AkAk Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Roquentin said: They've shown they are prone to excesses when they feel they have an edge and we can't really say "yeah, that's totally fine guys, good game white peace". I'm honestly curious on this point. I thought past wars were settled in a friendly spirit. What are examples of past harsh terms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pasky Darkfire Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, AkAk said: I'm honestly curious on this point. I thought past wars were settled in a friendly spirit. What are examples of past harsh terms? Apparently, agreeing to post that they're leaving the war and wont re-enter thread on the forums and getting basically a white peace besides that is so harsh it makes this entire thing life or death and a massive amount of excess. whoomp whoomp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blink Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 1 hour ago, Roquentin said: The alternative is them forcing their views on us. It's of no benefit to us. They have to budge and show some humility because they made it life or death. We didn't do that. They made their stances clear on it and this response isn't particularly harsh in the slightest. They've shown they are prone to excesses when they feel they have an edge and we can't really say "yeah, that's totally fine guys, good game white peace". The people on our side who left simply just weren't wanting to fight a real war from the get-go, which was the issue to begin with. In most cases, they were either people who traditionally bailed quickly, newer alliances with no staying power, or people who were looking to ditch their allies and find new ones either way because the war wasn't won fast enough for them. There's no way to retain people who only stick if the going is good unless you're curbstomping 10 to 1 99% of the time or at the very least you are always doing better than the opposition. It followed the traditional pattern of less committed peripheral alliances dropping out due to lack of internal prep and/or cutting their anchor allies loose. KERTCHOGG knows a lot of people just can't handle real wars so when they were doing well, they took advantage of the fear they could instill and some alliances even went under their protection until it wasn't safe. It's not about trading people in, it's more if people can't handle stormy weather, you're gonna lose them either way and most of KERTCHOGG has been in way worse shape than the alliances that dropped out. Life or death is a slight exaggeration, this is a web browser game after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 I suppose that's an argument that can be made. I'm indifferent, I've said you guys should white peace, I've said that they should surrender. The main point is, I don't think you're going to get ALL of what you want, and you seem unwilling to make any concessions, so a question could be asked what exactly do you get out of continuing the war? I suppose the bragging rights, but thats kinda irrelevant if the war goes on for some more months. You're barely growing, so it isn't like you're exactly winning here all that much there either. idk, feels like a dud to not just list your terms and negotiate, I'm not sure what exactly you get over not listing them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 11 minutes ago, Kastor said: The main point is, I don't think you're going to get ALL of what you want, and you seem unwilling to make any concessions, so a question could be asked what exactly do you get out of continuing the war? We don't think that either, but we will get them to admit defeat. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChloeJessica Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 2 hours ago, Epi said: Lol, i'll try to be less serious then. This isn't that hardball compared to Hippo-Chan and rest of Kertog tho. Reading some of these posts it's like the world is gonna end. i think the important thing to remember is that this is essentially a shitpost thread now considering the total lack of any progress made here and if you take things too seriously you end up like CandyShi or Deulos don't end up like CandyShi or Deulos 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, AkAk said: I'm honestly curious on this point. I thought past wars were settled in a friendly spirit. What are examples of past harsh terms? I wasn't talking about final terms but in the past some have been levied like big reps by some of the alliances. I was mainly talking about the threats made earlier on about scorched earth, last chance, and the fact that there was a deliberate effort to muscle people into cancelling treaties, which has happened multiple times. Basically, when people are confident enough to say, this is your last time fighting, it's severely problematic and they made it into an existential struggle. There's also a level of viciousness that has been shown by some people on the other side(not necessarily the same ones who had received large reps in the past) where they have tried to cripple people before e.g. repeat hits on vulnerable alliances, delighting in those attempts to cripple them economically, acceptance of rogues challenging the other side to do something about it knowing they couldn't hit all the alliances harboring the rogues, and demanding cancellations and the behavior exhibited earlier on shows it didn't go totally away. Like they've said that's all in the past and it's me not letting go, but the attitudes shown earlier on did not indicate that was the case. 59 minutes ago, Blink said: Life or death is a slight exaggeration, this is a web browser game after all. I mean i'm talking in an in-game sense. Those are the stakes you set for the war. We're able to keep it going, so simply having the stance of admission of defeat/surrender as a final term being a precondition isn't that crazy of a demand. Given a lot of people on your side feel you haven't lost, it might be a waste of time for whoever is dealing with it if they have to deal with another side that doesn't think it lost. Edited October 25, 2019 by Roquentin 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 the only people benefiting are the ones who are able to freely grow their alliances while 75% of the games major players are at war. both sides are losing by trying to save face with these surrender terms 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mad Titan Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 56 minutes ago, hope said: the only people benefiting are the ones who are able to freely grow their alliances while 75% of the games major players are at war. both sides are losing by trying to save face with these surrender terms I mean we have a NAP with the people growing so I’m all good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT Jag Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 6 hours ago, Kastor said: I suppose that's an argument that can be made. I'm indifferent, I've said you guys should white peace, I've said that they should surrender. The main point is, I don't think you're going to get ALL of what you want, and you seem unwilling to make any concessions, so a question could be asked what exactly do you get out of continuing the war? I suppose the bragging rights, but thats kinda irrelevant if the war goes on for some more months. You're barely growing, so it isn't like you're exactly winning here all that much there either. idk, feels like a dud to not just list your terms and negotiate, I'm not sure what exactly you get over not listing them. You have no idea what kind of concessions Coalition B is willing to make until you come to the table. 1 Quote ONE WORLD OR NONE CyberNations veteran, Co-Pilot Emeritus Hambassidor (Head Ambassador (Minister of Foreign Affairs)), Head of the Ministry of Log Dumping, GOONS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Do Not Fear Jaz Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 8 hours ago, Kastor said: The real issue is the NPO Side keeps trying to force its views and logic on the other side(TKR side). Its obvious that TKR side isn't budging on how it views certain things, and NPO side thinks if it drags out the war it'll get them to change its view. The war has gone on for months, and TKR side hasn't changed at all, and all thats happened is NPO side is losing allies and people fighting for them. Regardless of the end result, I can't say that this is a good strategy. I assume NPO side thinks as long as it imports allies, it'll be fine, but I've gotta say losing PnW base support for CN support doesn't look like a good strategy in the long run. NPO has not imported any CN players, GPWC are not CN players. NPO didn't import GOONS, I did. Although I did play CN, GOONS by and large are from SomethingAwful, not CN. Learn the facts before you pipe up. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zei-Sakura Alsainn Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 21 minutes ago, JT Jag said: You have no idea what kind of concessions Coalition B is willing to make until you come to the table. Kastor actually left the war from Empyrea to Carthago when CTO peaced out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 24 minutes ago, Akuryo said: Kastor actually left the war from Empyrea to Carthago when CTO peaced out. Yeah, but his “neutral” commentary tends to look and sound like KERCHTOGG talking points, so the mistake is understandable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted October 25, 2019 Share Posted October 25, 2019 32 minutes ago, Edward I said: Yeah, but his “neutral” commentary tends to look and sound like KERCHTOGG talking points, so the mistake is understandable. So anything which isn't on the recommended Pacifican talking points or disagrees with NPO's version of events is enemy talk? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 12 hours ago, Kastor said: The real issue is the NPO Side keeps trying to force its views and logic on the other side(TKR side). Its obvious that TKR side isn't budging on how it views certain things, and NPO side thinks if it drags out the war it'll get them to change its view. The war has gone on for months, and TKR side hasn't changed at all, and all thats happened is NPO side is losing allies and people fighting for them. Regardless of the end result, I can't say that this is a good strategy. I assume NPO side thinks as long as it imports allies, it'll be fine, but I've gotta say losing PnW base support for CN support doesn't look like a good strategy in the long run. Nah, they’ll continue to throw others in till we submit. It works two ways for them. For one, they maintain dominance. For two, it ensures that their allies or acquaintances won’t out gain them since they’ll be stuck using their own resources or having to take out loans. Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rygus Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 19 hours ago, Frawley said: All you need to do is admit that you have been defeated, and that the negotiation will be about 'terms of surrender' not 'terms of peace'. My point exactly. Coal. A needs to give something (i.e. defeat/surrender, doesn't matter what you call it) just to get more terms imposed. It's not gonna happen until Coal. B tells Coal. A these terms beforehand. All it takes is a "If you admit defeat/surrender here's the terms we propose that you guys fulfill as your commitment to peace." It's really simple. I stand with KT no matter what the Triumvirate decides or negotiates, I've munched enough steel and stolen enough goodies this war to last a normal P&W nation's lifetime. Edited October 26, 2019 by Rygus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 10 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said: We don't think that either, but we will get them to admit defeat. I don't think thats going too well for you. I think you'll list your terms before they admit defeat. 4 hours ago, Do Not Fear Jazz said: NPO has not imported any CN players, GPWC are not CN players. NPO didn't import GOONS, I did. Although I did play CN, GOONS by and large are from SomethingAwful, not CN. Learn the facts before you pipe up. That doesn't change my point. My point is they are hoping the people who are coming over will be more tolerant to them then the people currently here. That's NPO's FA goal post-war, even though they'll never admit it. Even if BK comes back, tC has said publicly that they're not interested in rejoining with NPO, and I doubt if they force terms on TKR side, they'll come around. The end goal and my point stays the same, nice try to divert from my point tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 3 hours ago, Edward I said: Yeah, but his “neutral” commentary tends to look and sound like KERCHTOGG talking points, so the mistake is understandable. Well.....TKR side is being "reasonable" I've said that they should admit defeat and that should come to you for peace talks. I think your bogus "surrender first" thing is bogus. I'm sorry I'm not blindly following your way of thought on it, it doesn't really make sense because everyone knows how you'll lose it. What you'll do is this: 1. Force them to surrender first, then impose VERY unfavorable terms. 2. If those terms aren't accepted, you'll say that TKR side admitted defeat, and that they should accept your terms because they realized they lost. I know you'll say you won't, but I know a lot of the guys on your side, this is how you think, and I know people on the other side will ALSO do this. That's why I'm against it. Because its not going to make the war any shorter, and will drag out the war. The best way to do this is to list your terms out, get a moderator, I recommend me or Prefontaine. Or someone else if you don't want either of us, and force everyone to sit down and talk. Come to a good deal that benefits both sides, and see where everything goes from there. Staying on this path will just drag out the war, but as I've said, thats what NPO wants. A longer war only hurts BK, which I've also said more times. 58 minutes ago, Buorhann said: Nah, they’ll continue to throw others in till we submit. It works two ways for them. For one, they maintain dominance. For two, it ensures that their allies or acquaintances won’t out gain them since they’ll be stuck using their own resources or having to take out loans. I'm not sure I agree with that. NPO won't throw the new alliances in because they want them to grow, I'm not sure why GOONS is even in but they won't allow new alliances to join. They need them to compete with BK soon. Even though BK sphere kinda self-destructed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 GOONS is supposedly in due to our actions after they had members caught using spy operations on us. They claim innocence and we just couldn’t take the risk of their word. So they reacted with a military strike on Syndicate, Typhon, and TKR. 1 Quote Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 14 hours ago, Roquentin said: The alternative is them forcing their views on us. It's of no benefit to us. They have to budge and show some humility because they made it life or death. We didn't do that. They made their stances clear on it and this response isn't particularly harsh in the slightest. They've shown they are prone to excesses when they feel they have an edge and we can't really say "yeah, that's totally fine guys, good game white peace". The people on our side who left simply just weren't wanting to fight a real war from the get-go, which was the issue to begin with. In most cases, they were either people who traditionally bailed quickly, newer alliances with no staying power, or people who were looking to ditch their allies and find new ones either way because the war wasn't won fast enough for them. There's no way to retain people who only stick if the going is good unless you're curbstomping 10 to 1 99% of the time. It followed the traditional pattern of less committed peripheral alliances dropping out due to lack of internal prep and/or cutting their anchor allies loose. KERTCHOGG knows a lot of people just can't handle real wars so when they were doing well, they took advantage of the fear they could instill and some alliances even went under their protection until it wasn't safe. It's not about trading people in, it's more if people can't handle stormy weather, you're gonna lose them either way and most of KERTCHOGG has been in way worse shape than the alliances that dropped out. Considering the price Ramirus paid for one in the only notable instance of an alliance requiring an unconditional surrender, seems like an odd term get hung up on. It destroyed Ramirus & Gremlins in CN when he got hung up on wanting unconditional surrender from IRON in the BiPolar War. I’ve been told he later came back to CN & claimed he did it because he hated Gremlins & wanted to ruin them; although I don’t believe that was why even if he said it later to try rationalizing it. By the end of that war, all Gremlins allies had already peaced IRON out & most of Gremlin’s other former high gov left the alliance. It’s often seen as one of the worst political moves ever in CN, even if he didn’t have more terms for them after and mostly wanted to make a point I think. Edited October 26, 2019 by Noctis Anarch Caelum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 17, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
True King Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 15 minutes ago, Epi said: This isn't an unconditional surrender, it's a token that they can't give lightly. To ensure they go ahead with peace instead of baiting us into providing terms they'll spend 6 weeks tearing apart on the OWF. We're not asking them to surrender first, rather we're asking them to negotiate their surrender. No less a PR loss. But substantially different. We didn't ask NP, "have you surrendered" we asked "do you want to surrender" etc. Considering NP did get more terms after, using that example just goes to show you guys aren't thinking of doing what Ramirus did & not ask anymore terms of them after they do it though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT Jag Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 Is this where we wrap back around to discussing terms of schmerple? Quote ONE WORLD OR NONE CyberNations veteran, Co-Pilot Emeritus Hambassidor (Head Ambassador (Minister of Foreign Affairs)), Head of the Ministry of Log Dumping, GOONS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syrachime Posted October 26, 2019 Share Posted October 26, 2019 6 minutes ago, JT Jag said: Is this where we wrap back around to discussing terms of schmerple? This is the part where we have the same discussion we've had for the last 30 pages constantly going around in circles without end. Same highlights, same talking points, same problems not being solved. 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.