Jump to content

KERCHTOGG Coalition Announcement on Peace


Adrienne
 Share

Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, The Point Guard said:

See that wasn't so hard to admit you lost a war you started.

You have to understand what KERCHTOG is. BKNPO's high-tax system was obviously superior to theirs, and while BKNPO's response rates were never comparable to KETOG's, BKNPO had a better understanding of the war system in the game.

 

That's to say, KERCHTOG lives in and lives off a lie. The underlying belief behind being a KERCHTOG member is that KERCHTOG is superior, and that BKNPO etc are weak alliances that deserve to die (because, despite being weak, if they're left alone they'll end up establishing a hegemony).

 

If that belief is abandoned, however, KERCHTOG is reduced to the status of Pantheon. You have 40-60% inactive rates in core KERCHTOG alliances, and while most of these players will come back for rebuilding when the war ends, if they stop believing in what's effectively a divine mandate, these players won't come back.

 

====

 

That said, it's reasonable to assume that KERCHTOG was just stalling for time. There are a variety of factors that are unfavorable to Coalition B (i.e, lack of ideological control of Farksphere, diminishing blocs, as well as the continued economic growth of alliances outside the war, and the formation of the Astra bloc that's a dual TCW / Rose protectorate). The only real cost to KERCHTOG would be its member count, and KERCHTOG has been holding up relatively well there.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 16

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Toph said:

So it seems your side is now drifting into culture wars? We hit you with a very clear CB and one that's pretty damning. If you're stalling negotiations because you simply don't like the personalities of some of our leaders, you need to grow up.

You're clearly lying. I've been in KT, TKR, Soup, and others and nobody has ever said NPO is weak. Is BK weak? There's a strong argument they are, all things considered. And the rest of the alliances don't exactly have good performances in the past either. There is something to be said about ego being bad for the game, but to stall negotiations because you're all mad about our side being sore winners in the past only cements the fact you guys are bad-faith actors.

Our side is clearly not stalling for time with this post, it's literally the opposite. Your side has been the one dictating one a month negotiations, ghosting those negotiations, and then lying on the OWF saying we are the ones stalling. It's a blatant lie that's becoming more transparent every day.

The ball is in your court. If you're going to come into this thread, ignore it, and continue the narrative that we're stalling, it will only cement the image to the rest of this game that you negotiate in bad faith, and are doing all of this because you don't want the war to end. So you have a choice, be a good-faith actor and help end this annoying war, or continue to be lying bad-faith hypocrites who want to continue the war for purely prideful reasons.

 

 

What a ridiculous non sequitur and strawman argument. Thread derailment anyone?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 25

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who the heck wrote this? This is so poorly written it's barely coherent, no offense. As someone who just came back to the game the other day and has no idea who is fighting who or why, this entire statement just comes off as garbledegook. It's not even clear who is surrendering to who.

 

With that said, I have long believed that the proper course of action for the losing side of any war is a quick surrender (assuming reasonable terms). Any less is simply delaying the rebuild and revenge process. 

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Kadin said:

Who the heck wrote this? This is so poorly written it's barely coherent, no offense. As someone who just came back to the game the other day and has no idea who is fighting who or why, this entire statement just comes off as garbledegook. It's not even clear who is surrendering to who.

 

With that said, I have long believed that the proper course of action for the losing side of any war is a quick surrender (assuming reasonable terms). Any less is simply delaying the rebuild and revenge process. 

#1, they didn't surrender (yet), and this is worded as gobbledegook in order to avoid saying "we surrender". It simply implies that KERCHTOG accepts the surrender term required by Coalition B.

#2, the winning side gains advantages by dragging this war on. Likewise, neutral alliances gain advantages as they profit from increased resource prices (expensive tanks, expensive planes).

 

I think the only people demanding a swift end to this war are people in the losing side, as well as fatigued / tired participants in the winning side.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Inst said:

#1, they didn't surrender (yet), and this is worded as gobbledegook in order to avoid saying "we surrender". 

Was the condition that they make a post in this forum saying this? Maybe I'm just missing something but I don't really see why alliances are announcing their intention to begin surrender talks. Also, I hope they know there is no shame in surrender. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Kadin said:

Was the condition that they make a post in this forum saying this? Maybe I'm just missing something but I don't really see why alliances are announcing their intention to begin surrender talks. Also, I hope they know there is no shame in surrender. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  

yea, otherwise talks wont even start because this is what the opposite coalition demanded. Now they're probably gonna go over terms for like 5 more months while the war still goes on.

 

forumsign.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

The problem isn't a matter of "shame"; recall that pretty much every single alliance in the CKHERTUGOREKT coalition has surrendered on at least one occasion in the past (the main exception being T$). We're not unwilling to surrender when the situation calls for it; the problem lies in the despicable ally-fricking that IQ, and most specifically NPO, has engaged in. If we surrender, then we're setting the precedent that treaties not merely don't matter but in fact should not matter, and that nakedly breaking your promises is something that should be done as a first, best, and therefore only resort. Encouraging that shit is not acceptable to me; communities can only exist when there is both a risk and a cost associated with betrayal, and I will be that cost even if no-one else is willing to be.

Hate to break it to ya, but formal surrender or no, if you're losing - And I have to assume that to be the case if surrender is even an option open for discussion - Then the message has already been sent as far as it ever will. I'm a huge believer in treaties. Many wars are won or lost before the first shot is ever fired due to the power a strong foreign policy approach can wield. But, hey, these things happen sometimes, and to me it sounds like perhaps someone should have worked to cultivate a stronger relationship with their allies so that this wouldn't have happened. Without that, no treaty is worth the paper it's printed on.

But, really, I just came back - I don't know jack about what's going on right now.

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

46 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

The problem isn't a matter of "shame"; recall that pretty much every single alliance in the CKHERTUGOREKT coalition has surrendered on at least one occasion in the past (the main exception being T$). We're not unwilling to surrender when the situation calls for it; the problem lies in the despicable ally-fricking that IQ, and most specifically NPO, has engaged in. If we surrender, then we're setting the precedent that treaties not merely don't matter but in fact should not matter, and that nakedly breaking your promises is something that should be done as a first, best, and therefore only resort. Encouraging that shit is not acceptable to me; communities can only exist when there is both a risk and a cost associated with betrayal, and I will be that cost even if no-one else is willing to be.

Group that promoted minispheres only to consolidate 3 minispheres into 1 the moment an opportunity to roll BK came up thinks it has any ideological ground to stand on regarding integrity. More hilarious jokes at 11.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
  • Downvote 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kadin said:

Hate to break it to ya, but formal surrender or no, if you're losing - And I have to assume that to be the case if surrender is even an option open for discussion - Then the message has already been sent as far as it ever will. I'm a huge believer in treaties. Many wars are won or lost before the first shot is ever fired due to the power a strong foreign policy approach can wield. But, hey, these things happen sometimes, and to me it sounds like perhaps someone should have worked to cultivate a stronger relationship with their allies so that this wouldn't have happened. Without that, no treaty is worth the paper it's printed on.

But, really, I just came back - I don't know jack about what's going on right now.

Kadin, they weren't losing, and are possibly still not losing.

 

During Knightfall, KT bulked up a lot of resources after the initial overgrown raids were over. The same was happening here, with T$ making 60-120bn after having dropped the war from NPO's side. So T$ got hit.

 

There is still Farksphere, which techincally doesn't exist anymore. Fark remains allied to The Immortals, but they've lost the rest of the Farksphere, which downgraded to an ODoaP. Farksphere continues to grow in strength, but whether they'll honor the NAP (downgraded to ODoAP) is another question, and the other way alliances can escape the Farksphere NAP is to just break straight out of Farksphere.


From what I've been hearing from there, there's a reasonable amount of antipathy for BKNPO.

 

===

 

Since Knightfall, when it became obvious that alliances could sustain wars for inordinately long periods of time, the war meta has changed. Wars are no longer decided by the blitz, but on the defender's ability to sustain combat. If they wait for long enough (as with NR-Pantheon), they might get rescued, #1, and #2, even if they ultimately surrender, they manage to destroy the opponent's economic capability in the interim, allowing "neutral" third parties to boost.

Edited by Inst
  • Upvote 2

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pop said:

Group that promoted minispheres only to consolidate 3 minispheres into 1 the moment an opportunity to roll BK came up thinks it has any ideological ground to stand on regarding integrity. More hilarious jokes at 11.

Forgetting a very important tidbit there.  2 major spheres plotting to roll the 2 minispheres~

 

Or should we link that leak that was posted up as well as Sphinx's admittance to the whole thing?

Edited by Buorhann
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Forgetting a very important tidbit there.  2 major spheres plotting to roll the 2 minispheres~

 

Or should we link that leak that was posted up as well as Sphinx's admittance to the whole thing?

Sweet we'll consider that as a peace term now,  with TGH admitting that there was no plan to roll them. We never planned to roll KETOG. Only Chaos has a leg to stand on being a pre-empt, KETOG/Rose were offensive as far as we were concerned. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

The problem isn't a matter of "shame"; recall that pretty much every single alliance in the CKHERTUGOREKT coalition has surrendered on at least one occasion in the past (the main exception being T$). We're not unwilling to surrender when the situation calls for it; the problem lies in the despicable ally-fricking that IQ, and most specifically NPO, has engaged in. If we surrender, then we're setting the precedent that treaties not merely don't matter but in fact should not matter, and that nakedly breaking your promises is something that should be done as a first, best, and therefore only resort. Encouraging that shit is not acceptable to me; communities can only exist when there is both a risk and a cost associated with betrayal, and I will be that cost even if no-one else is willing to be.

NEWSFLASH: Scarfy's feelings hurt

Reporting live from the Politics and War forums. On this day the 3rd of November. We visited a distraught and terrified member of the Golden Horde, he had this to say:

"Godzilla, Godzilla, Godzilla"

Edited by Tiberius
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sphinx said:

Sweet we'll consider that as a peace term now,  with TGH admitting that there was no plan to roll them. We never planned to roll KETOG. Only Chaos has a leg to stand on being a pre-empt, KETOG/Rose were offensive as far as we were concerned. 

Saving this just in case you take that back too and start pretending we are all crazy again.

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Ripper said:

Saving this just in case you take that back too and start pretending we are all crazy again.

I mean I've said it many times, so I'm happy to have it on record. Likewise many others in Colo B has also confirmed it. Only Chaos had legitimacy in what they did, KETOG/Rose did not, they bandwagoned pure and simple.

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

2 hours ago, Sphinx said:

Sweet we'll consider that as a peace term now,  with TGH admitting that there was no plan to roll them. We never planned to roll KETOG. Only Chaos has a leg to stand on being a pre-empt, KETOG/Rose were offensive as far as we were concerned. 

I want you to re-read what I said very carefully.  The leak very clearly details such with you admitting such in other channels.

  • Upvote 4
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.