Reps for IRON, NPO, Echelon, and TPF

[Seerow]

It seems some nations are clearly underestimating the damage we took.

Let's take Matt Miller. Since I like him and he is the pride of IRON.

Matt Miller had over 20 000 infra before the war, he was number #1 of the whole game, right now, Matt is around 3500 Infra, he roughly lost a bit less than 20,000 infra. I currently am at around 1000 infra, would I get out of this war tomorrow, I would still have to wait five days to get out of Nuclear Anarchy and I would clear a little over 3 mil.

I am a 700-days nation and so far I have been lucky in this war to fight moderate fighters, I haven't come accross a triple-update blitz team or anything of that sort. There are currently 29 pages of IRON nations under 1000 infra, that's 338 nations, approximately half of IRON. There aren't much warchests left.

That's what a 15 mil ns drop means.

Sounds to me like IRON should have spent a little less money on infra and invested a bit more in war chests.

When I got ZIed I was only 5k infra, it took 2-3 months of constant war before I was finally bill locked. My warchest was less than 200mil. For a nation with 20k infra your warchest should be measured in billions and should be litterally impossible to run out in the month you guys were at war. (especially at that rate of infra loss, bills drop really fast which means your billions last much longer)

Really don't blame others for assuming you're at least moderately prepared for a war.

And honestly I don't care if you don't get back up to your old NS strength, going into a war and expecting to not come out hurting is the stupidest thing you can do. But with what should be still available in your warchest you should be able to get back to 4-5k infra before back collecting, which you should be using then to start rebuilding warchests before buying any more infrastructure.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Seerow

[Harold the Saxon]

Do you honestly not understand the difference between demanding reparations from an alliance that attacked you or your allies and extorting 'reparations' from an alliance you've just annihilated in an aggressive war?

I understand perfectly. You are telling me there is justification in these reparations because they were defenders and that they do not plan to extort the enemy for damages.

Firstly, you present no definition of what exactly 'extortion' is. I think extortion is forcing someone to pay a price they do not wish to pay under threat of force. Your demands are exactly extortion.

The clear nature of this conflict is hardly one of defense nor of equal sides. I understand your proposition that the enemies of IRON, NPO, Echelon, and TPF were defensive in response to actions conducted on OV. I disagree with the assessment that all alliances who have acted did so in a defensive nature. I hold that these alliances held long-time grudges and problems with the ruling hegemony in cybernations and took actions upon themselves to remove such a threat. If you wish to label it 'aggressive defense', you may proceed to do so. Either way, this war is not just a defensive act to push out NPO, IRON, Echelon, and TPF. The intent of the war is to deprive their ability to rule as they did. That is aggressive - to change the status quo.

Finally, 'annihilation' makes me laugh. If you consider this conflict equal, you must kid yourself - you know they are being annihilated. You know reparations will only burden their already grave defeats. I do not see how this is any different other than that you claim you are the victim where none of them ever did.

You should look at it objectively and think if what you are doing is really that different from what your opponents have done. The white peaces already granted were virtuous and I believe morally leading. I believe we must at least question our motives in such dangerous acts as reparations and surrender terms. Will we breed peace or grow anger?

Edited May 25, 2009 by Harold the Saxon

[519 Nigras]

Sounds to me like IRON should have spent a little less money on infra and invested a bit more in war chests.

When I got ZIed I was only 5k infra, it took 2-3 months of constant war before I was finally bill locked. My warchest was less than 200mil. For a nation with 20k infra your warchest should be measured in billions and should be litterally impossible to run out in the month you guys were at war. (especially at that rate of infra loss, bills drop really fast which means your billions last much longer)

Really don't blame others for assuming you're at least moderately prepared for a war.

And honestly I don't care if you don't get back up to your old NS strength, going into a war and expecting to not come out hurting is the stupidest thing you can do. But with what should be still available in your warchest you should be able to get back to 4-5k infra before back collecting, which you should be using then to start rebuilding warchests before buying any more infrastructure.

I went 2 rounds with Matt Miller. His warchest was 4.5 by the time I got a sucsessful spy operation and he claims it to be 5.2 at the beginning of the conflict. My allies and I had him below 1000 infra and 1000 land multiple times and he would just continue to purchase Infra/Land in order to maintain his navy/aircraft requirements. I've been in quite a few wars over my 3 years on Bob and it's safe to say he was the toughest nation I've dealt with. It's comparable to fighting 6 wars at once. I lost well over 11k infra.

GG Matt!

[Seerow]

I went 2 rounds with Matt Miller. His warchest was 4.5 by the time I got a sucsessful spy operation and he claims it to be 5.2 at the beginning of the conflict. My allies and I had him below 1000 infra and 1000 land multiple times and he would just continue to purchase Infra/Land in order to maintain his navy/aircraft requirements. I've been in quite a few wars over my 3 years on Bob and it's safe to say he was the toughest nation I've dealt with. It's comparable to fighting 6 wars at once. I lost well over 11k infra.

GG Matt!

I'll believe this. Now any idea how much of his 5.2billion is left? Even rebuying that first 3k infra several times shouldn't drain that much money.

[Duncan King]

In the War of the Coalition, frequently peace negotiations took place without representatives of all the warring alliances available. Some alliances got told later on how much technology had been negotiated on our behalf; typically we signed off on the initial agreement in order to end the pain of the victim alliance. Then some of us went away and decided how much reparations were actually fair.

I'm glad to find out TORN was one of the other alliances that did this.

How you got that from Lartize's obvious popcorn-munching post I am not sure.

This is correct. Zenith entered the war in second wave to help NATO. We didn't ask for reps, we just said we'd agree to anything that would end the war. Once we were aware that we could forgive the reps, we did.

[519 Nigras]

I'll believe this. Now any idea how much of his 5.2billion is left? Even rebuying that first 3k infra several times shouldn't drain that much money.

Guessing well over 3, but closer to 4 billion. He'll be back on top of Bob within 2 months. The thing I noticed about him was his incredible attention to activity. He's ALWAYS online and purchasing whatever was needed to replenish whatever was lost. A personality type like that won't be held back for long.

Edited May 25, 2009 by 519 Nigras

[neneko]

I think IRON is gonna get to pay a total of 30k tech and $1,5bil. Most of it to RoK and the rest to the smaller alliances that fought them.

Am I a reporter yet?

[shahenshah]

Reason has prevailed in IRON's case. The discussion now moves onto TPF, Echelon and NPO.

[Drostan]

Where are you getting the 250 nations? They probably have less then 50 nations that can afford to send out the aid being requested of 18M every 10 days.

I don't think their WCs were that big tbh. Sure some of them were packed, but looking at their 250th nation, they are less then 1000 infra which they need to send out nukes. They also don't have too many nations with a lot of tech.

I think you guys are overestimating what they have. The reason you are doing this is because alliances like MK, Gremlins, TOP are a very different build then IRON. You can probably ask higher reps from our kind of build alliances, but can't do so from alliances like Sparta, IRON, and NPO and still be realistic. I think if Sparta endured a war for 30 days, but kept it's membership, and had very few nations in peace mode (which IRON has done in an attempt to fight fair and honestly) you will have no chance to pay off those kinds of reps. So why are you assuming IRON could?

9 billion is a bit much for IRON, they probably have 50 nations that can put out 18mil every 10 days, and that will take them 20 cycles, that is 200 days. Even if they drop it down to 150 days due to nations getting to 4k infra which is where they need to be to help out effectively, gaining around 2mil a day with good trades set up.

Unless your intention is to destroy the community, such harsh reps seem a bit unfair to me. And lets be honest, Matt can not pay it all himself, and I bet you he is more of the exception rather then the rule in IRON when it comes to a warchest his size.

Yeah, but not only people who can send 18M can send aid... I am sure more than 50 people in IRON can send some form of aid. lol. Anyway, they got much lighter terms than 9B. It's true that doing it in a cycle is not feasible but it is an interesting notion that with 250 banks you could push 9B every 10 days.

[BamaBuc]

Not content with surrendering once, eh Bama? You just have to go to another losing alliance so you can continue to rail against Karma and try to smear them at every opportunity.

Putting preliminary figures out on the public boards is low class, you and everyone else will see the terms when they are signed and posted. $3b/50,000 is considerably less than the damage done by IRON though, so even if that was the figure then it would not be worth the level of vitriol you are producing.

Rail against Karma? No. I like and respect a lot of you (see: your alliance). Rail against opportunists who try to extort my friends? Yes. How dare I?

It's low class to bring dirty backroom dealings public? That's new. As for damages, heaven forbid IRON defend their allies. RoK chose to enter the war. If they weren't prepared to take a beating, they should have sat it out, or at least waited til they were obligated to come in. They chose to enter the war on optional aggression. Nevertheless, I am glad to see that the final figure was consinerably lower than the initial ones. Although it's still ridiculous for the simple reason that IRON has done nothing to RoK. There are alliances who deserve restitution,

RoK is not one of them.

I do want to apologize to Lee for jumping down your throat. I do not regret saying what I said, but I could have said it more respectfully. I was (and am) very angry to see my friends taken advantage of like this, but again, I could have said these things in a respectful manner.

-Bama

[WarriorConcept]

It's low class to bring dirty backroom dealings public? That's old. As for damages, heaven forbid RoK defend their allies. IRON chose to enter the war. If they weren't prepared to take a beating, they should have sat it out, or at least waited til they were obligated to come in.

Fixed it for you

[Mogar]

I think IRON is gonna get to pay a total of 30k tech and $1,5bil. Most of it to RoK and the rest to the smaller alliances that fought them.

Am I a reporter yet?

No, because you didn't post it before they got terms.

[Locke]

I find reps in CN to be as stupid as reps are in real life; Versaille Treaty anyone?

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

No, because you didn't post it before they got terms.

Whats with the marked lack of AMSGs of late? DO your job man.

[neneko]

No, because you didn't post it before they got terms.

I guess none of us are any reporters then.

[BamaBuc]

Fixed it for you

If I see someone wronging my friends in private, I'm gonna make it known. Suit yourself.

RoK entered via optional aggression, IRON by mandatory defense. RoK was justified in doing that, my point is that IRON just defended an ally, while RoK freely chose to enter when they did.

-Bama

[Bob Janova]

Your point is incorrect. SF is an MADP, NPO attacked OV and triggered their MDPs and the MADPs held by those alliances. IRON were backing up NPO's aggression, entering offensively against RoK. Anyway, all that is irrelevant, since there is a longstanding precedent that the winners of war can request reparations even if they attacked offensively.

IRON wronged RoK by attacking them and destroying tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure, and that is quite enough to justify the reps offered.

Edit: Not to mention that IRON and most of the rest of Hegemony was bound by MADP to jump face first into the pit of vipers when NPO did, so they all legally either declared offensively on the whole of Karma or they broke their MADPs.

Edited May 26, 2009 by Bob Janova

[Mogar]

Whats with the marked lack of AMSGs of late? DO your job man.

Not on IRC, attempting to cut down on my total CN time per day for a while.

I guess none of us are any reporters then.

I actually had heard the cash was a bit more than what they finally agreed to, the tech I was correct on, although I expected more of the reps to go somewhere other than to RoK and Teen Titans.