Jump to content
Prefonteen

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks

Recommended Posts

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? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny how the losing side always feels like they're being treated unfairly.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really quite crazy what people will do just to get that little piece of paper that says “we won” on it

Edited by hope
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, hope said:

really quite crazy what people will do just to get that little piece of paper that says “we won” on it

Give me my participation trophy or give me death.

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TehRedBlur said:

Give me my participation trophy or give me death.

i dont have any trophies but i can get you a sticker saying “you’re a star”’ on it

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hope said:

i dont have any trophies but i can get you a sticker saying “you’re a star”’ on it

Heck yeah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only option sadly to ensure preputal peace in orbis is for Coalition A to be neutralized as a threat to Coalition B. Otherwise TKR and allies will preputally fight BK and Allies to regain Hegemony as the largest alliance in the game as shown with TKR's 's attempt to dogpile BK after Knightfall (Thucydides Trap). the ONLY way this can be prosceuted to the furtherest extent is for TKR and allies to unconditionally surriender to coalition B or a change in attitude in the leadership of TKR and allies to not displace BK as a rising power.

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Douglas MacArthur said:

The only option sadly to ensure preputal peace in orbis is for Coalition A to be neutralized as a threat to Coalition B. Otherwise TKR and allies will preputally fight BK and Allies to regain Hegemony as the largest alliance in the game as shown with TKR's 's attempt to dogpile BK after Knightfall (Thucydides Trap). the ONLY way this can be prosceuted to the furtherest extent is for TKR and allies to unconditionally surriender to coalition B or a change in attitude in the leadership of TKR and allies to not displace BK as a rising power.

It was at this point Coalition A began to suspect that PMing BK's members might not achieve the desired result...

Edited by Curufinwe
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more irony and less hate

OlHBV6g.png

I still sugget to NPO to disband 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Douglas MacArthur said:

The only option sadly to ensure preputal peace in orbis is for Coalition A to be neutralized as a threat to Coalition B. Otherwise TKR and allies will preputally fight BK and Allies to regain Hegemony as the largest alliance in the game as shown with TKR's 's attempt to dogpile BK after Knightfall (Thucydides Trap). the ONLY way this can be prosceuted to the furtherest extent is for TKR and allies to unconditionally surriender to coalition B or a change in attitude in the leadership of TKR and allies to not displace BK as a rising power.

Bruh. You are so right. Ugh I thought hitting BK for absolutely no reason in the middle of fighting an altogether different conflict was dumb. Silly us, wonder what made us hit BK?

guess we’ll never know

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TFW when the secret is revealed that I’m actually a moderate in BK desperately trying to hold the radicals back. 

Edited by Leo the Great
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mitsuru said:

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.

When in doubt or you want to promote a lie, blame the NPO! Its like standard PnW PR spin since 2016 XD 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Mitsuru said:

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.

I mean crippling the alliances that pose a threat to us is the whole reason for warfare. We aren't declaring war to tickle you with a feather. If all future wars become dogpiles for us then you only have yourselves to blame for creating a terrible opposition to us. In reality this is the first war we have been involved in as the number one alliance. We've had to rise from the gutter the hard way and we never gave up. We've earned the opportunity to create a hegemony the same as all hegemonies throughout the history of this game. The only difference is that the ex-hegemons aren't in it and you dont like it. There is no victims here. If as you say we have a hegemony, then use the tools at your disposal to bring it down just like we had to do. Too many people look and plan to the short term in a game that's played over the long term. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Douglas MacArthur said:

The only option sadly to ensure preputal peace in orbis is for Coalition A to be neutralized as a threat to Coalition B. Otherwise TKR and allies will preputally fight BK and Allies to regain Hegemony as the largest alliance in the game as shown with TKR's 's attempt to dogpile BK after Knightfall (Thucydides Trap). the ONLY way this can be prosceuted to the furtherest extent is for TKR and allies to unconditionally surriender to coalition B or a change in attitude in the leadership of TKR and allies to not displace BK as a rising power.

Or...  hear me out.  Don’t have a moronic government group who lets their plots leak out.

Or...  continue to sit aside and let Chaos and KETOG continue to fight each other.

Or...  simply don’t be shit.

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

When in doubt or you want to promote a lie, blame the NPO! Its like standard PnW PR spin since 2016 XD 

I mean, it is NPO’s fault.  This war would’ve been long over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

I mean, it is NPO’s fault.  This war would’ve been long over.

Buorhann finally admits he's salty about losing a war! Nice to finally see some honesty. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

There's "crippling an alliance" and there's keeping wars going for months because it gives you some very marginal advantage.  Our "hegemony" never kept wars going for months and deliberately sabotaged peace talks while trying to blame the other side for it.

The 'victim' isn't our side.  The victim is everyone who cares more about having a fun dynamic world that doesn't stall into tedious 4 month+ wars.  The general memberships of all sides who would rather fight it out, shake hands after a fight of reasonable length, and move on.

No, this isn't just who is on top changing.  This is new and unprecedented.

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

There's "crippling an alliance" and there's keeping wars going for months because it gives you some very marginal advantage.  Our "hegemony" never kept wars going for months and deliberately sabotaged peace talks while trying to blame the other side for it.

The 'victim' isn't our side.  The victim is everyone who cares more about having a fun dynamic world that doesn't stall into tedious 4 month+ wars.  The general memberships of all sides who would rather fight it out, shake hands after a fight of reasonable length, and move on.

No, this isn't just who is on top changing.  This is new and unprecedented.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Buorhann finally admits he's salty about losing a war! Nice to finally see some honesty. 

There's literally no salt in that statement.  It is a factual statement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 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. 

That implies we were losing for 4+ months and we weren't, so that line of argument isn't exactly effective, especially coming from an alliance who has held out/refused to surrender for similar reasons in the past. But to say we were refusing to approach peace until November is false considering we first tried to open a dialogue with you guys regarding peace all the way back in early September. It's you guys who placed the "yeah, we'll only talk to you on the first of the month for 24 hours unless you surrender" rule onto things and then took aim to tank those 24 hour sessions by trolling us and further expanding the war immediately preceding both the October and November "talks".

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

That implies we were losing for 4+ months and we weren't, so that line of argument isn't exactly effective, especially coming from an alliance who has held out/refused to surrender for similar reasons in the past. But to say we were refusing to approach peace until November is false considering we first tried to open a dialogue with you guys regarding peace all the way back in early September. It's you guys who placed the "yeah, we'll only talk to you on the first of the month for 24 hours unless you surrender" rule onto things and then took aim to tank those 24 hour sessions by trolling us and further expanding the war immediately preceding both the October and November "talks".

I mean the demand was simple enough. Do you wish to discuss your surrender or not. You believed you hadn't, so there was nothing to discuss. If you wished to surrender at any point at time before the 1st, I doubt anyone would care enough to "reject" it because it wasn't on the 1st. I've mentioned the same to folks in your coalition to let it be known that if you do wish to surrender, we'll accept it whenever to move to the next stage. You had no interest to surrender, and when you finally did, we opened talks with KERTCHOGG, and explained the process and the reasons for it. You decided to abandon it. Those actions are documented enough. 

The expansions were coincidental, especially the tS one, given that the those talks were opened what on the 8th of September, 2019? But it's nice that you try to conflate the two into one narrative. Maybe I should start the spin that the only reason we see this topic is because you all believe BK is broke and happened just after the Gorge news was released to the public. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 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. 

What about your ally at the time, tS who tried to surrender but hasn't been allowed to? Please review the logs. 

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

I mean the demand was simple enough. Do you wish to discuss your surrender or not. You believed you hadn't, so there was nothing to discuss. If you wished to surrender at any point at time before the 1st, I doubt anyone would care enough to "reject" it because it wasn't on the 1st. I've mentioned the same to folks in your coalition to let it be known that if you do wish to surrender, we'll accept it whenever to move to the next stage. You had no interest to surrender, and when you finally did, we opened talks with KERTCHOGG, and explained the process and the reasons for it. You decided to abandon it. Those actions are documented enough. 

The expansions were coincidental, especially the tS one, given that the those talks were opened what on the 8th of September, 2019? But it's nice that you try to conflate the two into one narrative. Maybe I should start the spin that the only reason we see this topic is because you all believe BK is broke and happened just after the Gorge news was released to the public. 

I very much doubt those expansions were "coincidental" friend. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

What about your ally at the time, tS who tried to surrender but hasn't been allowed to? Please review the logs. 

I very much doubt those expansions were "coincidental" friend. 

From what I know from the tS one, it was. It was literally everyone attempting brinkmanship with one another that ended up badly for tS. I mean you've mentioned on the PnW public discord you escalated in the hope that BK would back down, similar to the situation during KF, and this time BK called your bluff. Whether right or wrong, I do not think that it was a pre-planned to escalate on so and so date. 

With regards to OWR/Carthago, the NPO being the one who hit them first, I can tell you that we did so when it was the most opportune moment that wouldn't add more pressure on the rest of the coalition, given how it was necessary to ensure we can carry out a hit strong enough to nerf any strength in numbers you may have had. 

8 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

What about your ally at the time, tS who tried to surrender but hasn't been allowed to? Please review the logs. 

Good question. Have you asked @Malal. I defer to @Malal our under lord gc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Azaghul said:

There's "crippling an alliance" and there's keeping wars going for months because it gives you some very marginal advantage.  Our "hegemony" never kept wars going for months and deliberately sabotaged peace talks while trying to blame the other side for it.

The 'victim' isn't our side.  The victim is everyone who cares more about having a fun dynamic world that doesn't stall into tedious 4 month+ wars.  The general memberships of all sides who would rather fight it out, shake hands after a fight of reasonable length, and move on.

No, this isn't just who is on top changing.  This is new and unprecedented.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 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.