attempt to isolate TKR.
b. Ok, that's really funny that you don't see it:

EMC was dissolved because Chaos was formed! So, again, you are welcome!

Edited by Ripper
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Remember when NPO said they did everything they could to prevent this in their DoW on TKR?

You've literally put more work into spin on this thread than you did actual diplomacy in the entire period since you supposedly broke from BK.

Edit: Roq your anti-TKR grudge positively bleeds off of your last post. The truth is, Chaos broke TKR away from their upper tier buddies. That was a real break, not the fake one you did from BK. So don't expect anyone to take your word anymore, absent some genuine action.

I had completely forgotten that.

"

When word reached us that The Knights Radiant were using the predicament we were in of not being able to declare past the front as a way to lock down the current fronts and then attack us it was a pressing enough threat.  This was coupled with reports the lack of expansion was simply due to not having enough coverage. As fronts fell, it was a matter of time in our eyes. Whether it was now or after the war, it was a serious liability.  We have been reluctant to sit on the sidelines to wait for it to happen. We have stood idly by with constant antagonism. In every previous war with this scenario of a limited front, the alliances initiating it are usually targeted next and the reactions this time indicated the same. Note this is our decision unilaterally as we could no longer allow our sovereign right to declare a war against people who seek to act against us to be withheld. It is regrettable that we must act outside of the scope with this new conflict.

There is no intention of domination or anything. The imbalance this war has introduced made it clear that we could not just sit back and wait for the inevitable. The numbers cited as why the other sphere was so big have not materialized, allowing for manuveurability.  We did everything we could to avoid this outcome but here we are. By the day they grew emboldened while our strategic situation deteriorated. We expect to take severe losses here and there is no avoiding that but allowing this status quo to continue has been determined to be  untenable, which is why we declare war on TKR."

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Elijah Mikaelson
23 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I had completely forgotten that.

"

When word reached us that The Knights Radiant were using the predicament we were in of not being able to declare past the front as a way to lock down the current fronts and then attack us it was a pressing enough threat.  This was coupled with reports the lack of expansion was simply due to not having enough coverage. As fronts fell, it was a matter of time in our eyes. Whether it was now or after the war, it was a serious liability.  We have been reluctant to sit on the sidelines to wait for it to happen. We have stood idly by with constant antagonism. In every previous war with this scenario of a limited front, the alliances initiating it are usually targeted next and the reactions this time indicated the same. Note this is our decision unilaterally as we could no longer allow our sovereign right to declare a war against people who seek to act against us to be withheld. It is regrettable that we must act outside of the scope with this new conflict.

There is no intention of domination or anything. The imbalance this war has introduced made it clear that we could not just sit back and wait for the inevitable. The numbers cited as why the other sphere was so big have not materialized, allowing for manuveurability.  We did everything we could to avoid this outcome but here we are. By the day they grew emboldened while our strategic situation deteriorated. We expect to take severe losses here and there is no avoiding that but allowing this status quo to continue has been determined to be  untenable, which is why we declare war on TKR."

 

 

 

 

what does any of this matter, you lost so get over it already?

ooooo thought of a term we can place on you, every time you post all members of KETOG has to downvote it until you reach -10,000 votes :D

Edited by Elijah Mikaelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

what does any of this matter

 

Because words mean things and promises that are broken will matter when people are trying to decide future treaties.

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

16 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

what does any of this matter, you lost so get over it already?

ooooo thought of a term we can place on you, every time you post all members of KETOG has to downvote it until you reach -10,000 votes :D

 

On 8/12/2019 at 5:13 AM, Roquentin said:

Sorry. I really appreciate the effort here, but it's not adding up for me. I've tried to figure out where the 900 nation count thingy comes from, but here's who I'd consider viable.

Effective alliance: 

  • BK 134
  • Afrika Korps 40
  • Camelot 47
  • Guardians of the Galaxy 66
  • Polaris 31 ( sat out last war)
  • OWR 28 ( sat out last war )
  • Solar 25 ( Unproven)
  • UPN 28
  • Acadia 29
  • BoC - 32 (Unproven)
  • Hanseatic League - 21 (Unproven)
  • IronFront - 13 (Unproven)
  • The Commonwealth 75
  • Yakuza 24 (Unproven)
  • Carthago 46 (unproven)

I didn't add Goon Squad or banking AAs, since I forgot but think this is a good list without counterproductive micros and adds up to 598. This is just off the top of my head.

Sorry, @Elijah Mikaelson, but Yakuza is "unproven". It's not proven to be a part of BK-sphere. So, once we get peace with BK-sphere and NPO, we will just keep fighting you.

Either that or @Roquentin will have to stop hiding behind his finger and admit that the above list is the actual bloc that BK holds and NPO supports.

Edited by Ripper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

what does any of this matter, you lost so get over it already?

ooooo thought of a term we can place on you, every time you post all members of KETOG has to downvote it until you reach -10,000 votes :D

Don't you have a bunch of multis to focus on hiding away from Alex?  Or better yet, figuring out what to do postwar since you pretty much got nuked from SNN's leaks?

(And no, whoever is savvy enough with the war mechanics will realize there's no real winner or loser until either side relents.  I could go on and on raiding your coalition since all the damage has already been done and I can still make a profit)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Ripper said:

 

Sorry, @Elijah Mikaelson, but Yakuza is "unproven". It's not proven to be a part of BK-sphere. So, once we get peace with BK-sphere and NPO, we will just keep fighting you.

Either that or @Roquentin will have to stop hiding behind his finger and admit that the above list is the actual bloc that BK holds and NPO supports.

He meant militarily unproven, yakuza or previously Zeon hasn't fought a war since like 2017. Also to note that list is not a comprehensive list of BK sphere for 2 reasons. 

1. Citadel blantantly stated they wouldn't be participating if BK wasn't hit in the first wave. 

2. BoC was going to stay out of the war, but they were totally slotted in the first wave and changed their minds. 

3. Polaris is polaris. Enough said. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Epi said:

He meant militarily unproven, yakuza or previously Zeon hasn't fought a war since like 2017. Also to note that list is not a comprehensive list of BK sphere for 2 reasons. 

1. Citadel blantantly stated they wouldn't be participating if BK wasn't hit in the first wave. 

2. BoC was going to stay out of the war, but they were totally slotted in the first wave and changed their minds. 

3. Polaris is polaris. Enough said. 

Noted and thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ripper said:

lol, what? It gets tiring if you even decline the facts.

The war started on October 19th, 2018. Two weeks later...

LB1aN3F.jpg

VYztIL9.jpg

We may not have had treaty terms on day 1 (hell, we didn't even know whether we would win), but were the first alliance to post terms. And regardless of terms, we would never accept to end the war before getting all the whales to go down. For which we knew it would take months.

Initially when the war started you said we had to be prepared for the scenario where we could not get a surrender even if it lasted for months. Hope that helps. It *did* happen so please don't deny it.

 

Quote

lol, what? #2

a. Do you mean the time when I was in Arrgh and was raiding them all the time... then joined CoS... didn't fight for them at any war... then plotted to get EMC down... then imposed the treaty term on them which was one of the hardest to accept?
Again, no idea what you have in mind. I beg you, enlighten me on that part too. What historical events do you have in mind?

b. Even that was true... So what? You decide whether you will work with others based on their relations with TKR? This is some weird obsession you got there.

1. It wasn't IQ, it was peripheral-IQ (more specifically, Malal)  that suggested it. PoWs... suck. I hope I don't have to elaborate on that?

2. Yeah, you got this right. I wasn't getting my neutral alliance to spend all those resources and time for IQ to profit from the war and "close the gap". Our intent behind the war are/were in our DoW. See, we have no backrooms as you may be used to.
But since you are not happy that this was not my intention, this means that your reason to go for this war was to "close the gap".

a. You always posted positively about them and then always took every FA effort on good faith when they did the treaty cuts while trolling us at every turn especially when OWLS was ongoing. There was always positive sentiment expressed towards whatever they did. 

I'm not sure where I said historical events but it was CoS in general along with you having positive relations?

b. if the war happens to be against TKR, then yeah it's kind of a fifth column if we have people who are super TKR fanclub and then sign them right after. That would be in any war with any alliance we're fighting.

So it wasn't Malal, and they weren't near IQ. It was a different person altogether and part of another sphere and not attached to us at the time even within 2 treaty links. I hope I don't have to elaborate on this? 

It's the basic principle. If you're going to war over consolidation in the upper tier and you undo the war more or less right after by reinstituting a scenario where the upper tier alliances are more or less protected from damage, then it's a huge problem. And no, sorry,  CoS getting hit because there wasn't enough buy-in to steam roll mid-tier alliances and restore that paradigm doesn't count.

 

Quote

 

??? We made a deal before the war, talked nothing about it during the war and contacted Hilmes about it right after the war. Again, zero idea what you are talking about.
As I said, tell me what changed from the 29th of January to the 30th and stop trying to dodge the question.

Nothing was "described" or determined up to the point you cut communications with me. Also, are you implying I "pressed you"/ imposed such a term on you? The only ones that talked about dropping extra ties were you (see Keshav's comment):

poo5DSi.jpg

1. Yes, I didn't want to... and never said I did. And you knew that even before Knightfall. The deal between TEst/CoS/t$/NPO was about a 2 months protection.

It's not after the war. It's 1/18. War ended on 2/01.

You didn't want to work with us and did an entirely new sphere. Had there been any interest from CoS in some sort of long-term balance arrangement then we could have worked something out without you being in the sphere. Instead it was just pseudo-hostility and suspicion. Chaos was literally bigger than the potential core group and you had it open to add more alliances. YOu 

Quote

2a. Sorry for not asking you! But as I said, NPO is not the center of the world.
2b. Yes, I did it... After you removed me from the negotiations. Meaning that you didn't want to work with me.
2c. 40 members for SK, 40 for Soup, 40 for CoS and 120 for TKR adds up to 240 members. 130 for NPO and 90 for t$/e$ alone adds up to 220. That's 1:1 ratio. Maybe check your math again

1. Yes, NPO/t$ and allies PLUS CoS would be too OP. t$ already had a high-tier. Supposedly, we were in the process of forming new blocs, not a new hegemony.

2. And yet I got them to fight with you in Knightfall and accept protecting you for 2 months, while CoS was paperless. You are welcome!

a. I cannot know what you discuss with others in backrooms. It's the first time I hear about this. Even if I was in the discussions, I don't see why my alliance's FA should be restricted by your attempt to isolate TKR.
b. Ok, that's really funny that you don't see it:

EMC was dissolved because Chaos was formed! So, again, you are welcome!

Glad to know you had a bias.

You didn't really express interest in actually doing stuff alongside it besides maybe helping in a curbstomp. What else would happen?

Yeah I didn't say you had to join, just not make another big bloc which also departed from paperless. 

I don't recall those being the membercounts at the time but also was talking about nation score and tiering since obviously high tier low count alliances will have a lot less.

 

-----

If you can't see the problem with not really expressing any interest in cooperation, signing the primary target shortly after when the initial group didn't have that as its goal, and then plotting against one of the other people involved on the basis of them having lied the entire time, it doesn't really work out. I was straight up with my opinions to anyone that Chaos and your de facto temporary alignment and coalition-building with the rest of EMC(not really a great name for it maybe like GGTT) undid Knightfall altogether. It's not even about TKR, it's about your natural plan being to  go back right to rolling the guys who had always gotten rolled up to that point.

14 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Remember when NPO said they did everything they could to prevent this in their DoW on TKR?

You've literally put more work into spin on this thread than you did actual diplomacy in the entire period since you supposedly broke from BK.

Edit: Roq your anti-TKR grudge positively bleeds off of your last post. The truth is, Chaos broke TKR away from their upper tier buddies. That was a real break, not the fake one you did from BK. So don't expect anyone to take your word anymore, absent some genuine action.

Oh. I meant we did everything to prevent the scenario where we had to act on our own and anger spheremates. I didn't mean to say we had begged everyone in the Old Boys Club coalition side would be nice to us.

Sorry man. Those screenshots getting out wasn't really the first mention of those plans. If you try to set up potemkin village spheres and it's all for one unified cause, it's not much to go on.

So if my word isn't trustworthy why would any assurance or action taken  matter? The only solution to the old boys club issue I've seen raised would be a formalized framework like the one Edward mentioned. These splits and murky waters typically favor whoever has the most longtime friends spread throughout the game. We know which individuals are at an advantage there, which is why we have never taken the anti-treaty rhetoric at face value.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Roquentin @Ripper

Just for reference these were stats for Chaos and N$O as newly-formed blocs:

N$O (including peripheries): 9674 cities, 581 members, 16.65 city avg

N$O Core (NPO, T$/E$, HS): 5290 cities, 301 members, 17.57 city avg

 

Chaos (including peripheries): 5792 cities, 372 members, 15.57 city avg

Chaos (SK, TKR, CoS, Soup): 4191 cities, 240 members, 17.46 city avg

 

 

I should note that city counts are way more important than member counts, but it also isn't really fair to look at "cores" because NPO and T$ bring around a lot more peripheries than Chaos bloc does (which doesn't even include Nova/TF anymore).  Also, to say that this is some upper tier consolidation misinterprets the actual data as your average city count is actually a bit higher.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

@Roquentin @Ripper

Just for reference these were stats for Chaos and N$O as newly-formed blocs:

N$O (including peripheries): 9674 cities, 581 members, 16.65 city avg

N$O Core (NPO, T$/E$, HS): 5290 cities, 301 members, 17.57 city avg

 

Chaos (including peripheries): 5792 cities, 372 members, 15.57 city avg

Chaos (SK, TKR, CoS, Soup): 4191 cities, 240 members, 17.46 city avg

 

 

I should note that city counts are way more important than member counts, but it also isn't really fair to look at "cores" because NPO and T$ bring around a lot more peripheries than Chaos bloc does (which doesn't even include Nova/TF anymore).  Also, to say that this is some upper tier consolidation misinterprets the actual data as your average city count is actually a bit higher.

It wasn't known at the time whether HS would be involved. It came at a later stage, as the enthusiasm on the complete reset had died by that stage.  Our peripheries are not really discussed as being parts of the sphere as some people wanted us to cut them to decrease the size of the sphere. Nova was more likely to get involved in wars alongside TKR and it was at the time where it was shown TKR and TCW still had a tenative agreement to cooperate. 

I didn't really mean to say Chaos was much bigger, but rather the intention to do the bloc didn't represent the same hesitation towards consolidating a group previously shown.

The average city count wouldn't really show the distribution of the upper tiers as averages are distorted by things like TKR having new players while having also the biggest nations often off AA like Benfro combined with the outside links the alliances have.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

It wasn't known at the time whether HS would be involved. It came at a later stage, as the enthusiasm on the complete reset had died by that stage.  Our peripheries are not really discussed as being parts of the sphere as some people wanted us to cut them to decrease the size of the sphere. Nova was more likely to get involved in wars alongside TKR and it was at the time where it was shown TKR and TCW still had a tenative agreement to cooperate. 

I didn't really mean to say Chaos was much bigger, but rather the intention to do the bloc didn't represent the same hesitation towards consolidating a group previously shown.

The average city count wouldn't really show the distribution of the upper tiers as averages are distorted by things like TKR having new players while having also the biggest nations often off AA like Benfro combined with the outside links the alliances have.

It's not fair to include Nova, a protectorate, and then disregard the multitude of protectorates T$ has (CoA, Aurora, Typhon) and your smaller allies, ODN and USN.  TKR had to cut too as a precondition upon entering chaos.  

The formation of the bloc itself was against consolidation as each alliance would be allied to each other and have one external MDP to an untied alliance.  For its existence, SK and soup have not even used this option.  Also, a defining quality of the creation of chaos was that it was inherently risky.  You had alliances who had really been in contact with a diverse set of enemies and only a medium-sized bloc.  This in contrast to N$O where NPO maintained de facto relations with the largest bloc and could easily crush an attack by any other bloc due to sheer size.  I'd argue that a reason that we got to this point, war and all, is because not just NPO but many alliances refused to take risks and put themselves in new and potentially dangerous situations.  Unfortunately, multipolarity requires us all to take risks and not be protected through underhand relations or the blob, and maybe there is some blame to go around with chaos and KETOG too that we can discuss but at the moment the problem with consolidation can not be pinned on chaos.

Also, yeah we could talk about distributions all day, but averages are usually a good point to start that conversation statistically speaking.  I agree that CoS (high 20s avg city) and SK (mid 20s avg city) are upper tier, but post-KF TKR lost most of its upper tier and besides few exceptions, benfro and yir (who are literally the only two whales that sit offshore and account for only about 60 cities or a drop in the bucket of the bloc) are tiered in the 18-25 range.  TKR isn't low on its average because of just new members but because its truly a mid-tier alliance after losing a lot of members after knightfall.  Soup, on the other hand, is a lower and mid-tier alliance.  Put together, that makes chaos two upper tier alliances and two mid-tier alliances.  That seems somewhat reasonable and unconsolidated especially when due to your strategy (i'm not blaming you for this) whichever bloc NPO is in has nearly a third of that tier controlled by a single alliance.

Edited by Cooper_
Spelling
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

It's not fair to include Nova, a protectorate, and then disregard the multitude of protectorates T$ has (CoA, Aurora, Typhon) and your smaller allies, ODN and USN.  TKR had to cut too as a precondition upon entering chaos.  

The formation of the bloc itself was against consolidation as each alliance would be allied to each other and have one external MDP to an untied alliance.  For its existence, SK and soup have not even used this option.  Also, a defining quality of the creation of chaos was that it was inherently risky.  You had alliances who had really been in contact with a diverse set of enemies and only a medium-sized bloc.  This in contrast to N$O where NPO maintained de facto relations with the largest bloc and could easily crush an attack by any other bloc due to sheer size.  I'd argue that a reason that we got to this point, war and all, is because not just NPO but many alliances refused to take risks and put themselves in new and potentially dangerous situations.  Unfortunately, multipolarity requires us all to take risks and not be protected through underhand relations or the blob, and maybe there is some blame to go around with chaos and KETOG too that we can discuss but at the moment the problem with consolidation can not be pinned on chaos.

Also, yeah we could talk about distributions all day, but averages are usually a good point to start that conversation statistically speaking.  I agree that CoS (high 20s avg city) and SK (mid 20s avg city) are upper tier, but post-KF TKR lost most of its upper tier and besides few exceptions, benfro and yir (who are literally the only two whales that sit offshore and account for only about 60 cities or a drop in the bucket of the bloc) are tiered in the 18-25 range.  TKR isn't low on its average because of just new members but because its truly a mid-tier alliance after losing a lot of members after knightfall.  Soup, on the other hand, is a lower and mid-tier alliance.  Put together, that makes chaos two upper tier alliances and two mid-tier alliances.  That seems somewhat reasonable and unconsolidated especially when due to your strategy (i'm not blaming you for this) whichever bloc NPO is in has nearly a third of that tier controlled by a single alliance.

I mean we've all heard the yarn of Chaos being some super risky move while NPO hasn't taken that risk. We did. We had no "de facto" relations with anyone else lol. Our relations have always been in our paper and that's about it. If we wanted forced to have paperless agreements, Polar would be the only alliance, because the NPO will always reserve the right to defend Polar and vice versa. I mean it's why we ended up signing the OoO.

We've taken our risks and been put in dangerous situations, we just refuse to operate of the "word" or "faith" in your leadership's promises. That's where the difference is. Also it's quite funny having TKR lecture folks on paperless, given you just combined with KETOGG for a hit, and then expect everyone else to sit idly by and believe you that it's a one-time thing. 

I wish we controlled a third of any tier, especially the mid, but thats categorically false. City averages do not point out the numbers in specific tiers, so unless you start specifically pointing out tier numbers, it's hard to believe that the ranges CoS/TKR/SK can effectively cover is somehow not consolidated. 

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Downvote 2
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.