Jump to content
  • entry
    1
  • comments
    20
  • views
    1,916

How the war changes Cybernations


guus87

248 views

 Share

  

103 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Dear planet Bob,

I have been looking on the owf the last couple of weeks and I am surprised by the opinions.

There are basically 3 camps at the moment.

1. the white peace group. the group that just want white peace for TOP and co.

The destruction of their nations is enough for them and their mates.

2. little reps. They believe that there is enough damage done now, but to make CnG and co victors they need a little bit of reps.

3. The current Reps. They believe they have been attacked aggressive and therefore should give aggressive terms.

I am a proud member of MK and I believe they should get the current Reps.

My reasons.

1. TOP and Co. attacked CnG. Not the other way around.

2. I have fought at least 4 TOP members and at least 3 of them had warchest above 1 billion. and you can't tell me those were exceptions.

3. Think about what TOP would do if they would win. yes indeed ask for reps.

4. Another reason why they are getting such high reps: there are a lot of Alliance's involved. TOP well done, only you have lost and everybody wants a bit of you.

5. there has never been so much money on planet bob. a average nation now has at least 150m where that was 50m 2 years ago.

6. know the risk of attacking. if you gamble big, prepare to lose big.

 Share

20 Comments


Recommended Comments

need a fourth camp in there. one that thinks that TOP/Co should pay reps to CnG that aren't really tiny but not as large as they currently are. also, need to include that only CnG deserves reps and no other alliance fighting TOP/Co should get any.

Link to comment

It depends on how widely you want to describe "TOP & Co." as; it can describe only the alliances who initially attacked C&G, or it can describe everyone who fought on that "side" of the war.

Opinions on the above question would vary widely, depending on how big your tent is.

Link to comment

1) TOP & Co. would not ask for reps being in the other position

2) Extortion should be illegal in this game

3) War is the game. Play it.

1) Because TOP/IRON/Company has NEVER asked for reps EVER from other alliances :rolleyes:

2) It's not extortion, TOP & Co. attacked CnG. They're called reparations for a reason.

3) This I agree with.

Link to comment

1) Because TOP/IRON/Company has NEVER asked for reps EVER from other alliances :rolleyes:

2) It's not extortion, TOP & Co. attacked CnG. They're called reparations for a reason.

3) This I agree with.

So what you are saying is that because it has happened before it will happen again? There are numerous flaws in that argument. People change, alliances change, government changes, the game changes. We would not ask for reps, I can guarantee it.

It is extortion. Reasonable reps are one thing. Keeping an alliance locked in reparation payments for the better part of a year is extortion.

And to re-iterate, this is a game. Can we please just play it and quit complaining back and forth?

"You attacked us, you will pay!"

"It would have happened the other way anyway."

For the love of God can we please just get on with our lives.

Link to comment

I'm saying I really doubt that TOP & Co. would honestly give white peace if the situation was reversed.

No one seems to know what these hypothetical reps are, so I don't believe anyone can call it extortion and ebil until they are actually made.

And I'm well aware it's a game, but half the fun in it is the bickering. I'd just rather it was intelligent bickering rather than the complete nonsense that keeps getting spewed at the moment.

Link to comment

And I'm well aware it's a game, but half the fun in it is the bickering. I'd just rather it was intelligent bickering rather than the complete nonsense that keeps getting spewed at the moment.

I agree with you here. It really is apparent though that sometimes EVERYONE needs to be reminded that this is a game.

Link to comment

The problem with your argument is you are making too many assumptions and leave to many things unclear.

1. TOP and Co. attacked CnG. Not the other way around. (This is fact and everyone can agree on this)

2. I have fought at least 4 TOP members and at least 3 of them had warchest above 1 billion. and you can't tell me those were exceptions. (Irrelevant and your making assumptions that the majority are like this)

3. Think about what TOP would do if they would win. yes indeed ask for reps. (Another assumption and the fact that they have asked for reps in the past may increas the likely hood but does not dictate that there will be reps, that is flawed argument)

4. Another reason why they are getting such high reps: there are a lot of Alliance's involved. TOP well done, only you have lost and everybody wants a bit of you. (Only aggressive action was against CnG, the fact that others joined in to help them makes them good allies and should be supported by those they helped, the fact that they stood in the crossfire is their own issue not Top and Companies.)

5. there has never been so much money on planet bob. a average nation now has at least 150m where that was 50m 2 years ago. (Again, irrelevant. Its a game and as such the prices have a set value, its not RL where market values rise and fall, to ask for more simply because you can is nonsense)

6. know the risk of attacking. if you gamble big, prepare to lose big. (These alliances don't make 'gambles' like this, they felt their support of their allies would result in a direct attack from CnG so preemptively attacked to better secure the future for their allies, while this obviously failed I would hardly call it a 'gamble')

Link to comment

The problem with your argument is you are making too many assumptions and leave to many things unclear.

Stuff i don't care about

5. there has never been so much money on planet bob. a average nation now has at least 150m where that was 50m 2 years ago. (Again, irrelevant. Its a game and as such the prices have a set value, its not RL where market values rise and fall, to ask for more simply because you can is nonsense)

more stuff i don't care about.

5. Prices do not have set values. In fact they very nature of the game contradicts this. Infra prices rise as you go along and losing 100 out of 1000 infra may be seem like a lot but a 3 million boost from a large nation easily covers it while losing 100 out of 8000 infra cost much much more to replace. More money means people have more stuff but it also means the stuff is harder to replace because you need more money to replace it which is why wars go on the numerical amount asked in reps will increase simply to cover a faction of the cost done in battle.

Link to comment

To be quite clear. TOP as well as everyone else who participated in the attack agreed before the attack to grant white peace or small reps if we had knocked CnG out. Remember this attack was in the context of a larger war which we knew was close and our side was at a slight disadvantage. The idea was to knock CnG out early and redeploy. Therefore strategically it would not make sense to extort CnG for reps, thus keeping them in the fight.

For TORN's part, we have given MK white peace in the past so I don't know where this sense that it would be ahistorical for our alliances offer such a deal. Also, given our history with MK you can bet we would have (and did) pushed for white peace or light reps had we won.

Your other points are fine, but factually 3 is wrong and should not be considered.

Link to comment
2) Extortion should be illegal in this game
Extortion by definition is illegal. The fact that this is legal precludes it being described as "extortion".

Secondly, it's a struggle to describe defensive war reps as extortion, I can picture no situation in which this could be made illegal.

Third and most importantly, this is an interesting line from IRON of all alliances, having been party to a great deal of real rep extortion -- illegal in terms of treaties, profitable and forced.

Link to comment

Were I in the position of coordinating CnG's affairs, I would stick with the original offer and add $50 million and 1000 tech to the tab every time someone on the TOP/IRON side used the now-meaningless words 'extortion' or 'hypocrisy'.

Link to comment

5. Prices do not have set values. In fact they very nature of the game contradicts this. Infra prices rise as you go along and losing 100 out of 1000 infra may be seem like a lot but a 3 million boost from a large nation easily covers it while losing 100 out of 8000 infra cost much much more to replace. More money means people have more stuff but it also means the stuff is harder to replace because you need more money to replace it which is why wars go on the numerical amount asked in reps will increase simply to cover a faction of the cost done in battle.

We are coming from different perspectives here. If your sitting at 4k infra buying 100 more will always cost the same amount (disregarding improvements and other modifiers). This doesn't change, what you are talking about is how price scales as you buy more, price increase is a set value depending on what infra level you are currently at. What I was trying to get at, is its not like IRL where a multitude of variables could change prices over night.

Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   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...