Overlord Shinnra Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Honestly had forgotten TPF was part of that. I had just joined Umbrella at about the time the agreement was reached and only saw NPO targets. You guys certainly never back down from war or try to avoid it. I think you're mistaken. Umbrella isn't even a part of the current peace talks. I've only elaborated on the comparison because others brought it up, and at this point there's nothing more to say on that unrelated and out-of-topic thread of conversation. The PM term, now aid restriction, for thirty three nations that have been in PM the entirety of this war was a clever idea by one of the combatants facing Pacifica that in order to discourage future use of PM (which unnecessarily lengthens wars such as these), only nations utilizing PM would be punished, and they would be punished not with war or reparations, but instead with a taste of their own medicine. It was a clever, light, but frustrating idea for peace terms, and as much as Pacifica cries about how terrible it is, all the shouting in the world isn't going to convince our coalition that it's anything more than it is. I've already shown the math, and you can argue all you want that it's over-the-top harsh to deny "banks" the opportunity to import tech, but they still come out far ahead of any nation that has actually participated in this war. If NPO wants to argue more that these high tech nations have no military purpose, then I'm sure they could counter offer no outgoing aid restriction and in good faith promise zero tech importation, and I would be surprised if our coalition wouldn't accept that. Your math was already proven wrong earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tehmina Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Just because you keep saying it and thinking it, well, that won't make it come true. lol this is exactly what came accross my mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saladjoe Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Every single thread hart, every single thread.. :psyduck: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Personally, accepting any kind of terms except white peace is more hurtful than prolonging the war. So I hope by this statement by our Emperor, the NpO coalition will be upset enough to increase the reparations thus prolonging the war even further. Here’s hoping. I quite enjoy all the comments, statements, posts, blogs, propaganda, statistics I have read during this war. Please continue. This war is a cakewalk compare to Karma or even the DH/NPO war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Personally, accepting any kind of terms except white peace is more hurtful than prolonging the war. So I hope by this statement by our Emperor, the NpO coalition will be upset enough to increase the reparations thus prolonging the war even further. Heres hoping. I quite enjoy all the comments, statements, posts, blogs, propaganda, statistics I have read during this war. Please continue. This war is a cakewalk compare to Karma or even the DH/NPO war. For you guys, sure. It doesn't apply to many on your side. Its heartening seeing you talk about how easy its been for you guys, while for some of your allies, its far and away their worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Your math was already proven wrong earlier. Show your work. Not a single person has even addressed the post where I laid out the numbers to illustrate that even two nations of the 35 PM-brigaders being in war would have taken damages matching the total figures that Farrin is espousing if they were lightly engaged, and probably far exceeding the damages Farrin has described if they were normally engaged. The analogy is that if this were an extended limited war, our terms would be the same as asking two NPO nations to fight one opponent each for thirty-five days whilst everyone else could sign peace and be done. This puts the NPO FAR ahead compared to actually fighting the war with those 35 nations. Instead of hundreds of billions in damages, they lose out on sending $10B in aid (if one were to take NPO's word that these high tech nations would be sending aid and not receiving tech, heh). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Inflated? That's the most expensive damage to replace. Not sure that's the correct word there.According to everyone else this shit is easy if you don't use banks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hartfw Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Your math was already proven wrong earlier. Show your work. Not a single person has even addressed the post where I laid out the numbers to illustrate that even two nations of the 35 PM-brigaders being in war would have taken damages matching the total figures that Farrin is espousing if they were lightly engaged, and probably far exceeding the damages Farrin has described if they were normally engaged. The analogy is that if this were an extended limited war, our terms would be the same as asking two NPO nations to fight one opponent each for thirty-five days whilst everyone else could sign peace and be done. This puts the NPO FAR ahead compared to actually fighting the war with those 35 nations. Instead of hundreds of billions in damages, they lose out on sending $10B in aid (if one were to take NPO's word that these high tech nations would be sending aid and not receiving tech, heh). Gotta say, it seems to me that it is easily verified that fighting would actually be worse monetary costs, at least for those nations that would actually fight. It looks like 4 Valhalla nations might have lost close to 10b in infra this week for instance. But, if one side sees warring with the nations as a lighter sentence and thus better, and the other side sees it as a heavier sentence and thus better then currently on the table, maybe there is a path to a peace deal here. Granted, I'm not Mister Black, nor have I played him on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 For you guys, sure. It doesn't apply to many on your side. Its heartening seeing you talk about how easy its been for you guys, while for some of your allies, its far and away their worst. Our Emperor is fully aware this is not just about the NPO. He already came down from white peace to some kind of NPO reparation but there is so much bitter pill we can take to satisfy some alliance in the NpO coalition. The Emperor is in no pressure to give in. Not from it’s allies and certainly not from it’s Body Republic. Keep pushing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Show your work. Not a single person has even addressed the post where I laid out the numbers to illustrate that even two nations of the 35 PM-brigaders being in war would have taken damages matching the total figures that Farrin is espousing if they were lightly engaged, and probably far exceeding the damages Farrin has described if they were normally engaged. The analogy is that if this were an extended limited war, our terms would be the same as asking two NPO nations to fight one opponent each for thirty-five days whilst everyone else could sign peace and be done. You are comparing the cash value of damage to a single nation to the cash value of aid. That is a very flawed analogy since "money" is not consistent in value between nations.The same amount of money that can buy 1,000 infra for a single nation at 10k infra can buy 70,000 infra across 70 nations at 0k infra.Which is why something like 10bn in reps levied can be a big deal, even though it's less than the combined warchests of 2-3 good 100k nations. "Aid" has a different value than "Cash" because there is a limit to how much of it can be aided. Each aid slot is in effect a currency unit of its own.This puts the NPO FAR ahead compared to actually fighting the war with those 35 nations. Instead of hundreds of billions in damages, they lose out on sending $10B in aid (if one were to take NPO's word that these high tech nations would be sending aid and not receiving tech, heh). Should point out that one of our counter-offers was only restrictions on receiving tech, rather than sending aid...the other side didn't seem to bite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) I really don't see how NPO can effectively complain about peace mode terms anymore now that it was revealed that NPO pushed for even harsher terms in the Equilibrium war. It would seem that NPO has returned to the savagery of the Moo era as I have feared. Edited January 27, 2014 by Tywin Lannister Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshuaR Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 You are comparing the cash value of damage to a single nation to the cash value of aid. That is a very flawed analogy since "money" is not consistent in value between nations. The same amount of money that can buy 1,000 infra for a single nation at 10k infra can buy 70,000 infra across 70 nations at 0k infra. Which is why something like 10bn in reps levied can be a big deal, even though it's less than the combined warchests of 2-3 good 100k nations. "Aid" has a different value than "Cash" because there is a limit to how much of it can be aided. Each aid slot is in effect a currency unit of its own. Should point out that one of our counter-offers was only restrictions on receiving tech, rather than sending aid...the other side didn't seem to bite. This is true. But again relies on us trusting your definition of a bank nation, already suspect due to high tech levels. Perhaps, if you don't wish to conclude with the current offers (and perhaps we are all closer to reaching a deal), you could offer your counter again, but with a longer time length. The downside for our coalition, I would guess, would be more difficulty policing this, but personally I would prefer something like what you suggest if the time length is serious enough. That said, I'm not part of the peace negotiations myself. :/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Our Emperor is fully aware this is not just about the NPO. He already came down from white peace to some kind of NPO reparation but there is so much bitter pill we can take to satisfy some alliance in the NpO coalition. The Emperor is in no pressure to give in. Not from it’s allies and certainly not from it’s Body Republic. Keep pushing. The person you keep refering to as Your Emperor with capital letters, is the same one who rage quits peace negotiations after making a lower counter offer than his Imperial Officers have made before him after which he cries on OWF. You do put a lot of faith into him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) The New Pacific Order, among several others, tried to levy terms on Umbrella that would prevent any of them from sending or receiving foreign aid for up to 6 months or more in the last conflict. I know without even breaking out the calculator that those numbers would dwarf that of whatever aid loss the New Pacific Order would lose by having only 33 of their nations unable to send or receive foreign aid for a set period of time. Thanks to a number of voices in NPO's coalition last war, and the resolve of Umbrella and its allies, these terms never saw the light of day except to be discussed among the rest of us instead of being implemented. These terms caused a significant amount of divisions among the New Pacific Order's coalition last time around and led the split which made this war possible. Whether certain alliances were officially for or against those terms at the time, many have found themselves on the opposing side of the New Pacific Order this time and once again we see a dramatically scaled down version of the terms against Umbrella the New Pacific Order so vigorously fought for last time in play. The New Pacific Order claims that these nations are absolutely vital to rebuilding their war-torn alliance because they are still reliant on the concept of Bank Nations - a tactic that was obsolete as early as 2008 - to finance their bankroll for economic growth. What makes these revised terms different, however, is that an entire alliance isn't being prohibited from sending aid for up to six months after the war. A key difference that defines the reality of the situation the New Pacific Order finds itself in now versus the one the New Pacific Order was fighting for before. These terms are exceptionally lighter terms than the last administration fought for and lost. These same terms were also designed to cripple the post-war growth of an enemy, but fueled by an irrational grudge the former head of that administration held and used his position and influence to act upon. The scale of these terms is noticeably different. The manner in which they're being negotiated in, as well. The Competence Coalition did not come to the Open World Forum to plead for mercy, and it certainly did not attempt to misconstrue the facts of the situation. Instead we see the New Pacific Order doing both of these things, in ill-conceived attempt to improve their hand at the bargaining table by hoping to gain public sympathy which would pressure the governments of the opposition to balk. What the New Pacific Order seems to have forgotten is that negotiations are better served by working behind the scenes, working with the parties they hold differences with and coming to a consensus, and eventually a compromise, together. They gain nothing by standing before the rest of us and crying foul, pointing fingers and using false analogies to the Karma War when in the last conflict they fought for terms that were objectively worse and essentially the same kind of terms that enabled the Karma War to happen in the first place - draconian terms that united the world against a selfish, megalomania fueled oppressor. The New Pacific Order would be better served by abandoning these ridiculous analogies to a war from years ago, that was in every way earned by the then head of state, TrotskysRevenge, the administration and the alliance that enabled him and his predecessors to do so. It is the New Pacific Order's actions in the run up to and during the previous conflict that have once again earned their seat at this table. There is no sympathy to be found for them and there shouldn't be any given. The negotiations will produce terms far more agreeable than whatever current offers are on the table but nobody earns a better deal by publicly decrying and smearing the process while it is still in session. That is not the behavior one expects from an alliance that proclaims to be at the forefront of political and military "innovation". From what I understand, Brehon initially favored white peace across the board but some in our coalition wanted some kind of reparation but could never agree or carry those reparations out. In the end Umbrella got off easy (in my opinion). You claim Brehon led the coalition which pertains he had final say. Umbrella got what white peace? Which what Brehon wanted in the first place. He had no problem Umbrella getting white peace. The alliance Brehon said "he dislike the most" You think about that. Edited January 27, 2014 by Daimos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) double post. Edited January 27, 2014 by Daimos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 The person you keep refering to as Your Emperor with capital letters, is the same one who rage quits peace negotiations after making a lower counter offer than his Imperial Officers have made before him after which he cries on OWF. You do put a lot of faith into him. I hope he told them to fuck off too. The fact that there is a counter offer in the table is more than you deserve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 From what I understand, Brehon initially favored white peace across the board but some in our coalition wanted some kind of reparation but could never agree or carry those reparations out. In the end Umbrella got off easy (in my opinion). You claim Brehon led the coalition which pertains he had final say. Umbrella got what white peace? Which what Brehon wanted in the first place. He had no problem Umbrella getting white peace. The alliance Brehon said "he dislike the most" You think about that. Incorrect. In EQ Brehon/NPO wanted to enact terms on Umbrella, and we accepted the terms of extended war. The only reason the terms didn't go into affect is the EQ coalition lacked the will to fight us in the extended war. Some alliances I'm sure were for it, but NPO was unable to get enough upper tier support for the extended war so that extended war would just be a continuation of us pushing down the upper tier safe zone while our lower tiers would continue to be outnumbered and crushed. The terms we accepted in the EQ war were not enacted because NPO couldn't get the necessary upper tier support, not because of Brehon/NPO being lenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarkin Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Edit: Disregard this post, my memory was on the fritz. I blame a combination of food poisoning and boredom from this war. Edited January 27, 2014 by Sarkin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) I hope he told them to $%&@ off too. The fact that there is a counter offer in the table is more than you deserve. It's so easy to come to OWF, say how horrible we are and how you will wage war against us until there's white peace. While it's not you who's doing the fighting is it? From the total of 3 months of the war, you've sat in peace mode for the last 2 months. (Since 1st of December) [ooc]Some wise lad once said that the British fight the Germans until the last Frenchman[/ooc] This is pretty similar. Edited January 27, 2014 by alyster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Incorrect. In EQ Brehon/NPO wanted to enact terms on Umbrella, and we accepted the terms of extended war. The only reason the terms didn't go into affect is the EQ coalition lacked the will to fight us in the extended war. Some alliances I'm sure were for it, but NPO was unable to get enough upper tier support for the extended war so that extended war would just be a continuation of us pushing down the upper tier safe zone while our lower tiers would continue to be outnumbered and crushed. The terms we accepted in the EQ war were not enacted because NPO couldn't get the necessary upper tier support, not because of Brehon/NPO being lenient. My point is it was not Brehon’s idea but he certainly did not oppose to it when it was suggested. In the end, Brehon felt the war needed to end and put his foot down. Brehon was lenient to his most hated enemy. I was pissed about it but at the same time admire him for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) It's so easy to come to OWF, say how horrible we are and how you will wage war against us until there's white peace. While it's not you who's doing the fighting is it? From the total of 3 months of the war, you've sat in peace mode for the last 2 months. (Since 1st of December) [ooc]Some wise lad once said that the British fight the Germans until the last Frenchman[/ooc] This is pretty similar. I knew this was going to come out. I was ordered to stay at peace mode. My war chest was poor. Send me aid. I'll come out. You have no idea how it hurts me being in peace mode right now. Edited January 27, 2014 by Daimos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingdom of Chartreux Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Is really a shame that Polaris, an alliance who suffered from the exactly same shameful surrender terms before, support TOP in this kind of fiasco. Power truly corrupts. Quoted for truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alyster Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I knew this was going to come out. I was ordered to stay at peace mode. My war chest was poor. Send me aid. I'll come out. You have no idea how it hurts me being in peace mode right now. I have a rough idea about how it hurts your allies statistically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groucho Marx Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 Umbrella didn't really have much of a low tier so there was little need for aid in rebuilding.But hey I remember there was a lot of jumping AA's and DBDC who didn't give a crap about anything so they could have aided the Umbrella low tier nations who needed rebuilding. Don't be so disingenuous. The aid restrictions would have prevented Umbrella from being able to rebuild in every sense of the word. Their lack of a bottom tier was explicitly taken into account by the New Pacific Order's coalition and they designed the terms to prevent Umbrella from being able to replace technology lost in the conflict by restricting them from being able to buy from outside sources. It is because Umbrella has no bottom tier that they deal almost exclusively with other alliances to procure technology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daimos Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 I have a rough idea about how it hurts your allies statistically. Only because we are out of the fight. I have no doubt the majority in peace mode in our side would rather fight than stay in peace mode. You can’t say the same thing in your side. 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.