Jump to content

Micro-Peace


Recommended Posts

[quote name='Mayzie' timestamp='1299157773' post='2651075']
Yeah, I think that was pointed out, perhaps on pages 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.

Best of luck with the rebuilding, KoH.
[/quote]

People are going to believe what they want. Many people still believe Xiphosis created the CSN peace terms. (Hint: He didn't. It's not really open for interpretation, despite what some may say. He just... didn't write them.)

People will always see us as the ones who wrote these terms, no matter the reality. It makes their propaganda more convenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Earogema' timestamp='1299132691' post='2650882']
FAN: 3
WUT: 0
Q: 0
NPO: 0
[/quote]

How does that work? FAN surrendered to NPO and WUT the first time around, and then participated in the defeat of NPO during Karma. That makes it 1-1, with a tie-breaker match currently ongoing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lord Brendan' timestamp='1299210805' post='2651894']
How does that work? FAN surrendered to NPO and WUT the first time around, and then participated in the defeat of NPO during Karma. That makes it 1-1, with a tie-breaker match currently ongoing.
[/quote]
WUT was dead by the time FAN surrendered iirc. So okay fine.
FAN: 3
WUT: 0
Q: 0
NPO: 1

[quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1299210846' post='2651896']
Dats da joke.
[/quote]

i no

Edited by Earogema
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penguin' timestamp='1299210118' post='2651888']
Like I said earlier, if you present a case for treating war and peace terms based more on incentives than a sense of right and wrong it becomes the only way to deal with you. Most alliances are reluctant to peace out against that foe because they have no reason to think the friends and allies they leave behind are going to be treated well once the pressure, however small, is off. From your previous statements that the price of war ought to go up for the most persistent alliances, I have every reason to believe that things would be much worse for those of us not so lucky to get early white peace had more allies accepted your offers earlier in the war. If you want to make wars shorter you shouldn't be saying "Accept these terms now so I can make the allies you leave behind pay a higher price for peace."
[/quote]

Well there's a big fad lately of "were not leaving till alliance X gets peace" which chains around in a big circle, and nothing gets done because you either need to round up silly amounts of people to get anything done, or play message tag for weeks. and then you are in the position where it only takes one stubborn person to hold up peace for multiple alliances.

It's a nice sentiment don't get me wrong, I just think it sets up a logistical nightmare.

Personally I think GATO's route was the sanest approach, they negotiated for easier terms on their allies and withdrew, quick and easy.

[quote name='lonewolfe2015' timestamp='1299210492' post='2651890']
So does this set us up for the standard of white peace after a week's worth of fighting or else you're paying reps?
[/quote]

I think the time frame is more fluid than that, and influenced by many things. An opponent with poor conduct during a war after turning down white peace is probably not going to see it offered twice, sure its petty but who wants to be nice to somebody who annoyed you? People who enter on treaty obligations alone are more likely to get off lighter than people who fight for an extend period of time with intent to do serious harm. Length of the wider conflict. The earliest alliances to leave always get the lightest terms, those who stick around longer either demonstrate support the enemies position, or at least wish to inflict serious harm to you, that's two things worth answering with harder terms. History as well, does the same alliance line up opposite you every war for the last X years? This is likely to be a long term enemy, limiting their ability to do long term harm to you is appropriate in that case.

As you can see there are a myriad of reasons that might influence a decision, from strategic to simply not liking somebody, and everything in between. I don't think its wise to try and make a rule of thumb for when reps are appropriate or not, too many things vary in each case, you have to take each one on an individual basis. (unless of course you are one of those people who take the position that all reps are bad.)

For my self, I'd say I'm in favor of reps when appropriate, and I'm not when they are not. Of course that brings up the tricky question of when they are appropriate, but that takes me back to the first point of "it depends". Its far too circumstantial, with one expection.

If you come after me and lose, expect to pay for it, severely. Picking a fight, and then losing it is typically a pretty good way to get bent over a barrel.

Edited by TypoNinja
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1299216785' post='2652048']
Well there's a big fad lately of "were not leaving till alliance X gets peace" which chains around in a big circle, and nothing gets done because you either need to round up silly amounts of people to get anything done, or play message tag for weeks. and then you are in the position where it only takes one stubborn person to hold up peace for multiple alliances.

It's a nice sentiment don't get me wrong, I just think it sets up a logistical nightmare.

Personally I think GATO's route was the sanest approach, they negotiated for easier terms on their allies and withdrew, quick and easy.[/quote]
Yeah, that seems like a sane approach don't get me wrong, but what do you think the odds of that working would have been on this front? [i]You[/i] could be the ones negotiating terms like these for allies of withdrawing alliances, but you're not. Instead Cornelius has outlined a strategy that actually amounts to increasing the terms on those left behind. That's probably why it isn't working so well on the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Penguin' timestamp='1299217586' post='2652100']
Yeah, that seems like a sane approach don't get me wrong, but what do you think the odds of that working would have been on this front? [i]You[/i] could be the ones negotiating terms like these for allies of withdrawing alliances, but you're not. Instead Cornelius has outlined a strategy that actually amounts to increasing the terms on those left behind. That's probably why it isn't working so well on the rest of us.
[/quote]

I donnou, I'm not involved in talks at all, has anybody even tried it? It still might be the best approach here. While I admit I don't see (for example) STA negotiating white peace on Polars behalf, STA is also pretty roughed up at this point (their largest fighting nation is 40kns), their efforts might actually be more effective negotiating a firm upper limit on what Polaris may or may not receive in the end. Even something as straight forward as "term durations not to exceed X months" provides an upper limit on time for just about anything.

I donnou, I'm just thinking out loud. Ignore me if I'm silly :P

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...