Guest Epi Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arawra Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 19 minutes ago, Epi said: Write Nerd Word Wall Post Chad Meme about the Forum Meta If downvotes count then you could say Noctis got his share of recognition too ? 1 3 1 Quote Look up to the sky above~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roq Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 On 9/28/2019 at 5:29 PM, Micchan said: It's just 4 Theodosius and one Horsecock Americans will measure in anything but the metric system. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frawley Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 13 hours ago, Kevanovia said: It’s not even wanting the surrender that’s the issue, it’s the fact that you continue to hide your terms because you want the war to go on. In order to present your terms, you want us first to surrender. How ridiculous is that? Scenario: Side 1: wE WiLl oNLy tElL yOu TeRmS iF yOu SuRrEnDeR Side 2: Okay, in order to stop the war since it’s dragging on for so long - we surrender. Side 1: VICTORY!! YOU OWE US 300 BILLION IN REPS! Also, change your names to ‘Side 1’s !@#$’ . Side 2: No. We’re not doing that. Side 1: Pfft. You have already lost, you said so yourself. ‘Hey OWF, they surrendered! They lost! They said so themselves! Next round we can impose even harsher terms hurrdurr.’ You know full well that we (Coalition A) are in a much better place then what you (Coalition B ) are presenting, and this war is much closer than the current projection that’s put out. This is in all likelihood why you are threatening alliances in your coalition in order to keep them there. Agreeing to surrender before terms negotiation is bog standard, it doesn't mean you are beholden to an unconditional agreement. As to your 'place', well a picture tells a thousand words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exar Kun -George Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 14 hours ago, Kevanovia said: You know full well that we (Coalition A) are in a much better place then what you (Coalition B ) are presenting, and this war is much closer than the current projection that’s put out. This is in all likelihood why you are threatening alliances in your coalition in order to keep them there. Lol id like to add on to frawleys reply Lets take soup first, current member count is at 38 with 5 in vm, pre war numbers you had 68 (sadly i dont have vm numbers from that far ago... anyways Soup alone has dropped 30 (44%) members (305 cities). Your also sitting at about 7% military level and 6 of your members have not logged on in over 7 days (18%). So that isnt doing well Lets not do TGH, pre war they had 51 members, they now have 29 with 3 in vm, so TGH has dropped 22 (43%) members, they are sitting at about 5% activity and 3 of their members have not logged on in more than a week. Also not good ---------------------- Now our side has had some losses but no major alliance has lost anywhere close to the sheer number of players as your side has, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevanovia Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 5 hours ago, George (James T Kirk) said: Lets take soup first, current member count is at 38 with 5 in vm, pre war numbers you had 68 (sadly i dont have vm numbers from that far ago... anyways Soup alone has dropped 30 (44%) members (305 cities). Your also sitting at about 7% military level and 6 of your members have not logged on in over 7 days (18%). So that isnt doing well ---------------------- Now our side has had some losses but no major alliance has lost anywhere close to the sheer number of players as your side has, You’re not comparing Apples to Apples. Soup Kitchen (founded April 1) has been in 3 separate wars since its creation. We have only gotten to utilize a few weeks of peace. We’re doing pretty damn well with all things considered. 6 hours ago, Frawley said: Agreeing to surrender before terms negotiation is bog standard, it doesn't mean you are beholden to an unconditional agreement. Unless things have drastically changed from Bob to Orbis, this isn’t exactly true. There is a negotiation. Terms are given so that they can be accepted/rejected/discussed. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Frawley Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 37 minutes ago, Kevanovia said: Unless things have drastically changed from Bob to Orbis, this isn’t exactly true. There is a negotiation. Terms are given so that they can be accepted/rejected/discussed. You have to sue for peace (aka agree to Surrender) before you can get to the table, its works like that in RL, it worked like that on Bob, and it works like that here. The only major difference is that we are only allowing you to sue for peace at set times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Frawley said: You have to sue for peace (aka agree to Surrender) before you can get to the table, its works like that in RL, it worked like that on Bob, and it works like that here. The only major difference is that we are only allowing you to sue for peace at set times. Why does it matter? You guys keep moving the goalpost for KETOG, this is why everyone keeps dropping out. You wanted a surrender, they've said they're willing to surrender, so take them to the table and hash out terms. You literally keep making something new up to keep the war going. What is it that you want? I bet if they agree to surrender then discuss terms you'd change it again. Just agree to something. damn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 3 hours ago, Kastor said: Why does it matter? You guys keep moving the goalpost for KETOG, this is why everyone keeps dropping out. You wanted a surrender, they've said they're willing to surrender, so take them to the table and hash out terms. You literally keep making something new up to keep the war going. What is it that you want? I bet if they agree to surrender then discuss terms you'd change it again. Just agree to something. damn. We’ve agreed that it If they admit they lost and will surrender we can discuss terms. It’s really not that hard. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 16 hours ago, Epi said: Write Nerd Word Wall Post Chad Meme about the Forum Meta I neverl liked Camelot anyway, Epi. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 2 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: We’ve agreed that it If they admit they lost and will surrender we can discuss terms. It’s really not that hard. Okay, but if they reject your offer, then they'd be admitting they lost and your stance would be bolstered. I understand the game you're playing, but they're not going to play it, and you're not operating in good faith. Now before you say they aren't, your coalition has lied to theirs the entire time since this war has started, and thus have no reason to act in good faith. Sit down, discuss terms, and then you'd probably get what you want, the prolonged act of stalling is causing you(BK) to lose allies/alliances fighting with you. And once a few leave, they'll all leave, and I think you'd have trouble holding on after all your satellites left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 46 minutes ago, Kastor said: Okay, but if they reject your offer, then they'd be admitting they lost and your stance would be bolstered. I understand the game you're playing, but they're not going to play it, and you're not operating in good faith. Now before you say they aren't, your coalition has lied to theirs the entire time since this war has started, and thus have no reason to act in good faith. Sit down, discuss terms, and then you'd probably get what you want, the prolonged act of stalling is causing you(BK) to lose allies/alliances fighting with you. And once a few leave, they'll all leave, and I think you'd have trouble holding on after all your satellites left. We'll See. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Prefontaine Posted September 30, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted September 30, 2019 (edited) For the record, I don't recall any war here on Orbis that peace talks started with an admission of defeat prior to a public announcement. Normally public admissions of anything, joke or serious terms, are discussed while the war is still going without either side conceding anything. One side can present a list of terms, item 1 can be "Side X admits defeat publicly", followed by any other terms to reach peace. If that first term is rejected, well at least the full list of terms is on the table to start negotiations. Maybe a side would be willing to accept posting a public surrender at the cost of a few other of the terms. Anyway, have fun sorting this dumpster fire out. Best of of luck to whomever the negotiating reps are. Oh, and grats on peace to the alliance this thread was about originally Edited September 30, 2019 by Prefontaine 1 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Critters Posted September 30, 2019 Share Posted September 30, 2019 8 hours ago, Frawley said: You have to sue for peace (aka agree to Surrender) before you can get to the table, its works like that in RL, it worked like that on Bob, and it works like that here. The only major difference is that we are only allowing you to sue for peace at set times. This isn’t RL or Bob.... 2 Quote The Redneck Caliphate of Forrest's Critters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurdanak Posted October 2, 2019 Share Posted October 2, 2019 (edited) Exactly what Pre and Critters said. I genuinely don't know where people are getting this idea that wars in P&W have commonly ended how Coalition B is proposing. I don't know how people negotiated peace in CN and I really don't care. Drawing parallels between RL history and P&W is also rarely practical. Edited October 2, 2019 by Kurdanak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.