Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) To be honest, I personally just see it for what it is: a sign that your coalition is not yet defeated to the point where it is ready to seriously discuss peace. Instead, we are witness to the use of cheap theatrics and drama stunts at the negotiating table. I simply wish my own coalition would adjust and stop entertaining this notion that we should discuss peace terms with petulant children. I'm glad we agree. Send us some serious negotiators and recall your children. While we're at it.. some new content other than the same rehash you've been iterating since this announcement would also be nice.*insert additional meaningless rhetoric and goading here* Edited January 31, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crymson Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 I've been playing Cybernations for more than seven years, and I believe this is the first time I've seen the leader of a major alliance take to the OWF to openly grouse about in-process peace terms discussions. \m/ did it, as did, I believe, the original GOONS, but this was because they were given terms that were well in excess of objectively ludicrous. Ah, well. Bad news, members of Pacifica: you're in the hands of a fool Emperor, one who seems to believe that the universe legitimately owes him better than he's getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) @Crymson: 16k to 1k. You sure didn't prove you deserve to put these terms on us. I practically incinerated your hapless nation. So you definitely didn't earn the right. Every time you assert you have some sort of right to do it, I'm going to remind you of that war. Edited January 31, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 @Crymson: 16k to 1k. You sure didn't prove you deserve to put these terms on us. I practically incinerated your hapless nation. So you definitely didn't earn the right. Every time you assert you have some sort of right to do it, I'm going to remind you of that war. There's a significant difference in winning an individual battle and winning a war. Good on you, finding a silver lining in your alliance's crushing political defeat though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 @Crymson: 16k to 1k. You sure didn't prove you deserve to put these terms on us. I practically incinerated your hapless nation. So you definitely didn't earn the right. Every time you assert you have some sort of right to do it, I'm going to remind you of that war. So if we trashed two or more NPO nations does that cancel it out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) To be honest, I personally just see it for what it is: a sign that your coalition is not yet defeated to the point where it is ready to seriously discuss peace. Instead, we are witness to the use of cheap theatrics and drama stunts at the negotiating table. I simply wish my own coalition would adjust and stop entertaining this notion that we should discuss peace terms with petulant children. Farrin has been seriously discussing peace and completely in good faith and his last offer was more than reasonable. TOP are the ones who are ungrateful victors. Keeping everyone at war so you could get 9 more days of blood-reps from NPO. When is enough enough, TOP? I get the feeling that Farrin could've countered with a offer higher than your offer and you'd have still turned it down and requested even more, lol. I don't think you are negotiating in good faith and prefer just to keep the war going as long as you can. Edited January 31, 2014 by Steve Buscemi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 @Crymson: 16k to 1k. You sure didn't prove you deserve to put these terms on us. I practically incinerated your hapless nation. So you definitely didn't earn the right. Every time you assert you have some sort of right to do it, I'm going to remind you of that war. You're reaching man, like Stretch Armstrong level reaching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 @Crymson: 16k to 1k. You sure didn't prove you deserve to put these terms on us. I practically incinerated your hapless nation. So you definitely didn't earn the right. Every time you assert you have some sort of right to do it, I'm going to remind you of that war. If only your alliance, allies, and coalition mates were as great of a warrior as you then yall would have won this war! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Farrin has been seriously discussing peace and completely in good faith and his last offer was more than reasonable. TOP are the ones who are ungrateful victors. Keeping everyone at war so you could get 9 more days of blood-reps from NPO. When is enough enough, TOP? I get the feeling that Farrin could've countered with a offer higher than your offer and you'd have still turned it down and requested even more, lol. I don't think you are negotiating in good faith and prefer just to keep the war going as long as you can. This is what I was talking about! I love the singular focus you have going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 This is what I was talking about! I love the singular focus you have going on. When everyone else is completely fine with white peace....accept you. Yes, you will get most of the blame for holding the war up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 When everyone else is completely fine with white peace....accept you. Yes, you will get most of the blame for holding the war up. You have no idea what you are talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opportunity Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Either TOP/NpO are going to get rolled hard in the future for doing this or they are going to white peace out. That's reality. Suck on it for a bitter minute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feanor Noldorin Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 When everyone else is completely fine with white peace....accept you. Yes, you will get most of the blame for holding the war up. Prove it. :Colbert: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sardonic Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Either TOP/NpO are going to get rolled hard in the future for doing this or they are going to white peace out. That's reality. Suck on it for a bitter minute. OK thanks, duly noted, got any other prophecies oh wise sage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opportunity Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 OK thanks, duly noted, got any other prophecies oh wise sage? That's pretty much it. I personally think NPO should just keep the war going for a few more months until TOP/Polar fall apart and start losing support until they have no choice but to white peace out. A world of smoldering ash, if you will. However, if NPO accepts the terms and the war comes to an end, there is no doubt in my mind that NPO will build a revenge coalition in the future and there will be dirty, dirty paypack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IYIyTh Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 That's pretty much it. I personally think NPO should just keep the war going for a few more months until TOP/Polar fall apart and start losing support until they have no choice but to white peace out. A world of smoldering ash, if you will. However, if NPO accepts the terms and the war comes to an end, there is no doubt in my mind that NPO will build a revenge coalition in the future and there will be dirty, dirty paypack. Oh. You don't say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 That's pretty much it. I personally think NPO should just keep the war going for a few more months until TOP/Polar fall apart and start losing support until they have no choice but to white peace out. A world of smoldering ash, if you will. However, if NPO accepts the terms and the war comes to an end, there is no doubt in my mind that NPO will build a revenge coalition in the future and there will be dirty, dirty paypack. the problem with this theory is AZTEC has more ties to the Polar coalition than to Pacifica's, in which case dragging this out longer only helps Polar and doesnt really do anything to assist those in your coalition besides making it easier to curbstomp you next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 That's pretty much it. I personally think NPO should just keep the war going for a few more months until TOP/Polar fall apart and start losing support until they have no choice but to white peace out. A world of smoldering ash, if you will. However, if NPO accepts the terms and the war comes to an end, there is no doubt in my mind that NPO will build a revenge coalition in the future and there will be dirty, dirty paypack. Will it take them 5 years and result in the total destruction of their "revenge coalition" again too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 There's a significant difference in winning an individual battle and winning a war. Good on you, finding a silver lining in your alliance's crushing political defeat though! I have a lot more than 1.. and I will silence the ones who think they deserve their victory and have lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) So if we trashed two or more NPO nations does that cancel it out? Fraid not, You're not from TOP. Nor are you Crymson. If only your alliance, allies, and coalition mates were as great of a warrior as you then yall would have won this war! A compliment from TOP? Someone hold me whilst I faint.You have the advantage of your numbers. You needed them. Any alliance who can summon half of bob to help them on old grudges can win a war. That's why everyone already knew the outcome. It doesn't mean you're necessarily worthy of your victory or that you deserve to make demands. Edited January 31, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Will it take them 5 years and result in the total destruction of their "revenge coalition" again too?5 years? What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daenerys Targaryen Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 NPO's meat sheilds are really holding up the war. I suspect its the usual lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trimm Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 Fraid not, You're not from TOP. Nor are you Crymson. A compliment from TOP? Someone hold me whilst I faint.You have the advantage of your numbers. You needed them. Any alliance who can summon half of bob to help them on old grudges can win a war. That's why everyone already knew the outcome. It doesn't mean you're necessarily worthy of your victory or that you deserve to make demands. Worthy? Deserve? Are you high? This is politics. And, as a famous scholar once said, War is an extension of politics by other means. Your side lost. The other side won, and is attempting to leverage that victory to accomplish a political goal. It has literally zero to do with worthiness or deservedness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) Worthy? Deserve? Are you high?This is politics. And, as a famous scholar once said, War is an extension of politics by other means. Your side lost. The other side won, and is attempting to leverage that victory to accomplish a political goal. It has literally zero to do with worthiness or deservedness. I suppose you're entitled to that opinion. You know people can think differently from you.. and not be wrong. Fascinating concept isn't it? Edited January 31, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 31, 2014 Report Share Posted January 31, 2014 (edited) 5 years? What? 2009-2014. Karma to the Equilibrium War. Edit: Or, more specifically, the time between NPO's defeat and loss of global hegemony, up until the time that they were closest to gaining it back again. Edited January 31, 2014 by Bob Ilyani 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.