i would like to offer peace talks for woto

[Auctor]

Is this a new standard in CN? Punish an alliance for defending an ally?

That's not new at all...

[Xantha]

 

Do you have a spy in NpO that you make claims about their intentions. As an ally of Polar I was not aware before the war that they'd have such plans. So mind sharing what you have?

 

PS. I always thought it was you in the uncle sam's costume :)

 

 

 

Reading comprehension FTW Alyster. He said:

 

"I don’t think the Polar coalition has what it takes to get what they’re demanding.  I see Alyster’s “We want out “ sig.  I think the Polar coalition wants out way worse than we do, given how much you all complain that we won’t just hand over the victory you seem to think you’ve earned.  Everyone on our side came in knowing it was going to be the losing side.  Finding ourselves losing isn’t making us look for the exits."

Edited January 9, 2014 by Xantha

[alyster]

 

 

Do you have a spy in NpO that you make claims about their intentions. As an ally of Polar I was not aware before the war that they'd have such plans. So mind sharing what you have?

 

PS. I always thought it was you in the uncle sam's costume :)

 

 

 

Reading comprehension FTW Alyster. He said:

 

"I don’t think the Polar coalition has what it takes to get what they’re demanding.  I see Alyster’s “We want out “ sig.  I think the Polar coalition wants out way worse than we do, given how much you all complain that we won’t just hand over the victory you seem to think you’ve earned.  Everyone on our side came in knowing it was going to be the losing side.  Finding ourselves losing isn’t making us look for the exits."

 

And....`? I see no reason to turn attention to that delusion, but since he's been posting for days into this topic he was my prototype for the sig when I made it. 

 

But good job dude. Like you said. Reading. 

[Neo Uruk]

way to address things, noted amazing person alyster

[Rush Sykes]

What exactly does that make you?  I guess the good news for you is that because you sat this war out, hopefully your warchest will be large enough for you to join in when the next war rolls around.

 

I am 100% ok with letting my history speak for itself. But feel free to ignore my history.

[BrJLa]

Do you have a spy in NpO that you make claims about their intentions. As an ally of Polar I was not aware before the war that they'd have such plans. So mind sharing what you have?

 

 

 

I’m combining (1) the weeks of complaining the Polar side did on the OWF that NPO’s allies wouldn’t allow NPO to be isolated, (2) early indications from our gov that the Polar side was trying to come up with terms but couldn’t agree what they wanted to ask for, and (3) the news that Dajobo had devised this as what they’d demand, weeks after we already knew terms were coming.

 

 

PS. I always thought it was you in the uncle sam's costume :)

 

Yeah, that’s why I wanted to clarify.  I’ve always considered Polar’s claims that they’ll keep this going indefinitely to be a bluff.  For weeks, we’ve had something like 2 offensive wars for every 1 defensive war.  Until recently, I hadn’t had a defensive war declared on me since the second day of the war.  I think our enthusiasm to keep it going is way higher than Polar’s.  My only point is debating banks is a red herring.  Although I do think that if the problem is that NPO leaves war too well-positioned to recover, then perhaps banks aren’t obsolete after all.

[TBRaiders]

Punishing people for peace mode usage has been a thing since PB-NpO/DH-NPO, the fact nobody thought of doing it this way doesn't mean it's an unusual thing.

 

Goes back a bit further than that.  http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=21476

[Jesse End]

Goes back a bit further than that. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=21476

Well, if you're going to bring up the same reason in every war in the past 5 years, there's not much incentive for us to accept terms. I mean, we're just going to get attacked and given the same terms again 6 months from now for the same 6 year old reason.

OOC: If we were in an alternate universe, it would be comparable to using Roman actions 2500 years ago for justification to attack Britain now.

[Centurius]

 

Goes back a bit further than that.  http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=21476

Ah yes, how could I forget the retribution for that horrible hippy shield.

[Azaghul]

Well, if you're going to bring up the same reason in every war in the past 5 years, there's not much incentive for us to accept terms. I mean, we're just going to get attacked and given the same terms again 6 months from now for the same 6 year old reason.

OOC: If we were in an alternate universe, it would be comparable to using Roman actions 2500 years ago for justification to attack Britain now.

I'm pretty sure his point was just that this has been a "thing" for a very long time.  If he hadn't posted that I might have pointed out that much of the reps for NPO in Karma were directly on and imposed because of NPO's peace mode nations.

[Jesse End]

I'm pretty sure his point was just that this has been a "thing" for a very long time.  If he hadn't posted that I might have pointed out that much of the reps for NPO in Karma were directly on and imposed because of NPO's peace mode nations.

 

That's odd, I fought 20 wars during that and I had to send out over 6,200 tech, because I was deemed one of the reps payers by our terms-enforcers.

[Dochartaigh]

Is this a new standard in CN? Punish an alliance for defending an ally?

 

New standard? People seriously need to learn their history before stating shit like this. 

 

 

I’m combining (1) the weeks of complaining the Polar side did on the OWF that NPO’s allies wouldn’t allow NPO to be isolated, (2) early indications from our gov that the Polar side was trying to come up with terms but couldn’t agree what they wanted to ask for, and (3) the news that Dajobo had devised this as what they’d demand, weeks after we already knew terms were coming.

 

 

 

Yeah, that’s why I wanted to clarify.  I’ve always considered Polar’s claims that they’ll keep this going indefinitely to be a bluff.  For weeks, we’ve had something like 2 offensive wars for every 1 defensive war.  Until recently, I hadn’t had a defensive war declared on me since the second day of the war.  I think our enthusiasm to keep it going is way higher than Polar’s.  My only point is debating banks is a red herring.  Although I do think that if the problem is that NPO leaves war too well-positioned to recover, then perhaps banks aren’t obsolete after all.

 

No, banks are obsolete. The point is that NPO would be able to rebuild faster than wanted by this side. Thus, your banks are deemed a threat. Take eQ as an example. The opposing side were well-built nations capable of dishing out large amounts of damage while sustaining the same. The war dragged on and most on the opposing side tired of war simply because Competence was able to continuously dish out large amounts of damage. If NPO's nations were all capable of doing the same, then this situation would not be happening. 

 

Well, if you're going to bring up the same reason in every war in the past 5 years, there's not much incentive for us to accept terms. I mean, we're just going to get attacked and given the same terms again 6 months from now for the same 6 year old reason.

OOC: If we were in an alternate universe, it would be comparable to using Roman actions 2500 years ago for justification to attack Britain now.

 

Others pointed out why this was plain stupid. It just shows that punishing those in PM is not new and in fact started with NPO. Go figure, NPO dishing out terms and being incapable of taking them. I remember when Pacifica would laugh at those who complained but are now the ones doing the complaining.

[Jesse End]

 

New standard? People seriously need to learn their history before stating !@#$ like this. 

 

 

No, banks are obsolete. The point is that NPO would be able to rebuild faster than wanted by this side. Thus, your banks are deemed a threat. Take eQ as an example. The opposing side were well-built nations capable of dishing out large amounts of damage while sustaining the same. The war dragged on and most on the opposing side tired of war simply because Competence was able to continuously dish out large amounts of damage. If NPO's nations were all capable of doing the same, then this situation would not be happening. 

 

 

Others pointed out why this was plain stupid. It just shows that punishing those in PM is not new and in fact started with NPO. Go figure, NPO dishing out terms and being incapable of taking them. I remember when Pacifica would laugh at those who complained but are now the ones doing the complaining.

 

Incapable of taking them?  Lol what?  Look at the post immediately above yours.  We've taken terms worse than anybody else, ever.

 

edit:  Banks are obsolete.  Our banks are a threat.  Gotcha.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jesse End

[BrJLa]

No, banks are obsolete. The point is that NPO would be able to rebuild faster than wanted by this side. Thus, your banks are deemed a threat. Take eQ as an example. The opposing side were well-built nations capable of dishing out large amounts of damage while sustaining the same. The war dragged on and most on the opposing side tired of war simply because Competence was able to continuously dish out large amounts of damage. If NPO's nations were all capable of doing the same, then this situation would not be happening. 

 

 

Yes.  This is exactly my point.  The terms have nothing to do with punishing us for using peace mode, or because of any kind of offense created by having banks.  The Polar coalition wants to see to it that NPO's rebuilding is hampered, and if the terms weren't focused on our banks there would be other terms seeking to achieve the same end.  Why NPO is being singled out, and why the war is continuing in pursuit of this single goal, is more pertinent than how we've used banks in the past, or whether our banks were sending money or receiving tech in October.  

[The Zigur]

 

Yes.  This is exactly my point.  The terms have nothing to do with punishing us for using peace mode, or because of any kind of offense created by having banks.  The Polar coalition wants to see to it that NPO's rebuilding is hampered, and if the terms weren't focused on our banks there would be other terms seeking to achieve the same end.  Why NPO is being singled out, and why the war is continuing in pursuit of this single goal, is more pertinent than how we've used banks in the past, or whether our banks were sending money or receiving tech in October.  

 

Why is there any point arguing with you when you deny the answer before asking the question?

 

Of course the object is to blow up some tech and infras. NPO hid behind peace mode to avoid the damage their allies were taking.

 

NPO's reduction should be comparable to that suffered by their allies.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Neo Uruk]

I'm just confused why people keep saying banks are obsolete then in the same breath saying that those banks are part of NPO's very efficient rebuilding process and need to be punished. If NPO's system is so $%&@ed then just let them hurt themselves with it.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Neo Uruk

[Crymson]

Well... people whom it matters to me that they know, do not require the explanation. That people like you dont get it, just makes me smile.

 

This looks like the fevered raving of someone in the advanced stages of Pink Elephant Syndrome.

[Neo Uruk]

This looks like the fevered raving of someone in the advanced stages of Pink Elephant Syndrome.

Maybe you should remind him how you don't care about anything that happens despite devoting a fairly large amount of time to political commentating Edited January 10, 2014 by Neo Uruk

[Hereno]

People have been spoiled too much with white peace that they take it for granted. And rivers of tears start running as soon as someone has a different idea. My god.

 

It isn't being spoiled, it's just that people nowadays are supposed to be smart enough to understand that blowing themselves up for an entire extra month in a war they're barely winning isn't worth the effort of breeding long-term resentment and enemies that aren't needed. Even worse, the line you then try to push is that NPO are puppet-masters for not accepting terms that our entire coalition finds to be straight up hilarious. Who on Bob is making all of these ridiculous calls over there? Or is your coalition just a hodgepodge of blind lemmings shouting "yeah! hurting NPO sounds awesome lets do it!" without a second thought?

[Schad]

I'm just confused why people keep saying banks are obsolete then in the same breath saying that those banks are part of NPO's very efficient rebuilding process and need to be punished. If NPO's system is so $%&@ed then just let them hurt themselves with it.

 

"Nations used as a store of wealth is unnecessary given that any suitably-prepared nation can fulfill that function, can still fight and can still help rebuild thereafter" =/= "nations cannot be rebuilt through aid". 

 

Conceptually, let's say that the coalition replaced their current terms with simply asking that the banks fulfill their purpose: that those 35 nations spend the next, I dunno, three months sending out $6-9m/100 aid packages to smaller NPO nations. Assuming that they have six slots apiece, it'd be a transfer of $324-$486m and 5400 tech per nation to help the fighters in the alliance.

 

Is there any doubt whatsoever that NPO would reject it out of hand? Of course not, because most of those nations aren't collecting tech to later send it out, they're collecting tech to have tech. 

[Jesse End]

 

Why is there any point arguing with you when you deny the answer before asking the question?

 

Of course the object is to blow up some tech and infras. NPO hid behind peace mode to avoid the damage their allies were taking.

 

NPO's reduction should be comparable to that suffered by their allies.

 

Our pre-war strength was 12,575,310 NS

 

Our current strength is 6,216,508 NS

 

That means we've lost over half of our pre-war strength.  Avoiding damage, huh?

 

Funny how this 'actual numbers' thing works.

[Rayvon]

Our pre-war strength was 12,575,310 NS
 
Our current strength is 6,216,508 NS
 
That means we've lost over half of our pre-war strength.  Avoiding damage, huh?
 
Funny how this 'actual numbers' thing works.

"comparable" - I think he's saying you should have put more nations in PM in order to be more comparable in damage to the rest of us ... Although, I don't understand how this works towards his (and their) bitching about the fact you've even got any in PM ..

[Azaghul]

 

That's odd, I fought 20 wars during that and I had to send out over 6,200 tech, because I was deemed one of the reps payers by our terms-enforcers.

My memory was a bit off on the exact terms, but looking back the tech was required to be sent from nations with over 1000 tech, which would have included a disproportionate number of peaced nations and nations able to send monetary aid.  And I know for a fact that a very large portion of the reparations were imposed as an alternative (I vaguely recall at NPO's request?) to forcing the peaced nations to fight.

[The Zigur]

 

Our pre-war strength was 12,575,310 NS

 

Our current strength is 6,216,508 NS

 

That means we've lost over half of our pre-war strength.  Avoiding damage, huh?

 

Funny how this 'actual numbers' thing works.

 

I'm not the best at math, but even I know that going off of alliance-wide nation strength is deceiving. NPO's large membership count and lower average NS means that most of that damage is easily repairable because the damage is distributed amongst Pacifica's lower ranks. Low tier destruction is mostly comprised of lower level infrastructure and cheaper quantities of land and tech The percentile of upper-tier nation strength in NPO that hides in peacemode is far more relevant. Until the upper-tier has been reduced satisfactorily, NPO really hasn't taken the same level of damage as their allies.

 

The weeds were mowed, but the roots remain.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Tywin Lannister

[Jesse End]

 

I'm not the best at math, but even I know that going off of alliance-wide nation strength is deceiving. NPO's large membership count and lower average NS means that most of that damage is easily repairable because the damage is distributed amongst Pacifica's lower ranks. Low tier destruction is mostly comprised of lower level infrastructure and cheaper quantities of land and tech The percentile of upper-tier nation strength in NPO that hides in peacemode is far more relevant. Until the upper-tier has been reduced satisfactorily, NPO really hasn't taken the same level of damage as their allies.

 

The weeds were mowed, but the roots remain.

 

*sigh*

 

Ok, I know you're having trouble with this actual numbers thing, but let me quote from another one of my posts just 3 pages ago.

 

On October 21, 2013, NPO had 106 nations above 50k NS, which is now down to 39 nations.

 

That means we currently have 37% of our 50k+ NS pre-war nations.

 

edit: I looked at some other stats, and on Nov 1, we had 107 nations above 50k, so it's actually 36%.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Jesse End