Prefonteen Posted November 30, 2019 Author Share Posted November 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Madden8021 said: We're almost into December and there is no peace terms or whatever to be seen anywhere, nobody from Coalition A wants peace right now and as said in the past that the more the people give up hope for peace, the more people will VM and or Delete. So I don't see Peace until the Holidays are over since no one wants to stress themselves when they're setting things up for Christmas and the coming of the new decade "aka New Years" while spending it with Friends, Family and loved ones over a peace treaty. We can try to get Side A to the table in January? But eh, no one cares right now and want to strangle at each other's throats. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I suspect you mean coalition B? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James II Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Madden8021 said: Sorry, I'll edit it. I just can't think due to the Flu/Cold. >.< Not only will NPOand BK not let Coal A surrender, they are now employing biological warfare! Monsters! Edited November 30, 2019 by James II 3 "Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 20 hours ago, Roquentin said: Lmao AO 2.0 made Arrow of head of FA. Can't be AO 2.0 if we're not allied to......yeah you know the rest ? Kinda shocked that throughout the NPO-t$ treaty no one dropped logs of a certain someone proclaiming they'd do everything in their power to see a certain ally die out. Would of made for an interesting end to the year! Happy Holidays nevertheless 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Stewart Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 (edited) 21 hours ago, Roquentin said: you're already scheming Shhhhhh ? Edited November 30, 2019 by Patrick Stewart 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted November 30, 2019 Share Posted November 30, 2019 10 hours ago, Prefonteen said: 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. TS has not surrendered. CoA has. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted November 30, 2019 Author Share Posted November 30, 2019 14 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said: TS has not surrendered. CoA has. ... Pretty sure if you look around you'll find a fun thread 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 24 minutes ago, Madden8021 said: Uhh? Really? We're still at war right now. Yeah, it's weird how they claim to have done so and are still fighting yet here we are. Do you think they should have to surrender again? That seems a bit much to me. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemna Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 44 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said: Yeah, it's weird how they claim to have done so and are still fighting yet here we are. Do you think they should have to surrender again? That seems a bit much to me. I dont think no one actually surrendered but more a promise to surrender if given terms... Personally if that was the thought I would of actually asked for a 3 to 5 day ceasefire and hit the tables. Either way .... it is what it is I guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 7 hours ago, Azaghul said: 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. 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. Sure in the majority of the past wars the damage has been done in the first few rounds and peace is usually achieved quite quickly as the other side capitulates. The whole landscape is changed now since there is two opposing war styles. The one used by your coalition where you go all out first few rounds getting maximum damage and then there is our coalitions warstyle of grinding through the first few rounds and then slowly gain control and grind out a victory. Unfortunately the upper tier are gravitating mostly to the same coalition. Which gives that coalition an advantage in the first few rounds. So in essence what you are saying is you want wars to be over once your war play style has achieved maximum damage without taking maximum damage by that point. When you look at everything in balance and equality then fast wars could be a thing. However no one wants to support that kind of game mechanic changes when they are suggested to enable that as an end result. So while there is an imbalance in tiers across alliances one side will always get the advantage in the majority of cases in the first few rounds. Therefore the coalition/alliances at a disadvantage in the first few rounds are going to extend the war so they can get in their desired damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ming Exta 30000 Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 I want all to see my name as “recent” on all forums, so I’m not here for the alliance stuff, but those pacific dudes seem neat. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razgriz24 Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, James II said: Are you throwing a fit over the church trying to bring peace and balance to Orbis? You cannot bring balance to the force. Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes! We're all participating in history here Edited December 1, 2019 by Razgriz24 1 Taste the MEAT not the HEAT! Strickland Propane Discord - NOW LGBTQIAPK2+ FRIENDLY! - Only available on Discord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooper_ Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: Therefore the coalition/alliances at a disadvantage in the first few rounds are going to extend the war so they can get in their desired damage. And attack unaligned, peaced-out, or protectorate with high infra and no ability to defend itself to try to close the damage gap. (T$, E$, Aurora, TEst, TFP, House Arryn, Sanreizan, Typhon, AD, Clan Callan, Yarr, CTO, OWR, HS, Haven, CoA) You had a missing bit there. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curufinwe Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Cooper_ said: You had a missing bit there. Are you suggesting Syndisphere had no ability to defend itself? Ouch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooper_ Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 6 minutes ago, Curufinwe said: Are you suggesting Syndisphere had no ability to defend itself? Ouch Against an opponent that had thrice the planes and six times the cities, yeah I think T$ has openly admitted it was a lost cause. Nevertheless, they honored their treaties, which in my book loyalty makes a great ally. Y’all could take a page from their book even if it was BK who brought them in (I’m sure with the thought of all of that Infra and loot in the back your minds). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) imagine getting the biggest hard-on rolling defenseless satellite alliances who had no chance in hell to win because you brought half the top 10 with you it doesnt turn me on but you do you Edited December 1, 2019 by hope 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curufinwe Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Cooper_ said: Against an opponent that had thrice the planes and six times the cities, yeah I think T$ has openly admitted it was a lost cause. Nevertheless, they honored their treaties, which in my book loyalty makes a great ally. Y’all could take a page from their book even if it was BK who brought them in (I’m sure with the thought of all of that Infra and loot in the back your minds). I seem to recall more optimism when they entered, but sure. And we were chasing war deserters hanging out in TEst - the losses Syndi has suffered was due to their decision to go to bat for Boyce after he cut and ran from coalition A, which was their call ultimately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyDLegend Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 2 minutes ago, Curufinwe said: I seem to recall more optimism when they entered, but sure. And we were chasing war deserters hanging out in TEst - the losses Syndi has suffered was due to their decision to go to bat for Boyce after he cut and ran from coalition A, which was their call ultimately. Founded: 09/07/2019 (84 Days Old) https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=6088 Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D Former Director of Finance, Security in e$ Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curufinwe Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 hour ago, MonkeyDLegend said: Founded: 09/07/2019 (84 Days Old) https://politicsandwar.com/alliance/id=6088 Okay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyDLegend Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) Just now, Curufinwe said: Okay? use common sense, for once. Edited December 1, 2019 by MonkeyDLegend 1 Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D Former Director of Finance, Security in e$ Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curufinwe Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 hour ago, MonkeyDLegend said: use common sense, for once. You do realize Boyce was doing milcom for coalition A prior to jumping over to TEst, right? Or did you think TEst was composed entirely of new nations previously unconnected to the war? By your response, it appears that you're unclear on the timeline of events, but your gov can probably clear it up if you're curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyDLegend Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 18 minutes ago, Curufinwe said: You do realize Boyce was doing milcom for coalition A prior to jumping over to TEst, right? Or did you think TEst was composed entirely of new nations previously unconnected to the war? By your response, it appears that you're unclear on the timeline of events, but your gov can probably clear it up if you're curious. You know firsthand what an unseeteling environment has been created during this war and you're asking me why people jump ships ? Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D Former Director of Finance, Security in e$ Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buorhann Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 This thread was rendered moot with the latest @Kastor leak. 3 Warrior of Dio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfPCFQfOnLg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 6 hours ago, Tiberius said: Sure in the majority of the past wars the damage has been done in the first few rounds and peace is usually achieved quite quickly as the other side capitulates. The whole landscape is changed now since there is two opposing war styles. The one used by your coalition where you go all out first few rounds getting maximum damage and then there is our coalitions warstyle of grinding through the first few rounds and then slowly gain control and grind out a victory. Unfortunately the upper tier are gravitating mostly to the same coalition. Which gives that coalition an advantage in the first few rounds. So in essence what you are saying is you want wars to be over once your war play style has achieved maximum damage without taking maximum damage by that point. When you look at everything in balance and equality then fast wars could be a thing. However no one wants to support that kind of game mechanic changes when they are suggested to enable that as an end result. So while there is an imbalance in tiers across alliances one side will always get the advantage in the majority of cases in the first few rounds. Therefore the coalition/alliances at a disadvantage in the first few rounds are going to extend the war so they can get in their desired damage. This distinction is fair, but you're talking about a difference between around a 2-3 week war vs a 5-6 week week war. We're at week what, 25? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Azaghul said: This distinction is fair, but you're talking about a difference between around a 2-3 week war vs a 5-6 week week war. We're at week what, 25? Looking at damage dealt alone, we aren't even at damage parity. Which shows how long it takes to balance out the 2 war styles. I'd imagine taking other things into consideration such as income loss etc it's probably not too far off achieving damage parity but I could be way off the mark. The harder it is to achieve a decisive victory the longer wars will go on. In all honesty it took what 20 of those 25 weeks for Coalition A to decide to surrender and ask for terms. So a 2-3 week or a 5-6 week war is pretty much impossible to achieve if neither side are ready to admit defeat. Edited December 1, 2019 by Tiberius 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypher Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 TLDR we’d rather force tS to disband than to give them terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts