Jump to content
Prefonteen

An Announcement from Coalition A Regarding Peace Talks

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2019 at 11:54 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. 

We're almost into December and there is no peace terms or whatever to be seen anywhere, nobody from Coalition B 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 everyone is 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 B to the table in January? But eh, no one cares right now and want to strangle at each other's throats. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited by Madden8021
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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

I suspect you mean coalition B? :P

Sorry, I'll edit it. I just can't think due to the Flu/Cold. >.<

Edited by Madden8021

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Roquentin said:

 you're already scheming

giphy.gif?cid=19f5b51a781a9228028ab7b625

Shhhhhh 🤫

Edited by Patrick Stewart
  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

TS has not surrendered.  CoA has.

... Pretty sure if you look around you'll find a fun thread :)

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


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

You had a missing bit there.  

Are you suggesting Syndisphere had no ability to defend itself?

Ouch

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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).

Share this post


Link to post
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

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.