Jump to content

Declaration of War from the Viridian Entente


Goldie

Recommended Posts

So just for argument's sake, as posited - say NPO's top tier came out. Methax, Cdr Bean and I hit them when they pop their heads up. DBDC attacks us on behalf of NG for NPO? Is that what you're saying?
 
Do you really think that will happen?

Only one way to find out? Let the games begin!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 447
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nobody tell him

[spoiler](That would mean there are less)[/spoiler]

I dunno, its easier for me to say "everyone but Hereno and people to listen to him" because I can't think of anyone who listens to him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, its easier for me to say "everyone but Hereno and people to listen to him" because I can't think of anyone who listens to him.

I mean I guess that could be easier than typing "Hereno" (he's probably not the only one to think it but I'm not gonna get into that) if you have some kind of fetish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

I think there are some faulty assumptions here.  First, you say we should set the expectation what terms are acceptable but we haven't actually done so.  We have.  It's white peace.  That's the expectation of what's acceptable.  When NPO, or any alliance, comes in on a treaty to defend an ally they know is on the side that's going to lose, that's the reasonable expectation.  The expectation that we'll cave to terms when we're called upon to join the losing side is not acceptable.  We don't have Tywin Lannister's commitment to only joining the side we know is going to win.  I would understand it if we were central to the CB, or if we'd actually been beaten.  But if we're going to be singled out as the prize that got others to join the winning coalition, we're going to have to actually be beaten before we quit.

 

Second, our other option is to continue fighting.  We don't need peace from them any more than they need peace from us.  We don't want peace any worse than they do, certainly not judging by the declarations coming from each side.  TOP can stay in peace mode.  Polar's lower tiers can keep taking a beating.  And, as Caliph says, we'll let the terms play out this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So just for argument's sake, as posited - say NPO's top tier came out. Methax, Cdr Bean and I hit them when they pop their heads up. DBDC attacks us on behalf of NG for NPO? Is that what you're saying?
 
Do you really think that will happen?


No. Why would DBDC hit alliances not hitting NG?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I think there are some faulty assumptions here.  First, you say we should set the expectation what terms are acceptable but we haven't actually done so.  We have.  It's white peace.  That's the expectation of what's acceptable.  When NPO, or any alliance, comes in on a treaty to defend an ally they know is on the side that's going to lose, that's the reasonable expectation.  The expectation that we'll cave to terms when we're called upon to join the losing side is not acceptable.  We don't have Tywin Lannister's commitment to only joining the side we know is going to win.  I would understand it if we were central to the CB, or if we'd actually been beaten.  But if we're going to be singled out as the prize that got others to join the winning coalition, we're going to have to actually be beaten before we quit.

 

Second, our other option is to continue fighting.  We don't need peace from them any more than they need peace from us.  We don't want peace any worse than they do, certainly not judging by the declarations coming from each side.  TOP can stay in peace mode.  Polar's lower tiers can keep taking a beating.  And, as Caliph says, we'll let the terms play out this way.

You think it's acceptable, we don't. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't mind continuing to have your teeth kicked in. We're ready and waiting for when you see the light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You think it's acceptable, we don't. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you don't mind continuing to have your teeth kicked in. We're ready and waiting for when you see the light.

 

Yeah, here's the thing - we're not getting our teeth kicked in.  Getting your teeth kicked in hurts a lot, and leaves you with fewer teeth.  We're losing pixels.  That doesn't hurt nearly as much. 

 

 

You all have been going on about how you're kicking in teeth, while insisting that the teeth-kicking means TIO and NATO have to peace out, and that NPO has to accept terms, and now that NPO has to present a counter-offer.  You all haven't really been kicking in teeth, or anything close to it.

Edited by BrJLa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or from, you know, the sidelines . . .

We've been out of the war a month and a half and are still top 12 in damage dealt and taken as an alliance with 80 members. I'd say that's more damning to most people who are still in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've been out of the war a month and a half and are still top 12 in damage dealt and taken as an alliance with 80 members. I'd say that's more damning to most people who are still in it.

no doubt, everyone's half assed it this war instead of just 80% of everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people who are saying NPO's counter offer isn't unreasonable because our coalition's initial offer was unreasonable are funny. In the end, the winning side gets to dictate terms, therefore in the end, they get to determine what is reasonable and unreasonable. It's just a matter of beating the NPO/NO side into submission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

 

Why would DBDC help the NPO?

Because a ton of people on their side have got a fantasy in their head where Cuba rallies his forces and crushes everyone on our side, while they revel in their victory.

 

 

TOP can stay in peace mode.  Polar's lower tiers can keep taking a beating.  And, as Caliph says, we'll let the terms play out this way.

First off, no Pacifican can complain about TOP in peace mode, considering only 11 of their top 30 are in peace mode, while NPO has 43 out of their top 50 in peace mode. 

 

Secondly, the damage to lower tier nations is incredibly easy to rebuild. Take one to two aid packages and you are better off from where you started after 4-5 wars. It's not really a massive alliance wide problem unless our upper and mid tiers were to be wiped out completely. If you think beating on some small nations will influence terms, well, I have some bad news for you...

 

 

Yeah, here's the thing - we're not getting our teeth kicked in.  Getting your teeth kicked in hurts a lot, and leaves you with fewer teeth.  We're losing pixels.  That doesn't hurt nearly as much. 

 

 

You all have been going on about how you're kicking in teeth, while insisting that the teeth-kicking means TIO and NATO have to peace out, and that NPO has to accept terms, and now that NPO has to present a counter-offer.  You all haven't really been kicking in teeth, or anything close to it.

Okay, your teeth aren't being kicked in. Let's keep fighting then and stop discussing how you think our peace terms are unfair in every single thread. 

 

I don't understand someone who claims he doesn't want peace because he is kicking ass, but simultaneously cries about not receiving fair peace terms. Either play the victim, or pretend you are the Ultimate Warrior. You can't be both.

Edited by Starfox101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't understand someone who claims he doesn't want peace because he is kicking ass, but simultaneously cries about not receiving fair peace terms. Either play the victim, or pretend you are the Ultimate Warrior. You can't be both.

There are explanations for why we're not interested in the terms, and explanations for why you're no where close to making us accept them.  I don't see the two as incompatible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...