Jump to content

jerdge

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,858

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by jerdge

    GGA Announcement to SPAM

    in Alliance Politics

    Posted

    Anyone who thinks that decision is unfair or unjust is welcome to share their opinion with us in a respectful manner.

    I'm not exactly thinking that your decision is unfair or unjust. What I would comment is more of the like of "no comment".

    However, I have a couple of questions (asked in all honesty):

    • Some of the "sentenced" SPAM members/former members (e.g. Midgar II) are simply too little and too young to have ever had nukes, let alone drop any on the GGA. Probably, SPAM have/had some new "recruit" that just joined, and is little to none responsible for their government actions (Midgar may be one of them). The question is, what is ZI-ing them meant to teach them, assuming that they didn't act as nuclear rogues, nor they have been disrespectful towards the GGA, they know little of CN politics and they maybe even condemn their (former) government's behaviour?
    • Other former SPAM members are GGA POWs (e.g. Black Metal Nation, that also probably never had any nuke). They decommisioned their armed forces when surrendered to the GGA, left SPAM and - I imagine - were given the GGA's word that they would have been protected as per the surrender terms. Assuming that a GGA promise is binding and has to be honoured by the GGA, how this is compatible with later deciding to ZI those POWs, for events that surely were out of their control? Something like retro-actively deleting the - already given - surrender terms?

    I have to stress that I'm not trying to raise arguments against the GGA policy. I have no official position about it, and actually I'm still thinking about it. My two questions are "real questions": what the "innocent" ZI-ed are supposed to learn, and how two (allegedly) conflicting GGA statements are made consistent in the GGA system of "laws".

    Thanks to anybody that will spend their time in answering this.

    (Also, sorry for possible confusion: English isn't my first language. And, 2 Kevin tG: your post over here shows a bit of what I imagine are the reasons you can be called "the Great" :).)

    Update on Individual Surrender Terms

    in Open World Forum

    Posted · Edited by jerdge

    I direct your attention to Internet meme

    :ph34r:

    The term [...] is used loosely to refer to things that are not necessarily memes in a technical sense

    This explains why I thought that "meme" was wrong in that context. I still think that even "Internet meme" is a lil bit stretched in this use, but I admit that, basically, I was wrong.

    Thanks for having teached me something. It doesn't happen that often in flamed threads :).

    (Anyway, I'm posting again only because we're completely Off Topic ;)...)

    Edit: typo.

    Update on Individual Surrender Terms

    in Open World Forum

    Posted · Edited by jerdge

    Since this thread is just going down in flames, I ask the following to stop posting here:

    • jerdge

    (Anyways, it's a pity. These Terms the ODN gave are a new thing, and we could have discussed them trying to understand what they may imply, or generate; I wonder why you all just didn't start a "~ vs UJP flame war thread", and kept this one clean.

    I may try some guesses, anyway ;).)

    Update on Individual Surrender Terms

    in Open World Forum

    Posted · Edited by jerdge

    It would also cause a problem in that GOONS would be unable to surrender and if even on guy remained under the GOONS banner, they all would be forced to pay reparations until that guy disappeared or surrendered in their name.

    This is actually an excellent idea. Let's just couple it with this part:

    *Nations of greater strength than 5,000 NS will be permitted to leave the war and join an alliance of their choosing, that is not GOONS, immediately upon agreeing to pay 300x their nation strength in aid every ten days to the Orange Defense Network and their allies in this war so long as the war against GOONS continues. It will also be required that the leadership of the alliance they choose to join accept these terms in writing. Said alliance may cover these requirements on behalf of their member.

    (Bold mine)

    This magically grants ODN the right to use as "Tech/cash farms" any Alliances that accepted former GOONS as members. ODN has just to convince one single belligerant GOONS to stay at war with them.

    Or (more likely), no one will accept former GOONS among them, as long as the war goes on.

    This again is built to have GOONS members to surrender before the 27th, or never, right?

    [color=#f5f9fd]Edited: maybe coding "white" colour would be frown upon, lolz...[/color]

    Update on Individual Surrender Terms

    in Open World Forum

    Posted

    It's motivation to get out before the 27th. After that, I think it's clear that the nation has no intention of surrender so motivation either way would be irrelevant.

    Now I got it. You want to be sure that those GOONS still fighting after the 27th have no intention to surrender. So, the content and wording of your terms is irrelevant as well, it has only to be "too harsh to be feasibile".

    Thanks for having clarified this :).

    Update on Individual Surrender Terms

    in Open World Forum

    Posted

    [...]

    "Over 50" covers the total of all aid slots, not any one specific slot and it refers to before seeking surrender as the latter would be assisting an enemy of the ODN and you would thereby be at war with the ODN.. again..

    [...]

    Keep in mind that if the GGA, IRON or any of our other allies wishes to continue warring your nation after these terms have been reached, they can do so and we won't stop them. We will of course contact them and let you know of their intent before obligating you to anything [...]

    Hmmm... More convincing, but:

    • One could send all the Tech to other GOONS and then just wait ten days, before asking to surrender. You're asking for your war slots to stay filled without need.
    • Are you saying that they will have to help you in paying the war against their former fellows (steering their resources to the point that they won't be able to build/mantain a decent defence force), while fearing GGA and IRON attacks because "they were GOONS", and without having your protection in the meanwhile? Are you saying this?

    Update on Individual Surrender Terms

    in Open World Forum

    Posted

    While I can imagine the aim of these Terms (an excessive payment is threatened exactly with the aim of having GOONS Members to surrender now), I'm unsure that they will work.

    If a GOONS member didn't want to take the fight that far, they had probably already surrendered now.

    Also, you're inviting Nations with more than 5,000 NS to continue to fight until you're successful in having them drop under 5,000.

    Also, the wording of your fourth point seems wrong to me. "Any amount of Tech" may (should?) be interpreted as "any single amount of Tech"; and, you can't send more than 50 Tech levels in a single Aid.

    Anyway, either you mean 10 days before or after "seeking surrender" (I was unable to understand it), one could wait ten days before seeking it, or wait ten days after having sought it, making your point empty anyway. (When your Nation is crushed, 10 days may be not that important).

    Finally, you're basically saying that almost ZeroTechnology-ed GOONS should feel free to unload all their Nukes on your Nations, without fear of compromising the surrender terms you granted them.

    Anyway I admit that I'm not that expert of this game, mine are only doubts. If I said anything wrong (or stupid?) I would be grateful if anybody would enlighten me.

    TRUST Announcement, Directed at NADC

    in Alliance Politics

    Posted

    For the sake of transparency, and considering that we wrote to DictatorPhilTaylor about it, we wish to explain that we contacted Bus People about joining TUPA - without knowing of this affair, yet.

    They showed interest, but later declared that "our application process is far too confusing", and dropped it.

    Anyway, this is the last message we sent to Bus People:

    To: Bus People From: jerdge 9/23/2007 3:14:47 PM Subject: Joining TUPA: no

    Hello respected Ruler.

    We already saw your message about our application procedure.

    We wish to inform you that, anyway, at this point your possibilities of joining TUPA vanished in any case.

    We're afraid that there would be problems trusting you, since you had a Foreign Aid deleted for cheating, you showed disrespect towards TRUST, and you lacked of basic diplomacy skills, when you pretended to be in NADC and you even threatened TRUST over it.

    There's a TRUST-started thread regarding you in the Official CN forums:

    http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?s...c=2781&st=0

    Please feel free to contact us, should you need further clarification.

    King jerdge of Gaela.

    As you see, we also pointed them to this thread.

  12. Tech and Infra to buy Aircraft

    in Report A Bug

    Posted

    Yeah, that might be the case, but what were you doing at 1,001? You should have been on 999.99 saving for a jump.

    :nuke: Reaper :nuke:

    I have only recently discovered about "jumps".

    Anyway, I found that - at least in my case - raising from 999.99 to 1,000.00 does not significantly change Infrastructure cost or upkeep. While raising from 1,000.00 to 1,000.01 does.

    Figures I have:

    Infrastructure cost at 999.99: ~10,600 per level

    Infrastructure upkeep at 999.99: 84.19 per level

    Infrastructure cost at 1,000.00: ~10,600 per level

    Infrastructure upkeep at 1,000.00: 84.19 per level

    Infrastructure cost at 1,000.01: ~13,200 per level

    Infrastructure upkeep at 1,000.01: 99.50 per level

    This explains why I was (and am) at 1,000.00, rather than anything else.

  13. Tech and Infra to buy Aircraft

    in Report A Bug

    Posted

    I've just discovered that 1000.00 Infrastructure (along with 100+ Tech) are not enough to buy level 9 aircraft.

    You need at least 1000.01 Infra.

    I didn't check for the other aircraft levels, but I imagine it's just the same.

    The ingame documentation says that 100 Tech and 1000 Infra are needed to buy level 9 aircrafts.

    Either the documentation is faulty, or the game has a bug.

    Thoughts on why MDPs allow Great Wars

    in Open World Forum

    Posted

    When an alliance signs a treaty, they're thinking about the relationship. But when they're forced to activate it, they're stuck with the wording.

    This is exactly "the meaning" of a Treaty. Those that don't believe this should explain why they do sign Treaties at all.

    The relationship has to be good, or there should be an interest, for an Alliance to sign a Treaty. But if an Alliance loses the friendship or the interest, they should be enough smart to delete the Treaty before it gets activated.

    It shouldn't be that hard to do, after all...

    Europa

    in Open World Forum

    Posted

    We're dealing with a very arrogant individual who is being less than respectfully. Its childish, condescending abuse (really silly) and nothing upsetting :D.

    I just find it annoying that because a guy has some nukes, he thinks he bully what he considers the little man.

    Quite evidently they're ignoring you on purpose. Writing in their forum may come out to be a bad idea.

    I suggest to ally with a bigger Alliance and ask this last to please knock at their door. I bet they'll listen, then...

    A comment on defeatism and cowardice

    in Open World Forum

    Posted · Edited by jerdge

    \m/ and Genmay [...] don't have the tactical intelligence to force a better deal.

    [...]

    By the way, my mercy toward \m/ was as much about the way they have always treated the weakest members of the game as it was about strategic security for my own alliance. They have been treating the weak and unaligned as their own private tech farm for their alliance's entire existence in the game. The irony of them being made into one is delicious and irresistable.

    IMHO, these lines alone explain almost everything about the terms NpO gave to \m/.

    Those terms could have never been accepted: if the \m/ leaders would have asked to their members to be a "Tech farm" for the NpO, they would have simply lost almost all of the\m/. Equivalent to disbanding, but much more dishonourable.

    \m/ choice was to simply disband, or to disband in ridiculous (given terms), or to fight and try to get better terms. The last would have probably been the best choice for the good of the Alliance; if they didn't do that, there must be serious reasons (I haven't been unable to work out, yet).

    Also, ES and NpO probably decided that enough "karma" had built up to give \m/ terms in that fashion (because of the \m/ alleged habit of Tech-raiding the weak and the unaligned).

    Edit: able not unable lol.

    The Future of CN? (And a special message at the end)

    in Open World Forum

    Posted

    Shouldn't this stay in the Academic sub-forum?

    Anyway, assuming that the Orders are and have "always" been "supreme", we have to accept that this didn't prevent opposing coalitions to form. Probably there's just a lot of people that will never join the Orders, no matter how "supreme" they may be.

    This implies that we will have other drama in the future. It could "even" lead to the fall of the Orders.

    Or not. :unsure:

    Please don't hurt the neutrals when writing surrender terms

    in Open World Forum

    Posted

    If they are trustworthy enough to be signing a treaty with, then they should uphold it, unfortunately in CN people just sign treaties willnilly without even getting to know alliances.

    So when it comes time to put the treaty to the test, they have no problem breaking it to help out their real buddies...

    I've never understood the argument of NAP being useless "because people can't be expected to actually respect them".

    If one Alliance is not reliable for respecting their NAPs, why do they become reliable when they sign MDPs?

    Is it only a matter of conflicting MDPs and NAPs, with preference given to the first, or what?

    Treaties of the Future

    in Open World Forum

    Posted

    Extremely clever post, OP. As usual, of course.

    Only, I'm sad I have to correct you again on your math:

    10 alliances can have 55 different NAP's between them, for example.

    10 Alliances can have 45 different NAP's between them.

    For future reference, please consider that out of N objects, you can pick N x (N-1) / 2 pairs.

    BoTS Declaration of War

    in Alliance Politics

    Posted

    I wonder what percent of MK is in anarchy compared with MCXA...

    52% MK vs 16% MCXA, roughly (of the Nations that show the AA at this moment, 59 of 114 for MK, 59 of 377 for MCXA).

    Pre-emptive edit: I'm just giving out figures; don't assume I'm implying.

×
×
  • Create New...