KinKiac

What about the IO forums? Private gov IRC channels FTW? You see and hear what your government wants you to see and hear. Thats how a dictatorship works. Oh and as far as wiki is concerned that is what I was talking about and it is something that has been touched on in a number of topics on here. The winners are the ones who write history, and it always paints them as being totally justified in what they had done. If you think your leaders tell your body republic the entire story you are very naive. Also, I like how you only respond to that one point.

So as not to take your words out of context Ill quote your whole post. First off no one is forcing anyone to disband. If your leaders feel it would be better to disband then to pay reps(something that would take 6 months tops) then that is their decision. A decision, that the NPO has given to alliances in the past, that actually led to their disbandment. FAN didnt disband and neither did OcUK. Others did. Second, selective quotes and re-writing history is something the NPO excels at. Just what are they telling you guys right now? I bet they are saying that Pacifica's crimes are not that bad, and that everyone is overreacting, they've all done it themselves, bunch of hypocrites right? Well, think about this for a second, how many alliance are against NPO right now? What does it take for that many alliances, including former NPO allies, to turn on you like they have? Surely not everyone is making stuff up, overreacting, taking things out of context, lying and putting spin on things. Most of the people fighting alongside one another arent even great friends. Think about that for a second, think about what the NPO must have done for that many people to turn on them. Hell they even had a tiny alliance(Vox) dedicated to thier destruction. No, not everyone(actually very few) are just trying to make NPO look bad. NPO has done a great job of that themselves. You also say 2 wrongs dont make a right. Fair enough. What about 1 wrong to right 10+. Is the death penalty ok for a mass murderer? In my opinion it is. Im not even for the death penalty, but if someone killed over and over again, what else is there left to do? !@#$ Id probably kill the SOB myself. Im not calling NPO a murderer, but what I am saying is that it is only fair for the NPO to taste "a bit" of their own medicine ONCE, after many indiscretions. There are many communities here on Planet Bob. There are many who had previously been told by your leaders that they will not be allowed to exist. Why do they matter less than yours? You say that community means a lot to you and yet you align yourself with an alliance that destroys communities. That alone says more than words can about "what" community means more to you. You have lost the war, as you yourself agree, but your leaders refuse to give it up. The terms handed to you are not going to keep you down for "years". They will keep you from being a threat for a maybe a year or so. They will be paid off within 6 months or less with the kind of organization an alliance as large as NPO has. With billions in reserve(many more billions than are asked for in the terms I might add) your community will not be destroyed. You will be put in the same position Polar was last fall. A far cry from where your leaders have kept FAN for the last 2 years, a far cry from the fate your leaders would have given Vox if they had their way, and a far cry from being destroyed. Just take your beating, quit whining about the terms, they are better then what your leaders will do to us if they can, and get on with your lives. Or, you can fight on, making the risk of losing members and the dangers of disbandment even greater. The choice is yours, or rather your leaders'. I hope they make the right decision for you and your precious community.

I cant help but respond to this as it is wrong in so many ways. No, they lose that privilege because it is not true. Because they have done far worse in the past. Because many believe they deserve more. Pacifica has handed out terms like this on many occasions, it is only fair that they be subject to their own medicine ONCE. Your argument here fails. No one said the terms arent "harsh". They smply said they are not that bad. As in "they are not as bad as pacifica is making them out to be". The terms given are fair considering the other choice is to fight until destroyed, lost sanction, or disband. If they pay now they will keep sanction. They will still have a formidable alliance, they will still keep their sovereignty. I was nuked and anarchied during my first 2 rounds of war and was still able to come out ahead, without bill lock. Just because a nation is anarchied does not mean they are bill locked. The nations in peace mode right now(more specifically the top 50 or so) are going ot be FAR from bill locked after 2 rounds of war. Also, why is it that the ones bill locked now can not receive aid? Or havent been? Pacifica can aid who it wishes right now. also there was a stipulation in the terms that those paying could save one slot for internal aid. Again your argument fails. If a nation refuses to follow orders and thus is endangering the alliance, then they have no real loyalty to NPO or its leaders. They deserve to be tossed. It is also no less than what NPO has demanded in the past. Again, just a taste of their own medicine. No one said they were going to get "easy" terms. The NPO would have to bust their butts to get this done true, but that is what is expected. Where was that ever stated? You dont actually believe that a nation that has 1k tech becomes ineligible to pay the entire 1k tech as part of reps do you? Im also sure you will find people on the 10th and 20th page that have over 1k tech. They just have next to no infra. Last one standing as in they refused to change with the times and showed no remorse and no sign of ever changing. And, if the CB's of the past were so acceptable, then why are so many pissed off? The fact is that the CB's used by NPO in the past were not acceptable, this is one of the reason people went to war against them, shaky CB's. The only difference now is that, unlike in the past, the people who disliked them are now in a position to, as NPO so liked to put it in the past, do something about it. And they are. Having a bad guy is one thing, we have lots of those. it was actually NPO's reign that cause the period of relative peace that was so boring. No one wanted to speak out against NPO for fear of perpetual war, viceroyship, disbandment or any of the other hardships that NPO would threaten anyone who opposed them. Many quit playing because of this, and are only starting to come back now that NPO is being stomped. The number of players that NPO has driven from the game is larger than the number who play because of the wars created by them. Again your arguments fail.

There's one problem with that theory. Karma wont exist to piss anyone off after the war is over. This is a one time deal, unlike NPO's 3 years of pissing people off it took before they banded together to put a stop to it.

Still havent finished the thread, but theres a few posts, well more than a few but Ill keep it to a minimum, that I had to lol at. Umm, how about your top 50? Thats a tad more than 5. Also, If you look at the OP, Moo admits that the terms were to be re-evaluated by Karma after the war period, and NPO's ability to pay would be taken into consideration at that point. Which means IF NPO was totally decimated in terms of warchests being depleted, that the terms may be lightened at that point. No one seems to mention that part though. 15 days collections? LMAO. I keep 15-18 days worth of collection just for my improvement swapping, thats not including my warchest. !5 days bills or collections is a pitiful warchest and if thats all the NPO had I can see now why they were so pissed off that OV might have that info. They are not expected to "win". They are expected to defend, thats all they have to do and doing so for 14 days will not deplete billion dollar warchests. So, what you're saying is you successfully indoctrinated them. Good show. What is your nation name? Please answer that is IF you are not a coward yourself. Although I dont expect an answer as you've already been gagged by your alliance. lol, keep helping your cause buddy, just keep on posting. If you're lucky maybe you'll be made an honorary member of Karma, since your posts do nothing more then hurt NPO's chance of winning any PR that may be gained form this thread. Thanks! Yeah or maybe we could let King Penchuk draw up the next set of terms, lol. [OOC] Thanks, way to help Karma's cause. By those lines of reasoning we should impose harsh terms. Lets make this comparison complete. GW1 = WW1 Karma war = WW2. Ok now what happened to Germany after WW2? They sure as hell didnt come back for revenge did they? Im pretty sure most of the Nazi leaders were tried and convicted of war crimes and punished quite severely. Some tried to leave their past behind and make news lives for themselves, annnnnnd they were hunted down and tried for war crimes. This would be the CN equivalent of PZI'ing all of NPO IO's. Maybe we should try that, it seemed to work in RL. Dude, you seem to be the one with the ignore button. You have been responded to directly, more than once, and given the list of crimes you so asked for. No one is buying your ignorance.

Ok so I havent yet finished the thread, thats going to take a while. But there is some posts Id like to respond to from the first few pages. Not a chance. NPO propaganda is not that good. Most of the community IS Karma. no not quite. How long would it take 300 nations at tech selling level to pay 1000 tech each? At 5 slots per nation that equals 250 tech each, every 10 days, so in 40 days, 300 nations could pay back the entire 300,000 tech. Thats just over a month, not a year. Even if only half that qualify it still only takes 2 months tops. Add in the monetary reps and your looking at maybe 6 months tops. Far cry from a year. Far cry from 2 years of perpetual war too. THIS ^^^^^^ The bolded part. Thanks AUT for reminding us WHY Karma is asking for such high reps, so guys like you and NPO dont jump us in 6 months. No but you are lying when you say you are fighting this war because an alliance "sought" military intelligence on you. the logs show that OV did not "seek" the info, it was offered to them. There is a very big difference there. Then there is the fact that you used spied info to find out that you had been spied on. Double standard much? The reasoning is simple. NPO's largest nations(top 50) could have upwards of 2 billion each, some maybe more. Not to mention the tech that they have extorted from others. Overall it is much more than 300,000 that they have taken from others. The fact is, NPO will not be dictating the terms. Many would probably like to see higher reps or even disbandment, change of color etc. These terms are quite reasonable and many would like to keep stomping NPO. If NPO wants this to end, they either take it or leave it. When someone rapes my sister and then I beat their face into a pulp, literally, that is not hypocrisy, thats payback. Karma does not have a "history" of doing this to "many" alliances do they? NPO does. There's the difference. Hypocrisy my @$$. The thing is that you may find some of the alliances in Karma have done some of the atrocities that NPO has, but most are guilty of only one. NPO is guilty of many, big big difference. In the end NPO has a long list of so called crimes they have committed. Most of Bob disagrees with them. Some are guilty of doing the same things at times, but no other alliance is guilty of anywhere near the entire list of things NPO is. Before this war, NPO showed no signs of changing. No signs that they would let Vox or FAN go. The only option was for them to be removed. At this point the war and the terms are about making sure NPO doesnt come back in 6 months to destroy those that opposed them and people like AUT just strengthen that theory. NPO will come back to haunt all of us if the terms are not this harsh. They need to be harsh enough that they can not rebuild in a few months. These terms that were offered ensure that. They also give Karma time to rebuild ahead of NPO, so that when NPO is rebuilt, Karma has a head start. They are doable, but not easily. I hope you NPO guys didnt think you were going to get terms that easy to pay off. That would just be naive.

Well, I havent read the entire thread but Im more responding to the OP anyway. I really think you have had bad luck in your protectorates. If Im not mistaken NV was once a protectorate, as were many alliances. If you look at all the Alliances formed over the years Im sure you will find that only a limited few made it up to medium and even fewer to large status. Many have failed on their own merits with or without protectorates. I also disagree with your definition of a protectorate and what they are for. Many alliances will not sign a formal MDP unless an alliance has a certain number of members. That leaves small, 5-50 member, alliances at a huge disadvantage and leaves them open to raiding. So, along came the protectorate treaties. These treaties have 2 different purposes depending on the protectorate. One is simply protecting from raiders in the beginning stages of alliance development until they get on their feet and can defend themselves and/or build diplomatic ties. The other would be to help out noob alliances with guides, recruiting practices, nation building and even trades and tech deals. Some small alliances may be started by veterans like NoV for example, kingzog is not exactly a noob, so may not need help with guides or setting up tech deals etc. Another example would be the liqueur cabinet. ES is by no means a noob and to start would need a protectorate to simply avoid raiders. These are 2 examples of alliances that are almost certainly going to move beyond the protectorate stage, if they havent already. In the end, the success of a protectorate is going to be up to them. If they are content to let their protectors do the diplomatic thing for them and hold their hand their whole life then they will probably fail. This is not the fault of the protector. On the other hand if they tag along with their protectors and try to learn, do the diplo thing themselves having the support of their protector, then maybe they have a chance, but it will take time for them to learn. In the case of a protectorate being led by a veteran it is just a matter of time and effort before they grow into a totally self sufficient alliance. NSO was a protectorate, they grew to over 100 members in no time. They have a lot of veterans as well as a strong veteran leader with a strong reputation to thank for that, but it doesnt mean others cant do the same. They can and they have. Unfortunately for noob alliances, they may not have the talent to begin with, which will slow their growth. The more talent they can either develop or attract to their alliance, the more potential they have. In most cases they would be better off to join a larger alliance, make friends, and learn about the game before starting an alliance of their own. Once in an alliance they can make name for themselves and maybe find some like minded friends and with the right grouping start a successful alliance of their own. But to start playing the game, with lets say a few friends, all of whom have small nations hoping to make their own way in the world, and expect to grow quickly or at all is kinda naive. There are certain things that a successful alliance needs including a banking system. This is not possible without larger nations able and willing to aid smaller nations. This also helps with recruiting as signing bonus's can be offered in the recruitment messages. It would also help to have someone who is outspoken and good at making friends via IRC and/or forums(preferably IRC). Someone like this would serve as FA and work to build relations with alliances other than their protectorate. Starting a successful alliance is not an easy thing to do and requires a lot of work. Many fail on this alone, they either dont have the time or the talent to succeed. The success rate of any alliance in this game is rather small, however, I believe having a good protectorate can help alleviate some of the difficulties in beginning, and should not stunt their growth in any way. That is one thing I found in your post, I did not see a valid reason why the protectorate treaty itself would hinder an alliance's growth. Even if all the protector did was sign the treaty to ward off potential raiders without providing any help, and all they did was ask you to pay reps for missteps, I still dont see how that would hinder your growth. They may not be helping much, but that in itself doesnt stop you from recruiting either. It doesnt stop you from getting to know other alliances through an FA program, and it doesnt stop you from building your nations in any way. Hopefully they could provide trades, tech deals, guides and advice on different alliances and blocs around the cyberverse. If they are not doing these things then maybe you need to find another protector. Anyway, thats my 2 cents. I hope maybe your outlook changes for the better.

You are still supporting an aggressive war. NPO's war is aggressive. If you attack in support of that war, you are now engaged in an aggressive war. Anyone fighting with NPO are aggressors and anyone fighting in defense of OV and its allies are fighting a defensive war. Its all about who started it. There is only one war, many fronts, but still one war. NPO started it, therefore they and anyone supporting them are aggressors right along side of them. You can not say you are defending them when they started it. You are supporting their aggressive war, not defending them. You did not have to attack OV to be supporting the NPO in the war they started, you just have to fight on their side. Just because you are losing doesnt make it defensive, this has been said time and time again. If NPO was winning would still consider yourself to be fighting a defensive war? Who's winning and who's losing doesnt change whether or not you are part of the aggressors or the defenders, it just doesnt work that way.

Good intentions my !@#. MCXA and NPO must have been keeping you guys in the dark then, lol. Doesnt surprise me. The fact that Agora was formed as Polar was getting stomped and while BLEU still existed kinda throws good intentions out the window IMO. You guys said you were about blue unity but AGORA served to tear the blue sphere apart. Not only that but the largest blue alliance would not even have been allowed membership. The whole purpose of AGORA was filled with lies. You can not hope to achieve unity when you start off competing with an existing blue economic bloc and shut out the largest blue alliance, possibly others too. You guys were either lying or disillusioned.

No not at all. You and any other alliance who fought with the NPO were and are supporting an aggressive war. Do not try and tell me or anyone else here that you guys were in a defensive war. Nice try. Im dont trying to argue defensive offensive BS. It really doesnt matter nor does it change anything except for maybe PR. Stop trying to win PR for NPO. They are getting their just desserts, end of story. The thing is, many of the Karma alliances are not "assured" that NPO is still not a threat. It doesnt matter if you or anyone else agree or not that NPO is still a threat, Karma apparently believes so and is acting accordingly. Truth like that RoK is the one demanding peace mode nations come out? Thats not truth. Again, nice try. THIS ^^^^^^^^ This war was never about OV and NPO. It was about NPO wanting to take out OV and all of OV's allies. NPO is not dumb, they knew that this would escalate. Well, they miscalculated, and they are losing. You mean back when TPF spied on OV? Someone else beat me to the punch but Ill say it anyway.

No, it had no promise, with or without NPO.

I havent read the rest of the thread yet but but dont you think it was kinda dumb to fly the AA of an alliance being attacked by half the the cyberverse in order to "remain safe" LOLOLOL. You be better off as none than NPO. Im sorry RV but that was not a smart move on your part.

Whether you "buy" it or not doesnt make it false. That is the definition of "mutual defense". By having a mutual defense treaty, when someone attacks one party, they have effectively attacked the other and it is only a matter of time, as long as the ally is honorable, before the other one attacks in defense. At the same time, it is only a matter of time before they in turn are declared on by allies of the other side. The point is that NPO knew damn well that they were not just going to war with OV. They knew damn well that VE and any other allies would all be involved as well and they knew damn well they would be sending their own allies to attack VE and anyone else who joined in. The only thing NPO didnt know was who would attack who, but they knew damn well this wasnt just between them and OV. Gimme a break with the I dont buy that routine. NPO is not dumb, they knew this would lead to a major conflict and it wasnt until the some more lines were drawn and people decided they would not suppport NPO this time around that they saw the folly of what they had done. If the words "an attack on one is an attack on the other" was not a valid point then why put it into almost every single MDP out there. You seem to argue that an MDP with that line in it is an infringement of an individual alliances sovereignty, which if that was the case, I dont thinkl that that line would be included in all of our MDP's.

I like how you only argued my weakest point, lol. Oh well. I think you are arguing semantics in that respect. The thing is the term counter-offensive is not a term used around here for the purposes of treaties, and as such has no bearing. It is either a defensive war or an offensive one. If NPO had more allies to fight with, the slots would have been filled. Just because Karma has more people to fill slots, and are winning, doesnt suddenly make Karma the aggressors. Karma didnt ask for the war, NPO gave it to them.

Even though Im contemplating dropping a nuke on your leader right now, lol - Congrats and happy Bday guys.

I see you did not respond to any of my posts. I was hoping for some argument but oh well. Actually they didnt just attack OV. They attacked OV and OV's allies. In many cases an attack on one is an attack on the other. OV was never the only alliance involved in this. In attacking OV NPO knew damn well that OV allies would join in. They just assumed they had enough allies themselves to win. This one statement goes against everything you are trying to argue here. What you are pointing out is that it took huge terms for NpO to change its moral values.

This post seems kinda revealing. I think he stated that you may have tried to harm the alliance you want to join. He did not accuse you of anything, but your wording and defensiveness seems to indicate that it was MK that you were trying to join. He was making a hypothetical statement simply stating a possible reason why AN alliance MIGHT not want to take you in. By saying that he is accusing you of trying to harm him, or his alliance, you seem to be saying that it was MK that you were trying to join. Interesting. I really dont think you are getting the shaft. If you have not tried to harm them in the past, then why not tell them who you were. Maybe they will take you in regardless and give you a chance to prove yourself regardless of previous actions or affiliations. You dont know this until you try. If you want to keep your previous identity a secret, then maybe just tell the IA guy in a PM and ask him to keep it secret. If he doesnt and tells everyone and does not allow you into the alliance, just re-roll again and you are back to square one and no one knows who you are again. At that point you might want to reconsider the alliance you want to join.

The bolded part made me LOL. For a second there I thought you were implying that NPO getting rolled was a bunch of BS. As for the question posed, it would depend. 1 - On their actions going out of and after this war. 2 - On their overall attitude displayed on the OWF and elsewhere with regards to those they fought. Also, are you asking with regards to their general membership, or the alliance as a whole. I think the 2 are very different. My opinion of the alliances as a whole would depend on who they are treaty'd with, who is running the show, FA policies, etc. My opinion of individual members is much more lenient and would only depend on their actions and attitude towards me specifically. If they show me respect, I will show them respect. I do not blame an individual for its alliance's actions, but when war comes, there is no differentiating between members. I may not blame them for their leaders decisions, but they may be held accountable if they are brought to war. It does say something about ones character in whom they choose to keep company with though.

First 5 pages actually, and most of the next 5 as well. You are not taking into account aid trains, or sleds, or whatever you want to call them. You can effectively take the same 6 mill in aid and use it to boost many nations one after the other when organized properly. A single round of aid could potentially be used for 5 or 6 rounds of continuing aid down the ranks, without having to pump any more than the initial 6mill per nation receiving. There are many factors and timing is critical, as well as LC cycles, but it is possible. Also any nations over 4 or 5k infra can handle 15mill every 10 days, if needed. At 6200 infra I was pulling in over 7.5mill per day. Doing LC cycles I was collecting on average about 150mill every 18 days. 30mill in same time period, with maybe 60mill in bills is nothing, and I could still buy wonders and build up my warchest. Its really no different than a 4 or 5k nations being in a perpetual 5 slot tech deal. I dont think Mk is known for not honoring its MDP or MADP's. A NAP is hardly a noteworthy treaty, it is the start to relations, but considering the past MK and NPO had, I dont see how NPO could have honestly thought it would lead to anything. Also, Im pretty sure they were given 2 choices, either a NAP or ... MK took what they thought was the lesser of 2 evils. For those who consider them friends, I really dont think there is any question as to if they would honor their treaties. Ive yet to see any of MK's allies question their loyalty. ^^^This. This is something I have been wondering for a while now. Id really like to compare NPO's staff list with the list of nations in PM at the top right now. Most in the top 50 have been in NPO for 1-3 years. I doubt many of them are regular members. Wow, that ones harsh. If it were up to me, and a term like that was going to be handed out, Id say let them keep their PM nations and that will be the only term, no money, no tech, just destroy all but 500 tech for each nation. That would be considered very harsh even still, but if that were the only term, possibly fair? I doubt anything like that would ever come to pass though. EDITED: for clarity

Why are you trying to give bad PR to Ragnarok? They are not the only ones fighting the NPO. They were not the ones asking for the peace mode terms, just a messenger. What makes you think that they are going to get any of the reps from NPO. Why do you assume such? It is statements like these that make your post look like a PR spin, you are doing it to yourself. If that is the case then you should already be up in arms. You are forgetting that many have been down this road before. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... Ill say it again. A persons previous actions speak much louder than any pledge for the future. While honorable your pledge is, it still remains that it is not a good indicator of what will be done in the future. However, if you stand by such a pledge after the war is over and into the next war, then said pledge will mean something. Until then it just cant be trusted, and the same goes for any pledge that may be made by the NPO or anyone else for that matter. They must prove themselves through actions, not words.

Im not even going to try to argue all that is wrong with that one. Really? I thought honor would be motivation enough to honor treaties regardless of the situation. Silly me, lol. That argument holds no water when talking about the NPO. They have already proven that they are unforgiving, even when they win.

lol. Do you know what behavioral interviewing is? It is used in job interviews quite frequently. It works on the basis that ones past experiences are a better indication of what they will do in the future, than what they say they will do. So instead of asking "what will you do in this situation?" you ask what have you dont in a similar situation in the past. This is probably the best way to judge future actions. Not true. My alliance was one of the "vitims" in the last war. We hold no ill will to those whom we fought in the last war. In fact I think Ive defended RoK in one of my last posts. Nice try though. The thing is, you are forgetting or neglecting the fact that Karma is NOT continuing those practices. There has been no threats of EZI/PZI, no viceroys, no perpetual warfare, no terms that ensure a redeclaration of hostilities, no demanding certain members be ejected from alliances, no demanding that certain people remain silent on OWF, and no demanding of Gov to step down. You can not accuse Karma of continuing practices of the NPO when when these things stated have not come to pass. I think you may need a history lesson.

A whole 2 months, please no. Come on, 2 months is nothing. And, please stop with the whole you're no better than them line. It is getting old, and it is not true. Mercy has already been given to those that deserve it, for the most part. I think that opportunity was already given, it was called GW1 I believe. Reparation being given this time around to the NPO are going to hopefully prevent that same thing from happening. White peace and lenient terms have already been proven to fail in this respect. Why do you think that Karma will do something that has already proven itself to not work? High reps might not work either, but that is yet to be seen. There is no point in trying something that has been proven to fail. There are 2 things which are kinda new here on PB which are being tried out. 1 is lenient terms for the ones simply honoring treaties. The other is harsh terms for the NPO specifically, since light terms obviously didnt work on them before. That is assuming that the NPO gets harsh terms in the end, which I have no say or input in whatsoever.

Although I disagree with you on other points, which has been established elsewhere, I totally agree with you on this point.

Extorting Tech? lol. You my friend, I dont think you get it. NPO is not a forgiving bunch. They have completely destroyed alliances for simply honoring treaties. The first thing on their minds after this war is going to be revenge as soon as possible. By asking for high reparations, Karma is simply giving itself a bit longer break before the next one comes. With NPO rebuilding capability they will be back on their feet and gunning for anyone that opposed them in no time. As for precedents, they have already been set. White peace and very lenient terms for most of the alliances that lost in this war so far. This was unheard of before this war. My alliances personally had the joy of paying reparations after being preemptively attacked just last fall. Although much of those reps were forgiven, the point still stands, precedents have already been set. NPO is still a threat. Reparations are not a way of extorting tech for personal gain, that is what NPO did to get that tech in the first place. If NPO is forced to pay high levels of tech, Which is their choice at this point I might add, then they are simply being forced to give back what they took from others. You can not call it extortion when much of it wasnt paid for by NPO in the first place. Also, NPO has been given a choice. Either come out and fight like men, or be forced to pay more later. The ball is in their court. Id also like to mention that you are either ill-informed, or spouting propaganda when you say RoK is now imposing financial burdens on peace mode nations. If you had been following along, you would know that RoK was simply the ones "presenting" those terms, and not necessarily the ones asking for them. Im pretty sure those terms were a group effort. I think this is a major flaw in your argument. Harsh terms have nothing to do with benefit. Harsh terms are terms that are difficult or if not then next to impossible to pay off or maintain. It has nothing to do with personal benefit. NPO is going to get harsh terms in order to prevent them from rebuilding "too" quickly. However they will rebuild. If they are let off without terms or with very lenient terms, they will rebuild very quickly. They have got their top 50 and more in peace since the beginning of the war. Some of these guys no doubt have billions in their warchests. A single nation could have over 2 bill alone. Dont sit here and try to tell us that they are not still a threat in any way, they still have more members than pretty much any other alliance in the game. Many of those are small nations yes, but with billions in reserve, it wont take much to produce a massive mid-range military. With many of the alliances in this war, on both sides, being ravaged by war, if NPO gets peace without high reps or having to have their top 50 fight, they will probably rebuild quicker than any of us. Either way, it doesnt matter at this point. The harshness of NPO's terms are dependent upon themselves at this point. Either they come out and fight, or they pay up. Its one or the other. Personally, I would rather fight. You can argue that peace mode is just a tactic and they shouldnt be punished for it all you want, but the fact that it is a "tactic" means that NPO hasnt given up the fight. They have not conceded their loss, something they have never done before, but this war is going to change that, whether they like it or not. Taking their top 50 out of peace mode for a couple of rounds of war, like their smaller nations have already done, would make this far less painful for them.