Jump to content

Enamel32

Members
  • Posts

    819
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Enamel32

  1. Your maths is wrong.

     


    No actually. I assume he's differentiating High gov and middle gov as the people in the OP.

     

    2 high gov positions, 2 high gov members with "comrade" in the name. %of high gov members with "comrade" in their name: 100%

    4 low gov positions, 0 low gov members with "comrade" in their name. % of high gov members with comrade in their name: 0%

    6 total positions, 2 with comrade in their name. 33% of gov has comrade in their name.

     

    In conclusion, the chart is marked correctly.

     

     

    Anyway, I'd like to hail this announcement, but the 100% of high government with comrade in their name makes me want to vomit.

  2. It's not the number of allies you have, it's what you do with them.

    As I said, we have been more than courteous to our enemies and our allies by not requesting defense from day one. Offer(s) were put on the table to avoid this situation, but they were rejected. Both parties failed to reach an agreement when a contingency plan was clearly in the works.  As you know, an alliance has to look out for itself first and foremost....even if that means things have to get messy.  If you don't look after yourself, nobody will. That's the unfortunate predicament we've been cautioning about up until this point.

     

    As I also said, if TIO/NATO think we can come to an agreement, let's make it happen. AFAIK, Sparta or our allies really don't have overwhelming desire to trade blows with TIO/NATO.

  3.  

    Yeah, that part by DDL is kinda ironic. Maybe now we could agree to a term where NATO, TIO and Sparta leave and agree not to reenter and then R&R doesn't have to come in and can aid US, XX, and the rest of its allies after this war? I really want to minimize the damage XX takes atm, as they are my third favorite bloc in the game and pretty close to US. (the ratings go US, AFM (I'm former MCXA) and then XX)

     

    As to the arguments as to what side TIO and NATO took, if I were in charge it would have been a painful but easy decision to make. NSO was the original alliance declared on in this war, however NPO and NG were the main targets of this war. To me this means that TIO and NATO should be expected to defend NPO and take its side. I would prefer to be fighting alongside XX this war, b/c I would have preferred to make this war Eq round 2, but unfortunately that's not the hand we've been dealt.

    I hear that. We're in pretty much the same boat. Sparta doesn't mind TIO or NATO. It's just an unfortunate circumstance of war.

  4. Unless they view those offers as entirely unreasonable, and you refuse to listen to their more reasonable offers. Which is exactly what happened. When you put a gun to someone's head and say "take this offer or we kill you" that's not negotiation, that's a threat. Clearly, you don't understand what negotiation is. TIO and NATO tried to negotiate and you threatened them.

    I'm not involved in the discussions, so I can't comment on counter offers (others should be able to though), but I'm not sure it matters at this point. This is the unfortunate part of war where the losing coalition doesn't have much bargaining power in regards to terms 

     

    If NATO/TIO are serious about getting out of the war, I don't see why this isn't motivation to speed up discussions.

     

    I'm really, REALLY tempted to logdump some parts of those convos myself. Stones, glass houses, etc.

    It would probably accomplish nothing, though, apart for souring the involved parties.

    Idc, knock yourself out.

     

    Like I said, if you were that close to a reasonable agreement, let's come to something and get it over with. We can cut the OWF drama.

  5. @ Rebel - I posted that 2 insane offers that no decent alliance would ever take, which weren't real offers, but early suggestions by one Spartan king who didn't have agreement of his government, were rejected, something polar are missing out on.

     

     

    The actual offers that would actually be discussed like reasonable people, were never rejected by us

    Listen, I'm sorry that you didn't like the offers put on the table, but you have to reason with the available options.
    I'm not sure how you can say these weren't "real" offers, when I think it's quite clear what was on the table, and what the consequences would be as a result. Even this guy isn't surprised:

     

    Took you guys long enough, sheesh. You've only been threatening this for two weeks. 

    How long do you expect us to sit at the bargaining table? We've been more than courteous to both our allies and our enemies letting you beat on us for over a month!

     

    You were stalling because you thought you had some kind of advantage:

     

    [14:17] <Da_DreadLord> the main problem with this is that we dont have any problems fighting sparta
    [14:17] <Da_DreadLord> its 2 vs 1
    [14:17] <Yerushalayim> For the moment.
    [14:17] <Da_DreadLord> 3 if you include NPO

     

    I'm not sure who you're trying to fool.

×
×
  • Create New...