Imperial announcement about random stuff

[Beauty]

What'd you call me?

LOL, Tela I love you.

[Pingu]

Holy crap man. We might need to have a pot of tea sometime to discuss this.

Tea is acceptable. Will there be cake?

[Dochartaigh]

I really don't understand what this has to do with anything.

Some people, affiliation irrelevant, claim that a victor gets to dictate terms. Attempting to be amusing/score points, they/others sarcastically suggest that others believe that the loser gets to dictate terms. I point out that the whole basis of this is fundamentally flawed, since it is only in the rarest of circumstances that anyone gets to dictate terms, that in fact terms are always negotiated, and that fighting is mostly about providing negotiators with stronger or weaker hands.

In response, no-one has attempted to dissuade me of this reasonable view. Instead there is all this talk about sarcasm and MI6. I don't think that I am trying too hard. I think that no-one else is trying at all.

 

In the world of CN, more often than not, the victor has been the one to dictate terms. The loser has never really  been able to dictate terms. Yes, the loser can ensure that negotiations go better for them but that is about it. Unless the victor wishes to be merciful, the loser at some point basically just has to deal with whatever terms are currently on the table. 

 

So, in a way, the victor is the one who usually determines the terms. The loser can negotiate but only if the victor allows it. There have been several examples where the victors simply refused to even go to the table until they deemed fit. So yes, Myth and I were being sarcastic but the truth of the matter is, the winner dictates terms. Yes, negotiations can take place but only if the winner wants them to. Yes, terms can be lessened but only to the point the winner wants them to. The loser, at the end of it, can only hope for mercy and pray for kindness. 

 

This is how it always has been and most likely how it will always be. People are holding on to this stupid concept of "white peace for all" when in reality, those who get white peace tend to be the fringe fronts or those the victorious side simply wants to get out of the war as quickly as possible. Those alliances deemed at the core of the war effort will most likely get some sort of terms. 

[Pingu]

I am not too interested in anyone's expectation of white peace. I am concerned by the word "dictate" and the lack of statecraft it is likely to evoke among decision-makers.

Ending conflict is always a negotiation, because it always requires the consent of all parties. This is because total annihilation is not possible in the world as constructed. As the gap in capabilities and damage between two warring parties widens, clearly the range of terms that the more damaged party will accept becomes wider. But it is really only at the edge case, where the more damaged party can see no future at all in resistance, that it is really appropriate to speak of the less damaged party dictating to the other, i.e. that there is no practical limit (OOC: apart from game rules) to what the less damaged party can demand of the other and be met with acquiescence.

Every war grinds to some kind of equilibrium. The rounds of combat and negotiation are about determining where that is. One could represent this as an equation, but I'm frankly more interested in tea and cake.

[Azaghul]

It seems like right now the major difference between the two sides is not over what the final terms should be (I doubt many expect or want anything other than a grey peace) but in the process used to get there... separate peace for each front or a coalition wide peace.

 

It's a pretty minor difference, but that doesn't mean that it can't hold things up if sticking by their guns on this issue becomes a point of pride for both sides.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Azaghul

[IYIyTh]

Tea is acceptable. Will there be cake?

 

Crumpets and scones.

[Pingu]

Crumpets and scones.

I prefer crumpets with butter and marmite, and the scones should have clotted cream. Doable?

[Sir Humphrey]

It seems like right now the major difference between the two sides is not over what the final terms should be (I doubt many expect or want anything other than a grey peace) but in the process used to get there... separate peace for each front or a coalition wide peace.
 
It's a pretty minor difference, but that doesn't mean that it can't hold things up if sticking by their guns on this issue becomes a point of pride for both sides.

The issue that resulted in the escalation of the XX front was the absence of any peace terms being offered to NPO to end this war, or any indication of the terms that would (eventually) be offered. To argue our front should be peaced out individually while using a coalition approach to warfare against our ally seems contradictory, and a convenient way to blame the defensive side for their unwillingness to agree to terms despite no terms being presented to NPO. Rather than being a point of pride, there is good reason for NPO's allies to be sceptical of this approach given the types of terms that have been talked about, and the track record of some of those at war with NPO.

[Bob]

Oh shut up with perma war. Every single war the loser cries about how they're gonna be held in perma war. You're not. Everyone acknowledges just how stupid that is; it's simply not worth it.

 

Also, it doesn't matter how much NS AZTEC builds. They have SOM. His blueballs shall prevent them from war.

We will have SOM raiding within a few months.  Don't you worry.

 

I also am quite content to watch others burn this war.  Love me some tech.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Bob

[The Zigur]

The issue that resulted in the escalation of the XX front was the absence of any peace terms being offered to NPO to end this war, or any indication of the terms that would (eventually) be offered. To argue our front should be peaced out individually while using a coalition approach to warfare against our ally seems contradictory, and a convenient way to blame the defensive side for their unwillingness to agree to terms despite no terms being presented to NPO. Rather than being a point of pride, there is good reason for NPO's allies to be sceptical of this approach given the types of terms that have been talked about, and the track record of some of those at war with NPO.

 

I don't see how certain alliances can continue to claim they entered the war solely to "defend an ally" and now turn around and blatantly follow a form of coalition leadership ("PROTECT TEH NPO!1!"). If certain allies really only entered to defend a treaty, they should follow STA and TPF's precedent and surrender as individual wars. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

Don't interfere with the allied prosecution of this war, fight the good fight, surrender honorably when the chance is presented. It's very simple. The problems begin when individual alliances decide not to cooperate and try to create more problems for everybody. To me, it indicates maybe the Enemy's will hasnt been broken.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Tywin Lannister

[WarriorSoul]

 
I don't see how certain alliances can continue to claim they entered the war solely to "defend an ally" and now turn around and blatantly follow a form of coalition leadership ("PROTECT TEH NPO!1!"). If certain allies really only entered to defend a treaty, they should follow STA and TPF's precedent and surrender as individual wars. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
 
Don't interfere with the allied prosecution of this war, fight the good fight, surrender honorably when the chance is presented. It's very simple. The problems begin when individual alliances decide not to cooperate and try to create more problems for everybody. To me, it indicates maybe the Enemy's will hasnt been broken.

"Hey guys, NATO is continuing to stick up for their allies. They must be blind sheep whose will hasn't been broken yet. They're such a problem."

Their position is an entirely respectable one: They're not going to kick their allies to the curb and watch you and yours level them.

[Starfox101]

Very true, except you haven't even offered terms to refuse or accept for some of us.  If you want us to keep lobbing nukes at you while we take much less dmg than we inflict, be my guest.  You want to keep us in perma-war because you can't figure out what to do with NPO?  Then come out and say it.

 

May the Ramirius be with you.

 

On that note, it's funny that TOPsphere continues to take damage (at least the minority not in peace mode) while IRON can grow stronger as well as Aztec and other outside alliances that aren't big fans of TOPsphere.

You're a terrible victim, and a terrible loser. There is no Perma-War. Hell, we've been at war, what, two months? Try fighting for two years and then let's talk Perma-War. Kids these days. Can't handle actual wars. 

 

Lastly, taking less damage? Good one. Then why are you even here begging for an out? Go back to winning, winner.

[FlogYou]

Here's to wishing me and mine a happy levelling of you and yours this holidays season!

[Pingu]

Here's to wishing me and mine a happy levelling of you and yours this holidays season!

I think we can all drink to that.

[Mogar]

I think we can all drink to that.

hear hear! may all of your ground attacks ring true, except those against me!

[Dochartaigh]

The issue that resulted in the escalation of the XX front was the absence of any peace terms being offered to NPO to end this war, or any indication of the terms that would (eventually) be offered. To argue our front should be peaced out individually while using a coalition approach to warfare against our ally seems contradictory, and a convenient way to blame the defensive side for their unwillingness to agree to terms despite no terms being presented to NPO. Rather than being a point of pride, there is good reason for NPO's allies to be sceptical of this approach given the types of terms that have been talked about, and the track record of some of those at war with NPO.

 

No indication? It has been what? A month and a half? Damn, y'all expecting terms the week after the first DoW or something... 

 

"Hey guys, NATO is continuing to stick up for their allies. They must be blind sheep whose will hasn't been broken yet. They're such a problem."

Their position is an entirely respectable one: They're not going to kick their allies to the curb and watch you and yours level them.

 

That is fine. Then NATO will get their teeth kicked in as well. Makes no difference, but yes it in fact prolongs the war. What y'all don't understand is that if we are going to have to kick all your sides teeth in, then the war will take longer. So yes, you are in fact holding up the war. Just cuz your side does not want to peace separately does not mean our side is holding up the process, it means that now, we have to do the whole negotiation thing that Pingu ranted on about. 

 

So, y'all could have taken separate peace and then NPO would have gotten peace at some point but instead, we now have to negotiate through a lot more alliances. Ones annoyed that your side just won't go along with any other peace than "one size fits all" bullshit.

[kerschbs]

 

No indication? It has been what? A month and a half? Damn, y'all expecting terms the week after the first DoW or something... 

 

 

That is fine. Then NATO will get their teeth kicked in as well. Makes no difference, but yes it in fact prolongs the war. What y'all don't understand is that if we are going to have to kick all your sides teeth in, then the war will take longer. So yes, you are in fact holding up the war. Just cuz your side does not want to peace separately does not mean our side is holding up the process, it means that now, we have to do the whole negotiation thing that Pingu ranted on about. 

 

So, y'all could have taken separate peace and then NPO would have gotten peace at some point but instead, we now have to negotiate through a lot more alliances. Ones annoyed that your side just won't go along with any other peace than "one size fits all" !@#$%^&*.

 

You honestly expect allies of NPO/NG/NSO to peace out early before they know what type of terms their allies are going to receive? We all came in to defend our allies, doesn't make much sense to leave them out to dry. I know your government far too well to believe that any of you would do this to your allies, so to suggest it of us is pretty farcical. 

Edited December 23, 2013 by kerschbs

[Starfox101]

There haven't been unfair terms in a long time. Let's all stop pretending it's 2008, yeah?

[The Zigur]

Some of us are smart enough to realize that if NPO gets their terms and accepts, that then the other fronts will immediately want to peace out, enabling a de facto coalition peace. That is unacceptable.

 

Of course, I suppose it could be arranged so the last front to cooperate gets the long war and harsh terms. I wonder how quick people would be to bite the bullet for Pacifica then.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Tywin Lannister

[Rayvon]

Some of us are smart enough ...

Obviously not talking about yourself, shouldn't you be muzzled or some shit?

[Auctor]

Some of us are smart enough to realize that if NPO gets their terms and accepts, that then the other fronts will immediately want to peace out, enabling a de facto coalition peace. That is unacceptable.

 

Of course, I suppose it could be arranged so the last front to cooperate gets the long war and harsh terms. I wonder how quick people would be to bite the bullet for Pacifica then.

 

 

This is 2013. Worst anyone is going to do is release the Tickle Monster.

[Starfox101]

 

 

This is 2013. Worst anyone is going to do is release the Tickle Monster.

Or perhaps...even worse...

 

We might force them to pay...

 

[The Zigur]

 

 

This is 2013. Worst anyone is going to do is release the Tickle Monster.

 

It's more fun when they whine about how they are about to be oppressed like we were back in the day.

[WarriorSoul]

 

It's more fun when they whine about how they are about to be oppressed like we were back in the day.

 

Please. Please, just stop. No one's crying about how oppressed they are, just trying to make sense of how alliances like NATO, TIO, ODN, et al. are expected to take peace and watch NPO get their teeth kicked in. It's ridiculous.

 

Additionally, you talk really tough for having done less across the course of a war than we have in about a week and a half. But I mean, hey, you're really proficient and swinging way above your weight class, so don't let me stop you.

[The Zigur]

 

Please. Please, just stop. No one's crying about how oppressed they are, just trying to make sense of how alliances like NATO, TIO, ODN, et al. are expected to take peace and watch NPO get their teeth kicked in. It's ridiculous.

 

Additionally, you talk really tough for having done less across the course of a war than we have in about a week and a half. But I mean, hey, you're really proficient and swinging way above your weight class, so don't let me stop you.

 

Having your NS drop like a rock in a week is not a sign of doing well. More important is decisively engaging for strategic reasons to assist in a coalition victory. That's what HB did when we oA'd against NoR.