Seerow

What terms have we been offered? We're supposed to gamble our future as an alliance on yet unnamed terms?Other than these "instructions" meant to cripple us indefinitely,We haven't been given a chance to do to anything yet.Where is this choice? And yes we get it.We're the root of all past evils ever committed on Bob. I'm not privy to peace talks not being of upper leadership in any alliance anymore. However I would assume that the logs posted aren't full, and there's more to them that would indicate a chance for peace. My assumption is that the 30% of NPO that is in peace (compared to the 5% GATO was persecuted over as was indicated by somebody else) coming out of peace was a preliminary term that was given that has been so soundly rejected. The point is when you're on the losing side you're not in the position to make demands. Unless NPO's members in peace come out there will soon reach a point when their remaining membership is not able to cause significant damage as what's left of warchests get drained and even those with MPs can no longer get their nukes and stay over 1k infra. When things get to that point it will be interesting to see if NPO is any more willing to conceed to the demands that they exist peace mode or if they will stay there in hopes of one day getting peace with lesser terms.

It is a choice, even if you don't like it. Pacifica as a whole likewise has a chance to surrender, but if they don't like the terms they're offered they don't really have a position to claim they're being wronged. Any terms they're given Im sure are easier proportionally to those they have required in the past. Some things never change. I speak based on reports from other alliances, the way the Pacifica has always acted, and the attitude Pacifica itself is portraying. I do not believe any of my prior command experience in the NPO is relevant, but more recent experiences are relevant. But hey, we can ignore that experience, because I'm the traitorous scum, right?

It is a choice. You have the choice between your honor and your nation. That's more of a choice than anybody on PZI ever got. Comparing the two is an invalid argument. And hey, if NPO prepared for war like a smart alliance by having nations with large warchests for rebuilding rather than relying a small segment of bank nations to do rebuilding this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. But NPO's strategists prefer to use the 'vaunted hippy shield' as they've so kindly put it in the past.

So you're couping the government?

You seem to mistake the meaning of PZI and EZI then. PZI is ZI until the nation deletes. I was PZI by your 'brothers' for more than a year. There is no way off of ZI except for by the mercy of those ZIing you. There is no choice in the matter. EZI is the same thing but follows you even if you delete your nation and start a new one with a new name, provided anyone finds out who you are/ You have stated explicitly you are fighting by choice until your government tells you otherwise. This is not PZI. If you decided at some point to choose not to fight any longer you are given the opportunity to lay down arms This is not PZI. This is not EZI. This is war. In war there is surrender. The fact that you won't surrender when given the opportunity is the difference. That you can't see this and insist that everyone in the world is as bad as you are is a ridiculous ill conceived attempt at political spin, and nothing more.

I already addressed the "forever" part a few replies back. Yes, nothing is ever "forever". But this war is indefinite. It's only as indefinite as you choose to make it. And any individual can choose to make it end at any time they want.

The real point behind PZI and EZI is to keep a nation forever down. The "ZI" part is nothing but a means to that end and a marker of the continued war; a nation (or an alliance) can be kept under those conditions without ever actually reaching zero infra (though it is hard). Pointing out that "well they aren't specifically aiming to reduce people to zero infra, they're just generally reducing infra as part of war" is avoiding the point. The point is that the aim of both this practice and this war is "keep the guy forever down". Except it's not forever. Any nation who is tired of being at war can leave at any time they want to. Karma has provided individual surrender terms. Similarly, Karma would more than likely be happy to provide terms, the problem is that you want to claim the terms are not fair, and refuse to agree with them. You cannot blame karma for your own stuborness.

Wait to miss the entire point of the post. I'll agree that there should be a size limit, but the 5k NS limit was artificial. What should have been done is all nations in peace over 4k infra, followed by organized IG spying on those with less than that to find which of those nations had warchests sufficient to build higher. (Though to be honest if you're in peace mode with less than 4k infra and have any warchest left you're proably better off dipping into the warchest to get back above 4k infra, so I doubt this would be an issue in peace mode nations, and more of an issue in smaller nations still at war)

Interesting. Staying far far away from GGA is probably a good first step.

lol those look like a tech raider's casualties. Have fun with him, the green ones need some seasoning, and if it takes an evil overlord to give it to them well I'll be damned if I say no to the evil overlord having some fun.

Be gentle with him, it sounds like its his first time.

Judging by your reaction in IRC (500,000 aid slots) I'm assuming you read that as 1.5trillion. It's not really all that bad. Not retadedly easy, but not terrible either.

I see no problem with calling out someone on their hypocrisy. If NPO had never made a big deal about peace mode nations then I'd agree, but calling them hypocrites is not the same thing as being "the same old !@#$ with a new dish".

I'll believe this. Now any idea how much of his 5.2billion is left? Even rebuying that first 3k infra several times shouldn't drain that much money.

Sounds to me like IRON should have spent a little less money on infra and invested a bit more in war chests. When I got ZIed I was only 5k infra, it took 2-3 months of constant war before I was finally bill locked. My warchest was less than 200mil. For a nation with 20k infra your warchest should be measured in billions and should be litterally impossible to run out in the month you guys were at war. (especially at that rate of infra loss, bills drop really fast which means your billions last much longer) Really don't blame others for assuming you're at least moderately prepared for a war. And honestly I don't care if you don't get back up to your old NS strength, going into a war and expecting to not come out hurting is the stupidest thing you can do. But with what should be still available in your warchest you should be able to get back to 4-5k infra before back collecting, which you should be using then to start rebuilding warchests before buying any more infrastructure.

It's not so much that they're chicken turds, it is a valid strategy to keep nations in peace mode, both for future attacks and for future rebuilding. However the hypocrisy displayed by the current situation and the post that the OP so kindly reminded us of is amazing.

I came. I saw. It was good. I loled.

Being in anarchy does not qualify as broke. It is likely being based on number of members.

Interesting time to remember your origins. Start as a colony, evolve into a unique community. It is good to reflect upon your growth and see just how far you have come in the time since you were started. Grats on making it this long, and good luck on 3 more.

Some people claiming the terms are too harsh, others complaining they're too lenient. Taste that indecision? Where I come from we call that balance. Personally I still liked the idea of "No aid for duration of terms" better, but all in all I'd say this is a good showing on all sides. I am however looking forward to the dissertation of beer as per term 10 of this surrender. I am hoping this will be made publicly.

If you've read my posts you'll see I am an advocate of saying no to reps in general and just a general ban against foreign aid. Reps serve no purpose except to clog enemy foreign aid slots, money is so cheap in CN that even the billions that can be extorted have almost no lasting effect. It's far more effective and less moraly questionable than demanding large amounts of reps. My point isn't trying to justify people paying large reps, it's pointing out that they could if they wanted to. IRON claiming they would be unable to pay large amounts of reps is either them flat out lying, or them indicating exactly how ill prepared for a large scale war and how disorganized in general their alliance is.

Not currently, but you'll be amazed at how fast you rebuild with those wonders. But either way your personal plight does not necessarily reflect the state of the entire alliance. Also last I checked there was almost 30 IRON members with 5k infra or more, and I'm sure you have plenty of members with warchests that haven't been totally exhausted already and will be back to that level the second peace is signed. And even 4k infra nations can send a full 15mil in aid if they really needed to. edit: He said very clearly can not and will not. If he dropped the Can Not and just went with the Will Not I'd have no problem with it. Saying you don't want to pay reps and will stay at war for weeks or months longer to avoid it is a choice. Saying you are unable to pay what is demanded is quite another.

I'd have a lot more sympathy for you guys if you'd stop insisting you can't pay and just say you don't want to. The truth is you are fully capable of paying higher reps than have ever been demanded of an alliance in history, simply because no alliance your size has been forced to surrender in such a long time. I already went through several pages ago why IRON would be more than capable of paying exorbant reps. The trick however is, if Karma wants to force you to pay said reps and force you to realize you actually can move that kind of money even while down. I'll reitterate for the third time, I feel the far more suitable term would be no member of the alliance can use any aid slots for the duration of terms.

Y'know if this had been posted by GOONS people would be screaming OOC attacks at this. That said, looks like an epic good time. At least I have chicken.

It may be the razing is stealing and there's a different wording for destroying it after the 13 days. Either way the point stands that land isn't always stolen.