Stewie Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 It's your side that have made first mention of NoR in every thread. So yet again that seems to be in your hands. I am simply amazed how Bob went from "lol at NoR and it's 1 treaty!" To "evil NoR is holding entire spheres across the treaty web in perma-war!" Ebil Nordreich!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krashnaia Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) I am simply amazed how Bob went from "lol at NoR and it's 1 treaty!" To "evil NoR is holding entire spheres across the treaty web in perma-war!" I'm amazed how you are so out of touch with reality, that you don't realize we have never moved from "lol at NoR and it's 1 treaty". Specially since everyone on your side but NPO and NG have already peaced out. Edited February 10, 2014 by Krashnaia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'm amazed how you are so out of touch with reality, that you don't realize we have never moved from "lol at NoR and it's 1 treaty". Specially since everyone on your side but NPO and NG have already peaced out. This thread really has reached the point where I need to crack out this .gif. I admit I was a part of it too, but still... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caladin Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) AfNORistan starts now. We've already had Afgoonistan; AfNORistan sounds a bit unoriginal. Maybe the "War to Resist DOD Aggression and Aid Non Grata" Prizes* to those who get the reference without google *Prizes are imaginary Edited February 10, 2014 by Caladin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 We've already had Afgoonistan; AfNORistan sounds a bit unoriginal. Maybe the "War to Resist DOD Aggression and Aid Non Grata" Prizes* to those who get the reference without google *Prizes are imaginary I'll take your imaginary prize... (War to resist US Aggression and Aid Korea) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caladin Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 Woohoo, you've won a nothing! ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Vicarious Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 Wait, I could have sworn our side made some rather large concessions already. Having an alliance use the word surrender will not be one of them. [b]Yes, remember people. The losers are the ones who gets to dictate terms, not the winners.[/b] This message brought to you by the NSO coalition. Can't wait for any of the alliances from the NSO coalition who dares to ever give anything other than white peace after only a month of war. Talk about the ultimate hypocrisy that would happen if the likes of NSO/NG/NPO did not end the war after a month with full white peace (mind you, it simply has to be coalition wide peace, no individual surrenders now). I love this. Particularly given how they all talk about what would happen if TOP/Polar's side were on the losing end. They can't do !@#$ if our side ever ends up on the losing end, not without looking like what they are. Liars. Hypocritical !@#$%^&*ters. Sore-losers. So on and so forth. When time comes around, and our side does lose, there will be terms. And I will be here to throw every stupid, idiotic word that their ilk dared to utter. All this talk is just utterly worthless. This sentiment comes up a lot. People seem to forget that some alliances on Bob prefer to be at war. While I don't really care if NoR and NG take peace, those of you complaining that a "losing alliance" has the audacity to decide it's own fate forget that sometimes fighting is more fun than endless tech buying. If both sides of a war prefer to keep a war going, why complain that they continue to have fun? NoR has no allies at peace who will be relying on them post war. They have no FA other than NG. They were completely inactive until this war and hemorrhaging members. If NG and NoR want to keep ankle biting for their own enjoyment, you will never be able to force a surrender from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 This sentiment comes up a lot. People seem to forget that some alliances on Bob prefer to be at war. While I don't really care if NoR and NG take peace, those of you complaining that a "losing alliance" has the audacity to decide it's own fate forget that sometimes fighting is more fun than endless tech buying. If both sides of a war prefer to keep a war going, why complain that they continue to have fun? NoR has no allies at peace who will be relying on them post war. They have no FA other than NG. They were completely inactive until this war and hemorrhaging members. If NG and NoR want to keep ankle biting for their own enjoyment, you will never be able to force a surrender from them.The only problem with the scenario is that NPO is tied down by NG/NoR's involvement, which puts a strain on NG to only go as far as NPO is willing to sustain damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yerushalayim Posted February 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 The only problem with the scenario is that NPO is tied down by NG/NoR's involvement, which puts a strain on NG to only go as far as NPO is willing to sustain damage. NPO is constrained by their own request. If they dislike being held at war by their ally, they're welcome to do something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurnipCruncher Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 All of this just shows how stupid accepting peace front by front was. Hell, why not go whole hog and peace out AA by AA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 All of this just shows how stupid accepting peace front by front was. Hell, why not go whole hog and peace out AA by AA? But NPO aren't even on the same front as NG... :awesome: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 Why is this still being discussed? NoR isn't accepting peace. They seem happy with it. NPO and NG will hash it out in private channels with coalition leadership, and we will all move on. Eventually, NoR will change their minds, and the situation will be resolved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 NPO is constrained by their own request. If they dislike being held at war by their ally, they're welcome to do something about it.I never suggested otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CnaedmacAilpn Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 Tywin, nobody cares what you think. OMG, Tywin thinks :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 This sentiment comes up a lot. People seem to forget that some alliances on Bob prefer to be at war. While I don't really care if NoR and NG take peace, those of you complaining that a "losing alliance" has the audacity to decide it's own fate forget that sometimes fighting is more fun than endless tech buying. If both sides of a war prefer to keep a war going, why complain that they continue to have fun? NoR has no allies at peace who will be relying on them post war. They have no FA other than NG. They were completely inactive until this war and hemorrhaging members. If NG and NoR want to keep ankle biting for their own enjoyment, you will never be able to force a surrender from them. Oh I get it mate. At the same time, does not matter whether they love or hate war. Losers can negotiate but in the end, it is the winners who dictate the terms and how gracious they wish to be. This is not just about NoR and surrendering, their side has been all about the losers dictating terms (from white peace for every one to coalition wide peace, not a front by front peace). Tis kewl though, said somewhere else that all of that talk will come to bite them in the ass the moment they win a war. Cuz the moment that NSO/NG/NPO win a war and they do not white peace the entire coalition after a single month of war, they will only show themselves to be the hypocritical bullshitting liars they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Oh I get it mate. At the same time, does not matter whether they love or hate war. Losers can negotiate but in the end, it is the winners who dictate the terms and how gracious they wish to be. This is not just about NoR and surrendering, their side has been all about the losers dictating terms (from white peace for every one to coalition wide peace, not a front by front peace). Tis kewl though, said somewhere else that all of that talk will come to bite them in the ass the moment they win a war. Cuz the moment that NSO/NG/NPO win a war and they do not white peace the entire coalition after a single month of war, they will only show themselves to be the hypocritical !@#$%^&*ting liars they are. NG & NPO didn't hold FARK at war when they aggressively attacked during grudge. IIRC everthing was quite cordial and we ended the war with straight admission of defeat - No Surrender. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=108580 Edited February 10, 2014 by Stewie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 But NPO aren't even on the same front as NG... :awesome: They're on the RAGE front together! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 NG & NPO didn't hold FARK at war when they aggressively attacked during grudge. IIRC everthing was quite cordial and we ended the war with straight admission of defeat - No Surrender. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=108580 You keep bringing up that one example and fail to bring into account the multitudes of other alliances on that front. Much like y'all keep bringing up how NPO was the one who gave white peace in eQ but fail to mention how it was NPO who tried to get Umbrella terms without actually discussing it with the rest of the coalition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 You keep bringing up that one example and fail to bring into account the multitudes of other alliances on that front. Much like y'all keep bringing up how NPO was the one who gave white peace in eQ but fail to mention how it was NPO who tried to get Umbrella terms without actually discussing it with the rest of the coalition. NG was on the other side of the eQ coalition so you can't tar NG with the eQ brush. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) "a single month of war"just lol Edited February 10, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Vicarious Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 Oh I get it mate. At the same time, does not matter whether they love or hate war. Losers can negotiate but in the end, it is the winners who dictate the terms and how gracious they wish to be. This is not just about NoR and surrendering, their side has been all about the losers dictating terms (from white peace for every one to coalition wide peace, not a front by front peace). Tis kewl though, said somewhere else that all of that talk will come to bite them in the ass the moment they win a war. Cuz the moment that NSO/NG/NPO win a war and they do not white peace the entire coalition after a single month of war, they will only show themselves to be the hypocritical !@#$%^&*ting liars they are. I don't think you do. The person who sets the terms is the person who has the most amount of resolve and will to continue fighting. The person who cares more about ending the war is the one who accepts the terms. Fark accepted terms from NPO et al at the end of Grudge/Our Unholy War because we made a decision that backing our allies and going after MK in future conflicts was more important to us than continuing with the war. I don't really know what would have happened if NPO had tried to force FAN to surrender to them, as the admission of defeat was almost a poison pill for that peace. You have to have leverage to dictate peace terms. While the side that "wins" usually has that leverage, you are now seeing a counter example. NoR has no ties to Pacifica. NoR has no ties to anyone aside from NG. NoR has not activity outside of war time. Supposedly their community was all but dead before this war kicked off. They've already offered to let NG leave the war without them. What leverage do you have that they care about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 NG was on the other side of the eQ coalition so you can't tar NG with the eQ brush. Yeah I remember how that went down too mate. All I am saying is that y'all keep painting NG/NPO with this brush while ignoring the many other alliances who more than likely heavily influenced what NG/NPO did. Like with eQ. NPO would not have given white peace if they had the chance. But the other alliances refused to play into NPO's terms and NPO was forced into white peace. I would wager that NG/NPO had something similar with FARK/FAN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RevolutionaryRebel Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 "Oh, those blasted folk, refusing to follow the domino trend! We'll force them to do what we want and peace out like we want them to! Yeah, we're totally the good guys and they're the only ones engaging in propaganda in the OWF!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 I don't think you do. The person who sets the terms is the person who has the most amount of resolve and will to continue fighting. The person who cares more about ending the war is the one who accepts the terms. Fark accepted terms from NPO et al at the end of Grudge/Our Unholy War because we made a decision that backing our allies and going after MK in future conflicts was more important to us than continuing with the war. I don't really know what would have happened if NPO had tried to force FAN to surrender to them, as the admission of defeat was almost a poison pill for that peace. You have to have leverage to dictate peace terms. While the side that "wins" usually has that leverage, you are now seeing a counter example. NoR has no ties to Pacifica. NoR has no ties to anyone aside from NG. NoR has not activity outside of war time. Supposedly their community was all but dead before this war kicked off. They've already offered to let NG leave the war without them. What leverage do you have that they care about? Really? FAN had plenty of resolve in vietFAN and the only reason they got white peace was that NPO was forced to because NPO lost a war. Resolve has only so much to go with. As for leverage, an alliance that is sitting with 3/4ths of their alliance in PM has next to no leverage. Their members will get bored and either delete or possibly come out of PM and get stomped into the ground. Either way, if you think NoR has any amount of leverage here, you are deluding yourself. I have been on the losing side and winning side of wars. I have accepted terms I would rather not have for various reasons. And again, NoR barely has any activity right now. Not sure you actually know what is going on here mate. NoR has no leverage. Most of their alliance is in PM so either they will wither in there and kill their community again. Or their nations will come out of PM and get stomped into the ground repeatedly. There is nothing NoR can do to change the terms other than possibly bore our side to tears. Even then, they have to hope we simply forget about them over the next few weeks as we use their entire alliance as a tech raiding farm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) Mr Vicarious raises an interesting point about wartime activity, but the inactivity they have experienced prior to the war is a fault of leadership: people get bored when there is no mission or sense of purpose, not because there is no war. Holding themselves at war deliberately may encourage some activity, but doesnt promote the growth of power and influence for the alliance. Also, over a period of time people quit when there seems to be no hope for victory. The best thing to do is get peace and start working towards post-war goals and internal improvements for activity. Continuing to "fight" aka hide in peace mode is a lazy and not very effective way to promote activity. Edited February 10, 2014 by Tywin Lannister 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.