Jump to content

i would like to offer peace talks for woto


Mister black

Recommended Posts

Oh god this topic happened.

Caliph, I respect you so much more than to think you would make the posts in this topic. There is nobody in our coalition who is dissatisfied with NPO's efforts this war, and your side's suggestion would just lead to a further war of attrition. We all know that the longer this war goes on, the more the winning coalition is going to get grumpy with each other. It's precisely why EQ didn't work, and it won't work here.

The irony coming from someone who was/is part of the "roll Polar/XX/SF every war" team.

Given that they were just plans to roll the alliances and not hold them hostage, as well as the fact the XX/SF grudge wasn't a one-way street that had continued for far longer than any actual grievances...

Oh, typical the rebel post nevermind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 514
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If the other coalition doesn't like the terms being brought up, here's a grand idea.  Start winning.

 

Meh I kind of think the feel they are.  It is not secret half your coalition is ready to walk out the door and would rather be at war with people stuck in the coalition they are in.  The damage has been done now it is just a matter of the people being upset at how they were used in your coalition.  People are not happy and as splits widen just keeping the war going over reps most of them are not interested in brings the NSO group closer to puling out a win.  Now that would be stupid but, considering the way this was has been won I would not be suprised to see it happen.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I suppose an entire fifty percent of TOP is out of peace mode in the closing stages of a war they are on the winning side of so they are really throwing their weight in for once. 

 

Current numbers I'm reading show IRON has 626 wars v. TOP's 561. Damage aside(and they're doing a lot more of that than yall and taking somewhat more of that than yall have), that comes out to them fighting about ~5.6 wars per member to IRON's ~1.8

 

It's a valid criticism if this was any other war, but you're just making yourself look silly by recycling it for this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Current numbers I'm reading show IRON has 626 wars v. TOP's 561. Damage aside(and they're doing a lot more of that than yall and taking somewhat more of that than yall have), that comes out to them fighting about ~5.6 wars per member to IRON's ~1.8

 

It's a valid criticism if this was any other war, but you're just making yourself look silly by recycling it for this one.

IRON is a peripheral alliance in this war, whilst TOP is at the centre. Comparing to IRON is not valid.

 

However despite demanding terms with the basis of "overuse" of PM, TOP has 50% vs 20% in PM. (when compared to NPO)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However despite demanding terms with the basis of "overuse" of PM, TOP has 50% vs 20% in PM. (when compared to NPO)


You can't pick on MK's use of PM though. They fought too hard last war, they deserve to sit in PM this war out of touch of criticism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Current numbers I'm reading show IRON has 626 wars v. TOP's 561. Damage aside(and they're doing a lot more of that than yall and taking somewhat more of that than yall have), that comes out to them fighting about ~5.6 wars per member to IRON's ~1.8

 

It's a valid criticism if this was any other war, but you're just making yourself look silly by recycling it for this one.

My dislike for IRON cant even get me to get behind your cherry picked stats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been peace talks, and most of the alliances in it right now have peace offers they could take today and see peace.
 
This war is continuing because the NSO/NG/NPO side wants it to.

 
Is that what they told you? :lol1:
 
Yeah - a coalition of equals in which you actually believe this !@#$ and TOP has half its alliance in PM while others of you are more desperate for peace than those of us who are supposed to be losing.

Talking about dishonourable alliances, sup IRON?


People keep telling me how smart TOP is but you actually just posted this. Edited by Hereno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IRON is a peripheral alliance in this war, whilst TOP is at the centre. Comparing to IRON is not valid.

 

However despite demanding terms with the basis of "overuse" of PM, TOP has 50% vs 20% in PM. (when compared to NPO)

 

I'd feel way more inclined to follow your line of thinking if I really saw IRON straining to fill the war slots it has available to them and staggering the people it's fighting effectively, honest I would. That hasn't happened in any kind of consistent way though - even with the numerical advantages IRON has had on its fronts. Truth be told, that's the really disappointing thing going on here. TOP is literally outperforming IRON and instead of working harder, IRON's developed this angsty teenager attitude outlook on everything and whining about things TOP did wars ago.

 

Good luck trying to find folks to support you after proving you don't have what it takes to even press your advantages in a winning war - I sure as heck don't feel very inclined to stick by yall to see what an IRON-led coalition would look like next war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think 56% of the wars declared is doing alright, you could improve staggers by declaring on 3 people instead of 2. 

 

 

Taking just alliances on the front? IRON has 347 nations, Sengoku has 28 nations. For the sake of argument, I'll add in VE and DoD even though they're spread out over multiple fronts.

 

28 + 40 + 108 = 176

 

Do the math here, want to guess why I think 56% of the wars isn't that impressive?

 

As for taking just two wars, that's a simple function of nukes v. SDI's. With as many nations as we have on the front, we should be able to declare only two wars apiece, get decent nuclear penetration, and do more damage that way. Go ahead though, want me to point to all the IRON nations taking only one target apiece?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I suppose an entire fifty percent of TOP is out of peace mode in the closing stages of a war they are on the winning side of so they are really throwing their weight in for once. 

IRON is a peripheral alliance in this war, whilst TOP is at the centre. Comparing to IRON is not valid.

 

We've inflicted almost twice as much damage as you despite starting with significantly less NS, and we've declared almost as many wars as you despite having less than one third your number of nations. We're #2 in our coalition in damage dealt, whereas you're #9 despite having begun the war with the heaviest stats of anyone. Keep reaching.

 

However despite demanding terms with the basis of "overuse" of PM, TOP has 50% vs 20% in PM. (when compared to NPO)

 

Please do find me the logs of TOP demanding any terms at all. You won't, of course, because you haven't any. And for you to accuse TOP of foul play at all is the very height of hypocrisy.

 

Yeah - a coalition of equals in which you actually believe this !@#$ and TOP has half its alliance in PM while others of you are more desperate for peace than those of us who are supposed to be losing.

 

You've already tried and failed to push this vacuous line. I don't know why you're bothering to attempt it again.

 

People keep telling me how smart TOP is but you actually just posted this.

 

You're evidently lacking an important, very well-known piece of information.

Edited by Crymson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please do find me the logs of TOP demanding any terms at all. You won't, of course, because you haven't any. And for you to accuse TOP of foul play at all is the very height of hypocrisy.


Finally, one of you admits it.
 
 

You've already tried and failed to push this vacuous line. I don't know why you're bothering to attempt it again.
 
You're evidently lacking an important, very well-known piece of information.

 

Nah - they were just wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where was $20b demanded?


Have you guys done any math on thosee preliminary 'these are what you might get but we won't talk with any definitive terms until you're the last one fighting' terms you guys have given to NPO? Or did you just choose numbers you all thought sounded good (though apparently not 'all' since some of your coalition even dislikes the terms)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the terms in question are fine. Think about it for a second:
 
TOP started this war against NSO because NG posed a threat to NpO. Therefore, harsh terms should be pushed on NPO. Why not?


No no no - you're getting their stories mixed up.

Polar was cherry picked by alliances ganging up on Pacifica because NSO is a threat to TOPs security while we're plotting against Polar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There have been peace talks, and most of the alliances in it right now have peace offers they could take today and see peace.

 

This war is continuing because the NSO/NG/NPO side wants it to.

 

ohhhhh the lies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've inflicted almost twice as much damage as you despite starting with significantly less NS, and we've declared almost as many wars as you despite having less than one third your number of nations. We're #2 in our coalition in damage dealt, whereas you're #9 despite having begun the war with the heaviest stats of anyone. Keep reaching.

Once again, periphery vs central. We could destroy TLR down to 0NS and still not reach the top of damage statistics. As someone above said, stop cherry picking.
 
 
 

Please do find me the logs of TOP demanding any terms at all. You won't, of course, because you haven't any. And for you to accuse TOP of foul play at all is the very height of hypocrisy.

Because TOP wasn't involved in the selection of the negotiator, and have no influence at all in negotiations. Given the coalition has a central negotiator the absence of TOP specifically in the talks asking anything doesn't mean you guys are completely out of the loop and innocent. But nice attempt at spinning your way out of implication.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I think 56% of the wars declared is doing alright, you could improve staggers by declaring on 3 people instead of 2. 

 

IRON is declaring wars at a rate under 42.5% of the rate Sudoku is per nation.  If you want to give advice on how to improve staggers, please start with your own alliance.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IRON is declaring wars at a rate under 42.5% of the rate Sudoku is per nation.  If you want to give advice on how to improve staggers, please start with your own alliance.  Thanks.

The comment was aimed at TOP, the great warriors who like always, park a very high proportion of nations in PM, let others do the fighting and then strut around as though they are a competent warrior alliance rather than a pack of whiny tits.

I don't think either Sengoku or IRON has anything to answer regarding the war on TLR given that TLR has relatively few nations and relatively little NS left to offer resistance with. The mass of war declarations on turtling nuke turrets (and the damage that can actually be done to a nation that has only 1000 infa and 75 tech is limited) are hardly going to change the outcome of this war.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The comment was aimed at TOP, the great warriors who like always, park a very high proportion of nations in PM, let others do the fighting and then strut around as though they are a competent warrior alliance rather than a pack of whiny !@#$.

I don't think either Sengoku or IRON has anything to answer regarding the war on TLR given that TLR has relatively few nations and relatively little NS left to offer resistance with. The mass of war declarations on turtling nuke turrets (and the damage that can actually be done to a nation that has only 1000 infa and 75 tech is limited) are hardly going to change the outcome of this war.

 

He quoted Auctor, and told Auctor to declare a third war.  Please don't tell me that we reached the point of this conflict where people accuse Auctor of being in TOP, that typically takes another month of war from my experience.  

 

Maybe he thought he was talking to Auctoria, although then his numbers would have been off as he who would need to declare 2 more to hit 3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, but I always thought negotiations involved a counter offer, rather than a tantrum.  So far, all the logs I have read simply show a tantrum.  It is a rather dignified tantrum, but a tantrum, nonetheless.  Nobody is a victim here.  AAs made beds they have to lie in.  If they don't like the bed, they have two options:  cry about it or do something to make it better.  Thus far, there are just a whole lot of tears.


If your side would actually deign to, y'know, offer terms, we might be able to counter offer. That's generally how these things work. It's hard to counter something that hasn't been first offered.
 
 

Where was $20b demanded?


# of nations in PM * amount of aid not able to be sent = around 20 billion. It gets even worse when you figure in the lost income of those nations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...