magicninja Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) I'm gonna use Electron_Sponge's logic on this one. He claims and was agreed with by many (if not all) that no alliance can be forced to disband. So I ask....are alliances forced to accept "harsh" terms? It seems contradictory to what Sponge is saying in his thread. Basically no alliance can be forced to do anything. They have to choose to do it themselves. Common sense dictates that an alliance can try holding out for better terms even if they take more damage. Logic would assume that the farther you beat down an alliance the less you will be able to ask them for. Therefore you should present terms you know they would take. You usually want to highball them and see if they bite. If they are so tired of war they accept then the victorious alliance can hardly be blamed for the willpower of the vanquished. If the losing alliance cared to hold out they would find the terms getting better because the farther they fall the less they'll ba able to pay. If the victorious alliance was any kind of smart they would know this and instead of fighting a drawn out battle while taking damage for less reps they would negotiate down. In my opinion a beaten alliance really only need to have a little backbone and determination to get fair terms. If that is the case and Sponge's logic holds then can the victorious alliance really be blamed for the losing alliance accepting "harsh" terms? Edited May 22, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbrownso Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Good topic. I'm personally torn. On one hand, at a certain point, it's really not in an alliance's interests to continue fighting. However, you also see alliances like FAN who eventually get white peace (although that was more a product of circumstance). I gotta think a little more before I vote. Edited May 22, 2009 by Brandon Simonson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Maximus Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Yes, and it happens all the time. You have to love the smell of extortion in the morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ragashingo Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 The victors share the vast majority of the responsibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Therefore you should present terms you know they would take Depends on whether or not you want them to accept the terms :s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Depends on whether or not you want them to accept the terms :s Sponge know's all about that one eh? It's his logic winning in his last thread that got me thinking about this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Hmm, your assuming that whoever is handing down the terms is feeling generous. If they wanted to be dicks they could stick with the same high priced/harsh conditioned terms no matter how beat down you got. Holding out would only hurt you more in that case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Hmm, your assuming that whoever is handing down the terms is feeling generous. If they wanted to be dicks they could stick with the same high priced/harsh conditioned terms no matter how beat down you got. Holding out would only hurt you more in that case. If the idea was to grind your alliance into dust then terms are moot anyway IF you get them at all. If you are being offered terms then I would say that the alliance handing them down is being generous to begin with. Edited May 22, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deuterium Dawn Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 The answers don't really fit the question. Obviously no one can be "forced" to do anything, but the victors are still responsible for offering harsh terms in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 As I interpreted it, Sponge's terms to UJP weren't meant to be terms at all. It wasn't "if you fight longer you'll get better terms" it was "we want to fight you longer before we give you terms". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ejayrazz Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 The answers don't really fit the question. Obviously no one can be "forced" to do anything, but the victors are still responsible for offering harsh terms in the first place. This. Perfectly said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 The answers don't really fit the question. Obviously no one can be "forced" to do anything, but the victors are still responsible for offering harsh terms in the first place. True on the one count. The question is with the second bit of your statement. Couldn't the losing alliance try to hold out for better terms? FAN held out. They got White Peace. IT was a long time coming and you could question if all the time and loss of members and strength was worth it in the end but I think they are quite happy to be back and not attached to paying reps or having to conform to a military decom etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 True on the one count. The question is with the second bit of your statement. Couldn't the losing alliance try to hold out for better terms? FAN held out. They got White Peace. IT was a long time coming and you could question if all the time and loss of members and strength was worth it in the end but I think they are quite happy to be back and not attached to paying reps or having to conform to a military decom etc. Not all alliances have such a dedicated base as FAN apparently does. Many would crumble waiting that long for better terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Not all alliances have such a dedicated base as FAN apparently does. Many would crumble waiting that long for better terms. Yes, and some would have you believe that the weak deserve to be extorted and exploited by virtue of their weakness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Not all alliances have such a dedicated base as FAN apparently does. Many would crumble waiting that long for better terms. Which is exactly my point on alliances just needing to have a little backbone and determination. If you want to buy your way out of a war with large tech and cash totals then that is your choice. If you wanna try to hold out for something cheaper then that is your choice as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Disbandment and accepting harsh terms are two entirely different things. Since an alliance is essentially a collective the worst possible fate of said collective is annihilation. Hence no alliance can be forced to disband as there is nothing worse than annihilation therefore any fate even one of a ZI'd alliance is supposedly better than no community at all. In essence the community is destroyed by disbandment which goes far beyond anything IG actions can do. However this logic doesn't apply to harsh terms as those occur IG and therefore do not effect the community on the level that disbandment does. As such it is the fault primarily of the victor for not being fair and forcing the alliance into a position between horrible terms or permanent war (and inevitable ZI). Since ZI is the worst possible condition IG logically anyone playing the game has to bow to the terms regardless of how bad they are. (Or hold out as fan did until literally the people at war with them could no longer maintain that state of war.) Edited May 22, 2009 by iamthey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 80% the first, 20% the latter. I personally wanted to reject the terms and continue to nuke the hell out of NPO during the noCB war. I'm pretty happy with this result though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Disbandment and accepting harsh terms are two entirely different things. Since an alliance is essentially a collective the worst possible fate of said collective is annihilation. Hence no alliance can be forced to disband as there is nothing worse than annihilation therefore any fate even one of a ZI'd alliance is supposedly better than no community at all. In essence the community is destroyed by disbandment which goes far beyond anything IG actions can do.However this logic doesn't apply to harsh terms as those occur IG and therefore do not effect the community on the level that disbandment does. As such it is the fault primarily of the victor for not being fair and forcing the alliance into a position between horrible terms or permanent war (and inevitable ZI). Since ZI is the worst possible condition IG logically anyone playing the game has to bow to the terms regardless of how bad they are. (Or hold out as fan did until literally the people at war with them could no longer maintain that state of war.) That fly's in the face of logic because as an alliance takes more punishment the idea that they can pay "harsh" terms becomes idiotic. If the winning alliance really wants to take reps then they have no choice but to lower their demands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 80% the first, 20% the latter.I personally wanted to reject the terms and continue to nuke the hell out of NPO during the noCB war. I'm pretty happy with this result though. So if MK's terms were so harsh why were they accepted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 So if MK's terms were so harsh why were they accepted? Most of government thought it was better than no terms at all and permanent war. I can't really argue it, as I said I wanted to reject them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamthey Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 That fly's in the face of logic because as an alliance takes more punishment the idea that they can pay "harsh" terms becomes idiotic. If the winning alliance really wants to take reps then they have no choice but to lower their demands. Perhaps but there are examples to the contrary, the point is IG action next to IG action is not really that relevant. What makes disbandment special is that it is the total annihilation of the community within the alliance. Perhaps I am wrong but what sponge meant is if an alliance is really worth continuing to exist EG if they had the substance to keep going and the comradary to carry on then they deserve to survive. Essentially disbandment occurs when an alliance decides that it values its individual nation statistics over the bond between the alliance members. When that occurs it basically means the alliance no longer deserves to exist as its members value themselves over the group. In cases with reps the situation isn't as clear cut and the losing alliance really has no way to predict if they will get a better deal and if the infa and tech they lose in the time it takes for that to materialized will be greater or less had they accepted the harsh terms. You can't really dock someone for not being able to predict the future. Instead i'd hold the victor accountable as they are fully in control of the situation and making the free decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Most of government thought it was better than no terms at all and permanent war. I can't really argue it, as I said I wanted to reject them. Do you honestly believe the war would've been permanent? @iamthey: I took it that Sponge said no alliance can be forced to do anything. Disband, pay reps, sign a treaty etc. Edited May 22, 2009 by magicninja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Do you honestly believe the war would've been permanent? They did it to FAN until they themselves were defeated so it's not like NPO is unknown to do these things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 22, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 They did it to FAN until they themselves were defeated so it's not like NPO is unknown to do these things. Yeah but FAN's reps were less than MK's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Specific Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Poll answer options do not match the poll's question. 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.