Chief's Blog

The original terms had no demilitarization in them. This was an attempt to distract people from the fact that their offer is about 1/3rd of the original terms presented to them.

I personally agree with not having demilitarization terms. So these terms are a step backwards in more ways than one. Instead of coming up with a reasonable counter offer they give us this crap.

It's actually in an alliance's best interests to have demilitarization. Lower bills from a lack of military and uninterrupted growth for members that would otherwise fight tech raiders or rogues means more money put into rebuilding. The harshest terms one can place on another is full military being mandatory but that just puts them in a position where they could concievably do a lot of damage in a first strike if they wish to go full suicide mode.

Between terms involving demilitarization and those without, I'd take the former and try to extend it as long as reasonably practical. Depending on other terms you could even still import tech thus improving your capacity to wage war when ever you remilitarize.

Because letting them buy it entirely through tech sellers doesn't punish them at all? Cash is nothing, I'm sure TOP would agree to reps of 20B in a heartbeat, cause realistically it would be super easy for them to pay off. Tech is where it hurts them.

(And for all you paranoid $%&@ers out there, I just pulled the 20B out of a god damn hat to illustrate a point, please don't start debating it)

What about provisions prohibiting importing of tech to member nations while allowing them to act as buyers for C&G? It would keep them leveled while allowing C&G to catch up. Its effects might be less then if it were TOP's own tech but do you think it might be acceptable to either party as a compromise?

Surrender terms?

Drai,

You have been a good friend over the last year or so and you have always been extremely helpful and respectful. My intent is not to troll you guys. Honestly, if the roles were reversed I can't say I would not seek to punish my attackers. It's just tough to watch.

It's actually in an alliance's best interests to have demilitarization. Lower bills from a lack of military and uninterrupted growth for members that would otherwise fight tech raiders or rogues means more money put into rebuilding. The harshest terms one can place on another is full military being mandatory but that just puts them in a position where they could concievably do a lot of damage in a first strike if they wish to go full suicide mode.

Between terms involving demilitarization and those without, I'd take the former and try to extend it as long as reasonably practical. Depending on other terms you could even still import tech thus improving your capacity to wage war when ever you remilitarize.

Military restrictions are embarrassing. Unless you feel there is a chance that they will turn around and attack you- there is little point in imposing them.

Drai,

You have been a good friend of the last year or so and you have always been extremely helpful and respectful. My intent is not to troll you guys. Honestly, if the roles were reversed I can't say I would not seek to punish my attackers. It's just tough to watch.

I completely understand, and appreciate the kind words. I just think that debating how the reps/terms were classified is sort of pointless. Although I get carried away with pointless arguments almost every day on these forums so I don't blame anyone in the slightest.

Military restrictions are embarrassing. Unless you feel there is a chance that they will turn around and attack you- there is little point in imposing them.

Maybe, but that doesn't remove the benefit for those receiving the term particularly with the length of time some terms of surrender remained in effect. If terms lasted only a month then there's an argument demilitarization might be more costly then remaining militarized, based upon the cost to rebuy all of it minus the difference in bills. Over a prolonged period of time however they're desirable for the losing party.

300,000 tech is 18 billion in cash. Those *really* are joke reps for TOP.

$9b, not 18

$9b, not 18

3/50 or 3/100 :/

Maybe, but that doesn't remove the benefit for those receiving the term particularly with the length of time some terms of surrender remained in effect. If terms lasted only a month then there's an argument demilitarization might be more costly then remaining militarized, based upon the cost to rebuy all of it minus the difference in bills. Over a prolonged period of time however they're desirable for the losing party.

What you said is certainly true- but by not having restrictions TOP can stay fully militarised if they want to- or they can go back to a peace time level. It's their choice and it reduces the restrictions on their sovereignty.

NUTS!

300,000 tech is 18 billion in cash. Those *really* are joke reps for TOP.

Standard tech prices, which include profit, have it at $9bn.

It is well publicised that one single TOP member had a starting warchest in excess of $7bn.

Nuts.

I mean, if TOP wants to pay reps of say, 20B, but paid to tech dealers at a rate of 3/100, I'm sure we could agree to something like that quite quickly. Though to be fair, I'm not in on the negotiations.

What you said is certainly true- but by not having restrictions TOP can stay fully militarised if they want to- or they can go back to a peace time level. It's their choice and it reduces the restrictions on their sovereignty.

Indeed but I was responding to the comment of demilitarization in terms being a step back. While its use has traditionally been that of a punishment the effect can easily make it a benevolent act if the intent were to differ. I see it as possible means for stepping forward; moving beyond punitive terms and helping to heal wounds by encouraging the rebuilding of nations. If mandated as a requirement then it would be counter productive for it would look as a violation of sovereignty. If demilitarization were optional then it would be looked upon more highly. Still, even if required, its benefits are not lost and terms which help the defeated rebuild no matter what the actual intent is are by far more preferable then those which actually cause harm.

Standard tech prices, which include profit, have it at $9bn.

It is well publicised that one single TOP member had a starting warchest in excess of $7bn.

Nuts.

I was under the impression that wartime reps are calculated at a 3m/50t equivalence because they are both one slots' worth of aid, the only real measure here of reps effectiveness.

I was under the impression that wartime reps are calculated at a 3m/50t equivalence because they are both one slots' worth of aid, the only real measure here of reps effectiveness.

Yeah, slotwise. But answering to the guy who was stating it in terms of money, which clearly has its own sensationalist agenda, I think it's relevant to quote the price of tech.

Military restrictions are embarrassing. Unless you feel there is a chance that they will turn around and attack you- there is little point in imposing them.

I wonder if this doubt of TOP & Co's likelyhood to turn around and attack CnG started before or after the war lasted for a month. I mean, if you don't think they're going to be a future threat now after you've dominated them for a month, how on Bob could you a month ago of thought that they would? Makes me wonder how much of the propaganda was more intentional deception of opinions rather than just mindless droning.

NUTS

NUTS

It's mockery. When mocking via mimicking, it quite often does not make sense for the mimer (did I just make up a word) to do what they're doing. Except that they're insulting the other party. :haw:

As a side note, your insult has been duly noted, and I am quite pleased to see your arrogance and sense of entitlement has survived this war fully intact thus far. We will be sure to redouble our efforts on that front

Mocking via mimicking, a highly effective form of taunting.

- Second grader's handbook of social interaction.

NUTS!

100 thousand tech is unreasonable? lol

I'll keep that in mind.

Yes. TOP alone could pay off their 50k tech if all 200 of their nations were to use 5 of their aid slots once. Basically these terms would be over in a day.

tl;dr NUTS

NUTS

Mocking via mimicking, a highly effective form of taunting.

- Second grader's handbook of social interaction.

See, mhawk gets it.

NUTS

Mocking via mimicking, a highly effective form of taunting.

- Second grader's handbook of social interaction.

Yes because them spamming the first thread with "NUTS" was very mature. The "stop being immature" argument doesn't really work here.

I truly hope that CnG is prepared to reap what it's sewn here and in the Karma war. I'm not sure that I'll have any sympathy.

I truly hope that CnG is prepared to reap what it's sewn here and in the Karma war. I'm not sure that I'll have any sympathy.

I honestly have never seen people try so hard to sympathize with an unwarranted aggressive action before. Its really pretty sweet.