Reps for IRON, NPO, Echelon, and TPF

[potato]

I didn't know having - 11 mil in NS was possible.

[Seerow]

2- They have sustained a ridiculous amount of damage. It's all very well saying 'MK had to pay 82k tech in reps' etc, but when did MK ever lose the 15 million or so NS that NPO/IRON have lost? (just using MK as it's the most common example ). I don't think people realise just how damaging this war has been for those aforementioned alliances. Seriously, just look at the alliance stats.

MK never had that kind of NS to lose so it's not a valid example. When paying reps, your NS isn't the issue, the number of members is. NPO still has plenty of members capable of producing money to send out maximum aid while still rebuilding themselves, and more still who would be capable within 10 days of war ending.

The more accurate comparison would be at the end of the UJW MK had ~25 total nations capable of sending aid. This is including those who rebuilt themselves instantly from warchests.

How many do you think NPO will have at the end of the war? Just judging by the peace mode nations they have several times that. I'm sure they have others with war chests to get even more.

Regardless it's all gonna be irrelevant because any argument made will fall on deaf ears. The alliances actually at war with NPO are generally smaller alliances, or alliances I havent heard of, there's just a lot of them. Given Karma's penchant of only alliances at war determining terms, I fully expect the NPO to get light terms.

That said, I would whole heartedly support NPO getting off with no reps whatsoever with the extra condition of no aid at all for the duration of terms. Internal or External aid is banned, any NPO nation with an aid slot filled is breaking terms. That I think would be as effective or moreso than any extraordinarily large amount of reps, without seeming extortionist and going against the karma ideals.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Seerow

[Death666Angel]

Actually I would say aside from Echelon you, of the remaining parties, deserve the least. You and Echelon probably deserve a bad beating and a good bit of reps.

It's nice to see our allies looking out for us .

Also I think NPO, IRON and Echelon have been getting a free pass here... too much tpf chatter

Agreed! We are way more evil, plotting, backstabbing, opportunistic, infra-lovers, betrayers, traitors, my idols than any of you give us credit for! Our hard work needs to be rewarded by something, and if only OWF-coverage .

I love how there seems to be no middle-ground or moderate view of Echelon. Either we are tyrannical extortionists who go around and kick small kids in the nutsack or we are an alliance that just defended one of its allies and has no other business in this war of ideologies (if anyone believes it there is still a clear distinction between the sides ).

I would like to extend my thanks for letting me slip into peace mode though, very generous.

[KingSuck]

MK never had that kind of NS to lose so it's not a valid example. When paying reps, your NS isn't the issue, the number of members is. NPO still has plenty of members capable of producing money to send out maximum aid while still rebuilding themselves, and more still who would be capable within 10 days of war ending.

It is a valid example, percentages aren't everything.

The amount of damage NPO/IRON have taken is equivalent to every nation in MK getting reduced to 0 infrastructure, 0 tech and 0 land; 3 times. I fail to see how that's not a valid example. Just because they had more to start with doesn't make their losses any less relevant.

Edited May 22, 2009 by KingSuck

[Bob Janova]

It's quite funny seeing so many Hegemony figures saying how reps are bad and the terms should be light or nonexistent. If you really believe that, why did you join the alliances that you did, all of which have given or supported much worse reps (by proportion at least) than anything suggested in this war.

As others have said, the equivalent of Athens's or MK's terms when scaled up for an alliance like IRON or NPO would be 200,000 tech or more. You're not going to see anything like that, and so in a way whatever numbers are finalised will be 'light'.

That said, I think all alliances should receive low reparations, because the damage is done in war. Once the war objective is complete, then reparations serve only two purpose, keeping the enemy down, and rebuilding yourself. The first is ineffective and causes resentment (see MK or other Karma alliances, or NpO and the hard feelings they still have for some of their opponents), and the second is impossible to do in a nuclear war – full reparations for damages on the IRON front are probably $150bn or more.

[shahenshah]

IRON threw in their lot with the NPO in the Second Great War, thus allowing the NPO to establish a foothold from which to create a global Hegemony which has only recently been torn down. A great many on both sides supported this endeavor at various points. IRON is the "focus" of this topic purely because of a post made by Bill n Ted in a foreign affairs missive from TOP. Overall, the topic has focused on most engaged alliances, though, so I don't think your post is entirely accurate. That said, IRON has fought by the side of the NPO in all major conflicts, and is a part of One Vision, the power block that claimed to share the same "One Vision" for the future of the Cyberverse. I would say that is a fairly strong support of the NPO across these past years.

Please note that this is a rush point, and I'm just putting it forth to show you the other side of the coin you're flipping. It's worth noting that IRON was one of the ones who canceled their treaty with the NPO, but then followed it anyway

I would argue that they, as a principle supporter of the NPO via One Vision, do indeed deserve it. I would also argue that others deserve it who "got away." However, as I was not directly engaged with those alliances, it's really not my place to posture. So I think we might have to either continue on the IRON vein or drop this altogether.

OV didnt have the assets to act like hegemony without support of Q. So you cannot discuss one in isolation of other. Although its more convenient for your side to mention OV. But you and I know thats not how the show ran. It is funny how the 'principle supporters' i.e. IRON did not indulge in extreme or crippling reps while those that were not 'principle supporters' indulge in harsher reps.

Regarding treaties, if you actually had read our DoW you'll know on what treaties we acted on. It will clarify the confusion you have regarding your last sentence.

Did I ever say that you did? I mentioned IRON because if you befriend the bully, help him beat some little kid up, but then claim moral high ground because you didn't take his lunch money it confuses me. =_=' Afterall this time you knew of the bad things NPO was doing and you often helped them. Thus, you shouldn't be exempt from moderate-harsh surrender terms.

Did you read some of the other posts? We befriend a bully, so did many others, not only did they 'befriend' the bully, they benefited from that position by issuing some good amount of reps...so did we do that? Did we put on crippling terms? No, despite being the 'principle' supporters. Many who are now on your side did issue reps...It is important to mention that some of them have undone that by issuing light terms..and many have not. So before you point fingers at IRON, I only request you look at your own roster, then go read Wiki...but again I wish to raise the point that I am not here generalizing everyone who was previously on Hegemony side and now on Karma side. Kindly dont take it as such. Actions of many alliances have changed and for some its the same...and they know who they are.

However, as I was not directly engaged with those alliances, it's really not my place to posture. So I think we might have to either continue on the IRON vein or drop this altogether.

and that is why I wish to know RoK's reasons and not MK's. The picture portrayed is somehow MK's reps are standard, despite RoK fighting beside IRON in NoCB war.

On the other hand, you can argue that past history shows it would be wise to keep them as far down as you can, and keep them from ever striking back through a combination of gamesmanship and in-game tactics.

Would you like to share IRON's example in such case. I joined some 600 days ago, you being here for a longer time frame perhaps know about something I may have missed reading history in times previous to me.

Edited May 22, 2009 by shahenshah

[mhawk]

and the second is impossible to do in a nuclear war – full reparations for damages on the IRON front are probably $150bn or more.

I'm betting it is closer to a trillion. I've estimated blowing up a good 10-30 billion on just my wars. Taking multiple 17-19k infra guys to 10-12k in one cycle.

Edited May 22, 2009 by mhawk

[Un4Gvn1]

TPF's NS is about 1/4 of what it was a month ago.

8 million down to 2 million in a month.

Ever heard the phrase "Can't get blood out of a turnip"?

[wickedj]

I think the point that many, including myself are trying to make.....and at least for me failing to make.....Is that when people see Billion and more than 10k tech they flip out because those numbers seem high. What you need to take into account now is the size of the alliance and the resources they have at hand. For the people who are going to ask for reps in their surrender terms may ask for an amount that does seem high but step back and look at it objectively.

82k Tech is a major deal for a 150 man alliance where as it really is less of a big deal for a 600 man alliance

14k Tech is different for a 40 man alliance than it is for a 400 man alliance.

So, what I ask of you is before you go all JIHAD on reps, step back and look at them in relation to the alliance they will be coming from. I suspect then, when you look at the facts that some of the rumored reps going around aren't as bad as you think they are.

This man is wise, I may just overlook your next amsg in #farkistan.

[PrideAssassin]

Did I ever say that you did? I mentioned IRON because if you befriend the bully, help him beat some little kid up, but then claim moral high ground because you didn't take his lunch money it confuses me. =_=' Afterall this time you knew of the bad things NPO was doing and you often helped them. Thus, you shouldn't be exempt from moderate-harsh surrender terms.

Except the "little kid" you cite had a nasty habit of going around beating up little kids for their lunch money... oops!

[greatmagnus]

I'm betting it is closer to a trillion. I've estimated blowing up a good 10-30 billion on just my wars. Taking multiple 17-19k infra guys to 10-12k in one cycle.

You must also remember you were not the only one they were at war with. So we come to the case of overlapping damages and such that makes actual damage counts impossible to assess unless you have pre/postwar info on every nation in the involved alliances.

[Ejayrazz]

I would argue that they, as a principle supporter of the NPO via One Vision, do indeed deserve it. I would also argue that others deserve it who "got away." However, as I was not directly engaged with those alliances, it's really not my place to posture. So I think we might have to either continue on the IRON vein or drop this altogether.

Do remember at one point when those who despised MK had the reign, they would probably have dealt with your allies the way we will deal with NPO' (IRON as their ally)...and I feel it is somewhat hypocritical. The sole reasoning for this is because if Grämlins were to die for MK, which I assure you I personally would love to go out with a bang for an ally such as MK, those within Karma would be dismantling "hegemony" with verbal assault if they wished to destroy Grämlins for supporting their treaty partner - which would be completely logical. (That's our relationship. )

I never denied IRON's allegiance with the NPO, but their foundation is not as 'ruthless' and 'brutal', especially since back in the day those terms were NOT as widely condemned as they are now. Some vary alliances within Karma itself did what may be considered 'ruthless acts' back in the day - but it wasn't considered such then, it is considered such NOW due to the changes within the political spectrum and its terms. Is IRON completely innocent? No, they did what they were suppose to and supported their ally, but they aren't these super villains either.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[Zoomzoomzoom]

Yes, the DIAF list exists to this day as far as I know. However that is not a ZI list. People get on it for a lot of reasons but all can get off of it by making amends. No one on that list was brought to ZI while I was there. Even some who never tried to pay reps for tech raiding TPF or welching on tech deals were really pursued all that hard.

Back in my day the DIAF was definitely a ZI list. Slayer even edited the list when a "success" was achieved.

I only read up to this post, but people were forgetting the reps The Legion had to pay every week to NPO, Valhalla, and TPF. I can't remember the exact amount that would add up to though.

None of these alliances listed in the OP are saints. No matter how hard the current Hegemony cries injustice at potential large reps it shouldn't stop it from happening. I honestly don't give a $%&@ what they think and they've played that game much longer than anyone. They should all taste the medicine they've used and supported. You can argue IRON or even Echelon never used large reps, but they sure as hell didn't speak against it.

Just my 2 cents

[ChairmanHal]

IRON - This is an alliance that has dropped from 20 mill NS to well under 6 mill and declining more every day. Demands of billions in cash and many 10s of thousands in tech for reps is at best misguided unless the point is to permanently cripple the alliance.

Echelon - Was already on the downhill slope prior to the war and now is racing down it. Reps? Seriously? I don't know they'll live long enough to pay.

TPF - More so than any of the others, at some point deserves a warrior's peace--to be allowed pick up their sword and to simply walk away. They have given the full measure of what they had and then more.

NPO - White Peace? Let's review. They placed a significant amount of their membership in what amounted to the concrete bunker of Peace Mode before the big show even got started, far more than the other three. If given white peace now they will very rapidly recover. Wasn't the point of this war to take them down several notches and their allies were merely "in the way"? Anything less than knocking NPO out of the #1 spot for at least a year or so should be considered a Hegemony marginal victory. White Peace is not the issue, the issue is whether or not the reps demands will be actual serious, negotiable figures or the equivalent of a Sponge "eternal tech farm" peace.

[mhawk]

You must also remember you were not the only one they were at war with. So we come to the case of overlapping damages and such that makes actual damage counts impossible to assess unless you have pre/postwar info on every nation in the involved alliances.

That is why my damage figures are so varied, notice one figure is 3x that of the other?

[shahenshah]

It's quite funny seeing so many Hegemony figures saying how reps are bad and the terms should be light or nonexistent. If you really believe that, why did you join the alliances that you did, all of which have given or supported much worse reps (by proportion at least) than anything suggested in this war.

As others have said, the equivalent of Athens's or MK's terms when scaled up for an alliance like IRON or NPO would be 200,000 tech or more. You're not going to see anything like that, and so in a way whatever numbers are finalised will be 'light'.

Bob, funny you bring it up, but yea, terms are quite funny and ridiculous, I think you are not aware of the 'strings' that were attached to it or may still be. You'd be quite astonished.

I'd go with figure that Airme posted... ~MK was charged around ~5.3m per member and IRON is ~5m, so the numbers are not only very much alike but also very much comparable. Those numbers maybe inaccurate, since Airme got them and posted them, I'm counting on them being good enough for him to post on the forums, they might be closer or further apart.

Edited May 22, 2009 by shahenshah

[Zoomzoomzoom]

IRON - This is an alliance that has dropped from 20 mill NS to well under 6 mill and declining more every day. Demands of billions in cash and many 10s of thousands in tech for reps is at best misguided unless the point is to permanently cripple the alliance.

Echelon - Was already on the downhill slope prior to the war and now is racing down it. Reps? Seriously? I don't know they'll live long enough to pay.

TPF - More so than any of the others, at some point deserves a warrior's peace--to be allowed pick up their sword and to simply walk away. They have given the full measure of what they had and then more.

NPO - White Peace? Let's review. They placed a significant amount of their membership in what amounted to the concrete bunker of Peace Mode before the big show even got started, far more than the other three. If given white peace now they will very rapidly recover. Wasn't the point of this war to take them down several notches and their allies were merely "in the way"? Anything less than knocking NPO out of the #1 spot for at least a year or so should be considered a Hegemony marginal victory. White Peace is not the issue, the issue is whether or not the reps demands will be actual serious, negotiable figures or the equivalent of a Sponge "eternal tech farm" peace.

Cause GPA wasn't beat down from 13 million to god knows what? Same goes for MK in regards to Echelon and NPO.

[shahenshah]

Back in my day the DIAF was definitely a ZI list. Slayer even edited the list when a "success" was achieved.

I only read up to this post, but people were forgetting the reps The Legion had to pay every week to NPO, Valhalla, and TPF. I can't remember the exact amount that would add up to though.

None of these alliances listed in the OP are saints. No matter how hard the current Hegemony cries injustice at potential large reps it shouldn't stop it from happening. I honestly don't give a $%&@ what they think and they've played that game much longer than anyone. They should all taste the medicine they've used and supported. You can argue IRON or even Echelon never used large reps, but they sure as hell didn't speak against it.

Just my 2 cents

Look up NoCB war page on wiki and you'll find interesting names there who not only 'not spoke against' the terms, but actively indulged in them.....what did IRON do in NoCB war...White peace..thats before Karma suddenly invented it. I say interesting names because they're in Karma now. However, some of them have clearly moved past that point, some however have not. If you read through this entire post, you'll find more specific discussion.

[KingSuck]

It's quite funny seeing so many Hegemony figures saying how reps are bad and the terms should be light or nonexistent. If you really believe that, why did you join the alliances that you did, all of which have given or supported much worse reps (by proportion at least) than anything suggested in this war.

Viewpoints change, if anything you should be celebrating.

As others have said, the equivalent of Athens's or MK's terms when scaled up for an alliance like IRON or NPO would be 200,000 tech or more. You're not going to see anything like that, and so in a way whatever numbers are finalised will be 'light'.

The proportional concept being thrown around here is just wrong. Just for starters, every alliance is different. As an example, the average MK member could pay a lot more cash/tech than the average IRON/NPO member. Are you factoring all those kinds of details into your calculations?

I'd agree that some proportionality should be taken into account, but basing everything off it is just ridiculous. A 2k NS nation losing 1k NS in a war is proportional to a 400k NS losing 200k NS in a war, are you really going to tell me those losses are equal?

[shahenshah]

If all must account for their actions, in the end and if nothing change past actions why Karma accepted ex-Q members in their coalition?

And Sandwich Controversy just because I quoted an MK member I'm not necessary talking about MK, you guys seen to forget that this is a OCC forum.

'Koz they wouldnt have won the damn war without them' Principles seem to have a great aura of adaptability here.

Edited May 22, 2009 by shahenshah

[Haflinger]

It's quite funny seeing so many Hegemony figures saying how reps are bad and the terms should be light or nonexistent. If you really believe that, why did you join the alliances that you did, all of which have given or supported much worse reps (by proportion at least) than anything suggested in this war.

Invicta has received a total of 300 tech in reparations for alliance wars in the history of our alliance, for which we paid 6 million dollars. (I actually sent the first 3M )

Just about all their top nations were in peace mode by the end of 1 war cycle. I suppose it would depend on how much karma wants to be karma. GATO.

Correction: Most of their nations which are now in their top 80 were in peace mode at the end of 1 war cycle. In fact, most of the nations now in their top 80 (54 to be exact) were in peace mode since before the start of the war.

Most of the nations which didn't have failed staggers are now heavily damaged. Vladimir, for example.

As to the accusations that Hegemony supporters are accusing Karma of hypocrisy - maybe some are but I'm not. I'd say, rather, inconsistent in application. The Karma coalition is, as has been repeatedly said, a loose wartime coalition, and it's not centrally controlling a lot of things, in particular decisions on peace terms. If Poison Clan (say) refuses to offer TPF peace terms, while Sparta (say) decides to offer NPO a white peace, that difference won't be because Karma is hypocritical, because Karma as a whole isn't controlling terms. It will be because Karma is inconsistent.

To be hypocritical, one has to defend something in one situation while arguing against it in another. To pick on one of my favourite opponents (heh), GOD has been consistent in arguing for heavy terms all the way through. That doesn't make them hypocrites, even though they're fighting on the same "side" as Kronos, who have similarly been consistent in arguing against them. It just means that your side does not have a consistent stance on this issue, and if I want to be completely honest, neither does ours.

Frankly, my biggest worry is that otherwise well-meaning Karma leaders are operating under the belief that whatever they demand will be accepted. I don't believe this to be the case, and I don't want to see some people I like make the exact same mistake with NPO that NPO made with FAN. If I hated you all, I'd probably be happier about the current turn of events.

[shahenshah]

Cause GPA wasn't beat down from 13 million to god knows what? Same goes for MK in regards to Echelon and NPO.

GPA lost around ~46 score, IRON has lost ~47+ and counting. Probably around same number for NPO...and let me know when GPA joins Karma. or appoints someone as their spokeswo/man. Moving from a higher score downwards is also exponentially more expensive than moving down from a lower score, even if total score loss is closer in absolute numbers.

Edited May 22, 2009 by shahenshah

[Zoomzoomzoom]

Look up NoCB war page on wiki and you'll find interesting names there who not only 'not spoke against' the terms, but actively indulged in them.....what did IRON do in NoCB war...White peace..thats before Karma suddenly invented it. I say interesting names because they're in Karma now. However, some of them have clearly moved past that point, some however have not. If you read through this entire post, you'll find more specific discussion.

I see PUKE received white peace, but the NV surrender showed reparations to be paid to IRON. Were those waived? Were GPA's waived?

White peace wasn't necessarily invented by Karma in this war and others did it before IRON.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the speaking out bit, as it isn't something I want to get into.

GPA lost around ~46 score, IRON has lost ~47+ and counting. Probably around same number for NPO...and let me know when GPA joins Karma. or appoints someone as their spokeswo/man.

GPA's reps were enormous for a BS war to begin with. If they could handle it then I'm sure you'll have no issues.

EDIT: past tense on could.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Zoomzoomzoom

[Mixoux]

To be hypocritical, one has to defend something in one situation while arguing against it in another. To pick on one of my favourite opponents (heh), GOD has been consistent in arguing for heavy terms all the way through. That doesn't make them hypocrites, even though they're fighting on the same "side" as Kronos, who have similarly been consistent in arguing against them. It just means that your side does not have a consistent stance on this issue, and if I want to be completely honest, neither does ours.

Gotta quote this for future reference. Some alliances (like my own) have always held the notion of, in this case, heavier terms than other alliances. On the other hand, there are karma alliances who argue the exact opposite; however, their stance gets lost under the general coalition of Karma, and thus get labeled as hypocrites because it doesn't seem consistent to the rest.

[Derwood1]

Not that I really have a dog in the fight but I would just like to see the over 200 Hippies in NPO throwdown with their "bros"....kinda like IRON did....just saying....