Jump to content

peace talks


Utter Nutter
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, japan77 said:

Let's be very explicitly clear here. Chaos+KETOG+Rose literally had less fire power than BK-sphere on its own. The way that power separated after knightfall was problematic in the sense of there being two huge blocs (N$O and BK-sphere), two smaller spheres (Chaos, KETOG), and one very small sphere (Rose). The last three had to team up if they ever wanted to beat one of the big two from a sheer numbers perspective (Skill can make up a difference, but it's rather limited due to how this game is designed). Honestly Rose-sphere's firepower isn't so much a sphere as Rose and a few friends. Ideally, T$ would've anchored a different sphere from NPO, and similar so for BK and TCW. So there would've been 7 spheres, but I digress. As soon as it became evident via leaks that BK-sphere planned to roll us with their literal 3:1 city advantage, we had two options, either ask for help rolling them or roll over and die. We did the former because that's rational. I believe we did reach out to someone in N$O with regards to this. We're merely stating that you had the opportunity to convince the world that N$O and BK-sphere were not allied in any way. Given your literal treaty obligations pre-war, there's no MD-level treaties for your entrance, and you never claimed entrance off your OD-level treaty with Polaris, which is the only treaty joining the two spheres, the world would have a 3+sphere system. (Let's not forget that KETOG and Chaos were happy beating up each other until the leaks happened). Your alliance's actions single-handily returned the world to a 2-sphere system. While you could and you appear to be arguing that Chaos's actions reduced the world from a 5-sphere thing down to 3, as I pointed out earlier, in terms of fire power, it was already that. For there to have been truly more than 3 spheres, BK-sphere and N$O would have had to be smaller. 
Thanks for confirmation that your interests literally placed a non-treaty partner over a MD-level partner. It's very enlightening, and makes it apparent that unless your name is BK, one should not even bother with considering NPO as an ally, as otherwise they'll stab you in the back if your actions threaten BK.

 

It's not explicitly clear. Everyone knows the comparison is a joke. You're using on paper stats for that. The numbers don't do much if people have an expectation of winning right away or not trying, so by getting hit first and losing a lot of military in the first round, many of the less experienced alliances gave up pretty quickly. I mean this has happened pretty frequently in globals, so trotting it out is awkward. I personally told Cov/BK when they originally approached me they should be able to make use of the forces already in the war, but the will just wasn't there for a lot of the people and eventually they either dropped out or deserted or went inactive. Suiciding is still considered crazy by a lot of people, even and those people will drop out/halfass. The reason your coalition has gotten so many withdrawals is  mostly due to people not wanting to play correctly and do what it takes to win. You're in way worse shape than a lot of the alliances who peaced out.

There aren't enough alliances for those to be separate spheres and it would leave you and KETOG to be the strongest. I've already gone over how most of the heavy hitters in KNightsfall aligned with KETOG/Rose and the transfer of members from rose to KETOG who were the heavy hitters of Rose was done in a conflict shortly before Surf's Up.

Convincing people who we have nothing in common with at all whose interest is for us to gimp ourselves by letting dominoes fall is pretty useless. It wouldn't have been a utopia and we'd have not been able to beat the other spheres ourselves alone while also triggering considerable resentment by sitting out despite having the ability to make an impact. It would have been a repeat of previous wars where two spheres weren't sufficient on their own and chose to let the other take the bigger hits or just not enter at all.  We had to break that cycle.  Your notions of smaller ignore military capacity and informal connections. For instance, there was zero possibility of Boyce/Bluebear/etc. or Rose's big boys ever opposing KETOG in any sense.  We can all imagine fantasy land where abbas is opposing keegoz/sketchy xfd. ockey is gonna hit abbas totally and so on. So no, having people like DTC/other whales and GOB/Guardian in the same orbit doesn't cut it for me. Sorry.

 

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Epi said:

Even if it was more strategically sound to build up your coalition more and hit us in 6 months with Syndi - Fark. 

Honestly the lack of foresight from Coalition A is alarming. If they aren’t willing to take a loss to then bounce back stronger next war then joining their coalition next war is something I’d 100% be advocating against.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, japan77 said:

Let's be very explicitly clear here. Chaos+KETOG+Rose literally had less fire power than BK-sphere on its own. The way that power separated after knightfall was problematic in the sense of there being two huge blocs (N$O and BK-sphere), two smaller spheres (Chaos, KETOG), and one very small sphere (Rose).

Nope. Again, that's subjective and not necessarily true. Your argument is built upon the idea of pure numbers, and no one has historically run with the idea of pure numbers wins wars. It is a component of it, and a metric to truly measure the power of a side, but those numbers without context, and where the strength comes from and those players/alliances historical performance during war-time, are all metrics that are completely necessary to understand the real staying power of an alliance. I can go through a list of alliances if you ever do want to have a real intellectual discussion on their real power outside of numbers and their addition to a coalition or not, and see which sides come out stronger. 

tS/HS/NPO + Protectorates do not make an OP military bloc, and the performance of those protectorates while being ground out is anything to go on, our assertion is proven to be true. By using the numbers argument, your purposefully choosing statistics to prove your claim like Ted Cruz uses "global cooling" arguments against global warming. Cherry-picking evidence and showcasing that as some explicit truth further points to the disingenuous approach in having this discussion. 

1 hour ago, japan77 said:

The last three had to team up if they ever wanted to beat one of the big two from a sheer numbers perspective (Skill can make up a difference, but it's rather limited due to how this game is designed). Honestly Rose-sphere's firepower isn't so much a sphere as Rose and a few friends. Ideally, T$ would've anchored a different sphere from NPO, and similar so for BK and TCW. So there would've been 7 spheres, but I digress. As soon as it became evident via leaks that BK-sphere planned to roll us with their literal 3:1 city advantage, we had two options, either ask for help rolling them or roll over and die.

The same can be said, the moment TKR and KETOGG got together and an old boys club of historic alliances along with the added firepower of Chaos coming together, it became imperative that the NPO acts. Like you say, we had two options, either allow you to consolidate, therefore rolling over and dying, or to prevent Chaos+KETOGG being a winning combination and further splitting the game and power blocs, rather then returning to a Chaos run hegemony, versus disparate set of opposition, with a history of jumping ship to easy mode coalitions, rather than putting in effort to oppose such a hegemony. Our decision was easy enough to make under the same rational claim you make. If the argument is yours was a more "rational" claim, and we should have just rolled over and died for you in a few months, I'd point to how TKR's argument that everyone else is wrong and only TKR can make rational decisions, is narcissistic at best, and the NPO isn't really going to play ball with your entitled behaviour towards FA. We aren't going to enable a TKR hegemony by watching any bulwark fail and flip sides to TKR/KETOGG and then take a rolling down the road, just like how you weren't willing to take one right now. So the motivations for both our actions are than the same aren't they? Both TKR and NPO did not want to roll over and die, so tell me again, how this makes only the NPO evil. 

1 hour ago, japan77 said:

We did the former because that's rational

We did the former as well, because under your conditions, it was the rational and the better than any of the other sub-optimal outcomes. 

1 hour ago, japan77 said:

. I believe we did reach out to someone in N$O with regards to this.

Nope. Unless you're talking about KETOGG, which was before Surf's Up, or that somehow TKR and co now had this deal with KETOGG then? 

1 hour ago, japan77 said:

We're merely stating that you had the opportunity to convince the world that N$O and BK-sphere were not allied in any way.

Folks keep stating this as some sort of goal of the N$O. It was never the goal of the N$O. N$O was originated with a very different goal in mind, and if you're going to keep trying to shoehorn this line into N$O's intent, I can categorically tell you, that's a figment of your imagination and not something we particularly bothered with. N$O had its own goals and that had nothing to do with solely not working with BK. 

1 hour ago, japan77 said:

Given your literal treaty obligations pre-war, there's no MD-level treaties for your entrance, and you never claimed entrance off your OD-level treaty with Polaris, which is the only treaty joining the two spheres, the world would have a 3+sphere system.

Our treaty obligations were informed of our reason for entering, and disagreed with it. One doesn't need treaties to enter a war, as you yourselves have shown in this war. So let's not try to use that as some sort of winning argument, when it's again bullshit. Also taking advice on treaties from TKR is laughable, when you're own track record is sketchy at best. 

1 hour ago, japan77 said:

Your alliance's actions single-handily returned the world to a 2-sphere system.

Nah, you started the move towards that, we just entered it, to ensure that if its going to come to that, you folks are bloodied and damaged enough to reduce the speed of your ascendancy. 

1 hour ago, japan77 said:

While you could and you appear to be arguing that Chaos's actions reduced the world from a 5-sphere thing down to 3, as I pointed out earlier, in terms of fire power, it was already that. For there to have been truly more than 3 spheres, BK-sphere and N$O would have had to be smaller. 

So what I get from all of this is, it was a three sphere world, and Chaos and co. had the right to further empower themselves, while NPO doesn't, and therefore if Chaos took actions to make this a bi-polar world (which it did), we're to blame for countering that. Got it. So only TKR is entitled to win wars, and NPO is evil and game-killing for opposing TKR. Sounds like a privileged entitled kid, who's just crying because they weren't able to get what they believed they were unjustly entitled to. Here, I'd like to point you to Rory Stewart reading out a nice letter. You sound like the little kid, the letter is describing https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/oct/04/stewart-reads-out-1982-eton-letter-about-johnsons-gross-failure-video 

1 hour ago, japan77 said:

Thanks for confirmation that your interests literally placed a non-treaty partner over a MD-level partner. It's very enlightening, and makes it apparent that unless your name is BK, one should not even bother with considering NPO as an ally, as otherwise they'll stab you in the back if your actions threaten BK.

Our interests lay in ensuring Chaos+KETOGG would be bloodied enough to prevent, or at least harm their ascendancy into an OP sphere. If that meant we had to work with BK in this case, so be it. It sucks tS/HS didn't see things our way, but we sure as hell will prevent any movement to enabling your sphere from becoming OP, and I'm sorry if its the failure of your FA from preventing us from acting. I guess a lack of trust and your failures to change that, played a big enough role for forcing our hand. TKR isn't spotless through this. In fact, your FA blunders were easy enough to read and made this situation possible. Maybe its time to go back to the drawing board and figure out a new path to victory. 

9 minutes ago, Cypher said:

Honestly the lack of foresight from Coalition A is alarming. If they aren’t willing to take a loss to then bounce back stronger next war then joining their coalition next war is something I’d 100% be advocating against.

Hey there bby, why did RL take you away from us :(

Edited by Shadowthrone
  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Damage ratios are a poor example of winners and losers in this game.

Take Papers, Please. Terminus Est clearly lost that war. I personally netted about 2B in profits from loot (didn't get a big bank hit) and myself and several others had much, much larger damage dealt numbers than damage received. Over all TEst had positive damage ratios in that war because we had more targets with infra to destroy than we had infra to destroy in our alliance. Lets say each member had 1B infra to lose, and we had 30 members. The most TEst could have lost was ~30B. If there's 500B in infra on the other side, we can deal way more damage than it's possible for us to take. Damage ratios ca be a metric of how well your alliance performed, but definitely not if you've won or lost. 

The damage ratios in this war are also a little skewed. The biggest factor was Coalition A blowing up each others infra in a war just before this war (due to the leaks that war stopped). They had less infra to lose going into this fight so the amount of damages they could have taken were lessened by their own side. Coalition B has also been farming some soft targets arguably not tied to coalition A in attempts to balance some of the stats.

 

All that said, I am actually curious of what the peace terms are. There's been a lot of alleged terms thrown around publicly, and I've heard some others privately. Wouldn't be a horrible idea to set some of the record straight.

This  ^

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Micchan said:

Disband and leave, seriously

Nah. Why? Where's the fun in disbanding, I'm looking forward to playing this game for a long while. Or do you support players leaving the game and killing communities Micchan? :P 

21 minutes ago, Kevanovia said:

Not agreeing to surrender before other terms are presented is a different song than stating that surrender was off the table entirely.

I mean surrendering is a term a part of the whole deal, but non-negotiable. If you agree to that, we can move on to the other terms. 

i.e You will not be negotiating a white peace, or any peace that does not include your surrender/admission of defeat in the final document. Quite straightforward no? 

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kevanovia said:

Not agreeing to surrender before other terms are presented is a different song than stating that surrender was off the table entirely.

You're not wrong and I agree with @Prefontaine on his point as well. I think NPO & BK are taking a relative PR loss by refusing to give their additional (if any) terms.

On that same notion though - what is your current alternative? Continue the war ad infinitum? Everyone recognizes that in PnW it's relatively impossible to disable ones ability to continue fighting - the existence of Arrgh proves that. However your ability to grow and even exist outside of a certain score range is extremely diminished.

Arrgh is also a good example of your situation in that you'll find no nations outside of the lowest tiers in Arrgh.

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

14 minutes ago, Micchan said:

Then ask to Alex if he can open a second server where I can move

Aww, but I’ll follow you there as well! If you prefer single player games, may I suggest city skylines or that kind? Or is your vaunted fighting skills but a mirage for your entitled belief that only you have a monopoly on fun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Roquentin said:

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.

we agree to surrender. Can I have the rest of the terms now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Madden8021 said:

Didn't NPO and other big alliances killed the game already with this 4 months and counting war? I can see more and more non gov average users *even me* giving up hope and wishing for peace talks to go faster which it won't to even seeing more and more users VMing and or Deleting their nations and leaving the game all together. So technically P&W is now in a perma war and it's slowly being turned into CN 2.0 as this global war continues.

If it’s a collective decision made by 2/3rds if the game, then I mean not really on us in particular, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

If it’s a collective decision made by 2/3rds if the game, then I mean not really on us in particular, no?

But you guys are that 2/3 ?

Edited by Akuryo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

But you make you guys are that 2/3 ?

I would not presume to extrapolate information from that sentence, when there isn't much given. But let me correct statement by saying 2/3rds of the largest politically involved alliances. I'd have possibly used the treaty web too, but seeing how most of Chaos/KETOGG ain't on it anymore, that's not a metric anymore :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Members of Coalition A: NPO wants to maintain a foreverwar and making everyone else quit, eventually leading to the game being shuttered!
The same members of Coaltion A: I don't wanna quit the war unless NPO disbands and leaves, losing hundreds of active players for the game, eventually leading to the game being shuttered

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 5

 

sigsize_od.gif
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

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.