Jump to content

Questioning the causes of serious Orbis Wars


Phoenyx
 Share

Recommended Posts

Alright, it's been a week since I created a thread here, I think it's finally time for a new one. I think most people who've been following my posts here know something of my views on what truly caused Global War 16. For those who don't, long story short is I believe that Quack believed a bunch of trumped up rumours and went with it- more on that here. For their part, the non Quack forces did themselves no favours by not getting to the bottom of a certain narrative rift between 2 anti Quack factions, namely HM and Swamp. More on that here.

I decided to make this thread in an effort to get people to question the stated causes of any new serious wars involving many Alliances. Because while Alliance heads may believe what they're saying, it doesn't make them right. In the case of the last Global War, it's also obvious that not everyone could be right in terms of what caused the Global War, as many of the narratives contradict each other in various ways. Constructive feedback welcome.

Ā 

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 37
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last serious Orbis war I observed? We raided someone who didn't like being raided. Sparked off a war between Arrgh and Swamp, with around $40b in total damages.

It's a game and we war because of shits and giggles.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Isjaki said:

The last serious Orbis war I observed? We raided someone who didn't like being raided. Sparked off a war between Arrgh and Swamp, with around $40b in total damages.

It's a game and we war because of shits and giggles.

Ā 

My mistake, I should have clarified- I meant wars where both sides think they are acting in self defense. I think we can agree that Arrgh wasn't attacking said Swamp nation in self defense :-p.Ā 

32 minutes ago, Vein said:

Just because itā€™s been a week since you havent posted doesnā€™t mean you need to post. Like please, you dont need to. No, seriously. You dont need to post. Like no, itā€™s not needed. Pls

Ofcourse I don't need to post. No one here does. For that matter, no one needs to play this game at all. We are here because we want to be. Including you, posting in this very thread.Ā 

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

i see this pop up in my news channel and immediately know who it is and what they're going to say.

but because it's christmas im going to be nice and just say merry christmas and for the love of god and all others, shtap

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

My mistake, I should have clarified- I meant wars where both sides think they are acting in self defense.

They did it to not look like warmongers.

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

I think we can agree that Arrgh wasn't attacking said Swamp nation in self defense :-p.Ā 

No we can't agree on that. Arrgh raids everyone and expects counters upon said pirate, not Arrgh nations atĀ random. Ampersand escalated the war by hitting random uninvolved nations, and we merely retaliated in kind. Arrgh was the victim, not the agressor.

Edited by Isjaki
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Isjaki said:

Arrgh raids everyone and expects counters upon said pirate, no Arrgh nations and random. Ampersand escalated the war by hitting random uninvolved nations, and we merely retaliated in kind. Arrgh was the victim, not the agressor.

You needn't bother; he just parrots the swamp official line.

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

37 minutes ago, Isjaki said:

Ā 

2 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

I think we can agree that Arrgh wasn't attacking said Swamp nation in self defense :-p.Ā 

No we can't agree on that. Arrgh raids everyone and expects counters upon said pirate, no Arrgh nations and random. Ampersand escalated the war by hitting random uninvolved nations, and we merely retaliated in kind. Arrgh was the victim, not the agressor.

Ā 

You're an Alliance of pirates Isjaki. I have heard a few nations in your Alliance don't attack other Alliances, but it seems they are few and far between. Essentially, Nations in your Alliance attackĀ who they feel like attacking, when they feel like attacking. Perhaps if you had a list of conscientious objectors in your Alliance who don't attack other Alliances for raiding purposes, they could have spared those ones.

Ā 

Given these realities, I understand why another Alliance, when faced with attacks from yours, would band together and attack your entire Alliance. Sure, many of your nations may not have attacked their Alliance, but they could have, if they so chose. Your Alliance has made it clear that they're not interested in NAPs after all.Ā 

Edited by Phoenyx
  • Downvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Ā 

You're an Alliance of pirates Isjaki. I have heard a few nations in your Alliance don't attack other Alliances, but it seems they are few and far between. Essentially, Nations in your Alliance attackĀ who they feel like attacking, when they feel like attacking. Perhaps if you had a list of conscientious objectors in your Alliance who don't attack other Alliances for raiding purposes, they could have spared those ones.

Ā 

Given these realities, I understand why another Alliance, when faced with attacks from yours, would band together and attack your entire Alliance. Sure, many of your nations may not have attacked their Alliance, but they could have, if they so chose. Your Alliance has made it clear that they're not interested in NAPs after all.Ā 

There is a difference between raiding other alliances and seeking out wars with other alliances. Not one that I expect you to understand, though.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Ā 

You're an Alliance of pirates Isjaki. I have heard a few nations in your Alliance don't attack other Alliances, but it seems they are few and far between. Essentially, Nations in your Alliance attackĀ who they feel like attacking, when they feel like attacking. Perhaps if you had a list of conscientious objectors in your Alliance who don't attack other Alliances for raiding purposes, they could have spared those ones.

Ā 

Given these realities, I understand why another Alliance, when faced with attacks from yours, would band together and attack your entire Alliance. Sure, many of your nations may not have attacked their Alliance, but they could have, if they so chose. Your Alliance has made it clear that they're not interested in NAPs after all.Ā 

Arrgh doesnt sign naps and never will this has been the case every single global war so go learn some PnW history or stop typing here

Ā 

Ā 

Now to address why global wars happen and why they are semi commonĀ 

Ā 

Ā 

Alliances start global wars to,

Build Comrade history between members, strengthen a sense of national unity and pride in members as well as have fun

Ā 

This is a Politics and War game whatever narrative they push is over 9000 times stronger than yours and pissing the entire forums off with posts that only 3 people enjoy is not going to get you anywhere for the love of god stop this is the first thing ive replied to in over a week because you are brain numbing and covid is already causing issues with that department for me so fricking stop no one for the most part cares nor likes your annoying 1 point of view constant rants

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

Ā 

You're an Alliance of pirates Isjaki. I have heard a few nations in your Alliance don't attack other Alliances, but it seems they are few and far between. Essentially, Nations in your Alliance attackĀ who they feel like attacking, when they feel like attacking. Perhaps if you had a list of conscientious objectors in your Alliance who don't attack other Alliances for raiding purposes, they could have spared those ones.

Ā 

Given these realities, I understand why another Alliance, when faced with attacks from yours, would band together and attack your entire Alliance. Sure, many of your nations may not have attacked their Alliance, but they could have, if they so chose. Your Alliance has made it clear that they're not interested in NAPs after all.Ā 

You don't understand how P&W diplomacy works.Ā  At all.

When pirates raid ASM [or any other aa] nations, we just counter that pirate.Ā  Nothing major, the pirates are a part of the game and honestly spice things up a little.

When other alliances raid ASM [or any other aa], we send our foreign affairs people [namely myself as this isn't a high gov issue] to the other alliance, and simply ask them to peace out.Ā  99 times out of 100, they'll accept.Ā  Same with the event of an ASM member attacking another alliance - their FA person will go to our Discord and discuss the situation, and we will tell our guy to stand down.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it even worth humouring you?Ā  Fine.

It's a videogame and the members of Swamp thought it'd be most fun for them to fight the pirates.Ā  For whatever in-character reasons; be it a stop to piracy or whatever; it doesn't matter.Ā  Could be as simple as "they've raided us too much" or building comradery among allies/friends, but the OWF plays none-to-little in that.Ā  People in this game rarely go OOC for why they fight, nor should they - it's generally considered below the belt to fight for salty OOC reasons.

Again, the Orbis World Forums are a stage - it's moreso a roleplay to back the in-game actions.Ā  We play because the roleplay is fun.Ā  P&W itself is questionable in how fun it is, but the roleplay of the OWF makes it all the more engaging.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

Is it even worth humouring you?Ā  Fine.

It's a videogame and the members of Swamp thought it'd be most fun for them to fight the pirates.Ā  For whatever in-character reasons; be it a stop to piracy or whatever; it doesn't matter.Ā  Could be as simple as "they've raided us too much" or building comradery among allies/friends, but the OWF plays none-to-little in that.Ā  People in this game rarely go OOC for why they fight, nor should they - it's generally considered below the belt to fight for salty OOC reasons.

Again, the Orbis World Forums are a stage - it's moreso a roleplay to back the in-game actions.Ā  We play because the roleplay is fun.Ā  P&W itself is questionable in how fun it is, but the roleplay of the OWF makes it all the more engaging.

Ā 

I agree with you for the most part. This is why I'm not including the war against Argh as a serious war- I believe the reasons behind it are fairly straightforward. I don't believe that's the case with the last global war- the fact that, to this day, there are competing narratives as to what started it suggests this as well.Ā 

Edited by Phoenyx
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or - hear me out here, the Orbis World Forums are a stage and that the people behind the doors just wanted to have some fun like the rest of us.

Whatever, you're not going to hear us out.Ā  Okay.Ā  But serious, I swear upon the Gods, that we are literally all here to have fun - and GW16 happened mostly because it was too long since the last war (thanks NPO) and people just wanted to fight because peace is boring.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it just me or am I getting some serious flat earther vibes from this guy?Ā 

  • Upvote 6

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BrythonLexi said:

Or - hear me out here, the Orbis World Forums are a stage and that the people behind the doors just wanted to have some fun like the rest of us.

Whatever, you're not going to hear us out.Ā  Okay.Ā  But serious, I swear upon the Gods, that we are literally all here to have fun - and GW16 happened mostly because it was too long since the last war (thanks NPO) and people just wanted to fight because peace is boring.

A+ for creative metaphors :-p. We're all here to have fun. However, I think there were some things about this war that weren't so much fun and I think the crux of it has to do with a "failure to communicate". To this day, there are clearly ways to resolve any outstanding differences as to why the war started, but it seems people would rather hold their grudges then try to figure out which narrative was true, so perhaps that's how things will stay for the forseeable future.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only grudge any of us have is against you right now.Ā  I'm friends with a few Quack people for crying out loud.Ā  You're the only one not over GW16.

But okay, whatever.Ā  Literally nobody else cares about GW16 anymore - right now people are making FA moves for the next war when the NAP ends.Ā  Nobody knows who will fight whom, but we love war.

Maybe when/if you're ever in a high gov position, you'll know just how little OWF stuff matters.Ā  Didn't come up once in my aa's chat - we just had orders to mil up maybe 5 days in advance.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

A+ for creative metaphors :-p. We're all here to have fun. However, I think there were some things about this war that weren't so much fun and I think the crux of it has to do with a "failure to communicate". To this day, there are clearly ways to resolve any outstanding differences as to why the war started, but it seems people would rather hold their grudges then try to figure out which narrative was true, so perhaps that's how things will stay for the forseeable future.

Well there won't be any major wars for at least another 3.5 months so you can kindly sleep easy at night knowing this, instead of thinking a week between threads about the same topic is "long enough"

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

A+ for creative metaphors :-p. We're all here to have fun. However, I think there were some things about this war that weren't so much fun and I think the crux of it has to do with a "failure to communicate". To this day, there are clearly ways to resolve any outstanding differences as to why the war started, but it seems people would rather hold their grudges then try to figure out which narrative was true, so perhaps that's how things will stay for the forseeable future.

Sorry to break it to you but war is fun and pixel huggers have no room to decide its not go hide dem pixels let the real players enjoy both sides of the gameĀ 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Nokia Rokia said:

Sorry to break it to you but war is fun and pixel huggers have no room to decide its not go hide dem pixels let the real players enjoy both sides of the gameĀ 

No hes right partially. He said some things weren't fun, and thats true...war became stale pretty quick because the mechanics left no room for a comeback attempt.

But he was right for the wrong reasons lol

  • Like 1
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.