Thalmor Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 minute ago, Supreme Master Joi said: Hi - I bolded the part that's important. The rest is just a complaint about how world peace means less clicking and can thus be ignored. Thanks for that. I appreciate it. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roq Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 Kerchtog is looking at this incorrectly. They should (when beiged) join Fark sphere. They should start building up their aircraft. So, eventually BK will point to Kerchtog like "oh hey, you guys lost all your members. Hahahaha" and then in like, three days, the entirety of Kerchtog will have max aircraft... Make this happen guys, and send my nation 10 billion for this amazing war strat. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 16 minutes ago, CitrusK said: Kerchtog is looking at this incorrectly. They should (when beiged) join Fark sphere. They should start building up their aircraft. So, eventually BK will point to Kerchtog like "oh hey, you guys lost all your members. Hahahaha" and then in like, three days, the entirety of Kerchtog will have max aircraft... Make this happen guys, and send my nation 10 billion for this amazing war strat. Thank for broadcasting our plans genius. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygon Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 2 hours ago, Kastor said: TheNG10/2/2019, 9:56:57 AM Is the plan to get them out ASAP and focus on tS, or keep them down too? Aragorn10/2/2019, 9:57:42 AM Destroy them Aragorn10/2/2019, 9:57:53 AM It’s a bipolar world now Aragorn10/2/2019, 9:57:59 AM We need them dead TheNG10/2/2019, 9:58:51 AM Alright TheNG10/2/2019, 9:59:29 AM There are only two types of alliances in this world - IQ and IQ stats muahahaha Aragorn10/2/2019, 9:59:43 AM Se need to make as many of their members quit as possible Aragorn10/2/2019, 9:59:55 AM T$ has surrounded themselves with bad alliances Aragorn10/2/2019, 10:00:23 AM So we need to break their backs Aragorn10/2/2019, 10:00:43 AM Since next war we are fighting all these alliances from the beginning underlordgc10/2/2019, 10:02:20 AM You want these people to quit the game? BK man bad Aragorn10/2/2019, 10:05:14 AM Pretty sure that’s been established Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamala Khan Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Viva Miriya said: E: why leave an enemy room to recover if you don't have to? Did you even read Thalmor’s post? He explained exactly why you pretty much do have to peace at some point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRM Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 12 minutes ago, MCMaster-095 said: Did you even read Thalmor’s post? He explained exactly why you pretty much do have to peace at some point. Nah. He didn't read it. He is just trolling. Block him and move on. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted December 1, 2019 Share Posted December 1, 2019 12 minutes ago, Epi said: "You are, all of you, vermin. Cowering in the dirt, thinking what, I wonder? That you might escape the coming fire? No. Your world will burn until its surface is but glass! And not even your Demon will live to creep, blackened from its hole to mar the reflection of our passage... the culmination of our Journey. For your destruction is the will of the Roqs! And I? I am their instrument!" - Coalition B leadership, circa 2019. Not really sure what other leaders in Coalition B should do, although doesn’t sound like the greatest option there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Stewart Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Epi said: "You are, all of you, vermin. Cowering in the dirt, thinking what, I wonder? That you might escape the coming fire? No. Your world will burn until its surface is but glass! And not even your Demon will live to creep, blackened from its hole to mar the reflection of our passage... the culmination of our Journey. For your destruction is the will of the Roqs! And I? I am their instrument!" - Coalition B leadership, circa 2019. Aren't you Coalition B leadership? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodor Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Tiberius said: So one gov member saying they want you to disband, means we all want to disband you? I remember a completely different tone coming out of Coalition A when the same accusation was thrown your way when Sketchy wanted to disband us. Are you seriously trying to grab the high ground on a level plain? So then let's play the same game, just did the ole swaparoo with names/alliances: Quote Straight forward question, does your coalition as a whole concur with Leo's, George's, Malal's, QueenPhoenix's, and TheNG's view on a scorched earth and burning KERCHTOG/t$ permanently? If your answer is an unequivocal "No" like ours was: Quote So Leo's, George's, Malal's, QueenPhoenix's, and TheNG's statement of intent is not the coalition's or BK, Acadia, and UPN's intent and your coalition repudiates their statements? Source: Edited December 2, 2019 by Hodor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sir Scarfalot Posted December 2, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, Viva Miriya said: The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must. Ah, the ancient anthem of the realist, and the usual defense of hegemonic ambition. Haven't heard it before. Amazingly enough, nobody on your side has actually been stupid enough to bring up that argument in their undermining of their own governments' narratives, but here we go. Thucydides said that as the Athenian party line regarding why Athens should dominate the island of Melos. Naturally, the Melians didn't like the idea, held to their independence, and were massacred; every man was executed and every woman and child was sold into slavery. (So that's a good look for you right there.) Ironically, the idea of "might makes right" rebounded right on the Athenians in their next expedition to Sicily, sealing their defeat to Sparta, where the realities of realism came true once more, just with Athens on the other end of the business. (So that's another good look for you right there.) Meanwhile, even contemporary scholars had problems with Thucydides. From https://delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=2359 "In the first century BC, in a long essay devoted to Thucydides' work, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a literary critic and historian himself, complained -- with ample supporting quotations -- of the 'forced expressions', 'non sequiturs', 'artificialities,' and 'riddling obscurity'. 'If people actually spoke like this,' he wrote, 'not even their mothers or their fathers would be able to tolerate the unpleasantness of it; in fact they would need translators, as if they were listening to a foreign language. ... ". (So, yet more good look for ya.) On top of that, you're quoting a mistranslation. From same place, the actual quote is "The powerful exact what they can, and the weak comply." Now, both translations are, on the surface at least, simply truisms. Obviously when in conflict, the strong win and the weak don't. That's the definition of 'strong' and 'weak', after all. What is vitally important to consider when applying that idea to a modern-day video game as opposed to the ancient games of warfare however is that back in the days of the Peloponnesian War, the strong regularly slaughtered their enemies IRL, enslaved their children, raped their wives, burned down their homes and stole all their stuff. Which is what the "strong" did in that quote. So, tell me, are you misusing the quote? Or are you declaring that your aircraft gives you the right to actually do all of that stuff? ? So, yes, while the wars of the ancient era were games played with stakes high enough that nothing could be sacred and no rules could ever be afforded, we're playing a video game. We're not fighting for our literal IRL lives and homes, we're at least theoretically playing to have fun, like how Thucydides would describe sports. Sure, there's honor in earning laurels at the Olympics, but even he would balk at someone declaring murder to be the way to win the discus. Whereas both he and I would gladly admit that murder is the way to win a genuine, blood-and-iron fight to the death. This brings me to the next point... 7 hours ago, Viva Miriya said: Die pubbie die. E: why leave an enemy room to recover if you don't have to? 1st off, lmfao at calling @Thalmor of all people a "pubbie". Also, telling him to die? (Yet ANOTHER good look for you!) 2nd off: The answer to your question is very simple. The stakes aren't high enough to require it. In a fight to the death, you want the game to end. However, this is a video game, and specifically a video game balanced around the idea that defeat should not ever be permanent. The beginning of a war is unquestionably the least certain and most fun part of this game, literally everyone with more experience than a single war can agree with that, so it follows that everyone would have more fun when there are more beginnings of wars. Preventing a war from ending, however, precludes the possibility of the combatants from beginning a new war, and preventing another player from playing entirely precludes the possibilities of wars involving that opponent, thus reducing the variety of possible beginnings of wars and thus reducing the potential fun for everyone, including everyone that would potentially be fighting against or alongside that player. So tell me, what do you have against fun? You'd honestly rather ensure that nobody can possibly have fun, just to make sure that you don't have even the most theoretical chance of "losing"? Where's the fun in that? Edited December 2, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot dropped a 'w' 2 1 9 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Q Listener Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 6 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Ah, the ancient anthem of the realist, and the usual defense of hegemonic ambition. Haven't heard it before. Amazingly enough, nobody on your side has actually been stupid enough to bring up that argument in their undermining of their own governments' narratives, but here we go. Thucydides said that as the Athenian party line regarding why Athens should dominate the island of Melos. Naturally, the Melians didn't like the idea, held to their independence, and were massacred; every man was executed and every woman and child was sold into slavery. (So that's a good look for you right there.) Ironically, the idea of "might makes right" rebounded right on the Athenians in their next expedition to Sicily, sealing their defeat to Sparta, where the realities of realism came true once more, just with Athens on the other end of the business. (So that's another good look for you right there.) Meanwhile, even contemporary scholars had problems with Thucydides. From https://delanceyplace.com/view-archives.php?p=2359 "In the first century BC, in a long essay devoted to Thucydides' work, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, a literary critic and historian himself, complained -- with ample supporting quotations -- of the 'forced expressions', 'non sequiturs', 'artificialities,' and 'riddling obscurity'. 'If people actually spoke like this,' he wrote, 'not even their mothers or their fathers would be able to tolerate the unpleasantness of it; in fact they would need translators, as if they were listening to a foreign language. ... ". (So, yet more good look for ya.) On top of that, you're quoting a mistranslation. From same place, the actual quote is "The powerful exact what they can, and the weak comply." Now, both translations are, on the surface at least, simply truisms. Obviously when in conflict, the strong win and the weak don't. That's the definition of 'strong' and 'weak', after all. What is vitally important to consider when applying that idea to a modern-day video game as opposed to the ancient games of warfare however is that back in the days of the Peloponnesian War, the strong regularly slaughtered their enemies IRL, enslaved their children, raped their wives, burned down their homes and stole all their stuff. Which is what the "strong" did in that quote. So, tell me, are you misusing the quote? Or are you declaring that your aircraft gives you the right to actually do all of that stuff? ? So, yes, while the wars of the ancient era were games played with stakes high enough that nothing could be sacred and no rules could ever be afforded, we're playing a video game. We're not fighting for our literal IRL lives and homes, we're at least theoretically playing to have fun, like how Thucydides would describe sports. Sure, there's honor in earning laurels at the Olympics, but even he would balk at someone declaring murder to be the way to win the discus. Whereas both he and I would gladly admit that murder is the way to win a genuine, blood-and-iron fight to the death. This brings me to the next point... 1st off, lmfao at calling @Thalmor of all people a "pubbie". Also, telling him to die? (Yet ANOTHER good look for you!) 2nd off: The answer to your question is very simple. The stakes aren't high enough to require it. In a fight to the death, you want the game to end. Hoever, this is a video game, and specifically a video game balanced around the idea that defeat should not ever be permanent. The beginning of a war is unquestionably the least certain and most fun part of this game, literally everyone with more experience than a single war can agree with that, so it follows that everyone would have more fun when there are more beginnings of wars. Preventing a war from ending, however, precludes the possibility of the combatants from beginning a new war, and preventing another player from playing entirely precludes the possibilities of wars involving that opponent, thus reducing the variety of possible beginnings of wars and thus reducing the potential fun for everyone, including everyone that would potentially be fighting against or alongside that player. So tell me, what do you have against fun? You'd honestly rather ensure that nobody can possibly have fun, just to make sure that you don't have even the most theoretical chance of "losing"? Where's the fun in that? i'm actually having a lot of fun, thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Just now, John Q Listener said: i'm actually having a lot of fun, thanks For now, perhaps. Once there's nobody to fight, once you've successfully forced disbandments of everyone that dares compete against you, then will you be having fun? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Q Listener Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Just now, Sir Scarfalot said: For now, perhaps. Once there's nobody to fight, once you've successfully forced disbandments of everyone that dares compete against you, then will you be having fun? This sentence runs on and contains too many ideas. Try splitting this into more than one sentence to communicate your ideas more clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, John Q Listener said: This sentence runs on and contains too many ideas. Try splitting this into more than one sentence to communicate your ideas more clearly. Ok, I'll write it in a way that you'll understand. How're you gonna have fun by yourselves without a tissue? Edited December 2, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot slightly better word 1 1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Q Listener Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Just now, Sir Scarfalot said: Ok, I'll write it in a way that you'll understand. How're you gonna have fun by yourselves without a tissue? That is a really weird contraction to use. Not sure what you are implying by the tissue comment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sphinx Posted December 2, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: snip I probably shouldn't say this being a Colo B leader..... But your comparison of IQ's foreign policy with that of the Athenian Empire in the 5-4th century is honestly a really apt comparison. Last semester of Uni for my Master's degree I did a unit on the Athenian Empire and the Athenian expedition to Syracuse is an excellent example of Hubris and over confidence in action, of which the disaster which was inflicted upon the Athenians ultimately helped weaken their Empire and subsequently destroy their hegemony over the Greek world..... perhaps such events are foreboding Colo B in PW?....... Also +1 for those last points. If this was a single Player strategy game once you achieve hegemony most times you end up starting a new game. In an MMO such as PW you can't do such a thing so the alternative is to cement a victory and then reach a settlement, from which both sides can at least arise and rebuild not just in a broke state which offers zero challenge the next time we go at it. For the record as I've said many times before, personally I think people deleting is a terrible thing and I do not support that back in KF when people gloated about TCW's 'death' just as much as I don't support that in Dial Up. Edited December 2, 2019 by Sphinx 2 15 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oh Tiniest Bird Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 I have no idea why he's being brought up but Thucydides has better things to do I think. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Epi Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) 1 Edited February 18, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roq Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 5 hours ago, Prefonteen said: Thank for broadcasting our plans genius. Ah shit, I'm sorry. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 14 hours ago, Prefonteen said: 1. Coal A sues for peace 2. Coal B sets impossible hurdles/finds a reason to tank talks, deliberately delays Step 1. Surrender This takes CoA more than a month to accomplish. Next list the first demand. Then stall and silence from CoA. 14 hours ago, Prefonteen said: 3. Peace talks fail 4. Coal B claims coal A is too stubborn/prideful and is delaying talks 5. Coal A can't dispute claim because coal B threatens to further delay talks if contents of talks are shared. 6. Coal A gives in, sues for peace Conditions are talks occur in private. That remains a condition, which is why your thread about this has accomplished so little. CoA probably technically needs to surrender again since the last one was worded into possible ambiguity and fighting has been continuing since, but that's Step 1. Then take the list of topics we sent and go through them one-by-one on Discord. You not wanting to do that is not CoB delaying. 14 hours ago, Prefonteen said: 7. Coal B sets new impossible hurdles/finds a reason to tank talks, deliberately delays CoA is who stopped talking, you know. 6 hours ago, Buorhann said: You’re right, you don’t. But if you plan on having a colossal screwup like this - it helps a lot. This is an absolute victory. If it were a screwup, though, a CB wouldn't help at all. 3 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 (edited) some of you might need to go therapy if tkr and t$ really have your knickers in that much of a twist to where you want total and absolute destruction of them it really isnt that fricking deep, this is a browser game run by a white guy in his 20s Edited December 2, 2019 by hope 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForgotPants Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 Can't wait for the next leak! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 3 hours ago, ForgotPants said: Can't wait for the next leak! Get your suggestions to Kastor in time or he won't be able to include them. 2 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReuKinChe Posted December 2, 2019 Share Posted December 2, 2019 5 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: Step 1. Surrender "lol why does starvation exist? just eat lol" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.