Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    4
  • comments
    34
  • views
    5,254

"Surrender" Terms

Sign in to follow this  
GDI Crossfire

236 views

I've always wondered about the "protected" status alliances offer to POW's. I do not think very highly of people surrendering, as to me, it seems they are deserting their alliance for their infra. Infra can be re bought, it takes a lot of effort to patch up a trust for someone, and sometimes not at all. What this all leads up to is that, you can't really "guarantee" immunity to those that surrendered, as their own alliance members may end up attacking them for desertion, subsequently the former alliance member attacking the POW will be attacked by the same alliance they are already at war against. It's a cycle that makes no sense to me.

Thoughts?

Sign in to follow this  


12 Comments


Recommended Comments

RoK made a habit of attacking our nations that deserted when we fought PC. Personally, I don't mind if it doesn't make sense, as a POW doesn't deserve protection in the first place. Let them burn as far as I am concerned.

Share this comment


Link to comment

When a nation reaches bill lock, there is absolutely nothing that the nation can do for an alliance. Should the nation just stay there? Keep eating nuke after nuke and do nothing about it while the ability to pay for continues to add time tell they are able to exit bill lock. That isn't fair for nations. Yes, you are right, the nation should learn to keep a war chest. That is not a good enough excuse to justify not allowing the nation surrender and not have to worry about getting attacked while in bill lock.

What it all comes down to is the ability to wage war successfully and a nations right to surrender from wars. To be completely honest,a citizen nations right to surrender from wars should never be a matter of debate. It is a black and white issue when it comes to regular members.

Government members should go down with the ship, so speak.

Share this comment


Link to comment

I reached bill-lock a few times in the DH war, I asked for aid from one of our banks even if it was just 3mil, it was enough for me to get out and do some damage. I mean if a nation has permission from a gov member and it's all good, no hard feelings about surrendering then yes it's not as bad, however, often they will just up and leave without a single word, not even a "sorry I stayed under your protection and then wimped out when the time came to defend the same alliance that has been protecting me". Then, to me, it becomes desertion, and that is one of my biggest pet peeves in CN.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Offering POW status is a way to break down the enemy, so it is still a valid practice.

As for the legitimacy of surrendering, well, I think it depends on if it is supported by the government.

Having nations surrender before they sustain too much damage is a useful tactic if you know you're fighting a losing battle and want to preserve your forces for after the conflict.

Those that surrender without authorization are deserters and frankly are scum. That said, sometimes the surrendering nations have good reason to not want to continue a war they see as foolish or unjust, and it is the sovereign right of the nation to do what is best for themselves. Though, in that case I think it is better to retire from the alliance before war actually erupts, because after it does you should be committed to the war effort. A wise leader will look at who is surrendering and why, and use that to determine the strength of the internal culture. Some people are just surrender-monkeys, but if an important member quits, it could be indicative of a larger systematic problem.

I have no problem hunting down deserters and attacking them.

I find it good policy to treat those that surrender to you with dignity and keep them protected while they are on your POW AA.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Stuff like this is posted during every war, yet people surrender anyway as is their choice.

The fact of the matter is that in almost every case, a war is the result of what the leadership or one or two members in the alliance (of whatever size) do or do not do, if there is any real "cause" at all (as opposed to the other side just deciding to curb stomp the first).

Anyone can be a "leader" during peace time. The true test of whether or not a group of people are worth weeks of regular fighting on a daily basis comes during hardship. If a leader starts finding that more and more people are surrendering maybe it's time to reconsider just how important the war is in the first place and/or if leadership is doing the right thing.

I'd fight for my group for as long as they needed me. But I don't give my loyalty to just anyone and it didn't happen overnight.

There are a few people here and there that really are infra huggers. If someone surrenders during the first day or two of a war - that's probably the case. But if the war has been going on and on and on the membership have been asking for help, saying that they are tired of it, etc. etc. and the leadership doesn't listen then who isn't being loyal to who? Attacking people who decide to surrender in that case is only showing that one has to rule by fear and that's a sign of bad leadership in and of itself.

Too many people surrendering? Maybe it's time to take the hint :excl:

Share this comment


Link to comment

If you attack nations who surrendered from your alliance while the war is on-going, you wind up draining resources away from fighting your actual enemy. I suppose you could justify it as an example to keep people from deserting, but if the only way to keep the members of your alliance from bailing during war time is to threaten them, your alliance is already a corpse.

I understand people getting upset by what feels like abandonment when you need people, but, honestly, if someone doesn't want to fight for the alliance, then I'd rather not have them there during a war. It's not like they took anything from me by being in my alliance during peace time. If they engaged in economic transactions with the alliance, it's pretty likely that we benefitted from that either from money going to newbs or tech going to our bigger nations. If they just sat there, then I'm not sure why I sure care one way or another whether they were ever on the AA or continue to remain there. If they contributed to the alliance, then we benefited from their stay. If they made trouble during peace time, then they were probably coasting towards getting booted anyway.

I really don't understand why people bother. I have much more important scores to settle than with random people I probably don't know the names of anyway. I have no interest in setting up a deterrence for people who want to jump ship because, uh, I don't want people who aren't willing to fight getting in the way when I'm trying to fight a war. I'm also not all that afraid of having my members suddenly jump ship, so setting up a precedent to deter people from doing so isn't very high on my priority list.

Frankly, unless you like being vindictive or are afraid of having your own members bail on you, I don't actually see what reason anyone has to give enough of a damn to do anything other than wave to people's backs as the run from war.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Protection does not and has never been equal to immunity, all it means is that when someone gets attacked the protector will attack back. While this doesn't help against an alliance one is already engaged with it does help against raiders.

Share this comment


Link to comment

RoK made a habit of attacking our nations that deserted when we fought PC. Personally, I don't mind if it doesn't make sense, as a POW doesn't deserve protection in the first place. Let them burn as far as I am concerned.

Is that your excuse? You're too busy attacking the deserters to do a proper fight?

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   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.

×
×
  • Create New...