Gork

Anything but that since, when presented with the option of ending the war or fighting back, not peacing out and laying down arms doesn't make sense at all.

Londo did not state this at all in his announcement. The raiders executed a couple of ground attacks each and sent peace offers, awaiting for a response from the Knights of Ni! They explicitly provide the option of ceasing the conflict immediately or continuing it.

I could use some help over here.

Power to the people!

Overall, this looks like a sound application of political theory. I want to ask, though: what do you perceive as the roots of inter-alliance conflict? Is it necessary exclusively because of the limited availability of resources, that are assigned a value by an alliance's practical or ideological position, or is there a greater degree of uncertainty and accident that should be considered?

What a lysergic production!

Congratulations to the new protectorate. (Edit: HURR)

Other Vanguard members have previously stated our motives for leaving OUT clearly. Our intent is not to distance ourselves from Orange alliances with which we currently maintain open relations, but we consider this treaty both unnecessary for collaborating effectively with the rest of the Team and a restraint of our future actions. The NAP/ODP clauses of OUT have political implications which transcend sphere unity, that Delta described earlier.

*takes off glasses* My God...

Cheers to the SOS Brigade!

We had to bring up the subject for you to remember having played this long, you senile old coot. Also, happy 1000th wasteday.

I disagree with this quote, Vladimir, as I see the terms imposed upon the NPO as a definite means to achieve an objective, an "end" if you will (related to a post-war scenario). The decisions of the group labeled as Karma rise from a partial consensus, and in a divided front you will be hard pressed to find an end that justifies, to each single member, the employment of those means. Personally, I don't really know where I want to go from this point of the war, but I agree that surrender terms you would call harsh are instrumental to the fulfilment of a number of goals listed in Karma-internal discussions (of course, those I take part in are low-tier). If I live by categorical imperatives, they don't cover any of the terms we offer in this game, which brings me to a valuable conclusion: You mentioned at the beginning of your post that few people, if any, desire the future imposition of harsh terms, but I think it would be a great achievement of the Cybernations community if such terms disappeared from the face of Bob, because of the above quote (I'd like to separate 'evil' from 'threat', though). A victorious war presents an alliance with an opportunity to subjugate an, at the time, perceived threat, and it's fairly reasonable for the victors to desire the disappearance of such threat (I'm not talking of the enemy alliance, but rather its relative power, political stance, leadership or whatever). However, in a future Great War, you'll have on one side a couple of alliances that received harsh terms one year ago, and on the other, another group that received similarly harsh terms two years ago: what I'm going at is that both parties count on this instrument to solve their problems, despite obviously not wanting to be on the opposite end of the gun*. The degeneration of world conflicts** into manichean characterizations has certainly contributed to the appearance of increasingly harsh terms, as the Hegemony's alienation of former allies and previously neutral parties enlargened the 'perceived threats' at the beginning and resolution of large wars. The Karma War is, in my opinion, exceptional, because the position of the New Pacific Order is exceptional, with its history of power and domination in contrast with its current leverage in negotiations. How our actions change the future CN is an important question (within the limits of a browser game) we should always consider, even though we may not be able to answer it. *An inappropriate but perhaps illustrative analogy is the dilemma a real nation leader would face if he was presented with the option of disarming, and thus exposing his people, in the name of world peace. The nation in question is relatively impaired against potential enemies (everyone?) by the lack of armed forces. **In contrast, I believe minor conflicts are becoming progressively more... uh... humane, in terms of the conditions issued to the losers at their end.

The Rebel Virginia forgives.

This proposal is an interesting approach to the financial aspect of reparations, despite the extra monitoring required. Also, by all means let NPO keep those extra soldiers, tanks and CMs, I'd rather they tore down their navy and nuclear arsenal.

I didn't even get to vote for any of this scum. Pocho for Sovereign!

Athens without the 'Athens', or NAAC.

Proportionality, fine! NPO shall disband... 9 times, and their members will join Karma Viceroyalty indefinitely.

Peace tomorrow is harsher and more expensive than peace today. And it can always be paid.

Ctrl + F 'Cards' not found. You're representing us, goddammit, POST SOME CARDS.

I think there are other, less drastic, alternatives to solve this "problem", especially since players already pay for the marginal 20% deployment with an anarchy extension (and probably additional casualties? Seeing that they are calculated on a higher soldier/tank count...). An example would be to implement a 20% soldier/tank loss upon recall, if the nation's last deployment was over 80%, or additional losses in abandoned equipment if an overdeploying nation loses a ground attack. Besides, if a nation deploys 100% of its troops, its options after the attack are somewhat limited because, if it didn't lose too many soldiers in a day's round of attacks, it can't purchase a capable defending force and is stuck with a not-optimal deployment waiting to be recalled (you always lose troops) and, if it lost a sizeable chunk of attacking forces, then the situation is not much different than in one where you deployed less than 80% soldiers, with the added probability of having extra soldiers stuck in deployment since you went all-out to begin with.

I would say Marxian/Hegelian dialectic hardly describes the history of Cybernations - if anything, it doesn't seem to be particularly progressive, since the power structures you defined as synthesis aren't a redefinition of the thesis in its relation with the antithesis, but only the former's sizeable, if not ultimately precarious, victory over the latter. Also, would you mind explaining how these material interests come to be? What makes an alliance similar to mine - relatively equal - my enemy? Their existence or a contingency? Their resistance to the flow of history or both alliances' past history?

I don't know why (well, I have a vague idea) but I really don't like your writing, OP. If you want to share something, don't alienate your readers at every sentence.

Two people haven't accepted my offer, yet.

A very entertaining read, I definitely didn't waste my 45 seconds skimming through this.

The solution here is obviously a monthly tax on existence, say 100 million or so. That, or somewhat moderate-heavy reps and a small... enticement, let's call it, for the doves to leave their nest.