Timberland Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 (edited) I think it depends on how strongly the hatred is between the 2 alliances. Is it like how TOP/NpO use to be or is it just 2 alliances that came in to defend their allies ? Are the alliances just hiding in peace mode the whole 3-5 month war ? I think you could take another example. Back in BPW, Sparta helped with the dog pile and ask for reps when they took hardly no damage. Now they're being dog piled, for alliances they helped with in the past. When you pull tactics to piss off the other side and you're on the losing side. There are a lot of factors that can go in to determining reps I've help pay them (paid over 10k tech in BPW) and have taken them. So Yes I am for them. edit: I see its a Methrage vs GOONS thread. I fully support taking reps from Methrage every time he goes rogue on us. 3 times now is it ? Edited July 2, 2012 by Timberland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 Case by case basis IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 Bring back Viceroys and the good old days... Am I rite?? -- Seriously, voted other though. Personally when an alliance loses I'd rather people just say "well done, congratulations on beating us" and people head off on their way. Not white peace, but a rep free surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ostrogothi Posted July 2, 2012 Report Share Posted July 2, 2012 [quote name='Stewie' timestamp='1341229824' post='3001729'] Bring back Viceroys and the good old days... Am I rite?? -- Seriously, voted other though. Personally when an alliance loses I'd rather people just say "well done, congratulations on beating us" and people head off on their way. Not white peace, but a rep free surrender. [/quote] What is the difference though? I always found it silly to make people "admit defeat"- what is the point of that? I mean almost always in CN the end result of a war is plain for everybody to see. It shouldn't matter to anybody that the defeated party might someday later claim "strategic/spiritual" victory or any other kind of crap. OOC: Some of the most decisive victories in history technically ended in white peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAAAAAAAAAGGGG Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 I always felt like imposing reps gave people something to fight for. However reps are an inefficient process in itself so I would rather avoid them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMuz Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 [quote name='Ostrogothi' timestamp='1341237031' post='3001764'] I always found it silly to make people "admit defeat"- what is the point of that? I mean almost always in CN the end result of a war is plain for everybody to see. It shouldn't matter to anybody that the defeated party might someday later claim "strategic/spiritual" victory or any other kind of crap. [/quote] Wars are usually fought over something. If a war is fought to destroy/weaken an alliance, there's no need to admit defeat. If a war is fought over disagreements, like someone aiding rogues/bad tech raid/poaching/insults and war was triggered because one side refused to admit they were wrong, the admission of defeat is important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ostrogothi Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 [quote name='MrMuz' timestamp='1341386154' post='3003277'] Wars are usually fought over something. If a war is fought to destroy/weaken an alliance, there's no need to admit defeat. If a war is fought over disagreements, like someone aiding rogues/bad tech raid/poaching/insults and war was triggered because one side refused to admit they were wrong, the admission of defeat is important. [/quote] Admission of [i]guilt[/i] is different from admission of military defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garion Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 R&R has a long standing policy of not asking reps (except for particular situations). They just make this game's pace slower. Token reps, admitting defeat, apologies for wrongdoing, forced treaties (Mjolnir-SF 2 months NAP for instance), even forced treaties/blocs cancellations... They're much more useful to the game itself, and more interesting politics and strategy-wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Kind of a dumb question with stupidly narrow answers but that would be missing the purpose of you're poll which is simply to agitate. As others have said it really just depends. The main question to answer is whether reps are appropriate given the narrative of the war. Like anything else reps are a signaling tool, and a particularly strong one at that. When applying them it should be fairly well thought out, and balanced not only for the subject alliance but also the would be audience. To that end, I would say the latter's response is infinitely more important than the former's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMuz Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 [quote name='Ostrogothi' timestamp='1341403473' post='3003339'] Admission of [i]guilt[/i] is different from admission of military defeat. [/quote] Anything that triggers a real war will probably never result in a (sincere) admission of guilt. Admission of military defeat is usually the closest you can get Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 [quote name='Ostrogothi' timestamp='1341403473' post='3003339'] Admission of [i]guilt[/i] is different from admission of military defeat. [/quote] The two are pretty irrelevant at this point considering CB's are either contrived or mere sideshow issues that provide the initial catalyst for war. In practical application the distinction is really just a lever in surrender negotiations which a victor may pull allowing the defeated to save face in exchange for something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeros Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 I don't think sincerity of an apology or guilt admission really matters. What matters is you were able to impose your will on someone else and force them to publicly say something they don't believe. That's worth something, and after going through all the trouble fighting a war its a fairly minor something to gain. Personally I think any reps or punishments depends on the circumstances. 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.