Delta1212 Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Probably less than the 600 million we had to pay out a year and a half ago and the 82k tech we had to pay out 8 months ago. 490 million and change, so that would be correct. Edit: And 50k tech is already less than 82k even before you account for the size difference. Edited May 22, 2009 by Delta1212 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) 490 million and change, so that would be correct. Edit: And 50k tech is already less than 82k even before you account for the size difference. And we did both with about 150 members....not 600. EDIT: <MagicalTrevor> MK paying 800mil with 150members, was 5.3mil each <MagicalTrevor> IRON paying 3bil with 600 members, is 5mil each Edited May 22, 2009 by AirMe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Probably less than the 600 million we had to pay out a year and a half ago and the 82k tech we had to pay out 8 months ago. Year and half ago? Who was that to? (sorry I was neutral back in those days) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 fwiw, we're Fark or Farkistan. not FARK..our name isn't an acronym We just get so excited by you guys that we can only express it in ALL CAPS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowen70 Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Probably less than the 600 million we had to pay out a year and a half ago and the 82k tech we had to pay out 8 months ago. If we ignore the crazy anti karma propaganda and take it to mean what goes around comes around then MK should be demanding something proportional to their AA size to duplicate the reps you were forced to pay out. If 82k tech was x% of your total tech then the people who took it should pay x% of their total tech, similarly with the money though since no one knows war chest sizes I'm sure another formula could be worked out. I sincerely hope that happens, though I don't think forced wonder dismissals etc are worth it. Considering how fast soldiers can be bought its a bit meaningless keeping them artificially low (since if they wanted to go to war they could buy them all in one day) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Blair Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 At "Karma's" 3 billion cash and 50k tech? If you really think IRON membership will accept that you really dont know the people that make IRON IRON has loads of members, that sounds entirely within reason. That's less than we paid per member the last time we got terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joracy Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Year and half ago? Who was that to? (sorry I was neutral back in those days) I would think this is UJW? I think it was Polar and MCXA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Best of luck to both parties. I'm sure it was not a decision TOP took lightly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Year and half ago? Who was that to? (sorry I was neutral back in those days) Lets see the 600 mill was to MCXA who had originally asked for 1 billion before sponge smacked them upside the head a bit. And you know who the 82k tech was too. And yes I fully believe in guilt by association in this case. Both times were to major players in Q, something that IRON was. FAKEEDIT: Sorry TOP for helping derail your thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Lets see the 600 mill was to MCXA who had originally asked for 1 billion before sponge smacked them upside the head a bit. And you know who the 82k tech was too.And yes I fully believe in guilt by association in this case. Both times were to major players in Q, something that IRON was. The NPO one alright, but if you are talking about UJP, wasn't that far before Q? Actually nm - I can pester ya somewhere else. Edited May 22, 2009 by mhawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 The NPO one alright, but if you are talking about UJP, wasn't that far before Q? I don't know. Does it? I'm old and all the oppression runs together after a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) I think AirME was just refering to reps that have been paid before, and that 3bil50k tech, although sounding massive, for an alliance of IRONs size, isn't actually that large. Yes it's hardly backpocket change, but it's proberly similar slots wise (% of alliance) to MKs 82K tech. In regards to the OP, that has been ignored for the past page or so, it's always sad to see old ties break, regardless of the people involved in the break, good luck to TOP & NPO in the future. Edited May 22, 2009 by MagicalTrevor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Z Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Considering an alliance of IRON's size and the average warchest level of IRON nations, 3 billion and 50K tech is a drop in the bucket. To compare statistical figures, for IRON's terms to be the equivalent of MK terms after the Coalition war, they would have to be paying 250K tech with restrictions on outside aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) Just a simple question, excluding adjusting for inflation/stats ect, would this be the largest reps on record? Edited May 22, 2009 by mhawk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crushtania Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Considering an alliance of IRON's size and the average warchest level of IRON nations, 3 billion and 50K tech is a drop in the bucket.To compare statistical figures, for IRON's terms to be the equivalent of MK terms after the Coalition war, they would have to be paying 250K tech with restrictions on outside aid. Agreed; the damage by some individual nations in the upper ranges from both sides equate to billions. $3 billion/50K tech, for all intents and purposes, for a still sanctioned alliance is a ridiculously small amount. Smaller alliances one-tenth of IRON's size could push through 500M per cycle if they wanted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 I think AirME was just refering to reps that have been paid before, and that 3bil50k tech, although sounding massive, for an alliance of IRONs size, isn't actually that large. Yes it's hardly backpocket change, but it's proberly similar slots wise (% of alliance) to MKs 82K tech. Based on number of slots and relative sizes, MK's 82k tech actually took up three times the slot percentage of the 50k/3B number for IRON. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Agreed; the damage by some individual nations in the upper ranges from both sides equate to billions. $3 billion/50K tech, for all intents and purposes, for a still sanctioned alliance is a ridiculously small amount. Smaller alliances one-tenth of IRON's size could push through 500M per cycle if they wanted. MK did about 900mil in a cycle with 160-70 members in between UJW & NoCB (internal and ally aid, we missed out on a billion ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 This thread is really not about IRON or their rumoured reps ... neither TOP nor NPO is engaged on that front, after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogeWilliam Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Ok, let me break it down for you, since it seems to escape you.TOP had an MDoAP with NPO. That 'o' as it turns out, is very, very important. It means 'OPTIONAL' as in 'hey, we will decide on a case by case basis whether we will join you in an AGGRESSIVE (the big 'A' after the little 'o') venture. Now we've all seen the Tattler logs where TOP was mediating, or attempting to mediate, peace between OV and NPO. That right there is a pretty good indication that TOP probably was not along for the ride. Otherwise, you'd have to assume TOP was acting in bad faith in mediating those talks, and I really haven't seen anyone say that TOP didn't mediate in anything but good faith. And for what it's worth, I know TOP did want those peace talks to work, and they were in fact very hurt when they didn't work out. But anyway, so TOP was not along for the ride. At that point, whoever attacked NPO for its AGGRESSIVE action on OV was not subject to TOP attacking based on the DEFENSE clause because...wait for it...it wasn't a DEFENSIVE action. Just because NPO chased what they thought was a bear cub into a cave, only to discovery 'holy !@#$, ma and pa bear are home and super pissed' does NOT transform this action into a defensive one. At best, it transforms it into a poorly conceived aggressive action. So it did not matter who attacked NPO at that point as the action was aggressive by its inception, hence whether it was 'TOP's friends' or however you want to put it, shooting at NPO doesn't invalidate, or require a cancellation of, the treaty. And if you know anything about TOP canceling a two and a half year old treaty was not something taken lightly, or without discretion and discussion. And let's face it, in two and a half years, a lot has changed, so it's not slanting the truth to say that certain actions required a re-examination of this treaty. In short, it wasn't overdue because nothing was 'due' at this time at all. VI I like this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajaxpenny Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Best of luck NPO. The future should prove very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) So our reps are being justified on the reps we did not take? Instead of listing the reps of other alliances...why don't you list the reps that IRON took...and the ones for which IRON *paid* for and the ones which IRON *waivered* Airme and Delta. If your primary reason is reps for being part of Q at those times, then may I suggest you look at your own roster list first Karma. You yourself are using MK's reps to justify the reps on us...the same reps you whined around for a long time...as far as IRON is concerned...Karma is worst off than Hegemony taking in to account our own past actions and reps specifically related to IRON. But you're giving example of MK right...did those reps stopped MK from reaching in position to where it is now? did those reps help the alliances that took it? When all was said and done, it didn't. It only created a bitter and smarter enemy for NPO.\ I hope Citadel will not be a part of enabling such behaviors... wasn't these the same very reasons(or related) you apparently fought against. These are the terms IRON are getting, well bubye NPO? You guys better stay firm and put in Peace mode. Edited May 22, 2009 by shahenshah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattistan Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) o/ Hali! Brillant Political Move Sad, but necessary. whatever...... Also, Suck it, Goons. Except the cool ones. Edited May 22, 2009 by Mattistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jipps Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 The timing here seems a bit unneccisary, I'm very sorry to see this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnWinthrop Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 Just a simple question, excluding adjusting for inflation/stats ect, would this be the largest reps on record? Well since a comparison excluding that information is entirely meaningless what difference could it possibly make? Stop trying to derail the thread with meaningless questions bordering on the idiotic. Sorry to see two longstanding allies come to such an end. Better luck in the future TOP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted May 22, 2009 Report Share Posted May 22, 2009 (edited) So our reps are being justified on the reps we did not take? Instead of listing the reps of other alliances...why don't you list the reps that IRON took...and the ones for which IRON *paid* for and the ones which IRON *waivered* Airme and Delta. If your primary reason is reps for being part of Q at those times, then may I suggest you look at your own roster list first Karma. You yourself are using MK's reps to justify the reps on us...the same reps you whined around for a long time...as far as IRON is concerned...Karma is worst off than Hegemony taking in to account our own past actions and reps specifically related to IRON. But you're giving example of MK right...did those reps stopped MK from reaching in position to where it is now? did those reps help the alliances that took it? When all was said and done, it didn't. It only created a bitter and smarter enemy for NPO.\ I hope Citadel will not be a part of enabling such behaviors... wasn't these the same very reasons(or related) you apparently fought against. These are the terms IRON are getting, well bubye NPO? You guys better stay firm and put in Peace mode. We should probably request the mods split this thread. But are you insinuating that sending out 82k Tech had no effect on MK? You did stand by an let your allies take these reps from alliances. Did you ever stand up and say WTF MAN? I can't say I have ever seen any one from IRON stand up for the little guy. Generally speaking I do believe in light terms, and perhaps you never took an active roll in getting these reps but one could call NPO the primary hammer while you were the broadsword that was strapped to their back. EDIT: What about the damage you caused to GPA? Did you take any reps from GPA? Something along the line of 300 tech per member? Edited May 22, 2009 by AirMe 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.