Jump to content

New Pacific Order Reps Race


Scarlet Ellen Red

Recommended Posts

This is the fundamental problem, and why NPO isn't surrendering. They are in the position of negotiating based on no information, as nobody is responsible for presenting them with terms, other than the preterms which are non-negotiable (supposedly) and give the NPO no actual benefit if they're complied with.

The benefit they receive from complying with the ultimatum this topic deals with has already been outlined. They have not received surrender terms because we are not yet willing to accept their surrender - the war is not yet won. When the war has been won - in other words, when those Karma alliances on the Pacific front perceive NPO to have lost enough military, economic and political might - they will be presented terms by a Karma delegation. As for Pacifica 'negotiating' based on no information, they should have no issue with that, considering they have forced their opponents into the same position previously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let me be direct with you: do you think that if NPO keeps these nations in peacemode (as they inevitably will), the war will be extended for reasons separate from them reaching acceptable damage levels?

Remember, I do not speak for Karma on the Pacific front as a whole, only my own alliance. However, from the way I see it, the war will be extended as long as is necessary to inflict the appropriate amount of damage to Pacifica's military, economic and political capabilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now, as I recall there was a valid CB somewhere in there, spying and such. Where NPO failed was that they took something that should have been a lengthy backroom meeting, and a chance for OV to fix things quietly, and turned it into a massive "Charles Foxtrot". If this were Poker, NPO tried its usual bluff tactics and playing pot bully and got called.

And so the misinformation begins.

Surely you can at least wait for the war to be over before re-writing history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The benefit they receive from complying with the ultimatum this topic deals with has already been outlined. They have not received surrender terms because we are not yet willing to accept their surrender - the war is not yet won. When the war has been won - in other words, when those Karma alliances on the Pacific front perceive NPO to have lost enough military, economic and political might - they will be presented terms by a Karma delegation. As for Pacifica 'negotiating' based on no information, they should have no issue with that, considering they have forced their opponents into the same position previously.

I have no problem with you guys giving them a taste of their own medicine.

I just think that if you really want their top tier to come out and aren't just using this as a method of making sure that those nations do take a hit regardless of whether they fight(which is, of course, a completely understandable outlook as well, one that was used previously) --you may want to include in these terms a note of further delaying whatever terms are granted by a given amount of time so long as they're in peacemode.

For example, if for every 50 NPO nations over 5k in peacemode you held off eventual terms for an extra day, I bet you'd see a lot more of them engage. That really would drive them out. Post-war penalizing terms are just to be analyzed mathematically, and the per-day, per-nation costs of these terms are less damaging than being nuked one time by a nation with a WRC. As such I can't say it's going to achieve the former goal, although it'll certainly achieve the latter.

Remember, I do not speak for Karma on the Pacific front as a whole, only my own alliance. However, from the way I see it, the war will be extended as long as is necessary to inflict the appropriate amount of damage to Pacifica's military, economic and political capabilities.

Of course. I do understand that. I'm just posting my thoughts on this strategy. If these terms are just to make sure damage is done, that's fine.

Edited by Kiss Goodbye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite both myself and Drai stating that Pacifica falling below 5 million total strength and losing sanction would be adequate punishment was my own personal opinion, you still somehow deduced that it was Karma's official policy?

You're the leader of an alliance at war with Pacifica. ;)

It's been well-established that there is no central Karma policy on peace terms. Peace terms are set by the alliances at war with a particular target. You're the leader of Vanguard; when I want to know what Vanguard policy is, I read your posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Despite both myself and Drai stating that Pacifica falling below 5 million total strength and losing sanction would be adequate punishment was my own personal opinion, you still somehow deduced that it was Karma's official policy?

When will you learn to just ignore Haflinger? Everything he says is either spin or a failure in the eyes of logic.

Anyway, watching the NPO pull a FAN wants me to dig up quotes surrounding those wars and just keep posting lines and lines of now extremely ironic rhetoric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a question or right and wrong, actually.

You can always ask for reparations, whether you will receive or not is another matter entirely. Rok and the others entered this war knowing that reparations might be possible at the end, but the primary goal of the conflict was to come to the aid of OV and to reduce or eliminate NPO as a threat. If the "reps" you'll get are the primary motivation instead, that makes you at best a mercenary.

Luke: She's rich.

Han Solo: [interested] Rich?

Luke: Rich, powerful. Listen, if you were to rescue her, the reward would be...

Han Solo: What?

Luke: Well, more wealth than you can imagine!

Han Solo: I don't know, I can imagine quite a bit.

Some alliances are asking for reps, some aren't. But the whole concept behind this approach was to get them out of peace mode for a couple rounds, give their insufferable nations a beating, and then approach terms like honorable soldiers, rather than make them pay an exhorbitant amount of money and tech to get peace (which is now the bed they made for themselves). Their banks are more than strong enough to survive a few rounds and begin rebuilding, I've seen the spy reports :ph34r: .

We gave them five days to think about it, and were basically met with laughter. It's awesome, really, to see (or have seen) TPF, Valhalla, IRON, Echelon, fighting their asses off for these guys. They'd rather watch their allies burn and whatever nations didn't make it to peace mode before the war started burn than admit defeat.

On a final note, I don't want to be fighting three months from now, but if we are, there was a time when it could have been ended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no problem with you guys giving them a taste of their own medicine.

I just think that if you really want their top tier to come out and aren't just using this as a method of making sure that those nations do take a hit regardless of whether they fight(which is, of course, a completely understandable outlook as well, one that was used previously) --you may want to include in these terms a note of further delaying whatever terms are granted by a given amount of time so long as they're in peacemode.

For example, if for every 50 NPO nations over 5k in peacemode you held off eventual terms for an extra day, I bet you'd see a lot more of them engage. That really would drive them out. Post-war penalizing terms are just to be analyzed mathematically, and the per-day, per-nation costs of these terms are less damaging than being nuked one time by a nation with a WRC. As such I can't say it's going to achieve the former goal, although it'll certainly achieve the latter.

The issue with your suggestion is that Karma is interested in returning the world to peace as soon as possible. However, we will not end this war until our goals are achieved. The decision between whether this is an extended war that is coupled with higher reparations and longer-lasting surrender terms, or a comparatively shorter war with less reparations and shorter-term surrender terms, is largely in Pacifica's hands. We have given them a clear opportunity to end this.

Also, it is arguable whether extending the war for a set amount of days depending on the number of NPO nations in peace mode would be any more effective than the course of action Karma has selected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i love how the other side continues to call Karma hypocrites for using harsh terms against an alliance such as NPO. i am simply amazed at the sheer arrogance of those people. Cuz most are the same people who hailed NPO and friends for handing out some of the harshest terms or longest wars over the most pathetic of CBs.

NPO is getting exactly what they have done in the past, except for still on a lower scale than NPO has done in the past. it is not hypocritical since Karma never once stated that all alliances are to receive white peace and has in fact stated that those closest to NPO or almost equal to NPO in their crimes will receive terms. Frankly, the terms thus far received are nothing compared to the terms that has been handed down in the past by the Hegemony. so to call them harsh terms is ridiculous. the sheer amount of hypocrisy spewing forth from the other side is amusing though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the leader of an alliance at war with Pacifica. ;)

It's been well-established that there is no central Karma policy on peace terms. Peace terms are set by the alliances at war with a particular target. You're the leader of Vanguard; when I want to know what Vanguard policy is, I read your posts.

It's almost impressive how many contradictions you managed to incorporate within such a small selection of text.

Final surrender terms are determined by the alliances at war with a particular opponent. I am the leader of but one of these alliances. As such, I only speak for Vanguard, and not the entirety of Karma's Pacific front. You are right to look to my posts for Vanguard's policy, but if you are concerned with the policies of Karma's Pacific front as a whole, you should wait for an official statement with all of the necessary signatures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple math and common sense, I would guess.

Ok maths...so what are the reps if they come out of peace mode now and if they dont come out of peace mode now?..hmm..no figures..only figures we've seen are of pre-terms and there is simply no data on end-terms...even the simplest of maths needs numbers.

*EDIT fixed* Regarding your request to refer to your previous post..what is there to refer? There is nothing there I can view as concrete, its only *your* opinions. Your opinions do not matter or help convincing or putting pressure on NPO nations unless it is stated in any official capacity. And given teh reputation that has been built up of flip-flopping demands and unorganized negotiations regarding reps, its even more important for NPO to be absolutely certain on what is exactly needed.

However, they will not be offered until this war is actually won.

Wondering how effective that statement would be for internal propaganda on NPO forums....

Anyway...You are asking NPO to jump off the cliff ...the problem is you're not telling them how deep is the jump and whats down there.

Edited by shahenshah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with your suggestion is that Karma is interested in returning the world to peace as soon as possible. However, we will not end this war until our goals are achieved. The decision between whether this is an extended war that is coupled with higher reparations and longer-lasting surrender terms, or a comparatively shorter war with less reparations and shorter-term surrender terms, is largely in Pacifica's hands. We have given them a clear opportunity to end this.

Also, it is arguable whether extending the war for a set amount of days depending on the number of NPO nations in peace mode would be any more effective than the course of action Karma has selected.

Right, but with the choice you gave them, they took the path that numerically is better for them, and psychologically is worse for you. Their morale is very strangely high, and I'll never understand that about the NPO. I see some folks who fought for karma getting all whiny in this topic and calling the war ugly due to these terms--I don't see it that way, but I'm sure you realized many people would.

As for the fact that the merits of those two choices are arguable, I agree, I've been arguing it with you after all. :P However I was suggesting a synthesis of the two, rather than just this one.

In any case, if your aim in the terms is to damage NPO in comparable measure to if those nations had fought, then these terms will be successful. If your aim is simply to get them to fight, these terms alone will fail. The math doesn't lie, and I'm sure they have calculators.

Edited by Kiss Goodbye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its pretty simple for NPO to get on its way to getting good terms as well as ending this war. Come out and put your money where your mouth is.

So far all attempts by Karma to get this war moving to an endpoint have been met with NPO saying "nope not gonna happen."

Why should Karma stop fighting NPO if NPO is refusing to play the game as well as try to dictate their terms?

NPO is trying to get some form of "victory" out of a war they have clearly lost.

Oh and yes. The resolve from Karma alliances to keep attacking NPO is very high. So their plan to drag this out and have people fold is pretty stupid and wont happen. Karma is in it for the long haul if needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok maths...so what are the reps if they come out of peace mode now and if they dont come out of peace mode now?..hmm..no figures..only figures we've seen are of pre-terms and there is simply no data on end-terms...even the simplest of maths needs numbers.

Regarding your previous post..what is there to refer? There is nothing there I can view as concrete, its only *your* opinions. Your opinions do not matter or help convincing or putting pressure on NPO nations unless it is stated in any official capacity.

You are asking NPO to jump off the cliff and tell them its going to be fine...the problem is they don't know how deep is the jump...only thing that is certain is they'll break their legs and uncertain of what other bones will be broken.

To address your last point, we at least made it clear that they would be fine after exiting peace mode and fighting for a while. More than they ever, ever, did, for anyone.

They are nervous, because of what they've done to others in the past, and they fear it will be done to them. By denying this option, they have in fact done it to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok maths...so what are the reps if they come out of peace mode now

Look at the original post. It will be roughly that figure added on to the reparations figures that have already been agreed to, as part of the surrender terms, in private Karma venues. I find it amusing that people are demanding Karma to publicly release surrender terms before the war is anywhere near complete. When has that ever been done? Why is that in any way sensible? Not to mention I have already provided evidence that the New Pacific Order has done the exact same thing, and as such, should have no issue with it being done to them.

and if they dont come out of peace mode now?..hmm..no figures..only figures we've seen are of pre-terms and there is simply no data on end-terms...even the simplest of maths needs numbers.

If they do not come out of peace mode, they will be looking at reparations that are adjusted to compensate for the number of days that nations above 5k nation strength remained in peace mode, attempting to hide from justice. Again, it tickles me in a special place that you are demanding that we publicise Karma war strategy. Take a look back at how your own alliance has conducted its previous wars.

Regarding your previous post..what is there to refer? There is nothing there I can view as concrete, its only *your* opinions. Your opinions do not matter or help convincing or putting pressure on NPO nations unless it is stated in any official capacity.

I can only say "... What?" to the bolded part. As for the rest, see above.

You are asking NPO to jump off the cliff and tell them its going to be fine...the problem is they don't know how deep is the jump...only thing that is certain is they'll break their legs and uncertain of what other bones will be broken.

Since when did I kiss Lady Pacifica on the forehead and tell her that everything is going to be fine? It will be quite the opposite. To continue with your cliff-jumping analogy, Pacifica has more than enough information to make a decision; if they hide from justice, they will have a longer fall, larger medical bills and an extended recovery time, however, if they actually fight the war they initiated, they will experience a shorter fall, reduced medical bills, and a shorter recovery time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, but with the choice you gave them, they took the path that numerically is better for them, and psychologically is worse for you. Their morale is very strangely high, and I'll never understand that about the NPO. I see some folks who fought for karma getting all whiny in this topic and calling the war ugly due to these terms--I don't see it that way, but I'm sure you realized many people would.

I appreciate your concern for our psychological well-being, but I'd wager that the Karma alliances on the Pacific front are, and will continue, enjoying a much higher level of morale than that of the New Pacific Order. Our resolve has never been stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your concern for our psychological well-being, but I'd wager that the Karma alliances on the Pacific front are, and will continue, enjoying a much higher level of morale than that of the New Pacific Order. Our resolve has never been stronger.

Good to hear.

I hope you'll consider my point regarding the mathematics if you're just trying to get them to fight. $3m and 100 tech per day will not make the NPO banks come out. A greater threat to their alliance's well-being--such as further delay of the offering of terms--might.

Edited by Kiss Goodbye
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost impressive how many contradictions you managed to incorporate within such a small selection of text.

Final surrender terms are determined by the alliances at war with a particular opponent. I am the leader of but one of these alliances. As such, I only speak for Vanguard, and not the entirety of Karma's Pacific front. You are right to look to my posts for Vanguard's policy, but if you are concerned with the policies of Karma's Pacific front as a whole, you should wait for an official statement with all of the necessary signatures.

You're the only leader who's talking.

I did say earlier that NPO's pretty much working in the dark about peace terms. When OV VE Athens GR R&R RoK MOON INT DiCE Avalanche GOD GUN FOK Sparta UCR =LOST= Fly leadership all start talking as well, then we'll be making some progress.

I'm tired of getting criticized for asking questions, btw. If you don't want people to ask you questions, then you shouldn't really be bothering to post on these forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally missed that/hadn't heard that. That is pathetic though, what they (RoK+whoever) are doing. But this isn't the thread for that.

Umm thanks for the info.

After the crap they tried to pull on IRON (thank you Citadel for having the class to stop them), did you expect better from RoK? This time they don't even have the "we were attacked" excuse. It's all in the name of justice! ...Except the restitution money for NPO's crimes will end up in RoK's pockets, not in those of NPO's victims.

I understand that NPO is gonna get harsh terms. Fine. No, that doesn't make you OMG AS BAD AS NPO, which I know you'll accuse me of saying. But you're setting whole new precedents here, things even NPO never did. Not to mention that, as always, the restitution will wind up in the pockets of opportunists, not in the pockets of those who have a valid claim to restitution. RoK, hopefully your comrades in this fight are as classy as those in your fight against IRON.

-Bama

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno if this is necessary, but it could be interesting.

Side-note: Your user title is the worst thing ever. )):

I feel the same way.

Side-note: Do yourself a favor. Don't ever agree to "see her drawings."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen this show before an d I already know the ending. Here are the facts guys, this tactic does not work as has already been proven via FAN, what you are actually doing with this is discouraging NPO to seek peace. Yeah I get that they are being hypocrites but they also have a tight enough community and enough invested into the game to do the same thing FAN did.

Before you know it a whole new breed of player will be here that only knows NPO as the defeated alliance held in a state of eternal war and that will be used against you to take you down.

If you do not want to rethink this strategy because of morality then I would implore you to rethink it because of its long term tactical implications.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After the crap they tried to pull on IRON (thank you Citadel for having the class to stop them), did you expect better from RoK? This time they don't even have the "we were attacked" excuse. It's all in the name of justice! ...Except the restitution money for NPO's crimes will end up in RoK's pockets, not in those of NPO's victims.

I understand that NPO is gonna get harsh terms. Fine. No, that doesn't make you OMG AS BAD AS NPO, which I know you'll accuse me of saying. But you're setting whole new precedents here, things even NPO never did. Not to mention that, as always, the restitution will wind up in the pockets of opportunists, not in the pockets of those who have a valid claim to restitution. RoK, hopefully your comrades in this fight are as classy as those in your fight against IRON.

-Bama

It has already been made clear that RoK was speaking on behalf of all the alliances on the Pacific front and that this is not a RoK policy.

And if the numbers I have heard are accurate RoK's original requested reps could have been paid by IRON in 2 cycles and they took more money in damage negotiating then then the difference of what they negotiated (meaning they were not unreasonable for an alliance of IRON's size). I wouldn't have asked for any reps but that does not mean the reps asked for by RoK are unreasonable.

Also, If you think that making back door peace deals without even discussing it with all the alliances you are fighting alongside is classy then you and I have a different opinion of classy.

What would you do, Srqt?

Would you give them peace right now?

No I would pound them into the dirt and then offer moderate to light reps, which is exactly what I told all of my allies at the time I hoped they would do. I am not saying free Pacifica but I do not think ultimatums like this serve any positive purpose.

Edited by KingSrqt
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...