[The Official Terms Given To TOP/IRON/TSO/DAWN/TORN]

Relative advantage? Are you already planning your next war against us? If that's the case I don't think these reps are nearly harsh enough.

I don't mind prying it from your cold dead hands at all.

We aren't planning anything. I can safely say that MK is no where near top of the list of alliances we hate right about now. We may have seen you as a threat and an opponent and most of your members agrees they did the same, but we did not hate you.

Given way you are treating this war that could change however.

Well, I'm going to love seeing how you pry anything for our cold dead hands. Not only you won't pry anything but you will lose hundreds of thousands of tech trying. And not get a cent from us. That is unless you stop with unreasonable crippling terms. We are not in a vacuum, while rest of the world grows CnG can try to contain us. I am going to enjoy watching alliances start to dwarf you and your position weaken day by day. All because you could not see that it is in your interest to end the war, end the cycle and try to find a good solution for both sides.

Problem in your equation is that even if we are completely destroyed, including all our tech and infra, we will still have all our wonders and all we will need is 1000 infra (bought for 5million) and some spare cash to buy up nukes. Even a 0 tech nuke does 150 damage and keeps someone in nuclear anarchy. You've seen Aircastle deploy on 3 targets each, now imagine 200 nations did that. Do you really want to make us into your arch-enemy? So we can either find an end to the conflict which won't leave bitter taste in peoples mouths or we can keep this up hurting both of us a lot. You can disperse the damage but the losses are still there.

[The Official Terms Given To TOP/IRON/TSO/DAWN/TORN]

I love these threats from TOP. These terms are hugely better for you guys than a vietFAN type situation. I'll quote a post I made a while ago because I don't know how buried it became in the topic I posted it in.

Basically, as far as I can see it, you guys don't get to choose who you can hit, and that's going to be a problem when you're outnumbered 10:1 (or more).

Look, offer is 350k to your alliances (meaning 700k net loss for TOP compared to your side). This means that if we accept the terms we will effectively lose all our tech without causing any damage.

Not only that but our slots will be locked with reparation payments for unknown amount of time (depending on how much tech CnG can absorb) and for whole that time we would be completely banned from buying tech for our own growth.

So, tell me, we should give up all of our tech (because by giving 350k to your side we are losing 700k in relative advantage) and cause no damage?

Seriously, you think this is a good offer?

Comparisons between MK paying 58/85k? tech with 170 members and TOP with 205 (and some ghosts) paying 350k are valid. Amount of tech we currently have is completely irrelevant to determining whether terms are harsh or not. For example I have 2.7B warchest as of this moment, if CnG wants I will pay you 2.7B in cash myself. Now, tell me, is this any useful?

Just because we have 700k tech with 200 members doesn't mean we have 50 slots per member. We still have 6 slots like everyone else. So making TOP pay 4 times as much in reps than MK did is extremely harsh and completely ridiculous. Not to mention we would essentially be at mercy of all alliances receiving tech to give us lists of targets in time to not prolong the payments unnecessarily. Given that NPO is still paying 350k and 12B they recieved I really doubt they would do us a favor there. And unlike NPO, TOP would have serious issues buying tech internally.

In other words, "Merde!".