Jump to content

The Winter Rose Accords


QueenPhoenix
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've added an invisible amendment to include mandatory hugs from both Phoenix and Eva-Beatrice.

Signed by Kitschie, Eva-Beatrice, and Phoenix. 

 

See Eva? You still get to sign. <3 *hug*

We do the thing together now. 

 

foxtato.jpg

  • Upvote 1

? Kitschie 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Just gonna address this once: there was a specific type of consolidation referred to, meaning consolidating more and more NS into a sphere. It doesn't refer to just people who already are indirectly tied to each other signing treaties. If a bunch of  small alliances signed a bunch of redundant treaties, it wouldn't make much of a difference.  If those alliances were in a dominant position and signing additional treaties and adding more NS, the charge of hypocrisy would  be legit since the complaints people had were about consolidating an overwhelming amount of NS into a  dominant sphere and increasing sprawl/expansion such as adding former neutrals or traditionally antagonistic/non-aligned alliances.  

In any scenario, one side is still the underdog and outside alliances aren't joining it. This type of imagery  is very misleading since it ignores the fact that those are largely smaller alliances. Meanwhile, the top 10 has a majority allied to each other with some filling the gaps of direct treaties. The other grouping can tie a lot more NS together with fewer treaties. There's a bit of a irony in complaining about these treaties when four alliances tied to the #1 and #2 alliances or both made an MD bloc recently. The fact that there are fewer interlocking treaties that some may consider redundant doesn't change the fact that many allegiances in the non-IQ sector are more or less ironclad.

I mean I was trolling lmfao.

But since you want to go there, your side has more nations, more alliances, more nation score and a larger consolidation of a single tier. I hope you don't think you are the underdogs lmfao.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Just gonna address this once: there was a specific type of consolidation referred to, meaning consolidating more and more NS into a sphere. It doesn't refer to just people who already are indirectly tied to each other signing treaties. If a bunch of  small alliances signed a bunch of redundant treaties, it wouldn't make much of a difference.  If those alliances were in a dominant position and signing additional treaties and adding more NS, the charge of hypocrisy would  be legit since the complaints people had were about consolidating an overwhelming amount of NS into a  dominant sphere and increasing sprawl/expansion such as adding former neutrals or traditionally antagonistic/non-aligned alliances.  

In any scenario, one side is still the underdog and outside alliances aren't joining it. This type of imagery  is very misleading since it ignores the fact that those are largely smaller alliances. Meanwhile, the top 10 has a majority allied to each other with some filling the gaps of direct treaties. The other grouping can tie a lot more NS together with fewer treaties. There's a bit of a irony in complaining about these treaties when four alliances tied to the #1 and #2 alliances or both made an MD bloc recently. The fact that there are fewer interlocking treaties that some may consider redundant doesn't change the fact that many allegiances in the non-IQ sector are more or less ironclad.

 

Wait Roq, You've complained about a dominant side and all top alliances being treatied to each other and adding more and more allies.... This... Wait... But..... wow....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Roquentin said:

Stuff

Making a weird, elaborate argument about how signing ties within a sphere isn't consolidating (bear in mind, you literally used inter-sphere ties as the basis for a CB a couple wars back, but let's put that aside) would probably work better if you hadn't just added GoG to IQ (after the postwar Acadia/BK ties), which is the "other" kind of consolidating you're trying to distinguish between.

"Don't call us on consolidating within our sphere, because we're not consolidating outside our sphere in this particular thread, although we do do it, but also shut up".

'Kay.

Edited by Spaceman Thrax
  • Upvote 4

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Making a weird, elaborate argument about how signing ties within a sphere isn't consolidating (bear in mind, you literally used inter-sphere ties as the basis for a CB a couple wars back, but let's put that aside) would probably work better if you hadn't just added GoG to IQ (after the postwar Acadia/BK ties), which is the "other" kind of consolidating you're trying to distinguish between.

"Don't call us on consolidating within our sphere, because we're not consolidating outside our sphere in this particular thread, although we do do it, but also shut up".

'Kay.

The intra-sphere ties were ties that followed two things: the definitive removal of the prior balance of power when the #1 alliance that had sat out the two wars preceding it chose to sign a chaining MDoAP with TKR while downgrading an MD with VE to OD and Paragon breaking off. Consequently, the logical assumption was that the sphere in question had embraced being the established power and would act accordingly. You can call it a self-fulfilling prophecy, but what followed after that war simply validated it further with the continued consolidation of nation strength into the established power with the addition of outside alliances.

GoG being added to IQ makes no difference. It's not a pick up. They were on our side in the last war. There was no real reason not to let them into IQ.  If IQ expanded further out beyond alliances that were on our side in the last war and became the dominant sphere and that situation persisted then it'd be the type of consolidation I referred to.

Anyway, we're not really going to agree either way, but hope this clears up my position.

 

3 hours ago, Phoenix2683 said:

 

Wait Roq, You've complained about a dominant side and all top alliances being treatied to each other and adding more and more allies.... This... Wait... But..... wow....

I never complained about it directly, rather there was a lack of ownership and acknowledgement that people were doing it. It was usually the people who didn't acknowledge what they were doing in that regard and had always said they didn't want hegemonies and such but had essentially built one of their own instead. Either such a situation would persist or someone within it would get bored enough to do something about it.   As there were alliances with the energy to split off even if it meant risking a loss, a few of them did so and chose to give up a position of greater security.  The energy is either going to be there or it won't.

However, the point in that post wasn't merely that the top alliances are all allied to each other though, just that bigger alliances being on one side means more NS can be tied together with fewer treaties and having more NS consolidated in fewer alliances makes inter-alliance coordination easier as opposed to a group that has it strength more spread out across alliances. The treaties between alliances tied to the IQ side don't consolidate more of the available nation strength to IQ even though a lot of people have been complaining about them in earnest. At most, it's just a group outside of the traditional winning side that didn't break immediately. The NS and activity isn't in really in IQ's favor no matter how many same side treaties are signed, and there's a higher likelihood of external actors leaning in the other direction when alliances that are now paperless and people with optional ties but traditionally anti-IQ aren't included. As some alliances would have better opportunities doing the opposite of signing more interlocking treaties ie. cancelling like one or two alliances did, it's a testament to the fact that the ones who would be in such a position prefer to stick it out rather than either getting out of the way of the traditional winning side or joining it.

I realize you're trying to get me on some sort of hypocrisy thing since I know who you are, which is why I've given the explanation but I never really denied anything I was doing.The way I do things in a low vitality context is highly different from the way I do things in a relatively high vitality one.

  • Upvote 1
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.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.