Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Obviously that's whats going on at this point.

Fine with us. We can continue this for however long you want ^_^ Though if you don't want peace, all of this PR ploy you folks are trying is worthless post this.

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

46 minutes ago, Frawley said:

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.

You don't need to give incentives for peace.  If you want us to surrender though, we do need terms.  You can't tell me that surrendering is your only term.  I get that it's a non negotiable term.  Well established as this point.  What else goes along with that?  I know I'm asking for the world here, but you need to give those terms for surrender.  This isn't about incentives, this is about the post war terms.  You can, and really should deliver them along with the conditions for surrender.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

What else goes along with that?  I know I'm asking for the world here, but you need to give those terms for surrender.  This isn't about incentives, this is about the post war terms.  You can, and really should deliver them along with the conditions for surrender.

Nah. If you aren't willing to accept term one, the rest are pointless. Honestly, no amount of equivocation from your side will change this. Unless and until it's clear you are willing to surrender/admit defeat, there's no point for talks to go on. You're free to read @Akuryo's post earlier in this thread that showcased it was a simple one-liner and we moved straight into the terms and negotiated stuff till a compromise was found. That was demonstrated with Ming and whomever else tbh. Not about to change it now for folks who's leadership state they do not wish to surrender in public while trying to pull this guilt-trip on the forums. No thanks. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said:

Nah. If you aren't willing to accept term one, the rest are pointless. Honestly, no amount of equivocation from your side will change this. Unless and until it's clear you are willing to surrender/admit defeat, there's no point for talks to go on. You're free to read @Akuryo's post earlier in this thread that showcased it was a simple one-liner and we moved straight into the terms and negotiated stuff till a compromise was found. That was demonstrated with Ming and whomever else tbh. Not about to change it now for folks who's leadership state they do not wish to surrender in public while trying to pull this guilt-trip on the forums. No thanks. 

Answer me this beyond the whole "If you won't accept term one, you won't accept term two, three, and so on".  What is the harm in your Coalition presenting the terms along with the surrender?  Because from where I'm sitting, (yes a member of Coalition A, yet looking at this from a neutral perspective) there is absolutely no harm that comes from your side presenting the terms for surrender to our side.  Is there something hidden in your list of terms that you can't disclose because it's to radical or wild?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Batavus said:

Snip

Appreciate the history lesson Bata (You do know I've got a Masters in History? ;,p) hindsight is a good thing and it was obvious the ToV was a terrible treaty that exacerbated tensions and helped contribute to the start of WW2, 20 years later, but that analogy isn't applicable here. My point about WW1 Germany was to show that they could either accept or reject the terms presented (In which case fighting would restart), I understand that the terms presented in the ToV were very punitive that isn't our intent here. 

Fist' grudge against us was entirely of his own doing. TCW wouldn't have cared about whatever 'Carthaginian' terms Pantheon wanted on us. Without rehashing an old topic too much as far as we were considered the legitimate Pantheon gov was now in TCW so anything Pantheon said was simply hot-air, we'd never have accepted anything they (Pantheon) wanted. Regarding posting terms, as I said before all other Colo B leaders voted for who they wanted to represent the coalition in talks and they picked NG and I, the coalition has signified their intent not to present anything until an admission of defeat is made, (Which as I said before can always be walked back), so that's what we'll do. We aren't going to post public terms mainly to avoid the disaster that the KF thread produced. Nothing anyone has suggested deviates from terms presented and accepted in previous peace treaties. If Colo B decides to do things differently and have terms posted publicly then I'll get that all sorted, until such time we'll continue with what we voted and agreed upon.

5 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

snip

If you say people would only accept surrender as a precondition only if they're facing "imminent destruction with no hope whatsoever", then in the same paragraph say that you're fine with surrendering as a precondition then it shows us all we need to know about your current predicament. I don't think there is much more I can clarify, we stated how you can get talks to commence its doesn't lessen anyone's reputation for admitting defeat and if they don't like the terms they are more than capable of withdrawing and trying their hand at fighting to get a better outcome. 

1 hour ago, ShadyAssassin said:

stuff

Good luck with that mate, not like you'd have any impact apart from kurbing your ability to do anything but watch the turns tick over whilst we take turns sitting on you.

1 hour ago, Buorhann said:

snip

Buor what you don't seem to realise is we aren't worried if you don't want to surrender. Many of us in Colo B are just as much of a veteran as you and many others, so we're use to the long haul. If you don't want to surrender that's entirely fine, we're prefectly happy if you wish to put your pride before logic and reason. Also its preplexing why you and others in KERCHTOGG keep bringing up the 'minispheres' idea or accusations of your side being virtuous in wanting to shake up the political meta whilst ours is protrayed as the dinosaurs holding progress back. Alliances will make decisions based on what they hold to be in their best interests, for many they feel that the current dynamic is what is best for them and their allies. If you want change then you need to be arbiter to entice that change and so far the actions of several in KERCHTOGG have shown the dangers that isolating themselves just for the sake of it can bring. You aren't anymore of a hero for trying to try something new, same as we aren't anymore of a villain than what you attempt to portray us as.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

Because from where I'm sitting, (yes a member of Coalition A, yet looking at this from a neutral perspective) there is absolutely no harm that comes from your side presenting the terms for surrender to our side.  Is there something hidden in your list of terms that you can't disclose because it's to radical or wild?

No. That's a nice line but false. We aren't "hiding" the terms, just outlined how we'd like to see the process go. Someone mentioned by agreeing to admit defeat/surrender your side loses its negotiating position, well I mean you have your answer there. If you're hope is to use admission of defeat/surrender as a negotiating tool, we aren't really interested. So until the non-negotiable term gets accepted, what makes you think we want to waste our time looking at the rest? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

Answer me this beyond the whole "If you won't accept term one, you won't accept term two, three, and so on".  What is the harm in your Coalition presenting the terms along with the surrender?  Because from where I'm sitting, (yes a member of Coalition A, yet looking at this from a neutral perspective) there is absolutely no harm that comes from your side presenting the terms for surrender to our side.  Is there something hidden in your list of terms that you can't disclose because it's to radical or wild?

Look no further than Buor's recent statements to see what we mean. Fact is your side is just as willing to continue this war indefinitely so that gives us no reason to lessen our position to accommodate the people unwilling to put aside their egos for the greater good.

15 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Nah. If you aren't willing to accept term one, the rest are pointless. Honestly, no amount of equivocation from your side will change this. Unless and until it's clear you are willing to surrender/admit defeat, there's no point for talks to go on. You're free to read @Akuryo's post earlier in this thread that showcased it was a simple one-liner and we moved straight into the terms and negotiated stuff till a compromise was found. That was demonstrated with Ming and whomever else tbh. Not about to change it now for folks who's leadership state they do not wish to surrender in public while trying to pull this guilt-trip on the forums. No thanks. 

Exactly, Trajan (Ming's leader) and Aku hit me up,, admitted in the first sentence they lost the war and wanted terms and I got Colo B to organise the peace and they've been out of the war for weeks working on rebuilding and growth. That's not a hard thing to do, but we all know why they refuse to do it. If someone with an ego as big as @Akuryo can admit defeat then surely others can do so.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

No. That's a nice line but false. We aren't "hiding" the terms, just outlined how we'd like to see the process go. Someone mentioned by agreeing to admit defeat/surrender your side loses its negotiating position, well I mean you have your answer there. If you're hope is to use admission of defeat/surrender as a negotiating tool, we aren't really interested. So until the non-negotiable term gets accepted, what makes you think we want to waste our time looking at the rest? 

If there's nothing in your terms worth hiding, why not meet us halfway and present what you'd like to see happen?  I get that you want the process to happen this way, but the leaders of Coalition A aren't going to give in to that process.  At the same time, you guys are reluctant to go beyond your position of surrender first before we present the terms.  This impasse had lead to months of war that we all agree is hurting the game.  At this point, the game's survival is all I really care about.

At this point we are in a position similar to that of the Berlin crisis, or the standoff at the Charlie Checkpoint.  If you aren't familiar with the history, basically the former Soviet Union and the US came dangerously close to starting WW3 over a serious disagreement.  Neither wanted to back down, and basically the world was at stake if one didn't.  Neither the US, nor Russia however wanted to start a world ending conflict, so the two sides worked little by little to reduce the military present at the checkpoint and ease the tensions.

I only point this out because of the parallels, though on a much smaller scale.  Neither side wants to back down for fears of being seen as weak, yet only the game suffers as a result of that.  However, I believe that we can learn a lesson from history and take an approach that benefits everyone.  BOTH sides however, have to be willing to compromise for this to work...  I do still think that Coalition B should present their terms for surrender, however maybe instead of a sweeping negotiation/terms, do this little by little.

In the standoff, the Russians would move so many tanks away from the check points while the Americans would do the same.  This continued with slight reductions little by little until the desired goal was met.  How we as a group could proceed with these peace talks is by working to gradually reduce our alliances out of the war.  Take your negotiations and terms to the alliances and slowly peel back the fighting little by little.  Start with the smaller ones, negotiate a small alliance from Coalition A out of the war and one from Coalition B.  Move on to the next and keep working up til we can get everyone out at the end.

Something has got to be done...  Like I said, we all agree that this is killing the game and it has to stop.  If we can't do this in one big negotiating swoop, let's start working on the little things and moving towards the bigger as we go along.  Surely both sides can find some common ground to start peeling away at things.

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

I don't see how the game suffers from Coalition A voluntarily being rolled for 6+ months. Player choice is an important part of every game and your leadership has clearly chosen that they want the war to continue for the foreseeable future, and you've clearly chosen to endorse that decision by remaining a member of a Coalition A alliance. If war was truly untenable for your leadership they would surrender, and if it was untenable for you you'd leave the alliance. Neither outcome has occurred, which means that both your leadership and you as an individual want more war.

There is absolutely 0 onus on Coalition B to make concessions or capitulations to Coalition A when we've won the war and gain economic ground against you every day. It's on your leadership to admit that they've been defeated and that this set of circumstances is no longer acceptable to them.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pop said:

I don't see how the game suffers from Coalition A voluntarily being rolled for 6+ months. Player choice is an important part of every game and your leadership has clearly chosen that they want the war to continue for the foreseeable future, and you've clearly chosen to endorse that decision by remaining a member of a Coalition A alliance. If war was truly untenable for your leadership they would surrender, and if it was untenable for you you'd leave the alliance. Neither outcome has occurred, which means that both your leadership and you as an individual want more war.

There is absolutely 0 onus on Coalition B to make concessions or capitulations to Coalition A when we've won the war and gain economic ground against you every day. It's on your leadership to admit that they've been defeated and that this set of circumstances is no longer acceptable to them.

I choose to stay a member of Coalition A because I happen to like TKR.  I enjoy talking to the people here and being apart of that community.  They reached out to me when I first started, taught me a lot about the game, and helped me grow as a player.  Even now, I enjoy being with them and talking to all their members and frankly they are like family to me.  Just because I choose to stay with them doesn't mean I am seeking eternal war.  It just means I like my family and I stick with them regardless of what's happening inside of the game.  Keeping in mind that this IS just a game.  If players choice is as important as you say it is, I choose to stay with my alliance because this alliance is important to me.  Doesn't mean I support every decision they make, but if I am going to be apart of that team, I do play with my teammates same as you.  Would you jump ship and desert your alliance if you were in our position?  If so, isn't that a bit shallow...?

Edited by Syrachime
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

I choose to stay a member of Coalition A because I happen to like TKR.  I enjoy talking to the people here and being apart of that community.  They reached out to me when I first started, taught me a lot about the game, and helped me grow as a player.  Even now, I enjoy being with them and talking to all their members and They are like family to me.  Just because I choose to stay with them doesn't mean I am seeking eternal war.  It just means I like my family and I stick with them regardless of what's happening inside of the game.  Keeping in mind that this IS just a game.  If players choice is as important as you say it is, I choose to stay with my alliance because this alliance is important to me.  Doesn't mean I support every decision they make, but if I am going to be apart of that team, I do play with my teammates same as you.  Would you jump ship and dessert your alliance if you were in our position?  If so, isn't that a bit shallow...?

If the war isn't enough of a burden to overwhelm other aspects of the game like your loyalty to your alliance then how can it be damaging to the health of the game like you were spouting earlier?

I wouldn't leave my alliance over a little rolling which is my point. The war is a completely natural part of the game that has continued for so long with the consent of all parties involved. All these moral appeals to Game Health from your Coalition are baseless and hold no value.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Sphinx said:

Alliances will make decisions based on what they hold to be in their best interests, for many they feel that the current dynamic is what is best for them and their allies. If you want change then you need to be arbiter to entice that change and so far the actions of several in KERCHTOGG have shown the dangers that isolating themselves just for the sake of it can bring. You aren't anymore of a hero for trying to try something new, same as we aren't anymore of a villain than what you attempt to portray us as.

Feel free to elaborate more on this, because I'm smelling bullshit on you about this.

Do explain the idea of "working with N$O" to help dogpile on the smaller Chaos/KETOG, and explain how that's "good"?

The actions in KERCHTOGG?  What actions?  You mean us beating each other up, then having to work together because of your dumb slip up?  This whole paranoia thing of MegaTKRwhatever that some of you go on about starts with you, and why the situation is as it is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Pop said:

If the war isn't enough of a burden to overwhelm other aspects of the game like your loyalty to your alliance then how can it be damaging to the health of the game like you were spouting earlier?

I wouldn't leave my alliance over a little rolling which is my point. The war is a completely natural part of the game that has continued for so long with the consent of all parties involved. All these moral appeals to Game Health from your Coalition are baseless and hold no value.

To those of us that are loyal to our alliances, it's not harmful.  The harm comes in the attraction of new players that gives this game life.  New people that come into this game are going to be swept up into the war and the politics behind it that we've seen are going to make them want to stop playing.  Our alliances on both sides need these new players to keep this game going and perpetual war isn't doing anyone any good.  The politics least of all don't help with how toxic they've been.  And they have been VERY toxic on both sides of the aisle.  Both Coalitions bear responsibility for the current state of affairs in the war, not just one side or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

To those of us that are loyal to our alliances, it's not harmful.  The harm comes in the attraction of new players that gives this game life.  New people that come into this game are going to be swept up into the war and the politics behind it that we've seen are going to make them want to stop playing.  Our alliances on both sides need these new players to keep this game going and perpetual war isn't doing anyone any good.  The politics least of all don't help with how toxic they've been.  And they have been VERY toxic on both sides of the aisle.  Both Coalitions bear responsibility for the current state of affairs in the war, not just one side or the other.

You say that as if the impact on recruitment is equally spread across both coalitions, it might be if this were an even war, but it isn't. Naturally the Coalition that is getting absolutely slapped below 4.5k (you guys) will feel a greater impact on low tiers and new recruits. Once again, that can be ended at any time by DMing Sphinx or TheNG and admitting defeat. From what I've observed on this side of the pond our recruits have been absolutely thriving on the plunder your coalition provides. Take the current #1 for Soldier kills in the entire war, a green NPO recruit 4 months ago who has amassed a fortune of pixels and experience tearing through all the yummy targets y'all provide. imho War is the crucible that forges the best recruits an alliance can get, provided you haven't lost tier control and can give them breathing room.

If your argument is that we should make concessions to Coalition A because Coalition A is feeling the weight of defeat and can't recruit I don't think you're going to get far unfortunately. Ultimately its a free market and recruits will go somewhere they can have a reasonable expectation of prosperity.

Edited by Pop
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Pop said:

If the war isn't enough of a burden to overwhelm other aspects of the game like your loyalty to your alliance then how can it be damaging to the health of the game like you were spouting earlier?

I wouldn't leave my alliance over a little rolling which is my point. The war is a completely natural part of the game that has continued for so long with the consent of all parties involved. All these moral appeals to Game Health from your Coalition are baseless and hold no value.

Sphinx, coalition B negotiator, only 2 pages ago, also said such long wars are bad for the game, although he of course blames Coal A. I agree with him that such long global wars are bad for the game by the way - and I’m neither coa A or B. So you can’t just blame Coa A for saying such a long war is  bad for the game. Coa B voices and neutrals also see this. You just don’t. And don’t say “consent of all parties involved”. Just a couple players on both sides decide - and those leaders in many cases have little choice. You fight with your fellow alliance members and allies (leaving N$O as a topic for another day). Their members mostly do what their alliance does. Little consent there.

Sphinx: “IMO the war's gone on far too long (...)” “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 (...)” “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.” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a bystander, I definitely won't understand as much as to what is occurring at the moment, but is there an issue for both sides trying to sue for white peace? I guess both sides wants the other to do something more, but I don't something like that would happen, unless something big happens.

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

5 hours 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 "git gud" actually.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2019 at 12:24 PM, Epi said:

How would you guys feel about:

  • 3 page short story about the Holy Kingdom of roz rejecting Chaos. 
  • Cutlery trophies (seeker could get a full set) 
  • Clarke did nothing wrong
  • 3-6-9-12 month nap
  • Returning mistrades
  • A derpy flag, 30-120 days
  • 1-3-6 bil reparations
  • Rolling Vmers , Seb... Jk
  • TGH gets a princesses. 
  • KT surrenders Jerusalem to Ayyslam
  • Rose renames its Discord to daffodil 
  • FR commits to staying the Fk off maroon. 
  • Cooper [tkr] and Arthur [CAM] have to join an alliance named Trump 2020.
  • TKR admits rwby is better than their book series. 
  • Empyrea stops ghosting gpwc
  • Upvoting Epi 2000-3000 times. 
  • Coalition A surrenders to Coalition B which surrenders to Goonalition G. 
  • Soup Kitchen renames their bloc to "Bad Company" lel. 
  • Scarfalot transfers 30k food to Leo with the note "Slayyyves"
  • Empyrea officially sells Scarf to BK who'll set him free. 
  • We rename the war to "Endgame" or "Return of the Kings". 
  • Kertog volunteers a nation each as tribute to fight in the Pacific Colluseum until sub-300 infra. 
  • Abbas renames to 'the new Pacific order' 
  • CoS buys some Tegrity Weed and denounces big kool-aid farma. 
  • Grumpy redefines 30+ city nations as Pufferfish.
  • AK blows their bank on Keno
  • Seven Kingdoms declares House Stark a free and independent Kingdom. 
  • Adrienne hosts an end of war comedy gala. 
  • Seven Kingdoms schools both coalitions on an end of year Christmas song. 
  • Kertog commits to freeing the remaining BK members in area 51 in 2020.
  • Everyone donates their treasures to Sphinx to stack the bonus as high as possible. 
  • Everyone signs 50 treaties with BK to break the treaty Web for 1 night only. 
  • Regardless of Stats, we agree Polar had the lowest net. 
  • Arrgh admits to losing a war to covenant, again. 
  • TKR draws a picture for Goons mercy board, something involving spies. 
  • TKR could buy Roq some custom NPO socks

These aren't coalition B's terms I just wanted to see what people thought so I added every term I've heard of being imposed. And tried to personalise them to the individual/alliance.

What is punitive bs, what would be kinda funny etc. I wanna know how people would like this to end. Ultimately, we all wanna have fun and we don't wanna destroy anyone here, so having a retrospective and sharp joke is the goal I assume? 

 

It's not a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

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.

 

3 hours ago, Sphinx said:

If you say people would only accept surrender as a precondition only if they're facing "imminent destruction with no hope whatsoever", then in the same paragraph say that you're fine with surrendering as a precondition then it shows us all we need to know about your current predicament. I don't think there is much more I can clarify, we stated how you can get talks to commence its doesn't lessen anyone's reputation for admitting defeat and if they don't like the terms they are more than capable of withdrawing and trying their hand at fighting to get a better outcome.

So I've quoted my original post so that we have no misunderstandings (the bane of many a negotiation).  I am sorry if I've been unclear with my meaning.

What I mean to say is that surrender as a precondition may be amenable to someone if their circumstance in their mind indicated imminent destruction with no hope.  I did not mean to imply that is the perception held of coalition A by coalition A.  To be absolutely clear, I personally think (as does my leadership as far as I know) that a precondition of surrender is unacceptable to us.

As far as surrender being a part of a broader peace-deal (a package deal some may call it), where all the terms are upon the table to be discussed, then I see no problem with you taking the position that our surrender is non-negotiable.  Please do not get confused between surrender as a precondition and surrender as a non-negotiable element of a (hopefully) future peace deal, as you seem to have done already.  To paint a logical picture, a stated precondition of surrender to negotiate terms is necessarily non-negotiable, however a non-negotiable surrender is not necessarily a precondition to negotiate terms.

I am of the opinion that the only purpose that you have for asking for surrender before releasing terms is because it serves your own purposes to our detriment.  I grant you that the highly probably detriment I am predicting may be an essential non-issue for coalition A to service, but equally so it may be a deal breaker and we would end up right where we are now.  So given the latter, we would also be in essence arming you with a point of difference i.e. that we backed out of a surrender, and given the vitriol on this forum and the apparent diplomatic impasse we find ourselves in, I'm sure you can understand that is not unreasonably the last thing we desire.

I am certain there are other opinions out there, certainly more informed with historical context.  However this is just me calling it how I see it, desiring peace and not wishing to get burdened with game destroying conditions to how I/we choose to play.  I will fight insofar as I believe it the best option at any given time, and your position thus far sustains this belief.

Have a great day :)

  • Upvote 1

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2019 at 5:39 PM, Cooper_ said:

Don't project your motives onto ours.  You can look to previous posts where we've admitted to facilitating dynamics that weren't great for the game, and we took action to change it.  We went through KF and still followed through on what we said we wanted to do, which is the multisphere, dynamic model.  Our goals and actions have been quite transparent.  We see bad logs: cut-and-dry CB.  We find people with similar goals: cut-and-dry bloc.  

It's not a projection. The bad logs just justify the feelings you already had. The bloc you did made more sense than CoS ever being on opposite sides from you. That had been the big change in KF not them signing with you so when CoS leadership continued being friendly to you and had become progressively hostile to the other alliances it was a huge red flag that culminated in the signing of your bloc. Pretty much all of the alliances in your current bloc had been friendly for a long time except maybe Soup Kitchen.

So the approach TKR took of trying to reconcile with every other coalition member was alarming in fact and if you and Manthrax/Ripper can't see how making Chaos was tension-causing in the way it's done, it can't be helped.

Quote

Did we see IQ as an actor that betrayed the bloc system we wanted to promote? Yes.  

Did we plan to hit IQ? Yes.  

Did we consider IQ broken up with N$O and BK/TcW? Yes

Did we plan to hit NPO afterwards? No.

Could you have answered all of these questions based on our VERY transparent FA goals? YES.

Not really. Like I said based on multiple convos, it was clear there was a decent amount of anger and  lots of accusations in the open in the week prior to us hitting tkr.

 

 

Quote

I also find the irony of your statements funny because supposedly this is all in NPO's interests while the fact of the matter is that you could've maintained your allies, not taken  ~150 billion in damage (if we include ur infra sold), had decent PR, and tiered to C22.  Instead you chose to declare on the alliance with which you've had a history of being on opposite sides of wars.  That just doesn't seem logical especially when "your interests" were threatened by logs that don't even exist.  All of these facts just ring hollow in the grand scheme of things, and unless you can provide hard evidence (as you've frighteningly used up basically every form of spin that logic has to offer) it seems to be the prevailing notion that you were influenced by a grudge.  As with all of my posts, I won't directly accuse you of such, but for whoever reads this, I'll let the argument/evidence I've offered do the talking.  

You seem to think interests coincide with economic profitability. War is never really profitable.  For us, fighting in globals is important because we want people to gain experience and Knightfall had coddled a lot of people. There was also demand for war starting 2 months into peace.  You don't know for a fact that we would have retained our allies and it was frequently raised as a concern prior to us signing that we needed continuity in leadership or at least continuity in ideas.  The PR for a big alliance sitting out/barely fighting is easy to spin negatively. "da npo is pullin da stringz to make every1 else burn". When an alliance appears to be pixel huggy and alienates people who ask it for help, it's easy for it to be a giant target or for people to want  to punish them so they don't appear invincible. That was the main reason even though Rose/KT/TGH had been the ones to cause direct offense in AC, we still went with the Knightfall plan as TKR appeared to be untouchable and it would be easy for people to buy into it further. For instance, there was an alliance called Zodiac made up of Chola and BoC. The BoC people ditched after ToT to do AIM and go against IQ. The Chola people were the ones remaining but a certain group of people hid themselves away and only communicated with one leader, Aerys. Aerys became extremely busy IRL and they began to develop their own ideas and saw the game as unplayable with BK. They had broken with his tiering system and wished to become GOB-lite with high infra builds and high city counts, so when they had to fight tjest, they got upset and then didn't want to follow the strategy in AC which led to them approaching TKR and TKR asking them to drop BK.  The way BK fought for the splinter alliance(The Chola Empire later renamed Tesla) meant they'd lose infra during wars due to not being able to keep max tanks/navy/etc. and stay above water. Tesla went on later to flop when they came under pressure but if TKR had not been hit, it'd have been a success story for some time longer and anyone paying attention doesn't want that to happen. Anyway, being a pixel hugger and avoiding war can be damaging PR-wise as well.

There's also the fact if the war was too easy for you could either restore economics to the upper tier or go for us.  At a certain point sitting on BK and co would stop being a bother especially as they'd continue to lose face in terms of their side, alliances would exit,  and  they had already lost the proverbial "mandate of  heaven" by being on the back foot and many people on their side wavered  and didn't use their full potential.  At the end of Knightfall, BK appeared to be on the upswing and people gravitated to that orbit and even moreso when cov/BK looked to be super big. The issue is it was too too much sprawl and competing ideas to manage and people hadn't internalized the fact that BK and others weren't well-liked and they'd have to get used to fighting in a different way to accommodate that so all the numbers they had ended up not meaning much. We wanted to make sure a complete collapse didn't happen as it would pose a considerable risk to us. No econ would make it viable for us to beat your side on our own.

Basically with the evidence, keshav got a little too eager to call smith out on his constant goading which ruined the primary source for evidence as it tipped off the involved parties to remove the content and left only second hand stuff and we don't see the point in outing people when they won't be liked anyway and they don't want to be outed.

Quote

In sum, we've been consistent with our FA goals and our actions without any pretense of changing, spin or otherwise.  Can you say the same?  I think not.

 

Can we all just hug it out.  

Um, we do feel we've been consistent. It's just our reasoning is more complex than anyone one factor. That said you've done a good job presenting your views of how you see what TKR is doing and have helped tone down the vitriol.

 

 

 

21 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Slightly more nuanced situation at the time: You were considered a threat by t$ because you signed (and thus became a link between) multiple different parties/spheres who had taken turns hitting t$ or its allies in 3 successive wars, during a period when tensions were tangible.

 

Other than that, yes, "you are a threat" is a logical justification. I'm more interested in the part where you hit t$' protectorates while allowing BK to hit t$.

Okay let's explain this again. Anyone could have hit TEst even if you're upset it was BK. It could have been a combo of Polar/acadia/upn.  So Typhon and others entered aggressively and it could have had spillover effects on the other fronts if we didn't counter right away, so it was done in a rush.  We had no designs on Typhon or Aurora prior to that. We had wanted TS to incorporate Typhon in order to make the sphere more streamlined and self-reliant post-war, but we had no real connections to Typhon or any of the other tS prots. So when tS made it clear we were through with the signings and deliberate lack of disclosure and the shooting down of any mediation to salvage the sphere prior to that, we couldn't hold back  further than we already were. By not engaging the hard front ourselves(tS), we were already carrying less of the burden and by avoiding hitting prots, it would have been more pressure on our coalition partners.

Edited by Roquentin
partisan reply
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 pages later & this thread still probably hasn't made any progress toward peace. Although I don't really see anything wrong with just eventually white peacing a conflict if the opponent hangs in long enough & most get bored fighting them after doing most of the damage which can be done to them, whether in recognition of their fighting resolve or just so people can move on eventually.

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.