Jump to content

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks


Prefonteen
 Share

Recommended Posts

I actually don't expect peace talks to ever be concluded, unless a large enough chunk of Coalition B fractures and seeks a separate peace. If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't see a benefit to peace at all; the Rubicon has been crossed in such a large way that it's hard to imagine a negotiated peace turning out to be any more than a 6 month armistice. If peace terms do ever arrive, they will be designed to win the next war. I hope they aren't permanently crippling, and I hope they are only pointed at alliances, and not individuals.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Avakael said:

I actually don't expect peace talks to ever be concluded, unless a large enough chunk of Coalition B fractures and seeks a separate peace. If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't see a benefit to peace at all; the Rubicon has been crossed in such a large way that it's hard to imagine a negotiated peace turning out to be any more than a 6 month armistice. If peace terms do ever arrive, they will be designed to win the next war. I hope they aren't permanently crippling, and I hope they are only pointed at alliances, and not individuals.

Only way it would be beneficial is if they considered someone in their own coalition to be worse than your side; like when you guys peaced because of not wanting to help BK. Although don't think you guys have said much which would motivate them toward that.

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Anything that needed to be said was said by Duke Arthur on the first page. You can either hold out or wait for something but the callout will achieve nothing. We have our reasons for wanting the terms to be presented in this way. Some people don't like the length because they like to see numbers go up but the reasons for the format have been given. We don't need to spell them out again.

There is nothing more to say

User Images

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RC Bandit said:

True, I can be replaced in this game on PnW forums and not be noticed but,  that's ok since I don't stride to have a label here. Can you say the same to yourself?

You've reinstated an old account for reasons I'm unsure. It looks like you rely on that label of yours more than you think.

I’ve never cared about it.

libertyribbon.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Avakael said:

I actually don't expect peace talks to ever be concluded, unless a large enough chunk of Coalition B fractures and seeks a separate peace. If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't see a benefit to peace at all; the Rubicon has been crossed in such a large way that it's hard to imagine a negotiated peace turning out to be any more than a 6 month armistice. If peace terms do ever arrive, they will be designed to win the next war. I hope they aren't permanently crippling, and I hope they are only pointed at alliances, and not individuals.

Should I go ahead and tell you now, or will you ignore it and continue on with a troll again then realize later I was correct once more?

Given the stuff you've stated in the past during this war, not sure I can really take you serious with a reply like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

The policy I was referring to was how your gov handles discord servers and such "official" fora.  It was more a general commentary on the isolationism your gov practices as opposed to actual OWF rules, which I suspect isn't exactly promoted by them either.  I only know about this because of circumstances that have transpired previously that aren't exactly appropriate to discuss here (so I'll leave it at that).  

As for the content quality, yeah most of the stuff sucks, but the OP was pretty good.  If y'all want to move forward and get new stuff on the forums, I suggest starting with good faith negotiations so we can end this wretched war.  I'll miss the loot, but at least we get some new things going on these forums.  

In all honesty game politics very rarely encompasses a whole alliances membership. Alas I could say the same about TKR. Where are all your near 100 members? Does TKR practice isolationism? In reality only a handful of members are ever going to show an interest in the politics of the game outside of their alliance gov. The vast majority just want to blow stuff up, build a bit etc. 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. What may be quality content for you isn't for others. From my perspective the negotiations are on gov to gov level and so portraying what's happening to a general member such as myself isn't really doing anything because I don't really care. I have faith and trust in my leadership that they will point the ship in the right direction in what's best for my alliance. There also seems to be a process in place for negotiations to begin and progress. These games dont move very fast and so it's understandable to someone like me that negotiations are a dragged out affair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Should I go ahead and tell you now, or will you ignore it and continue on with a troll again then realize later I was correct once more?

Given the stuff you've stated in the past during this war, not sure I can really take you serious with a reply like this.

You can go ahead and DM me about it. I'm not trolling, and I should clarify that I'm not actually expressing any sympathy for Coalition B. Enough of them played CN to understand what the concept of a "precedent" is in the context of a global war.

  • Upvote 2

Le1AjCa.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest PhantomThiefB
10 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

The policy I was referring to was how your gov handles discord servers and such "official" fora.  It was more a general commentary on the isolationism your gov practices as opposed to actual OWF rules, which I suspect isn't exactly promoted by them either.  I only know about this because of circumstances that have transpired previously that aren't exactly appropriate to discuss here (so I'll leave it at that).  

As for the content quality, yeah most of the stuff sucks, but the OP was pretty good.  If y'all want to move forward and get new stuff on the forums, I suggest starting with good faith negotiations so we can end this wretched war.  I'll miss the loot, but at least we get some new things going on these forums.  

Not really, I just don't join every server or any at all. And it's more of a personal reason for myself, like tabs on the internet browser my forehead vein pops in annoyance once it gets to a certain number.

tl;dr I don't want to be in 50 different servers.?‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

 

 

 

Duke Arthur's post is a simplification which fails to come close to addressing the content of the OP. I'm surprised you would want to refer to that post as your official line.

I actually meant the last page(11) since he spelled out the options. We don't really have any reason to engage in a circular discussion over how you feel about the term format so we haven't played ball. As I said nothing more to say, as we are simply not indulging the public call out tactic.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

I actually meant the last page(11) since he spelled out the options. We don't really have any reason to engage in a circular discussion over how you feel about the term format so we haven't played ball. As I said nothing more to say, as we are simply not indulging the public call out tactic.

Partisan's entire Wall of Text (and countless responses afterwards) specifically elaborates why going with 3) is pointless. You could at least be bothered to read what was written, before issuing a worthless non-response.

  • Upvote 5
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Partisan's entire Wall of Text (and countless responses afterwards) specifically elaborates why going with 3) is pointless. You could at least be bothered to read what was written, before issuing a worthless non-response.

source.gif

I mean if he feels that way and doesn't want to engage, it's not really a motivator for us. All it is in my eyes is a cynical attempt to prey on war fatigue so people feel pressured to go with a less advantageous deal. It's been a recurring theme that coalition A has tried to starve out coalition B in hopes of achieving a better outcome.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

source.gif

I mean if he feels that way and doesn't want to engage, it's not really a motivator for us. All it is in my eyes is a cynical attempt to prey on war fatigue so people feel pressured to go with a less advantageous deal. It's been a recurring theme that coalition A has tried to starve out coalition B in hopes of achieving a better outcome.

Merely meant to shed a light on how the process has actually been like, as opposed to claims made from your end.

I'll be waiting for a more substantiated response, but given that the best you can do is quote a random Col. B member, I've got a feeling that it'll either be disappointing, or will keep me waiting for a long time.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
Minor fix.
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

source.gif

I mean if he feels that way and doesn't want to engage, it's not really a motivator for us. All it is in my eyes is a cynical attempt to prey on war fatigue so people feel pressured to go with a less advantageous deal. It's been a recurring theme that coalition A has tried to starve out coalition B in hopes of achieving a better outcome.

Not sure how you're getting that no one wants to engage from any of this considering how we're repeatedly saying otherwise. We are willing to negotiate and work on peace and we've made ample measures to show that in talks with you. What we're not willing to do is continue to put up with the treatment we've detailed in the OP. There is a difference.

  • Upvote 6

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2019 at 10:08 PM, Aesir said:

This has really descended into complete and utter chaos hasn't it?

Nope.

 

Circlejerking forum warriors doing their thing, is all.

 

I'm even getting PM's telling me my gov is lying to me, linking to topics like this. What on earth makes these imbeciles think, that my gov is lying to me? LOL!

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

"Don't argue with members of The Golden Horde. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." - Probably someone on OWF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, King Olafr of the Faroes said:

Nope.

 

Circlejerking forum warriors doing their thing, is all.

 

I'm even getting PM's telling me my gov is lying to me, linking to topics like this. What on earth makes these imbeciles think, that my gov is lying to me? LOL!

This is really funny but not for the reasons you think....

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

I have faith and trust in my leadership that they will point the ship in the right direction in what's best for my alliance.

I believe that you think that and I also think that's what NPO is trying to do. But in NPO's eyes what's best for the alliance means crippling the other side of the game to an extent that all of your future wars will be basically consider of dogpiles until your enemies quit the game. Which of course can be something NPO truly aspires to achieve. If your alliance wants to sit on top of the game (effectively killing it) without anyone ever being able to come close to then, sure. But neither you, your government or anyone else from your site gets to complain that we are frustrated at this and don't want to put up with it because the logs on the first page clearly and undoubtedly point out how your leadership is tanking talks at every opportunity.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a member of Coalition were to supposedly believe the information insofar that was posted on page one and for some peculiar reason wanted to support KERTCHOG (Coalition A) in exposing the unfairness of the negoation process, then what can the average member even do in the first place? Tell goverment members who would most likely turn a deaf ear to complaints in the first place? Quit their alliance? What would you expect the average member of a Coalition B alliance to even do in this case? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
1 hour ago, Douglas MacArthur said:

If a member of Coalition were to supposedly believe the information insofar that was posted on page one and for some peculiar reason wanted to support KERTCHOG (Coalition A) in exposing the unfairness of the negoation process, then what can the average member even do in the first place? Tell goverment members who would most likely turn a deaf ear to complaints in the first place? Quit their alliance? What would you expect the average member of a Coalition B alliance to even do in this case? 

dsc01552.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=780

Riot, obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 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.