| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Kumomoto 
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224 |
 Posted: 30 Mar 2013 at 19:08 |
 Brandmeister wrote:
Kumomoto wrote:
The second World War should have been called "The Great Polish War"... |
Wow, I bet Czechoslovakia feels left out now. =P |
Touche. But, to be accurate, the Czechs were thrown under the bus and war really wasn't declared until the Poles were attacked...
Edited by Kumomoto - 30 Mar 2013 at 19:09
|
 |
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853 |
Posted: 30 Mar 2013 at 19:34 |
|
I hate attacking the poles - too cold and too many penguins
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224 |
Posted: 30 Mar 2013 at 20:22 |
|
Lol!
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545 |
Posted: 30 Mar 2013 at 20:36 |
|
Would it be fair to summarize the situation briefly like below?
Surrender is favorable to the Coalition because it reduces the cost of victory. Thus they offer peace even though they can win the war hands down.
EE could reduce damage by surrender, but wants to make a statement and since continuing to fight increases the cost of victory to the Coalition, EE will not surrender.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, considering Illy wars seem to traditionally be named after the losing side, would "The Consone War" not make the most sense?
Edited by Hadus - 30 Mar 2013 at 20:38
|
|
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894 |
Posted: 30 Mar 2013 at 20:42 |
|
i still like my idea :P The Soup Uprising, like the old uprising like the bread riots and so on :D
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 |
Posted: 30 Mar 2013 at 21:08 |
Brandmeister wrote:
Kumomoto wrote:
The second World War should have been called "The Great Polish War"... |
Wow, I bet Czechoslovakia feels left out now. =P |
Italy in Ethiopia 1935
Spanish Civil War 1936
Japan - China 1937
Japan - Mongolia and USSR - 1938
Where did WW2 start?
Did WW2 end with Japan's surrender? Or was Korea, Vietnam an extension of WW2? Along with the Cold War?
|
|
Corwin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 21 Jun 2011
Location: Farshards
Status: Offline
Points: 310 |
Posted: 30 Mar 2013 at 21:26 |
|
did WW I ever end?
|
|
Deranzin
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 845 |
Posted: 30 Mar 2013 at 21:54 |
Brandmeister wrote:
Kumomoto wrote:
The second World War should have been called "The Great Polish War"... |
Wow, I bet Czechoslovakia feels left out now. =P |
Actually their feelings are split on the matter ...
Hadus wrote:
Surrender is favorable to the Coalition because it reduces the cost of victory. Thus they offer peace even though they can win the war hands down.
EE could reduce damage by surrender, but wants to make a statement and since continuing to fight increases the cost of victory to the Coalition, EE will not surrender.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
|
Weeell, not really, imho ... the "cost" of victory now that the war is nearing its end is minimal in comparison to the cost it had when it was on its grandest scale so I do not think that anyone is taking that into account ... it seems more like a matter of principle of offering every member of the opposite side a fair chance of laying down their weapons, but since this is only my personal view on the matter, I could be wrong.
On the other side EE is not fighting for any statement as far as I can see other than the "whaaaat ? You mean we have to pay up now ???????" and are subsequently trying to find a way to bail out by raising a ruckus in the forums ... as if that worked in the main war for them ...
They remind me of this actually :
|
|
Detritus
Greenhorn
Joined: 16 Oct 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 60 |
Posted: 30 Mar 2013 at 23:15 |
As a leader of a former Consone alliance, I want to
clarify some points (which got a bit confused apparently...)
Hath is right about EE not being the starting point of the war. The actual sieging began with RHY and ABSA, and with VIC breaking sieges. As far as I remember, the alarm state back then had been "voluntary breaking of sieges by Consone players". Mutual defense then was internally declared as soon as VIC got the war declaration by H?... and EE joined, due to their contracts signed exactly for such a case (as did most other confeds). Those are facts, but from Consone perspective, of course... The reasons surely are others, but if searching for trigger points, you would have to look here...
As far as I got it, Consone broke up on initiative of Hath, too. I had taken 2 days off Illy, when I came back, I found that declaration... I thought "fine!" and started peace talks. Perhaps H? could accept this as benefical effects?
About terms: I'm not willing nor allowed to go into details there, but I don't regard EE's (initial) payments very harsh.
Negotiations in Embassy with Starry had been really relaxed, and I must state, that they had shown noble in offering such agreeable terms to us.
But: After clarifying the bad timing of those sieges/the late messengers, perhaps EE would accept the terms without the additional punitife towns addon? Plus switching towns of players already heavily wounded in war? Just an idea for both sides to think about....
EE sadly is at no position to demand anything, just to ask nicely for easier terms. It's hard to see a former confed alliance shot into peaces due to failed negotiations, with ourselfes not being able to do anything about it. I myself had been at a point, were stopping to fight wasn't an option; But all those friends leaving Illy because of the war changed my mind. All I can do is hope for some insight...
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396 |
Posted: 30 Mar 2013 at 23:57 |
Detritus wrote:
As a leader of a former Consone alliance, I want to clarify some points (which got a bit confused apparently...)
Hath is right about EE not being the starting point of the war. The actual sieging began with RHY and ABSA, and with VIC breaking sieges. As far as I remember, the alarm state back then had been "voluntary breaking of sieges by Consone players". Mutual defense then was internally declared as soon as VIC got the war declaration by H?... and EE joined, due to their contracts signed exactly for such a case (as did most other confeds). Those are facts, but from Consone perspective, of course... The reasons surely are others, but if searching for trigger points, you would have to look here...
As far as I got it, Consone broke up on initiative of Hath, too. I had taken 2 days off Illy, when I came back, I found that declaration... I thought "fine!" and started peace talks. Perhaps H? could accept this as benefical effects?
About terms: I'm not willing nor allowed to go into details there, but I don't regard EE's (initial) payments very harsh.
Negotiations in Embassy with Starry had been really relaxed, and I must state, that they had shown noble in offering such agreeable terms to us.
But: After clarifying the bad timing of those sieges/the late messengers, perhaps EE would accept the terms without the additional punitife towns addon? Plus switching towns of players already heavily wounded in war? Just an idea for both sides to think about....
EE sadly is at no position to demand anything, just to ask nicely for easier terms. It's hard to see a former confed alliance shot into peaces due to failed negotiations, with ourselfes not being able to do anything about it. I myself had been at a point, were stopping to fight wasn't an option; But all those friends leaving Illy because of the war changed my mind. All I can do is hope for some insight...
|
As part of asking nicely for easier terms, explain why terms should be easier on certain players - things like limited participation, losses already suffered. Perhaps counter with Exodus in certain cases.
|
|
Tweet
Just the facts Ma'am