Heracles the Great Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Individual surrender terms without any offers to alliances are the first step to eliminating enemy alliances. Who are you kidding? NPO and pretty much every alliance in CN has been willing to offer surrender to individual nations when battling enemy alliances. As soon as I see a thread about alliances engaged in this may back out no strings attached, I'll believe you actually are trying something different. Don't expect us to accept those terms, but it would make me think you actually believe in the nonsense you spout. You missed the point of his post - the OP he quoted said we'd have to ZI him to get rid of him - then he made a play on that sentence, pointing out that we don't want to "get rid of" anyone (preventing them from playing or kicking them out of the game). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Throne Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Only cowards surrender like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobiash Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Lets hope the innocents accept them. Well, any one that does not surrender is not innocent But you are right lets hope everybody who does not want their nation destroy'ed surrender. O/Karma for these very lenient terms! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 [07:17] <enderland[Kronos]> http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=55545[07:20] <Pansy|OffAr> Enderland can I please [07:20] <Pansy|OffAr> oh please let me [07:20] <enderland[Kronos]> no :| [07:20] <enderland[Kronos]> wait wut [07:20] <Pansy|OffAr> okies awesome [07:21] <Pansy|OffAr> we fight on you said no Oh the hypocrisy J/k Ender you know I love you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Oh the hypocrisy J/k Ender you know I love you I could always change my mind (also *inb4* "omg oppressive Karma people zomg*) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magister Agricolarum Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 But you are right lets hope everybody who does not want their nation destroy'ed surrender. I don't particularly want my nation destroyed, but I don't see myself surrendering any time soon. Also, does this sentiment apply to Karma nations as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Individual surrender terms without any offers to alliances are the first step to eliminating enemy alliances. Who are you kidding? NPO and pretty much every alliance in CN has been willing to offer surrender to individual nations when battling enemy alliances. As soon as I see a thread about alliances engaged in this may back out no strings attached, I'll believe you actually are trying something different. Don't expect us to accept those terms, but it would make me think you actually believe in the nonsense you spout. Somehow you've confused change for the better with Karma declaring white peace, or something, for absolutely no reason. Yes surrender terms are a normal part of war, and they are staying that way. The real difference will come with the alliance surrender terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggah Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 You missed the point of his post - the OP he quoted said we'd have to ZI him to get rid of him - then he made a play on that sentence, pointing out that we don't want to "get rid of" anyone (preventing them from playing or kicking them out of the game). You know full well that none of your key targets are going to take terms such as this and we know full well that you aren't offering these terms to those very same people. Nothing has been proven with these terms, because they are similar/identical to terms given in previous wars by the alliances you claim are so awful and oppressive. The one thing you offer that might be considered a step forward is the cap of one month as a PoW. I'd chalk that one up to more of a learning curve than being nice. No one likes to perpetually defend deadwood for months on end because they can't formalize the end of a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I could always change my mind (also *inb4* "omg oppressive Karma people zomg*) Before anyone does, we are joking around and having fun with this war. So Hegemony just don't do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I object to the statement that anyone that doesn't surrender is not innocent. Some of those who do not surrender are simply honoring their word to their allies during a time of war... a noble action, not a cowardly one. Whether or not they surrender immediately has no real bearing on guilt or innocence or ability to make policy in their alliance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shigh707 Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I wait your DoW on me then.No, I just happen to like myself, and my nation has experienced more than yours ever will, so you can call me arrogant if you wish, not many are veterans of a fraction of what I've been a part of, nor have they accomplished or experienced what I have, you're the only person who seems to try to get a rise out of me, because I refused to merge my alliance into yours, but continue to try to get a rise out of me if you wish, it's only making you look naive. ah. naive. good wording choice mogar. and very ironic considering the circumstances. Also, just to let you know, i have had a nation 3 times as big as yours, so dont sit over there on your moms chair, on your moms computer and in your moms house telling me how much of a veteran your arrogant $@! is. And just because TPF forced you into an AA's gov, doesn't make it your AA. Last i checked IRAN was crying to TPF cuz your original founder left and had root admin on your forums(your OLD forms at that). Second of all, yes did want to have IRAN merge into TFO in the beginning. But. after finding out how much TPF ruled over you guys and how much of a butt puppet you are to TPF i quickly changed my mind. After all like i said b4, you and ducthy had the only note worth nations anyways. And yes i will continue to keep getting rises out of you. its fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsoxbronco1 Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) This war isn't about ZIing people, forcing alliances to disband, or driving people to quit the game. The terms are fair, and though I would personally never take them, that doesn't mean others shouldn't be offered the chance. Edited April 26, 2009 by rsoxbronco1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I respond when people respond to me, it's normally how you converse.Thank you. I'll take alliance wide terms, but you can be sure I'll be at war until every other member nation of my alliance has peace, I don't leave anyone behind. Okay that's fine. I was about to say, that's a bit too diehard. Even OcUK decided to give white peace a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted April 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 You know full well that none of your key targets are going to take terms such as this and we know full well that you aren't offering these terms to those very same people. Nothing has been proven with these terms, because they are similar/identical to terms given in previous wars by the alliances you claim are so awful and oppressive. The one thing you offer that might be considered a step forward is the cap of one month as a PoW. I'd chalk that one up to more of a learning curve than being nice. No one likes to perpetually defend deadwood for months on end because they can't formalize the end of a war. Since I'm the one that wrote that term, I can definitively say that didn't occur to me, although it's a nice if rather marginal benefit now that you mention it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 You know full well that none of your key targets are going to take terms such as this and we know full well that you aren't offering these terms to those very same people. Nothing has been proven with these terms, because they are similar/identical to terms given in previous wars by the alliances you claim are so awful and oppressive. The one thing you offer that might be considered a step forward is the cap of one month as a PoW. I'd chalk that one up to more of a learning curve than being nice. No one likes to perpetually defend deadwood for months on end because they can't formalize the end of a war. Maybe they are similar to the terms giving out by Karma's enemies because terms like this are not something we've ever had a problem with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mamazlilmistake Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I wait your DoW on me then. Your slots are quite full. Fear not, my boys will keep you busy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 These are perfectly acceptable individual surrender terms. It's the whole idea of abandoning your allies and saving yourself that is dishonorable. But to each their own I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Blindness Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I'm going to have to go ahead and say no to these terms. I look forward to significant decreases in my daily bills. Who would accept this after only four days of fighting? That's crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orkules Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 You know full well that none of your key targets are going to take terms such as this and we know full well that you aren't offering these terms to those very same people. Nothing has been proven with these terms, because they are similar/identical to terms given in previous wars by the alliances you claim are so awful and oppressive. The one thing you offer that might be considered a step forward is the cap of one month as a PoW. I'd chalk that one up to more of a learning curve than being nice. No one likes to perpetually defend deadwood for months on end because they can't formalize the end of a war. These are about letting those nations who don't want to/can't continue fighting get out of this war. The important targets won't take them, probably why they're important. Personally I think anyone who takes these terms without being expressly ordered by a commander is not the kind of member you want anyway. They have no dedication. This is quite simply to save those guys who just coast along and don't care much from having their nation destroyed for a cause they care nothing about. Everyone has done that since...ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obiwan Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I don't care what everyone else on my side does, and the majority of my side is quite pissed off at Pacifica for forcing us into this war, but we're all honorable enough to honor our treaties.It's how I've always felt, I'd gladly die to defend my friends and my allies, I wouldnt be friends and allies with them otherwise. I don't see how you could be pissed off at them but gladly die for them in the same post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiggah Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Maybe they are similar to the terms giving out by Karma's enemies because terms like this are not something we've ever had a problem with? So you've accepted such terms in the past? I don't recall this. Perhaps you could provide me with evidence to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otto Verteidiger Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 I'm going to have to go ahead and say no to these terms. I look forward to significant decreases in my daily bills.Who would accept this after only four days of fighting? That's crazy. GGA members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyman Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Merciful terms. Too bad I won't surrender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ephriam Grey Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 (edited) Actually -Wolverine- of GGA was the first... but I suppose Jamesis was the first to follow through on the terms GGA members? Well, it does really seem I'll be getting out of GGA's EZI by outliving them. Good luck to the masses, hope you guys take these. Edited April 26, 2009 by Ephriam Grey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 And yes i will continue to keep getting rises out of you.its fun Seriously, stop it. It's bordering on trolling in my opinion. o/ fair terms. Like someone else said, only at a few points did alliances ever give out bad individual nation terms. One included 100 tech reparations. I think that was \m/. There may have been others who demanded you destroy factories and ALL MD's and Satellites, but I don't remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts