Popular Post Raphael Posted February 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2021 Not only is it redundant as reaching a peace agreement necessitates the ending and desire to cease hostilities, but it's so tedious to artificially restrict yourselves to not going to war when we clearly see multiple people will violate or circumvent those terms anyway. Not to even mention the number of people in my DM's asking Arrgh to do your dirty work because "the NAP doesn't let us hit them for another two months." If you must sign a NAP then do so on an individual basis, but stop acting like it's the new norm for ending wars. 4 1 4 17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horsecock Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 My name is Horsecock, and I approve this message. 1 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonit Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 okay, daddy Quote Why do I need a signature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinesomeMC Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 Okay how about PIATs instead? 1 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zigbigadorlou Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 I disagree. Imposing NAPs breeds animosity towards the people that impose them. Can't have good wars without animosity 😏🤏 4 Quote Hey Krampus, the signature edit is under account settings. Actually, here's the link. https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/settings/signature/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Japan Posted February 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2021 I mean, everyone signed a MDoAP against Quack that one time, so why not just do that again? 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted February 18, 2021 Author Share Posted February 18, 2021 5 minutes ago, Chute Mi said: I mean, everyone signed a MDoAP against Quack that one time, so why not just do that again? MDP's = Perpetual Peace? Who's to say! I guess we'll find out as 2007 unfolds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenyx Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 1 hour ago, Roberts said: Not only is it redundant as reaching a peace agreement necessitates the ending and desire to cease hostilities, but it's so tedious to artificially restrict yourselves to not going to war when we clearly see multiple people will violate or circumvent those terms anyway. Not to even mention the number of people in my DM's asking Arrgh to do your dirty work because "the NAP doesn't let us hit them for another two months." If you must sign a NAP then do so on an individual basis, but stop acting like it's the new norm for ending wars. Pfft. NAPs for the win :-). Like you said, those who really want war will find ways around it. The rest can enjoy some Farmville time -.- 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majima Goro Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 My name is Majima Goro and I support this message. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Deborah Kobayashi Posted February 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) I dont Agree with just having no NAPs ever, butNO NAP SHOULD EVER BE LONGER THAN THE ACTUAL WAR.or even longer than a month regardless. i feel like having the Long NAPs means that when they end everyone is looking to handle all the issues they wouldve had small scale wars over during the NAP and just bloodthirsty regardless trying to find their "valid CB", which leads to these massive coalition wars, and very little happening in between unless you're a pirate or a micro. whereas if you would have just had like a 14 day NAP for this war, war would likely have not broken out at the end of that, atleast not between the whole coalitions and that new wars would come naturally when an actual issue occurs. Edited February 18, 2021 by Deborah Kobayashi 8 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Natonito Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 Unless there are some real sanctions for violating an NAP, it doesn't really stop anyone who really wants a fight. One might even argue that the importance of finding valid and persuasive CB's gives a warmongering alliance's FA something to do during long months. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mksinky Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 10 hours ago, MinesomeMC said: Okay how about PIATs instead? You called? 👀 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 I tried guys, I really did, but I lost that fight during the peace talks to the people on my own side. Many people feel they need to protection of a NAP to make FA moves, or are paranoid that they are just going to get hit again if they dont have a long one. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) 13 hours ago, Roberts said: Not only is it redundant as reaching a peace agreement necessitates the ending and desire to cease hostilities, but it's so tedious to artificially restrict yourselves to not going to war when we clearly see multiple people will violate or circumvent those terms anyway. Not to even mention the number of people in my DM's asking Arrgh to do your dirty work because "the NAP doesn't let us hit them for another two months." If you must sign a NAP then do so on an individual basis, but stop acting like it's the new norm for ending wars. Stop signing secret treaties and dogpiling with them, and i'll consider not pushing for a NAP to give my members a reprieve from your bullshit. Is what I would have told you if I still led. Regarding the bolded part: I'm keenly aware quack is not doing any such thing. If it's not us... yeah... Thanks for confirming yet again why I mistrust the lot of you. 13 hours ago, Roberts said: MDP's = Perpetual Peace? Who's to say! I guess we'll find out as 2007 unfolds lastly, you know why we pushed for a NAP. We did not however push for or agree to a gamewide NAP. It was Swamp/Oasis/HM/TCW's decision to NAP eachother as a high-give for fricking us. Or something. Edited February 18, 2021 by Prefonteen 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted February 18, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted February 18, 2021 41 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: lastly, you know why we pushed for a NAP. We did not however push for or agree to a gamewide NAP. It was Swamp/Oasis/HM/TCW's decision to NAP eachother as a high-give for fricking us. Or something. Yes Quack who lost the war, wanted a guaranteed 6 months of peace but only for them. With an attitude like that you wonder why the rest of the world worked together to take you down. 3 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 The purpose of negotiations is to find a settlement that's agreeable to both parties. We found one, and as far as I'm aware the negotiations were a (positively) mild mannered affair. I'm merely stating that there were parties in both coalitions pushing for increased degrees of nap, albeit in different manners. Not sure what your comment is supposed to rebuke. That being said, my leash has been pulled by powers up above. I bid you adieu friend. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sval Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 My doctor tells me that if I slept more I wouldn't need to take such long NAPs. 1 1 Quote <~Sval[OWR]> I am your father.<+Curufinwe> Can confirm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrythonLexi Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 (edited) The NAPs are inherently fine, imho. However, no punishment for breaking the NAP is just appeasement, plain and simple. If we were in a world where treaties meant anything, there'd be more than just Oasis fighting KT for violating it. Just like with the American impeachments, it just proves that the NAPs are meaningless if there's no effective punishment. Why sign them if there won't be any enforcement? Edited February 18, 2021 by Alexandra B Added words 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted February 18, 2021 Share Posted February 18, 2021 The increasing usage of post war NAPs is likely a direct result of the increasing costs of war. More cities means more infra to repair and resources to stockpile after all. Factor in higher infra levels and it's probably the main reason. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vice Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 3 hours ago, Alexandra B said: The NAPs are inherently fine, imho. However, no punishment for breaking the NAP is just appeasement, plain and simple. If we were in a world where treaties meant anything, there'd be more than just Oasis fighting KT for violating it. Just like with the American impeachments, it just proves that the NAPs are meaningless if there's no effective punishment. Why sign them if there won't be any enforcement? It's easier for people to beat their chests in front of one another on the forums than to tell their soldiers to pony up for war for something that isn't "their problem." Im sure anyone who wants to walk the walk & would like to help slap up KT for violating the NAP, then cruise on down to the battlefield in the desert. I dont want to speak on behalf of KT, but I dont think they would mind one bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mayor Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 Classic Arrgh! Always about the no paper. tbqh tho I planned this NAP out to repay all my debt so I am super pro-NAP at the moment. My alliance Oblivion honors the sacred NAPs and we take them very seriously. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aqua-Corpsman Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 5 hours ago, Alexandra B said: The NAPs are inherently fine, imho. However, no punishment for breaking the NAP is just appeasement, plain and simple. If we were in a world where treaties meant anything, there'd be more than just Oasis fighting KT for violating it. Just like with the American impeachments, it just proves that the NAPs are meaningless if there's no effective punishment. Why sign them if there won't be any enforcement? Gotta bring real politics into this, dontcha? Breaking an NAP (or being impeached) is a stain on your reputation and will make people think twice about allying (or electing) you. Signing a NAP is somewhat of a honor system, and it works well enough. Those who break them will not (or, shall I say, should not) get far in Orbis, and they will have a hard time finding those willing to protect them. In reality, all political alliances are not divinely protected or anything. See the Treaty of Versailles, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Munich Agreement, Anglo-Soviet Treaty (1942), Non-Proliferation Treaty, Addis Ababa Agreement, Shimla Agreement, Treaty on Open Skies, Oslo I Accord, Treaty of Jeddah, Gbadolite Agreement, among hundreds of hundreds of others were broken in real life and it's not like God Himself smites the offending nation lol. 1 Quote 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 More sharing options...
Thalmor Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 The precedent has been that the big, major alliances that drive politics (and their less relevant friends) do abide by NAPs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's never been a considerable NAP violation by any 'major' alliance on another. Like, a new global never started because Rose or The Syndicate hit TKR or NPO or something like that. There was a time a few years ago where Arrgh was forbidden from raiding after UPN 'beat' them in a war and even Arrgh obeyed it. Alliances overwhelming abide by agreements to not do anything for a length of time. The 'NAP violations' almost exclusively occur between minor alliances and apolitical alliances. Micros, protectorates of second rate alliances, and so forth. The reality is that nobody gives a shit about that and if it does become an issue, the big daddies nip it in the bud in backrooms. Even with KT and Oasis, nobody outside will do anything because it's just not worth it. Nobody cares in the first place that we raided Oasis. It's clearly evident Oasis is taking care of it themselves, and intervening against KT would require a sacrifice in time (in gov officials managing wars and messaging members) and treasure (war damages). The big, politically active alliances are happy to sign NAPs because it's fairly guaranteed safety. They're even happier to actually execute on a NAP. NAP violations aren't a big deal historically and I don't think that will ever change. It would be nice for the practice to roll back some. I understand the motivations behind the current NAP and globals will be under different circumstances and the involved alliances will have to make the best decisions for their communities, but shorter NAPs between specific alliances is way better than blanket NAPs between everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenyx Posted February 19, 2021 Share Posted February 19, 2021 9 minutes ago, Thalmor said: Even with KT and Oasis, nobody outside will do anything because it's just not worth it. Nobody cares in the first place that we raided Oasis. It's clearly evident Oasis is taking care of it themselves, and intervening against KT would require a sacrifice in time (in gov officials managing wars and messaging members) and treasure (war damages). That bolded part I think is the most important part in my view. The thing that most Alliances and Blocs are concerned about is a power becoming too powerful. It's why so many Blocs allied against Quack- the belief that Quack had become too powerful and if the Blocs didn't ally together, they could be taken out one at a time. No one thinks that KT will be destroying Oasis in the forseeable future. Like you said, Oasis can take care of this themselves. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ogaden Posted February 19, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted February 19, 2021 (edited) The thing about the UPN peace was that it came on the heels of a gigantic nerf of our fighting ability from Alex, and Arrgh honestly needed a bit of time to figure out what we were going to do. That combined with the fact that the war had been based on incorrect intelligence led me to make peace rather than fight a prolonged conflict. I also had a good relationship with the UPN leadership at the time, a leadership that would ironically be kicked to the curb later on. The terms of the NAP were overly severe and I had counter-offered instead that Arrgh would assist UPN in the next war as a compensation, which was refused. Ironically the next war UPN really needed our help, but instead we joined the other side who offered to remove the terms imposed upon us. The terms of our NAP ironically allowed us to do this, as they had left war as a valid reason, only raids were forbidden. Generally speaking you should abide by your agreements, otherwise people won't respect your word, and as a leader your word is all you really have. Your power and ability to lead and command your followers depends on your integrity, as they depend on you and rely on you. Edited February 19, 2021 by Ogaden 1 9 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.