Tulafaras

to be honest i am disappointed with the NPO. Not because peace mode is not a valid tactic, far be it from me to say anything like that (i have just entered peace mode myself after my first wars ran out so i could let the nuke anarchy run out and collect without danger). No my disappointment comes from the fact that officers should always lead from the front ranks, all that bravado and talk about it being honorable when they do it wouldn't sound half as bad if they had their goverment in the front lines while letting people from the general body of the alliance stay in peace for a 2nd wave (and no i don't accept that you couldn't have found 150 nations who aren't gov to go into peace with similar stats than the nations who remain in peace). Aside from that disappointment i must admit i am starting to wonder if that mythical second wave will ever appear in this war, it's way beyond the point where such reserves would usually be deployed (e.g. on day 7 of the old wars to prevent excactly what i just did yesterday, that being peacing out to collect in peace, or on day 4 to take the pressure of their members).

honestly if someone surrenders he is a coward, but frankly most alliances are well rid of them....

the nations who would be destroyed are the small guys who have little to do with this war (or nothing at all). my warchest can carry me through 3 months of nuclear anarchy if necessary, but why should those nations have similar warchests? they are not prepared for such a situation (and frankly they shouldn't need to be). So no i do not agree with insane ideas like uncapping GRL.

that sounds like a horrible idea.... the radiation is already painfull enough without rising above 5. Not only for the neutral nations but also for the nations involved in this war...

blah blah blah blah blah seriously, do you honestly believe the !@#$ you are shoveling here? The very idea that we would roll an alliance on our own side just to impose harsher terms is so absurd i can hardly believe you even voiced it. Spoils of war? The only spoils of this war will be nuclear devastation, that much is clear already. Even the winning side will take massive amounts of damage. Now seriously, for the last time, could you either turn down your drivel to a somewhat realistic level or take a course in reading comprehension? Steps to surrender (as agreed by Karma) 1) post in resignation thread 2) send message to nations directly fighting you that you are surrendering (link to your resignation post if your an overachiever) 3) send peace offers 4) decom relevant improvements/soldiers 5) change AA to Karma POW so, keeping this list in mind how can you surrender to the wrong alliance? As long as you do not forget to message your individual war opponents (if you have any) nothing is connected to any specific alliance.

so far my SDI blocked 11 nukes, while 3 got through. I must admit i am satisfied with the ratio. An alliance mate of mine on the other hand needed 13 nukes to get through a NPO SDI clearly they employ superior lasers (SDI is supposed to work on laser based technology right?)

as i said your paranoia is showing...

to my knowledge the terms are official. Which means that Big_Z confirmed them for our alliance and our dancing partners. Ps: Alterego your paranoia is showing (edit: Alterego since there seems to be some confusion wether you were threatening me with EZI or trying to imply that we want to EZI you (funny i didn't know we were at war with you) let me just state that i have never asked for anyone to be put on such a list. If on the other hand you think you can EZI me, the words "bring it" come to my mind)

Tiki in that case i'd say you have to take that up with your goverment. Though i must add that your point is pretty moot, spy operations are forbidden in any case so wether or not they have those improvements doesn't matter much. Demanding that they decom a Wonder is pretty harsh though

i am sorry, but i am officially confused now. You want karma (meaning all nations connected to that coalition) to destroy a wonder (the Foreign Airforce Base :unsure: of all things ?) and our intelligence agencies before you will surrender?

actually the UJW was rather close for the first few days. Regardless a clear seperation of the 3 GWs (even if they were smaller in size than this one) makes sense since the players fighting them were different. Honestly there were a ton of cool names proposed for this conflict, but if you want to go by size or damage i'd call it the epic war (also has the benefit that we could call follow up conflicts epic war 2)

none taken, since i've pretty much said in every post that i am not goverment and do not present an official opinion. The closest we have in this discussion is delta who is RIA gov.

are you pretending to be a troll to rile me up? Or do you really fail at reading comprehension? I have said: "harsher" in comparison to the original terms offered during the first night of the war. How does that in any way relate to EZI ? Frankly i've seen many terms both with reparations and without (so called white peace) the range to choose from is nearly endless, so please take your ignorance and go troll somewhere else. For now there is a war to be fought for those willing to fight it. For those not willing to go to the end for their alliance these individual terms apply.

there is a difference between a treaty not being enforced, and a treaty being broken. Considering the RIA-NPO MDP, since RIA is a part of the Superfriends how are they supposed to solve that? GoD must defend OV against the NPO and RIA cannot defend the NPO against GoD unless they break the Superfriends. Does this mean the treaty is broken? Not necessarily. If NPO insisted on their aid they would have to decide which treaty to enforce, but if NPO is willing to let things lie, they can fullfill their obligations in the aftermath of the war by providing aid. The same problem has been a factor for many other alliances, but almost none (as i said i am aware of PC's actions) have directly broken a treaty.

errr? how naive are you? Whoever wins this, will of course demand reparations now that this has gone fully nuclear. If you consider THAT news you must not have paid attention in any past war. How harsh these terms will be will definitly not be decided at my level (that being grunt) so ask Delta

such references depend highly on cultural information. I was not taught about that Cult, and i had not heard of it either. (of course google solved the problem within a minute but then not everyone looks up every analogy he doesn't understand) edit: @ Nonvalen: i won't rehash the conversation regarding the CB and terms again. It would completly derail this thread and frankly everything has been said at least 3 times regarding that topic. The collective terms offered then included 3 things which didn't matter a bit (apology, admission that CB was trumped up and admission of defeat) and 2 standard terms (Reps to OV, and military disarment for a period). Frankly that isn't outrageous in my opinion, but if you consider that so, let us agree to differ since neither of us will be able to convince the other to change his mind. The difference between those terms and these discussed in this thread is though that at that point only the direct attack of NPO/Torn against OV was to be handled. Since then the situation has degenerated into Global Nuclear war. As such alliance wide terms will most likely be much harsher (when they start negotiating and it is far too early in the game for such negotiations to happen). Individual Terms for nations wanting to resign out of this war (and out of their alliance by the same token) are a different problem and frankly i still do not see the problem with the terms posted by delta

want me to quote moo again? Seriously give it up... Moo tried to play the usual diplomatic game and failed. After that reasonable terms were offered (i can quote those too if necessary) but were not accepted. No matter how you slice it, OV did not spy. The only thing they were accused of, was accepting information which Moo himself said "everyone does".

could we rename this thread to: "wild theories without any factual evidence or statistical relevance" ? i think that would describe it best.

(ooc) the laws in this game are the rules enforced by the administration, everything else are treaties, contracts etc. refer to a dictionary if that part is still unclear (/ooc)

nope, it's what you believe to be the truth maybe, and it might be what you want to be the truth. Truth is a fact, not a suggestion. No treaty is a law, a treaty is a number of clauses agreed between partners, a law per definition a set of rules enforced by a superior authority. Breaking a treaty is between you and your treaty partner, breaking the law is usually punished by some sort of law enforcement (police, military etc.). The only treaty which was outright broken in this war was the PC / TPF Nap to my knowledge. And those two alliances have always been hostile so the treaty wasn't worth the paper it was written on. Now either NAME those treaties you consider broken or shut up.

endlessly repeating a statement does not make it more or less true. If you want to argue that treaties are being broken left and right, maybe you should dig out those treaties and prove your point? Almost every treaty has a cancellation clause, and yes in this war we have seen quite a few cancellations, but that sadly is not unusual. It often requires a catalyst to show how far two alliances have grown apart.

easy solution, think of a different name for your side and get back to us with your request. Considering how many different alliances are on both sides i think no one can be bothered to refer to them individually.

All this whining in this thread is unbecomming. No one is forcing anyone to accept these terms. The point of these terms is not if they are necessary (frankly since a few nations have already accepted them, they obviously are) the point is are they fair? They seem pretty much standard for individual terms so yes they seem to be fair. If you are so confident no one will give up anyway, then why are you complaining so much? Ps: Might i remind you that in the UJW similar terms were posted by both sides within 2 days of the start of the war?

adhambek: the problem is, you might love two alliances, and they might not necessarily love each other. (as happened in the UJW GoD had good ties to both \m/ and NpO but were forced to choose between them since they were at opposing sides). Some treaties are signed out of fear/necessity those usually aren't worth !@#$. But most treaties are signed out of genuine respect and friendship (at least at the start), but feelings change and then the treaties become worth less and less

honestly if someone sent me such a message, i'd forward it to the relevant goverment members of his alliance and be done with it. Frankly what individual members say/think of me doesn't bother me. If an alliance policy was similar i'd probably argue it on a board, but empty threats aren't worth the effort. Ps: I have nothing but respect for my opponents, but that doesn't mean i won't bomb them until i can't throw anymore bombs, because that is the game we are playing here. What it does mean is that i don't send useless spam mail either threatening, coercing or whatever else you may want to include. Let your military speak for your nation (that is primarily adressed at some people in the Karma Coalition since i've yet to see someone in NPO send out similar mails)