Sandwich Controversy Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 No. No it doesn't. I agree with my comrade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Yes. This needs more white peace. Hey man, watch out! I think you've got some helium in your hope! Try not to let it get too high. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeltrax Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Nobody deserves white peace, not treaty partners, nobody. "Hey sorry about that little genocide, I was only following my friends, so yeah, no hard feelings". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bowen Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 2) The idea that the term regarding tech deals is some kind of honourable mutual re-growth scheme. Get real, it's punishment for the war. Granted, it's very light punishment, but punishment nonetheless. If it were not punishment, there would be no need for it to be a part of the agreement at all, the alliances involved would simply arrange it at their convenience. QFT. These terms are not a mutual growth scheme. While they are not horrible terms, it's is a joke to try and pass them off as some great thing for both sides. The majority of SSSW18 nations will not benefit from the terms. As for the whole not getting White Peace thing...Well, I would am happy that we turned it down and fought the good fight and not turned tail and run at the first sign of a stiff opposition. I am proud that we stood by our allies as long as we did. Even if it meant getting worse terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 QFT. These terms are not a mutual growth scheme. While they are not horrible terms, it's is a joke to try and pass them off as some great thing for both sides. The majority of SSSW18 nations will not benefit from the terms.As for the whole not getting White Peace thing...Well, I would am happy that we turned it down and fought the good fight and not turned tail and run at the first sign of a stiff opposition. I am proud that we stood by our allies as long as we did. Even if it meant getting worse terms. Why isn't it a mutual growth scheme? In a tech deal at this price the seller profits more than $1m on each deal. The seller gets a million per slot, the buyer gets tech, what's the problem? Also: hmmm yes, another two days. How heroic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Why isn't it a mutual growth scheme? In a tech deal at this price the seller profits more than $1m on each deal. The seller gets a million per slot, the buyer gets tech, what's the problem? As has been pointed out in other, similar threads, it depends on which nations the tech comes from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 That's up to SSSW18 and not the victors, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 That's up to SSSW18 and not the victors, no? Hasn't always been in the past. As you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o ya baby Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I love how people are acting as if SSSW18 should have gotten white peace. I'd hate to see what would happen if they had to decom troops for a set period, or even worse, pay ACTUAL reps! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Hasn't always been in the past. As you know. In the past those tech deals would've been "paid" with reduced military bills for 3 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bowen Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Why isn't it a mutual growth scheme? In a tech deal at this price the seller profits more than $1m on each deal. The seller gets a million per slot, the buyer gets tech, what's the problem? Let's see... DT, LSR, etc. get a nice chuck of tech with zero effort. SSSW18 has to find sellers which, hopefully there are enough small nations, so that they don't lose money selling. Also, meanwhile while this whole scheme is happening our larger nations, which really need the tech won't be able to get if from their usual sources. So, uh yeah, it's great for us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bowen Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I love how people are acting as if SSSW18 should have gotten white peace. I'd hate to see what would happen if they had to decom troops for a set period, or even worse, pay ACTUAL reps! We would still be fighting before accepting those kind of terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lebubu Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 So, uh yeah, it's great for us! I find it humorous and even a little bit disgusting to see people complain about these terms. Losing a war isn't supposed to be pleasant, please understand this. The victors have been gracious enough to offer an easy peace; acting like you're entitled to anything lighter is just, well, crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craziekyng Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 We would still be fighting before accepting those kind of terms. Very much agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 There's no way a 64 person alliance could swing 2500 tech to each of those alliances in 3 months, you're kidding yourselves with those terms guys Are you kidding me? RnR, a few months after the UJW, sold GOD 30,000 technology in about one month. RnR had maybe 150 nations tops at that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) Hasn't always been in the past. As you know. Unlike our friends in the New Polar Order, MK had complete control over which nations we sent tech from. These aren't even really reparations per se to start with so I don't see how they are comparable. Let's see... DT, LSR, etc. get a nice chuck of tech with zero effort. SSSW18 has to find sellers which, hopefully there are enough small nations, so that they don't lose money selling. Also, meanwhile while this whole scheme is happening our larger nations, which really need the tech won't be able to get if from their usual sources. So, uh yeah, it's great for us! What do you mean zero effort? They're paying for it. And your bigger nations don't have to buy from SSSW18 sellers. You're not prohibited from accepting aid (including tech from deals) from outside alliances like we were during our own terms. You could easily go outside of the alliance to find some, perhaps to some of your allies such as the New Pacific Order. I hear Cortath is selling! Also surrender terms aren't supposed to be great for you. They're supposed to punish you. Lucky for you you fought good alliances who don't believe in keeping alliances down for months on end merely for defending their allies. You even got the added bonus of them paying for your tech. Would you rather give it to them for free like we were forced to? And as Azaghul said earlier in this thread, you could pay this off in one aid cycle. You people are raising a lot of noise over what really amounts to very little. Edited May 1, 2009 by Sandwich Controversy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) We would still be fighting before accepting those kind of terms. I love how strongly the hedgemony opposes the idea of reps when they might be the ones that would pay them. Now don't get me wrong I'm opposed to forcing alliances that's crushed by war to pay reps too but I've been paying reps to alliances on the hedgemonys side since gw 2. You realise you're all huge hypocrites when you voice your disgust for reps right? Edited May 1, 2009 by neneko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 SSSW18 has to find sellers which, hopefully there are enough small nations, so that they don't lose money selling. If the larger nations have bought their tech at 3m/100t price, they won't be losing any money selling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I find it humorous and even a little bit disgusting to see people complain about these terms. Losing a war isn't supposed to be pleasant, please understand this. The victors have been gracious enough to offer an easy peace; acting like you're entitled to anything lighter is just, well, crazy. Pretty much this. White peace is the exception to the rule and not the rule - when you take up arms against another alliance you should not expect to get off scott-free in the peace treaty, no matter what brought you to do battle with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rynka Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I love how strongly the hedgemony opposes the idea of reps when they might be the ones that would pay them. Now don't get me wrong I'm opposed to forcing alliances that's crushed by war to pay reps too but I've been paying reps to alliances on the hedgemonys side since gw 2. You realise you're all huge hypocrites when you voice yor disgust for reps right? No kidding, what a hilarious display of hypocrisy. It's not even like you guys are paying for it solely like alliances such as MK have, you're just doing mandatory tech deals. Show some consistency and stop throwing a fit over nothing; these terms are very fair. If you were facing a Hegemony alliance I'm sure the terms would be very extreme with the intention to cripple your alliance, completely unlike the ones you have received here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 Pretty much this. White peace is the exception to the rule and not the rule - when you take up arms against another alliance you should not expect to get off scott-free in the peace treaty, no matter what brought you to do battle with them. Honestly, I'd really rather see this reversed. And yeah I think I can fully back Invicta's record on this subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 (edited) We would still be fighting before accepting those kind of terms. Yes, these terms are terribly harsh. Why, this is harsher than our terms post UJW (which pales in comparison to MK/Polar terms) when we had to pay about 250 million total as a sub 1 mil alliance that was negotiated down from 600 million, Viceroy, and moving off color Edited May 1, 2009 by Big Z Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craziekyng Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 I love how strongly the hedgemony opposes the idea of reps when they might be the ones that would pay them. Now don't get me wrong I'm opposed to forcing alliances that's crushed by war to pay reps too but I've been paying reps to alliances on the hedgemonys side since gw 2. You realise you're all huge hypocrites when you voice yor disgust for reps right? We're not the decision makers of the hedgemony....We got dragged into this fray honoring our treaties, so I wouldn't go as far as to say that we are hypocrites. As stated before, we have taken responsibilty for the fact that we turned down the first offer. I believe in his statement he meant, that the terms would not have been accepted if it was blatant extortion. Although we fought along side the NPO we are not the NPO, therefore we should not be labeled hypocrites due to their past actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 We're not the decision makers of the hedgemony....We got dragged into this fray honoring our treaties, so I wouldn't go as far as to say that we are hypocrites. As stated before, we have taken responsibilty for the fact that we turned down the first offer. I believe in his statement he meant, that the terms would not have been accepted if it was blatant extortion. Although we fought along side the NPO we are not the NPO, therefore we should not be labeled hypocrites due to their past actions. By pledging to defend Pacifica you implicitly support their practices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craziekyng Posted May 1, 2009 Report Share Posted May 1, 2009 By pledging to defend Pacifica you implicitly support their practices. I would agree that argument can be used in any case for the most part. But one would also agree that you can support something without neccesarily agreeing with it whole heartedly. I am not in SSSW8 gov't this is just my opinion. I dont find the terms to be incredibly harsh, for the most part the ones on this thread who do not like the terms are not even a part of our alliance. As I have stated before, if we SSSW18, can accept the terms and agree to them, I dont see why the rest of anyone, especially outside of our alliance cant. 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.