Jump to content

[PEACE] "We were never at war..."


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, Adrienne said:
1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

Alright, let's put this another way. Imagine that you had been in Rose's position in a previous war- that is, HM is hit, and you decide to help them out and counter their opponent. I for one would think that HM would be grateful. They would "owe us one", so to speak. If HM were to then hit you a few months later for no apparent reason, wouldn't you consider them not to be that good an ally?

HM owed Rose nothing, in my opinion. Their decision to hit Rose has no bearing on how good/not good they are as allies.

I find that logic puzzling, but I'll leave it at that. 

  

47 minutes ago, Adrienne said:
1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

What I'm trying to convey is that your Alliance tends to get into wars that are based on little more than rumours and perhaps some tall talk by people in a game that are prone to barking more than they bite. In terms of serious wars your Alliance has gotten into, I've only really been around for the Leaky Faucet conflict and the Quack's Last time conflict, but both of these events seem to have this same characteristic. It's a type of characteristic that I believe has made other Blocs leery, as they may suspect that if someone whispers a few words against you guys, they'll be on the hit list next. It's also the type of thing that can get Blocs to either create informal "secret" agreements to counter them if they continue such attacks or decide to counter their of their own accord without any agreement at all, but with the simple belief that if they aren't countered soon, it may well be their turn next. 

I don't agree with your characterization here, as you well know given that we discussed it last war too. With Duck Hunt, we wholeheartedly disagree on the severity of the logs that started that war. As Quack, we perceived a serious threat and we acted on it. You can downgrade that to a rumor, that's your prerogative, but it was accompanied by a plethora of actions that lent credence to it and that is why we acted. To pretend otherwise does everyone involved a disservice.

Alright, I'll admit that it was a bit complicated. That being said, I personally found it rather telling that the one piece of information that was latched on to by Partisan and others in Quack was not any logs that preceded the war, but rather something that Ronny said. It was his statement, which combined with his admission that he was drawing on the words of another HM leader that led me to try to find out the identity of this unidentified HM Leader, which was later coined as the "Secret HM Leader". Throughout the entire war, his identity was kept secret from the masses. It was only until well after the war had ended that his identity was finally revealed. Finally, after his identity was revealed by Shifty, I think I can piece together what really happened - put simply, it looks like HM had misinterpreted Swamp's intent for a -defensive- treaty between certain Spheres if Quack were to attack one of them for an offensive one and they then had a small chat about the -possibility- of attacking Quack. As mentioned by Ronny, it came to naught. I suspect something similar happened in the case of Sphynx, who was only at the periphery of Swamp, not at its core. Sphynx himself also clarified that TCM had had no intention of going to war with Quack in the forseeable future, saying that he had more issues with HM than Quack.

  

47 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

I don't think I really need to explain how Last Ride was different. It was our Last Ride, we wanted to go out with not having Duck Hunt our only war as a group, some of our group had issues with alliances in Swamp, and the opportunity presented itself rather nicely with the release of those logs. We were fairly clear with that on the whole, I believe.

 

You're right, you don't need to explain how Last Ride was different. I'm just saying that, from someone who wasn't involved in the political intrigues of that war, it looked like more of what happened during Leaky Faucet.

  

47 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

Wars have been started for far less than those. To sit there and push that we go to war for no reason at all or are setting out to roll the world is fearmongering.

I never said your Alliance goes to war for no reason. That being said, based on my experience of your Alliance's CB in Leaky Faucet, I've come to believe that your Alliance would benefit from being more careful concerning sources. I also certainly agree that wars have been started for far less. That being said, I think there's something to be said about the CB fitting the war. I think it's reasonable that large, multi Bloc wars should have good CBs, if only because a lot of people are getting dragged into them.

 

I also never said that your Bloc was setting out to roll the world per se. That being said, if other Blocs come to believe that a certain Bloc seems to be a little too large and carefree about starting wars, well, I think you can see how they might to give the Bloc a little trim. 

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frankly, every so often, everyone has so much pent up energy and built up war chests, it must all burst. Orbis must burn down and rain down fury on all pixels in its natural cycle of chaos and order. The only point of major alliances, really, it to be able to attempt to declare yourself the "winner" in each conflict. Also, also, no one actually needs a valid reason to start a war. We just need those brave and bold enough to start it. It is called Politics  & War for a reason!

But that's just my two cents. 🙂

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Phoenyx said:

That being said, I think there's something to be said about the CB fitting the war. I think it's reasonable that large, multi Bloc wars should have good CBs, if only because a lot of people are getting dragged into them.

There are literally two blocs who entered this war without treaties or a CB. We aren't the ones you need to hit up about this particular issue.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, WarriorSoul said:

There are literally two blocs who entered this war without treaties or a CB. We aren't the ones you need to hit up about this particular issue.

 

Oh, they had CBs. That being said, I acknowledge that I originally wasn't sure why Oasis had attacked HM- all their DoW originally said was that HM had broken their hearts. Certainly a place to start speculating as to its deeper meaning, but not much beyond that. However, this was soon rectified by Tyrion, who wrote a post that clarified things to my satisfaction. Cam's declaration essentially said the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Phoenyx said:

Cam's declaration essentially said the same.

I think you'll find our version of Cam's declaration more accurate, if I'm being completely honest. Don't let them fool you, Phoenyx!

Edited by Adrienne
exclamation!
  • Haha 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

I think you'll find our version of Cam's declaration more accurate, if I'm being completely honest. Don't let them fool you, Phoenyx.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-p. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Phoenyx said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :-p. 

One day you'll learn, my friend. 

pats

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Phoenyx said:

Alright, let's put this another way. Imagine that you had been in Rose's position in a previous war- that is, HM is hit, and you decide to help them out and counter their opponent. I for one would think that HM would be grateful. They would "owe us one", so to speak. If HM were to then hit you a few months later for no apparent reason, wouldn't you consider them not to be that good an ally?

We are not and have never been allies, we are two completely different and separate spheres each with their own goals and political aspirations.  Part of the fun of micro spheres, is one day a sphere you worked with in one war you will end up fighting in the next war.   Same goes for your enemies. 

Many talk about there being only 2 sides, well former HM teamed up with half the alliances it just fought against, to hit a sphere that they fought with 4 months earlier.  Do you guys only want two sides every war or do you want to see the sides mix it up?  You !@#$ when there is too much peace, you !@#$ when there is too much war, end of the day, no matter what we do, somebody is going to be pissed, but as long as i am not allied to them, I dont care.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

We are not and have never been allies, we are two completely different and separate spheres each with their own goals and political aspirations.  Part of the fun of micro spheres, is one day a sphere you worked with in one war you will end up fighting in the next war.   Same goes for your enemies. 

Many talk about there being only 2 sides, well former HM teamed up with half the alliances it just fought against, to hit a sphere that they fought with 4 months earlier.  Do you guys only want two sides every war or do you want to see the sides mix it up?  You !@#$ when there is too much peace, you !@#$ when there is too much war, end of the day, no matter what we do, somebody is going to be pissed, but as long as i am not allied to them, I dont care.

 

Barring NPO like conflicts, I don't think there's not much concern about there only being 2 sides to a war. Anyway, you can bring up goals, aspirations or whatever else you like. Bottom line, they helped you out when you were attacked in the last Global and now instead of helping them when their Sphere is getting attacked, you're part of the attack. This kind of reminds me of how HM refused to reveal the "Secret HM Leader" -during- the Leaky Faucet conflict even as Swamp was countering for you guys. All I can say is that if -I- were a different sphere and some other Sphere attacked you again, I can easily see the wisdom of not helping out again.

Edited by Phoenyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, EliteCanada said:

Thus, fervent cries to the buzzwords of our time are taking place, "DOgPIle", "HEgemoNY", "uPPeR tiER consoLIDatION". Anything to excuse poor war performance. 

To be honest, I been hearing them all since 2017 at the very least lol

War, war never changes...

Except for the war mechanics, those change all the time.

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

14 minutes ago, Cynder said:

To be honest, I been hearing them all since 2017 at the very least lol

War, war never changes...

Except for the war mechanics, those change all the time.

Yeah, no kidding lmao. More than a bit tired of hearing them 😂

  • Upvote 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Alrighty Ima take a moment to break this “silence” and point out a few key issues I’ve seen as a “general” political stance from our friends in TKR.

 

  1. I really find your lack of self-awareness concerning. Rather than look at the facts, you have gone out of your way to manufacture reasons Camelot went to war with you. To clear this up
     

    1. Camelot did not have any idea that Oasis was going to hit only HM. In fact, that surprised us and left us with only one potential target (you).
       

    2. You were never considered to be a primary target of ours until you decided to link up with HM. We had other ambitions in mind and TKR was only in the back of our minds. Sure, we have had our disputes of late, and disagree with how they were handled, however for the most part we moved on. The only large concern we carried with us was your continued narrative of “IQ times” which we clearly told you.
       

    3. Camelot cancelled out of the larger bloc we were part of as soon as we saw the Quack cancelation go live, we committed ourselves to mini-spheres and we were made to believe you did as well. In fact, we took what we considered a huge risk, it is no secret that there are a few alliances left split between spheres that hate us.

 

  1. Have you noticed how only a few people are rooting your “Cam IQ'' narrative on? Have you taken a moment to realize that people are moving on, and Cam has changed. The worst part of all of it is you took what essentially is the games equivalent to Hitler and dumbed it down to a meaningless narrative, now if the game ever needs to use that narrative in the future, you made it worthless and hold no value. Camelot is nothing like IQ. No matter how many times you yell it until your face turns blue. On that note I would stop throwing stone from your glass houses TKR….
     

  2. Finally, to sum this up, let us not forget you created yet another mega sphere with upper tier consolidation, please do everyone a favour. Drop the act and own it. You created this sphere and did not anticipate the game's reaction, you miscalculated. That is your mistake to bear, no amount of false narrative building is going to fix that.

 

Now back to my slumber of ignoring the forums during war (because talking to my self is boring)

Edited by Azazel
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2

0b3897cd640f95254329f7a2d45d8c77b1c120e.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Pasky Darkfire said:

Remember when we could at least get 2 pages of "Good fight and good rebuild" posts before a surrender post turned into a shit show? 

 

image.png

Everyone's forgotten the value of a little foreplay before we get to the good stuff.

 

e: myself included

Edited by WarriorSoul
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/30/2021 at 2:38 PM, Majima Goro said:

OK

 

Btw did anyone realise that OK looks like a stick man but sideways?

I actually turned my head sideways. 😂

giphy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Adrienne said:

We gave you the benefit of the doubt when a lot of others didn't and you've done little but continue to perpetuate the same behavior towards us you always have, just under a veneer of niceness.

 

This statement is so far from the truth its actually laughable. I will give TKR this, you were willing to have conversations with us post war when others were not. However, my stance towards TKR is completely different now than all that time ago, in-fact I'm one of the government members in Camelot who has been routinely in favour of working on relations, when many others just see you as an overtly hostile threat.

 

I personally went out of my way to explain our concerns to you when a lot of the government was opposed to even talking to you after the last incident. That's because I truly believe there was a serious lack of communication on our part and I had to do a lot of convincing. TKR and Camelot have been long time adversaries and its not something that fixes itself overnight. We had actually made some progress until the recent two issues came to light.

 

Edit: On that note I believe it was stated in our embassy not to long ago, it takes all parties to work past things, Camelot has our part of the blame for how some things occurred but there is blame to go around. 

 

15 hours ago, Adrienne said:

We didn't cheapen anything, you did that yourself with your false claims of change and your bandwagoning onto CBs you rather clearly don't believe in.

I really don't know how to get through to ya'll, we outlined our actual CB, if you choose to not believe it then so be it. 

Edited by Azazel
  • Upvote 1

0b3897cd640f95254329f7a2d45d8c77b1c120e.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Azazel said:

Alrighty Ima take a moment to break this “silence” and point out a few key issues I’ve seen as a “general” political stance from our friends in TKR.

 

  1. I really find your lack of self-awareness concerning. Rather than look at the facts, you have gone out of your way to manufacture reasons Camelot went to war with you. To clear this up
     

    1. Camelot did not have any idea that Oasis was going to hit only HM. In fact, that surprised us and left us with only one potential target (you).
       

    2. You were never considered to be a primary target of ours until you decided to link up with HM. We had other ambitions in mind and TKR was only in the back of our minds. Sure, we have had our disputes of late, and disagree with how they were handled, however for the most part we moved on. The only large concern we carried with us was your continued narrative of “IQ times” which we clearly told you.
       

    3. Camelot cancelled out of the larger bloc we were part of as soon as we saw the Quack cancelation go live, we committed ourselves to mini-spheres and we were made to believe you did as well. In fact, we took what we considered a huge risk, it is no secret that there are a few alliances left split between spheres that hate us.

 

  1. Have you noticed how only a few people are rooting your “Cam IQ'' narrative on? Have you taken a moment to realize that people are moving on, and Cam has changed. The worst part of all of it is you took what essentially is the games equivalent to Hitler and dumbed it down to a meaningless narrative, now if the game ever needs to use that narrative in the future, you made it worthless and hold no value. Camelot is nothing like IQ. No matter how many times you yell it until your face turns blue. On that note I would stop throwing stone from your glass houses TKR….
     

  2. Finally, to sum this up, let us not forget you created yet another mega sphere with upper tier consolidation, please do everyone a favour. Drop the act and own it. You created this sphere and did not anticipate the game's reaction, you miscalculated. That is your mistake to bear, no amount of false narrative building is going to fix that.

 

Now back to my slumber of ignoring the forums during war (because talking to my self is boring)

 

1. "We saw the opportunity to dogpile you because you called us names" 

2. Laughed at this one almost as hard as the "apology" thread

3. "Mega Sphere" "Upper tier consolidation" Yes, they're going to keep reusing the same CB, I look forward to the same copy paste DoW from Cam next war! 

Broke it down, you can thank me later. ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Azazel said:

I will give TKR this, you were willing to have conversations with us post war when others were not.

Thank you for your agreement considering that this is exactly what I was referring to. As for our relationship since then, I think Cooper summed it up nicely here:

39 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

Every time we have contact with you, it's a never-ending tussle to see how you can milk out more for Camelot.  From trying to seize tiny quantities of safekeeping with baseless allegations of bank theft (we made sure that would never happen) to threatening escalation on a mistaken raid (which you later reversed after you realized you were taking more damage than we were), you have proven time and again that there hasn't been growth from Gorge to Azazel and by extension Camelot.  This current conflict is just icing on the cake of what is a persistent issue with the FA style being used. 

---

3 hours ago, Azazel said:

I really don't know how to get through to ya'll, we outlined our actual CB, if you choose to not believe it then so be it. 

Here's simply a small glimpse into why we don't believe anything you've said - taken straight from your alliance wiki, where you lot hilariously slander us:

image0.png

But yeah sure, you guys have totally "moved on" and you guys definitely don't "manufacture reasons". You're the pinnacle of honesty and integrity. You totally believe in the cause you claim and your DoW post doesn't reek of insincerity at all. This sort of petty nonsense is simply run of the mill for an alliance that is actually willing to engage in earnest conversations and considers the supposed subject of said nonsense to be in "the back of their minds". Keep on with your drivel, everyone totally believes you.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

I think you've got your history wrong.  TKR was the first non-allied alliance (outside of then BK sphere) to have official embassy/DM with Camelot.  We actually enjoyed quite friendly relations despite being at war due to a variety of OOC and IC reasons, particularly Arthur (and later Uriah, Viselli, and Aero).  We also were the ones who internally asked some of our allies in Quack to take it easy for a bit after we realized that the OWF treatment y'all got was a bit intense.  And during all of this time--we have always kept open lines of communication, explaining not only our viewpoints on how you guys needed to improve your image but also genuinely trying to approach y'all as we would any other alliance.

Alright, as i said prior, I will give TKR this. Your approach to us to us post war was much more respectful than many  others. 

 

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

The singular turning point in our relationship, frankly, was when you took over Camelot's FA.  I don't know your internals and decision-making process, so I can't determine everyone else but you've definitely been the face of all of our issues.  Instead of Camelot being a somewhat goofy and in many cases silly (i say this endearingly) alliance, y'all increasingly switched towards the zero-sum realpolitik reminiscent of NPO and the strategies you personally employed in BK.

On that note, Camelot wanted to move away from the whole goofy / silly identity. Our prior relations with TKR was mostly between you and Arthur, which ended when you entered a period of inactivity.

Secondly, I am the head of FA, anytime something happens I get pinged and asked to deal with it. I can assure you I was not unilaterally making decisions or setting policy. I think your claim that we're pursuing "zero-sum realpolitik" is a complete misrepresentation and frankly absurd. You consistently claim every request we make is unreasonable, regardless of the range of issues or our justification.

We came to you with a few issues that could have easily been solved with a few words from TKR to its protectorates. One request was the bank (which was returned), the other was for them to stop mass-messaging members in an attempt to poach and accusing our government of cheating which poses an existential threat to any alliance. I struggle to see where that's unreasonable and furthermore if that had happened to any other alliance in the game's history it would have immediately resulted in war.

 

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

Every time we have contact with you, it's a never-ending tussle to see how you can milk out more for Camelot.  From trying to seize tiny quantities of safekeeping with baseless allegations of bank theft (we made sure that would never happen) to threatening escalation on a mistaken raid (which you later reversed after you realized you were taking more damage than we were), you have proven time and again that there hasn't been growth from Gorge to Azazel and by extension Camelot.  This current conflict is just icing on the cake of what is a persistent issue with the FA style being used. 

Once again, I think you are decrying what any other alliance would consider reasonable. We asked for our bank back and it was provided, at least the majority of it and we did not really press the small stuff too much. I actually had to go back and find what you were referring to about the raids. After looking back at the chat logs it concerned a hit on our offshore, we responded in force as any alliance would and we were asked to peace since it was a mistake... even after your member admitted he knew the risk in doing so.

 

We reversed our position when we discussed the issue in more detail and decide it was not a battle worth fighting, it had nothing to do with damages. Afterwards, we modified our security-policies and abandoned 'strike first' for over a year.

 

So once again, I'm left here wondering what insane request we ever made of TKR. We may have a more reactionary posture but that's it.

 

1 hour ago, Cooper_ said:

The only ask we've ever made of you is to operate in good faith, and to stop trying to bully your way to what you want.  And yet you've only taken 7 steps in the other direction.  I don't think anyone believes that you care about consolidation or sphere sizing not that they're legitimate points from you.  You probably already aware that HW isn't the largest sphere by a large margin and that T$ is literally the only alliance that has any sort of principled stance on upper tier consolidation.  They're simply convenience to invalidly join what you thought was an easy war (jokes on you there since you guys have gotten slaughtered in damages) for a grudge about not fully getting your way. 

If you think that this is what a reformed post-NPOLT Camelot would, try again.  This ain't it.

Once again I'll reiterate, yes upper tier consolidation is a concern of ours. If you cannot see how this will effect our growth and potential security you are completely missing the point. Not to mention the formation of yet another mega sphere right after the other disbanded is reversing the progress we made towards mini-spheres. Honestly, I'm starting to believe you are looking for excuses to set relations back.

 

18 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

But yeah sure, you guys have totally "moved on" and you guys definitely don't "manufacture reasons". You're the pinnacle of honesty and integrity. You totally believe in the cause you claim and your DoW post doesn't reek of insincerity at all. This sort of petty nonsense is simply run of the mill for an alliance that is actually willing to engage in earnest conversations and considers the supposed subject of said nonsense to be in "the back of their minds". Keep on with your drivel, everyone totally believes you.

I'll be honest here, you posted this while I was replying to Cooper and it stopped me dead in my tracks. It is certainly not the opinion I hold or by that fact the majority of the government at this time. However, it does go to show my earlier point that our government was not pleased during our discussions on the issue, and at that time formed some uncouth and harsh opinions with the information they had at the time.

 

And to further my point to Cooper regarding what he perceives as "my opinion" of TKR: I was one of two government members who argued against openly attacking your protectorate at the time (even tho it was known to result in a total loss). Since I knew it would cement negative relations for the foreseeable future. At this time I'm not sure who posted that on our wiki and I am making an attempt to figure it out. Regardless, it has since been removed.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

0b3897cd640f95254329f7a2d45d8c77b1c120e.

 

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.