Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kashyyk]

I just forgot to remove that article when I reworded it.

[Devastator]

Seriously, if there is a condition you want for you to be on board with this, would you just come out and say what exactly it is? Not that I don't think it matters at this point since a good number of Moskurg players have said yes, but more consensus is better.

To be honest, Tryrar, I'm wondering if Arstotzka would have been willing to offer anything, anything at all, to their opponents.  I recieved the answer;  No.  I would have been interested in anything;  Restrictions in tank production, aircraft production, expanding bullets, strategic bombing, naval warfare, resources, territory, local ceasefires, anything that was not explicitly pro-Arstotzka.  What we get is an imprecise ban on chemical weapons, which some Moskurgians proposed, a ban on radioactive materials, which only Moskurg has any of, and a ban on radio decryption, which Arstotzka stands to gain more from, due to cheaper and thus more prevalent radios.

Voting yes on a deal where each and every line item is beneficial to Arstotzka is silly, and I can't see anything written there restricting or reducing Arstotzka's many advantages, only ones designed to hurt Moskurg.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Add ban of bombing cities and I can support it. Else there are zero reason for Moskurg to sign the deal.

[Kashyyk]

Unless Sensei is fucking with us, I'm pretty sure Moskurg still doesn't have any radioactive materials, the ban on radio decryption is more so that we don't keep dumping actions into "make our encryptions better and break theirs" and chemical weapons are typically ineffective in mass combat.

Arstotzka does have more radios than us, yes. But we also gain from not getting our comms decrypted, possible more so as radio encryption is too time-consuming for anything other than strategic communications at the moment anyway.

[andrea]

Chemical weapons were proposed by both sides. Expanding bullets were in the treaty, but during discussion several turns ago they were removed. International discussion I mean. As for encryption,  it is a game enjoyment matter, and I'd like to point out that we have better decryption ability . We stand to lose as well, we just think that turning this into an encryption war is unfun. As for radiation,  it was proposed ages before this nuclear thing which I am not even sure actually exists.

As for us making concessions,  we didn't think of this treaty as biased. You found a bias, but you never said what you thought was fair for us to give up or offer proper discussion.  As far as I am concerned,  trying to work a deal with you is futile, because your goals are way too nebulous. ( you proposed this! We can't accept unless you give concessions.  But you must propose them)

[Devastator]

Fair enough then.  That leaves it to.. banning chemical weapons, which is neutral, banning radioactive materials, because you think we don't have any, despite Arstotzkans being 'not sure', and might be willing to give us something for removing the doubt from their minds, and banning radio decryption because you don't want to play that game.

All those are fair enough, but it would be nice to get something out of conceding the advantage in radio, (as given the loss of so much territory, a good case could be made for not needing strategic radio communications), and removing doubt from their minds.  We have something they want, and instead of asking a price for it, you would rather give it to our opponents in a hot war for free.

Seriously, add a ban on strategic bombing, and I'd be content.  Or something else.

[Devastator]

As for us making concessions,  we didn't think of this treaty as biased. You found a bias, but you never said what you thought was fair for us to give up or offer proper discussion.  As far as I am concerned,  trying to work a deal with you is futile, because your goals are way too nebulous. ( you proposed this! We can't accept unless you give concessions.  But you must propose them)

Fine, then.  Here's a line item that would let me support the treaty:

Cities may not be destroyed through strategic bombing.  Level bombing to destroy non-city targets or military targets outside of cities is allowed, as are ships at sea.  Precision bombing via dive bombers is also allowed.

[Sheb]

We have an encryption machine which can crack your code and that you cannot decrypt. How is that advantaging us?


Seriously, you're just sounding shrilled and more annoying by the minute.

[tryrar]

As for us making concessions,  we didn't think of this treaty as biased. You found a bias, but you never said what you thought was fair for us to give up or offer proper discussion.  As far as I am concerned,  trying to work a deal with you is futile, because your goals are way too nebulous. ( you proposed this! We can't accept unless you give concessions.  But you must propose them)

Fine, then.  Here's a line item that would let me support the treaty:

Cities may not be destroyed through strategic bombing.  Level bombing to destroy non-city targets or military targets outside of cities is allowed, as are ships at sea.  Precision bombing via dive bombers is also allowed.

That I can actually get behind, if just so we can stop debating this treaty. I mean, if there's a military target in a city, then all we have to do is build an airfield in the nearby desert and divebomb the shit out of it.

[Devastator]

We have an encryption machine which can crack your code and that you cannot decrypt. How is that advantaging us?

Seriously, you're just sounding shrilled and more annoying by the minute.

From the 1930 battle report:

This means that this year, both sides have secure communications, except in the occasional instances in which code key cards and schedules are stolen.

There was no mention of communications being broken for or against in '31.  If both comms are secure, and you have more radios, you get more from radios.

[Sheb]

If you read further, Sensei said we should have been able to decrypt. I guess he forgot to mention it in 1931, and we were winning on all fronts anyway.

[Devastator]

I dunno.  In 1930, he said you were baffled, and it was all espionage actions for codebreaking anyway.  Espionage for 31 was a mutal failure.  If it was true that our communications are permanently compromised, that would change the nature of the treaty dramatically.  I can't say it couldn't be true;  in '31 our tanks were more expensive and our design and revision actions were nearly passes, so I have no evidence in being hamstrung due to broken comms, as losses on all three fronts with secure comms for both sides seems entirely reasonable.

In the absense of anything written for '31, I'd have to take the '30 turn at face value.

With that in mind, would you agree to the strategic bombing ban as above?

[andrea]

Considering the way sensei worded it, we may be a production order from being able to intercept you again. I am not willing to concede that we get a sizeable advantage from that point, nor to make such hyperbolic concessions for imagined slights.
If you want to ban strategic bombing,  you will have to concede some limitations on militarization of cities.
But before that, since the treaty doesn't need to be unanimous, I shall wait to see if the neutral version passes.

Edit:I'll count votes from each side as soon as I get home.

Spoiler: vote tally (click to show/hide)

Andres-Kashyyk treaty on weapons
Arstotzka
Andrea
Ebbor
Andres
tryrar

Moskurg
Kashyyk
Baffler

Ghazkull concordate on radio interception
(only the decryption article of Andres-Kashyyk)
Moskurg
Ghazkull
Evilcherry?

Ukrainian addendum on the rules of war
(same as Andres-kashyyk but with a ban on strategic city bombing)
Moskurg
Ukrainian ranger
Devastator

did I miss anyone?

[evilcherry]

To me its simple: Some amendments should be made to limit the "I make better encryption!" "I make even better encryption!" "I defeated your even better decryption!" turns a bit. These are unimaginative and unfun.

[andrea]

that exists in all three currently debated versions of the treaty.  With the possible exception of devastator, everyone feels like you about the encryption war it seems. That specific point will easily be passed.

any preference among the three?