Jump to content

Screwball

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Screwball

  1. [quote name='Mandolus'] And do you really want me to get in to the "mature" themes in anime? The schoolgirl panty flashes? The excessive, pointless gore? The thousand year old women reincarnated as twelve year old girls? (It's not pedophilia that way! ) [/quote] Oh aye, because Legend of the Galactic Heroes, for example, has all of that. I must have missed the panty flashes, which I can't understand since somebody wearing a short skirt should've stood out like a sore thumb amongst all the women wearing full length ball gowns and uniform trousers (here's a hint; everything you described is completely absent, and the story is as serious as stuff like Saving Private Ryan or A Bridge Too Far).
  2. So, yeah, I'm looking for one or two people who'd be willing to engage in long term 3mil/100 tech 1x1 deals. PM me in game if you're interested.
  3. As teh title says, I'm in need of a single tech seller for a 3x3 deal. PM me in game if you're interested.
  4. [quote=Matt Miller]To be fair to Gre, it's the only position they can take that doesn't make them look silly at this point.[/quote] I disagree. It still makes them look silly.
  5. I like the cut of your jib, Europa, welcome aboard.
  6. Yes. Come one, come all, and let us feast on your delicious technology.
  7. [quote] This has been discussed ad-nauseum and ends with me saying "If they refused, what could we do?"[/quote] Nothing. Which makes the entire thing a pointless exercise that's not going to get you what you want and serves only to prolong a war that, at best for Gramlins, will end in a stalemate where both sides are unable to effectively attack one another and at worst will result in the slow death of the alliance. [quote]It's still predicated on speculation that we'd demand they destroy improvements.[/quote] That's hardly a rare surrender term, now is it? It's also the only way for IRON to 'weaken their position' in any real sense. [quote]I don't think people believe that Gremlins will tell them to decom wonders; and I think even fewer believe they would actually comply. I've made it clear that I, personally, would never support demanding somebody destroy their wonders. I've also outlined that I think others should intervene if such a demand is made. I don't know what else you could want from me on this.[/quote] You've repeatedly said that you're not in charge and can't actually give any accurate comments on what the terms might be. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if decomming wonders and improvements was demanded, but then, my opinion of Ram isn't very high. You might be able to tell this. Anyway, what I want from you is a recognition that it's a possibility that IRON would be stupid to get anywhere near. That is, recognise that they're not being 'irrational,' but rather operating from a position where, from their point of view, Gramlins' trustworthiness cannot be presumed. [quote]Morality > Treaties[/quote] I don't share your faith. I hardly think C&G will have difficulty sleeping at night if IRON is effectively permanently neutralised. [quote]Nah, just Ram.[/quote] [I]That's just what the real puppet-masters would say![/I] [quote]I'd say that if GRE were the sort of alliance that would demand "perma tech farms" that we'd me much more of a liability than an asset. Plus, I wouldn't associate with somebody who thought that was acceptable behavior... I don't expect them to either.[/quote] As I indicated above, I think that geopolitical expediency will dictate that they keep you on-side. Despite your current circumstances, GRE is hardly an insignificant alliance. At the very least, if you're on their side, they can be sure that you aren't going to be fighting against them in the next big war. Also, again, I hardly think that they'll shed a tear if IRON is crippled forever, especially if they can let GRE take the publicity hit. You don't care about PR, after all. [quote]Because most people were realpolitiking cowards. There was a pretty big war about that, remember? Even so, GRE doesn't have anywhere NEAR the muscle that NPO had. I think people would salivate at the prospect of sucking us GRE's tech after we were ZI'd and knocked from the tower.[/quote] Most of the people around then are still around now, and it's not like various alliances haven't demonstrated a post-Karma ability to be complete arseholes, now is it? Nobody is going to want to take the risk of starting a war with C&G over IRON (who are, I'm sure you'll agree, not the most widely loved alliance), not after the way this most recent mess ended. [quote]This is post-Karma; historical precedent has shown you that people will oppose injustice. Look at what happened with KofN; people stepped up in behalf of KofN without treaties obligating them to do so. Good on them.[/quote] Yeah, but KofN were hardly the power centre IRON is, nor were they as widely unpopular, so it was in nobody's interests if they were crushed or not. IRON has got people going to bat for them in OWF, but if anybody with the capability was willing to intervene on their behalf, they'd have done it already, given that GRE's position is almost universally seen as being stupid, pigheaded and wrong. Mostly, though, I'm a terrible cynic with no faith in humanity.
  8. [quote] No, a surrender implies a submission and intent to follow through with peace terms (if there are any) while a cease fire or armistice implies the intent to negotiate. We do not intend to negotiate. [/quote] But what you describe doesn't suggest anything of the sort. You want a ceasefire so that you can present your terms to them. That those terms are non-negotiable doesn't change that. Unconditional surrender, but it's very nature, implies an obligation to submit to whatever you dictate, something that's not present in what you're saying. [quote]You are welcome to go back a few pages and refute my math where I outlined that even if IRON decomissioned all their nukes they're rebuild rate is sufficient to make the probability that every Gremlin will be nuked every day greater than 90%. Other than nukes and navy, armies can be retrained instantly. [b]Regarding the premise that they'd have negative improvements: IRON/DAWN have claimed here that Gremlins is not hurting them; thus you could presume that their rebuilding efforts to correct negative improvement issues have been successful over the last month.[/b][/quote] [b]No[/b]. You cannot possibly be as stupid as you appear. One look at IRON is enough to show that they aren't anywhere near the level that they were pre-war, and that, therefore, they still have a significant problem with negative improvements. Rebuilding =/= rebuilt. Given that they've taken truly stupendous damage over the course of the war and haven't had a great deal of time to rebuild, they cannot [I]possibly[/I] be anywhere near recovered. They're certainly much better off than they were at the time of the ESA, but they still rather obviously have to worry about negative improvements. Simply looking at the number of improvements many of their nations have vs their current infra reveals that. Besides, nukes aren't the only militarily significant wonder. Rebuilding Manhattan Projects means that they'd still be without WRCs, Pentagons, SDI's, Foreign Airforce Bases and Anti-Air Defence Networks. Granted, some of those might not represent stupendous loss of capability, but they're still wonders that will give Gramlins an advantage, on top the the wildly obvious problem of negative improvements. [quote] I give my friends more credit than you do. If Gremlins demanded that IRON become a permanent tech farm then I would expect all of my friends to intervene against me. This is because I believe that my friends are dominantly moral individuals. [/quote] You give them credit. What reason does IRON have to do so? Again, this comes back to an issue of trust; if IRON doesn't trust them, then they'd be fools to depend on them for protection without some sort of legal document guaranteeing it. [quote]GRE has cronies now? I don't suspect that anybody wanting to be released from terms to engage Gremlins after we made such an outrageous demand would meet any opposition.[/quote] We all know you're secretly the puppet-masters behind the entire Cyberverse. What I was getting at, though, is that by the time any of them were in a position to intervene effectively, IRON would have already surrendered and some length of time would have passed. It'd be a new war; the current discussion regarding alliances being released from terms has no relevance. What is relevant is that Gramlins represents an asset in the C&G sphere of power that they would have to be insane to just write off like that, and a response would therefore result in another large war. [quote]"uninvolved" alliances have a moral obligation to oppose outrageous terms such as "become a permanent tech farm". If they do not, then they are cowards.[/quote] Why was NPO on top for so long? Because nobody was interested enough in standing up to them. [quote]Does it hurt to have such a low faith in humanity? I, on the other hand, expect that if such an outrageous term were demanded that everybody with self-worth would stand up and be counted against us.[/quote] It's horrible. I base my observation on historical precedent; unless something directly affects them or an ally, or they're obliged by a treaty, nobody will do anything.
  9. [quote]Ah I see what you're asking. Sorry for the confusion. To unconditionally surrender they need to do whatever process their alliance rules mandate for them to surrender and then they need to officially address our government and say something to the effect of "We unconditionally surrender" (The exact idiosyncracies of this process should be discussed with GRE.gov) and which point I suspect that Gremlins will accept their surrender and then tell them our required terms for peace. So you're asking "What if they then refuse your terms?" And I've told you that then a state of war resumes (because there is no other possible outcome) and their surrender is invalidated. Meaning that if they want to begin the process again, they would (likely) need to unconditionally surrender again.[/quote] That isn't a surrender. That's them accepting your offer for an armstice while terms are discussed. If they surrendered to you, they'd have an obligation to submit to whatever terms you offered.
  10. [quote]Who says they are being told to demon their military improvements and wonders? And, more importantly, why would they destroy their military wonders even if I told them to? You say: "They would be forced to comply with your harsh terms!" I say: "How could we possibly force them to comply with harsh terms?" You say: "They wouldn't have a choice because they surrendered unconditionally" I Say: "Surrendering unconditionally doesn't mean they have no choice but to accept harsh terms, even if we demanded harsh terms" You say: "But they would be forced to comply with your harsh terms!" [/quote] The entire exercise is pointless if they don't, being that it doesn't weaken IRON's position (and thus demonstrates absolutely nothing at all). Given that decomming military improvements is a pretty standard surrender term, I don't see any reason to presume that you [I]wouldn't[/I] require it, given that your desire is clearly not white peace. Complying with that would gut IRON's ability to fight. If your position is that 'unconditional surrender' is just IRON stopping fighting while you tell them what your terms are and that they're free to refuse them, the proper term is a ceasefire or armistice. We're all assuming that you want them to actually [I]surrender[/I] to you, not just stop fighting. [quote] Admin help me. How on Earth could Gremlins ever force them to become a permanent tech farm? Under the threat of continued war? This thread persists on peoples assertion that IRON WOULD WIN A CONTINUED WAR[/quote] IRON will win a continued war [I]as they are now[/I]. They wouldn't win a resumed war after gutting their own military capability. [quote]Not to mention that if we actually made such a harsh term, I have said MANY TIMES that there is no dishonor in refusing slavery and that the entire cyberverse would have a moral obligation to intervene.[/quote] That doesn't mean that they will intervene. Who's going to do so? Gramlin's friends? Unlikely. IRON's allies? No, they're all still recovering from the war, and such an intervention would likely invite a response from GRE's cronies. Uninvolved alliances? Why? They don't have a horse in the race, so they've got no reason to get involved and possibly get rolled. I rather suspect that, in the hypothetical situation of IRON becoming a Gramlin tech farm, everybody would say 'oh dear, how horrible' and then ignore the whole situation, bar IRON's allies who lack the capability to do anything about it.
  11. [quote] Isn't all their posturing predicated on the notion that Gremlins is not capable of putting them in a "military position untenable enough that they'll be force to accept?"[/quote] You can't put them in a position where accepting unconditional surrender and then destroying their remaining ability to resist [I]themselves[/I] is preferable to continuing the war, no. That's not posturing; it's the truth. That doesn't change the fact that, if they [I]did[/I] accept your demand, and they [I]did[/I] decom all their military improvements and wonders, then they [I]would[/I] be in an untenable military situation and not have much recourse but to accept any terms you offered, no matter how harsh, or face complete destruction. [I]That's why they won't do it[/I]. [quote] Don't trust me not to do what?[/quote] Impose unreasonably harsh terms, like the ever-popular 'permanent tech farm' option. The 'you' was referring to Gramlins as a whole, by the way. ;p
  12. [quote]As I said pages ago: Why are they irrationally afraid of the unknown?[/quote] They aren't 'irrationally afraid of the unknown'. Their position is perfectly rational, given that [I]they don't trust you[/I].
  13. [quote]and now, with them not firmly under the boot of a massively larger opponent, their unconditional surrender (the act of submission) would be a significant indicator of the sincerity of any allocution... wouldn't you say? So I'll ask again, what are they afraid of? If their refusal stems from them actually believing they have done nothing wrong then let that be enough rationale for my continued action.[/quote] They're afraid that you'll impose excessively harsh terms and have put them in a military position untenable enough that they'll be forced to accept them. Like I said, they don't trust you. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. Anyway, their sincerity doesn't matter; all you have to do is make the terms non negotiable, and they say either yes or no. At that point, at least both sides would know exactly where they stand.
  14. [quote]Of course, I don't get to offer terms, but I suspect that if IRON is unwilling to admit they are culpable for wrongdoing then the method of surrender and subsequent peace is irrelevant. That's a separate debate and we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.[/quote] It's hardly irrelevant. If you'd offered terms including that proviso as part of the ESA, they probably would have been accepted. IRON's problem has [I]never[/I] been with 'accepting culpability for wrongdoing' like you suggest. That's a red herring. Their problem is with the idea of unconditional surrender; they don't [I]trust[/I] you not to impose stupidly harsh terms, and they aren't going to critically weaken their military position given that lack of trust. To do so would be criminally retarded; at the time of the ESA, they were certainly in a position vis a vis negative improvements that meant that their ability to prosecute a successful war would be crippled should they decom their military improvements. At this point in time, that situation hasn't changed. You can't possibly be so stupid as to think that their statements about increasing strength (which are true) mean that they are back to a pre-war level. Manifestly they aren't, even if they [I]are[/I] stronger now than they were when the ESA were signed, or the war would be over now and Gramlins would be a pile of smoldering ash. The argument that they need to voluntarily weaken themselves to indicate they want peace is stupid; they were [I]clearly[/I] willing to submit to reasonable terms in order to achieve peace, given that they [I]signed a surrender document[/I] in the first place. If you'd submitted clear, sensible terms- as you insist is your ultimate intention- then they would have accepted them, including an explicit admission of wrongdoing. This is almost a certainty, given that signing a surrender agreement in the first place has an [I]implicit[/I] acceptance of guilt anyway. The situation as it stands now is that you're never going to get an unconditional surrender. You simply lack the capability to put IRON in a position where they see that as a course of action preferable to continuing the war; indeed, you lacked that capability [I]when IRON was at war with C&G[/I], which should show you something about the chances of them submitting to you. Given that you're never going to get what you want, the only sane thing to do would be to look at alternatives; you never know, if you offer them a peace on the sole condition that they admit wrongdoing in attacking C&G, they might accept; it's not like they're ecstatic about this war either, you know.
  15. They wouldn't sign a surrender agreement with a term saying 'IRON accepts responsibility and culpability for wrongdoing' in them either, unless they were interested in admitting that they were wrong. Why not just offer them that? It achieves the exact same thing; the worst thing they do is say 'no,' which is exactly what they're saying at the moment.
  16. [quote] Pretty soon it will be IRON's allies' who will be the targets of OWF smear campaigns for sitting idly by while their 'friends' get pummeled. Or is IRON actually winning this war? I haven't had time to research the stats... [/quote] IRON is very clearly getting the better of Gramlins for the moment. It remains to be seen if they have the capability to drag GRE's upper tier down to a level where they can be dogpiled, though, and if they can't then it'll be a very boring stalemate. Personally, I hope they can; Ram and his cronies deserve a thumping for their idiocy.
  17. [quote] Nobody can force anybody in the cyberverse to do anything We never told them to accept our terms, we told them to surrender.[/quote] Yeah, and they told you to sod off. If you'd actually told them what your terms [I]were[/I], and if those terms were/are as reasonable as you say they are, then they'd have accepted them, just like they accepted those offered by everybody else. So, I ask again; why not just tell them what your terms are if they're so reasonable?
  18. [quote]Not splitting hairs at all. Terms of a peace are not on the table. GRE requires a surrender. Requiring a surrender is not a term, in fact "unconditional" mean "without conditions" which demonstrates that terms have not been put on the table. I suspect that what you mean by "hidden behind door number 3" is what the terms will be when terms are actually offered. If so, then there is no violation of the codex. Whatever's "hidden behind door number 3" will need to be something that we, ourselves, would be willing to accept. It's not my problems that people are afraid to open doors.[/quote] Why not just, y'know, tell them what the surrender terms will be, rather than adding a pointless layer of obfuscation and putting yourselves on the losing side of a war that you had actually won? IRON and DAWN aren't being unreasonable; they're just not going to accept your terms until you tell them what the terms [I]are[/I]. There's also absolutely nothing you can do to force them to accept your demands either, so you might as well just give up trying now and save yourself some grief.
×
×
  • Create New...