Jump to content

Dunked On


BigMorf
 Share

Recommended Posts

Happy Rebuild! Enjoyed fighting against you all! Also CoA and TL need to train their small nations better 😄 (they literally had 3k infra, missiled my 11 infra city, nuked my 600 infra city 2 times and many more stupid things)

4 hours ago, Suyash Adhikari said:

5ndd07.jpg.303c101d5981279b454c74182c0147e0.jpg

Iirc Syndisphere alone can't. That's what they claimed 🤷‍♂️ you needed rose+syndi.

3 hours ago, Darth Ataxia said:

We were just giving you what your membership supported

Its just 5 out of 150+ isn't it?

58 minutes ago, Insert Name Here said:

Interesting, "formally surrenders" = admission of defeat, no? If so then props to Rose for being a class act and not insisting on white peace after we spared them from what would have been the most embarrassing L in Orbis history, after getting rekt by a coalition half their size, but I guess they just needed the ego boost.

Can't wait to see who they blob together with next war for their 4th consecutive dogplie in globals. :) 

It was just white peace by name, everybody know that they lost and were defeated

  • Like 2

image.png.4824d77377c05ab0639aa7b3275e3aea.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BigMorf said:

Mumbai (Bollywood)

Will go there and check coz its just a 2hr drive from my place 😄

4 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Good war, everyone! o7

@Sval I hope you like your 🥔

How are you sending the potato to them? 😄 Courier?

image.png.4824d77377c05ab0639aa7b3275e3aea.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cob said:

If that was a part of the treaty then I know for a fact that TKR would have kept fighting till the bitter end. Slack Rools Discord Drules neeerrrrd

IRC is better then both, it weeds out the idiots all by itself.

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

So, why are NAPs bad again?  Within moderation, they're fine.  Plus they require all parties of a war to honor their word, which to some people - carries some weight.

 

When it comes down to it though, nothing really stops you from breaking a NAP.

(Sidenote:  I'm indifferent to NAPs nowadays as I think about it, there's pros and cons to them.)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd see the NAP having two aspects. First, TKR took massive damage between the TLR-GnR cluster and the Blackrose war. Moreover, Hollywood lost its rebuliding money as it was hit only one month after the GnR. TKR likely wants the NAP at least in order to be able to recover economically.

 

Second, historically, NAPs have been used by weaker powers to break up the coalition that destroyed them. The IQ-Syndi NAPs in the run-up to Knightfall effectively precipitated Knightfall; i.e, TKR ran out of targets and started hitting random people. The Duck Hunt NAP resulted in Swamp being destroyed on its own and eventually saw Hedgemoney's defection into Hollywood, setting up the stage for GnR.

 

The absence of a NAP in the GnR war, in contrast, resulted in Blackrose and Hollywood blowing each other's faces up almost immediately after the war ended.

 

===

 

The NAP should be seen less in terms of "morality" (bad for the game, etc etc etc), but in terms of its existence as a political play.

Edited by Cherise
  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Cherise said:

First, TKR took massive damage between the TLR-GnR cluster and the Blackrose war. Moreover, Hollywood lost its rebuliding money as it was hit only one month after the GnR. TKR likely wants the NAP at least in order to be able to recover economically.

 

Second, historically, NAPs have been used by weaker powers to break up the coalition that destroyed them.

We didn't ask for a NAP the other party did, afaik abt our FA, we don't like NAPs.

  • Like 1

image.png.4824d77377c05ab0639aa7b3275e3aea.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Insert Name Here said:

Interesting, "formally surrenders" = admission of defeat, no? If so then props to Rose for being a class act and not insisting on white peace after we spared them from what would have been the most embarrassing L in Orbis history, after getting rekt by a coalition half their size, but I guess they just needed the ego boost.

Can't wait to see who they blob together with next war for their 4th consecutive dogplie in globals. :) 

That wasn’t rose lol

Also GG, especially NW. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People acting like NAPs are bad and all is just lol. Is that the new way to be cool in 2021 ? If so, you have really low standards guys. Find something else idk.

First, this is just 3 months, nowhere near 6 months like post-AC or post-gw14.
Second, fighting another war within 3 months between Rose/BW/HW is very unlikely to not say impossible (unless big leak or big drama) even if there was no NAP. If you want action during that time, just ask Mystery or Oasis ? Not us.
Third, war is expensive asf and recovering from a global takes several months, TKR can probably relay that since I doubt most of their high tiers/whales got their ROI between gw18 & gw19 (and they chained 3 globals in 5 months, give them some rest). If you want to blame someone, blame Alex for making wars so expensive thus increasing the need for longer peace periods.
Fourth, this NAP has more pros than cons for everyone except GG.
 

13 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Bollywood asked for it.

It's not like you even tried to negotiate it, and if anything that NAP objectively benefits TKR too imo.

The only person who made a small comment to show his disappointment about the 3-month NAP is Ronny, presumably because GG doesn't want Rose/BW to feel safe, coercing their whales into sticking to <3k infra to keep Grumpy ahead.

Edited by Pascal
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cherise said:

Second, historically, NAPs have been used by weaker powers to break up the coalition that destroyed them. The IQ-Syndi NAPs in the run-up to Knightfall effectively precipitated Knightfall; i.e, TKR ran out of targets and started hitting random people. The Duck Hunt NAP resulted in Swamp being destroyed on its own and eventually saw Hedgemoney's defection into Hollywood, setting up the stage for GnR.

We only hit one group in that time period and it wasn't random nor was the NAP a factor in why we hit them.

16 minutes ago, Pascal said:

It's not like you even tried to negotiate it, and if anything that NAP objectively benefits TKR too imo.

The only person who made a small comment to show his disappointment about the 3-month NAP is Ronny, presumably because GG doesn't want Rose/BW to feel safe, coercing their whales into sticking to <3k infra to keep Grumpy ahead.

Don't get your knickers in a twist simply because I answered a question. My statement made no judgement but I'm not going to not set the record straight when this was not something we particularly like nor something we would have asked for, a fact which your coalition is well aware of. We've made little secret our dislike of NAPs and so your coalition would have known they needed to ask for one if they wanted one. Don't pretend it's altruistic when both t$ and Rose are clearly just wanting to shield themselves from who they see as their two biggest threats in the interim, given that they took care to make it a blanket NAP. As for why we didn't fight it, Ronny already answered that:

12 hours ago, Sweeeeet Ronny D said:

That assumption would be incorrect, it was offered by our opponents,  and it wasn't a hill I was willing to die on in order to get peace.

Essentially, it was deemed to be pretty thoroughly in the "not worth arguing about" category. We didn't see you guys as likely to get rid of it - especially since it was basically all you asked for - and it would be incredibly pointless to waste time arguing to get it down when your side wasn't likely to budge significantly on the length either. As hidude pointed out, there's a point at which NAPs become functionally useless. Plus, we had other things worth spending more time on and wasting capital on a useless mission would not have aided that.

17 minutes ago, Ripper said:

Adrienne... I think that's a peanut, not a potato...

Are you making fun of my drawing? ;-;

  • Like 1

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

 Don't pretend it's altruistic when both t$ and Rose are clearly just wanting to shield themselves from who they see as their two biggest threats in the interim, given that they took care to make it a blanket NAP.

I'm not denying this nor think this is altruistic of course, as I said this nap benefits everyone but GG imo. 

32 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

As for why we didn't fight it, Ronny already answered that:

Essentially, it was deemed to be pretty thoroughly in the "not worth arguing about" category. We didn't see you guys as likely to get rid of it - especially since it was basically all you asked for - and it would be incredibly pointless to waste time arguing to get it down when your side wasn't likely to budge significantly on the length either. As hidude pointed out, there's a point at which NAPs become functionally useless. Plus, we had other things worth spending more time on and wasting capital on a useless mission would not have aided that.

I'm not disagreeing with you here either. As you say, NAP or not wouldn't change much, it's just some sort of extra security for us. I didn't mean to quote you to blame you specifically if that's how it felt (I could have just quoted anyone else who said that the NAP was proposed by BWR), it's just that making it look like Bollywood coalition are the bad pixelhugger guys advocating stagnation or whatever bs has been said (not from you) or might be said on this thread for coming in the peace negociations with a 3-month NAP term is eh for all the reasons I mentionned in my previous post.

Edited by Pascal
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, MinesomeMC said:

Short NAPs arent bad, its long NAPs and Blanket NAPs that are problematic

As we saw when the last NAP ended, we had two back-to-back wars. Whatever your opinion on those wars were, things were happening. Blocs broke, formed, and broke again. Activity begets activity in this game and I don't think it's a bad assumption to say the lack of a NAP post-Guns and Roses helped contribute to several non-war-related happenings such as high gov in key alliances swapping up, mergers, disbandments, treaty swaps etc.

 

Things happen when there is no agreement to peace because people are forced to move for their own security and furthermore forced to consider their own position.

 

All intersphere NAP's are bad for the game's health, regardless of length. The only NAP's people should be looking at are inter-alliance NAPs as those don't suffocate the entire game's political cycles.

15 hours ago, hidude45454 said:

Nah, tbh I think it was mostly Rose LMAO

If that's true, I personally think the NAP benefits Rose immensely more than it does Hollywood or Blackwater. At least in my opinion.

14 hours ago, Insert Name Here said:

Interesting, "formally surrenders" = admission of defeat, no? If so then props to Rose for being a class act and not insisting on white peace after we spared them from what would have been the most embarrassing L in Orbis history, after getting rekt by a coalition half their size, but I guess they just needed the ego boost.

Can't wait to see who they blob together with next war for their 4th consecutive dogplie in globals. :) 

I can't get overtly worked up over admitting defeat vs. white peace. They're effectively the same thing in my mind, but I agree with your second part. Rose has skirted politics and basically thrown themselves in wherever they see a statistical advantage for years. Equally to blame are the people who keep involving them in their plans, basically writing a golden ticket and allowing Rose to circlejerk about being the king makers.

7 hours ago, Buorhann said:

So, why are NAPs bad again?  Within moderation, they're fine.  Plus they require all parties of a war to honor their word, which to some people - carries some weight.

 

When it comes down to it though, nothing really stops you from breaking a NAP.

(Sidenote:  I'm indifferent to NAPs nowadays as I think about it, there's pros and cons to them.)

No offense, but you were the "face" of one of the worst precedents in recent PnW history. The blanket multi-month NAP at the end of NPOLT has been felt almost every war since then with entire coalitions signing suffocating NAP's lasting half the year.

I sincerely wish you hadn't done that and I sincerely wish you were stronger in your denouncement of NAP's now.

 

NAP's suffocate politics in PnW because it gives a security blanket to everyone involved. TKR+GG+T$+Rose all just signed a 3 month NAP. What do you think is going to happen in those 3 months? We're going to see our usual post-war spike in treaty-shuffling and then people are going to go to sleep until the NAP ends because there is no onus to do otherwise.

  • 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.