Caliph Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 No alliance would ever agree to those terms. NPO is enacting the terms as we speak. It is just a continuation of the current state of affairs, minus the wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Maybe they should stop hiding in PM then. Brace ourselves, it is going to be a long war of NPO in peace mode posts? Edited January 14, 2014 by Commander shepard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir Stukov II Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 This is a world where alliances have paid hundreds of thousands of tech in reps but suddenly requiring nations that have been avoiding damage by staying in peace mode to remain in peace mode for a period after the war is some outrageous and insulting offer that no alliace would ever agree to? Give me an effing break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrJLa Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 The offer is very serious. Pacifica could accept and that front would be done. However, clearly they don't want to accept so the idea is that they try to negotiate with their counterparts to try to bring the numbers in the favor. Once both sides find middle ground then that's that. They are holding up the peace process in the sense that the ball is now in their court to negotiate with their enemies rather than say "we want white peace thanks" when clearly nobody that they're fighting is interested in giving them that. Sure that can be their starting position but in the end both parties will probably need to shift towards the middle. So far we've only been talking about the NPO front. Nearly every other front including the one this thread is about have been offered extremely fair terms. Maybe it's not really like having the only Coke for 100 miles, and your hyperbolic sense of how much leverage you have is the problem? Peace is what should happen. It's what both sides want - which is what your analogy misses. You're trying to sell us something you get to share, and that you want too. The time has come for this war to be wrapped up. But NPO isn't going to pay a ransom in order for the Polar side to allow that to happen. We anticipate that in the future we will likely find ourselves again drawn in to defend an ally on what we know is going to be the losing side, and it's good to establish the expectation now for when we can be made to accept terms in these circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baltus Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Maybe it's not really like having the only Coke for 100 miles, and your hyperbolic sense of how much leverage you have is the problem? Peace is what should happen. It's what both sides want - which is what your analogy misses. You're trying to sell us something you get to share, and that you want too. The time has come for this war to be wrapped up. But NPO isn't going to pay a ransom in order for the Polar side to allow that to happen. We anticipate that in the future we will likely find ourselves again drawn in to defend an ally on what we know is going to be the losing side, and it's good to establish the expectation now for when we can be made to accept terms in these circumstances. The coke bottle thing was an analogy so it isn't perfect. I don't think the problem has anything to do with leverage. Pacifica can only get peace from the alliances they are fighting. I am not fighting NPO and therefore I cannot grant them peace. They have to deal with what Polaris, Sparta, and Co. if they want to get anywhere. That's what I was getting at. And you're right in that you should set up some sort of expectation now for what terms are acceptable. But you haven't actually done so. Let's be real here you guys are losing. The alliances you are fighting are not wanting white peace. They want something to do with Peace Mode. It's crazy you say but what other options do you have right now other than telling everyone how horrible they are. You can continue to say that Polaris is the scum of the earth but you'll need peace from them eventually and there's only one way to get there. And so far NPO has effectively rejected the terms that their enemies have offered and have offered nothing substantial in return. Clearly some members of that front have some sort of goal with these terms and by accepting white peace this war would've been worthless to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link Gaetz Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Interesting how white peace is all the rage at certain times when certain alliances are holding power and everybody is loving it, but somehow white peace has become unpopular at other times. Really, this war has gotten stupider by the day. If I ever leave Planet Bob, it'll be because there's so few likeable alliances around anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Brace ourselves, it is going to be a long war of NPO in peace mode posts? Don't even bother, taking the time to reply to him is more tedious and frustrating than chasing your 4 mth old puppy around the house trying to get it to stop peeing everywhere. Eventually someone will catch up, and he'll get that swift boot across his ass that will remind him to sit and wait his turn at the door next time. We anticipate that in the future we will likely find ourselves again drawn in to defend an ally on what we know is going to be the losing side, and it's good to establish the expectation now for when we can be made to accept terms in these circumstances. Indeed - if Pacifica concedes to this attempt at bullying now, how many other times are you going to be subjected to such treatment for enacting a treaty? Where and when will it stop? Will you ever be allowed to honour a treaty again? Will other alliances be bullied as such [as in, more so than the claimed "target", their friend they're defending] for honouring a treaty? Edited January 14, 2014 by Rayvon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) Clearly some members of that front have some sort of goal with these terms and by accepting white peace this war would've been worthless to them. Gee, call me crazy, but I used to think the very fact of destroying most of an alliances NS was worthwhile enough, lol. Making a nation sit in peace mode for almost 5 months is really awful to even ask. [OOC]You are basically asking a person to quit the game for nearly half a year. Ruining his game experience for that time.[/OOC] I know you think that term is creative, but it's not. It's punitive and ridiculous. Every alliance is using peace mode. Your side has alliances with huge swaths of upper tier in peace mode. If you didn't want NPO putting a few nations into PM, then maybe you shouldn't have used a fabricated CB on NSO to draw NPO into war and instead just attacked NPO with the grudge CB. Many alliances learned this several years ago, that if you want to destroy the NpO you have to attack them directly. If you attack their allies, NpO will just claim they weren't called in and won't defend them and would let their ally burn. If you wanted NPO, you should've just attacked them directly. Your mistake. Edited January 14, 2014 by Steve Buscemi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hornguard Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Gee, call me crazy, but I used to think the very fact of destroying most of an alliances NS was worthwhile enough, lol. Making a nation sit in peace mode for almost 5 months is really awful to even ask. [OOC]You are basically asking a person to quit the game for nearly half a year. Ruining his game experience for that time.[/OOC] I know you think that term is creative, but it's not. It's punitive and ridiculous. Every alliance is using peace mode. Your side has alliances with huge swaths of upper tier in peace mode. If you didn't want NPO putting a few nations into PM, then maybe you shouldn't have used a fabricated CB on NSO to draw NPO into war and instead just attacked NPO with the grudge CB. Many alliances learned this several years ago, that if you want to destroy the NpO you have to attack them directly. If you attack their allies, NpO will just claim they weren't called in and won't defend them and would let their ally burn. If you wanted NPO, you should've just attacked them directly. Your mistake. Though, once you reach a certain point in the game, there isn't a whole lot to do besides bloat your tech stats and move your mars/moon base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) War gives the right of the conquerors to impose any conditions they please upon the vanquished. - Gaius Caesar Edited January 15, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex987 Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 War gives the right of the conquerors to impose any conditions they please upon the vanquished. - Gaius Julius Caesar And that's why we don't speak of Caesar as a philosopher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweeeeet Ronny D Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Gee, call me crazy, but I used to think the very fact of destroying most of an alliances NS was worthwhile enough, lol. Making a nation sit in peace mode for almost 5 months is really awful to even ask. [OOC]You are basically asking a person to quit the game for nearly half a year. Ruining his game experience for that time.[/OOC] I know you think that term is creative, but it's not. It's punitive and ridiculous. Isnt that what they have been doing for the last 2.5 months? If they were ok with doing it for 2.5 months why not do it for another few months, or is the issue because someone else is telling them they have to do it? (note: I dont actually know how long the PM term is suppose to last for) Also per the topic at hand, GOD come on now fight back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunzzz Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 War gives the right of the conquerors to impose any conditions they please upon the vanquished. - Gaius Julius CaesarBut the polar coalition aren't even saying what Caesar said. From what I gather, they just want NPO to either stop whining on the terms presented or offer some terms they find reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Except this isn't a war of survival, its a war with your coalition doing their best to shield NPO's upper tier. I know it's hard for you to understand in Umbrella, since you had Brehon going to bat for you the entire war you lost, but when your alliance is surrounded on all sides by people offering you terms as harsh as are currently on the table, you're fighting a war of survival, and let's be honest, TOP doesn't *really* want peace, it's far better for them to see Polarsphere become useless for next war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Isnt that what they have been doing for the last 2.5 months? If they were ok with doing it for 2.5 months why not do it for another few months, or is the issue because someone else is telling them they have to do it? (note: I dont actually know how long the PM term is suppose to last for) Also per the topic at hand, GOD come on now fight back!This is the dumbest argument anyone has been making fwiw. "Yeah, if you drop a 40 pound weight on your foot and narrowly avoid crushing it, maybe you should drop an 80 pound weight on it! It shouldn't hurt too much more, right?!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 (edited) But the polar coalition aren't even saying what Caesar said. From what I gather, they just want NPO to either stop whining on the terms presented or offer some terms they find reasonable. True, which is why they should be thankful our coalition is being reasonable. Edited January 14, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x Tela x Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 This is the dumbest argument anyone has been making fwiw. "Yeah, if you drop a 40 pound weight on your foot and narrowly avoid crushing it, maybe you should drop an 80 pound weight on it! It shouldn't hurt too much more, right?!" Does NPO even lift, bro? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Does NPO even lift, bro?Under Brehon's fascist regime lifting was mandatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Under Brehon's fascist regime lifting was mandatory. No worries, Polardoxia will bring it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 No worries, Polardoxia will bring it back. I think you'll find it will be Doombirdia that brings aesthetics back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 I think you'll find it will be Doombirdia that brings aesthetics back... Who says Doombirdia can't align with Polardoxia :awesome: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 I know it's hard for you to understand in Umbrella, since you had Brehon going to bat for you the entire war you lost, but when your alliance is surrounded on all sides by people offering you terms as harsh as are currently on the table, you're fighting a war of survival, and let's be honest, TOP doesn't *really* want peace, it's far better for them to see Polarsphere become useless for next war. Polarsphere has regenerative capabilities from so many wars, haven't you learned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jraenar Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 But the polar coalition aren't even saying what Caesar said. From what I gather, they just want NPO to either stop whining on the terms presented or offer some terms they find reasonable.It appears NPO did offer terms they found reasonable. They offered white peace, same as everyone else. Despite all protestations to the contrary, that is a counter-offer. And a far more reasonable offer than the pile of excrement your lot coughed up. True, which is why they should be thankful our coalition is being reasonable.It amazes me how terrible of a poster you are. There is nothing reasonable about your coalition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Who says Doombirdia can't align with Polardoxia :awesome: The fact that Doombirdia is NG-DBDC-DT... I doubt NG will align with the guys currently hitting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 14, 2014 Report Share Posted January 14, 2014 Lol of course NPO "offered" white peace. From someone in their position, thats essentially saying "F off." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts