brucemania Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Definitely one of my favorite things about NPO. They have "banks" but those banks spend all war not aiding anyone. I'm as close as VE has to a bank, I sit in war mode and drop hundreds of millions in aid during a war. NPO has Senators they need to keep out of war so they can remain Senators. Well, red team's 100th biggest nation is 40k, and I'm pretty sure NPO could coordinate it with its members to not have senate options on. Meanwhile, I'm a Senator on a sphere that has an actual top tier, and I fight every war. I find it incredibly hard to believe that an alliance as successful as NPO can run itself internally so unsuccessfully as to mandate that people actually sit out of a war in order to have them send cash out after it. I mean, I could fight for months more on my average warchest and still be able to aid bomb for the entire time, and however long my alliance needs me to afterward. I find it hard to believe NPO can't do the same thing. Well maybe in the future our gov may look at a option as this but for now we are what we are and this is how we work. Finally constructive critisism with advise for the future .. let this man join negotiations. (geesh i may cheer for the Bruins yet :P) Edited January 30, 2014 by brucemania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayvon Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Definitely one of my favorite things about NPO. They have "banks" but those banks spend all war not aiding anyone. I'm as close as VE has to a bank, I sit in war mode and drop hundreds of millions in aid during a war. NPO has Senators they need to keep out of war so they can remain Senators. Well, red team's 100th biggest nation is 40k, and I'm pretty sure NPO could coordinate it with its members to not have senate options on. Meanwhile, I'm a Senator on a sphere that has an actual top tier, and I fight every war. I find it incredibly hard to believe that an alliance as successful as NPO can run itself internally so unsuccessfully as to mandate that people actually sit out of a war in order to have them send cash out after it. I mean, I could fight for months more on my average warchest and still be able to aid bomb for the entire time, and however long my alliance needs me to afterward. I find it hard to believe NPO can't do the same thing. You're a hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Buscemi Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Lets just be honest about the fact that this has nothing to do with NPO's nations in PM. It's all about the best way to cripple NPO for the longest period of time. It's penalizing them for being good at rebuilding. And honestly, you all created that monster by your 3+ year old grudges that you keep festering up every war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 seriously, if it was just about the banks it would be a restriction on receiving tech, or a DH-NPO style fight for 3 weeks. This shit is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrin Xies Posted January 30, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (bolding mine) Than it is not extortion. There is no "other sense" of the word. We are not deriving any direct benefit, thus it is not extortion. The funny thing about words is, believe it or not, they can have multiple meanings based on context.Also, peace isn't a "direct benefit?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Lets just be honest about the fact that this has nothing to do with NPO's nations in PM. It's all about the best way to cripple NPO for the longest period of time. It's penalizing them for being good at rebuilding. And honestly, you all created that monster by your 3+ year old grudges that you keep festering up every war. Let's be fair though, because using the word "crippling" with these terms is a misnomer. People may want to penalize them for being good at rebuilding, but there clearly is no intent to "cripple" NPO because the terms themselves just don't prevent NPO from doing anything other than utilize 30 nations for their rebuild. There are no restrictions on other people from NPO or other alliances from picking up their slack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Zigur Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 The funny thing about words is, believe it or not, they can have multiple meanings based on context.Also, peace isn't a "direct benefit?" Maybe I am reading it wrong, but it looked like you said that peace makes it extortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Let's be fair though, because using the word "crippling" with these terms is a misnomer. People may want to penalize them for being good at rebuilding, but there clearly is no intent to "cripple" NPO because the terms themselves just don't prevent NPO from doing anything other than utilize 30 nations for their rebuild. There are no restrictions on other people from NPO or other alliances from picking up their slack. Yes you are in effect putting restrictions on others it is slows there growth not being able to utilize the aid from them 30 nations hence slowing down the regrowth of them that did fight. and as mentioned slowing that growth down does give the other coalition the benefit of limiting our growth. And i might add we don,t not always limit our aid to just ourselves .. we do at times aid others for their growth as well. Edited January 30, 2014 by brucemania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 The funny thing about words is, believe it or not, they can have multiple meanings based on context. Also, peace isn't a "direct benefit?" So white peace is extortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Yes you are in effect putting restrictions on others it is slows there growth not being able to utilize the aid from them 30 nations hence slowing down the regrowth of them that did fight. and as mentioned slowing that growth down does give the other coalition the benefit of limiting our growth. Sure, but both sides have agreed that some form of restriction will end up being put in place. The issue with this thread is that it ignores the fact that after having agreed on everything, Farrin decided to walk out on terms because of an eight day difference in the peace offers, all else being equal. Because of that, some nations who maybe didn't have three days left in them have had to fight that extra war, or fresh declarations have led to more nukes being soaked up. At some point you just have to say to yourself, let's get this over with, eat the crap we have to eat, and start focusing on the next one before we don't have anything left of our allies to call on. Edited January 30, 2014 by Goldie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 So white peace is extortion? i do not think that is what Farrin means but i by all means do not speak for him ... white peace is good .. means better Fa relations for the world whole ... peace with terms means the problems are not solved but bring on resentment and more grudges in the future Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 The funny thing about words is, believe it or not, they can have multiple meanings based on context. Also, peace isn't a "direct benefit?" Words also often have specific meanings meant to convey specific ideas, and shouldn't just be twisted any which way for propaganda purposes. It's obvious what you were doing and it's unbecoming of an alliance leader, especially of an alliance as prominent as NPO. It's the kind of garbage I would expect from someone like Tywin. I also have to ecko Goldie on your second point, that by that logic white peace would be"extortion". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Sure, but both sides have agreed that some form of restriction will end up being put in place. The issue with this thread is that it ignores the fact that after having agreed on everything, Farrin decided to walk out on terms because of an eight day difference in the peace offers, all else being equal. Because of that, some nations who maybe didn't have three days left in them have had to fight that extra war, or fresh declarations have led to more nukes being soaked up. At some point you just have to say to yourself, let's get this over with, eat the crap we have to eat, and start focusing on the next one before we don't have anything left of our allies to call on. i think i beleive the day differential was longer at that time .. i recall the numbers at some point being something 1.5 days or there abouts which still worked out to 3 months given it still a 45 day or more difference ..it may have changed and i am sure i will get corrected. As well us members do not care how long we fight as you know we have the drive after Karma and of course the DH war to not be taken down as we were them two wars. I mean we don't mind a good ass kicking but there comes a time when we have to stand and say hey you asked us to change with the times which we did but then some turn around and still hold issues from 3 or more years ago and use them to keep trying to put us putting us down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 i think i beleive the day differential was longer at that time .. i recall the numbers at some point being something 1.5 days or there abouts which still worked out to 3 months given it still a 45 day or more difference ..it may have changed and i am sure i will get corrected. As well us members do not care how long we fight as you know we have the drive after Karma and of course the DH war to not be taken down as we were them two wars. I mean we don't mind a good ass kicking but there comes a time when we have to stand and say hey you asked us to change with the times which we did but then some turn around and still hold issues from 3 or more years ago and use them to keep trying to put us putting us down. The difference was 1.1x the war's length for those nations to not be able to send or receive aid, to 1.2x the war's length. I believe their war was 87 days old at that point, putting the difference at roughly eight or nine days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 The difference was 1.1x the war's length for those nations to not be able to send or receive aid, to 1.2x the war's length. I believe their war was 87 days old at that point, putting the difference at roughly eight or nine days. k at 89 days then take 45 last i heard that is still more than 8 days .. but at this point i am sure the numbers have changed to this day so it is all mute any ways until there are new terms let out publically Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 This is correct I believe. You have indeed had many of your upper tier who fought. That is why terms were offered that does nothing to those people. You have indeed had at least 150 fighting, out of a starting number of 270 ish from memory. How many others have had that percentage at least fighting? To answer your question, I suspect all of them. The terms you guys offered actually do "something" to the people that fought, in that they deny them a portion of their aid.The terms we counter-offered allow you to deny the nations in PM tech over a *longer* period of time, without punishing the rest.I am curious as to why your coalition wants the former (which punishes fighting nations) rather than the latter (which punishes only PM nations). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boston Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) So white peace is extortion? I think he was referring to Azaghuls comment of something along the lines of direct benefit gained = extortion. The point being that words have multiple meaning. Edited January 30, 2014 by Boston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joseph26 Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) k at 89 days then take 45 last i heard that is still more than 8 days .. but at this point i am sure the numbers have changed to this day so it is all mute any ways until there are new terms let out publically *Note: I use the display 40 nations option for my settings. Say that the first page of NPO nations are part of the terms of not sending/receiving aid for whatever amount of the war's length. These are the top 40 - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=1&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 Page 2 nations - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=2&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 Jamala has 29 infrastructure but has tons of wonders - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=294449 Check the other nations on that page and they are similar to Jamala Page 3 nations - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=3&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 imperial council has zero infrastructure but has tons of wonders - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=144926 Check the other nations on that page and they are similar to imperial council Page 4 nations - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=4&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 Zelda Fans 72 tech and 387 infrastructure; it is beat up but has enough wonders to recover quickly - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=466771 Check the other nations on that page and they are similar to Zelda Fans Pages 2, 3, 4 = 120 nations that are well developed and that can easily recover and start sending out aid to nations on page 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Heck, there are lots of nations on pages 5-9 that are well developed. Peace is at hand and easily acceptable. Get it done and get to rebuilding. Edited January 30, 2014 by Joseph26 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucemania Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) Say that the first page of NPO nations are part of the terms of not sending/receiving aid for whatever amount of the war's length. These are the top 40 - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=1&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 Page 2 nations - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=2&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 Jamala has 29 infrastructure but has tons of wonders - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=294449 Check the other nations on that page and they similar to Jamala Page 3 nations - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=3&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 imperial council has zero infrastructure but has tons of wonders - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=144926 Check the other nations on that page and they similar to imperial council Page 4 nations - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=4&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 Zelda Fans 72 tech and 387 infrastructure; it is beat up but has enough wonders to recover quickly - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=466771 Check the other nations on that page and they similar to Zelda Fans Pages 2, 3, 4 = 120 nations that are well developed and that can easily recover and start sending out aid to nations on page 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Heck, there are lots of nations on pages 5-9 that are well developed. Peace is at hand and easily acceptable. Get it done and get to rebuilding. ah thankyou for pointing out we had 120 nations in wars.. so given that 120 out of 153(including the 22 your talking about) that is what percentage hmmmm....78 % approx .. hmmm so that is what in relation to other AAs cough cough one that in particular has had only around 50 percent nation at war period ? Geeesh like i mentioned in a earlier post ... learn to do the twist the right way... As a matter of fact it is quite possible at this point we have already taken more damage than the DH war period and then we were made to bring out our banks at the time and it took two years almost to get back to what we were then until this war. Edited January 30, 2014 by brucemania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) *Note: I use the display 40 nations option for my settings. Say that the first page of NPO nations are part of the terms of not sending/receiving aid for whatever amount of the war's length. These are the top 40 - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=1&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 Page 2 nations - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=2&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 Jamala has 29 infrastructure but has tons of wonders - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=294449 Check the other nations on that page and they are similar to Jamala Page 3 nations - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=3&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 imperial council has zero infrastructure but has tons of wonders - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=144926 Check the other nations on that page and they are similar to imperial council Page 4 nations - http://www.cybernations.net/alliance_display.asp?Page=4&Order=DESC&Field=Strength&ID=10000 Zelda Fans 72 tech and 387 infrastructure; it is beat up but has enough wonders to recover quickly - http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=466771 Check the other nations on that page and they are similar to Zelda Fans Pages 2, 3, 4 = 120 nations that are well developed and that can easily recover and start sending out aid to nations on page 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Heck, there are lots of nations on pages 5-9 that are well developed. Peace is at hand and easily acceptable. Get it done and get to rebuilding. Really? Those "well developed" nations are going to take months to rebuild back to any shape unless they have war chests, and even then without their top 40 to help them rebuild (or whatever the amount of nations unable to aid), the amount of rebuilding nation for the 281 nations in Pacifica is going to significantly less. These are terms that will hurt their ability to rebuild, and acting like a nation with 720 infra and 34 tech is going to be rebuilding other nations is a bit ridiculous, unless that nation has millions/billions sitting around. Terms are what they are, and they will inhibit NPO's ability to rebuild significantly. Edited January 30, 2014 by Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marelea Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Really have to appreciate the irony of NPO complaining about the terms offered given the fact that they have in their history forced much harsher terms on other alliances throughout the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Ilyani Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 ah thankyou for pointing out we had 120 nations in wars.. so given that 120 out of 153(including the 22 your talking about) that is what percentage hmmmm....78 % approx .. hmmm so that is what in relation to other AAs cough cough one that in particular has had only around 50 percent nation at war period ? Geeesh like i mentioned in a earlier post ... learn to do the twist the right way... As a matter of fact it is quite possible at this point we have already taken more damage than the DH war period and then we were made to bring out our banks at the time and it took two years almost to get back to what we were then until this war. Apples to oranges and you know it. If you don't, look back over the half dozen times that the difference has been explained, and maybe that will permeate your Body Republic hivemind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Really have to appreciate the irony of NPO complaining about the terms offered given the fact that they have in their history forced much harsher terms on other alliances throughout the game.Really have to appreciate the irony of NpO defending the terms offered given the fact that they have in their history been forced into much harsher terms (according to Polar) by other alliances throughout the game.Now do you see how retarded the "history" argument sounds? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlmightyGrub Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 Really have to appreciate the irony of NpO defending the terms offered given the fact that they have in their history been forced into much harsher terms (according to Polar) by other alliances throughout the game. Now do you see how retarded the "history" argument sounds? I think you missed some step in the logic progression champ. Polaris knows what shitty terms look like, these are not shitty terms. They may well be punitive but they are far from anything we have endured and in fact the NPO have endured in the past. The history argument is as relevant as any other argument. Pacifica will, as a result of this war, put together a coalition of revenge, and when they have sufficient numbers, they will prosecute their purpose without flinching and Admin help whoever is in their sights at that time. Given that it will be more likely than not to be Polaris and their allies in their sights, is it not prudent to note the past behaviours of an alliance when they are winners and use that as a form guide to their possible behaviour of the future. History repeats, CN history repeats endlessly. So lets discuss some real terms. I want Farrin to be removed from his position and expelled from the alliance. I want his replacement to serve for a few weeks before he will replaced as Emperor with someone of our choosing, I want 2 random Imperial Officers removed from their positions and expelled from the alliance, I want another 4 Imperial Officers, the longest serving would be nice to be reduced to ordinary members of the Body Republic and to be barred from serving at any rank again. I also want the nations who have remained in peace mode to send all their tech to nations of our choosing. This tech should utilize the full aid slots of those nations and without full aid slot utilization you will be in breach of the terms. All these terms are of course negotiable, but you can only win one of them. I will help you by advising you during negotiations which term you can get around. I will skip the bits about only holding 50 nukes across the alliance etc etc and we can sign these off tonight unless you are busy in which case we can sign them off tonight without you. So how is that for terms? Do you like them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Uruk Posted January 30, 2014 Report Share Posted January 30, 2014 I think you missed some step in the logic progression champ. Polaris knows what !@#$%* terms look like, these are not !@#$%* terms. They may well be punitive but they are far from anything we have endured and in fact the NPO have endured in the past. The history argument is as relevant as any other argument. Pacifica will, as a result of this war, put together a coalition of revenge, and when they have sufficient numbers, they will prosecute their purpose without flinching and Admin help whoever is in their sights at that time. Given that it will be more likely than not to be Polaris and their allies in their sights, is it not prudent to note the past behaviours of an alliance when they are winners and use that as a form guide to their possible behaviour of the future. History repeats, CN history repeats endlessly. So lets discuss some real terms. I want Farrin to be removed from his position and expelled from the alliance. I want his replacement to serve for a few weeks before he will replaced as Emperor with someone of our choosing, I want 2 random Imperial Officers removed from their positions and expelled from the alliance, I want another 4 Imperial Officers, the longest serving would be nice to be reduced to ordinary members of the Body Republic and to be barred from serving at any rank again. I also want the nations who have remained in peace mode to send all their tech to nations of our choosing. This tech should utilize the full aid slots of those nations and without full aid slot utilization you will be in breach of the terms. All these terms are of course negotiable, but you can only win one of them. I will help you by advising you during negotiations which term you can get around. I will skip the bits about only holding 50 nukes across the alliance etc etc and we can sign these off tonight unless you are busy in which case we can sign them off tonight without you. So how is that for terms? Do you like them?Your Grub is showing, Grub. NPO has given shitty terms before, so they would know what they look like as well. Your argument isn't based upon logic but upon a burning (and not even close to a secret at all) hate for NPO. Can we just speak objectively for one goddamned time? 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.