janax Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1326549505' post='2899386'] I think some people have forgotten how this whole surrender and peace terms thing works. Even if you are numerically victorious, the defeated is not obliged to agree or comply with your terms. They can choose to stay at war. If they choose war, give it to them. What is all the complaining about? If you're winning and they want you to keep winning all over their face, continue. Seriously. [/quote] This is less complaining, more of a public notice to prevent anyone from beginning those rumors that the alliances in question are being held in war. Fark and Fan were offered a pretty sweetheart deal that they are free to accept or decline, but it needed to be made clear it was their doing and their decision if they don't take that offer and instead get stuck with less easy terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1326544874' post='2899362'] It is only 'dragging it out' when your continued presence serves no useful purpose for your alliance or allies. Fighting on for better peace terms, to cause damage to your enemies or to prevent the alliances currently engaging you from piling on an ally you entered to protect are fine. However, as you point out, the stated reason for opening the NPO front is no longer providing any value to their coalition, if it ever was. Sparta are hiding all their meaningful nations in PM and are not contributing anything to the coalition either. Peace terms are as light as they can get for a losing side. So the only reason to fight on is if they consider their opponents to be enemies, and they are intentionally causing damage beyond that needed to secure their wartime objectives to them, in which case they deserve to be treated like enemies and to pay reps for the damage done for that reason. My guess is that Polar have not been offered such an easy peace and thus they need to fight on to try to force TOP into reducing them. Either that, or they're not being offered terms at all yet – with anyone who could object to Polar being utterly destroyed either crushed themselves or already bound not to re-enter, there's not a lot the world could do about it, though I wouldn't support such a thing. One should expect Polar to pay very significant reparations to TOP though, considering the terms that TOP had to pay as a direct result of NpO's duplicity in Bipolar (and that TOP has not had a chance to pursue justice for that until now). [/quote] I have a feeling Roq is right and Fark doesn't care at all anymore. A Fark nation I have a mutual war with is 1472 days old with a WRC and loads of wonders and is 21 days inactive. Maybe he is waiting to collect but the cap has kicked in so he may be letting his nation die. Everything. Must. Die. - Fark is all in it seems. Fark, Sparta, and FAN need to consider other alliances that are in this pointless front fighting until they get peace...an easy peace for them, but a hard war for those supporting their egos. I used to not support non-chaining clauses as I strongly felt an ally at war will have my support, but after this fiasco and [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBmMW4MxPAY&feature=related"]the RIA/Barney getting in bed with the NpO/the ugly chick[/url] and getting dragged into a lost cause, I favor non-chaining clauses now. As far as NpO terms and TOP...Bob, TOP is full of !@#$ to be quite honest. You say NpO's duplicity is just cause for TOP to pursue justice. You may be right and TOP certainly has the power to do so. But, they and anyone that supports them are hypocrites. Did you read [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107402"]This Thread[/url]? In that thread RommelHSQ and many that denounce NpO for what they did to TOP fully supports the duplicity that got that guy nuked after he stopped attacking and sent peace. [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107402&view=findpost&p=2873954"]This Guy[/url] hit the nail on the head in his commentary. Edited January 14, 2012 by Jaiar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1326566109' post='2899530']Did you read [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107402"]This Thread[/url]? In that thread RommelHSQ and many that denounce NpO for what they did to TOP fully supports the duplicity that got that guy nuked after he stopped attacking and sent peace. [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=107402&view=findpost&p=2873954"]This Guy[/url] hit the nail on the head in his commentary. [/quote] Because one nation can turn the tide of a war just like an alliance can? I'm pretty sure there is a key diffrence between what happend in BiPolar and what happend here. Here is one major fact, cambenito is not a government member and most likly didn't send that message with government backing. TOP members said that tactic was fine, so did members of a lot of other alliances, but it's a lot diffrent to what happend during BiPolar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 I don't see what peace-and-switch nukings have to do with broad scale geopolitics, I must say. You might not like that kind of thing (nor do I) but it is nothing to do with the grand scale betrayal that NpO pulled on them in Bipolar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='janax' timestamp='1326563975' post='2899498'] This is less complaining, more of a public notice to prevent anyone from beginning those rumors that the alliances in question are being held in war. [/quote] That's fair I suppose. Just seems a bit early in the war/peace process to be throwing up your hands in frustration or looking to placate the masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 You want to bring back the reps because they aren't surrendering fast enough? You can say its because of whatever you want, but if you guys end up being the only ones asking harsh reps at the end of this war it won't do much good for NPO shedding that old reputation you guys have been trying to get rid off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326568953' post='2899572'] You want to bring back the reps because they aren't surrendering fast enough? You can say its because of whatever you want, but if you guys end up being the only ones asking harsh reps at the end of this war it won't do much good for NPO shedding that old reputation you guys have been trying to get rid off. [/quote] What? If FARK/FAN reject a white peace offer because they are too proud to surrender NPO is absolutely justified in asking for reps. If NPO had given them an offer of harsh reps as their [i]first[/i] offer then what you say might make sense. As it is, it makes no sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='janax' timestamp='1326563975' post='2899498'] This is less complaining, more of a public notice to prevent anyone from beginning those rumors that the alliances in question are being held in war. [/quote] It will also serve as a good before and after OWF story about the consequences of incompetent leadership. Before: No reps, just surrender and don’t re-enter. After: ????? [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326568953' post='2899572'] You want to bring back the reps because they aren't surrendering fast enough? You can say its because of whatever you want, but if you guys end up being the only ones asking harsh reps at the end of this war it won't do much good for NPO shedding that old reputation you guys have been trying to get rid off. [/quote] The war is over. If they want to remain to lob nukes when a peace without reps on offer they they will not be rewarded. Edited January 14, 2012 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326569096' post='2899573'] What? If FARK/FAN reject a white peace offer because they are too proud to surrender NPO is absolutely justified in asking for reps. If NPO had given them an offer of harsh reps as their [i]first[/i] offer then what you say might make sense. As it is, it makes no sense. [/quote] Day 2 of a war someone can offer white peace to someone if they admit defeat, but facts are they aren't defeated yet. It doesn't mean the alliance is then justified in asking whatever they want after they bring the alliance closer and closer to ZI so they need to surrender, there is still restraint to be shown if you want to be seen as reasonable. I'm not saying NPO has to give white peace though, but their previous offer of white peace doesn't mean they'll look like a nice guy if they ask massive reps from an even more beaten statswise alliance later. Edited January 14, 2012 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Also Everything Must Die is just a heavy metal song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZhGfAQPmFQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1326527882' post='2899315'] A special not to Omni: This thread was neither pointless, nor boring. You really have a strange view my friend. Quality thread. Would read again. [/quote] Maybe not. I was just expecting a little more. Next time drop peace negotiation logs or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326569301' post='2899577'] Day 2 of a war someone can offer white peace to someone if they admit defeat, but facts are they aren't defeated yet. [/quote] Except it's not day 2 and they are defeated, anyone who claims otherwise is either blind or lying to themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326569301' post='2899577'] Day 2 of a war someone can offer white peace to someone if they admit defeat, but facts are they aren't defeated yet. It doesn't mean the alliance is then justified in asking whatever they want after they bring the alliance closer and closer to ZI so they need to surrender, there is still restraint to be shown if you want to be seen as reasonable. I'm not saying NPO has to give white peace though, but their previous offer of white peace doesn't mean they'll look like a nice guy if they ask massive reps from an even more beaten statswise alliance later. [/quote] What percentage of NS does an alliance need to lose before they are considered "defeated?" Fark has lost nearly 70% of its pre-war strength, FAN nearly 60%. Sparta has hid many of its large nations in peace mode so it's "only" lost about 40%. Rejecting a blanket white peace offer in this situation is simply stupid, not to mention that Fark/FAN attacked NPO with no realistic CB in the slightest bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) When no one is being oppressed methrage will try to turn white peace into something thats not good enough. I bet if we said we will pay reps to the defeated side he would try to spin that as something negative too. Edited January 14, 2012 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326570123' post='2899587'] What percentage of NS does an alliance need to lose before they are considered "defeated?" Fark has lost nearly 70% of its pre-war strength, FAN nearly 60%. Sparta has hid many of its large nations in peace mode so it's "only" lost about 40%. Rejecting a blanket white peace offer in this situation is simply stupid, not to mention that Fark/FAN attacked NPO with no realistic CB in the slightest bit. [/quote] I agree it was stupid of them reject the offer of almost white peace, but as they get beaten into the ground further they won't really be better shape to pay reps. I can understand the frustration of those dealing with them when they won't accept their offers, but my guess is they don't want to peace out individually, so when to take peace is something that needs to be discussed between all 3. Edit: Also an alliance is defeated when they admit defeat, rather than when they meet some lost NS threshold. Edited January 14, 2012 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326571585' post='2899603'] but as they get beaten into the ground further they won't really be better shape to pay reps. [/quote] That would be their fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janax Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Captain Flinders' timestamp='1326568589' post='2899565'] That's fair I suppose. Just seems a bit early in the war/peace process to be throwing up your hands in frustration or looking to placate the masses. [/quote] They were offered white peace over 2 weeks ago. That seems like enough lead time to allow them to think about it and consider it turned down, in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyas Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 Brehon for Sparta viceroy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORCACommander Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 "When the people forget their duty they are no longer human and become something less than beasts. They have no place in the bosom of humanity nor in the heart of the Emperor. Let them die and be forgotten." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326571585' post='2899603'] I agree it was stupid of them reject the offer of almost white peace, but as they get beaten into the ground further they won't really be better shape to pay reps. I can understand the frustration of those dealing with them when they won't accept their offers, but my guess is they don't want to peace out individually, so when to take peace is something that needs to be discussed between all 3. Edit: Also an alliance is defeated when they admit defeat, rather than when they meet some lost NS threshold. [/quote] Then don't complain if they are forced to have reps or some other stipulation before getting peace. Alliances who lose wars don't dictate terms to the winners. The fact that the winners are offering something so ridiculously beneficial to them as losers, and they reject it, does not make them suddenly evil when they offer reps on their next set of terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) [quote name='enderland' timestamp='1326573894' post='2899630'] Then don't complain if they are forced to have reps or some other stipulation before getting peace. Alliances who lose wars don't dictate terms to the winners. The fact that the winners are offering something so ridiculously beneficial to them as losers, and they reject it, does not make them suddenly evil when they offer reps on their next set of terms. [/quote] I just think its ridiculous to complain about the enemy not surrendering fast enough and using that as justification for asking reps, if you're going to ask reps go ahead and do it, but making a statement weeks in advance to try making it seem you were forced into asking reps seems silly. Its still their choice if they ask reps or not, that they're angry Fark/FAN didn't surrender fast enough shouldn't play into it very much. Also as Janax said, they made this offer 2 weeks ago, so its not so clear if they knew they were losing back then or if all of them would of gotten this peace offer. Edited January 14, 2012 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Bob Janova' timestamp='1326548360' post='2899376'] Radio silence is stupid and allows the opinions of others (usually your enemies) to shape the public image of your alliance. That's not so much of a problem when you're part of the hegemonic political structure of the time, because you have other people to go and bat for you (when NPO went on radio silence they had a whole sphere of allies pushing the bloc line, and likewise for the last 2½ years you've had people in SF and C&G to project the image you wanted people to see). But when times get tough and you are outside the powerful political structures, it allows you to be demonised and/or ridiculed and you lose sympathy (e.g. GATO and Legion in GW3). [/quote] People can twist your words to the same effect even if you do post, in fact it's easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326574209' post='2899634'] Also as Janax said, they made this offer 2 weeks ago, so its not so clear if they knew they were losing back then or if all of them would of gotten this peace offer. [/quote] They where losing back then too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1326574910' post='2899646'] They where losing back then too. [/quote] I haven't seen any threads by FAN or Fark complaining about the war continuing, so maybe NPO should do more to convince Fark/FAN they are losing by beating them on the battlefield, rather than trying to convince the OWF of that with threads like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleRena Posted January 14, 2012 Report Share Posted January 14, 2012 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1326575006' post='2899648'] I haven't seen any threads by FAN or Fark complaining about the war continuing, so maybe NPO should do more to convince Fark/FAN they are losing by beating them on the battlefield, rather than trying to convince the OWF of that with threads like this. [/quote] This has no relevence to the fact that they where losing 2 weeks ago and are still losing, it just means they have nothing to post about it. Also, what do you think this thread is trying to convince people of? I don't get what you are saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.