jerdge
-
Posts
5,858 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by jerdge
-
-
I would add that other players' character set may not allow them to correctly display your special characters, thus affecting their ability to interact with you in game (retrieving your nation, etc.) - essentially causing trouble.
-
Trying to gloss over my words with a joke now? Another old NPO tactic. Ignore your opponents and make witty remarks (although at your time they really weren't all that witty) to try and change the topic. Really, you people just keep on proving my point. The NPO culture remains, and as strong as ever.
Well said. If you continue like this I will have to start writing in blue myself, just to flatter you. I also 100% agree with Bob:
I'm going to ignore some of the bickering in the posts since half way down page one and just talk about my opinion of sanctions, and the conventions that seem to apply.Sanctions are a really blunt instrument, as they hurt up to five other nations as well as the one with which you have an issue. Thus I believe they should be used with care, and not as a matter of course in warfare – nuclear rogues being the prime example, as a sanction can prevent the rogue's targets from a nuke, and make their warchest deplete faster.
There seem to be two types of colour here: those that think the same way that I do, and avoid Senate wars even when the alliances are in opposition (notably Orange and Aqua, and generally I think Blue play nice too), and those that think sanctions are a valid weapon of war (Green before UJA, and Red). Even on these colours, you can go too far – for example the infamous case of a tech raid target being sanctioned for defending himself.
Most of the sanctions currently placed are on rogues ('request of ally' is usually a rogue). Unaligned nations are treated as fair game for sanctions as they are for other unconventional punishments (PZI, unlimited nukes, etc), but only when they initiate the war and need to be taken down quickly. Sanctioning even unaligned nations for no reason is not done.
I add that sanctioning in war is pretty stupid, especially if you do it on your colour: sanctioning a small nation does a negligible damage to the other side and may affect your nations or your friends' ones; where any mid size or big nation managed with minimal skill will have a nuke stockpile and a significant warchest, and shouldn't be backcollecting in war, and can thus easily bypass the sanction with minimal or no damage, switching to another colour.
The main outcome of the sanction is thus that your Trading sphere loses a stable and dedicated nation with its resources... Stupid, as I said.
The real issue behind this discussion is anyway the relationship between a Senator and the Alliance(s) that support him. IMHO a Senator should (in his/her official capacity) represent the Colour more than his/her own Alliance, and thus act to benefit the Trade sphere.
Wise alliances obviously help in that. A "sanctioning war" on Aqua wouldn't be taken kindly by any of the major Alliances on it, for example...
-
I think the question when to start buying tech is sufficiently answered,
I however want to make an argument for buying more technology yourself past the most named barriers.
Above I see the most named end point is 200 tech max you should buy yourself. You could however consider buying up to 400 tech yourself, before buying it from other nations.
The extra 200 tech will not be the most cost efficient tech, although it will probably stay below $60,000 per level. which will be equal to a 3million/50tech deal, which are not uncommon nowadays.
The biggest advantage of buying this much tech yourself is that you will have a month worth of tech already on hand, don't forget that buying tech through your nation menu is much easier and quicker then buying tech through the international market.
I bought up to 260 just before starting to receive from my first 5 Tech deals. I thus jumped from virtually 0 to 500 in a short time, gaining access to the top aircraft.
IIRC there's a cost "jump" at 250, thus it's best to buy something like 249.5 and then 10 levels... (At 260 I would have paid around 45k the next Tech levels.)
If you can count on a bank's help and you have no money problems it could be a good idea to buy yourself up to 400 Tech or even more (600? 1k?).
500 Tech is one month of dealing (with five slots) and some extra hundreds of levels may mean an head start of some weeks against your competitors. On the other hand you'd have less to spend on infrastructure, thus it may also be a bad idea (I didn't even try to do the math).
-
Congratulations on Peace.
PC, FoB, MK, and GR may each relax or drop any of the terms or requirements in this Article on an individual basis by their own discretion.Weird, I thought that this was obvious. I am curious about the need to write it down in the terms.
-
OV has only 26 nations. Even in the best situation that amount will require about three months to be paid, and OV will have to dedicate the entirety of its Aid slots for it.
This is ridiculous! Is the NPO starting again to hold the little man down?
Bad Pacifica, bad!
Ohwait...
-
All BTA members are allowed and encouraged to post whatever they are thinking. Just because it doesn’t fit in your alliances picture of good posting doesn’t mean he isn’t correct on some issues.
All MHA members are allowed to post whatever they are thinking; maybe the alliance wouldn't encourage some of the silly statements some of our members sometimes come out with (*cough* jerdge *cough*), but it's definitely up to each of us to (try) use our brain.
However, just because what Crushtania says doesn't fit in your (alliance's?) picture of good posting, it doesn't mean that your getting upset with the MHA has any use, because we're happy with our members' freedom of speech and we will continue to do so.
Considering that you do the exact same with BTA members I am confident that we will not need to discuss this issue again.
Hopefully.
Maybe.
Well, I am almost certain that it's not completely unlikely...
-
You know what...BTA hasn't done something worthy of the alliance they're ripping off to date. It's dissapointing to see as a former BTA member. But, as we say on this board, Expected/10
But as for Zig, I'm sure he will find a home where BTA won't be able to bother him any more.
Well I’m so glad that the almighty crushthania and the MHA have final say in all BTA matters. Who are you to say if the BTA has done the BTA well or not? I’m curious, what thinks you have the right to say if the BTA is doing good things or not? What have you ever done to help the BTA? Hmm?
It’s funny how you say we bother ZIg. He nuked the BTA and we let him off with an apology. That’s the most evil and annoying thing any alliance could do to a person ever! EVIL BTA EVIL!
Did you by any chance miss when Crushtania said that he was talking as a former BTA member?
Also, may I ask you how comes that the BTA didn't mind when one of its members (Rebel Virginia) was in any possible way trying to provoke the MHA, and you still don't hesistate in displaying your sarcastic "wit" against an Hitchhiker that mildly criticizes the BTA, recalling his past in it and specifying that it's on a personal level?
I'm genuinely interested in your considerations about this, should you wish to share them.
[Edit:typo]
-
Congratulations.
However, Sorum's title should be Consigliori.
-
Congratulations RAD - er... - I meant Sileath!
-
No, it's not jerdge. The disagreement is about who the reparations are to be paid to.
I've spent a few minutes parsing all the last posts made by mhawk. Not only he insisted that his disagreement is about the amount of the reparations, but he also directly denied that the reparations that TPF is unwilling to pay are those asked on behalf of the PC:
I would hate to state that I feel the terms are unreasonable and that the member you posted is not government.You choose not to accept those terms out of principle. We chose not to pay an unreasonable amount imo. OBM stated they are reasonable. I do not share that view. OBM is not a gov member.Ratio wise these terms are higher than MK's when you count the NS from each alliance remaining.I told you guys 800m. You want 1.3 billion from 24 nations capable of paying. Your "lenient" reps far exceed the "abhorent" reps ratio wise to Athens that you decry over and over and over.1.3 billion and the inclusion of reps from PC's tech raids against our protectorates from 24 nations that have infra left is completely acceptable? How about 13 billion? I gave our number.I think what he was saying (and I haven't read past the worst page, so if we've gotten past this, please ignore me) is that the extra money that Mhawk kept saying he wouldn't pay, is the money that would go to PC. I'm sure they'd be willing to pay the full reps if none of it went to PC.This is not how I determined that figure at all. I took every nation that had 2k infra or more then multiplied it by maxed aid slots for a few cycles. You'll notice I mentioned, combined total. However it seems many in my alliance were outraged by the thought of yielding anything to pc.
In a much longer explanation posted a few days ago, again mhawk profusely argued about the total amount of reparations, not about giving part of them to PC:
<SNIP>Here is what I told everyone, we will pay 800m combined, we feel that 1.3 billion (which is what was offered) -Azaghul had stated CCC voted to ask for MORE reps, not remove it. Later after we turned down the 1.3billion PC came and stated we would not be forced to pay for their tech raids against alliances, that portion would be dropped so the amount would be around 1.1 billion from 24 nations that have 2k infra or more.
<SNIP>
So here is the deal, we as an alliance feel asking the 1.3 billion from a 1m ns alliance is not acceptable, especially when a significant portion of the alliance is only here to fight the war (aka bama, imatt, ect). Our decision why this is unacceptable is not to say we are martyrs and which only for violence to continue, which is why we offered a 800m figure. (keeping in mind we ordered every nation into the war, including our banks to help out Molon Labe in late april.)
The thing these guys don't seem to get, is they can't take what we are not willing to give. We are willing to give up our infra, we are unwilling to surrender our principles. Our principles dictate we will not sign terms that demand 1.1b-1.3b (depending on if ccc wants reps as in one version or if we need to pay PC's reps for raiding alliances version) at our current size. Make no mistake, we wish nothing more than to end the war being waged against us, however that does not mean we will do so unconditionally. I feel this stance greatly angers Azaghul. If the difference between 800m and 1.3 billion is enough that mk and pc are willing to wage permanent warfare, then the burden will increasingly lie with them to explain the necessity of their greed, rather than to condemn us for choosing not to give into things we find unacceptable.
Finally, what you guys are probably mentioning is OBM's take on the issue:
<SNIP>We agree that the amounts outlined by Azaghul in his post are within the range of reasonable. But we will not pay one cent to PoisonClan. We will not now, nor ever reward an alliance that attacked us by e-lawyering their way around a signed treaty.
<SNIP>
We agree that the terms are mostly reasoned, but that the inclusion of PC in being rewarded for breaking a treaty is reprehensible.
Unfortunately for your theory, Haflinger and Coaxl, OBM is not part of TPF's government, and in fact mhawk recently and repeatedly stressed that he isn't, and that his view on the reparations isn't shared by TPF's government.
His opinion is respectable, but it's not TPF's opinion.
(Now, naturally, I may be wrong. Feel free to point me to the documentation that proves me wrong!
) -
I've tried my best but I am seemingly unable to sympathize with TPF.
The terms offered don't seem undoable, and the fact that they would impact on TPF's economy for a while is the essential point in trying to impose them. It was clearly stated in the OP that these terms are designed to "punish" TPF for their prolonged, unconditional support of the Pacifican "evils", in the recent and less recent past. They haven't been presented in relation with the support that TPF gave to the NPO in the Karma War only. It's rather silly to cry that the amount asked would severely affect TPF, when that's the main purpose of the request.
Also, sorry, but most of the (on topic) discussions I read in this thread are flawed at their roots. The disagreement here is about the size of the reparations, not about their existence or their nature. It's about quantity, not quality. TPF is entitled to think that the quantity is too much, and that they would rather continue to mantain a state of war. "Karma" is entitled to think that the TPF's counter-offer is not enough, and that they would rather continue to mantain a state of war.
The payment of either of the proposed amounts (800M vs 1,200M) is possible without indefinitely destroying TPF's economy - the only difference is the duration of the economic consequences - thus none of the two is acting "dishonourably" in rejecting either offer, for the very simple reason that it isn't a matter of "principles" we're talking of; unless someone wishes to claim that some figures are "moral" while others are "immoral" by themselves, of course.
The best course of action for the two parties would be to continue to discuss the issue, not to stop the communication. At one point Karma will be satisfied by their own estimation of the amount of damage taken + reparations offered/accepted by TPF, and they will sign a Peace Treaty.
(All of this said, a White Peace would save us from several other extenuatingly long discussions... Deal? ...
) -
Upon further thought, considering that any ruler is completely free to edit his/her in-game Alliance Affiliation at any time, I am even inclined to think that democracy is actually the only possible form of alliance government in CN. Well, in a certain sense...
-
So I have heard from many people on these forums and through out the game that an alliance with a full democratic system of government can not work? Why is this?
The main requisite of a "full democratic system of government" that most people would agree on is that all the offices are held by people that is elected by the membership, or are appointed by elected officials.
ITT there are several sanctioned alliances that have that requisite, thus the only possible answer to your question is that the people you heard that from are wrong.
(If you were meaning "direct democracy", then again it can work: see LSF as the most famous example).
-
Look! A Blepo sighting!
GO (To be fair, I frown upon the existence of Article V.)
-
You're already on MHA's bad side, insulting its members isn't helping your cause.This isn't about BTA and MHA. this is about you and MHA. None of us like you, and I've no problem picking a fight with you.
I generally quite like Rebel Virginia, I just don't take him seriously. (In fact, not taking him seriously is what allows me to like him.)
However, I don't like this:
Upon further reviewing of this situation, I, Rebel Virginia, on behalf of the Blue Turtle Alliance hereby forgive iFOK and YouMaka for their sins and trespasses against the BTA on the sole fact that from their wrongdoing a greater food was serviced. The blight known as Sileath, an annoyance to us all, as a direct result of this incident shall be removed from this world once and for all. With that in mind, I hereby null all policies implemented by myself during these last few hours. The charter of the BTA is once again active again, and members are free to come and go as they will. All decisions made by myself have been nullified.There is one exception, however, Sileath is still considered a rogue. He shall not know peace until he has been ZIed and apologized. BTA thanks the Complaints and Grievances Union for their assistance in dealing with this minor problem. With that said, the case of YouMaka vs. BTA can be considered closed. The court is adjourned. Rebel Virginia has spoken.
Well, you started trying to persecute a former Blue Turtle, but now you're eager to humiliate yourself and to do anything to appease a stronger party that stoop in to protect your victim from your unwarranted, unjustified and evil claims (well done by the way, iFOK).
Yet you don't hesitate to bully and to (try to) extort apologies from another weaker, isolated party, that you (admittedly) provoked?
And, of top of this, you dare to call it "having balls"? How low can you go, Rebel Virginia, in your oppression of the weak?
Your behaviour is disgusting and I seriously doubt that you're worthy of being compared to Walford (as some did). I'd strongly advise that you start looking into your conscience.
Also, still waiting for that tech raid you promised to declare on me
I am afraid you have mistaken me for someone else. I promised you no tech raid. I merely stated that I view your alliance as a viable recruiting ground, and nothing more.
5. RV, no.I am a bit worried that a legitimate BTA member (RV) may be found trying to recruit MHA members. Is BTA taking the needed measures to avoid that eventuality, or is that "RV, no" all we have to rely upon?
-
This is also my effective resignation from MHA. Love you guys
You stayed a short time but you left your personal mark nonetheless.
As everything that goes round comes round, you'll be back anyway: just try to not bring a swarm of pursuers along with you, OK?...
-
that said I applaud Athens for doing tech deals giving them a chance and R&R well for just being classy.
R&R explained earlier in the thread that they didn't fight against Echelon but they were only "formally" DoW'ed upon. The "1 Tech" is the price for their signature on the Surrender Terms.
I also think that you got wrong the Athen's part of the terms: as it's written («1,500 technology or money equivalent, at an exchange rate of 3 mil per 50») it's 1,500 Tech or 90,000,000 in cash, not 90 millions in exchange for 1,500 Tech: it has nothing to do with "tech deals".
-
Congratulations, but I for one blame the existence of Article 6.
Tsk tsk.
-
So what did you expected? A great group hug? "You fried my nation with nukes, but I still love you, Twinkie Winkie"
This is exactly what I and my IRON opponent did when the war was over. Actually, during the war also. He nuked me five times, and thanks Admin he then ran out of nukes.
When I see an outnumbered foe that was actually prepared for war and that keeps fighting like a wolverine, no matter what will follow, I just learn to respect that one. In fact I then want to become a friend of that one, and the idea of harming one's future with harsh terms wouldn't come in my mind.
If this is being "immature" I don't want to "grow up", thanks.
-
SSS, by a wide margin.
Also: 1x1x1 are nice, and you can anyway already dedicate one of your slots to outcoming Aid...
-
Nevermind: I just realized this was "old".
-
Would you say that surrender terms should become lighter (in absolute terms) over time if an alliance refuses to surrender and continues to take and receive damage?
Yes, I would. If an alliance continued to take damage they're obviously less capable of paying. "Reparations" are already "not so much" linked to the damage inflicted(1) thus I don't see the need to use that argument to put forth the "unchanged terms" criterion.
As I see them Surrender Terms are a two way discussion: if the winning party is inflexible about an exit from the war (this not limited to the mere amounts of reparations only) they will have to continue to take damage, eventually winning over a weakened party that will be less able to send out cash and tech. If one wants to take more reparations/reduce the losses then that one also should be more flexible about his/her exit strategy.
However this goes beyond the current discussion and it may or not be applied to this situation. In fact I was (mainly) asking for an opinion/rationale.
(1) Nobody would be able to repay the damage inflicted in a nuclear war, especially at the average size the Echelon nations were just prior the war.
-
Firstly, Echelon thinks they'll take about two months to pay these off, and the terms specify that they have to pay them within three.
They're right: I made a very silly mistake in my math. My apology.
Thanks for your reply, why we're on it, by the way.
-
As you continue to provoke us one would think you have an hidden agenda that involves the MHA, RV. Maybe a "not so much" subtle agenda, frankly, but still one of sorts.
I for one am eager to see what you're aiming at: I'm sure it will be fun!
Fake edit: now I expect a private public thanksgiving for having given my attention to you. You won't break my heart, will you?
)
GO 
Sanctioning Standards
in World Affairs (IC)
Posted · Edited by jerdge
Nah! I was half joking and half referencing the "in general" aspect of RV's statements. It wasn't about you, sorry if you felt offended as it wasn't my intention.
(Edit: I mean; when he said that "The NPO culture remains, and as strong as ever." "The NPO culture" is an inexact definition, by the way, but I didn't feel like being nitpicking...)