| Welcome to NATO | |
|---|---|
|
COUNCIL ORDERS: Surrender Terms :: NATO Tracker :: Aid, Tech, Trade, and War EFFECTIVE AT MIDNIGHT ON OCTOBER 16TH, 2008 | |
| sup? You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you can't do much. If you register, you'll be able to do lots more. Registration is simple, fast and free. Register here! Once you are done registering, log in and post in the masking thread (just ignore the message that says an admin has to approve before you can post). |
| Peace in time of War; coffee talk | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 10 2008, 02:12:04 PM (267 Views) | |
| Hakim | Jun 10 2008, 02:12:04 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Former NATO
![]()
|
Can the guest speakers please discuss how you go about determing when to offer peace terms, why you offer peace terms, why you do not offer peace terms, and what your thoughts are behind the peace terms you offer? |
![]() |
|
| bigwoody | Jun 10 2008, 02:13:32 PM Post #2 |
![]() ![]()
|
I might try to tackle this later, but my first though is that this is soooooooo case-by-case. |
![]() |
|
| Hakim | Jun 10 2008, 02:15:07 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Former NATO
![]()
|
I understand that sometimes it is case by case...to be more specific is there ever any thought as to granting peace right off the bat for those in the alliance who may be misguided by their leaders and who can be placed in poW Camps and not be re-engaged, so as to focus your forces at the real fighters? |
![]() |
|
| Golden Boy | Jun 10 2008, 02:43:25 PM Post #4 |
![]() ![]()
|
Well this isn't really my area of expertise, considering I have never been in charge of an alliance war on a big scale, but my personal views on this definitely vary case by case. I know back in my small alliance days, I led a few alliance wars, and since we were both small alliances, peace was made when the opposing alliance was beaten down and the only terms was a signed agreement with then agreeing not to do whatever they did before, and probably some sort of ToA. Peace was made because neither of our small alliances or nations could keep it up for much longer. Now that I have been involved in some of the bigger wars, obviously my views have changed accordingly. I like the idea of having POW's. Some nations truly have no idea what their leaders got them into and deserve peace. As for the wars, depending on the severity of the alliance that was DoW'd on, I prefer short wars. Punish them swiftly, and hopefully they learn that they did wrong. Keep the POWs for a short time, and then let them go. If it is the second war for the same reason however, peace should not be given. I am not a fan of disbanding alliances, but second offenders deserve it. But as I said, Not my area |
![]() |
|
| The Pansy | Jun 10 2008, 03:20:22 PM Post #5 |
|
Eternal Annoyance
![]()
|
Sorry Peace... have you ever tried dealing with Terry Howard???? |
![]() |
|
| sam | Jun 10 2008, 03:58:27 PM Post #6 |
![]()
|
He will be always well known for dictating his own peace terms ^^I think it depends on the reason and on the general alliance behaviour. If I have a strong reason and a solid CB, then peace will be at least more expensive. Then it also depends on the general war situation (Do my allies need help, is my alliance down, are there more important targets?) and on the behaviour in the war of the enemy alliance, I am talking of nuclear first strike, sanctions, trolling on the CN Forums etc. So if they don't behave, start to nuke, then they usually won't get peace from the MCXA. |
![]() |
|
| Duncan King | Jun 10 2008, 04:18:36 PM Post #7 |
![]() ![]()
|
What do you all think of the perma-ZI sentence when applied to whole alliances? I'm personally not a fan of it because it binds the alliance administering the sentence permanently as well. Do you support it and under what circumstances? |
![]() |
|
| Buffalo Niagara | Jun 10 2008, 08:39:44 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
Normally I tend to stay out of FA, but this is a sure enough topic that I think Im safe ![]() I completely disagree with an alliance wide death sentence. I dont feel a perma Zi for folks outside of the alliance leadership (in extreme cases) should be used. Many alliance members are casual members in most cases. While they are in the alliance and should be attacked until there is a peace agreement or surrender terms met, I don't think Perma Zi should be there for the everyday members (alliance wide at least). |
![]() |
|
| Tamurin | Jun 12 2008, 08:01:14 AM Post #9 |
![]()
|
Well, this is something I can contribute to. At TFD we don't have the issue of big alliance wars. But we have our fair share of rogues (external and internal) and we had to deal with this on a low level. Usually, we give a rogue a 24-hour-notice to stand down. If he does, he has to pay reparations which we calculate from the damages. If he pays, nothing happens. If he doesn't pay or doesn't react within 24 hours, we attack him and destroy as much as we can during the 7-day-war-period. A ZI-order usually comes when a rogue comes from within our alliance and goes nuts or when an outside rogue bothers us more than once. A perma-ZI-order comes when people with ZI-orders really REALLY annoy us. And I think that this can be done on a big level as well. If you go to war, you don't have to be enemies forever. You can work out your problems and if the winner and the loser is fair and honest then a friendship can develop - in time. Continued hate is often caused by both sides. Very hard peace terms, harrassing, insults, bragging on the one side, delays, non-compliance, bickering and plotting on the other side. One leads to another and starts an endless loop of wars and conflicts. This is a cycle that can end, if one side decides to and has the luck to find similar minds on the other sides. But in cases where this hate is the basis of your alliance or fuelled through religion or ideology, you can't do much except fighting the war everytime. No matter what you do, your enemy will always come back. Then you have to think of your alliance first and do everything to protect it. So, in short: - Punishments should always fit to the crimes committed - But this shouldn't exclude the possibility of being merciful to stop a cycle of hatred and conflict - If you can't break the cycle no matter what, you have to destroy the enemy permanently |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · CN Leadership Conference · Next Topic » |











He will be always well known for dictating his own peace terms ^^

9:32 AM Jul 11