Commander shepard Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 War started 2/11? If you say so, okay. But for the rest of us, it started about a month earlier. War started on the 21st for a lot of alliances on that front, 21 days earlier. 21 days into a 64 day war for a lot of alliance on that front, less than third of the way into a war is hardly coming out late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerschbs Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 A nation staying in peace mode as of right now is facing the penalty given that these nations have been there for quite some time. No one forced those nations into the penalty phase, you seem quite happy to have them there, but yet you want to cry about the economic penalties when you have already caused the damage yourselves? Get a clue, we are not responsible for your 50%, you are and the longer the war goes on at your insistence the greater their self-imposed penalty becomes. What a ridiculous argument. Having an economic penalty during a war is obviously not the same as having it forced upon you once the war is over. Besides that they are arguing that the loss of aid from the forced peace mode duration is more damaging than the actual loss of income, because they need those aid slots to rebuild their lower and middle tiers who have taken a pounding in this war (alongside the majority of their upper tier as well.) I hope you don't actually believe this crock of shit you guys are using as an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 It will also mean that alliances know earlier than later that their treaties aren't worth the paper they are written with for certain conflicts. Certain? :huh: 20 billion Mogars in GPA. Whatever. My heart missed a beat. Please never do it again, please?(I will not say if it's fear or excitement... :P) [ooc] While I wouldn't touch the subject of peace terms for this specific conflict with a ten miles pole, I think that everyone should care not to harm the hopes and the chances of development of the small and new nations of our world, no matter the side they currently reside into. There are many ways to take care of the problem and to still achieve whatever strategic/politic goal anyone may have: just please don't go the quick and lazy route that disregards the fun of the new players, thank you. [/ooc] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) War started on the 21st for a lot of alliances on that front, 21 days earlier. 21 days into a 64 day war for a lot of alliance on that front, less than third of the way into a war is hardly coming out late. He came in after missing a third of the war, at which point the front no longer had the resources to stagger him. He declared some wars from DBDC, then went back to PM. Which exactly fits with what I said "Came out late, was let back to PM" and me not counting him among the 35 that were staggered. Course you keep thinking you know better than this, because you glanced at the page. So, first you insist that my description was inaccurate because he wasn't staggered. Now it is that joining 21 days wasn't late after all? For those actually curious, during that time Lum went from 800 tech more to 2k tech less then Genland, leaving Genland in a tier of his own (along with 2 Tootr's). So I would absolutely say that those 21 days, or a third of the war mattered. (Also, if you want to count accurately, you should do it from when TOP joined the war, but that really doesn't matter for the point..) So far you keep making claims that are demonstrably false about what happened at the time, while saying what I said was inaccurate in describing exactly what happened. I'm not really sure what your issue with reality is, but you are obviously beyond facts or reason. Edited January 7, 2014 by hartfw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) So, first you insist that my description was inaccurate because he wasn't staggered. Now it is that joining 21 days wasn't late after all? So far you keep making claims that are demonstrably false about what happened at the time, while saying what I said was inaccurate in describing exactly what happened. I'm not really sure what your issue with reality is, but you are obviously beyond facts or reason. "So, first you insist that my description was inaccurate because he wasn't staggered." No I didn't insist or mention that at all, I imagine that was your assumption though. Your idea of late is different than mine. I wonder if an alliance exited a war after 21 days and the global war was to last 64 days, would that be an early exit or a late exit. Edited January 7, 2014 by Commander shepard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Certain? :huh: I can dream can't I?It would simplify things for us who don't follow backchan chatter and rumours... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 "So, first you insist that my description was inaccurate because he wasn't staggered." No I didn't insist or mention that at all, I imagine that was your assumption though. Your idea of late is different that mine. I wonder if an alliance exited a war after 21 days and the global war was to last 64 days, would that be an early exit or a late exit. If an alliance defended its ally 3 weeks after it was hit, I'd consider them late. If a girl told me she was three weeks late, I'd panic at least a little... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) If an alliance defended its ally 3 weeks after it was hit, I'd consider them late. If a girl told me she was three weeks late, I'd panic at least a little... That's because they would be expected to response immediately and in a quick time frame. Peace mode tactics in relation to war are a totally different aspect of the game, I don't expect someone to take all peace mode nations out immediately at the sight of war. It's why peace mode is in relation to the length of the war. Edited January 7, 2014 by Commander shepard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 "So, first you insist that my description was inaccurate because he wasn't staggered." No I didn't insist or mention that at all, I imagine that was your assumption though. Your idea of late is different than mine. I wonder if an alliance exited a war after 21 days and the global war was to last 64 days, would that be an early exit or a late exit. So, 21 or 22 days in, during a time frame with 3k in tech lost for similar nations wasn't late. As always, more insight into the IRON view of Eq is interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Oh yeah, and back to MisterBlack for peace on this war, sorry for delaying your efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Yeah, it doesn’t take much thinking about my alliance. The message for weeks has been that NPO is prolonging the war by not allowing itself to be isolated. The word was terms were coming, but the TOP side couldn’t decide/agree what to ask for. Y’all came up with the current “unofficial” terms, which are kind of cute/novel in the way they’re topical to the circumstances, but are completely incidental to the already existing intention to demand terms on NPO. And now the message seems to be that Polar has met its goals, but needs to keep the war going to respect the objectives of its coalition mates, and can’t dictate to its coalition when it’s time to call it quits. All I’m saying is that this all seems more pertinent to the status of peace talks than the purpose of banks. I can only assume that "the message" came from the lips of Farrin. While I cannot fault you for assuming that your government would not lie to you, the fervor with which you regurgitate his word is somewhat sad. However, given the nature of your community---one of which I was a part, long ago---it is not surprising. Edited January 7, 2014 by Crymson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrJLa Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I can only assume that "the message" comes from the lips of Farrin. While I cannot fault you for assuming that your government would not lie to you, the fervor with which you regurgitate his word is somewhat sad. Given the nature of your community, however---one of which I was a part long ago---it is not surprising. No, I actually understand now I had it wrong. I was combining a few different things, but particularly Polar's suggestions that they weren't necessarily pushing for terms, but it's what their coalition demands and they don't command their coalition. I was attributing the push for terms as coming from TOP, but understand now that it's a broader contingent who feel that NPO must pay. It changes the wording of what I've said slightly, but the form of the terms is still incidental to the intention to extract terms, and making NPO pay is the only continuing purpose of the war. Why and how much NPO has to pay is the real question, and the form of the payment is incidental. That is, the intention to make NPO pay came before the form of the payment was determined, and the Polar coalition would be seeking another way to make NPO pay if they hadn't settled on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 The misuse of terminology doesn't 'highlight even more how false the claim is' when the misuse was in trying to say 'an estimate of 20 billion' whatever .. The 'whatever' term is what was mistakenly being used, the value is what is really being discussed. 20 billion reps. 20 billion punitive damages. 20 billion Mogars in GPA. Whatever. Mogars for every alliance as terms! Certain? :huh: My heart missed a beat. Please never do it again, please?(I will not say if it's fear or excitement... :P) [ooc] While I wouldn't touch the subject of peace terms for this specific conflict with a ten miles pole, I think that everyone should care not to harm the hopes and the chances of development of the small and new nations of our world, no matter the side they currently reside into. There are many ways to take care of the problem and to still achieve whatever strategic/politic goal anyone may have: just please don't go the quick and lazy route that disregards the fun of the new players, thank you. [/ooc] with me AND stewie, GPA would start tech raiding and take down those evil neutrals in WTF within a week. I can dream can't I? It would simplify things for us who don't follow backchan chatter and rumours... my main reasoning for liking the idea is actually exactly that, link to the treaty and presto you have the coalition you're in or against! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerdge Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 with me AND stewie, GPA would start tech raiding and take down those evil neutrals in WTF within a week. After reading this I felt a great disturbance in Neutrality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister black Posted January 7, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Never try to help here. Also, to address the OP: you don't have the (OOC: game) experience to help in this field. I'd suggest learning how the politics around here work just a bit better. Study under a veteran alliance leader in a less-connected alliance, if available. e: By veteran, I mean for a couple of years they've had gov experience. Preferably pick an alliance with about ~1m NS and four or five treaties. Make friends with gov members of that alliance as a diplomat, they'll be glad to answer questions about politics. Connections make you in this game. Hmm funny you say that as I am a returning veteran of cn. First nation in 2008. I was apart of SE until they merged with cpcn to form the international. I helped form sons of aiur with king knon. Also was in noon amazon nation Carthage ROK and a few others ............. very experienced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Hmm funny you say that as I am a returning veteran of cn. First nation in 2008. I was apart of SE until they merged with cpcn to form the international. I helped form sons of aiur with king knon.Also was in noon amazon nation Carthage ROK and a few others ............. very experienced.Then you should know that they won't let you negotiate. Simply being here doesn't make you a political veteran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auctor Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Then you should know that they won't let you negotiate. Simply being here doesn't make you a political veteran. Speak for yourself! You're just mad you didn't come up with this idea first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 As I understand it, The Polar coalition has offered the following: White peace to all alliance in the NSO coalition except NPO and NG. NG must pay 6 million??? In reparation (I assume for Lolz purposes) NPO = No official offer yet? Polar coalition still debating what to do with NPO? Any official representative from Polar coalition can confirm or deny this? If it’s the latter, to clear the air, post here what the official offer is/are? If there is any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik Shabazz Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Compared to EQ, this has been a pretty boring war. EQ had drama, animosity, build up, and everything else; this war is just meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krzyzewskiville Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I can only assume that "the message" came from the lips of Farrin. While I cannot fault you for assuming that your government would not lie to you, the fervor with which you regurgitate his word is somewhat sad. However, given the nature of your community---one of which I was a part, long ago---it is not surprising. Nope. "The message" came from the lips of several alliances in the Gang of Eight in the Optional Aggression Coalition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Any official representative from Polar coalition can confirm or deny this? No, that's what private channels are for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) A nation staying in peace mode as of right now is facing the penalty given that these nations have been there for quite some time. No one forced those nations into the penalty phase, you seem quite happy to have them there, but yet you want to cry about the economic penalties when you have already caused the damage yourselves? Get a clue, we are not responsible for your 50%, you are and the longer the war goes on at your insistence the greater their self-imposed penalty becomes. Has anyone claimed you are responsible for the 50% currently?The topic under discussion is a possible extension of 50% collection penalty/no outgoing aid for a few months post war. If that happens, it would indeed be "forced".And, quite obviously, accepting the penalty under a situation of war (where growth and economic transactions across the game have come to a halt, and thus less aid has less of an impact) and accepting the penalty during a time of rebuilding (when everyone else would be aiding their lower tiers, and the NPO would be unable to aid theirs) bears very different cost to benefit calculations. Edited January 7, 2014 by Letum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Nope. "The message" came from the lips of several alliances in the Gang of Eight in the Optional Aggression Coalition. You really do try far too hard. It's a wasted effort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krzyzewskiville Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) You really do try far too hard. It's a wasted effort. We had discussions with Legion and Sparta government (those are the logs I can easily find to confirm) in mid-December, where we were told that the only reason there were no peace talks was because you all needed to get a consensus about the peace terms you were going to offer were. Edited January 7, 2014 by Krzyzewskiville Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dajobo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I was asked where I got the numbers for 9%. I got if from going here - http://www.cybernations.net/about_topics.asp#National_Peace/War_Preference and then doing the maths on an average nation with 12,000 infra. Where did you get the 50% number from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts