I'm baffled NPO

[Letum]

Azaghul's plan earlier in this thread fulfils that requirement and proves that it is possible with no problem. Since internal aid doesn't have to be sent from high tech nations, some of your other nations sitting on large warchests can send that.

I am quite sure you are able to read three posts above you. But can you break free of your confirmation bias and comprehend?

[Deadshot]

As a person who has only his posts to go by and not a general friendship like most of the people who replied to it, I have to agree that Bob Janova is a good man. One of the most fair you will find here.

As for the 800th discussion on math, both sides bring up some valid points amidst the rubble of discussion here. Could a solution be found with a simple rewrite of the terms into a more clear way? Not a dig on anyone who worte them, but it appears all of the arguements are based on miss communication as opposed to the spirit of the writing.

Obviously, past sentiment aside, NPO has an issue with what they believe to be unclear terms. Not with the money and tech aspects, simply the wording. If it is true that each peace mode nation will receive peace after fourteen days of war, and not an idefinite amount of time, then an official rewrite would solve that. Not, "well Big Z said this, or Archon said that". Just rewrite them and present them again. NPO will see the change to the suspicious term and hopefully concede since reps were never the issue.

Maybe I am just under thinking it, but I swear it seems like there is way to much over analyzing going on, when a possible solution is right under the nose. Though just as with any other alliance that has received terms, whether from Karma or any other time in the past, it is up to the victors to give terms. Which you have. NPO also has every right to negotiate those if they wish, and Karma is not obligated to budge one inch. No one is in the wrong at that point, both sides will do what they must to ensure their wishes are met.

Again, I wish everyone luck in sorting this mess out. I too would love to see these screens of NPO's banks and wonder why they haven't been released since most of the arguments made involve those screens. If Karma is looking to prove to the world that they are right with regard to peace mode banks within NPO, then releasing those ends these arguments now. But if Karma doesn't want to, that is also their perogative.

Good luck all.

[Cortath]

As a person who has only his posts to go by and not a general friendship like most of the people who replied to it, I have to agree that Bob Janova is a good man. One of the most fair you will find here.

As for the 800th discussion on math, both sides bring up some valid points amidst the rubble of discussion here. Could a solution be found with a simple rewrite of the terms into a more clear way? Not a dig on anyone who worte them, but it appears all of the arguements are based on miss communication as opposed to the spirit of the writing.

Obviously, past sentiment aside, NPO has an issue with what they believe to be unclear terms. Not with the money and tech aspects, simply the wording. If it is true that each peace mode nation will receive peace after fourteen days of war, and not an idefinite amount of time, then an official rewrite would solve that. Not, "well Big Z said this, or Archon said that". Just rewrite them and present them again. NPO will see the change to the suspicious term and hopefully concede since reps were never the issue.

Maybe I am just under thinking it, but I swear it seems like there is way to much over analyzing going on, when a possible solution is right under the nose. Though just as with any other alliance that has received terms, whether from Karma or any other time in the past, it is up to the victors to give terms. Which you have. NPO also has every right to negotiate those if they wish, and Karma is not obligated to budge one inch. No one is in the wrong at that point, both sides will do what they must to ensure their wishes are met.

Again, I wish everyone luck in sorting this mess out. I too would love to see these screens of NPO's banks and wonder why they haven't been released since most of the arguments made involve those screens. If Karma is looking to prove to the world that they are right with regard to peace mode banks within NPO, then releasing those ends these arguments now. But if Karma doesn't want to, that is also their perogative.

Good luck all.

Wentworth, we were told, in no uncertain terms, that no negotiations on this clause would be tolerated.

Why? Because these terms are meant to be the equivalent of eternal war.

As I said earlier in this thread:

These terms weren't made to be payable. Many alliances in Karma, against us, wants eternal war with us. They know that PR-wise, that's going to be hard to get. So they sit around and think, "What terms would be impossible to pay, just like eternal war, which is what we want? That way, we get the benefits of eternal war, without the negative PR" This is the result.

I think that Karma's attempts are pretty transparent, made more so by the rejection of the counter-offer and their stated unwillingness to drop the peace mode clause, and tech coming from 1K+ nation clauses, no matter what was given by NPO in exchange.

[Deadshot]

Wentworth, we were told, in no uncertain terms, that no negotiations on this clause would be tolerated.

Why? Because these terms are meant to be the equivalent of eternal war.

Well then. Why would Karma be so unwilling to simply rewrite tricky wording? If their end game is not the complete and total destruction and disbanding of NPO, why be so arrogant to not simply change wording? Essentially, the terms stay the same, Karma gets to ravage each peace mode nation for 14 days as they wished, and NPO gets to see clear terms presented. Win on both sides.

If Karma is unwilling to even officially change the wording to something more clear, then who is really being arrogant? And before anyone claims someone has cleared it up, I mean officially present them again with a clearer wording. It seems to me that that is the crux of this whole situation and for anyone to be that anal about changing the wording of a term, not even the term itself, is kinda lame.

[joecanada]

But, but, after 2 weeks of war they won't even have 150 mil on hand!!

I was nuked 11 times and only spent, at most, 200 million to maintain 4,999 infra at the end. This was with 2-3 opponents each time (shocking, I know) and rebuying every military unit, without an optimal trade set to buy infra too, mind you. Add an extra 3 nukes and this would barely increase any more than that. These nations won't even need to constantly rebuy navy and what not after this as the war will be over for them, and yes, many of them have 1b+, or over 500m as well.

Even if you were ZIed it'd take a fraction of your warchest to get to 4999 or higher.

EDIT: And if the rest don't even have enough to have even 150m after the 2 weeks, that's quite depressing for a bank.

Look I'm not speculating on how much NPO has in their warchests or how many of them have such warchests, but the majority of your examples are weak including this one.

I can tell you right now that you can easily blow thru a billion dollar warchest when fighting 6 opponents at once for 2-4 weeks...... I know this for a fact. The only reason, one and only reason i am currently back to 5k infra is because I was held out of the war in PEACE for the entire first wave.... so whatever people are saying " i was nuked" or " i fought 2-3 opponents" ...... give me a break....... you don't know how much a fight for survival really costs......

[Uhtred]

I can tell you right now that you can easily blow thru a billion dollar warchest when fighting 6 opponents at once for 2-4 weeks...... I know this for a fact. The only reason, one and only reason i am currently back to 5k infra is because I was held out of the war in PEACE for the entire first wave.... so whatever people are saying " i was nuked" or " i fought 2-3 opponents" ...... give me a break....... you don't know how much a fight for survival really costs......

Approximately $460 million to last four weeks of nuclear warfare with full war slots and enough money left over for me to rebuild to 7k infra almost immediately after the war ended. You may not remember but some of us have experienced the other side of a beatdown; a very large portion of Karma and Karma sympathisers fought quite a lopsided war during last summer and are fully aware of exactly how much a fight for survival really costs.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Uhtred

[Azaghul]

See, this is the problem. When I give you a figure of "50 nations will be able to pay this", it means 50 nations. It does not mean 50 banks + everyone else is who is not a bank, It does not mean 75, it does not mean "50 + up to 100 that can be built up", it does not mean "50 + 30 potential banks", it does not mean any amount of tech procurers. It means 50 nations.

It only means that if you only use nations that can initially bank to pay reps, when in fact you can have them aid others so that those others can also pay reps.

In order to have "50 + 100 that can be built up", the restriction on the top 181 tech nations sending reps would have to be relaxed.

That looks absurd to you? Unfortunatelly, there are a number of factors working against the numbers you want to get. The first is the very simple fact that war induces a Darwinian self-selection; excluding those ordered into peace, it is the most able and active that fight, and it is the most able and active that get knocked out of the top 181. Whilst some of those that remain are amongst the ranks of "active" (about 1/3), this process of self-selection means that those ranks are most concentrated with those unable to pay the reps and withstand the damages incurred. Does this mean that 100 nations would just give up and desert? No, it does not.

A sizeable number (though not 100) would indeed desert or delete their nations (and we have seen quite a lot of deletions), another number would be chronically inactive people that have been around primarily for protection, and would not be willing to spend the time on an online game to pull this off, and other people being marginalized due to similar reasons. Does this sound strange? I'm afraid it is not really so. It is not uncommon to have a fairly low % of the overall players of an alliance being active participants, more so when dealing with numbers-based alliances. Most large alliances would have low turnouts for votes; the monthly elections in the Pacific generally have a turnout of under 150 people, most often less.

Yes, it is true that larger nations are more likely to be around longer, and be more active as a result. That is already accounted for; the activity figure for those nations is already more than double the ratio of voters:nations; likewise, the aformentioned self-selection further weakens the likely rate of people that would contribute. Does this sound like me whining that all our ranked nations suck and we are incompetent? If you want to interpret it as such, you can go ahead and do so. This is non an IC forum, and I am talking in terms of the players behind these nations. It has very little to do with any specific quality of the New Pacific Order. If the numbers sound excessive, it is because they are wrought on by a combination of the restrictions on who can aid, the additional war proviso, the war already in place and most importantly, the size of the alliance. If I was discussing an alliance the size of MK, I would expect these numbers to drop to about 10-20, which wouldn't seem that far-fetched to you.

One issue that might occur to you is that many of these issues would persist even without the war provision; that is true. But their effects would be less pronounced, to the point that it would be possible to meet the minimum payment without any significant risk. As it stands with the terms proposed, we are vacillating around that figure and pushing at that limit (for the short term); with the restriction lifted, we would be able to safely meet it with certainty, in large part due to the reduction in damage that would up our short-term capacity. Without this change, the only way the logistics could be met is with a lot of sheer dumb luck in the factors I have mentioned, and making a decision based on luck is not really the way to go. It might sound like a small thing to make such a big difference, but it will. The 181 restriction and the 2 week restriction are both aimed at accomplishing the same thing, weakening the NPO's upper ranks (or, depending what kind of language you like using "punishing" them). The point is that when combined, their effects act together so as to increase the overall impact beyond the cumulative effect of each individual term. I.E, you can still damage the upper ranks without rolling everything into one and creating the problems we mentioned.

Now, you can go back to repeating the points that you people have made 100 times, and we can repeat the counter-points that we have made 100 times, and still be nowhere, ever. Leo Tolstoy really is awesome.

If a large proportion of those nations do delete making the numbers undoable, the numbers can be lowered and in fact it's built into the terms that the numbers can be lowered if proven undoable.

The first plan I posted used 90 out of 180 nations, the second 145 out of 180. Both account for warchests, so the only factor you are left with is how many are active enough. The second plan I posted paid the tech reps very quickly: in 4 months. You've already given 50 nations with both warchest and activity levels to bank. The question is how many of the rest of the 130 that don't have the money to bank immediately have the activity level to be tech producers? I'll grant you a reasonable number don't, but I'm not gonna buy it that you couldn't get at least the majority to participate. You don't have to be an active forum poster to participate, just be able to follow basic instructions giving targets and directions. There are plenty of MK members that don't keep up with alliance affairs very much but participate in banking just fine.

So anyway since you thought 145 too high, here's reducing that number and paying reps not quite as quickly but still in a workable time frame:

30 banks pay 3mill/50 tech on 5 slots (6 but giving 5 for inefficiencies): 1.35 billion & 22500 tech & 83% efficiency

10 banks send 50 tech producers 3 mill each who send out 200 tech each (again 5 instead of 6 slots for all involved): 30,000 tech a month & 67% efficiency

That pays of your reps in a little under 6 months.

Your 5-10 extra banks if you have them can be used for recovery.

That's 40 banks (10 of which don't have to be in the 181 nations), and 50 tech producers, 80 or 90 total out of about 180. And just 50 out of 130 potential tech producers. You may not be MK but unless you guys just really, really suck at organizing things you should be able to get that participation rate at the efficiencies I gave you. Talk to Polar, they were able to pull it off with a mass member alliance.

[Sigrun Vapneir]

Considering the contents of the most recent pacifican announcement, I am shocked anyone is even willing to offer the NPO terms. Certainly if the boot were on the other foot they would not treat you so kindly.

[Inquisitor Tolkien]

Approximately $460 million to last four weeks of nuclear warfare with full war slots and enough money left over for me to rebuild to 7k infra almost immediately after the war ended. You may not remember but some of us have experienced the other side of a beatdown; a very large portion of Karma and Karma sympathisers fought quite a lopsided war during last summer and are fully aware of exactly how much a fight for survival really costs.

Lies Uhtred. Two weeks of nuclear warfare will completely demolish any billion dollar warchest.

SERIOUSLY!

[NoFish]

Look I'm not speculating on how much NPO has in their warchests or how many of them have such warchests, but the majority of your examples are weak including this one.

I can tell you right now that you can easily blow thru a billion dollar warchest when fighting 6 opponents at once for 2-4 weeks...... I know this for a fact. The only reason, one and only reason i am currently back to 5k infra is because I was held out of the war in PEACE for the entire first wave.... so whatever people are saying " i was nuked" or " i fought 2-3 opponents" ...... give me a break....... you don't know how much a fight for survival really costs......

NPO has, at the moment, enough nations with significant amounts of money to pay off the reps. See Azaghul's post. The only unavoidable cost of war to actual money reserves is the 5m a day lost to defeat reports. That's 70m for 14 days. Rebuying nukes? That'll bring it up to 7m/day with a WRC. 94m. Any nation with even a 200m warchest, not to mention the 500m or 1b chests that a good number of NPO peacemdoers are toting, could weather that and still be able to aid/send reps.

[Seerow]

Wentworth, we were told, in no uncertain terms, that no negotiations on this clause would be tolerated.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's far more likely they said they weren't going to drop or reduce the length of the wars. I really doubt they'd absolutely refuse to clarify it so it means exactly what they want without worrying about eternal war.

I wouldn't mind confirmation one way or the other from someone on Karma's side.

I can tell you right now that you can easily blow thru a billion dollar warchest when fighting 6 opponents at once for 2-4 weeks...... I know this for a fact. The only reason, one and only reason i am currently back to 5k infra is because I was held out of the war in PEACE for the entire first wave.... so whatever people are saying " i was nuked" or " i fought 2-3 opponents" ...... give me a break....... you don't know how much a fight for survival really costs......

If your only goal is survival for 14 days of war, you aren't declaring on anybody. So that's down to 3 opponents rather than 6.

It is only 2 weeks so saying 2-4 is disingenious.

If you're seriously outmatched you can turtle to avoid a large part of the monetary damage, as for the most part money is lost through ground attacks.

I lived for 2 months on a 120mil warchest, for the first two weeks my money actually stayed about even, as I managed to hold my own in ground attacks enough to pay for my bills. It wasn't until well past a month, almost 2 months that I got bill locked.

But by all means keep telling me how you poor people with 1billion warchests are and how two weeks of war is going to destroy you and stop you from having any warchest left or rebuilding.

[Big Z]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's far more likely they said they weren't going to drop or reduce the length of the wars. I really doubt they'd absolutely refuse to clarify it so it means exactly what they want without worrying about eternal war.

I wouldn't mind confirmation one way or the other from someone on Karma's side.

Seerow you spai

STOP READING OUR MINDS

Edit: Plus hanging out that long in Shamed's mind can't be good for you.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Big Z

[enderland]

How many of those nations have less than 100M on hand?

[Seerow]

How many of those nations have less than 100M on hand?

It doesn't matter, we know for a fact from spy reports that many of them have 500mil-1bil warchests. I don't know exact numbers as I personally am not privvy to these reports and am not in a range where I can spy on them myself, but I recall numbers like 20-30 provided, and if those numbers are accurate then that's all you really need.

Seerow you spai

STOP READING OUR MINDS

Edit: Plus hanging out that long in Shamed's mind can't be good for you.

I can't help it, it's like morbid curioisity just keeps drawing me back in

Edited June 17, 2009 by Seerow

[enderland]

It doesn't matter, we know for a fact from spy reports that many of them have 500mil-1bil warchests. I don't know exact numbers as I personally am not privvy to these reports and am not in a range where I can spy on them myself, but I recall numbers like 20-30 provided, and if those numbers are accurate then that's all you really need.

I was more directing that question to the NPOers than you In particular Letum.

Until he tells me that more than 75% have less than 100M on hand these terms are not unpayable.

[emily]

You are precisely correct. Our aid slots don't work.

That's been the problem with every single Karma analysis I've seen from anyone. None of them analyze the totality of the situation. Some of them only consider the tech, and not the money. Some of them don't consider the damage to war. Some of them don't consider realistic efficiency percentages. I could go and on.

I understand realistic efficiency percentages!

Anyone demanding NPO (or any other largealliance) uses anything more than about 40% of its available aid slots is being totally unrealistic. It logistically impossible, people have gone insane trying! Go look at the figures for any of the larger alliances, most of them only ever manage to use about 30%.

You are comparing NPO with alliances like Gre, they are simply not, and never will be the same thing. The economics of one simply cannot be applied to the other.

[Glen MoP]

It doesn't matter, we know for a fact from spy reports that many of them have 500mil-1bil warchests. I don't know exact numbers as I personally am not privvy to these reports and am not in a range where I can spy on them myself, but I recall numbers like 20-30 provided, and if those numbers are accurate then that's all you really need.

I keep hearing about these pre-war spying missions where the war chests of all the top nations were revealed and I keep wondering: how many of them have since engaged the enemy and no longer have the giant war chests? I fought 55 days of nuclear war. (Technically, people are still trying to nuke me, but I am no longer able to respond.) I was once one of the largest NPO nations. I had one of those huge war chests. I am still one of those "over 1000 tech" nations who is supposed to pay these reps. I do not have a huge warchest anymore. People who save up huge warchests tend to be the aggressive people who are going to go USE them.

I also find it bemusing that even though it would take me two years of rebuilding to get to where I was two months ago even if I got white peace today, parts of Karma is still terrified I'm going to "come back for revenge."

[NoFish]

I keep hearing about these pre-war spying missions where the war chests of all the top nations were revealed and I keep wondering: how many of them have since engaged the enemy and no longer have the giant war chests? I fought 55 days of nuclear war. (Technically, people are still trying to nuke me, but I am no longer able to respond.) I was once one of the largest NPO nations. I had one of those huge war chests. I am still one of those "over 1000 tech" nations who is supposed to pay these reps. I do not have a huge warchest anymore. People who save up huge warchests tend to be the aggressive people who are going to go USE them.

I also find it bemusing that even though it would take me two years of rebuilding to get to where I was two months ago even if I got white peace today, parts of Karma is still terrified I'm going to "come back for revenge."

These aren't pre-war spy operations, these are mid-war spy operations on nations who were already in peace mode and haven't left since. Unless being in peace mode has somehow drained 500m they still have the money.

[SpiderJerusalem]

You are comparing NPO with alliances like Gre, they are simply not, and never will be the same thing. The economics of one simply cannot be applied to the other.

Well, you can draw that comparison, really...

Since only the larger and more active nations of NPO are the ones that will pay the reps

[emily]

Well, you can draw that comparison, really...

Since only the larger and more active nations of NPO are the ones that will pay the reps

Good point.

But if you do that, surely any reps need to based on this, smaller number of nations rather than the full membership?

[Glen MoP]

These aren't pre-war spy operations, these are mid-war spy operations on nations who were already in peace mode and haven't left since. Unless being in peace mode has somehow drained 500m they still have the money.

I'd love to see these spy reports. I realize I'm not the first person to say this, but if they were produced it would definitely prove things one way or the other.

[muffasamini]

Well, you can draw that comparison, really...

Since only the larger and more active nations of NPO are the ones that will pay the reps

Which means that once again Karma's math for reps is not viewing the totality of the situation. Or, most importantly, karma is not viewing the possible interactions of the two side clauses they added.

I am aware of what Karma *meant* for those side clauses to cause, and understand it. Its the wording, and the extra possible consequences of the clauses combined that makes me worried.

[muffasamini]

I'd love to see these spy reports. I realize I'm not the first person to say this, but if they were produced it would definitely prove things one way or the other.

Karma talks non stop about all these spy reports they have proving we have billions stashed away in our mattresses. I really would love to see them. I mean really, why not. Everyone is either in Karma, so you'll be helping them, or in Hedgemony, so they should already know.

[bkphysics]

Karma talks non stop about all these spy reports they have proving we have billions stashed away in our mattresses. I really would love to see them. I mean really, why not. Everyone is either in Karma, so you'll be helping them, or in Hedgemony, so they should already know.

It could be that Karma is exercising restraint in publicizing such things because it would do nothing to improve peace negotiations and only incite further public furor. I would recommend that if you wish to see them you seek private channels.

You will find that the Karma leaders are quite responsive and happy to clear up any questions and misconceptions. I would assume they simply don't have the time nor the inkling to address every single question or concern as it comes up here in the public forums.

[Azaghul]

I understand realistic efficiency percentages!

Anyone demanding NPO (or any other largealliance) uses anything more than about 40% of its available aid slots is being totally unrealistic. It logistically impossible, people have gone insane trying! Go look at the figures for any of the larger alliances, most of them only ever manage to use about 30%.

You are comparing NPO with alliances like Gre, they are simply not, and never will be the same thing. The economics of one simply cannot be applied to the other.

NpO polled it off. Terms and paying off reps are quite a bit different than peace time. And all the eligible nations are nations that have over 1000 tech so have put their aid slots to use before.

Good point.

But if you do that, surely any reps need to based on this, smaller number of nations rather than the full membership?

The numbers I last gave make it payable within 6 months at only 83/67% efficiency (depending on which group) and use less than half the eligible tech producers.