Jump to content

Dear leaders of warring alliances.


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Edward I said:

If we're turning this into some kind of contrived equation, the number we'd be looking for is the difference between some default and some proposed alternative.

KERCHTOGG seems to think the default in all wars should be white peace, whereas we think the default should reflect the military outcome of the war. Giving you white peace would be a concession here, with some non-zero value associated with it, whereas KERCHTOGG admitting defeat and surrendering would have a value of zero as far as our accounting is concerned.

And this isn't just forum fighting for its own sake. If we don't supply the gods with enough non-meme posts, the sun won't rise tomorrow.

The bolded is gold, p sure it's not what you mean but I couldn't resist.

This is pretty fair assessment. I would generally agree that the default should reflect the military outcome of the war, after all white peace can also be accompanied by an admission of defeat. We've been told white peace isn't going to happen and that there will be terms, so there is far more to this than that argument. The actual issue here is the military outcome of the war. I would accept that using both of our respective victory conditions, we've each won the war, however neither side has won decisively even by their own standards. This game's mechanics don't allow for a war to be won decisively through attrition, so this status quo we've settled into isn't going to change much.

Edited by Hodor
grammar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

The bolded is gold, p sure it's not what you mean but I couldn't resist.

Ok, that was funny.

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

This is pretty fair assessment. I would generally agree that the default should reflect the military outcome of the war, after all white peace can also be accompanied by an admission of defeat. We've been told white peace isn't going to happen and that there will be terms, so there is far more to this than that argument. The actual issue here is the military outcome of the war. I would accept that using both of our respective victory conditions, we've each won the war, however neither side has won decisively even by their own standards. This game's mechanics don't allow for a war to be won decisively through attrition, so this status quo we've settled into isn't going to change much.

Except for a couple of whales in VM, we have total or, in the case of the low tiers, near-total control over all score ranges. I don't see how that doesn't constitute a decisive victory by our standards.

You're right, attrition can't decide wars decisively by purely mechanical means, but that's where peace agreements come in. The point of any peace treaty, no matter how conclusive the war in question, is to accomplish what the mechanics can't. In this case, part of what we want is an explicit announcement from all involved parties that Coalition B won the war.

33 minutes ago, Hodor said:

White peace is when there are no terms imposed. I assume "terms" in this case to be punitive terms.

Some people see an admission of defeat as a term. I suppose it makes sense if surrendering effectively means reversing what the party line has been for the duration of the war, but I tend to blame the people doing the posturing for their own predicament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Epi said:

A NAP isn't exactly a one sided term. And usually accompanies White peaces. So it's strange that's such a big hang up for your side as far as i'm aware.

Normally I'd agree except that a NAP in this war would mean we can effectively attack Fark and random unaffiliated micros for the better part of a year. Aside from the fact that we're already being touted as bullies, this will force us to pick fights where there is effectively zero challenge and we'll continue to be seen as bullies. Additionally, we've had admissions from our opposition that they like fighting? So why do they want a NAP? A long war such as this is usually followed by long peace NAP or not because war chests need rebuilding, infra needs repairing, and people generally like to econ a bit, so without a NAP we're still looking at probably 2-3 months of peace on the conservative side.

6 minutes ago, Edward I said:

Except for a couple of whales in VM, we have total or, in the case of the low tiers, near-total control over all score ranges. I don't see how that doesn't constitute a decisive victory by our standards.

You're right, attrition can't decide wars decisively by purely mechanical means, but that's where peace agreements come in. The point of any peace treaty, no matter how conclusive the war in question, is to accomplish what the mechanics can't. In this case, part of what we want is an explicit announcement from all involved parties that Coalition B won the war.

Some people see an admission of defeat as a term. I suppose it makes sense if surrendering effectively means reversing what the party line has been for the duration of the war, but I tend to blame the people doing the posturing for their own predicament.

Sure, I guess I misspoke and you all do seem to believe you're winning decisively, but we won't rehash those arguments here.

You're spot on with your assessment of peace agreements, so nothing really to contribute there :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Kastor said:

Wouldn't an amazing compromise be a "white peace" ending of the war, with NPO/BK side getting 5 joke terms, and KETOG getting 5 joke terms?

 

Obviously you have to agree to the terms, but there you have it. I've ended the war.

They haven't earned terms.

17 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Normally I'd agree except that a NAP in this war would mean we can effectively attack Fark and random unaffiliated micros for the better part of a year. Aside from the fact that we're already being touted as bullies, this will force us to pick fights where there is effectively zero challenge and we'll continue to be seen as bullies.

I am pretty sure none of you would be covered from each other?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

I am pretty sure none of you would be covered from each other?

I'd rather keep fighting you tbh. BK hasn't earned terms.

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

They haven't earned terms.

I am pretty sure none of you would be covered from each other?

If the NAP is worded the way mine is and there's any significant treaty movement at all you've essentially created a global NAP.

Which would seem to be their concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on kids, you're all beautiful.

What's there to lose from white peace aside from losing your oh-so valuable street cred in an online browser game?

"There's nothing you can know that isn't known,
Nothing you can see that isn't shown,
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be,
All you need is love,
Love is all you need."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

I think a 1-2 Month NAP would make more sense. 6 months is a long term commitment. :P

It's been done before and worked just fine.

I mean if Hodor's worried about bullying as their rep, signing peace and not bullying alliances for a few months would work wonders. But if they want to continue bullying/intimidate folks, then a NAP obviously would not work in their favour, so I mean seems quite counterproductive. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

It's been done before and worked just fine.

I mean if Hodor's worried about bullying as their rep, signing peace and not bullying alliances for a few months would work wonders. But if they want to continue bullying/intimidate folks, then a NAP obviously would not work in their favour, so I mean seems quite counterproductive. 

It’s half a year though where most of the game is locked into peace, which could be boring.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Not sure when it happened last, but sure the game would still exist after if it was set at a few years as well. :P

A global war happened 5 months into a 6 month NAP. So there is nothing wrong with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

A global war happened 5 months into a 6 month NAP. So there is nothing wrong with it.

If it includes future Coalition B allies, would mostly just be potential for conflict among Coalition B for any major conflicts before then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Please tell me you're joking. We were already doing that and you had to spoil the fun.

Though this would be interesting... had we kept fighting and you had hit CHAOS then NPO would've hit BK sphere and KETOG? Right? Damn what a wild world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Though this would be interesting... had we kept fighting and you had hit CHAOS then NPO would've hit BK sphere and KETOG? Right? Damn what a wild world.

Could have very likely happened indeed. 

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.