Banksy
-
Posts
3,860 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Blog Comments posted by Banksy
-
-
I don't know if the number of nations playing CN directly relates to activity. Losing nations during a war may cut out the 'chaff.' For the ODN as an alliance- we have *far* higher activity now (with 350 members) than we did when we have over 1000. I wonder if this is same across the game.
-
How could anyone not vote Pride Assassin?
-
Cool beans man- cool beans.
Also- I could swear the reps we offered were waaaaay more draconian than that. We are the new hegemony, after all.
-
$9b, not 18
3/50 or 3/100 :/
Maybe, but that doesn't remove the benefit for those receiving the term particularly with the length of time some terms of surrender remained in effect. If terms lasted only a month then there's an argument demilitarization might be more costly then remaining militarized, based upon the cost to rebuy all of it minus the difference in bills. Over a prolonged period of time however they're desirable for the losing party.
What you said is certainly true- but by not having restrictions TOP can stay fully militarised if they want to- or they can go back to a peace time level. It's their choice and it reduces the restrictions on their sovereignty.
-
It's actually in an alliance's best interests to have demilitarization. Lower bills from a lack of military and uninterrupted growth for members that would otherwise fight tech raiders or rogues means more money put into rebuilding. The harshest terms one can place on another is full military being mandatory but that just puts them in a position where they could concievably do a lot of damage in a first strike if they wish to go full suicide mode.
Between terms involving demilitarization and those without, I'd take the former and try to extend it as long as reasonably practical. Depending on other terms you could even still import tech thus improving your capacity to wage war when ever you remilitarize.
Military restrictions are embarrassing. Unless you feel there is a chance that they will turn around and attack you- there is little point in imposing them.
-
Why not just drop the requirement that they have to send their own tech. Let them buy it with tech sellers. CnG will get their tech and it doesn't cripple the alliances paying the reps. People are throwing out time frames in terms of aid slots that alliances will have to devote to paying reps but its really double whats being quoted because of the wasted aid slots used to acquire the tech in the first place. I think the punitive aspect to the reps requested should be dropped. War is good and people seem to think we should encourage it. If the original rep request is paid it will set a dangerous precedent that will insure long long lasting peace.
300,000 tech is 18 billion in cash. Those *really* are joke reps for TOP.
-
Wow- GM said something stupid. That's going to shake the world.
-
How's the cricket?
-
"NUTS" etc
Good to see they weren't leaked by TOP.
/me leaves a biased comment and exits
-
I realise this is a problem for STA- but remember that treaties are bilateral. We could alternatively ask- "Why isn't the STA following C&G here? Why must they always follow Polar?" We all know that the STA and Polaris share a close bond- and would go to ZI for each other- so the STA and Polaris share a 'higher' treaty. STA, in short, treats Polaris above her other allies. This is (imo) the exact same situation with C&G. The MDAP nature of the bloc means that we must put the will (or at least, the 'interests') of the entire bloc first. We put each other before our other allies (if we have to). I know for a fact that Vanguard and MK are hating this situation. But they don't have much of a choice.
could someone please
in lebubu's Blog
A blog by lebubu in General
Posted
Well - it was done by IRON....