TypoNinja Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 No, they didn't. They got, "Fight us, fight us with your peace mode nations, THEN pay us." No that first fight us would be what happens when ever you go to war, so what I said the first would correct. Fight us, pay us. No, I don't. Simply the massive amounts of reps, would be harsh enough for the NPO. You're listing all of what NPO has done to justify you giving the NPO harsh terms. Is Bob going to make any progress if we have harsh terms after harsh terms? The Karma War is a perfect opportunity for Karma to take some initiative, and show the NPO that not everyone has to be power hungry... Er, people like they were. The math on the reps have been hashed out so many times I can only conclude that you are being wilfully ignorant by claiming that the reparations are huge, or that they would be sufficient on their own. The numbers are large yes, but the alliance they are being levied on is also quite large, I suggest to go back to the OP. Maybe proposing light terms in GWI didn't work for the NPO, as they came right back to the top. But consider, in GWI the NPO didn't get hit as hard during the war as they did in this war. Thats not relevant at all, That was then this is now, the game has changed much since GW1. Also, you seem to be forgetting what an effect the war has already had on the NPO. The NPO's strength dropped by over half DURING the war, and now Karma wants to drag it on for longer? Not fitting in for me. I dearly hope you are not part of the economics group for your alliance. The NPO is hurt yes, but they are hardly down and out. They still have a sanction after all, or did you miss that?. Further Karma is not the one dragging out this war, in case you forgot you were complaining about peace terms offered the NPO. The peace terms are still on the table NPO is the one dragging the war out now, they have terms they can accept right this second, terms far more generous than what they have offered their defeated foes is the past. It is now the NPO dragging out this war, not Karma. The fact the NPO has taken so much damage and is still so large is only a testament to how large they started, not how damaged they are. Funny, I don't seem to remember mentioning infra or tech in my first post. Please explain how you managed to extract that. Really? You sit here whining about peace terms, terms that include their banks fighting (loss of infra and tech) and reparations (cash and tech) If you have no problems with the infra or tech losses coming NPO's way, and the cash is demonstrably merely a token amount, then what exactly are you objecting to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Is it necessary to fight a war to be allowed to express one's opinions on these forums? The point was, I believe, that we see people arguing for leniency on the NPO becuase of the amount of damage they have taken, while everyone overlooks the fact that those of us fighting the NPO also take damage. Wars, especially nuclear wars, are fairly mutually destructive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 The point was, I believe, that we see people arguing for leniency on the NPO becuase of the amount of damage they have taken, while everyone overlooks the fact that those of us fighting the NPO also take damage. Wars, especially nuclear wars, are fairly mutually destructive. Indeed they are. Perhaps you should have followed TOP's example and decided against the first-strike option, if you wished to avoid damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Indeed they are.Perhaps you should have followed TOP's example and decided against the first-strike option, if you wished to avoid damage. Actually VE's policy for nukes is fairly restrictive, we did not toss the first nuke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Indeed they are.Perhaps you should have followed TOP's example and decided against the first-strike option, if you wished to avoid damage. If we weren't attacked four vs. one (all but one of whom were bigger than us in NS and membership) maybe we would have considered it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosterton Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) @ Nofish: Yes, you obviously missed it. It can be found Here. Before you ask, yes, nukes were involved. @TypoNinja: No that first fight us would be what happens when ever you go to war, so what I said the first would correct. Fight us, pay us. Alright, then why is Karma still insisting that NPO fight with peace mode nations? Fighting an extra 14 days would be alright, maybe ensuring that no current war-mode nations switch in to peace mode. But why making peace mode nations switch to war mode? The math on the reps have been hashed out so many times I can only conclude that you are being wilfully ignorant by claiming that the reparations are huge, or that they would be sufficient on their own. The numbers are large yes, but the alliance they are being levied on is also quite large, I suggest to go back to the OP. Sure, I said the reps were large. I never said they were too large, though, did I? Thats not relevant at all, That was then this is now, the game has changed much since GW1. Heh. Well, I was expecting you to use the "light terms didn't work in GWI" argument, but, you didn't, so congrats. The NPO is hurt yes, but they are hardly down and out. What, we're trying to completely destroy the NPO? I thought this was a war to liberate the Cyberverse. The way I see it, the NPO has been kicked out of it's threatening, all mighty position, so that means mission complete. Unless the purpose of the war was revenge on the NPO, then that doesn't make you much better than them - waging war for revenge's sake. They still have a sanction after all, or did you miss that? I did not miss that. But a sanction means little when all the alliances who are now ahead of you are at war with you. Or, when you're at war with pretty much the entire world, and have about 3 allies. Further Karma is not the one dragging out this war, in case you forgot you were complaining about peace terms offered the NPO. The peace terms are still on the table NPO is the one dragging the war out now, they have terms they can accept right this second, terms far more generous than what they have offered their defeated foes is the past. It is now the NPO dragging out this war, not Karma. The fact the NPO has taken so much damage and is still so large is only a testament to how large they started, not how damaged they are. You missed the point. Karma was dragging out the war by insisting on an extra 14 days of war as part of the surrender terms. So technically, even if NPO accepts the terms at this second, the war will still be dragged out for another 14 days because of Karma's surrender terms. Really? You sit here whining about peace terms, terms that include their banks fighting (loss of infra and tech) and reparations (cash and tech) If you have no problems with the infra or tech losses coming NPO's way, and the cash is demonstrably merely a token amount, then what exactly are you objecting to? I wasn't whining about the reparations, I just said they were large. Also, any nation fighting is bound to lose some infra/tech/land. In case you didn't notice, not only banks have the previously mentioned resources. It's simply stupid that the banks would have to fight, since they themselves haven't fought against Karma, and have only helped support their alliance through tough times - is that a crime? Edited June 27, 2009 by Roosterton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 Indefinite tribute *chuckles* Really. We put "indefinite" tribute in a peace agreement? I must have missed that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) *chuckles*Really. We put "indefinite" tribute in a peace agreement? I must have missed that one. Actually it was indefinite everything. The wiki calls it purplegate, check the link for moo's post on terms. If you are going to be a public face for your alliance you might want to read up a little on your own history, it helps prevent foot in mouth disease. Edited June 27, 2009 by TypoNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melchior Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 *chuckles*Really. We put "indefinite" tribute in a peace agreement? I must have missed that one. I would usually have expected you to know what you were talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 I'm well aware of those terms. There was no "tribute" "indefinitely." The Viceroy was "indefinite" but did not include "indefinite tribute." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 27, 2009 Report Share Posted June 27, 2009 (edited) I'm well aware of those terms. There was no "tribute" "indefinitely." The Viceroy was "indefinite" but did not include "indefinite tribute." You can read can't you? 4. In recognition of the harm caused by aforementioned hostile actions, the Legion shall make monthly compensatory payments at a rate in keeping with the capability of the alliance to provide said payment. Ability and logistics of payment will be determined and overseen by an Imperial Economic Advisor provided by the Pacific Bank, who will work with the Viceroy to ensure timely and adequate payment. 6. These terms shall remain in effect indefinitely, at the discretion of the New Pacific Order, Valhalla, and the Phoenix Federation. Also, what the hell with the quotes? You do know what quotes are for right? Edited June 28, 2009 by TypoNinja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 @ Nofish:Yes, you obviously missed it. It can be found Here. Before you ask, yes, nukes were involved. My mistake, sorry. 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.