Jump to content

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks


Prefonteen
 Share

Recommended Posts

So when are NPO and BK going to let us surrender? We've asked you a month before this post, and we've asked after to surrender, you still haven't presented any terms. How long will you force your allies (Who are willing to accept our surrender) to fight a war they don't want to be in?

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, James II said:

So when are NPO and BK going to let us surrender? We've asked you a month before this post, and we've asked after to surrender, you still haven't presented any terms. How long will you force your allies (Who are willing to accept our surrender) to fight a war they don't want to be in?

Will be fun to see what alliances NPO/BK are left with once peace is achieved. Maybe thats why they are stalling :P

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James II said:

So when are NPO and BK going to let us surrender? We've asked you a month before this post, and we've asked after to surrender, you still haven't presented any terms. How long will you force your allies (Who are willing to accept our surrender) to fight a war they don't want to be in?

Quoting for posterity

  • Downvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James II said:

So when are NPO and BK going to let us surrender? We've asked you a month before this post, and we've asked after to surrender, you still haven't presented any terms. How long will you force your allies (Who are willing to accept our surrender) to fight a war they don't want to be in?

So um which allies are these? The ones you're not fighting that aren't very battle-hardened? There's no reason for us to be nice to you as we know you're already scheming. So we don't owe you anything. :) It'll happen when it happens.

 

 

 

  

1 hour ago, Leo said:

Will be fun to see what alliances NPO/BK are left with once peace is achieved. Maybe thats why they are stalling :P

 

Lmao AO 2.0 made Arrow of head of FA. 

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 1
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

So um which allies are these? The ones you're not fighting that aren't very battle-hardened? There's no reason for us to be nice to you as we know you're already scheming. So we don't owe you anything. :) It'll happen when it happens.

 

 

 

  

 

Lmao AO 2.0 made Arrow of head of FA. 

I'd be curious to hear about these schemes we're apparently involved in. 

  • Haha 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prefonteen said:

I'd be curious to hear about these schemes we're apparently involved in. 

Well you already vowed future reprisal in a different topic but that was directed at James. If he wants to sphere/coalition-build while saying we're the big evil, it's not gonna get any charitable consideration. He had every opportunity to not get involved and no one had ever had any reason to have issues with CoA. No one had ever trolled CoA throughout the war. No one had ever considered CoA a potential war target or anything. He wanted to get involved so if he doesn't like being at war anymore, not really our problem.

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

2 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

Well you already vowed future reprisal in a different topic but that was directed at James. If he wants to sphere/coalition-build while saying we're the big evil, it's not gonna get any charitable consideration. He had every opportunity to not get involved and no one had ever had any reason to have issues with CoA. No one had ever trolled CoA throughout the war. No one had ever considered CoA a potential war target or anything. He wanted to get involved so if he doesn't like being at war anymore, not really our problem.

Can you link me to the post where I did that?

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Prefonteen said:

That's.... literally..... a parody post....while I wasn't even in gov......

What is it a parody of? I mean if I can just start saying anything is a parody post if it's written in a certain tone and convey some nasty sentiments. It was reflective of overall Syndicate sentiment at the time. I don't really think it's great that you can slide in and out of gov on a whim and then play off everything as non-serious.

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

What is it a parody of? I mean if I can just start saying anything is a parody post if it's written in a certain tone and convey some nasty sentiments. It was reflective of overall Syndicate sentiment at the time. I don't really think it's great that you can slide in and out of gov on a whim and then play off everything as non-serious.

Smoking your own goods is a poor business decision.

  • Haha 2
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Roquentin said:

So um which allies are these? The ones you're not fighting that aren't very battle-hardened? There's no reason for us to be nice to you as we know you're already scheming. So we don't owe you anything. :) It'll happen when it happens.

 

 

 

  

 

Lmao AO 2.0 made Arrow of head of FA. 

You don't even know what's going on in your own house.

EDIT: I'd like to hear these schemes too

Edited by James II

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

What is it a parody of? I mean if I can just start saying anything is a parody post if it's written in a certain tone and convey some nasty sentiments. It was reflective of overall Syndicate sentiment at the time.

What... the... hell...

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

Well you already vowed future reprisal in a different topic but that was directed at James. If he wants to sphere/coalition-build while saying we're the big evil, it's not gonna get any charitable consideration. He had every opportunity to not get involved and no one had ever had any reason to have issues with CoA. No one had ever trolled CoA throughout the war. No one had ever considered CoA a potential war target or anything. He wanted to get involved so if he doesn't like being at war anymore, not really our problem.

You're holding up surrender negotiations on your own terms because people are mad at you and trying to organize a response post-war?

Do you think that will result in more or less people being mad at you?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

You're holding up surrender negotiations on your own terms because people are mad at you and trying to organize a response post-war?

Do you think that will result in more or less people being mad at you?

That supposed organized response is also an assumption on his part and as just displayed a few posts above... based on some seriously strange premises  ;)

  • Haha 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bartholomew Roberts said:

You're holding up surrender negotiations on your own terms because people are mad at you and trying to organize a response post-war?

Do you think that will result in more or less people being mad at you?

tS isn't being stopped. CoA is stagnating, but tS is free to work on peace.

9 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

lol, anyone remember when GOONS were saying it was going to end faster now that they were involved?

Unless you mean a random member, no.

  • Downvote 6

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ComradeMilton said:

tS isn't being stopped. CoA is stagnating, but tS is free to work on peace.

Unless you mean a random member, no.

Uhhh no that's false. t$ hasn't been given terms nor allowed to process on the peace subject going on 30 days since its surrender.

  • Upvote 6

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Well you already vowed future reprisal in a different topic but that was directed at James. If he wants to sphere/coalition-build while saying we're the big evil, it's not gonna get any charitable consideration. He had every opportunity to not get involved and no one had ever had any reason to have issues with CoA. No one had ever trolled CoA throughout the war. No one had ever considered CoA a potential war target or anything. He wanted to get involved so if he doesn't like being at war anymore, not really our problem.

Are you throwing a fit over the church trying to bring peace and balance to Orbis?

Edited by James II
  • Downvote 1

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, James II said:

Are you throwing a fit over the church trying to bring peace and balance to Orbis?

Are you also planning to set flame to their gym equipment?

 

Also...

Quote

He had every opportunity to not get involved and no one had ever had any reason to have issues with CoA. No one had ever trolled CoA throughout the war. No one had ever considered CoA a potential war target or anything. He wanted to get involved so if he doesn't like being at war anymore, not really our problem.

 

- When t$ allies are involved voluntarily because they believe in the sphere and the moral position of t$' side, that's indicative of malice and so they must be punished.

- When coal B fighters no longer feel justified continuing the war and want to bow out, that's "undermining their coalition and they need to be rolled"

Edited by Prefonteen
  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

tS isn't being stopped. CoA is stagnating, but tS is free to work on peace.

Unless you mean a random member, no.

We aren't stagnating, we've gained 5 members since the start of the war.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/28/2019 at 10:54 PM, Shadowthrone said:

 

I mean it took you four + months to agree to surrender. It takes two to tango when it comes to peace. If your side is refusing to approach peace till November, it's not really our fault. We opened out negotiations with KERTCHOGG and were willing to move forward, so if anyone tanked talks there, that'd be you. In the past, sides were willing to take the L, and move on to plan the next big war, but in this case your side refused to even consider it till November, can't really pin that one on us, however hard you attempt to. 

With regards to the substance of the peace talks itself, the explanations have been communicated to the negotiators of KERTCHOGG, so there's nothing more really to be said. You made your choice in supporting this public call out, so there's really not much more to say. 

This is some serious gaslighting.  The issue was never about being willing to surrender, as you well know, but agreeing to anything before seeing a full list of terms.

On 11/29/2019 at 3:43 AM, Tiberius said:

If we are only getting a marginal advantage for keeping the war going then we for sure are not crippling anyone. Every alliance has or has access to substantial cash and resources to continue fighting should they wish so. That's the nature of the game this late into it. Your hegemony never needed to keep wars going for any length because there was less cash and resources around and alliances could not sustain a long war. 

A fun dynamic world only seems to have become a thing since the old hegemony has fallen. Curbstomps have been a staple part of this game forever. I'm sure the majority of general memberships still rather fight it out, which is still happening and they will shake hands and move on once it's over. Reasonable length is entirely dependent on the environment and situation of the war. It never is a time limited affair. 

On 11/28/2019 at 11:23 PM, Douglas MacArthur said:

The actual reason as to why World Wars drag on for months at a time nowadays is because with the capicity for enormous war chests to substain combat indefinitly it becomes exponentially more difficult for a victorious alliance to impose their will onto a defeated one in essence a crushing defeat against an alliance cannot be imposed onto an alliance as no matter how many units, infrastruture or imporvements the victor destroys the defeated alliance still has the capicity to rebuild units, infrastructure and can still resist without completely capiltuating to the enemy alliance. A "fun dynamic world" without months long wars will arise when the possibility emerges of obtaining complete and total victory over an enemy alliance this is achived by somehoe being able to invalidate these large war chests.

The reality is you can't force anyone to spend resources later on into the war.  So if "crippling" means left completely depleted, that's impossible.  The overwhelming amount of damage is done in the first few rounds, where people lose most/all of their expensive infra and spend a lot more resources on military trying to win conventionally.  The depletion of infra and substantial loss in resources is what I'd call "crippling".

"Reasonable length" isn't just about in-game factors but how much enjoyment it brings to people.  Fighting roughly the same type of wars ever week or so for months become monotonous.  It can still be fun to some degree at least for some dedicated folks.  I'm in that category... I was the top player in damage dealt last war.  But it wears out and bores the general memberships on BOTH sides. Which is readily apparent from the diminished activity and number of war declarations on BOTH sides. I've been in enough of these wars in this world and others, on both the winning and loosing side, to see that it's not good for the community on either side.

It's a lot more fun to fight a few weeks, rebuild a few months, than have another fight.  The initial contest of gain control where people are generally fighting full strength is the most interesting and fun part for most players.  And in terms of statistical dominance, it offers more opportunities to do substantial damage to alliances by creating more opportunities to destroy expensive infra build ups and push people to expend lots of resources in the initial fight for supremacy.


On a side note outside of the purview of an "IC" forum, I do want to see game mechanics change with regard to warchests.  The fact remains that long wars aren't a reliable way to wear down warchests because people can easily choose to fight in a way that's resource light and not dip into their alliance warchest.

  • Upvote 4
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Well you already vowed future reprisal in a different topic but that was directed at James. If he wants to sphere/coalition-build while saying we're the big evil, it's not gonna get any charitable consideration. He had every opportunity to not get involved and no one had ever had any reason to have issues with CoA. No one had ever trolled CoA throughout the war. No one had ever considered CoA a potential war target or anything. He wanted to get involved so if he doesn't like being at war anymore, not really our problem.

05onfire1_xp-articleLarge-v2.jpg?quality

 

Beige me, scrub. 

  • Haha 4

STFU

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.