Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, japan77 said:

Bwahahaha. Nearly every sentence in that paragraph is wrong. Impressive. 

Let's talk about history and unconditional surrenders. There has never been and never will be a unconditional surrender in which the loser did not wind up agreeing to all terms imposed by the victors. That's how that works.

Let's note that coalition B has refused to talk about any potential terms until after coalition A's surrender. That is by definition a unconditional surrender. You seriously expect people to be willing to surrender unconditionally when the opposing coalition contains actors known to have imposed ridiculous terms. And don't give me any of the NPO isn't the same as NPO nonsense. Either own your name or change it. Similarly, given that BK has put rather ridiculous terms on the table in the past, an unconditional surrender to any coalition containing either alliance is a bad idea. 

Let's next talk about precedent. This particular game has never had unconditional surrenders, and establishing that precedent will lead to longer wars as the best possible victory condition has changed dramatically. There's also the fact that coalition B winning would encourage longer wars, as we have opened up a path to victory of literally just waiting out an opponent instead of smashing through their infra, although given how long the last few globals have been, this isn't truly a new idea, but it would be the first time it worked. Up until now, dragging out a war has at most resulted in white peace, but the precedent of improving conditions by dragging out a war has resulted in longer wars. Thirdly, it would establish that having net negative damage, rolling coalition allies, having secret arbitrary treaties that one can twist into a CB, and bullshit CBs are valid things along a path to victory. If you truly believe these are not bad precedents for the game as a whole, give me what you're smoking because I need to escape reality. 

That's a lot of words from someone who hasn't fought an offensive war in over a month. If you truly believe Coalition B is a game killing hegemony that shouldn't be allowed to win then you're being a pretty bad citizen of the game by not fighting us at all. Mil up or shut up.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Pop said:

That's a lot of words from someone who hasn't fought an offensive war in over a month. If you truly believe Coalition B is a game killing hegemony that shouldn't be allowed to win then you're being a pretty bad citizen of the game by not fighting us at all. Mil up or shut up.


NPO is absolutely an existential threat to this game. They're like the short, wiry kid with a loud mouth that will start a fight and have their 5 friends jump you while they stand back and snivel.

TKR and our allies can continue at the current pace indefinitely, while NPO's conscript army continues to rout with surrender after surrender.

Edited by Justonia
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Micchan said:

This game is called Politics and War

50% politics and 50% war

the ice cream is called ben & jerrys

are ben and jerry the exact same size

is it truly 50% ben and 50% jerry

 

I think jerry is a little bit bigger 

 

 

edit: what about bed bath & beyond is it 50% bedbath and 50% beyond @Micchan

 

Edited by Forsteri
edit: what about bed bath & beyond is it 50% bedbath and 50% beyond @micchan
  • Like 1

springpnw.png.faeefb04fb667922c53fce3d223df99c.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Epi said:

It's not an unconditional surrender.

We drafted joke terms on day 1 of this war. We drafted terms in the 2nd month of the war [carthago]. And we have a short list of possible terms even now. This isn't an issue, we could do it in 24 hours.

"We have terms. The most perfect, beautiful terms you've ever seen. But you can't see them because the IRS is currently investigating them as part of a routine audit."

11 minutes ago, Epi said:

"stats, we haven't lost", "activity, we haven't lost", "nations, we haven't lost".

How dare we make the argument that we're actually winning against the paper tiger?

Edited by Justonia
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pop said:

That's a lot of words from someone who hasn't fought an offensive war in over a month. If you truly believe Coalition B is a game killing hegemony that shouldn't be allowed to win then you're being a pretty bad citizen of the game by not fighting us at all. Mil up or shut up.

Who needs offensive wars when the attackers spend muni and gas air striking 300 infra cities

  • Upvote 3

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kevanovia said:

 

-snip-

 

It's not a secret, unlike you we knew the war would be months long before you surrendered which is why instead of wasting our time jerking ourselves off about what kind of terms we were going to impose like your coalition did we spent that effort into actually running the war. Maybe if your coalition leadership weren't busy circlejerking about their stats and focusing on actually doing milcom we wouldn't have pulled down every single whale in your coalition so fast. And we still are more than happy to keep running milcom and pulling down more whales in T$ rather than wasting time writing terms that we'd probably have to throw out and rewrite in several months when yet another alliance decides to attack us.

 

tl;dr first term is surrender, after that our coalition will begin discussing what the other terms are since it'll be several more months before you accept the first.

 

edit: Imagine being brain dead enough to think admitting defeat is the same as unconditional surrender. This entire situation is due to how the KF terms discussion dragged on pointlessly for 4 months. Blame TKR/Guardian/GOB for how we decided to proceed with talks this time.

Edited by Malal
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pop said:

That's a lot of words from someone who hasn't fought an offensive war in over a month. If you truly believe Coalition B is a game killing hegemony that shouldn't be allowed to win then you're being a pretty bad citizen of the game by not fighting us at all. Mil up or shut up.

The game died when NPO literally murdered the entire multi-sphere project with their decision to back BK. Due to their actions, and refusal by BK et al to turn on them, we have two fairly prominent alliances that we can literally never trust to not be on the same side. (This is ignoring speculation that BK sphere's plan to hit Chaos wasn't pre-approved by NPO). Given NPO and BK's basically guarantee to always be on the same side, there's really not enough sphere-centering alliances to create a multi-sphere game, at-best we might have 3 spheres, and more realistically, the game has been forcibly regressed into a 2-sphere game.  (3-spheres isn't really sustainable, we need something similar to the 5-sphere setup we had before this war for a sustainable multi-sphere game). This is ofc ignoring NPO managing to bring over GPWC and GOONS, although who knows what they'll do from here. All the information we have both alliances is very limited, and it's certainly possible they could turn on NPO, but even this still doesn't break our 2-sphere problem unless something truly drastic happens. 
I'm mainly here at this point because I like fellow members of Chaos and esp tkr, and because I'm working on improving some basic bots (because I find that interesting), as well as watching to see just how badly can the actions of a single alliance kills a game, so the next time I play this kind of game, I can begin planning around such actions.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

I don't sleep enough

Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian

Lastly, Hello world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all this yammering, I don't hear an argument against white peace. I don't like the framing of this discussion because it seems predicated on the fact that Coalition A is losing, which is highly questionable.

You call us entitled and demand unconditional surrender. This is both hypocritical and delusional. PNW isn't a game you can "win" by dismantling assemblages of people at a whim. The truth here is that Coalition A is stronger because it's to a larger extent made up of real people with real relationships and therefore has more staying power. 

Edited by Justonia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Justonia said:

With all this yammering, I don't here an argument against white peace. I don't like the framing of this discussion because it seems predicated on the fact that Coalition A is losing, which is highly questionable.

You call us entitled and demand unconditional surrender. This is both hypocritical and delusional. PNW isn't a game you can "win" by dismantling assemblages of people at a whim. The truth here is that Coalition A is stronger because it's to a larger extent made up of real people with real relationships and therefore has more staying power. 

Your side is completly crushed and there is 0 will for us to accept white peace from people who are more than happy to try and drive us out of the game when they think they're on top yet at the same time refuse to admit defeat when they clearly lost.

 

Again, the only people who talk about unconditional surrender is your side because that's what your leadership intended to do upon us originally and are projecting their own fears upon a simple admission of defeat.

Edited by Malal
  • Like 1

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Justonia said:

You have zero understanding of game mechanics if you think that's true.

I'm hesitant to listen to the views of someone who belives that unconditional surrenders are not only possible in this game but are actually being demanded.

  • Upvote 1

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, CitrusK said:

Soo.....

You're saying that you don't have a finalized terms list.

You expect the war to last a few more months (and you're not going to bother doing peace terms until it ends).

Okay, so you do have a terms list. You just don't want to share it. Understood completely.

 

From what I understand, you have been talking about peace, being disingenuous about the terms for months, with the hope that the war continues, and that you have time to create more terms.

 

Completely understood.

Logically speaking, you given us no reason to be serious about peace, or think you are serious about obtaining peace, so what would be the point in finalizing a list of terms to offer you?  So you can firmly decline them and ask for our surrender?  That's not going happen.

You don't even understand your predicament, let alone anything else.  Actually a few more months sounds like an overly optimistic goal for when peace will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This line of conversation is completely telling of NPO's intent from the beginning. It's to completely dissolve anyone even remotely capable of challenging them, no matter the cost or time involved. There shouldn't be an alliance in this game that isn't opposed to that line of thought. Quite frankly, anyone appeasing them by standing out or being one of their pawns is allowing the game itself to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, George Clooney said:

Logically speaking, you given us no reason to be serious about peace, or think you are serious about obtaining peace, so what would be the point in finalizing a list of terms to offer you?  So you can firmly decline them and ask for our surrender?  That's not going happen.

You don't even understand your predicament, let alone anything else.  Actually a few more months sounds like an overly optimistic goal for when peace will happen.

I'm uh...

In Fark... But duly noted.

The thing about giving them terms before they surrender, is so that both sides know stuff.

Because, Kerchtog could surrender today, and talk to your government.

 Your government could impose a term like "The Knights Radiant cannot sign a Protectorate for a duration of..." 

and then the war would continue until that term was removed.

It's good to know which terms are "good" and which terms are "bad." before entering negotiations.

It's just good to know what you're surrendering to. And it's good to know which terms are extending the war.

I don't think there's a chance in hell that Kerchtog surrenders, unless they are explicitly told terms before hand. And they have the chance to fight against those terms.

You shouldn't fear anything, until you've lost yourself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

You don't know what unconditional surrender is, so stop using it. It's like some Princess Bride shit.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender

Here you go buddy. Come back when you've read up.

 

Literally the first line of the wikipedia article: An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party.

We literally have no guarantees of what terms you're going to put down in terms, and you're asking for our surrender before outlining the terms. By definition of the term its unconditional.

  • Upvote 1

I don't sleep enough

Also, I am an Keynesian Utilitarian

Lastly, Hello world

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Malal said:

I'm hesitant to listen to the views of someone who belives that unconditional surrenders are not only possible in this game but are actually being demanded.

“An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party”.

 

I’m hesitant to listen to the views of someone who believes that unconditional surrenders are not only impossible in this game but are actually not being demanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, japan77 said:

Literally the first line of the wikipedia article: An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party.

We literally have no guarantees of what terms you're going to put down in terms, and you're asking for our surrender before outlining the terms. By definition of the term its unconditional.

You'd be agreeing to surrender/admission of defeat as one of the terms. You wouldn't be formally surrendering  at that point. The guarantees you have is that you aren't agreeing to any of the other terms in advance and the other terms that you'd be able to negotiate on would have guarantees. The Japanese for instance had to accept unconditional surrender as part of the Potsdam declaration which meant the the Japanese armies had to obey commands from the allies and  SCAP could do whatever they wanted in terms of reorganizing the country. This is some awkward wordplay if you insist on continuing this line of thought.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
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.