Azaghul Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 You haven't convinced them it'll only be a couple weeks of war. Using words like "probably" do not help. No I think they know that those fighting intend to give them peace. They are just lying and pretending otherwise in the hopes that by crying about it they can get this dropped and get out of the war with half their upper ranks intact. If they get away with it, expect an essay by Vladimir within a year about how their awesome propagandists and diplomats won them that victory. Fortunately it's highly unlikely that those fighting them are gonna go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Srqt Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Not that I have the slightest idea what I am talking about but there is an agreed upon number and it is far from unreasonable. So everyone can stop the "ZOMG Karma is ebil because they are keeping their peace terms secret" bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forsberg1785 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 The point to these terms is we know the banking prowess of NPO and if all their top nations sit untouched they can rebuild and be back on top in a few months at the most. This is unacceptable and will have made the war a waste. We remember the first Great War very well. So, the 2 solutions to this problem are: 1) Beat down those higher nations so they can't fund a rebuilding effort immediately. 2) Give them ridiculous terms so they can't fund a rebuilding effort immediately. Since option 1 has been taken away from us we have been forced into option 2. We did not make this choice they made it for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafael Nadal Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 GOD- Nothing paod to NPOFOK- Nothing Paid to NPO, took their share in wars alongside NPO R&R- Nothing to NPO The International- Nothing to NPO MOON- Nothing to NPO Dice- Nothing to NPO Vanguard- Nothing to NPO RAD- Nothing to NPO Sparta- Nothing to NPO but claimed some money as NPO's partners RoK- Nothing to NPO but claimed mopney as NPO partners GR- Can't find where this GR paid anything to NPO OV- OV was the actual victim of this war we'll hook them up 1 bil and 20k Tech VE- Nothing to NPO but claimed money as NPO partners Athens- 8000k tech- We'll give them all of that back with interest so 500 mil 18k tech to Athens Avalanche- Can't find anything that says they've paid anything to NPO either Two of these alliances have legitimate claims to reps by past or current wrongdoings by NPO. So 12 alliances we give them 500 mil and 10k tech for their troubles in defending OV. 7.5 billion 158k tech if you want to be fair to the alliances actually fighting NPO. I wouldn't argue OV getting more but no one else. If any of these alliances plan on asking for reps for what NPO has done to other alliances outside of this front then I would hope they make sure those reps get to the people who deserve it and don't pocket it themselves. That would be disgusting beyond words. From the last set of terms actually written down in one place (admittedly could be slightly out of date, though it shouldn't be grossly) your estimation is quite high. Theoretically though, the total figure could get there if NPO does not comply with the peace mode terms. As far as objectives, I'll give you a main theme: Pacifica's top tier nations, many of which still have billions of dollars in warchests (we've done loads of spy operations, we know warchest sizes), and many of which have completely avoided entering the fray in the war. There is a common feeling that these top nations have not been damaged enough, if at all, for us to feel Pacifica as a whole have been damaged enough. We're not looking to ZI them all. We are, however, looking to put them through a few rounds of war, 2-3 most likely, just to ensure they actually receive some damage. If they come out of peace mode now, and take their 2-3 rounds of wars, peace can be achieved relatively soon (as opposed to if NPO continues to not comply with the peace mode terms) and NPO can get on with rebuilding and paying their comparatively light terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Flinders Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 This will make for an interesting read.Though NPO will never pay those reps. And then when they don't they'll claim they won the war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 The point to these terms is we know the banking prowess of NPO and if all their top nations sit untouched they can rebuild and be back on top in a few months at the most. This is unacceptable and will have made the war a waste. We remember the first Great War very well. So, the 2 solutions to this problem are:1) Beat down those higher nations so they can't fund a rebuilding effort immediately. 2) Give them ridiculous terms so they can't fund a rebuilding effort immediately. Since option 1 has been taken away from us we have been forced into option 2. We did not make this choice they made it for us. You know how far assisted growth can get nations? 4-5k infra, at most. After that, you could fill aid slots with 3mil 50 tech for months and not significantly help in a nation's growth. You may delay their rebuilding for a month...maybe. What consistently fails to be recognized by some here is the utter destruction caused when you take nations from 7-8k infra and higher down to 1-2k infra. Foreign aid is not a bandaid for alliance regrowth, and it certainly will not propel NPO to the level they previously were at. To achieve the levels of tech and infra previously achieved will take many, many months. However, after watching other alliances successfully do it, I would not be surprised if we begin seeing more and more nations sitting at or around 4,999 infra for a long long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forsberg1785 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 GOD- Nothing paod to NPOFOK- Nothing Paid to NPO, took their share in wars alongside NPO R&R- Nothing to NPO The International- Nothing to NPO MOON- Nothing to NPO Dice- Nothing to NPO Vanguard- Nothing to NPO RAD- Nothing to NPO Sparta- Nothing to NPO but claimed some money as NPO's partners RoK- Nothing to NPO but claimed mopney as NPO partners GR- Can't find where this GR paid anything to NPO OV- OV was the actual victim of this war we'll hook them up 1 bil and 20k Tech VE- Nothing to NPO but claimed money as NPO partners Athens- 8000k tech- We'll give them all of that back with interest so 500 mil 18k tech to Athens Avalanche- Can't find anything that says they've paid anything to NPO either Two of these alliances have legitimate claims to reps by past or current wrongdoings by NPO. So 12 alliances we give them 500 mil and 10k tech for their troubles in defending OV. 7.5 billion 158k tech if you want to be fair to the alliances actually fighting NPO. I wouldn't argue OV getting more but no one else. If any of these alliances plan on asking for reps for what NPO has done to other alliances outside of this front then I would hope they make sure those reps get to the people who deserve it and don't pocket it themselves. That would be disgusting beyond words. VE claimed money as an NPO partner. Only to later be stabbed squarely in the back and trampled. We didn't pay reps we were destroyed. You seem to skip over that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 After the noCB war I had 1600 infra but also 8 eco wonders, all the eco improvements, and 25 million left over (60 minus 35 mill used to buy a wonder right after the war ended) and with 30 million in aid I was at 4999 infra and banking on our third cycle. That was common within MK. The Mushroom Kingdom was at war for 13 days in that war. The New Pacific Order has been at war for a month and 7 days, so far. Do you really think their warchests are holding out just as well as yours did? No one on our front will be keeping people in perpetual war if we can help it, so if thats what you personally feel they deserve its not our problem. However, if you would like I can compile a list of all of the terms NPO has handed out to previous alliances, and the comparitive size of those alliances who recieved them, and maybe if I can get my hands on it we can tabulate the damage caused to the nations who they attacked for flying their god damn in game flag, how about that?Oh wait, thats impossible. Terms are not eternal war, and there will be no eternal war, so tell me again why its taboo to address what they deserve? You danced around my question the first time and made two unrelated points. Huh? I think you just made my point for me. What I'm trying to say is that it's pointless to get into what one alliance "deserves" because there aren't any angels. You're not one, I'm not one; and when you do start trying to use war as a means of making things right, you'll find it's a terrible tool for the job. No I think they know that those fighting intend to give them peace. They are just lying and pretending otherwise in the hopes that by crying about it they can get this dropped and get out of the war with half their upper ranks intact. More likely, they think you're bluffing about the peace mode terms. They're trying to call the bluff by forcing the penalty up to a ludicrous level. At least that's my impression. Either that, or they just intend to wait until keeping them at war becomes politically untenable for one reason or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mpol777 Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm no NPO supporter *shock*, but I have to say the 'ole "come out of peace mode" line is stale and the fact you're dealing with the very folks that invented it should be reason enough to conclude they know what happens next and thus will not be coming out of peace mode. If the goal is to get those nations out of peace mode, demanding they come out of peace mode or face penalty isn't the best way to go about things in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 From the last set of terms actually written down in one place (admittedly could be slightly out of date, though it shouldn't be grossly) your estimation is quite high. Theoretically though, the total figure could get there if NPO does not comply with the peace mode terms.As far as objectives, I'll give you a main theme: Pacifica's top tier nations, many of which still have billions of dollars in warchests (we've done loads of spy operations, we know warchest sizes), and many of which have completely avoided entering the fray in the war. There is a common feeling that these top nations have not been damaged enough, if at all, for us to feel Pacifica as a whole have been damaged enough. We're not looking to ZI them all. We are, however, looking to put them through a few rounds of war, 2-3 most likely, just to ensure they actually receive some damage. If they come out of peace mode now, and take their 2-3 rounds of wars, peace can be achieved relatively soon (as opposed to if NPO continues to not comply with the peace mode terms) and NPO can get on with rebuilding and paying their comparatively light terms. Well, that's good then. So you're using the same theme on NPO as NPO did opn FAN then? I see. Well good luck with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm no NPO supporter *shock*, but I have to say the 'ole "come out of peace mode" line is stale and the fact you're dealing with the very folks that invented it should be reason enough to conclude they know what happens next and thus will not be coming out of peace mode. If the goal is to get those nations out of peace mode, demanding they come out of peace mode or face penalty isn't the best way to go about things in my opinion. Gosh I wish I could talk like you. Perfectly stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael McBride Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm no NPO supporter *shock*, but I have to say the 'ole "come out of peace mode" line is stale and the fact you're dealing with the very folks that invented it should be reason enough to conclude they know what happens next and thus will not be coming out of peace mode. If the goal is to get those nations out of peace mode, demanding they come out of peace mode or face penalty isn't the best way to go about things in my opinion. Your signature should read as follows: Initiative - 0 Continuum - 0 Karma - 0 Jesus - 1 Mpol - 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Wilson Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I'm no NPO supporter *shock*, but I have to say the 'ole "come out of peace mode" line is stale and the fact you're dealing with the very folks that invented it should be reason enough to conclude they know what happens next and thus will not be coming out of peace mode. If the goal is to get those nations out of peace mode, demanding they come out of peace mode or face penalty isn't the best way to go about things in my opinion. Then we make them pay dearly for it in financial terms. And hai mpol...nice to quote you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penguin Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 It seems like Karma is sending mixed messages. On the one hand, given that NPO has no intention of complying with your peace mode terms and nothing you can say will change that, these reps will quickly become unrealistically expensive. On the other hand, you cannot read three posts on these forums without someone from Karma assuring us that this is not an eternal war. If I were them, I would be thinking that the frequency of comments like those demonstrate a lack of will to maintain an eternal war. What will you do in a month when the figure at the top of the screen is 500k tech and 15 billion cash? Will you be able to commit to an eternal war or will you lighten the terms to make them plausible again? This strategy seems doomed to fail if you cannot convince NPO that you are perfectly happy fighting them forever. From the looks of things, you haven't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anenu Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 To all those that claim that this is either hypocritical or unfair remember that NPO was given 5 days to move their nations out of peace and that NPO's previous policy on peace mode nations in war time was to threaten them with ZI something no karma alliance ever suggested. So NPO neither had to pay these reps if they didn't want to and they weren't threatened with the same consequences that they have threatened others with before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londo Mollari Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) Athens- 8000k tech- We'll give them all of that back with interest so 500 mil 18k tech to Athens7.5 billion 158k tech if you want to be fair to the alliances actually fighting NPO. WHEEEE we get 8 million tech. I'd estimate that your reps guess is within 30% of the actual figure that will be asked, before this add on stuff. Note that I couldn't give an exact amount even if I wanted to, since not all alliances fighting NPO have weighed in on the question of reps. 10 days of remaining in peace mode will double the overall amount of tech in your estimate and increase the money by 60% or so, and 15-20 days from today will cause the total amount of tech reparations asked to be equal/close to the entire technology stockpile of NPO. So, either: 1) NPO comes out of peacemode and fights now, and we wrap up the war with heavy but manageable reps. This is NOT going to happen, from what we have seen of NPO's response to our ultimatum. In my opinion, this option would be best for both Karma and NPO, but of course NPO doesn't know this because they haven't seen our terms. 2) The amount of reps to be paid (and duration of timed peace terms) increases to an extremely harsh level, and NPO is offered terms. I'd look for this to happen eventually. NPO might or might not take the terms, rejection of the terms would lead to situation #3. 3) NPO chooses not to come out of peacemode for months and/or rejects any terms the NPO front gives it in hopes that we somehow fall apart. This is essentially a FAN-style situation. Both parties have extremely high resolve, and the NPO's getting peace would be dependent on Karma falling apart/being attacked by a substantial outside force. I don't see this happening for many many months or even years, and I see this as only pulling the people on the NPO front together more in the postwar the longer it goes on. NPO membership levels would continue to fall over time, probably settling out somewhere around 200 members within the next 6 months but always slowly declining. This is the worst option for NPO. Edited May 28, 2009 by Londo Mollari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Huh?I think you just made my point for me. What I'm trying to say is that it's pointless to get into what one alliance "deserves" because there aren't any angels. You're not one, I'm not one; and when you do start trying to use war as a means of making things right, you'll find it's a terrible tool for the job. Where were you makeing this point for your entire CN carrear before now? (not on topic, but still would like to know the answer) You still don't seem to be getting it. I did not make any point for you, and you still did not answer my question. It has become a predominant attitude on these forums to express outrage whenever past actions are mentioned in regards to surrender terms. Why is this? Most of those who are expressing said outrage at basing terms on past actions are the same people who have given terms (or eternal war, etc) based on the past (supposed) actions of the alliances who were at the receiving end of a curb stomp. Therefore, I just cant wrap my head around why someone would attempt to intelligently support such a stance. No one is an angel, no one is trying to be an angel, but some of us are trying to do whats right. The area of debate however, seems to be what exactly "what's right" is in this situation, and thats where I believe the motives behind your comments come in. To be clear, your saying that to consider NPO's past actions, as well as any sort of comparative monetary reparations, when giving them terms is "wrong"? If your answer to this question is yes, then please provide an answer to why you think that, and with a bit more detail and reasoning then the vague lofty sentiment you expressed above. (Hope thats a bit clearer, thanks.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 The Mushroom Kingdom was at war for 13 days in that war.The New Pacific Order has been at war for a month and 7 days, so far. Do you really think their warchests are holding out just as well as yours did? If the nations come out and get attacked, they won't have been at war for that entire period. Warchests during that war were smaller than they are now. On my nation during that war I spent on average around 15 million a day against 6 opponents, or 120 mill per round. Fighting 3 opponents when near ZI it was just 7 mill a day, which would have been about 60 mill per round. I didn't have a WRC or maintain a navy (which hurt on losing more aircraft which I attacked with every day) but the point it still stands. It can take months for a nation with a billion dollars+ to run out of money. They only need a fraction of it (100 mill or so to instantly rebuild into the mid ranks. More likely, they think you're bluffing about the peace mode terms. They're trying to call the bluff by forcing the penalty up to a ludicrous level.At least that's my impression. Either that, or they just intend to wait until keeping them at war becomes politically untenable for one reason or another. They'll be waiting a long time, time which they could have used rebuilding rather than having their nations rotting in peace mode or still getting pounding. I'm no NPO supporter *shock*, but I have to say the 'ole "come out of peace mode" line is stale and the fact you're dealing with the very folks that invented it should be reason enough to conclude they know what happens next and thus will not be coming out of peace mode. If the goal is to get those nations out of peace mode, demanding they come out of peace mode or face penalty isn't the best way to go about things in my opinion. What is the best way to go about doing things? I'd honestly like to know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heft Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 There is a reason that the hegemony never tried using "pre-terms" like this before, at least not explicitly. Saying "If you don't come out then peace will be worse" or "peace mode nations will get extra war" or whatever are actually workable solutions to the problem, if you perceive it as such. However, it is rather obvious that this will lead to some utterly ridiculous amount of additional reps that no one would ever actually try and take from anyone and which no alliance would ever accept. So you either have to cut back on it, ignore it completely, or continue fighting unto perpetuity. The last isn't likely to happen, so it's one of the first two. Couple that with the lack of concrete terms to start from, and you're left with this threat meaning absolutely nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Izuzu Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Terms are not eternal war, and there will be no eternal war, so tell me again why its taboo to address what they deserve? You danced around my question the first time and made two unrelated points. I try to remain objective, but I admit that anything I say with regard to this issue should be perceived to be self-serving, regardless of my best efforts to the contrary. That being said, I believe the issue is what does NPO deserve to pay in reps for this war? As others have previously stated, very few alliances have clean hands. I admit that the beams in NPO's eyes may very well be larger than those residing in other's, but nonetheless those others have beams lodged securely in their own eyes. If you live in a glass house, it remains a glass house whether or not you paint it so that it is opaque. NPO's house may be the size of a mansion and other's only condominiums, but the building material is the same in many, many cases. It amuses me greatly to see people who have lived in sin in the past suddenly spout fire and brimstone now that they have (supposedly) found the Lord. If we are talking about what NPO deserves for this war, then I see only a few alliances that deserve reps at all: OV, VE, GOD, Vanguard and GUN. That is it. They are only the alliances that can claim to have entered the war in defensive fashion. NPO has not declared on anyone except OV and only the named alliances have defense pacts with OV and declared in its defense. The others are all aggressive declarations and I personally do not believe that alliances that declare aggressively should be entitled to reps. So, as far I am concerned, Sparta, FOK, RoK, Athens, et al. are entitled to nothing. Needless to say, this is just my personal view based on my own code of ethics and obviously I do not speak for NPO as a whole. Carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpiderJerusalem Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) I feel that I really want to say a few things here. And therefore, I will. First I want to address the OP and the whole issue of "peace mode reps". They are ridiculous. The fact that people I respect greatly have come forward with such a threat / term is just plain wrong. I agree that we need to get NPO out of peace mode. I certainly think that you are in a position that you've dreamed of being in for a long time, and I genuinely believe that you think this is the way to go. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" A better way to get what you want might have been that you first negotiate peace terms and then set up one of, some of or all of the following clauses: The war ends when no NPO nations are above a certain NS The war ends when all NPO nations have been out of peace mode for one week straight The war ends when NPO have reached a certain score or total NS The war ends when all NPO IOs / officials have reached ZI etc, etc, etc. This way, we won't get stacking terms that just end up being a joke, NPO will have an incentive to get out of peace mode, and a binding agreement will ensure that they won't be trampled forever, giving them an extra safety. The second point I want to voice my opinion on is the way people are baaawwwing when terms are brought up at all. No, it is not hypocritical to give NPO harsh terms because of this war. This is something they brought on themselves and they most certainly deserve it. It is hypocritical however to be as greedy as some of you seem to be. Monetary reps are not the only way to penalize them. Yes, of course OV deserves a massive amount of monetary aid. Yes of course you should get minor compensations for entering this war. The issue here however is not to gain from this, but to make it hard for such a hegemony to arise once more. Here are some ideas I've seen tossed around and some I've come to think of myself: No NPO nation get to use his / her aidslots for a given time (except for paying reps) All factories and / or labour camps must be destroyed for a given time No NPO nation can have more than a set amount of infra in a given time period(e.g, no NPO nation can be more than 6000 infra in the next 6 months) NPO must give up the moldavi and / or the revenge doctrines No NPO nation can buy a national wonder for the next 6 months etc, etc, etc. These will certainly accomplish the long term goal in a much better way, and it wouldn't make you sink to their level The third point I want to take a look at is magicninja. Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim Seriously, put a sock in it Edited May 28, 2009 by SpiderJerusalem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Impero Romano Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I try to remain objective, but I admit that anything I say with regard to this issue should be perceived to be self-serving, regardless of my best efforts to the contrary. That being said, I believe the issue is what does NPO deserve to pay in reps for this war? As others have previously stated, very few alliances have clean hands. I admit that the beams in NPO's eyes may very well be larger than those residing in other's, but nonetheless those others have beams lodged securely in their own eyes. If you live in a glass house, it remains a glass house whether or not you paint it so that it is opaque. NPO's house may be the size of a mansion and other's only condominiums, but the building material is the same in many, many cases. It amuses me greatly to see people who have lived in sin in the past suddenly spout fire and brimstone now that they have (supposedly) found the Lord.If we are talking about what NPO deserves for this war, then I see only a few alliances that deserve reps at all: OV, VE, GOD, Vanguard and GUN. That is it. They are only the alliances that can claim to have entered the war in defensive fashion. NPO has not declared on anyone except OV and only the named alliances have defense pacts with OV and declared in its defense. The others are all aggressive declarations and I personally do not believe that alliances that declare aggressively should be entitled to reps. So, as far I am concerned, Sparta, FOK, RoK, Athens, et al. are entitled to nothing. Needless to say, this is just my personal view based on my own code of ethics and obviously I do not speak for NPO as a whole. Carry on. lol Now, see, you did the same thing the other guy did...only a little bit worse. You did not answer the question, but in fact made a whole new question and answered it yourself. However, take a second try and give the original one a shot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirMe Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Why not just post these secret terms from the secret forum mentioned earlier. We all know they will be probably the biggest ever, why not just post them? Has the NPO ever made the secret terms they made Polar accept public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 With the exception of MCXA, it was exclusively Karma alliances that attacked the NpO and demanded reparations from them.[1] "On August 14th, a coalition consisting of MCXA, TOP, Grämlins, Umbrella, FOK!, RnR, and FARK declared war on NpO" [2] NpO surrender terms. For the record, the Order has already rejected these terms outright, so all this discussion is academic. At this point it is no more than an excuse to continue attacks into eternity (which, in my opinion, given the manner in which these 'pre-terms' are presented, is their purpose). You were given an option. You rejected the terns. How is this Karmas fault again ? Given the size of NPO and supposed skill of NPOs banking team these reps aren't that harsh. I taught NPO could move BILLIONS each aid cycle ? To all who object to giving NPO harsh terms I present to you GW1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Has the NPO ever made the secret terms they made Polar accept public? But we're supposed to be different! 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.