Jump to content

A Call to Arms


Lord Tyrion
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, James II said:

We were soundly defeated, and not allowed to surrender.

I don't think them leaving a side that had sound victory, for a side that could do nothing more than log in makes them pixel huggers. It's this exact attitude right here, that has put you in the position you're in now. Your arrogance is uncanny, and your lack of humility in victory is telling.

You didn't want to agree to the conditions of surrender and CoA to this date has not wanted to pul out.

Who left a side with a sound victory? OWR/Carthago left when the Coal A  plan was attrition us to defeat.

If you're talking about TCW then, we explained our rationale that peacing without concessions or quickly would be a huge liability to us due to the size of the opposing coalition. TCW's leader understood it to a certain point. He had his own reasons for wanting to pull out or end it, but he was always pleaded with about the rationale. That's not me being arrogant. If  we were arrogant,  there wouldn't even be a bond. The people who have tried to help you now are doing it because they see it as the winning play and easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

You didn't want to agree to the conditions of surrender and CoA to this date has not wanted to pul out.

Who left a side with a sound victory? OWR/Carthago left when the Coal A  plan was attrition us to defeat.

If you're talking about TCW then, we explained our rationale that peacing without concessions or quickly would be a huge liability to us due to the size of the opposing coalition. TCW's leader understood it to a certain point. He had his own reasons for wanting to pull out or end it, but he was always pleaded with about the rationale. That's not me being arrogant. If  we were arrogant,  there wouldn't even be a bond. The people who have tried to help you now are doing it because they see it as the winning play and easier.

CoA has resolve. Are you surprised? Because I'm not particularly surprised by that. 

OWR/Carthago left when Coalition B's plan was maintain the war and attrition our enemies into nonexistence* (I'm sure you meant to be more subtle "publically" but all the leaks prove deliberate intent)

Without getting too deep into paragraph three, because I don't want to speak for Sphinx. All I can say is "we started a war, but didn't want to end up with liabilities when it was concluded" is pretty fricking whimsical and one of those situations where thinking before jumping might have helped quite a lot. 

Edited by Sisyphus
  • Upvote 5

One must imagine Sisyphus happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

You didn't want to agree to the conditions of surrender and CoA to this date has not wanted to pul out.

Who left a side with a sound victory? OWR/Carthago left when the Coal A  plan was attrition us to defeat.

If you're talking about TCW then, we explained our rationale that peacing without concessions or quickly would be a huge liability to us due to the size of the opposing coalition. TCW's leader understood it to a certain point. He had his own reasons for wanting to pull out or end it, but he was always pleaded with about the rationale. That's not me being arrogant. If  we were arrogant,  there wouldn't even be a bond. The people who have tried to help you now are doing it because they see it as the winning play and easier.

We have been trying to surrender from day one.

As for negotiations. You sent certain folks to 'troll' you set very odd timelines, and when we asked to negotiate down reps you said "No, these numbers on non-negotiable" You didn't negotiate at all. The only proactive thing you did was add more terms as negotiations proceeded.

  • Upvote 3

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, James II said:

As for negotiations. You sent certain folks to 'troll' you set very odd timelines, and when we asked to negotiate down reps you said "No, these numbers on non-negotiable" You didn't negotiate at all. The only proactive thing you did was add more terms as negotiations proceeded.

To add onto this, there's also the Coalition B logs we have that show Under talking about purposefully stalling peace negotiations in order to extend the war. 

I still have that file somewhere if you need a refresher @Roquentin

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

You didn't want to agree to the conditions of surrender and CoA to this date has not wanted to pul out.

Who left a side with a sound victory? OWR/Carthago left when the Coal A  plan was attrition us to defeat.

If you're talking about TCW then, we explained our rationale that peacing without concessions or quickly would be a huge liability to us due to the size of the opposing coalition. TCW's leader understood it to a certain point. He had his own reasons for wanting to pull out or end it, but he was always pleaded with about the rationale. That's not me being arrogant. If  we were arrogant,  there wouldn't even be a bond. The people who have tried to help you now are doing it because they see it as the winning play and easier.

I can see why James might not want to agree to paying 7 billion (????!?!) for defending his allies.

  • Upvote 3

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Inst said:

Tyrion, you're the newest member of the Adrienne Nizam Suicide Cult. Enjoy being used.

 

Regards,

 

A member of the Antoine Roquentin Suicide Cult.

My name is Adrienne Majid. Get it straight.

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh look, once again I learn of a new ally from the forum post

Why nobody ever tells me anything? :unsure:

Immortals are welcome to our forums so I can know you better

 

4 hours ago, Salt Meat said:

Peace was a lot closer

Well that's easy, doing nothing is already way better than what we saw months ago in those logs, if then you actually start peace talks, no matter how exorbitant your requests are, peace is indeed a lot closer than before

We appreciate your effort, then since nobody tell me anything I don't know what are the terms but at lest the first step was made if I understand right

 

4 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

@Lord Tyrion can I join? I am but the leader of a tiny micro, but your eloquence has moved me.  Please let me bleed for your dream of freedom.

You are free to join but you have to send your bank to our offshore so we can protect it while you fight

 

@Jazz R Oppenheimer

We are not close to KETOG other than being in the same coalition, as you know before this war they attacked us, sure we have some friend here and there, we are still close to some of our ex allies, you don't have to hate everyone who isn't allied with you

When my Queen said we don't want to leave KETOG alone in this war and have a separate peace is simply a moral question, if we want to be the most honorable alliance we have to be the most honorable alliance, we started this war with them, they did nothing to harm us, so we have to end it with them, then if KT wants to go their own way our moral obligation fails but also we can't force them to do anything

And about KT players in t$, if you think they could go back and attack you just talk with t$ and I think they will be open to solve this very fast, something like we counter them if they do so

About that Horsecock thing I'm 100% with you but please stop saying his name because I have a lively imagination

About working with you there's that little problem called Opus Dei, your two major allies are the only two who are 100% no no

Personally I still like the world with many spheres and adding GOONS would make Chaos too big, we may be already too big with this new entry

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

I'm not trolling at all. I have privately stated that I thought the weird blood feud between TKR and NPO is dumb, to both GOONS gov, NPO gov, and I'm pretty sure TKR gov. GOONS/TKR/NPO was my original goal and literally any member of GOONS gov and even @Roquentin can verify that I brought this up.

Lines were being drawn because it was quite obvious that you had decided to tie your fate to the trash that resides in KETOG. You'll have to go into the bin with them.

"You wouldn't abandon your coalition, so now you can't be a future ally" 

That's some real Goonflake talk 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Micchan said:

Personally I still like the world with many spheres and adding GOONS would make Chaos too big, we may be already too big with this new entry

Actually GOONS would be a good addition to Chaos, if it was the spheres before this war.  Would make Chaos a tad big, but it'd be competitive against BKSphere or N$O at the time - numbers and activity wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Buorhann said:

Actually GOONS would be a good addition to Chaos, if it was the spheres before this war.  Would make Chaos a tad big, but it'd be competitive against BKSphere or N$O at the time - numbers and activity wise.

Well pre war GOONS wasn't a thing here

Funny, in the past "pre war" was the month before, now is a thing far away we hardly remember

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sisyphus said:

CoA has resolve. Are you surprised? Because I'm not particularly surprised by that. 

OWR/Carthago left when Coalition B's plan was maintain the war and attrition our enemies into nonexistence* (I'm sure you meant to be more subtle "publically" but all the leaks prove deliberate intent)

Without getting too deep into paragraph three, because I don't want to speak for Sphinx. All I can say is "we started a war, but didn't want to end up with liabilities when it was concluded" is pretty fricking whimsical and one of those situations where thinking before jumping might have helped quite a lot. 

I know all about CoA's "resolve" and it comes down to still seeing tS as the more lucrative opportunity. 

Wrong. At the time we were willing to settle on surrender/NAP/some of the less controversial terms if they agreed to those off the bat. The tS escalation and the other stuff that happened after Carthago/OWR pulled out changed the tempo to needing a longer war.

It's not whimsical at all.  There's a liability either way. Before the war, it wasn't know how antagonistic tS was. It's about mitigating liabiltiies. So he saw a way out by being less hated than BK/NPO and his alliance doesn't like long wars. When his leak caused the war to happen in a disastrous fashion, you see the issue here?

So your proposition ends up being: Sphinx and Leo should have gotten killed and that it was bad for me to do anything.

I don't see it as the wrong move to help since they didn't have the vast sums tS does and they wouldn't have held up as a sphere due to the relative fragility and I don't but he became blinded by other things like people complaining and his own goals for accumulation. If we work with someone, I don't expect them to throw us under the bus to the people who get angry after we worked together for mutual benefit. That's pretty simple.

1 hour ago, Filmore said:

To add onto this, there's also the Coalition B logs we have that show Under talking about purposefully stalling peace negotiations in order to extend the war. 

I still have that file somewhere if you need a refresher @Roquentin

Yeah due to damage because tS was sill in tact.

I don't see why we'd let tS get away with much less damage than everyone else. Might as well just say "hey we want you to never have a scratch". tS pulled out,  tS antagonized the shit out of us, tS protected Sanreizan tS protcted boyce, tS Ssigned Carthago/OWR. You might as well just ask Alex to give them a game shark for PW.(not that the akuryo/tcw stuff isn't basically it.)

1 hour ago, James II said:

We have been trying to surrender from day one.

As for negotiations. You sent certain folks to 'troll' you set very odd timelines, and when we asked to negotiate down reps you said "No, these numbers on non-negotiable" You didn't negotiate at all. The only proactive thing you did was add more terms as negotiations proceeded.

No you haven't. You hit thinking you'd win. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Roquentin said:

I know all about CoA's "resolve" and it comes down to still seeing tS as the more lucrative opportunity. 

Wrong. At the time we were willing to settle on surrender/NAP/some of the less controversial terms if they agreed to those off the bat. The tS escalation and the other stuff that happened after Carthago/OWR pulled out changed the tempo to needing a longer war.

It's not whimsical at all.  There's a liability either way. Before the war, it wasn't know how antagonistic tS was. It's about mitigating liabiltiies. So he saw a way out by being less hated than BK/NPO and his alliance doesn't like long wars. When his leak caused the war to happen in a disastrous fashion, you see the issue here?

So your proposition ends up being: Sphinx and Leo should have gotten killed and that it was bad for me to do anything.

I don't see it as the wrong move to help since they didn't have the vast sums tS does and they wouldn't have held up as a sphere due to the relative fragility and I don't but he became blinded by other things like people complaining and his own goals for accumulation. If we work with someone, I don't expect them to throw us under the bus to the people who get angry after we worked together for mutual benefit. That's pretty simple.

Yeah due to damage because tS was sill in tact.

I don't see why we'd let tS get away with much less damage than everyone else. Might as well just say "hey we want you to never have a scratch". tS pulled out,  tS antagonized the shit out of us, tS protected Sanreizan tS protcted boyce, tS Ssigned Carthago/OWR. You might as well just ask Alex to give them a game shark for PW.(not that the akuryo/tcw stuff isn't basically it.)

No you haven't. You hit thinking you'd win. 

7 god damn billion roq. How do you justify this?

  • Haha 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

If you read the term, you'd understand how ;) 

I'd love to

  • Haha 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

6 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:

I don't though.

If the dude wants to protect and allow a certain member who reneged on a deal they signed, James can very well pay those dues for it. Maybe it'd be a better idea for James to not protect certain individuals who renege on previous deals. The term literally states that. 

Edited by Shadowthrone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lord Tyrion said:

If your alliance has peaced and you still personally believe in the cause, build up your military then come temporarily join The Immortals or other allies in the fight, and help us balance the power.  I thank our allies that have stuck with us and continue in the fight, it means a lot.  You are not alone!

That's funny to say - you should have followed your own ALLIES when they followed you and became 'meat-shields' for TI
But I don't think you respect that any longer,
Congrats on your treaties though^

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SixSadistic66 said:

That's funny to say - you should have followed your own ALLIES when they followed you and became 'meat-shields' for TI
But I don't think you respect that any longer,
Congrats on your treaties though^

See, this is why I keep insisting on the use of Cannon-fodder instead of meatshield.  Meatshield is so offensive.  Cannon-fodder is at least a powerful term.

People never listen to rosey, and other people get their feelings hurt as a result ?

 

Since I can tell the context will be lost, I'll point out ahead of time this is satire.

Good luck rebuilding people who got peace, one day I might get to join you~

  • 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

1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

7 god damn billion roq. How do you justify this?

Yeah, sorry Partisan but when you guys canonize people like EM and Gorge, there's a troll toll. 

Anyway I'm spending it all on keno. I need to replicate EM's success. That's how I'm justifying it.(just kidding it's not for me)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Rosey Song said:

See, this is why I keep insisting on the use of Cannon-fodder instead of meatshield.  Meatshield is so offensive.  Cannon-fodder is at least a powerful term.

People never listen to rosey, and other people get their feelings hurt as a result ?

 

Since I can tell the context will be lost, I'll point out ahead of time this is satire.

Good luck rebuilding people who got peace, one day I might get to join you~

I'd have to disagree. 'Cannon-fodder' implies that the individual in question is expendable, to be cast aside without question. Cannon are indeed powerful, yet the term 'cannon-fodder' itself is the most denigrating description that could applied to a combatant. Fodder is cheap animal feed—the type of two-bit mass-produced slop deemed unfit for human consumption, if there ever were such a thing. And as a hog devours the grain from its trough, so too are you swallowed and ground up and thoroughly digested by the insatiable furnace of war. The gasoline for an airstrike and you are one and the same.

On the other hand, being a 'meat-shield' is a much more dignified existence. It suggests the ultimate sacrifice and purpose—that one is willing to give everything, self destruction notwithstanding, in order to defend an ally. Indeed, we must all strive to be meatshields on this glorious day.

Ave Pacifica!

  • Like 1

[insert quote here]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Micchan said:

Well pre war GOONS wasn't a thing here

Funny, in the past "pre war" was the month before, now is a thing far away we hardly remember

True, but I was just speculating.  Had the war not occurred and GOONS joined the game as they are, wouldn't have been an awful addition to Chaos.  Numbers and activity wise of their AA would've made Chaos much more competitive against other spheres easily.

Not sure where Jazz gets the whole "culturally" alike bit though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 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.