Neo Uruk Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 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 waryeah, sitting in PM for two years while you are entirely isolated with no treaties is the same kind of resolve we're seeing here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 yeah, sitting in PM for two years while you are entirely isolated with no treaties is the same kind of resolve we're seeing here. What? FAN still exists does it not? NoR has already disbanded twice. Do you really think NoR has more resolve than FAN? Not to mention, this is over NoR surrendering instead of being able to spin how they never lost an individual war later on. (don't say they won't as we have seen it all over the OWF, them saying that they should not surrender because they are "winning" their front) So, it is NoR's resolve to stick it out or our resolve to stick it out. Since they are sitting in PM, I think our resolve is a bit better and more plausible. As others have stated, NoR was an inactive shell of an alliance prior to war and having their member stuck in PM will not help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 (edited) I feel like an admission of defeat is literally losing a war and every one of your points fall flat on their face in context, but ok Doch you win MI6 is right forever Edited February 10, 2014 by Neo Uruk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 I feel like an admission of defeat is literally losing a war and every one of your points fall flat on their face in context, but ok Doch you win MI6 is right forever If that is true, then what is the difference between that and surrendering? Cuz I am not seeing it which begs the question, why is NoR being so intransigent? So, how do my points fall flat on their face mate? All you did was basically state that our side is right in demanding a surrender since it is exactly the same as admitting defeat and thus NoR should have no issue since the two are exactly the same. The only reason why NoR would have an issue with surrendering and not with admitting defeat is that there is a difference between the two terms, which means that my points are spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Vicarious Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 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. I'm merely pointing out that "winning" a war doesn't automatically force an alliance to accept the terms that you set forth for them or give you any leverage against the "losing" alliance. Until you convince them that not being at war is better for them than being at war, they have no reason to take peace. Everyone on that front seems to be surprised that NoR is refusing to surrender. Why would they surrender given their current FA situation and their current activity levels compared to their prewar activity levels? Being at war, even on a losing side, is way more fun for the majority of alliance members than tech dealing at peace is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'm merely pointing out that "winning" a war doesn't automatically force an alliance to accept the terms that you set forth for them or give you any leverage against the "losing" alliance. Until you convince them that not being at war is better for them than being at war, they have no reason to take peace. Everyone on that front seems to be surprised that NoR is refusing to surrender. Why would they surrender given their current FA situation and their current activity levels compared to their prewar activity levels? Being at war, even on a losing side, is way more fun for the majority of alliance members than tech dealing at peace is. Oh I got that a long time ago. Though that has nothing whatsoever to do with my point that the "losers do not dictate terms". The winners dictate terms, which is exactly what you are proposing mate. So, what exactly are you going on about then? NoR has not taken terms, that is fine. We will stay at war with NoR until they take the terms. We can go round and round but in the end, you are simply agreeing with me while trying to actually argue with me. Not exactly sure why. 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 got that a long time ago. Though that has nothing whatsoever to do with my point that the "losers do not dictate terms". The winners dictate terms, which is exactly what you are proposing mate. So, what exactly are you going on about then? NoR has not taken terms, that is fine. We will stay at war with NoR until they take the terms. We can go round and round but in the end, you are simply agreeing with me while trying to actually argue with me. Not exactly sure why. So, in your mind if NoR doesn't ever accept your terms than you haven't beat them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 The fact that you think the difference between surrender and admitting defeat is between winning and losing is really irking me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dochartaigh Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 So, in your mind if NoR doesn't ever accept your terms than you haven't beat them? Lawlz, no. It means NoR is just as idiotic as I suspected them to be. The fact that you think the difference between surrender and admitting defeat is between winning and losing is really irking me Not really but considering what NoR has been stating all over the place, it is what [i]they[/i] think. So why give them even that little bit. Make them surrender, this way in the next war, they can't state that they did not lose since they did not surrender individually. They cannot state that the only "loss" they have is because their side lost. They cannot state that they did more damage to their opponents so they did not lose. (all of this was said in this and other threads by NoR members) So, I would say it is NoR that irks you, not me. This is also, I would wager, one of the main reasons for NoR needing to surrender. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 yeah, sitting in PM for two years while you are entirely isolated with no treaties is the same kind of resolve we're seeing here. The Pocahontas Accords. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Vicarious Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 Lawlz, no. It means NoR is just as idiotic as I suspected them to be. Not really but considering what NoR has been stating all over the place, it is what they think. So why give them even that little bit. Make them surrender, this way in the next war, they can't state that they did not lose since they did not surrender individually. They cannot state that the only "loss" they have is because their side lost. They cannot state that they did more damage to their opponents so they did not lose. (all of this was said in this and other threads by NoR members) So, I would say it is NoR that irks you, not me. This is also, I would wager, one of the main reasons for NoR needing to surrender. So, if we get to a point where the leadership of your alliance and the other alliances fighting NoR and NG decides that an admission of defeat is good enough, then the losers will have dictated terms to the victors, by virtue of the fact that the losing alliances have less to lose than the winning alliances did by continuing the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 The Pocahontas Accords.Ok, they had two allies who had the same scenario going for half of that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CnaedmacAilpn Posted February 10, 2014 Report Share Posted February 10, 2014 So, if we get to a point where the leadership of your alliance and the other alliances fighting NoR and NG decides that an admission of defeat is good enough, then the losers will have dictated terms to the victors, by virtue of the fact that the losing alliances have less to lose than the winning alliances did by continuing the war. Probably sums things up. Lawlz, no. It means NoR is just as idiotic as I suspected them to be. This coming from you is like the pot calling the kettle black Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Ok, they had two allies who had the same scenario going for half of that Which usually makes the best quality allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 Which usually makes the best quality allies.We're speaking of people fighting their way to peace, not quality of allies :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starfox101 Posted February 11, 2014 Report Share Posted February 11, 2014 We're speaking of people fighting their way to peace, not quality of allies :P Indeed. I just wanted to point out that getting beat up together turns you into better friends. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
603Redneck Posted February 18, 2014 Report Share Posted February 18, 2014 So yeah. Sup? 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.