Jump to content
Prefontaine

Dear leaders of warring alliances.

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, ArcKnox said:

Amazing how when it was IQ stalling out during AC it was stunning and brave.

I'm sure you mean ToT.

I mean it doesn't really matter to me personally if you want to drag it out. It's just not something that can be used as a guilt trip on us by some people and then have others  also saying we have an agenda to use everyone as a pawn because we have some sort of devious post-war plan when the people who are actually deciding to drag it out are acting confident and convinced of eventual capitulation while also gloating and implying they have aces up their sleeve for post-war revenge plots. I respect that you guys have staying power in wars. Plenty of people crack easily and it's encouraged in the community almost. It's always been to your advantage that others didn't have the same endurance and would crack much faster however.

Edited by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Rossiya said:

Seven deadly sins: pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, sloth...

Keep dying out of pride, we'll be happy to oblige.

Art thou suggesting TCW is more virtuous than TKR??  Anyways I die when I delete!!  Keep trying big man, God loves a trier

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Roquentin said:

I'm sure you mean ToT.

I mean it doesn't really matter to me personally if you want to drag it out. It's just not something that can be used as a guilt trip on us by some people and then have others  also saying we have an agenda to use everyone as a pawn because we have some sort of devious post-war plan when the people who are actually deciding to drag it out are acting confident and convinced of eventual capitulation while also gloating and implying they have aces up their sleeve for post-war revenge plots. I respect that you guys have staying power in wars. Plenty of people crack easily and it's encouraged in the community almost. It's always been to your advantage that others didn't have the same endurance and would crack much faster however.

I am confused by the whole wanting to drag it out aspects of these arguments. As far as I can tell, both sides don't necessarily require peace, but one side has a precondition for talks occurring. So if there is one side dragging it out, it's yours. This is not at all a damnation of dragging it out, we're all big kids who can make our own decisions, but let's at least acknowledge that if there is one barrier and its erected by your side, we are not the ones dragging it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Hodor said:

I am confused by the whole wanting to drag it out aspects of these arguments. As far as I can tell, both sides don't necessarily require peace, but one side has a precondition for talks occurring. So if there is one side dragging it out, it's yours. This is not at all a damnation of dragging it out, we're all big kids who can make our own decisions, but let's at least acknowledge that if there is one barrier and its erected by your side, we are not the ones dragging it out.

Yes admitting defeat is such a barrier. Lol. But if you want to keep going on with the war, fine with us. I’m not really complaining. I can finally stat pad my loot data.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*Insert inevitable reply of someone making a Fallout reference by saying "War...war never changes"*

Crap I just did it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

Yes admitting defeat is such a barrier. Lol. But if you want to keep going on with the war, fine with us. I’m not really complaining. I can finally stat pad my loot data.

Great thing about zero is that it's smaller than any positive number, so I'm not sure how any part of this contradicts what I was saying? Are we just forum fighting for forum fightings sake now?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

Yes admitting defeat is such a barrier. Lol. But if you want to keep going on with the war, fine with us. I’m not really complaining. I can finally stat pad my loot data.

Given egos and pride on both side, it is clear that it would be difficult for either side to admit defeat.  Our two sides are not as dissimilar as you'd like to believe.  And I think what they are trying to say though is that to put the blame solely on one side is not fair because it requires both the action of y'all requiring surrendering as a precondition to talks and our rejection of that premise to get where we are with stalled talks.

 

It's fine if you're ok with continuing this attrition of wills with us, but I ask that you don't characterize as only our fault.  At the end of the day, it takes two to tango 💃.

 

P.S. Stalling the next round of talks until next month seems very unproductive, but that's just my personal opinion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Great thing about zero is that it's smaller than any positive number, so I'm not sure how any part of this contradicts what I was saying? Are we just forum fighting for forum fightings sake now?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems silly that people are willing to split hairs over a surrender and white peace.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Wut

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Kastor said:

It seems silly that people are willing to split hairs over a surrender and white peace.

 

 

What else do you want to do in a political simulator? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Hodor said:

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, Hodor's new definition of a peace in their eyes, imo could lead to a significant change.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey look, another person posting a topic about how long the war has gone.  *yawns*

I didn't realize there were so many faux-philosophers in this game.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.