Chief Savage Man Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) So I've heard grumblings about the trend of white peace, and how Karma is being too soft with surrender terms, granting white peace and so on. The basic idea is that "NPO will rise up again and become hegemon again because of all this white peace". There's one major reason that you're all wrong. That is: all of the alliances that have gotten white peace so far aren't dangerous. NPO is the dangerous one and they're still fighting. Let's divide the Hegemony forces into three groups. 1. NPO 2. NPO's closest allies (IRON, MCXA, TPF, etc.) 3. The other guys who showed up because of treaties or whatever (Molon Labe, Soldier, UPN, etc.) Group 3 is the one getting most of the white peace. There is little to no point giving them harsh terms as all it does is cause bitterness where there was really no animosity before. Group 3 doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. They honored their treaties and they should be let go. Anybody who advocates harsh terms for these guys is a fool. In fact, Group 3 can become a place to find new friends as fighting a war against somebody is a good way to get to know them. Group 2 is starting to peace out. GGA just peaced out with some substantial terms, as did Valhalla and MCXA. This group will see actual terms, but even if they get white peace, it doesn't really matter. None of them are dangerous without their main benefactor, the NPO. Some of them may deserve heavy terms for past wrongs but even if they didn't get them it wouldn't matter as most of Group 2 was involved in the Coward Coalition and has no credibility anyway. Because of that loss of credibility, a lot of Group 2 will see drastic changes in leadership and new outlooks on policy and direction. Therefore, it doesn't make a difference if heavy terms are laid down or not. NPO will, in all likelihood, be the last one to go, and judging by the terms handed out to their underlings, the terms for NPO will be severe. Nobody is going to tolerate white peace for NPO. There is too much history and too much animosity here between the NPO and much of Karma for that to happen. So, doomsayers, the main point is this. You're misreading the white peace trend. The alliances getting white peace are the ones who were treaty-bound and are just doing their duty. Just like you wouldn't execute all the conscripted soldiers in a vanquished army, you wouldn't lay down harsh terms on these guys either. The alliances who were responsible for the NPO's hegemony and gamekilling over the past months are getting (and will continue to get) harsh terms. Edited May 14, 2009 by Chief Savage Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sooner Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 OH my GOD!!!! Someone finally gets it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) OH my GOD!!!! Someone finally gets it. Beat me to the punch. Please refer all other "What's going to happen" threads to this one. Edited May 14, 2009 by Tarikmo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D34th Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 It's funny how people think that heavy terms will prevent an alliance of rebuild. Stop to hide behind false pretexts, NPO will get heavy terms not to prevent them of rise again and seek for revenge or because they set harsh terms before so stop with lies and just say "I'll give NPO heavy terms because I want revenge and love tech as everyone." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 It's funny how people think that heavy terms will prevent an alliance of rebuild. Stop to hide behind false pretexts, NPO will get heavy terms not to prevent them of rise again and seek for revenge or because they set harsh terms before so stop with lies and just say "I'll give NPO heavy terms because I want revenge and love tech as everyone." There is too much history and too much animosity here between the NPO and much of Karma for that to happen. Dude, I'm not trying to mask it at all. I'm not sure who you're talking to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Actually, some in your group 3 have gotten harsher terms than any in your group 2. Your "TPF deserves harsh terms just because" is part of the contention, because it's not just concern about the threat; many groups that have been stood on for a long time want just the tiniest flavor of satisfaction now that they have a brief moment of triumph. Also, you're wrong about the others being neutered without the NPO. Weakened, sure. Maybe too much, but that's by no means certain. If you removed the NPO from the rest of the core of their allies but leave those allies interconnected then you really haven't fixed anything. The "Karma" coalition is too disparate to maintain any coherency, and those from the "hegemony" (I really hate the names for the sides in this war) retain the strength to be in charge again in a few months. They weren't just puppets of the NPO; many of them shared history and mindset, and they might very well have the will and the ability to take over again in short order. There won't be much of anything to oppose them after this war is through. They might very well not too, but to discount them as mindless stooges of the NPO who are nothing without them is foolish (and insulting). Edited May 14, 2009 by bzelger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted May 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Actually, some in your group 3 have gotten harsher terms than any in your group 2. Your "TPF deserves harsh terms just because" is part of the contention, because it's not just concern about the threat; many groups that have been stood on for a long time want just the tiniest flavor of satisfaction now that they have a brief moment of triumph.Also, you're wrong about the others being neutered without the NPO. Weakened, sure. Maybe too much, but that's by no means certain. If you removed the NPO from the rest of the core of their allies but leave those allies interconnected then you really haven't fixed anything. The "Karma" coalition is too disparate to maintain any coherency, and those from the "hegemony" (I really hate the names for the sides in this war) retain the strength to be in charge again in a few months. They weren't just puppets of the NPO; many of them shared history and mindset, and they might very well have the will and the ability to take over again in short order. There won't be much of anything to oppose them after this war is through. They might very well not too, but to discount them as mindless stooges of the NPO who are nothing without them is foolish (and insulting). This thread makes no statements about whether or not Hegemony alliances deserve harsh terms (except TPF, which is just a matter of my opinion(I'll take that out now as that just distracts from the point)), whether or not harsh terms are effective at doing anything, or if Group 2 has been neutered without NPO. I never said anything about the others being neutered without NPO. I just said that NPO is the dangerous one, which is true. NPO is the alliance that has been on top, the orchestrator of many wrongs and the one who has been ruthless at times to get their way. I also said that the alliances getting white peace are not dangerous, which is also true. Molon Labe never did a major wrong to anybody (nothing notable anyway), and neither did TOOL, Soldier, Invicta, or anybody else in Group 3. I am not discounting anybody as mindless stooges. I saw a trend being read incorrectly by some and I made this thread to correct them. That's all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 So I've heard grumblings about the trend of white peace, and how Karma is being too soft with surrender terms, granting white peace and so on. The basic idea is that "NPO will rise up again and become hegemon again because of all this white peace". There's one major reason that you're all wrong. That is: all of the alliances that have gotten white peace so far aren't dangerous. NPO is the dangerous one and they're still fighting. Let's divide the Hegemony forces into three groups.1. NPO 2. NPO's closest allies (IRON, MCXA, TPF, etc.) 3. The other guys who showed up because of treaties or whatever (Molon Labe, Soldier, UPN, etc.) Group 3 is the one getting most of the white peace. There is little to no point giving them harsh terms as all it does is cause bitterness where there was really no animosity before. Group 3 doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. They honored their treaties and they should be let go. Anybody who advocates harsh terms for these guys is a fool. In fact, Group 3 can become a place to find new friends as fighting a war against somebody is a good way to get to know them. Wrong. TSI and SSSW18 have been asked to pay reps where most of your Group 2 alliances have not. Group 2 is starting to peace out. GGA just peaced out with some substantial terms, as did Valhalla and MCXA. This group will see actual terms, but even if they get white peace, it doesn't really matter. None of them are dangerous without their main benefactor, the NPO. Some of them (TPF comes to mind) deserve heavy terms just because but even if they didn't get them it wouldn't matter as most of Group 2 was involved in the Coward Coalition and has no credibility anyway. A lot of Group 2 will see drastic changes in leadership and new outlooks on policy and direction. Therefore, it doesn't make a difference if heavy terms are laid down or not. Wrong. Valhalla did not get "significant terms" and neither did OG or NATO. MCXA and GGA are the only ones to receive anything like applicable terms. NPO will, in all likelihood, be the last one to go, and judging by the terms handed out to their underlings, the terms for NPO will be severe. Nobody is going to tolerate white peace for NPO. There is too much history and too much animosity here between the NPO and much of Karma for that to happen. NPO will be the last to get terms but from what I read from mhawk, TPF won;t accept peace until NPO does so they may go out at the same time. As for your "judging by the terms given to their underlings, the NPO terms will be severe" line. You must be joking, the terms for the NPO's underlings have been incredibly soft and trying to paint them otherwise is a joke. So, doomsayers, the main point is this. You're misreading the white peace trend. The alliances getting white peace are the ones who were treaty-bound and are just doing their duty. Just like you wouldn't execute all the conscripted soldiers in a vanquished army, you wouldn't lay down harsh terms on these guys either. The alliances who were responsible for the NPO's hegemony and gamekilling over the past months are getting (and will continue to get) harsh terms. No, the ones getting white peace are the ones who helped the NPO impose its will on us all for the past 18 months. While the sentiments of your tiered system for allies of the NPO is correct and similar to the one I quoted in another thread. Your inaccurate depiction of terms given so far undermines the point you are trying to make utterly. The facts of the matter are that the peripheral alliances are getting "worse" terms than the "underlings" of the NPO and that is wrong and unfair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I wasn't arguing for harsh terms necessarily, but terms that would, say, ensure the death of One Vision and the Continuum (which would probably not, in my estimation, spring back to life at the expiration of terms) would go a long ways towards ensuring the goals and safety of the coalition. I also disagree that taking tech reparations is meaningless. Sure, an alliance still grows under harsh terms, as we've seen, but surely much more slowly than if they weren't under terms. Which is not to say that I want to cripple a alliance's growth; if it can be reasonably avoided I'd don't want anyone to be yoked with terms. If you're fully expecting to see your enemy on the battlefield again though, an alliance that has spent a few months shipping out all their tech is going to get masscred by an alliance that has spent those months absorbing the tech. If the world were divided into two factions who swapped victories from time to time, and one faction took the route of mercy and sportsmanship while the other takes the route of callous gluttony and vindictiveness then the balance of power will shortly end firmly in the camp of the latter. While my own sympathies certainly lie in the former category, once the latter has been done to you there's a compelling interest to level the field if you get an opportunity. How many times can you lay down and take it before there is no longer any recourse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Finally, somebody gets it. Unfortunately, there are some that still don't. They still need a warm and fuzzy that they imposed excessive "retribution" on their enemies. However, there isn't even consistency there. Go read the GGA surrender thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozaffar Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) The terms having been given to GGA, MCXA and Valhalla being substantial? Maybe for GGA and even then just barely. I'd say it's not important to if the old Hegemony will return to power, other factors are. However at least it does inflict some justice, I can't say I've been seriously wronged by these alliances, but others have been and at this one moment where there is an opportunity for at least some compensation for past reparations and the participation in this conflict it should be used. Let's face it, I don't see GGA making an announcement in a month saying "the noCB War was wrong, here have some free tech". Another point, and a more intresting one you've been hinting at is to what extent this matters in practice. Not that much, the foreign policy choices of individual alliances will decide the post-war situation. Considering neither the Hegemony nor Karma can be expected to last past the end of this conflict you can expect a multipolar world after this, how different alliances adapt to this is far more important then any reparations. NPO could have crushing terms yet manage to adapt to a new world better then Karma and still make it out on top. Their people have the capabilities to do this. They could have a white peace yet prove to be unable to cope with a changed world and a changed NPO and fall apart. Neither I consider extremely unlikely. The fact that you have had class-3 alliances pay reparations where class-2 alliances got away with white peace is wrong. I'm tempted to say the class-3 alliances have brought it on themselves by signing treaties with alliances that had no problems with imposing such terms on others however what prevails is that it's simply extortion and that we should get rid of it. Regardless a piece of advice, in the future be more careful with the treaties you sign in the future. And let's make sure that those class-2 alliances still in conflict will get some serious terms. I know my own alliance did a white peace, but Molon Labe certainly didn't deserve harsh reparations and all of this is hardly NSO's fight. Edited May 14, 2009 by Mozaffar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 I also disagree that taking tech reparations is meaningless. Sure, an alliance still grows under harsh terms, as we've seen, but surely much more slowly than if they weren't under terms. Which is not to say that I want to cripple a alliance's growth; if it can be reasonably avoided I'd don't want anyone to be yoked with terms. If you're fully expecting to see your enemy on the battlefield again though, an alliance that has spent a few months shipping out all their tech is going to get masscred by an alliance that has spent those months absorbing the tech. Taking tech reparations, that aren't harsh, is meangingless. You don't take enough tech, you don't do enough "growth" damage, etc. Unless there are alterior motives involved, there are three ways: 1) Stomping your enemy into the ground and giving them restrictions. (Valhalla) 2) Stomping your enemy into the ground, then imposing meaningful (read: harsh) reparations. (Hegemony) 3) Being attacked, stomp your enemy into the ground, and demand reparations since you were initially attacked. (GGA w/ Athens) I just don't see any other option that does something other than provide that good old "warm and fuzzy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Your essential point is sound, although you aren't entirely accurate about the terms offered so far. Both group 2 and 3 alliances have received peace with zero reparations, and both group 2 and 3 have had to pay small reps. However, as you say, none of these alliances really matter. The core of the Hegemony by strength was NPO, IRON and MCXA. MCXA imploded and is no longer important, and both NPO and IRON are still fighting – and have lost over half their strength. NPO will not be receiving a quick and lenient peace. The core by action would be NPO, TPF and Valhalla in my opinion, but Valhalla are greatly weakened by war, and NPO and TPF are still fighting. It is understandable to want to see revenge enacted, or justice done depending on your point of view, but in a strategic look at the world the peaces offered so far are not dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) This is basically the point I've been trying to argue for days. Chief Savage Man have a better way with words than me though. Any reps given out to alliances so far would have been small reps and wouldn't have been anything more than a petty "who's the boss now huh?". The alliances that have recived reps ammong the sidekicks (sorry for the expression) is SSW18 and TSI neither of these deserved reps in my eyes but it's an unfortunate sideeffect of karma not being an actual bloc. The 'karma leaders' doesn't have anything to say about sovereign alliances rep demands they can only advice at most. Wether or not it was a good idea to give mcxa reps can be argued but honestly I don't think it matters much, they didn't recive any crippling reps and should have them paid off shortly. Now CSM and I don't really agree on group 2 since I think them being isolated from the teet that nourished them is going to be a much harsher punishment than any reps. Edited May 14, 2009 by neneko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivan Moldavi Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Yeah right, keep "hope" alive. Hope and change. God, I hate hippies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 Yeah right, keep "hope" alive.Hope and change. God, I hate hippies. At least we're armed hippies. That has to count for something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 It never ceases to amaze me seeing people praise posts in which everything they mention is factually incorrect. But I guess facts are unimportant when a post tells you what you want to hear. Sure, the peace terms offered don't match what was mentioned here and they certainly don't fit the model mentioned (I actually think the model mentioned is a good one but that is besides the point), but, hey, it all sounds so merciful so lets forget that nothing like that has happened and pat ourselves on the back and raise a glass to our niceness. Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 TSI probably got the roughest terms of the war so far. I suppose they're obviously a close NPO ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tygaland Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 TSI probably got the roughest terms of the war so far. I suppose they're obviously a close NPO ally. Apparently so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Keshav IV Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 This man is more or less right, let them rise again, we'll be ready as we would have more time on our hands to re-build and re-group compared to them, and with the main forces of Q under control NPO can't rise up, that doesn't mean harsh terms have to be applied Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pingu Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 As Tyga has said (and bob janova, although he's arguing in a different sense), the schema is right, but it has not been applied. GGA took a severe beating, and got the kind of terms that should hold them in check, possibly cause a change there. Valhalla got off relatively easily. We can hope, of course, for abject gratitude and a complete cultural revolution over there, but we can't trust in it. If the group 3 all had white peace and group 2 all had restrictive but not crushing terms, we'd be getting somewhere in remaking politics on Bob. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 OH my GOD!!!! Someone finally gets it. I'm sorry to dissapoint you but I got it a while ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 As Tyga has said (and bob janova, although he's arguing in a different sense), the schema is right, but it has not been applied. GGA took a severe beating, and got the kind of terms that should hold them in check, possibly cause a change there. Valhalla got off relatively easily. We can hope, of course, for abject gratitude and a complete cultural revolution over there, but we can't trust in it. If the group 3 all had white peace and group 2 all had restrictive but not crushing terms, we'd be getting somewhere in remaking politics on Bob. The penguin stole my words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeinousOne Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 What I would like to see are some hard numbers on how many nations of the hegemony were taken down from tech buying status to tech selling. These are going to become huge tech farms and writing in on terms a certain amount of 150 tech for 3 mil actually helps them as they will have far too few tech buying nations to help themselves rebuild and far too few allies that can help them with that. So in some of the cases with these alliances no terms would be harsher then giving their severely weakened nations a chance to rebuild that they may not have gotten otherwise. Alliances like Valhalla getting off lightly with white peace now find themselves needing to make new friends in order to sell to. Perhaps that was the reason they were given white peace..... NPO though, I doubt their terms will include tech deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 14, 2009 Report Share Posted May 14, 2009 (edited) Taking tech reparations, that aren't harsh, is meangingless. You don't take enough tech, you don't do enough "growth" damage, etc. Unless there are alterior motives involved, there are three ways:1) Stomping your enemy into the ground and giving them restrictions. (Valhalla) 2) Stomping your enemy into the ground, then imposing meaningful (read: harsh) reparations. (Hegemony) 3) Being attacked, stomp your enemy into the ground, and demand reparations since you were initially attacked. (GGA w/ Athens) I just don't see any other option that does something other than provide that good old "warm and fuzzy". The hot commodity of the day is time, or aid slots really. Terms that tie up aid slots for a month, even if it were shipping packets of 1 soldier around help solve the time advantage problem. Many alliances that got stomped in the last war have a 5 or 6 month deficit from that war alone. After having the same recovery period for the alliances that lost here, the time advantage will remain. One month would be a significant percentage of what we've lost to catch back up so that we aren't so far behind when they come back for their vengeance. Alliances like Valhalla getting off lightly with white peace now find themselves needing to make new friends in order to sell to. Perhaps that was the reason they were given white peace..... I don't think so. I think the alliances that have granted generous terms are honorable people who really hope (perhaps naively) to improve the way things go and I don't have a bad thing to say about them outside of the occasional heat of the moment when I'm worked up over other things. Edit: removed OOC Edited May 14, 2009 by bzelger 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.