Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Sphinx said:

I should clarify I think both sides are at fault to various degrees. However you can't deny that certain groups have been more provocative than others which only serves to make people dig their heals in more and prolong things that could've been wrapped up sooner. No one can rightfully say you guys need to have "full responsibility" for the events of this war, that's not something Colo B or I are looking for. All I want is an admission of defeat for the talks to commence, its what Colo B voted on and its want we're striving for. Plus it means TCW's won a war, which means mil rep restored. :,v /s

We were so close to getting somewhere until that bolded part. I can't allow this. PERMAWAR.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sphinx said:

Haven't said anything in this thread, until now so I'll add our thoughts as Colo B's rep.

Firstly It should be obvious to people that making angry forum posts wont help in your current predicament, neither will trying to wriggle your way out of the situation by holding out in the hope for a change in circumstances. We've outlined repeatedly we require an admission of defeat before talks can commence. When your side talks the amount of shit they did, don't expect people to just allow that to be swepped under the rug and forgotten about, you don't have anyone else to blame for that than those who contributed to this grudge match. We never said we wanted an unconditional surrender, you are more than welcome to reject the terms and continue fighting, much like Germany had the option of doing so after WW1, but we won't budge from our outlined position. Also to reiterate and push back against the fake news surrounding what we (Colo B.) want from peace talks, anything you potentially might've heard is simply hearsay. Before he made this thread Seb spoke to me about some of these rumours including rumours that we wanted among other things to restrict the entire KERCHTOGG block from trading with anyone that isn't IQ. That and many of the other rumours floating around are demonstrably false, at this stage unless its confirmed by NG and I its not officially supported by Coalition B. I see some genuine concerns from both rank and file KERCHTOGG members right through to gov and high gov about such terms and I know that this fake news is contributing as a roadblock for any progress for the possible peace terms. So I'd advice any KERCHTOGG member concerned about things to hit NG or I up in DM's and we'd clear up any misconception. 

Secondly at this point its egos and pride which is holding back people from making rational decisions about the military realities of the war and coming to terms with their outcomes. IMO the war's gone on far too long, but we're (Coalition B.) willing to see this through well into new years and beyond so holding out to see if our resolve will break isn't going to get you anything either. To use an argument some from KERCHTOGG have used; the game's lost some good people from this war, but you cannot in good conscious blame Coalition B for that since we aren't the people holding out for some non-existent chance to get a white peace. I agree that such long wars are bad for the game and in hindsight its something we all as a community can work on when the next conflict comes around. But KERCHTOGG gains nothing but wasting their time and hurting the retention of their player-base by holding out and refusing to admit defeat, it costs you nothing to accept defeat and move on, whilst holding out for longer periods of time will cost you much much more.
 

Hi Sphinx, thanks for clarifying your views on this. On the one hand I guess you're saying you're side isn't asking an unconditional surrender (or at least that you never said you wanted that :-)) and that rumours about some harsh terms (or any terms in general) are demonstrably false. This implicitly suggests that terms won't be excessive.

But without knowing actual terms, all anyone can do is just guess… And you do state that coalition A can "reject the terms and continue fighting", just like " Germany had the option of doing so after WW1". This is an interesting comparison. The Versailles treaty meant Germany had to accept all responsibility for the war, lost much territory, received severe restrictions on the size of its military, lost control of part of its industry to its victors. The 1919 treaty suggested huge reparations payments until 1988 (!). British delegate Keynes and others knew in advance that harsh peace terms would mean trouble for the next generation. And they were right as global war 2 showed. This short reference to WW1, but also harsh words about the grudge match for which "you don't have anyone else to blame"  and which won't be "forgotten about" suggests terms "won't forget about" this either and be more than just another global peace treaty. You can hardly blame rank and file reading "Vengeance" into some of these words, besides much more severe existing mutual distrust and toxicity. Some will expect the worst. That in earlier exit negotiations for instance infra limitations were said to be a topic is also unlikely to set minds at ease.

I think one lesson of WW1 was that you don't just need to win the war - you also need to win the peace. And you don't do that with a "Carthaginian" peace treaty which crushes the enemy even postwar. Which - by the way - also alienates and warns neutral bystanders and even worries some on your own side (or so I hear). There is a recent example which might help. During Knightfall my alliance leader held a serious grudge against TCW and against you in particular. As FA at the time, with no history with you, I'm glad how despite this grudge the peace treaty didn't demand much more than admittal of defeat and the usual quirky demands about flags etc (and something about a trade bot). At least no big payments, infra limits or cripling demands like that. Something that by the way (I think) was agreed to as a package deal.
This made for a good peace after a good war.

It would really help the peace process if you could clarify all your demands, at least to coalition A.
Do they need to agree they've lost first? Doing so in logs which can be leaked, means them giving something without knowing what they'll get in return.
It means running the risk of it being leaked by the enemy and used to hurt their war effort.
So just talk about the package deal as a whole. Show your side, the enemy and all of Orbis that besides winning the war, you can also win the peace. And do it in style.



 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sphinx said:

Haven't said anything in this thread, until now so I'll add our thoughts as Colo B's rep.

Firstly It should be obvious to people that making angry forum posts wont help in your current predicament, neither will trying to wriggle your way out of the situation by holding out in the hope for a change in circumstances. We've outlined repeatedly we require an admission of defeat before talks can commence. When your side talks the amount of shit they did, don't expect people to just allow that to be swepped under the rug and forgotten about, you don't have anyone else to blame for that than those who contributed to this grudge match. We never said we wanted an unconditional surrender, you are more than welcome to reject the terms and continue fighting, much like Germany had the option of doing so after WW1, but we won't budge from our outlined position. Also to reiterate and push back against the fake news surrounding what we (Colo B.) want from peace talks, anything you potentially might've heard is simply hearsay. Before he made this thread Seb spoke to me about some of these rumours including rumours that we wanted among other things to restrict the entire KERCHTOGG block from trading with anyone that isn't IQ. That and many of the other rumours floating around are demonstrably false, at this stage unless its confirmed by NG and I its not officially supported by Coalition B. I see some genuine concerns from both rank and file KERCHTOGG members right through to gov and high gov about such terms and I know that this fake news is contributing as a roadblock for any progress for the possible peace terms. So I'd advice any KERCHTOGG member concerned about things to hit NG or I up in DM's and we'd clear up any misconception. 

Secondly at this point its egos and pride which is holding back people from making rational decisions about the military realities of the war and coming to terms with their outcomes. IMO the war's gone on far too long, but we're (Coalition B.) willing to see this through well into new years and beyond so holding out to see if our resolve will break isn't going to get you anything either. To use an argument some from KERCHTOGG have used; the game's lost some good people from this war, but you cannot in good conscious blame Coalition B for that since we aren't the people holding out for some non-existent chance to get a white peace. I agree that such long wars are bad for the game and in hindsight its something we all as a community can work on when the next conflict comes around. But KERCHTOGG gains nothing but wasting their time and hurting the retention of their player-base by holding out and refusing to admit defeat, it costs you nothing to accept defeat and move on, whilst holding out for longer periods of time will cost you much much more.
 

I think everyone can agree that things have gone way too far in terms of politics.  I'm not just pointing out one side over the other necessarily as much as I am the community involved in this war as a whole.  Things have gone way too far for way too long and it's hurting everyone at this point.  I understand the stance you guys have of wanting an admission of surrender.  I bet most of Coalition A gets that too, but they want the terms that come with that surrender.  I quite frankly agree with them that it's kind of silly to not present your terms along with the surrender.  So surrender is non-negotiable...  Great, we established that.  What happens next?  Do you guys have ANY other terms to get these talks going?  Because I do believe that is LITERALLY what is holding everything up.

I'm not trying to tell you how to do things, but it would probably jump start things if you would start laying out terms that are accompanied by the already established, non-negotiable surrender.  I've read a few people say that it's pointless to make these terms because they don't want to waste hours making things we may reject...  How many hours though have we been at war?  Hours fighting each other over this stupid issue?  Hours that could have been spent making said terms and discussing them rather than holding them?  This war has gone on for MONTHS.  You're telling me you didn't have a few hours in that span of time to come up with something to present along with a non-negotiable surrender?

I seriously don't see why this is so complicated to understand...  Why is it so hard to lay out your terms on the table for one side to review them and negotiate them?  Don't feed me the 'it takes time' crap, because we have had plenty of it the last four months.  This war is literally stalled over this singular issue of Coalition A wanting Coalition B's terms and Coalition B not giving said terms because of...reasons?  It's not hard guys...  Make terms and present them so they can be negotiated.

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

5Ruxt3x.jpg

Young nation about Coalition B not posting all their peace terms https://webmshare.com/play/0ooyK

Young nation about Coalition A refusing to surrender https://webmshare.com/play/d77Pv

I don't even need to edit the videos, already perfect

 

Edited by Micchan
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Blutarch Mann said:

Hello, coward!

Only a coward continues to throw his own comrades at a war just to avoid losing face in public. You are the biggest coward of all.

That sounds awfully like what happened for your side, when NPO who held no ties into this war joined to help BK/Cov save face.  Huh...

 

EDIT:

I think quite a few of you have forgotten how or why this war started in the first place, and why there hasn't been a surrender despite Sphinx's claims.

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

Demanding a surrender before releasing terms in this case is a powerplay, plain and simple.  I for one would like to see at least a 50:50 war:peace ratio, and do feel it is time to thrash out a peace, but that won't start with coalition A just bending over and pumping up egos in coalition B over a term such as this.  You talk about negotiations, well this first term is where it starts and you already seem incapable of negotiating.  Doesn't bode well for further terms now does it?  In my view it is fine for surrender to be non-negotiable, but only in the context of the broader peace deal, not as a pre-condition.  People would likely only accept surrender as a pre-condition when they're literally facing imminent destruction with no hope whatsoever, however this is a separate debate that only people with suitably sized heads should engage in.........and this has apparently yet to occur.

  • Upvote 1

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Micchan said:

Young nation about Coalition B not posting all their peace terms https://webmshare.com/play/0ooyK

Young nation about Coalition A refusing to surrender https://webmshare.com/play/d77Pv

I don't even need to edit the videos, already perfect

 

i thought this was gonna be some boomer nonsense making fun of greta but lmao nah this rules. You right.

2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

That sounds awfully like what happened for your side, when NPO who held no ties into this war joined to help BK/Cov save face.  Huh...

 

EDIT:

I think quite a few of you have forgotten how or why this war started in the first place, and why there hasn't been a surrender despite Sphinx's claims.

1 hour ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

They didn't even know in the first place.

(it still doesn't matter)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Epi said:

The best argument for your side is that agreeing to surrender in the final peace will hurt you're war effort. Lol. Don't get me wrong but this sounds like you have no intention of peacing especially if we provide you the terms without our condition.

As a note, Me and Cooper, FA for alliances on both sides of the war petitioned Sphinx and Adrienne to hold a private VC to discuss the state of the war and possibly peace months ago. Unlogged, unrecorded, anything said could be denied and nothing left that VC. 

From memory, Adrienne decided not to participate because she felt her coalition could still win.

Ultimately we end up where we started with your argument. If you guys surrender, it destroys the 'get gud' foundation you built your alliance's around. We'd set you back 5 years in one word. 

It's not that there's no intention to surrender, it's that surrendering weakens our position negotiation-wise if there are terms that our side doesn't like, we can negotiate them and if your side doesn't budge, we walk away with no repercussion. However, if we surrender first, then the pressure is on us to accept your terms and cede ground in the negotiations because otherwise it looks like we're the ones holding up the war, like TKR in Knightfall.

Edit: I think someone in your leadership said already that they don't want us to have the ability to walk away as some kind of bargaining chip, probably cause it would extend the war if we did decide to just walk away. However, the simple answer to prevent that from happening is not giving us bullshit terms, and/or being lenient/open when negotiating said terms. Of course, this first requires that you negotiate in good faith and not direct us under the bridge to greet two trolls.

Edited by REAP3R

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Epi said:

Ultimately we end up where we started with your argument. If you guys surrender, it destroys the 'get gud' foundation you built your alliance's around. We'd set you back 5 years in one word. 

Apparently, neither KF nor 69 actually happened.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Sphinx said:

Also, whilst I'm fairly certain you're joking with your nihilism about perma war/last war of the game, I'm not so sure about others, ;,p 

I'm not joking.......This war continues till individuals decide it's over.........*gpwc flashback* *wink wink*

 

13 hours ago, Sphinx said:

Plus it means TCW's won a war, which means mil rep restored. :,v /s

This is why I wont be surrendering basically. You will never win the war. I'm ready to drag it out of months till you get hit again since you know every global will be people hanging on IQ now.

 

From what our coalition leaders are saying, I know the war is taking a toll. BUT the current war must go on till IQ surrenders. White peace isnt an option here.

Edited by ShadyAssassin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ShadyAssassin said:

Thank you. I'm also right about the perma-war.You dont win a war till all participants peace out.

It's interesting how many Coalition leaders, mostly from Chaos are in here talking about how peace is possible if only the terms were revealed. Meanwhile KETOG leaders like you and the guy that mass spied GOONS and told them to get bent have taken actions to drag outside alliances into the war against you, and in your case outright stated that you want a permawar. I'm not sure what kind of crazy-ass good cop/bad cop foreign affairs strategy Coalition A is running, but maybe take a step back and reevaluate lmao.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Epi said:

The best argument for your side is that agreeing to surrender in the final peace will hurt you're war effort. Lol. Don't get me wrong but this sounds like you have no intention of peacing especially if we provide you the terms without our condition.

As a note, Me and Cooper, FA for alliances on both sides of the war petitioned Sphinx and Adrienne to hold a private VC to discuss the state of the war and possibly peace months ago. Unlogged, unrecorded, anything said could be denied and nothing left that VC. 

From memory, Adrienne decided not to participate because she felt her coalition could still win.

Ultimately we end up where we started with your argument. If you guys surrender, it destroys the 'get gud' foundation you built your alliance's around. We'd set you back 5 years in one word. 

The only issue here is that you, Sphinx, etc, are so deadset that we want to surrender.

 

Your best option to even have us consider surrender is presenting the terms that would give us incentive to accept surrendering.  It's obvious, by now, that most of our alliances on our side are pretty torn down Infra/Score wise, but by war mechanics alone - anybody can simply rebuild back up to 600-800 Infra per city and be able to fully max out military easily and cheaply to continue fighting (Entirely depending on their targets and strats, of course).

This particular war isn't new to most veterans in the game.  NPO/BK were ground down to dust before, TKR has been before, hell - Rose has been several times throughout it's long history, etc.  All these new comers that think nation/alliance score is what matters know nothing of this game.

The war started with both of your spheres (N$O and BKsphere - it's no longer Covenant, let's be real) had plans to roll both of the smaller spheres (KETOG, Chaos).  You folks had established plans long beforehand to build around the idea of a long war.

So one way or another, we were going to get dogpiled against.  And one way or another, in the future, we'll be dogpiled again too.  Simply because you can't pull each other's dicks from your asses.  The only people who attempted to change the game are all in our coalition, while your side would rather have the game remain stagnant.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Frawley
13 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

The only issue here is that you, Sphinx, etc, are so deadset that we want to surrender. 

Your best option to even have us consider surrender is presenting the terms that would give us incentive to accept surrendering.

If you don't want to surrender, don't.  We don't need to give you incentives, if you want us to give you peace, incentivise us to end the war by agreeing to surrender.

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.