SirWilliam Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Such merciful terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayatollah Bromeini Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) If these are the individual terms of surrender, I'm curious to see what the actual term of surrender will be for SOS. Edited October 23, 2011 by Ayatollah Bromeini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeR Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Seems like SOS is still going strong. http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=SOS%20Brigade http://www.cybernations.net/stats_alliance_stats_custom.asp?Alliance=Non%20Grata Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apophis775 Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 So... this organized tech-raid has stepped up to extortion? This surprises me, as I haven't seen extortion like this since I join CN and got the "Pay me 1 mil or I'll own you" messages from the noob-hunters. Pitiful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d3filed Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Make sure to send me the tech kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baltus Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 STOP RUINING THE GAME NON GRATA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir pwnage Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 [quote name='White Chocolate' timestamp='1319406696' post='2831107'] Non Grata is 226 nations strong. SOS Brigade is 22 nations strong. Non Grata has NO motivation to give easy individual surrender terms whatsoever. Who cares if all 22 keep fighting forever. It's already a curb stomp and always has been. No way it can get any easier for Non Grata. So the only motivation here that I can see is to be able to tell anyone who has a problem with how long this curb stomp has been going on, "we offered surrender terms to people who want out." So, to me anyway, the question is are these terms a fair trade for peace to the SOS nations who originally were not involved for the reason for the curb stomp in the first place and just happen to be in SOS Brigade when Non Grata attacked them? [/quote] Personally, I see it as NG offering a way out for those that don't want to burn for Arrnea's complete lack of leadership ability. Yes, they have to pay for the privilege, but they stayed in SOS for this long and that level of idiocy can't go unpunished. And the terms are really quite lenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 [quote name='dejarue' timestamp='1319405308' post='2831089'] I hope you guys get wiped out off the world. [/quote] Do something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 To be completely honest, 200 tech wouldn't be enough to pay me off of hitting SOS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaiar Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 [quote name='Rampage3' timestamp='1319404733' post='2831073'] And my take is that NonGrata doesn't care IF anyone surrenders, but they plan to make them pay for the privilege of desertion. [/quote] My dumbass failed to see this last time (NG/UPN)...read that announcement as post war and not as during war meaning deserters paying. I can't really say I care for the fate of SOS here but I hope they fight well and do their best against overwhelming/no chance odds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Smurf Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 [quote name='King Xander the Only' timestamp='1319402364' post='2831034'] I. Military Decom 1. Decom all military improvements (except those required for the Strategic Defense Initiative), soldiers to at least 25% of population, and all tanks, planes, nukes, and naval ships. [/quote] Minor but don't you mean no more than 25% soldiers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellis Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1319411283' post='2831164'] Minor but don't you mean no more than 25% soldiers? [/quote] Wasn't that also in the UPN individual terms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Unknown Smurf' timestamp='1319411283' post='2831164'] Minor but don't you mean no more than 25% soldiers? [/quote] [b]Decom all[/b] military improvements (except those required for the Strategic Defense Initiative), [b]soldiers to at least 25% of population[/b], and all tanks, planes, nukes, and naval ships. It's an awkward wording but it makes sense to me. Edited October 23, 2011 by Hereno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeroofTime55 Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 This is beyond disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoomzoomzoom Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 Deserters always deserve to pay. Well done. I look forward to this precedent being set for every major war from now on. EVEN if it is against my own alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Xander the Only Posted October 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 [quote name='Hereno' timestamp='1319411954' post='2831168'] [b]Decom all[/b] military improvements (except those required for the Strategic Defense Initiative), [b]soldiers to at least 25% of population[/b], and all tanks, planes, nukes, and naval ships. It's an awkward wording but it makes sense to me. [/quote] It's terrible wording that I blame on zoom. [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1319412332' post='2831174'] This is beyond disgusting. [/quote] Don't throw up on my shoes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schattenmann Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Zoomzoomzoom' timestamp='1319412760' post='2831176'] Deserters always deserve to pay. Well done. I look forward to this precedent being set for every major war from now on. EVEN if it is against my own alliance. [/quote] Especially when it is your alliance. Edited October 23, 2011 by Schattenmann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stewie Posted October 23, 2011 Report Share Posted October 23, 2011 [quote name='HeroofTime55' timestamp='1319412332' post='2831174'] This is beyond disgusting. [/quote] Again... Do something about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Levistus Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) No reason to let them off scott free as there's no tactical advantage to be gained by bleeding their membership. I've no problem with deserters being forced to pay individual reparations in this situation. Needs to also be put in perspective. 22 nations in SOS brigade. Only 11 need to pay anything at all. 7 would need to pay one slot of 3/50, and only 4 would have to pay the 200 tech. If[b] ALL[/b] of the SOS brigade were to surrender, their total reps would be 21m and 1150 tech. Not insignificant for a 22 man AA, but hardly overwhelming. Edited October 24, 2011 by Lord Levistus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernkastel Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 I don't see too many taking these terms. You might manage to get a few of the people with less seniority but that's probably about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pansy Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 [quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1319415431' post='2831217'] No reason to let them off scott free as there's no tactical advantage to be gained by bleeding their membership. I've no problem with deserters being forced to pay individual reparations in this situation. Needs to also be put in perspective. 22 nations in SOS brigade. Only 11 need to pay anything at all. 7 would need to pay one slot of 3/50, and only 4 would have to pay the 200 tech. If[b] ALL[/b] of the SOS brigade were to surrender, their total reps would be 21m and 1150 tech. Not insignificant for a 22 man AA, but hardly overwhelming. [/quote] That probably equates to a maximum of 1 day damage, especially with some of those nukes doing upwards of 200 tech per splash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Levistus Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Bernkastel' timestamp='1319415890' post='2831227'] I don't see too many taking these terms. You might manage to get a few of the people with less seniority but that's probably about it. [/quote] I don't think that they expect many to take these terms. It's just giving an out and setting a benchmark for Alliance wide terms if they choose to goto the table anytime soon. It's not as if NG is under any pressure to end the war. Once the few allies the SOS Brigade had didn't step up this became a glorified tech raid. [quote name='The Pansy' timestamp='1319416239' post='2831229'] That probably equates to a maximum of 1 day damage, especially with some of those nukes doing upwards of 200 tech per splash [/quote] Yep. If i were SOS gov I'd order everyone to drop to these terms unless they're already at the table and looking at better terms. There's no dishonour in knowing when a fight is lost. Getting your membership run over because you can't see that, or even worse out of pride is just another way leadership can be a failure. Edited October 24, 2011 by Lord Levistus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 [quote name='Lord Levistus' timestamp='1319416244' post='2831230'] I don't think that they expect many to take these terms. It's just giving an out and setting a benchmark for Alliance wide terms if they choose to goto the table anytime soon. It's not as if NG is under any pressure to end the war. Once the few allies the SOS Brigade had didn't step up this became a glorified tech raid. Yep. If i were SOS gov I'd order everyone to drop to these terms unless they're already at the table and looking at better terms. There's no dishonour in knowing when a fight is lost. Getting your membership run over because you can't see that, or even worse out of pride is just another way leadership can be a failure. [/quote] Yes, any alliance that doesn't disband as soon as they realize they are losing a war is showing a failure of leadership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander shepard Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 Wait what? Is this 200 tech for one nation/4 nations? Or 200 tech each for 6 or 5 nations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Levistus Posted October 24, 2011 Report Share Posted October 24, 2011 [quote name='Delta1212' timestamp='1319416631' post='2831232'] Yes, any alliance that doesn't disband as soon as they realize they are losing a war is showing a failure of leadership. [/quote] Who said disband? These terms keep the membership from getting pummeled and put them under NG protection. The gov remains and takes it on the chin until NG get bored and agree to end it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.