peace talks

[Salt Meat]

Perhaps if droves of players are abandoning the game due to the extended war as claimed, their leaders might choose to look inwards, swallow their pride and admit defeat, rather than allowing it to drag on pointlessly?

[Abadi Caliphate]

Peace would be great for everybody because items such as food or steel would cost less.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Abadi Caliphate

[Hodor]

Okay, you can surrender as a gateway to talks. That's stupid to argue otherwise.

Frankly, the issue I have is, I guess pride. I've basically surrendered because the fun has been sucked out of this game, but I'm unwilling to surrender to a coalition that has so thoroughly destroyed the promise of a better dynamic and in the name of who knows what. If surrendering is just gonna cause this same war to happen in 6 months, why the frick should we end it. If this is the new paradigm, then let's just accept our new hell.

[alyster]

3 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

You joke but that's literally all it would take.

So you present unacceptable terms after that. Then what? We unsurrender? 

We're not NPO guys, our word actualy is worth something. 

[Comrade Marx]

55 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Okay, you can surrender as a gateway to talks. That's stupid to argue otherwise.

Frankly, the issue I have is, I guess pride. I've basically surrendered because the fun has been sucked out of this game, but I'm unwilling to surrender to a coalition that has so thoroughly destroyed the promise of a better dynamic and in the name of who knows what. If surrendering is just gonna cause this same war to happen in 6 months, why the frick should we end it. If this is the new paradigm, then let's just accept our new hell.

The longer you choose to engage in this child's play, the greater the damage you will incur on yourselves and inflict on your coalition allies. You folks will certainly continue to present a united front, which is all well and good, but how much longer are you willing to drag this out with nothing left to achieve in doing so? Perpetually moving the goal posts rather than accepting the reality of the situation will only result in more of the same for you and your allies.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Comrade Marx

[alyster]

2 minutes ago, Comrade Marx said:

The longer you choose to engage in this child's play, the greater the damage you will incur on yourselves and inflict on your coalition allies. You folks will certainly continued to present a united front, which is all well and good, but how much longer are you willing to drag this out with nothing left to achieve in doing so? Perpetually moving the goal posts rather than accepting the reality of the situation will only result in more of the same for you and your allies.

Talks about dragged out long ass war. Nation is 40 days old.

Founded:

09/05/2019 (40 Days Old)

Edited October 16, 2019 by alyster

[Comrade Marx]

Just now, alyster said:

Talks about dragged out long as war. Nation is 40 days old.

Founded:

09/05/2019 (40 Days Old)

Yes because I have no notion of anything that happened before 40 days ago. Lazy. Next.

[Azaghul]

8 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

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. 

This is a false comparison:

1) Numerous leaks and rumors about a plan to attack in the immediate or very near future.

2) Conjecture based on past attitudes about what might happen in many months.

1 hour ago, JT Jag said:

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

Of all people someone in GOONS should be able to detect sarcasm.

[Hodor]

15 minutes ago, Comrade Marx said:

The longer you choose to engage in this child's play, the greater the damage you will incur on yourselves and inflict on your coalition allies. You folks will certainly continue to present a united front, which is all well and good, but how much longer are you willing to drag this out with nothing left to achieve in doing so? Perpetually moving the goal posts rather than accepting the reality of the situation will only result in more of the same for you and your allies.

Huh? I just said there's no point in stopping because this is the dynamic now, so what's 6 month's peace when the next war will just be this again? There is nothing to achieve in continuing and nothing to achieve in stopping.

No goal posts have been moved. So not sure what that is in reference to?

[Adrienne]

1 hour ago, JT Jag said:

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

No one is aiming to disband NPO.

16 hours ago, Malal said:

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.

Where are you getting this idea from? We never proposed anything of the sort. Try again.

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Nizam Adrienne

[Comrade Marx]

6 minutes ago, Hodor said:

Huh? I just said there's no point in stopping because this is the dynamic now, so what's 6 month's peace when the next war will just be this again? There is nothing to achieve in continuing and nothing to achieve in stopping.

No goal posts have been moved. So not sure what that is in reference to?

I suggest you go back to just saying your name.

[Hodor]

18 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

No one is aiming to disband NPO.

There are too many cognitive biases I could cite to beg you to save your energy, but suffice to say, they won't listen to anyone but Scarf screaming about slayyyves.

12 minutes ago, Comrade Marx said:

I suggest you go back to just saying your name.

Hodor.

[The Mad Titan]

45 minutes ago, alyster said:

So you present unacceptable terms after that. Then what? We unsurrender? 

We're not NPO guys, our word actualy is worth something. 

You really are quite dense. All that is being asked is that and admission of defeat is an agree upon term prior to talks starting, when the others will be discussed. You won't be any more "uNsUrrEnDerED" than how in Knightfall talks were ongoing while fighting was still occurring.

1 hour ago, Hodor said:

Frankly, the issue I have is, I guess pride.

Thanks for admitting it.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Aragorn, son of Arathorn

[Salt Meat]

44 minutes ago, alyster said:

So you present unacceptable terms after that. Then what? We unsurrender? 

No, then you keep fighting. 

 

I'll assume people are being intentionally obtuse because I can't imagine anybody not managing to grasp such a simple concept.

 

Surrender is one of any number of terms that you have to accept, if you don't agree to all then you're obviously not bound to the rest..

If the terms are A,B,C, and D, and you are fine with A,B, and C, but not D, you continue on as normal, and renegotiate D, you have not accepted A,B or even C, and do not need to abide by them until a final agreement is reached.

Surrender is A.

[Hodor]

9 minutes ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Thanks for admitting it.

Were we denying it?

[Guest Elijah Mikaelson]

4 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

You joke but that's literally all it would take.

for the terms to be, 500b in unpaid loans, 12 month nap, flag changes, name changes and so on, once they surrender you know all the crappy terms will then flood out

[Changeup]

13 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Also I love how Japan77 and JustinM have some sort of crazy idea that Chaos is allowed to team up with other mini spheres to hit alliances, but the NPO can't because it'd kill the game.

It's not crazy. NPO-sphere has 1500 members (not counting t$/HS) and Chaos has around 200.

[Syrachime]

29 minutes ago, Of The Flies said:

No, then you keep fighting. 

 

I'll assume people are being intentionally obtuse because I can't imagine anybody not managing to grasp such a simple concept.

 

Surrender is one of any number of terms that you have to accept, if you don't agree to all then you're obviously not bound to the rest..

If the terms are A,B,C, and D, and you are fine with A,B, and C, but not D, you continue on as normal, and renegotiate D, you have not accepted A,B or even C, and do not need to abide by them until a final agreement is reached.

Surrender is A.

So we have term A...  Now...what is term B, C, and D?  What incentive does Coalition A have to fulfill term A and surrender if we don't know what B, C, and D are, or are going to be?  Said it once, and will say it again...  No one in their right minds agrees to sign a blank document and THEN fill in the details after.  I'm sure there are some that would be more than happy to surrender if they know what is going along with it.  So, tell us what your terms B, C, and D are since A is clearly established.  Maybe then some might surrender.

[Roquentin]

2 hours ago, Hodor said:

Okay, you can surrender as a gateway to talks. That's stupid to argue otherwise.

Frankly, the issue I have is, I guess pride. I've basically surrendered because the fun has been sucked out of this game, but I'm unwilling to surrender to a coalition that has so thoroughly destroyed the promise of a better dynamic and in the name of who knows what. If surrendering is just gonna cause this same war to happen in 6 months, why the frick should we end it. If this is the new paradigm, then let's just accept our new hell.

I mean it's up to you to change the dynamic. The actions your own alliance took in bolstering its position have also contributed to this dynamic. I don't know what you're looking for but you gotta look in the mirror first. The fact that your side is usually 'lol you guys are mouthbreather drones who have no concept of skill and we will kick your ass " but at the same time "skill doesn't matter and BK far outnumbered us" when you guys know most of the numbers were neglible in fighting capacity, that many of the BK side were weaksauce micros/pixel huggers with no staying power  and you had the pummeled the shit out them. You wanted to gather the opposite together and congrats you had succeeded and we had to balance that out with numbers of people who are willing to do what it takes even if they're not superstars and high flyers.

 

5 hours 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.

I don't know any average users wanting peace talks to go faster because the average joes from their alliances here are mostly saying "go frick yourself and we are winning !@#$ or disband and I don't trust any agreement with you".

It's sort of ironic you bring this up when you guys have always tried to make it CN 2.0 with "Upper tier is everything," not us which has lead to these disparities and a need to level the playing field by ensuring that you can't get away with acts of war because you're big.

 

6 hours ago, Batavus said:

Going back to Sebs initial question...
I'd like to argue endlessly having the same alliances fighting each other gets boring after 4+ months and that that drives players from the game.
Even winning against essentially beaten enemies gets boring after a while.
So unless a goal is boring repetition driving players from the game, peace talks for this global should get going.
So both peace and new alliance wars can offer players something fresh. I don't say this because I want peace or love pixels
(I love how I've been getting beiged and nuked recently). I don't say this because I'm losing (I beat my enemies armies).
But because endless repetition is boring. And it's not like we don't know which alliance (yes, without the "s") has won in recent months.

Looking at score, amount of members and protectorates NPO has won the game. Congrats guys.
And with that coalition A is unlikely to turn around the war. Why has NPO won? And why single out NPO?
1) Score: Guinea Pig and NPO combined (569k) are twice as big as BK or T$, let alone coalition A alliances.
2) Members: just Guinea Pig and NPO combined (1300 members) have as many members as all other alliances combined up to #23.
Take into account NPO protectorates like Goons and we're talking up to #30 or more. 25-30% of active players is GPWC/NPO member.
3) Other major alliances have been weakened: yes, coalition A has suffered losses in terms of members and score and activity. 
But major alliances tied to NPO or fighting alongside it have also suffered some losses. BK lost important treaties (Carthage etc).
High tire heavy TCW is fighting against pretty much everyone else in that tier - and losing. 
And HS and T$ are facing bad odds in the midtier.
While NPO has been adding quickly growing protectorates and been safe in the midtier it rules with BK and the lowest tier GPWC owns.
4) Thanks to 6-month long NAPs with Farksphere and RnR, we know no other large alliances are likely to enter this global. So this is it.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
Roq, you argue yourself this global war has been won. I agree. Your enemies, allies and those fighting alongside NPO alike 
have all suffered to some degree. NPO/GPWC is largest by far. This war will easily end up the biggest and longest.
Offer reasonable terms publicly, let everyone know what NPO/GPWC wants - let alliances fly those guinea pigs in their flag for a week - 
and let players move on to something new and more interesting. Before even more players leave this game bored and you are forced
to let your 1300 Guinea Pigs (and counting) fight each other.

 

It's a small percentage of GPWC actually involved in the war and just as with any group invited via social media/reddit/etc, it's not the same as a normal alliance. Plenty of invasion groups have come to games with large numbers.  This game has just been skipped due to the decline of enthusiasm and balkanization of online communities, so this has been a limited phenomenon. It's hard to think of anything rousing 1000 people with no prior interest in nation sims to play a barebones browser game as involved players on a permanent basis.

If we had won the game, then your atittudes would  be very different. For the most part, the other side's attitudes are just propagandistic in this sense. We haven't won the game or else they'd stop portraying us as weak.   We  had to sell our infra to make the progress we made possible and we took heavy damage in the process.  The high tier has been contested most of the war and TCW has been carrying a lot of the burden yeah,but they haven't been entirely on their own and they want to prove their ability to do well.. TCW has gotten zeroed before in the war and UPN/Acadia/TCW started off getting zeroed without NPO being in the conflict.  In part, we had to enter to give those alliances breathing space so we wouldn't go back to the traditional winners of wars calling the shots in the game Now there's been more fighting upper tier because of tS' hostility and some dummies beiging Theodosius/Belisarius/some other whales, but that's not on us. . The upper tier alliances not fighting them that wanted a piece of KETOG chose to leave the war much earlier so it's on them The progress we had made in the prior conflict  Knighfall had been progressively being erased and a crushing devastating loss for the traditional losers of war would be a huge blow to avoiding entrenchment of an upper tier hegemony.

It's not NPO dictating the process. The way things are being done is by consensus. I am not in charge of Coalition B. We simply just don't want people to say they're not losing and waste our time in talks. The other side has consistently said they are doing great and continually use that and go around telling people they won't surrender to intimidate weaker-minded individuals/less involved alliances.

 

10 minutes ago, Changeup said:

It's not crazy. NPO-sphere has 1500 members (not counting t$/HS) and Chaos has around 200.

 

You  guys used to say BKsphere had 1500 nations. Nation counts don't mean anything and you can go look at nation counts for Trail of Tiers and other wars. Sorry bro.

 

Edited October 16, 2019 by Roquentin

[Shiho Nishizumi]

7 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

So, tell us what your terms B, C, and D are since A is clearly established. 

 

15 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Those don't exist.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Shiho Nishizumi

[Archibald]

y'all know surrender isn't an actual like, real mechanic in the game right. It's not like NPO is saying "to start the surrender process we expect all of coalition a to sell their military immediately". They literally just want the words.

[Micchan]

1 hour ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

No one is aiming to disband NPO.

We just hope

[Syrachime]

22 minutes ago, Archibald said:

y'all know surrender isn't an actual like, real mechanic in the game right. It's not like NPO is saying "to start the surrender process we expect all of coalition a to sell their military immediately". They literally just want the words.

I'm not trying to complicate this, but what our side wants is the conditions to go along with those words.  It doesn't make any sense for us to say we give up when we don't know what happens after we give up.  I've seen it said that terms will be negotiated after we surrender, but if that is a process that takes months to figure out and come to an agreement on, how do you think that's going to affect things post war?  To me, saying we surrender and STILL having to work out the terms creates a cloud of uncertainty that is constantly hanging over the both Coalition's head.  Taking this route creates a threat of imminent war returning.  Getting the words out of us isn't going to stop the war and delaying the terms til after doesn't guarantee it's end...

 

If you want our side to surrender, that's fine.  If you want us to say it though, you need to offer us terms to surrender to.  I'm sure there are plenty of people that would say it if they knew what was in store for saying it.  Saying it first and then expecting any sort of peace to happen before we agree to anything up front is a fool's game.  No one will be at ease until terms are established, agreed upon, and an official peace instated.  Wouldn't it be easier just to have it all up front so it's easier to secure an actual sort of peace whether it's white peace or a surrender?  Otherwise like I said, you have nothing but a cloud of uncertainty that could go on for weeks if not months.  Rebuilding post war for both Coalition is going to be stagnant with both sides staying geared up for another break out during your talks.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Syrachime

[Shadowthrone]

1 hour ago, Azaghul said:

This is a false comparison:

1) Numerous leaks and rumors about a plan to attack in the immediate or very near future.

2) Conjecture based on past attitudes about what might happen in many months.

Not necessarily. 

1) Leaks and rumours about intentions to attack in the immediate or very near future, was received by the NPO.

2) Not really conjecture. See 1). 

It's not false equivalence. We received said information and acted upon it making the most rational decision we could have. 

1 hour ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

This is a false comparison:

1) Numerous leaks and rumors about a plan to attack in the immediate or very near future.

2) Conjecture based on past attitudes about what might happen in many months.

No just your members seem to loudly be demanding it in public but. I mean for a couple of months your side didn't deny Keegoz/Sketchy's statements till we brought it up here on the boards and got a secondary dismissal from @Hodor. Still awaiting the day when KT/TGH #1's withdraw the statement too   (If I've missed it linky please!) 

But when your narrative is of an apocalyptic sense, it gives alliances reasons to buy in and keep things going. Your side has its own fair share of rumours/public posturing around disbanding alliances, so you can see why the meek denials after the fact are well, hard to buy. 

6 minutes ago, Syrachime said:

I'm not trying to complicate this, but what our side wants is the conditions to go along with those words.  It doesn't make any sense for us to say we give up when we don't know what happens after we give up.  I've seen it said that terms will be negotiated after we surrender, but if that is a process that takes months to figure out and come to an agreement on, how do you think that's going to affect things post war?  To me, saying we surrender and STILL having to work out the terms creates a cloud of uncertainty that is constantly hanging over the both Coalition's head.  Taking this route creates a threat of imminent war returning because one side has nothing to gain by giving up since they already have.  Getting the words out of us isn't going to stop the war and delaying other terms only delays its end rather than finishes it...

 

If you want our side to surrender, that's fine.  If you want us to say it though, you need to offer us terms to surrender to.  I'm sure there are plenty of people that would say it if they knew what was in store for saying it.  Saying it first and then expecting any sort of peace to happen before we agree to anything up front is a fool's game.  No one will be at ease until terms are established, agreed upon, and an official peace instated.  Wouldn't it be easier just to have it all up front so it's easier to secure an actual sort of peace whether it's white peace or a surrender?  Otherwise like I said, you have nothing but a cloud of uncertainty that could go on for weeks if not months.  Rebuilding post war for both Coalition is going to be stagnant with both sides staying geared up for another break out during your talks.

Your mistake is believing that your surrendering ends the war. It does not. It's but the first non-negotiable term. It's to make clear, the negotiations are regarding your surrender and nothing else. By agreeing to enter into discussions, you haven't achieved peace but started the process. It's like every other peace talk, we just want it clear though you're entering negotiations to discuss your surrender/admission of defeat.

[Syrachime]

16 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Your mistake is believing that your surrendering ends the war. It does not. It's but the first non-negotiable term. It's to make clear, the negotiations are regarding your surrender and nothing else. By agreeing to enter into discussions, you haven't achieved peace but started the process. It's like every other peace talk, we just want it clear though you're entering negotiations to discuss your surrender/admission of defeat.

I feel like you are making a similar mistake by insisting that we surrender just to enter the peace talks.  It's pointless for us to admit surrender and still keep fighting in a war we know we've lost while you guys go through having your talks which again could last for months.  Surrendering is the final act of a war, not the opening one for peace negotiations.  If you want us to surrender, you're going to have to talk about what comes with that surrender first.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Syrachime