Imperial Decree from the New Pacific Order

[Azaghul]

I missed this earlier.

Analysis of the Effect of War on the Ability to Pay Reparations

Now, some people are going to claim "massive war chests." It ain't there people. 7 weeks of nuclear war, plus stints in PM, or for our banks, 7 weeks in PM, hurts those warchests a lot, even billion dollar warchests. Yes, some nations might have billion dollar warchests at the end of the war, but the catch has never been the size of the warchest, but how much you can send out. 18M/cycle just doesn't even take out a chunk of these types of reparations.

Generally speaking, when one has had to give out reparations or produce tech, that tech can be funded somehow, or subsidized. No can-do here, because the banks are gone. Smaller nations are also not allowed to sell tech outside the NPO due to these terms.

Now, again, generally speaking, people point to 180 nations, and say, oh look, you can just multiply all the slots by the nations over time and pay it off easy!

Here's the problem with that kind of thinking:

1. It assumes all 180 nations are active. Really, with programs like these, you can't expect much better than 50-60% activity. You know how I know? I asked the MK guys during negotiations how many nations paid off their tech reps, and it was far less than that percentage as a percentage of their alliance.

That was intentional, because we didn't need them. Half our nations were large enough that they had significant tech stockpiles so having them send out reps would have not been ideal. Of the other half, about 80 or so, about 65 at any one given time participated in reparations as tech producers. The majority of those received 6 million every cycle and only sent out 150 tech to boost their rebuilding.

65 other nations with significant tech stockpiles acted as banks, using nearly every available slot to rebuild among the banks for the first month and once they were all built up producing money for the tech producers, hundreds of millions in rebuilding aid for allies in C&G, and even using 2-3 slots each to buy tech for themselves.

If we had really had to, we could have sent out tech at a lot faster rate. We didn't because we didn't need to and doing it like we did more than 80% of the tech was produced as it was sent. NPO was having enough trouble supplying us with targets fast enough as it was. However we were achieving about 80% slot usage at times. That was over the whole alliance, not over those starting with 1000+ tech or huge war chests like in this case, which are a lot more likely to be active members than over a broad membership.

2. It assumes that every single slot will always be used, always. That's just ridiculous. There are very few nations on the Planet that manage that have all 4/5/6 slots filled every day, and we're no different. You lose efficiency from that.

Luckily for you the slots required are far under the slots needed to pay off reps.

3. It assumes that all these nations will have money with which to purchase and send tech, or just plain good ol' money lying around to send to Karma. Right now, we literally have 47 nations at ZI. I don't mean people with 100 infra, I mean people with 0.00 infrastructure. We have 402 members under 200 infrastructure, 511 under 500. You can look up the stats for yourselves, but we don't have nations who can either produce money or tech to send as reparations, particularly not when the Bank, which possibly could be used to fund a rebuilding/reparations effort, will have been destroyed by war.

4. Most Karma estimates I've seen presented only looked at paying off the 300K, or the 7B, but but not both at once. It would be a monumental task to do either one of them, but it's entirely a different story to do both, particularly given that they both come from different sources due to the 1K+ tech restriction on where the 300K tech has to come from.

You have hundreds with a full set of economic improvements and wonders that can rebuild quickly. You have dozens with really large warchests, more than you need to pay off the financial reps. There will still be room to spare to send out money, which can be used to build others into banking range relatively quickly, especially those nations sending tech reps which at the beginning don't need money as they are sending against a stockpile.

[neneko]

It is super effective!

[legion-x]

Also, reps like these don't really break wills, they just make them stronger. Put yourself in the same situation, the anger will make your resolve stronger, it will make you focus! The force has always been strong with them.

they break some wills but those loyal to alliance stay strong, i learned that piece of info in forced neutrality for a year and on the pink team. loyalty is key in this game itll make you or break you

[iamthey]

Maybe that should have been considered before the same types of terms were implimented on other alliances.

You all thought you were the almighty and untouchable. You never considered the fact that all your harshness would some day turn around to bite you in the A$$!

Well guess what? IT HAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KARMA - What goes around comes around

Now would it truely be Karma had you been let off the hook with mild terms? I DON'T THINK SO!

Lol what? Also please name an instance where NPO has demanded unpayable reps?

[Varianz]

I won't comment about whether or not these terms are "fair". My passing judgment on that would not influence anyone. We have all made up our minds as to what the NPO "deserves". Arguing about it seems pointless. And besides, for the vast majority of players, the issue of fairness does not matter. We fight because our alliances are at war. We fight because we are loyal to our alliances. The average member is not stirred to anger by stories of Pacifican "atrocities". They are simply giving back to the alliances that protect them, fighting alongside their brothers.'

The reps are payable, I'll acknowledge that. I find the reparations part of the terms to be acceptable. We can organize payment for that. It'll be hard for us, but we can. What I disagree with is the requirement that 90% of the NPO nations in peace mode come out. It's already been pointed out that due to RL it would be almost impossible to get that kind of activity out of members. I would suggest that either terms are modified to increase reparations instead of that requirement, or lower the number of nations that must exit peace mode. The peace mode requirement seems to be the only sticking point that is preventing peace from being achieved. I'm confident that the Emperor and the leaders of Karma will come to an agreement that can be accepted by both sides. However, that won't happen if we are all inflexible. Both sides must understand that negotiation implies give and take. We of Pacifica are ready to give (ignore the diehards who claim they will "fight forever"). From what I can see, Karma appears ready to give too. Let's all calm down and think before we go mindlessly trolling the other side. Coming to terms benefits us both.

Signed,

A loyal Pacifican, Kingharold33

[Aurion]

There is nothing wrong in being frightened, its an emotion common to us all. GW1 justification proves the point.

Mmh, I think one of the reasons the GW1 terms were light is because people thought they could make Pacifica not seek revenge by displaying some level of gentleness.

Well, that plus they rather stupidly allowed Pacifica to dictate the terms of the settlement in the first place.

Since that was fairly blatantly not shown to be true, it then follows that there is no possible point in allowing NPO light terms. It's not like they've earned them or I can honestly say I respect them terribly much at this point.

Edit: But yeah, GW1 was started at least partly because people were scared. Goes to show why it's a better strategy to play to win than it is to play not to lose.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Aurion

[Lord of the Port]

Having now read through the whole of the thread up to this point, I believe my feelings could be best summed up in picture form.

Despite not agreeing to this, I had to laugh.

Why can't all responses be like this, then the whole of Bob would be some much more pleasant to live on. Not this bitter broth of argument it has been for the past year, if not more.

[OOC]Also, love the avatar, where did you find it? [/ooc]

[muffasamini]

The biggest problem with taking down a giant is you have to break his will to continue fighting. NPO has broken alliances in half many times before, I highly doubt much of Karma or its loosely associated allies really care about the reps as much as they care about NPO really admitting defeat, not just a half-assed sentence posted on the OWF, but truly break the will.

Well. I suspect offering an I dont know, an extra billion or so so that we could end this war is a pretty good sign that we've been defeated and no loger wish to fight.

THE NPO HAS LOST THIS WAR

there is no possible point in allowing NPO light terms. It's not like they've earned them or I can honestly say I respect them terribly much at this point.

We arent going to get light terms, we dont expect light terms, we just need terms that are physically possible. (I'm referring to the 90% war-mode, no the rep amounts)

Edited June 13, 2009 by muffasamini

[dwthegreat]

when are you refering to?

I was referring to too many times

[Learz]

OOC: So, when the poll going to be made?

[Tom Litler]

I think that the New Pacific Order should accept the terms as they are. They'll only serve to adequately fuel your rage for a time when revenge is possible.

[legion-x]

I was referring to too many times

to many times? name a couple

[Elderago]

I won't comment about whether or not these terms are "fair". My passing judgment on that would not influence anyone. We have all made up our minds as to what the NPO "deserves". Arguing about it seems pointless. And besides, for the vast majority of players, the issue of fairness does not matter. We fight because our alliances are at war. We fight because we are loyal to our alliances. The average member is not stirred to anger by stories of Pacifican "atrocities". They are simply giving back to the alliances that protect them, fighting alongside their brothers.'

The reps are payable, I'll acknowledge that. I find the reparations part of the terms to be acceptable. We can organize payment for that. It'll be hard for us, but we can. What I disagree with is the requirement that 90% of the NPO nations in peace mode come out. It's already been pointed out that due to RL it would be almost impossible to get that kind of activity out of members. I would suggest that either terms are modified to increase reparations instead of that requirement, or lower the number of nations that must exit peace mode. The peace mode requirement seems to be the only sticking point that is preventing peace from being achieved. I'm confident that the Emperor and the leaders of Karma will come to an agreement that can be accepted by both sides. However, that won't happen if we are all inflexible. Both sides must understand that negotiation implies give and take. We of Pacifica are ready to give (ignore the diehards who claim they will "fight forever"). From what I can see, Karma appears ready to give too. Let's all calm down and think before we go mindlessly trolling the other side. Coming to terms benefits us both.

Signed,

A loyal Pacifican, Kingharold33

wow a Moderate NPO member !, who would have thought

seriously though 90 % of an alliance out of peace mode is ridiculous even coming from someone who has disliked NPO, if people are inflexible nothing will be solved...

also note I agree with lord of port, OOC/ people lighten up it's a game /OOC

[LazarusLong]

Taken from A Missive from Karma

We will not sink into a smear war with them. Their sins are long, and they are known to us all. We will fight this war with no joy, and we will fight it with honor and dignity. We will not impose draconian terms, but we will not tolerate such underhanded tactics being employed against us. Our haste was unbecoming, and it was shameful, but our hand was forced. I hope that the population of Planet Bob will understand this, and forgive us our malfeasance.

Dictionary: dra·co·ni·an

Exceedingly harsh; very severe

And yet there have been several posts from Karma members within this very thread stating "Harsh terms are fair."

Your loose coalition of peoples has become a power hungry group of false ideals.

You want the disbandment of the NPO, you want us to be forgotten.

Sadly for you fine folks, our will is too strong to let that happen.

You fly under one banner, but act like unconnected body parts. I would recommend coming up with something every nation of yours considers fair. Some of your own people want less terms. Granted they aren't the leadership, but there are some.

Come up with some reasonable terms that won't mean us being forever relegated to the back burner (it is not Pacifica's place to be in the back, and keeping us simmering will probably cause problems) and I'm sure that reason and hope for a better tomorrow will prevail.

((OOC: My first post in any CN forum; flame away. ))

[Zoomzoomzoom]

What was the point in this? Are you trying to gain public support to rally for your cause?

It was NPO's leadership that got their alliance into this mess. It was their terrible actions that furthered the war. Do you (NPO) think this topic is going to help your stance in peace terms? Cry hypocrisy all you want, but the NPO leadership isn't respected enough to lower these terms, especially not with this topic.

Accept the terms or welcome to the next couple years in peace mode. You started this and you're going to pay for it.

Harsh the terms might be, but you have a responsibility to get your ally, TPF, out of this war you caused. Terms aren't getting lighter and the war is just getting longer. You only increase the damage to your alliance and make it worse to pay off the terms.

[Jipps]

when are you refering to?

You are kidding right?

The irony of you calling out other alliances as back stabbing when LoSS mass cancelled about every single treaty that it had in one post days before a war started involving those very same alliances. Then signing a treaty with an alliance that would put you on the other side of the war on the same day, thus flip flopping every aspect of your foreign policy from many months before. You have no right to talk about back stabbing, my friend.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Jipps

[Heracles the Great]

Having now read through the whole of the thread up to this point, I believe my feelings could be best summed up in picture form.

<3 it - well done sir, well done

[Ludacrism2]

or nearly a month, the New Pacific Order has extended its hand in an offering of surrender to the forces arrayed against it. This hand was ignored, as the forces who call themselves "Karma," delayed in reaching an agreement, despite having issued time limited "pre-terms."

Fail

This war was fought to defend our sovereignty against a nation who willingly and knowingly sought our private military information.

Funny coming from you

We cannot, in good conscience to the responsibility we have to the Body Republic of the New Pacific Order, accept such terms. We cannot accept terms that will, in essence, result in the destruction of our alliance and force us to expel our friends. We reject those terms, and welcome those alliances against us who wish to make to peace to approach our government with terms that are reasonable, reasonable for what our opponents want, and reasonable in what we are capable of giving.

This just means more fun for the rest.....

[Haflinger]

No, just the will power, NPO has never been psychologically defeated, however they have psychologically defeated other alliances.

Ah, I see.

You don't want to destroy their statistics, you merely wish to destroy the willpower that they have to continue existing as an alliance.

[Alterego]

It was NPO's leadership that got their alliance into this mess.

Untrue, no matter how many times people try to say it Karma and not NPO are responsible for these uber harsh terms. Karma wrote them, they and they alone are responsible.

[dwthegreat]

to many times? name a couple

April 16th 2009 is one date you should remember well

[Rajistani]

You are kidding right?

The irony of you calling out other alliances as back stabbing when LoSS mass cancelled about every single treaty that it had in one post days before a war started involving those very same alliances. Then signing a treaty with an alliance that would put you on the other side of the war on the same day, thus flip flopping every aspect of your foreign policy from many months before. You have no right to talk about back stabbing my friend.

LoSS... ODN... many others.

MHA who entered on the other side late in the war even though they had 4 treaties being called on from the other side, before entering on the winning side.

But thats neither here nor there

[dwthegreat]

You are kidding right?

The irony of you calling out other alliances as back stabbing when LoSS mass cancelled about every single treaty that it had in one post days before a war started involving those very same alliances. Then signing a treaty with an alliance that would put you on the other side of the war on the same day, thus flip flopping every aspect of your foreign policy from many months before. You have no right to talk about back stabbing my friend.

Well said my friend.. Well said

And was that the first time?

[SpiderJerusalem]

You should be ashamed of yourself for this comment. War mode is the standard mode for pretty much all aligned nations, every alliance has nearly 100% of its nations in war mode during times of peace. It's moving a large amount of people from one mode to the other where problems occur.

*sigh*

I thought you were so proud of your military machine? Anyone who refuse to get out of peace mode when ordered to is a traitor to Pacifica, no?

[Bob Janova]

To respond to a couple of the recurring points:

• "You are as bad as us/hypocrites/etc"
  Look at the big picture. Most alliances have been given zero or light reparations – something which the Hegemony has not done in the past. Alliances entering only on treaty commitments have been made to disband by the NPO in the past (IAA). Karma have not pushed a viceroy on anyone. Only the NPO is receiving terms which are harsh – because they deserve it. Punishing a criminal is not as bad as locking an innocent man in a small room.
  
• "The reps are unpayable"
  Not unless you're really incompetent they're not. Estimates of realistic payback rates put the time at 3 to 6 months, as has been shown on the last couple of pages.
  
• "We won't be able to rebuild anyway!"
  Not true, you have many nations with large warchests, and many of those at or near ZI can be at banking size (5000 infra) tomorrow. Polar and MK showed how quickly a defeated alliance can rebuild, and NPO is better prepared now than NpO was then.
  
• "Harsh terms only breed resentment"
  While this may be true, NPO has already shown in the past that it will harbour resentment anyway. There is no purpose in giving NPO mercy, because they don't accept it anyway. The only course of action with NPO is to ensure that it never grows large enough to be a threat again, and harsh terms are one way to do that.
  
• "But you helped us with some of our injustices!"
  People realise their mistakes, and change. The door is always open for your allies to do so (I'm sure terms to TPF or Echelon or whoever else is still there would be small), and also for your nations, if they no longer support the IOs' aggressive policies.
  
• "The 90% is impossible" (edit: missed this one)
  90% of all nations in the AA seems tough. But ghosts and nations who do not follow orders should be expelled anyway, and a list of these can be provided to Karma trivially. 90% complaince of real, active members is not hard.
  

Edited June 13, 2009 by Bob Janova