Sephiroth Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Some alliance always take reps, some only take them sometimes, while other alliances never ask reps in global wars. Alliances such as Argent never ask reps as a general rule, IRON usually doesn't and hasn't in recent memory (During Q days they might of taken some, although that was long ago), when I led FCC I was against reps, other alliances also will never ask for reps from those they beat. Personally I think reps are what drives people away from CN during and after every global war in CN, as well as add unnecessary damage and displeasure to those who lose who have already taken a lot of damage from losing militarily in the war. What are other people's thoughts on reps and whether it reflects negatively on those asking them or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 I've always been anti-reps. It potentially cripples some alliances and it's a good way to start a cycle of someone hating you, like DT-CSN impacts CSN to this day, even though DT itself got over it. It also discourages risky action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erikz Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Depends on who started it and then loses it, also, people who come in to defend their allies of aggressive attacks shouldn't be treated too bad, unless they've proven themselves to troll and be really aggressive etc. Edited June 27, 2012 by erikz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviousfairie Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 I don't think people who come in to defend allies should get reps unless they've gone out of their way to provoke whoever they're attacking. But alliances who start aggressive wars and then lose them should typically have to pay some sort of reps afterward to atone for their aggression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 It all really depends on the specific situation. I think a blanket policy of being pro or anti reparations just limits your own options without much real benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMuz Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 I've said it before.. Taking reps gives no economic bonus, but paying reps deals double the economic damage. In fact, you might even get an economic disadvantage to receiving reps, because of slot inefficiency. Without reps there are no winners, only losers. With reps, there are still no winners, but at least the losers lose a little more. In a full, short nuclear war, both sides take nearly as much damage, even when turtling. In an extended war, the losing side does devastating economic damage by destroying the lower tiers of the 'winning' alliance. White peace may be more honorable, but should not happen if there is a good CB for the war. Ally defense should end in white peace. War on insults should end in white peace. War because the other party inflicted actual damage on your alliance shouldn't end in white peace. It should have some kind of condition attached, even if it isn't reps. I like the 'no rebuilding in 2 months' clauses as an alternative to reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 I came here to vote and post an opinion, then I saw one of the options mention honor. Only in a pseudo-realistic society like our beloved Planet Bob, do we look for "honor" in dropping nukes daily that kill thousands and thousands of soldiers and men, women and children in the civilian (infra)structure of the attacked nations. Just stop. War is to kill people and break things. Do the best you can at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Never have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drai Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Other, it depends on the situation. Cause of war, duration of the conflict, and amount of people in peace mode being the main factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Chocolate Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) Reparations are what is paid to avoid a war in the first place. A very common example of this is some new nation leader who is in alliance A and attacks alliance B because he/she doesn't understand the unwritten rules of this world. Then alliance A gives alliance B (usually the person attacked) reparations, problem solved and no alliance war happens as a result. Money paid out to the "winning" side in a war in exchange for peace are not, imo, reparations but booty. Now IF an alliance wants out of war so badly that they are willing agree to pay some sort of booty to the other to end the war, I guess that's between them. I'd argue against it in any alliance I'm a part of however (either asking for them or agreeing to give them). As for "White Peace" - I'm totally okay with an alliance admitting defeat, agreeing to stay out of the remainder of the war(s), and also any other (OOC: in game) agreement reached. Anything other than "we will just stop fighting now" is not white peace, imo. Edited June 27, 2012 by White Chocolate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valtamdraugr Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Reps are just another variable on the balance sheet. Folks will pay, one way or another, the aggrieved party... whether it's in blood or dongs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebel Virginia Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 [color="#0000FF"]No need for reparations, unless the alliance that is defeated surrendered quickly and took little damage. If the alliance is near enough destroyed then the job is done and it would simply be prickly to ask for reparations.[/color] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternos Astramora Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 [quote name='Methrage' timestamp='1340788656' post='2998246'] Some alliance always take reps, some only take them sometimes, while other alliances never ask reps in global wars. Alliances such as Argent never ask reps as a general rule, [/quote] Unless we're aggressed against for no good reason not via treaty in a global war. For global wars, they really only make sense for the core of the war, wherever it started. Then I could see reps being acceptable depending on the CB and the winner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzz Lightyear Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Sure take reps, if someone attacks you and loses, make em pay up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seerow Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 The correct answer, as demonstrated time and again by everyone from every side on OWF is that Reparations are good, as long as you're not the one paying them. On the other hand, the losing side ALWAYS finds something to complain about. When it's not reparations, it's "I don't want to admit defeat!" or other similarly stupid things. Better to just always impose reparations to avoid those sorts of stupid arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Omniscient1 Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 [quote name='Rush Sykes' timestamp='1340798078' post='2998280'] I need to come in here and tell people how mean and against honor I am! [/quote] You're so mean and against honor! I'll be terrified if you ever got any real power! You might destroy us all without mercy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Yeah. As crushing as possible, and in all circumstances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Not a fan of reps. Let opposing parties rebuild and we can all go at each other again. More fun that way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flak attack Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Only when MK and friends take them. That's what you wanted to hear, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Reparations? More like BLOOD MONEY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 I think they're an interesting part of the game. Everyone is too nice post Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Reparations are dumb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted June 27, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 [quote name='Buzz Lightyear' timestamp='1340816048' post='2998439'] Sure take reps, if someone attacks you and loses, make em pay up [/quote] In the past we've seen plenty of examples of alliances declaring on another alliance, then demanding reps after curb stomping them. Also some alliances will aggressively attack an alliance, then demand reps from everyone treaty obligated to defend the alliance they just attacked who honor their treaties. What do you think of reps in these two scenarios? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ostrogothi Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 [quote name='Joe Kremlin' timestamp='1340822218' post='2998519'] I think they're an interesting part of the game. Everyone is too nice post Karma. [/quote] You are entitled to your opinion. But to me, paying reps post-Karma and post-BiPolar was boring as hell. If I was an alliance leader and I had a beef with someone, I'd rather settle it in a more professional manner, like nuclear war. Of course if the alliance refuses to fight and everbody escaped to Peace Mode, then that would be a strong reason to impose reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emperor Whimsical Posted June 27, 2012 Report Share Posted June 27, 2012 Situational. I agree with Hereno. Blanket policies only serve to limit movement politically. 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.