Aeternos Astramora Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 inb4somebodyelsemakesit Also, don't try to semantics your way into nulling your vote. I know somebody will say, "Karma won this war, so they can issue whatever terms they want." That's not the issue. Please just answer this poll with what you know what I'm trying to ask. (I know know somebody will post exactly, "Karma won this war, so they can issue whatever terms they want.") I personally think it's too much. The reparations themselves, meh, might be too much, but I have no huge qualms with them. However, the mandatory 90% war mode for two weeks and the restrictions to who can pay tech are doubleplusungood. The idea of revisiting the numbers involved after the two weeks to see if they should lower the reparations doesn't cut it either. Note: In case another thread about the surrender terms comes up, this thread is in response to this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bjornoya Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) wow first? won't benefit community at large imo Change in leadership and having NPO do 'community service' would set better example, instead went for same old bs. Meet the new boss, same as the old one. Edited June 14, 2009 by Kaiser Kevin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
relyt92 Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Voted yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 should have accetpted. now its only gonna get worse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chet Ubet Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 The only thing I don't like is the moving upper nations out peace mode to fight for two weeks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShinRa Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 The only thing I don't like is the moving upper nations out peace mode to fight for two weeks I actually like it because of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 The only thing I don't like is the moving upper nations out peace mode to fight for two weeks might as well. in the words of NPO to FAN "you cant get peace till you fight the war" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chickenzilla Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Needs more war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I think the terms are more than acceptable. NPO has hundreds of banks with over a billion dollars each, 14 days of combat will do nothing to their ability to fully rebuild and pay whatever reps. NPO could still rebuild themselves in a matter of months. It is Moo's fault that he allowed the extra reps to be piled up. It was a really stupid and stubborn decision, designed to do nothing but undermine those alliances at war with NPO. This decision had no logic nor sense behind it. The terms presented to NPO are nowhere near as bad as those they presented to countless other alliances. NPO should accept them with a smile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I don't know how people can not roll their eyes every time revanche claims these are merciful and lenient. Reminds me of a little kid trying to play world police using weapons he doesn't understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) I think the terms are more than acceptable. NPO has hundreds of banks with over a billion dollars each, 14 days of combat will do nothing to their ability to fully rebuild and pay whatever reps. NPO could still rebuild themselves in a matter of months.It is Moo's fault that he allowed the extra reps to be piled up. It was a really stupid and stubborn decision, designed to do nothing but undermine those alliances at war with NPO. This decision had no logic nor sense behind it. The terms presented to NPO are nowhere near as bad as those they presented to countless other alliances. NPO should accept them with a smile. I challenge you to name an alliance that NPO gave terms remotely near these, even scaled. And before you say Athens, even scaled these are dozen fold worse at a minimum. Edited June 14, 2009 by mhawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 No, but I doubt that the NPO will accept them so it is a moot point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I challenge you to name an alliance that NPO gave terms remotely near these, even scaled. And before you say Athens, even scaled these are 39 times worse at a minimum. Add them up over time and these aren't even close to what NPO has done! They should probably be higher tbqh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) I challenge you to name an alliance that NPO gave terms remotely near these, even scaled. NAAC - destroy wonders, GATO - external war for peace mode nations (or something similar), MK - tech reps, relative to the size of each alliance exceed the original offer to NPO I do believe. LoSS couldn't sign anything for over a year - and even then they still claimed they were under GW3 terms. They were only released relatively recently in modern CN history. FAN, attacked after peace (as they always intended) and kept them in a state of eternal war for years. Countless other examples. Let's not forget viceroys, expulsion of gov members, changing colours, tech farms, etc. Don't even get into such silly arguments mhawk... Edited June 14, 2009 by Starcraftmazter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naamah Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) I doubt that the NPO will accept them so it is a moot point. ^^ That Edited June 14, 2009 by naamah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 The only thing I don't like is the moving upper nations out peace mode to fight for two weeks I agree with this. I like all the reps, but I don't like that, although I understand it. I think instead they should do the rest, but keep a list of the NPO nations in peace mode, and only keep them at war for two weeks after they come out of peace mode with no help from any other NPO members. They would have to come out eventually to help rebuild the NPO. I also think there should be a term on how many nuclear weapons they can hold and it should be indefinite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintenderek Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 NAAC - destroy wonders, GATO - external war for peace mode nations (or something similar), MK - tech reps, relative to the size of each alliance exceed the original offer to NPO I do believe. LoSS couldn't sign anything for over a year - and even then they still claimed they were under GW3 terms. They were only released relatively recently in modern CN history.FAN, attacked after peace (as they always intended) and kept them in a state of eternal war for years. Countless other examples. Let's not forget viceroys, expulsion of gov members, changing colours, tech farms, etc. As much as I hate to point this out since I'm on your side, wonders and NAAC weren't ever around during the same time to my understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timeline Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 These terms are bullcrap. Karma, you do realize that peace terms tend to start with peace, right? Requiring more war in the peace terms is like requiring a recovering alcoholic to drink twenty bottles of vodka as fast as they can. It's just a bad idea, and it makes you look like jerks.I haven't always had a very high opinion of NPO myself, but even I would never require ANY alliance to experience further war in the peace terms. Either deny them peace or offer terms they can actually fulfill. The only thing I don't like is the moving upper nations out peace mode to fight for two weeks you do know that out of the 277 nations in pace mode, only 77 of those are above 3k infra, so if NPO sign the terms, only three nations about the 3k infra mark would have to come out of peace mode, and 200 from under 3k infra. so by saying it your way you make it seem really bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I challenge you to name an alliance that NPO gave terms remotely near these, even scaled. And before you say Athens, even scaled these are 39 times worse at a minimum. Well either they get terms reflecting the sheer number of alliances/players they've inflicted severe hardship on, or I guess they can get relatively lenient terms and get rolled multiple times to properly reflect things. Though with it being 3 years since the last time they got rolled I don't think anybody who's sane or not pushing a pro-NPO agenda can support that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I think the terms are more than acceptable. NPO has hundreds of banks with over a billion dollars each, 14 days of combat will do nothing to their ability to fully rebuild and pay whatever reps. NPO could still rebuild themselves in a matter of months.It is Moo's fault that he allowed the extra reps to be piled up. It was a really stupid and stubborn decision, designed to do nothing but undermine those alliances at war with NPO. This decision had no logic nor sense behind it. The terms presented to NPO are nowhere near as bad as those they presented to countless other alliances. NPO should accept them with a smile. You do realize that by this time the famous "pre-terms" would have exceeded the 7B and 300k tech that was asked by Karma,thus arriving at the logical conclusion that they got waived, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Throne Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 The amount I can deal with, although it is punitive. It's the other stipulations that make the terms impossible to meet, so NO I do not like them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essenia Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) much as I hate to point this out since I'm on your side, wonders and NAAC weren't ever around during the same time to my understanding. NAAC was very much around for wonders, although I'm not recalling terms involving them- during GWII the most wonders any nation could have was 1 and during GWIII I believe NpO handled peace negotiations. Edited June 14, 2009 by essenia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 NAAC - destroy wonders, GATO - external war for peace mode nations (or something similar), MK - tech reps, relative to the size of each alliance exceed the original offer to NPO I do believe. LoSS couldn't sign anything for over a year - and even then they still claimed they were under GW3 terms. They were only released relatively recently in modern CN history.FAN, attacked after peace (as they always intended) and kept them in a state of eternal war for years. Countless other examples. Let's not forget viceroys, expulsion of gov members, changing colours, tech farms, etc. Don't even get into such silly arguments mhawk... I should probably add that NPO also forced the Mushroom Kingdom to decomission our Weapons Research Complexes and Hidden Nuclear Missile Silos, and permanently barred us from nuking at our discretion until they decided they'd dangle our release from that term as a carrot for helping them get some good PR or some jazz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I challenge you to name an alliance that NPO gave terms remotely near these, even scaled. And before you say Athens, even scaled these are dozen fold worse at a minimum. GATO's indefinite viceroy. NPO gets to keep their government, their sovereignty, all their wonders. The reps are harder than MKs, but they also don't have to decommission any wonders, so those terms are comparable. And you also have to take into consideration what all the alliances in question had done before terms. GATO was a really old and pretty thin CB. MK was just defending allies. NPO started the whole war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.