Jump to content

Invicta Passes Two Million!


Jorost

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 February 2010 - 11:58 AM' timestamp='1266339485' post='2185731']
Polar is still at war, and you're not defending them. If you were, we wouldn't be having a problem.

Instead, you're going off to defend one of your allies who's on the bandwagon.


You know perfectly well this was coming. If you guys had been more receptive to our fairly reasonable requests about zzzptm two years ago, heck, we'd probably have been fighting on your side back then too.

I know that I would have, anyway.
[/quote]
Would you be happier if we were fighting one of the alliances that hit CnG :o

Reasonable requests ?? You guys recommended that we don't take him in. We chose to ignore the recommendation...and are damn happy that we did ignore it, cos he is a goldmine. Out of respect for Invicta, we kept him out of a government position for a long long time.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 202
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='raasaa' date='16 February 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1266340488' post='2185745']
Would you be happier if we were fighting one of the alliances that hit CnG :o
[/quote]
Yeah, if you were doing it per a treaty requirement. Valhalla is defending IRON against bandwagoners. Apparently the war effort against IRON is going so badly that FAN is essential to its success.

[quote name='raasaa' date='16 February 2010 - 12:14 PM' timestamp='1266340488' post='2185745']
Reasonable requests ?? You guys recommended that we don't take him in. We chose to ignore the recommendation...and are damn happy that we did ignore it, cos he is a goldmine. Out of respect for Invicta, we kept him out of a government position for a long long time.....
[/quote]
No, that's not what we wanted. I proposed that he take a single ZI for his part in nearly bringing down what is now the oldest bloc on Planet Bob.

After he got ZIed, he would have been free to go wherever. Schattenmann got treated a lot worse, and did a lot less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing valiant, extraordinary, or (gag) "honourable" about making a martyr of your alliance. Rather generous peace terms have been offered from the very start, to all parties involved on the opposing side, not just Invicta: An acknowledgement of surrender, and a pledge to remain out of the larger conflict. If you really want to help your allies, I recommend speaking with them to arrange talks between our respective coalitions to take advantage of this, because -- and I speak only for Nordreich here -- our patience is wearing thin and the lenient terms may not be so lenient for much longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Vinzent Zeppelin' date='16 February 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1266343918' post='2185801']
There is nothing valiant, extraordinary, or (gag) "honourable" about making a martyr of your alliance. Rather generous peace terms have been offered from the very start, to all parties involved on the opposing side, not just Invicta: An acknowledgement of surrender, and a pledge to remain out of the larger conflict. If you really want to help your allies, I recommend speaking with them to arrange talks between our respective coalitions to take advantage of this, because -- and I speak only for Nordreich here -- our patience is wearing thin and the lenient terms may not be so lenient for much longer.
[/quote]
Then persuade FAN to cease their pointless bandwagoning.

That's the source of all of this. Threats of harsher terms are not going to get you very far; try asking bk about how negotiating with Invicta works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are silly to think that our agenda is to destroy the entire Purple Bloc.

You're destroying it by yourselves by dragging it on when you're beyond hope and the end result is just more pain. I mean, it's your choice if you want to see your members get ZI'd / bill locked / surrender, and that's nothing to be proud about.

Edited by Oktavia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Oktavia' date='16 February 2010 - 01:48 PM' timestamp='1266346125' post='2185876']
You guys are silly to think that our agenda is to destroy the entire Purple Bloc.
[/quote]
Well no, it's pretty clear that The International isn't out to destroy Purple. I mean, you've only launched 2 wars on Invicta.

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='16 February 2010 - 01:40 PM' timestamp='1266345638' post='2185864']
It doesn't have to exist on paper. Or maybe it did but didn't got posted in public?
[/quote]
[i]Sure.[/i] Everyone knows that FAN is just pulling an OFS; the difference is IRON's even more hated now than GATO was back then, so people think it's OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 February 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1266346574' post='2185896']
Well no, it's pretty clear that The International isn't out to destroy Purple. I mean, you've only launched 2 wars on Invicta.


[i]Sure.[/i] Everyone knows that FAN is just pulling an OFS; the difference is IRON's even more hated now than GATO was back then, so people think it's OK.
[/quote]

FAN off IRON doesn't stop the alliances that IRON DOW'd offensively on or were counter DOW'd by from continuing to hammer away. You want FAN off IRON, but that doesn't change the end result even if they do get off and that's what I don't understand. You're just throwing yourselves in the fire when it makes no difference on the TOP & IRON fronts.

Edited by Oktavia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Oktavia' date='16 February 2010 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1266346811' post='2185904']
FAN off IRON doesn't stop the alliances that IRON DOW'd offensively on or were counter DOW'd by from continuing to hammer away. You want FAN off IRON, but that doesn't change the end result even if they do get off and that's what I don't understand. You're just throwing yourselves in the fire when it makes no difference on the TOP & IRON fronts.
[/quote]
We're throwing ourselves in the fire for principles. When we sign treaties, we honour them.

Valhalla is honorbound to defend IRON against FAN per their treaty with IRON. The Valhalla-IRON treaty has a non-chaining clause, so all the other attackers who are only honouring treaties are optional for Valhalla.

FAN's not.

Your word may not matter much to you, but around here we value it really highly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 February 2010 - 02:03 PM' timestamp='1266346990' post='2185913']
We're throwing ourselves in the fire for principles. When we sign treaties, we honour them.

Valhalla is honorbound to defend IRON against FAN per their treaty with IRON. The Valhalla-IRON treaty has a non-chaining clause, so all the other attackers who are only honouring treaties are optional for Valhalla.

FAN's not.

Your word may not matter much to you, but around here we value it really highly.
[/quote]

I would say FAN has good (honorable) reasons to be fighting IRON, considering what 1V did to them in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Oktavia' date='16 February 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1266347438' post='2185920']
I would say FAN has good (honorable) reasons to be fighting IRON, considering what 1V did to them in the past.
[/quote]
In that case, let's keep on fighting. The Valhalla-IRON treaty requires Valhalla to come to IRON's defense when IRON is attacked without a treatied reason. FAN doesn't have a treatied reason, but you support their reason.

So - lock and load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='raasaa' date='16 February 2010 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1266338273' post='2185692']
If Valhalla truly misjudged one of their allies, then time and energy would have been better spent on using diplomatic support to resolve the situation as opposed to military support.
[/quote]
Diplomatic support with whom Raasaa CnG are you kidding they wouldnt listen to us in a million years. Now before every one goes off on this take a look at how CnG views Valhalla. There was no way we would be able to do anything diplomaticaly for them.

[quote name='raasaa' date='16 February 2010 - 11:46 AM' timestamp='1266338761' post='2185715']
We did...but we also realized that as far as military was concerned, we were of really no help to Polar in the war. We decided, rather I decided being emperor and all, that it would be better for Nueva Vida to peace out, rebuild and help Polar rebuild when they get out of war.

For the record, that ended with us having to shell out monetary reparations to 4 alliances :mad:
[/quote]
Raasaa while our military contribution as you put it may be small this entire front is holding up massive AAs from being able to jump in on IRON or others. While people say were falling on our swords for them at this point that is not the truth by the time many of us on this side are done most of the AAs were facing will have taken significant losses that will benifit IRON in the long run. This war boils down to FAN if FAN wants to peace out then all of our obligations end. Yet its not FAN who is doing the talking its every alliance who has chained in to this. We have put a very reasonable counter offer out there please stop acting like were being $@! hats here. Its very simple we all take peace we all go home we all grab popcorn and watch the rest of this from the side lines. Its simple no new declarations.

[quote name='Vinzent Zeppelin' date='16 February 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1266343918' post='2185801']
There is nothing valiant, extraordinary, or (gag) "honourable" about making a martyr of your alliance. Rather generous peace terms have been offered from the very start, to all parties involved on the opposing side, not just Invicta: An acknowledgement of surrender, and a pledge to remain out of the larger conflict. If you really want to help your allies, I recommend speaking with them to arrange talks between our respective coalitions to take advantage of this, because -- and I speak only for Nordreich here -- our patience is wearing thin and the lenient terms may not be so lenient for much longer.
[/quote]
Zep you guys have been great but this sounds like a threat one that is not warrented. If you wish to impose terms upon anyone then that is your right it is also our right not to accept them. IF our seats are reversed Im pretty sure I know what you would be doing.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='16 February 2010 - 01:29 PM' timestamp='1266344996' post='2185851']
Cite this agreement. Anywhere.

It doesn't exist.
[/quote]
It may or may not exist Haf. From what ive heard over the many months since their return, I have heard rumors of an agreement between FAN and Nordreich. There is no issue with NoRs entrance to this with Valhalla. They have been a great and fun oppenent and I do not doubt the legitamacy of their entrance to this war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='raasaa' date='16 February 2010 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1266338273' post='2185692']
To be ZI'ed with honor intact sounds great, on paper. Practically speaking, i would rather swallow some pride and take peace...only to rebuild and fight another day, when my alliance is better prepared for prolonged war.

As for us dropping friends to preserve our infra....well..all i can say is, we are awesome like that :awesome: [/quote]
And that's where we have a problem. We'll stand by our allies when they need us, it seems you won't. No point in rehashing this point then.

[quote]The other side is not pleading for Invicta to take terms. The other side is trying to drive some sense into Invicta leadership...trying to ensure that something is left, post war, for Invicta to rebuild upon. [/quote]
1) They are pleading. Begging might be more like it. See, what we have here is a Pyrrhic victory. Invicta gets crushed, but we sure make things miserable for a [i]large[/i] number of reasons.
2) If they really had Invicta's good fortune in mind, they'd be offering us white peace and be understanding if we didn't accept it. But they aren't.
3) What you're arguing is that other people know what's best for Invicta, and in order to prove that, they have to "drive" some sense into us. WTF? Invicta doesn't randomly run around curbstomping alliances because we know what's best for them and they are just too stubborn to accept it (rather like a certain red alliance perhaps did in the past -- or a certain alliance with the acronym NV).
4) As stated, all of Invicta clearly knows what's happening and is staying. So there's no need to drive sense into the leaders, the members, or anyone else.
5) Due to 1-4, there's no point in rehashing this again, as we are quite firm here and it appears you are equally so (regrettably).

[quote]You do realize that number remains constant cos 3 or 4 nations surrendered, moved to the PoW AA, then returned to the Invicta AA and resumed fighting....very honorable move indeed. In my post i was not referring to the number of surrenders. I was only referring to the loss of NS and the multiple bill locked nations. We take no pleasure in doing this and would like to see Invicta get peace at the earliest.[/quote]
Could you send me and/or Invicta gov the names of such members? Appropriate action will be taken if such things are true.

[quote]If Valhalla truly misjudged one of their allies, then time and energy would have been better spent on using diplomatic support to resolve the situation as opposed to military support.[/quote]
Oh yeah, that would have been great.
"Hey Vahalla, seems you made mistake there. Don't mind us, we're just going to sit here and let you get crushed. But don't worry, purplol will use its massive political credibility to get you peace. Trust us, we know what we're doing."
[img]http://members.arstechnica.com/x/7zark7/sledgehammer4.jpg[/img]

[quote name='Vinzent Zeppelin' date='16 February 2010 - 01:11 PM' timestamp='1266343918' post='2185801']
There is nothing valiant, extraordinary, or (gag) "honourable" about making a martyr of your alliance. Rather generous peace terms have been offered from the very start, to all parties involved on the opposing side, not just Invicta: An acknowledgement of surrender, and a pledge to remain out of the larger conflict. If you really want to help your allies, I recommend speaking with them to arrange talks between our respective coalitions to take advantage of this, because -- and I speak only for Nordreich here -- our patience is wearing thin and the lenient terms may not be so lenient for much longer.
[/quote]
To the first part of your post I point to FAN. They got martyred. Twice.
To the second part, does "all parties involved on the opposing side" include TOP and IRON? If not, would you care to rephrase that?
To the third part, lenient terms is relative. But I'm glad y'all aren't calling it "white peace" anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Tick1' date='16 February 2010 - 12:52 AM' timestamp='1266299521' post='2184892']
Do you guys really even know what this war is about? You claim your fighting for the honor of your friends yet they where also dragged into a rather pointless war. Standing beside someone for nothing, seems rather worthless in my opinion so please enjoy the reduction program.
[/quote]

Would you let a friend in real life get the crap kicked out of them, just because you didn't like the reasoning in how the fight started? Its no different here. Invicta chose to protect their friends, [i]no matter[/i] the reason they first became involved. Because when someone is family, you have their back, thick and thin, that's how it works.

Though coming from someone in Poison Clan, I can see why you believe what you believe. :smug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I start, I'd like to state that I admire Invicta (as well as BAPS, Olympus, Valhalla, that whole crew) and their resolve. They're looking at pretty ugly odds, but they're not bending to them. That's courageous.

I would like to make a couple of things clear.
First, I have no desire to see these alliances wiped off Bob. I do not want to pursue a VietFAN-style beatdown that will keep them down for months on end. It serves no purpose. That being said, as long as a state of war exists, we won't be backing down.
Second, before anyone accuses Stickmen/LEO/PC+NoR+DT+NV/FAN of keeping these people down, I thought I'd tell you all the terms that were offered.
1) Concede defeat.
2) Remain neutral for the duration of the conflict.
So, after another few cycles of fighting, when our side starts to demand reparations for the damage inflicted well after we offered what is essentially white peace, I'll be linking to this post when the tears start flowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MaGneT' date='16 February 2010 - 04:20 PM' timestamp='1266355203' post='2186158']
Before I start, I'd like to state that I admire Invicta (as well as BAPS, Olympus, Valhalla, that whole crew) and their resolve. They're looking at pretty ugly odds, but they're not bending to them. That's courageous.

I would like to make a couple of things clear.
First, I have no desire to see these alliances wiped off Bob. I do not want to pursue a VietFAN-style beatdown that will keep them down for months on end. It serves no purpose. That being said, as long as a state of war exists, we won't be backing down.
Second, before anyone accuses Stickmen/LEO/PC+NoR+DT+NV/FAN of keeping these people down, I thought I'd tell you all the terms that were offered.
1) Concede defeat.
2) Remain neutral for the duration of the conflict.
So, after another few cycles of fighting, when our side starts to demand reparations for the damage inflicted well after we offered what is essentially white peace, I'll be linking to this post when the tears start flowing.
[/quote]
It is not white peace there are terms that only one side has to face is is lenient yes it is but its not White peace. If you truly want it to be over then give us White Peace or keep the terms applicable to both sides. I have a hard time believing NoR FAN PC or DT would accept these and allow the other alliances to go out and pummel their friends and be forced to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='16 February 2010 - 03:41 PM' timestamp='1266352864' post='2186072']
We have put a very reasonable counter offer out there [b]please stop acting like were being $@! hats here[/b]. Its very simple we all take peace we all go home we all grab popcorn and watch the rest of this from the side lines. Its simple no new declarations.
[/quote]
The way i see it, you guys are meat-shielding the wrong alliance for the wrong reasons...but that is just my perspective on this so called mess. :D

[quote name='Learz' date='16 February 2010 - 03:52 PM' timestamp='1266353578' post='2186103']
Could you send me and/or Invicta gov the names of such members? Appropriate action will be taken if such things are true.
[/quote]
wackydan and Emk123 are the two names that i remember....the others i would have dig up posts :S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MaGneT' date='16 February 2010 - 09:20 PM' timestamp='1266355203' post='2186158']
Before I start, I'd like to state that I admire Invicta (as well as BAPS, Olympus, Valhalla, that whole crew) and their resolve. They're looking at pretty ugly odds, but they're not bending to them. That's courageous.

I would like to make a couple of things clear.
First, I have no desire to see these alliances wiped off Bob. I do not want to pursue a VietFAN-style beatdown that will keep them down for months on end. It serves no purpose. That being said, as long as a state of war exists, we won't be backing down.
Second, before anyone accuses Stickmen/LEO/PC+NoR+DT+NV/FAN of keeping these people down, I thought I'd tell you all the terms that were offered.
1) Concede defeat.
2) Remain neutral for the duration of the conflict.
So, after another few cycles of fighting, when our side starts to demand reparations for the damage inflicted well [b]after we offered what is essentially white peace[/b], I'll be linking to this post when the tears start flowing.
[/quote]

Only it's nothing like White Peace. Its a complete surrender which allows you to pile on our friends and allies who don't get this peace offer.

We have already stated we are willing to accept White Peace, only without the [b]what is essentially[/b] bit.

We have also stated we are willing for all parties on this front, on both sides, to peace out of the war for good.

You bring a demand for reps to BAPS and we will nuke your alliances low range for as long as it takes, and we can, all it takes is a few FACS and some friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='16 February 2010 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1266355538' post='2186177']
It is not white peace there are terms that only one side has to face is is lenient yes it is but its not White peace. If you truly want it to be over then give us White Peace or keep the terms applicable to both sides. I have a hard time believing NoR FAN PC or DT would accept these and allow the other alliances to go out and pummel their friends and be forced to watch.
[/quote]

Let's not rehash this "IT IS NOT WHITE PEACE!" discussion please (although I agree with you that it is not white peace :P). This white surrender / grey peace (w/e floats your boat) is very lenient, and it will not get any better than this. Invicta made it clear they think it is not in their best interest to accept such proposal at this time. All what is needed to be said is said here. I wish Invicta good luck on the battle field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='16 February 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1266352864' post='2186072']
Raasaa while our military contribution as you put it may be small this entire front is holding up massive AAs from being able to jump in on IRON or others. While people say were falling on our swords for them at this point that is not the truth by the time many of us on this side are done most of the AAs were facing will have taken significant losses that will benifit IRON in the long run. This war boils down to FAN if FAN wants to peace out then all of our obligations end. Yet its not FAN who is doing the talking its every alliance who has chained in to this. We have put a very reasonable counter offer out there please stop acting like were being $@! hats here. Its very simple we all take peace we all go home we all grab popcorn and watch the rest of this from the side lines. Its simple no new declarations.
[/quote]

I don't know about the first part of your post, or whatever alliances you might be talking about and who they are gonna jump. However the second part is quite clear: not only white peace, but that our allies would cease attacks on your ally who would still be free to fights its wars. How is that logical again? I mean, logical in the way that you are losing the war and you shouldn't really be presenting any conditions to us.

You've put up a good fight, but it's over. From now on it's just mindless grinding of CMs, and maybe air strikes, and you'll be in anarchy until one day you'll be able to slip into peacemode, or end up throwing nukes at 1000-2000 infra nations. I'd undrestand if there was something important at stake, like a war for the survival of your alliance...but that's not it, it's a war that only a handful know the reasons for, and even they probaply don't undrestand them. The most mindboggling thing being that people refuse to stop it(Why we fight? Because there's a war). But I guess that is what happens when pixels start marching.


Of course if you insist we will continue with the present course, and it will of course cost for all of us. Naturally it will cost you more since you are no longer in a position from where you could counter-attack, and it will probaply make the final peace so much harder to get since costs need to be met.


What I am saying is that this won't get any better for you. Were just spending time that could be spent rebuilding for the next war, the outcome is still the same.

Edited by Perkele
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we all ought to discuss this on IRC, to be honest. This time without the storming out (on both sides).

This war is an immature pissing contest born of paranoia, and our entire front is made up of alliances very much separated from the core conflict. I'm all for war when war is needed, but I've never been a fan of waste. And this front, in my eyes, is a waste of a bunch of very good alliances' resources.

Edited by MaGneT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Perkele' date='16 February 2010 - 04:31 PM' timestamp='1266355883' post='2186194']
I don't know about the first part of your post, or whatever alliances you might be talking about and who they are gonna jump. However the second part is quite clear: not only white peace, but that our allies would cease attacks on your ally who would still be free to fights its wars. How is that logical again? I mean, logical in the way that you are losing the war and you shouldn't really be presenting any conditions to us.

You've put up a good fight, but it's over. From now on it's just mindless grinding of CMs, and maybe air strikes, and you'll be in anarchy until one day you'll be able to slip into peacemode, or end up throwing nukes at 1000-2000 infra nations. I'd undrestand if there was something important at stake, like a war for the survival of your alliance...but that's not it, it's a war that only a handful know the reasons for, and even they probaply don't undrestand them. The most mindboggling thing being that people refuse to stop it(Why we fight? Because there's a war). But I guess that is what happens when pixels start marching.


[b]Of course if you insist we will continue with the present course, and it will of course cost for all of us. Naturally it will cost you more since you are no longer in a position from where you could counter-attack, and it will probaply make the final peace so much harder to get since costs need to be met.[/b]


What I am saying is that this won't get any better for you. Were just spending time that could be spent rebuilding for the next war, the outcome is still the same.
[/quote]
Another threat of reps once again. Perkele iirc youve been around this long enough and once again knowing what i know of the old timers would you let an enemy go so they can punch a friend in the face. This argument is getting old its the same one weve had on IRC. I shall remove myself from the thread as I grow weary of typing the same thing.

o/ to my oppenents as you are not my enemy in this
o/ Invicta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Buds The Man' date='16 February 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1266356334' post='2186207']
Another threat of reps once again. Perkele iirc youve been around this long enough and once again knowing what i know of the old timers would you let an enemy go so they can punch a friend in the face. This argument is getting old its the same one weve had on IRC. I shall remove myself from the thread as I grow weary of typing the same thing.

o/ to my oppenents as you are not my enemy in this
o/ Invicta
[/quote]


I am not threathening with reps, I am in no position to do so being just rank-and-file, however that is my guess what is going to happen. I was in FCO when Norden Verein was brought under attack with the enemy ZIng the whole alliance. We took peace in the end, because there was nothing else to be done, we were beaten and getting beat more wouldn't help NV in any way...but we took a stand. Its the same here, whatever Valhalla, Invicta, etc do, it will not change the big picture.

But, you will do what you think is best. It was a good war as long as it lasted, so thanks for the fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...