Jump to content

On3H34rT

Members
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Nation Name
    InnsofCourt
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order
  • Resource 1
    Silver
  • Resource 2
    Sugar

On3H34rT's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. Let's say I am inclined to agree with you. That does not answer the fundamental question of relative harshness. The central debate, thus, should be rephrased not as the worst reparations, but what about the worst reparations considering actions taken by the alliance? Again, all Pacifica did was defend an ally who you voluntarily attacked. Look, the fact is, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a Pacifica nation absolutely condone its previous acts. Although you characterize our play in the last war as a misguided attempt at gaining political power, the bottom line is the opposing coalition got off easy. Pacifica isn't what it was then, so it's bad timing to try and punish it now. Forgive and forget, as you will.
  2. You have a point, which is precisely why Pacifica does not have much incentive to accept these terms. We wouldn't be able to rebuild. So, we might as well do some damage then since either way, we can't put this war behind us.
  3. I believe we have very different definitions of lenient. Your so called "lenient" terms will cost Pacifica billions upon billions in revenue and cost months and maybe years to fully recover. They are pretty much more harsh than any reparations in the history of CN. This is ironic considering the reason Pacifica is in this war in the first place. I will give your coalition credit on the propaganda, though. You couch these terms as a mandatory "peace mode" to avoid the word "reparations." Of course, this only works if people don't do the actual math of your so called "lenient" peace terms. And why don't you ask the rest of your coalition, i.e., the alliances that are taking the most damage, how they feel about an extended war? It's surely not in their best interest to continue having their lower tier blasted with nukes indefinitely. This is where the problem lies. I sincerely hope that your allies will actually read these next statements, though I'm sure their voices are not well-received. It's easy for TOP and Umbrella to put their foot down and demand such harsh reparations. I don't think anyone denies that you two are largely untouchable, nor does anyone deny your alliances' strength. But extended warfare, regardless of the effect on Pacifica and its allies, will bring your allies down with them. The chest bumping is fine, but I believe the rest of your coalition is somewhat unaware of the effect an extended war will have on them. In my opinion, Umbrella and TOP aren't good representatives for that reason. Again, let's be reasonable. I don't believe we are trying to dictate terms. But as much as you think we have no basis to negotiate, you are sorely mistaken. The rest of your coalition isn't as untouchable as you or TOP.
  4. What war-time actions? This war has nothing to do with previous actions. You can say that war was inevitable - if that's the case, your coalition should have grew a pair and just declared on NPO for these past transgressions. That's not what happened. If your declarations of war and associated reasons are meaningless, then why have them? Because, so far in this war, the only action Pacifica has taken is defend its ally, an action hardly deserving of such harsh reparations. If you'd like, I could go throughout history and find every wrong Polar conducted, etc, and use it to support harsh treatment. What would be REALLY entertaining is if TOP used that philosophy on Polar. Hell, on that note, we should all just stay in a state of perpetual war since at any given time, we'll just fight over the past transgressions. Right, Starfox? I mean, what incentive does Pacifica or anyone else for that matter to surrender and/or accept peace on those terms? <3 Starfox
  5. Until you stop couching it as what "we believe" and just admit to everyone what is obvious, I imagine it'll keep being discussed. Plus, it's not as tedious as reading Tywin's posts. You have to at least admit that much as a reasonable person.
  6. Bro, no disrespect intended, but I'm not sure how anyone, even people in your coalition, could believe the endless propaganda you spew out. Here are the facts: NPO only entered this conflict to defend its ally. Nowhere have you stated that NPO was a target in this war - you only loosely mentioned NG and NSO. But now, you state that NPO is the only alliance that hasn't been damaged sufficiently? Are you kidding me? The last time I checked, we are at 50%ish of our beginning NS. No, instead, your coalition wants to force peace terms on Pacifica that will cripple it for years, after seeing a reduction in 50% of its NS. And this is for an alliance that allegedly wasn't a target in this war. And although I have respect for our allies, I fail to see how it makes any logical sense to place terms on Pacifica, but then acknowledge NG and NSO are free to go when it is they who you allege did the wrongdoing. Honestly bro, it's laughable. I honestly fail to see how the rest of the alliances in your coalition can sit by and watch this madness. Here's the deal. Pacifica has an awesome rebuilding/banking system. You know this. You don't like it. So you want to cripple our banks, because your alliance does not like us and wants to "win" the game. Your alliance does not give two ****s about the rest of the alliances in your coalition. All the while the alliances in your coalition, including Polar mind you, are taking the blunt of the damage. You get to sit by and watch, for the most part. Honestly, I don't see how they put up with you. This war was entirely a pretext, and the rest of your coalition should be infuriated. I just wish you would stop with the crap and tell it like it is. At least then, I'd respect you. I have a feeling most of the alliances in your coalition would be a little more reasonable given the opportunity. Honestly, this is exactly why White Peace is in order.
  7. I think both sides should take heed to this conversation in any future peace negotiations.
  8. It's not a matter of performing "badly." It's all relative. It's more that Pacifica is performing better. I think that's the notion people are butthurt about. I don't feel as if Polar or any other alliance is necessarily performing badly. We are all dealt different hands. I do find it unfortunate though that this type of mutual respect and discussion should have been extended even before this war started. I think once both coalitions come to respect each other and for their respective performances in this war, we'll have a prompt resolution of this matter.
  9. Oh darn, I typed in the quote box. Argument invalid. Seriously, was Polar jumped on as heavily as us? I hardly call that even. I still consider the argument valid. The fact is - by sheer numbers, we should NOT be doing more damage than taking. Your coalitions inability to work as a team, stagger, etc, is the real issue here. By sheer numbers, this war should have been over at the very beginning. That's obviously not the case. Otherwise, I do respect the rest of your statements and appreciate the compliments as someone now in the lower tier.
  10. Not even Jesus can save you from what is coming, CCC.
  11. It's almost as if NSO wasn't the primary target of this war...oh wait.
×
×
  • Create New...