Jump to content

War Goals?


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's a matter of trust. Peace can only happen when both parties can trust the other with it, and after all of the atrocities and perfidy that IQ suspected from their enemies and committed themselves, there's almost certainly no way that trust can ever exist again. At most there might be a pause, but even that seems unlikely since I suspect we're at a point where mutual benefit is no longer an option. If peace is in one side's interest, then the other will perceive that peace must therefore not be in their interest.

We could have lived in a world where trust between enemies could exist; where war and peace could be handled without toxicity and any gain for someone did not necessarily have to come at the expense of everyone else. But no, IQ can't even understand the concept of such a world.

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

On 8/5/2019 at 12:42 PM, Curufinwe said:

65d05b6ded3309d8153b5792f1ecb279.jpg

So @Roquentin and @Thanos let me ask about this then. If you didn't already achieve your goals, then what goal hasn't been achieved, and if you have already achieved your goals, what is the reasoning behind not going to the table to have peace?

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kastor said:

So @Roquentin and @Thanos let me ask about this then. If you didn't already achieve your goals, then what goal hasn't been achieved, and if you have already achieved your goals, what is the reasoning behind not going to the table to have peace?

37jz6q.jpg

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kastor said:

So @Roquentin and @Thanos let me ask about this then. If you didn't already achieve your goals, then what goal hasn't been achieved, and if you have already achieved your goals, what is the reasoning behind not going to the table to have peace?

For BK was having positive net damage

HKBDkAo.png

by attacking other alliances

5GH5aPg.png

But I like to remind them this

GX37mMQ.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Smith said:

Yes I wonder what goals NPO/BK could be trying to achieve by dogpiling their opponents for months at a time in every war

Huh? You guys were upset and didn't want to discuss terms quickly. The terms themselves were fairly easy except for the ones where people felt pride being impacted and it could have ended a few months earlier.

The only time getting people bored and quitting has been brought up  as a tactic is in response to the rhetoric the other side espoused at the time when they felt they could suppress the other side to that extent, we felt it was a death match. The first mention of quitting I think was from your side with people saying they'd quit if they didn't like it.

We don't really benefit from some of your partners fighting a war without paying a similar infra reduction price as everyone else, especially when people are still making a big deal over the damage stats of some of the still infra-heavy alliances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

Huh? You guys were upset and didn't want to discuss terms quickly. The terms themselves were fairly easy except for the ones where people felt pride being impacted and it could have ended a few months earlier.

The only time getting people bored and quitting has been brought up  as a tactic is in response to the rhetoric the other side espoused at the time when they felt they could suppress the other side to that extent, we felt it was a death match. The first mention of quitting I think was from your side with people saying they'd quit if they didn't like it.

We don't really benefit from some of your partners fighting a war without paying a similar infra reduction price as everyone else, especially when people are still making a big deal over the damage stats of some of the still infra-heavy alliances.

Having a similar "huh?" moment to you right now. What are you referring to here?

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Having a similar "huh?" moment to you right now. What are you referring to here?

He was bringing up the last war with the idea of us dogpiling people for months at a time in every war.  You've stated before you simply didn't want to peace out initially because of the way the negotiations went and the rest of the holding out was due to the terms. So the first part of the reply is about Knightfall, which was the only time that could have been said to happen.

I get where the confusion is now. The rest of the post talks about this war. So people like Lordship and others initially brought up quitting if they didn't win and then also said we had to absolutely win and then combined with the scorched earth stuff meant that we'd either have to suppress people to the extent they'd get bored and quit or they'd try it on us.  The last part talks about the alliances that entered with high infra and still have it getting off with unequal damage if we just agree to peace as is with no conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

He was bringing up the last war with the idea of us dogpiling people for months at a time in every war.  You've stated before you simply didn't want to peace out initially because of the way the negotiations went and the rest of the holding out was due to the terms. So the first part of the reply is about Knightfall, which was the only time that could have been said to happen.

I get where the confusion is now. The rest of the post talks about this war. So people like Lordship and others initially brought up quitting if they didn't win and then also said we had to absolutely win and then combined with the scorched earth stuff meant that we'd either have to suppress people to the extent they'd get bored and quit or they'd try it on us.  The last part talks about the alliances that entered with high infra and still have it getting off with unequal damage if we just agree to peace as is with no conditions.

Wait are you saying that is what you are doing? 

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Smith said:

Wait are you saying that is what you are doing? 

Your gotcha posts usually don’t deserve a response but here’s one, Roq said that early on the rhetoric from your side made this seem a death match. So if it is so, we’re fine sticking into it. 

The next part of his post deals with going after upper tier alliances which we are atm. 

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

3 hours ago, Roquentin said:

The only time getting people bored and quitting has been brought up  as a tactic is in response to the rhetoric the other side espoused at the time when they felt they could suppress the other side to that extent, we felt it was a death match. The first mention of quitting I think was from your side with people saying they'd quit if they didn't like it.

Again: Last war, BK's leader laughed about making people quit the game. That was not a death match of survival for IQ, especially not in your tier. You had a numerical advantage, and that is what you elected to do with it. It clearly did not offend you then, and considering how far out of your way you went in this war to help BK again, well...

Maybe that is informing people's decisions on this war more than anything Sketchy said? Since, you know, it was literally first.

You're not being forced to be toxic and you're not being forced to try and drive people you don't like out of the game. It's a choice. It's one I think your alliance would be wise to back down from, because I think you'd pretty quickly find that people like Sketchy are being shouted down by the people on our side with sense, anyway (unless, of course, you're merely trying to trump up his comments to attempt to justify your own actions... but you wouldn't do that, Roq, would you?).

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Like 1

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

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Your gotcha posts usually don’t deserve a response but here’s one, Roq said that early on the rhetoric from your side made this seem a death match. So if it is so, we’re fine sticking into it. 

The next part of his post deals with going after upper tier alliances which we are atm. 

There were two main people who said anything along these lines of a death match. And there have been more than that, really, who have said they would be willing to come to the table and that it wasn't a death match. So this "rhetoric" isn't really a rhetoric from our side. It's rhetoric from individuals that you either just want to consider our main voice to keep your propaganda/shenanigans going, or you actually take Sketchy at his absolute word as the be all end all voice for the entire side. Which, quite frankly, is really funny to me. Because... ya know. I like Sketchy. But he's a bit of a Troll.

Edited by Pasky Darkfire
Clarification
  • Upvote 2

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Your gotcha posts usually don’t deserve a response but here’s one, Roq said that early on the rhetoric from your side made this seem a death match. So if it is so, we’re fine sticking into it. 

The next part of his post deals with going after upper tier alliances which we are atm. 

Singling out specific posts to justify this as a "death match" is pretty blatant spin. Our side was never in a position to make this a "death match" because it is another dogpile perpetuated by your sphere. 

Also it's not a "gotcha" post when I am asking somebody to clarify their position. We have to do that because you never actually do, instead you rely on secret CBs and secret protectorate agreements that are so confusing that not even your allies understand what you are doing. 

  • Upvote 2

C0r3Fye.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 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.