Jump to content

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks


Prefonteen
 Share

Recommended Posts

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? :P

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by James II
  • Haha 3

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Downvote 7

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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 :)

giphy.gif

Edited by Razgriz24
  • Haha 1

Taste the MEAT not the HEAT!

Strickland Propane Discord - NOW LGBTQIAPK2+ FRIENDLY! - Only available on Discord

5b16b9465rtyra9c1.png.e3c08c76b0c07a8276603b04440eaf3b.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
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

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

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 by hope
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
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

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

 

32204241a4480364cfebb04c10bf72cfaeb4dce2x696.gif
Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D
Former Director of Finance, Security in e$
Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server)
luffyt$forum.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Curufinwe said:

Okay?  

use common sense, for once.

Edited by MonkeyDLegend
  • Like 1
32204241a4480364cfebb04c10bf72cfaeb4dce2x696.gif
Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D
Former Director of Finance, Security in e$
Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server)
luffyt$forum.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Curufinwe
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

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 ? 

 

32204241a4480364cfebb04c10bf72cfaeb4dce2x696.gif
Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D
Former Director of Finance, Security in e$
Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server)
luffyt$forum.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Tiberius
  • Downvote 1
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.