Jump to content

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks


Prefonteen
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Viva Miriya
5 minutes ago, Cypher said:

TLDR we’d rather force tS to disband than to give them terms 

I'm ok w this personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

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. 

Wars would end sooner if the winning parties weren't giving 86 terms to those they defeated and also admitting that they feel like they need to have us disband so they can prosper in the future.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

[11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Keegoz said:

Wars would end sooner if the winning parties weren't giving 86 terms to those they defeated and also admitting that they feel like they need to have us disband so they can prosper in the future.

On the flip side if you accepted those 86 terms war would end sooner too. Collective responsibility. No alliance can force another to disband. The only players that can disband an alliance is their own membership. 

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

10 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

On the flip side if you accepted those 86 terms war would end sooner too. Collective responsibility. No alliance can force another to disband. The only players that can disband an alliance is their own membership. 

On the flipped flip side, if those 86 terms were given to us, I'm sure we could probably accept sooner.

  • Upvote 1
Quote

Former leader of Chocolate Castle 4/1/2021

"It's pretty easy to get abused by Rosey without being a weirdo about it" - Betilius

"Rosey is everything I look for in a fighter" - partisan

"I’m very much not surprised that Lossi has you blocked tbh" - @MCMaster-095

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours 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.

 

5 hours 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.

Oh boy. Between the latest kastor leak and some of the other stuff i've seen, this is not going to age well, friend!

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

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.

If you're looking for a "decisive victory" in terms of a very favorable damage ratio, you're never going to get it.  Once you've taken out everyone's expensive infra and unit build ups, you've done most of the damage you are going to be able to do.  You can't force anyone to rebuild units or infra for you to destroy.  In the game of each side bombing rubble we are able to do about as much damage to you as you can do to us.  Each round right now only has a very marginal impact on overall damage ratios.

We're very long past the point where your "war style" to take down the upper tiers has played out.  Unless your "war style" is keeping wars on for so long that you're trying to get players to quit, hoping that more quit on the other side than on your side.  If so, that's sad.  If it's not, as I said you've done what you're going to be able to do.

8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

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. 

We asked for terms long before week 20.  There is ample evidence in this thread of Coalition B deliberately stalling.

  • Upvote 3
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viva Miriya
4 hours ago, Thalmor said:

You're part of what's wrong with this game. 

The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. Learn your history, you entitled child. We don't exist to cater to your whims my friend. 

4 hours ago, Darth Ataxia said:

At least you're honest about it.

I seek only victory.

40 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

If you're looking for a "decisive victory" in terms of a very favorable damage ratio, you're never going to get it.  Once you've taken out everyone's expensive infra and unit build ups, you've done most of the damage you are going to be able to do.  You can't force anyone to rebuild units or infra for you to destroy.  In the game of each side bombing rubble we are able to do about as much damage to you as you can do to us.  Each round right now only has a very marginal impact on overall damage ratios.

We're very long past the point where your "war style" to take down the upper tiers has played out.  Unless your "war style" is keeping wars on for so long that you're trying to get players to quit, hoping that more quit on the other side than on your side.  If so, that's sad.  If it's not, as I said you've done what you're going to be able to do.

We asked for terms long before week 20.  There is ample evidence in this thread of Coalition B deliberately stalling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Viva Miriya said:

The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. Learn your history, you entitled child. We don't exist to cater to your whims my friend. 

I seek only victory.

 

Let me help you carry that chip, friend.

  • Like 2

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

 

Oh boy. Between the latest kastor leak and some of the other stuff i've seen, this is not going to age well, friend!

He's not your friend. 

Also, how is that "negotiating" an end to the war through the forums thing going for you?  Everything you thought it would be?  Closer to peace yet? 

When you actually want peace, you know what to do.

  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot more than 2 coalition B folks in here actively and casually stating that they want us driven from the game... remember what effect Sketchy saying that in a fit of rage had on their side? Wild.

Just now, George Clooney said:

He's not your friend. 

Also, how is that "negotiating" an end to the war through the forums thing going for you?  Everything you thought it would be?  Closer to peace yet? 

When you actually want peace, you know what to do.

Lord almighty, you are dense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Azaghul said:

If you're looking for a "decisive victory" in terms of a very favorable damage ratio, you're never going to get it.  Once you've taken out everyone's expensive infra and unit build ups, you've done most of the damage you are going to be able to do.  You can't force anyone to rebuild units or infra for you to destroy.  In the game of each side bombing rubble we are able to do about as much damage to you as you can do to us.  Each round right now only has a very marginal impact on overall damage ratios.

We're very long past the point where your "war style" to take down the upper tiers has played out.  Unless your "war style" is keeping wars on for so long that you're trying to get players to quit, hoping that more quit on the other side than on your side.  If so, that's sad.  If it's not, as I said you've done what you're going to be able to do.

We asked for terms long before week 20.  There is ample evidence in this thread of Coalition B deliberately stalling.

I don't disagree that damage numbers are only marginal at this point, however income/resources production etc is more than marginal iirc, and so keeping you at war allows us to build our reserves back quicker is one way to look at it. Coalition leadership will decide what the goals of the war are overall, which I'm not privy to, so I am just speculating. There is always the option of individual surrender for those who don't wish to continue fighting, and there has been players who have taken that option. 

You did ask for terms prior to week 20, correct. You were provided with a term to surrender prior to the release of other terms. You didn't offer your surrender/accept that term until week 20. 

17 minutes ago, Patrick Stewart said:

One of those things is correct

Does this mean that you are a very happy, tall, probably bald, fan gender neutral human, that does appreciate bad music while also being Patrick Stewart?

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

1 hour ago, George Clooney said:

He's not your friend. 

Also, how is that "negotiating" an end to the war through the forums thing going for you?  Everything you thought it would be?  Closer to peace yet? 

When you actually want peace, you know what to do.

I wish I had the crayons and playdoh to explain this topic to you bud.

If you're trolling, well that's a whole other issue isn't it?

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

7 hours ago, George Clooney said:

He's not your friend. 

Also, how is that "negotiating" an end to the war through the forums thing going for you?  Everything you thought it would be?  Closer to peace yet? 

When you actually want peace, you know what to do.

Actually, tS doesn't know what it will grant them peace. I'd be happy to negotiate in discord if you'll  finally let me though :)

1 hour ago, ComradeMilton said:

Seventeen pages of Partisan failure with the public idea.  Maybe time for CoA to return to Discord?  You could honestly have this done in maybe twenty minutes if you actually wanted to. 

Been there. Done that. Still am. 

  • Upvote 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reuben Cheuk said:

I must say, of all possible responses you could have made, the social darwinist one is one of the worst. I'm also surprised that this is coming from a GOONS member and someone whose national economic policies are "Extreme Left". Surely GOONS, who ideally seeks to provide a safe area for those traditionally trodden upon by society, condemns this sentiment. I, as a disabled person who would have been killed in Nazi Germany for a quirk of my DNA, find this attitude incongruent with the times. While I sympathise with your temporal predicament, which prevents you from ever writing sweet love letters to the long-dead Francis Galton, I suggest you avoid taking out your frustration on us.

Do be mindful that this dynamic you speak of, in which the strong crush the weak, is not necessarily grounded in reality. I hope you realise that while the strong may be more powerful, the weak are not going to take such indignities lying down. The weak can work together, and plan. So, for a counter-example to the predator-prey dynamic, observe that the sabre-toothed tiger, which evolved to prey on humans, is now extinct, dead by our hand.

All I want to say is that you should probably stop idolising hierarchies you would probably be at the bottom of.

He's not a social darwinist irl and you shouldn't take people's in-game policies as reflective of their stances irl. He's just playing up the war thing. Like no one's advocating for disabled people to get euthanized. It's more of a commentary on player attitudes. The damage nations take isn't flesh and blood. It's just numbers. As long as people see it as RL damage, then they get the wrong idea. It's more like sending robot armies into battle but some people freak out if their robots get wrecked and then treat it as if it's actual people. Most of the anti-war arguments from the real world just don't apply to here. The question is ultimately of mental toughness/endurance rather than someone actually dying.

 

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

10 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

He's not a social darwinist irl and you shouldn't take people's in-game policies as reflective of their stances irl. He's just playing up the war thing. Like no one's advocating for disabled people to get euthanized. It's more of a commentary on player attitudes. The damage nations take isn't flesh and blood. It's just numbers. As long as people see it as RL damage, then they get the wrong idea. It's more like sending robot armies into battle but some people freak out if their robots get wrecked and then treat it as if it's actual people. Most of the anti-war arguments from the real world just don't apply to here. The question is ultimately of mental toughness/endurance rather than someone actually dying.

 

I'm aware that the stakes here are nowhere near as high here as in reality, but it's just that they pulled the "listen to history" argument, which is what lots of online social darwinists say, despite a lot of the ideology being based on pop anthropology and junk science. As a result, I'd clocked them as being in the same camp.

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.