New Pacific Order Reps Race

[Heft]

How many times do I have to discuss the numbers and how they aren't absurd? I've already done so several times and if you want to make a credible statement to the contrary you need to back it up rather than using the Vladimirian tactic of just repeating it without backing it up or addressing arguments that have debunked it. As the person who coordinated MK's massive reps paying operation, I know what I'm talking about.

If NPO wants to lose those months while many of their nations get pounded and others rot in peace mode, that's their choice. All alliances at war have a choice to keep on fighting indefinitely, that's nothing new, unique, or a failing of Karma.

By your logic, NPO's old attempts to prevent the enemy from using nuclear weapons was equally absurd and also failed spectacularly in the noCB war.

Well it certainly didn't save NPO from getting massively nuked, as I recall.

A conservative estimate based off of this OP tells me that at a minimum 3billion, and perhaps closer to 3.5 or 4, will be added to this tally every round/week, along with 105,000 tech, and on top of 14 extra days of terms. So in about 5 weeks NPO will owe about as much tech as they currently have, without factoring in what the actual terms will be, or how much tech they will lose from fighting. They would also owe somewhere between 15 and 20 Billion in reps, again without factoring in actual terms. They will have relatively few nations actually capable of paying off the money terms in any useful amount of time, and you will be essentially liquidating all of their tech. You will also be doing so without any actual terms or actual peace agreement. Now, I don't know if NPO could replicate what FAN did, but five weeks wouldn't really be that hard.

Except they haven't been manipulated.

How do these not induce cooperation? NPO is intentionally defying it because they think they can get it dropped. If that fails (as it will) they'll be in a worse situation than if they had just exited peace mode and fought the war to a close now. If anything, Karma just gave NPO a chance to screw itself over and dig its hole deeper and NPO in its arrogance jumped right in.

They don't induce cooperation because.....I don't really understand why I have to explain this to people who I know are intelligent, rational people.

You haven't given or offered them a single thing. You have assigned an arbitrary punishment. It seems unlikely that you will be able to actually follow through on this abritrary punishment, which more or less invalidates the entire thing and grants them license to simply ignore it. The longer they ignore it, the more difficult it is for you to enforce it, and the more you stand to lose, and the more they stand to gain.

If they comply with these pre-terms, then there is a very obvious and very direct loss for them. They lose whatever remaining tactical ability they had, and they also lose the one remaining tool they have to keep some control over the situation. If they do not comply, then their situation really doesn't change much. The reps may or may not be harsher than before, but they have no real way of knowing since they didn't know what they were before to start with, and no one knows for sure what will actually happen with these pre-terms.

Put the two together, and they gain more by flagrantly disobeying these pre-terms than by obeying. Thus, these pre-terms do not induce cooperation.

[enderland]

If you follow that line of logic Heft, the NPO probably should never surrender ever, since they don't know that the alliances they surrender too won't pull a "FAN 2,0" and attack during surrender terms.

[KingEsus]

....

Erm. HYPOCRITE?

Crikey, i didn't think I'd have to spell it out that clearly...

[Il Impero Romano]

Give me an H... give me a Y.... give me a P ... etc etc.

First, it makes absolutely no sense to call me a hypocrite for that quote, your just simply saying the word because you think it sounds good. However, I invite you to explain where you see hypocrisy in my quoted statement.

Second, are you aware of how your alliance has conducted itself in warfare in the past?

Edited May 29, 2009 by Il Impero Romano

[enderland]

Erm. HYPOCRITE?

Crikey, i didn't think I'd have to spell it out that clearly...

When you quote something that has nothing to do with hypocrisy then yes, you do have to spell it out.

Unless you are now to the "ignore counter arguments" stage of discussion in which case your oversight was completely understandable as there then is no need to rationally explain one's statements.

[KingEsus]

First, it makes absolutely no sense to call me a hypocrite for that quote, your just simply saying the word because you think it sounds good. However, I invite you to explain where you see hypocrisy in my quoted statement.

Second, are you aware of how your alliance has conducted itself in warfare in the past?

Actually i prefer words with lots of syllables in them. Like banana and tangible.

It was a general statement, not directed at individuals.

You really miss NPO posting don't you... I have never been quoted so often.

Goodbye.

[Il Impero Romano]

Actually i prefer words with lots of syllables in them. Like banana and tangible.

It was a general statement, not directed at individuals.

You really miss NPO posting don't you... I have never been quoted so often.

Goodbye.

If it was just a general statement then I suggest you remove my quote from your post, or else people will get the wrong idea about your ability to grasp simple situations.

Also, please answer my second question.

[enderland]

Unless you are now to the "ignore counter arguments" stage of discussion in which case your oversight was completely understandable as there then is no need to rationally explain one's statements.

Actually i prefer words with lots of syllables in them. Like banana and tangible.

It was a general statement, not directed at individuals.

You really miss NPO posting don't you... I have never been quoted so often.

Goodbye.

Looks like that clarifies a few things

[Heft]

If you follow that line of logic Heft, the NPO probably should never surrender ever, since they don't know that the alliances they surrender too won't pull a "FAN 2,0" and attack during surrender terms.

There is a reasonable expectation that when the war ends, the war will actually end. There is also a reasonable expectation that once the war ends Karma will become too dispersed and involved in its own issues to turn around and "SUPRISE!" attack NPO again, at least anytime soon. There is no reasonable expectation that complying with these terms will provide a better outcome than not complying.

I'm pretty that's like the 5th way I've tried to explain this now.

[enderland]

There is a reasonable expectation that when the war ends, the war will actually end. There is also a reasonable expectation that once the war ends Karma will become too dispersed and involved in its own issues to turn around and "SUPRISE!" attack NPO again, at least anytime soon. There is no reasonable expectation that complying with these terms will provide a better outcome than not complying.

But there is a very reasonable expectation that not complying with these terms will result in a far worse outcome than complying.

[Il Impero Romano]

There is a reasonable expectation that when the war ends, the war will actually end. There is also a reasonable expectation that once the war ends Karma will become too dispersed and involved in its own issues to turn around and "SUPRISE!" attack NPO again, at least anytime soon. There is no reasonable expectation that complying with these terms will provide a better outcome than not complying.

I'm pretty that's like the 5th way I've tried to explain this now.

I believe some are having a hard time agreeing with your assessment because your points are a matter of personal opinion and not indisputable fact. For example, I can firmly say that when this war ends, it will actually end. I can also say that your second point is moot as no one is intending on "SURPRISE!" attacking NPO for no apparent reason. If however there is a viable necessity to engage them, I am beyond confident that those on the NPO front will be more then prepared. Finally, there is a reasonable expectation to believe that complying with these terms would provide a better outcome then not complying, as there was a five day period where there would have been no monetary penalty. For my opinion on the "well they will just go Viet-FAN" retort, you can look back a few pages.

In the end though, its opinion based on viewpoint.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Il Impero Romano

[Haflinger]

I'm speaking long term - many weeks if not months of this going on.

Roughly 450M a day and 15k tech or so per day.

In a month that is about 14 billion and 450k tech. Not impossible to pay off by any means, but still a hefty sum, especially for an alliance that for most of its life has never had to coordinate large amounts of money and tech moving (*inb4TheVauntedPacificanBankWillSaveTheDay*).

And in six months, it's about 84 billion dollars and 2.7 million tech.

Assuming they don't get even more of their nations in peace mode, which is exactly what they're doing now.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Haflinger

[Azaghul]

Well it certainly didn't save NPO from getting massively nuked, as I recall.

A conservative estimate based off of this OP tells me that at a minimum 3billion, and perhaps closer to 3.5 or 4, will be added to this tally every round/week, along with 105,000 tech, and on top of 14 extra days of terms. So in about 5 weeks NPO will owe about as much tech as they currently have, without factoring in what the actual terms will be, or how much tech they will lose from fighting. They would also owe somewhere between 15 and 20 Billion in reps, again without factoring in actual terms. They will have relatively few nations actually capable of paying off the money terms in any useful amount of time, and you will be essentially liquidating all of their tech. You will also be doing so without any actual terms or actual peace agreement. Now, I don't know if NPO could replicate what FAN did, but five weeks wouldn't really be that hard.

Athens had to give away nearly it's total in tech for a war that lasted less than two weeks.

If done right, reps don't come away from those stockpiles completely. About 80-90% of the tech MK sent in reps was created as it was sent, and we sent away reps equal to approximately 50% of our tech on hand.

I'd also point out that even if their bank nations are ZI'd, they'll have left over warchests, economic improvements, and wonders that will either get them back to banking range (4K infra+) instantly or within a month or two. They probably have 100-200 nations or more with the capacity to do that within a month and even more over time. 200 nations with DRAs could produce 3.6 billion and/or 60,000 tech every ten days. You don't need to have a huge amount of infra to be able to send money and/or tech all slots.

Or NPO could come out now, fight for a few weeks, get mid level terms, and then start rebuilding. Even if it does happen that Karma dropped the numbers because they got so large, their terms would still likely be harsher and not come before their nations had left peace mode and fought all the same. They really have nothing to gain by this unless they get terms with all those nations unfought.

They don't induce cooperation because.....I don't really understand why I have to explain this to people who I know are intelligent, rational people.

You haven't given or offered them a single thing. You have assigned an arbitrary punishment.

Actually we (I'll start using "we" even though I'm not technically at war with them) have, through through negative punishments. The chance for peace in the foreseeable future, or continued war with increased reps once they do relent. Or the choice that all alliances have in their situation, never accepting terms and permanent war.

It seems unlikely that you will be able to actually follow through on this abritrary punishment, which more or less invalidates the entire thing and grants them license to simply ignore it. The longer they ignore it, the more difficult it is for you to enforce it, and the more you stand to lose, and the more they stand to gain.

So if they stay in peace mode and it gets to the point where that particular term is dropped or reduced, what do they stand to gain? A shallow political victory, but at the cost of months of war of stagnant growth for those in peace mode and continued beatings for those in war mode.

I have contacts and have an idea of what the base terms will be, and they could be added to and still not be that high. Even if this isn't stuck to the letter and just reduced, it will most likely end in an increase in the reps they will pay on top of the months they wasted that could have been spent rebuilding. They have more to lose from the war continuing than their opponents, otherwise they wouldn't be seeking peace at all. Without growing they will lose relative strength: peace mode in the long term is very harmful. Time is money.

If they comply with these pre-terms, then there is a very obvious and very direct loss for them. They lose whatever remaining tactical ability they had, and they also lose the one remaining tool they have to keep some control over the situation. If they do not comply, then their situation really doesn't change much.

That tactical ability means just as much now if it's used now than it will mean later. Their is little they can do with that control so it is relatively meaningless.

The reps may or may not be harsher than before, but they have no real way of knowing since they didn't know what they were before to start with, and no one knows for sure what will actually happen with these pre-terms.

They have no way of being certain, but that doesn't preclude the point that some events are far more likely to happen than others and that knowledge can reasonably be used as a basis for action.

If X + Y = Z, X is the base terms, Y is the peace mode penalty, and Z is total reps, you don't need to know X to know that Z will increase if Y increases. Nor does it make the equation irrelevant, it just means you can't complete it yet.

[Penguin]

You could have made medium-sized, fixed-cost peace-mode "pre-terms" and NPO would still have refused them. Instead, these pre-terms will rise as NPO's ability to pay them falls. Had you given them fixed pre-terms like "all nations need to fight for at least two war cycles before peace terms will be negotiated", I imagine NPO would still have refused. However, fixed-cost terms would be easier to justify to an increasingly sympathetic public and an increasingly bored coalition even six months to a year from now. Instead, you offered uncapped terms and will be required to justify an ever increasing cost or else reverse your rhetoric on holding alliances in eternal wars. At some point the pre-terms will become too high to convince the public that NPO deserves to pay them and you'll be forced to present a more publicly acceptable number.

If I understand the situation correctly, you should want to bid just over the value that NPO would be willing to pay to maximize the amount of time your policy can be supported by the public and the Karma coalition without increasing the likelihood that NPO accepts light enough terms to come out of the war in a position to get revenge. I think this was an overbid, but time will tell us all.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Penguin

[Azaghul]

You could have made medium-sized, fixed-cost peace-mode "pre-terms" and NPO would still have refused them. Instead, these pre-terms will rise as NPO's ability to pay them falls. Had you given them fixed pre-terms like "all nations need to fight for at least two war cycles before peace terms will be negotiated", I imagine NPO would still have refused. However, fixed-cost terms would be easier to justify to an increasingly sympathetic public and an increasingly bored coalition even six months to a year from now. Instead, you offered uncapped terms and will be required to justify an ever increasing cost or else reverse your rhetoric on holding alliances in eternal wars. At some point the pre-terms will become too high to convince the public that NPO deserves to pay them and you'll be forced to present a more publicly acceptable number.

If I understand the situation correctly, you should want to bid just over the value that NPO would be willing to pay to maximize the amount of time your policy can be supported by the public and the Karma coalition without increasing the likelihood that NPO accepts light enough terms to come out of the war in a position to get revenge. I think this was an overbid, but time will tell us all.

What NPO can or is willing to pay is not necessarily the same as what they will say they can or are willing to pay. Especially right now, they obviously would like to pay less than the max and this propaganda effort here is part of that.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Azaghul

[Penguin]

What NPO can or is willing to pay is not necessarily the same as what they will say they can or are willing to pay. Especially right now, they obviously would like to pay less than the max and this propaganda effort here is part of that.

I understand that and I don't know what they are willing to pay (i.e. not what they say they are willing to pay), but I am pretty sure that these terms will eventually pass that value.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Penguin

[Rajistani]

Oh, don't be so obtuse. I never said I was a good guy. I said I was an ally of an Ordo Verde, and I am hungry for justice, not technology or revenge. Let no one forget that the New Pacific Order initiated this war, during peace negotiations, with no facts or adequate justification supporting their aggression. Half the people in NPO weren't even around for the events they're being punished for? Interesting, I wasn't aware that the Pacifican membership had doubled between the time they attacked Ordo Verde and now. Some of them may not have been present for previous Pacifican crimes, but that is entirely irrelevant - by joining an alliance you become a staunch advocate of its history, policies and approach towards the game. If they no longer wish to be an advocate of the aforementioned, the option of individual surrender is still open to them. Lastly, if you consider decisively winning a defensive war and appropriately reprimanding an alliance that had the audacity to attack your friends and allies with no justification as one of the "bad guy things", then you have bigger issues to concern yourself with than the future of the New Pacific Order.

They gained about 250 members between the war starting and now.

[magicninja]

And what about if they find new loopholes? If you have to add all sorts of disclaimers it just becomes unwieldy. It's better just to not give exact figures, like say a range.

Well at least give stipulations to the range. 2 cycles if you don't turtle, 5 if you do. Whatever the case may be. You guys can figure out something better than this. Don't be foolish.

[Sandwich Controversy]

They gained about 250 members between the war starting and now.

They probably sent a message to all of the ghosts on the "NPO Applicant" AA telling them to switch over.

[Vhalen]

Just because you assert something is draconian does not in fact make it draconian. Also, these are not peace terms so your point does not apply.

Hey, now. alden's just using Vladimirian logic. It should be perfectly fine, if we ask KingEsus, an admitted fan.

They gained about 250 members between the war starting and now.

Disregarding the applicants, they've lost about 250 members between the war starting and now.

[Heft]

But there is a very reasonable expectation that not complying with these terms will result in a far worse outcome than complying.

Finally, there is a reasonable expectation to believe that complying with these terms would provide a better outcome then not complying, as there was a five day period where there would have been no monetary penalty.

Not from where they're standing, there isn't. If you don't understand that by now then there's no point continuing this.

Athens had to give away nearly it's total in tech for a war that lasted less than two weeks.

If done right, reps don't come away from those stockpiles completely. About 80-90% of the tech MK sent in reps was created as it was sent, and we sent away reps equal to approximately 50% of our tech on hand.

I'd also point out that even if their bank nations are ZI'd, they'll have left over warchests, economic improvements, and wonders that will either get them back to banking range (4K infra+) instantly or within a month or two. They probably have 100-200 nations or more with the capacity to do that within a month and even more over time. 200 nations with DRAs could produce 3.6 billion and/or 60,000 tech every ten days. You don't need to have a huge amount of infra to be able to send money and/or tech all slots.

Or NPO could come out now, fight for a few weeks, get mid level terms, and then start rebuilding. Even if it does happen that Karma dropped the numbers because they got so large, their terms would still likely be harsher and not come before their nations had left peace mode and fought all the same. They really have nothing to gain by this unless they get terms with all those nations unfought.

It may be possible for the NPO to pay off large amounts of penalties incurred by these terms. If these terms were final terms then that might be enough of an argument. But there's a pretty reasonable chance that the final terms will only be marginally effected by these penalties. Compared to how much they would lose, strategically and economically, by blindly complying with these terms, it seems like a reasonable bet that the opportunity cost of ignoring these terms until they have some real incentive to do otherwise will be better than their other options currently.

Actually we (I'll start using "we" even though I'm not technically at war with them) have, through through negative punishments. The chance for peace in the foreseeable future, or continued war with increased reps once they do relent. Or the choice that all alliances have in their situation, never accepting terms and permanent war.

The threat of punishment only works if they believe that the threatened punishment will actually occur, and that it will be worse than the alternative.

So if they stay in peace mode and it gets to the point where that particular term is dropped or reduced, what do they stand to gain? A shallow political victory, but at the cost of months of war of stagnant growth for those in peace mode and continued beatings for those in war mode.

I have contacts and have an idea of what the base terms will be, and they could be added to and still not be that high. Even if this isn't stuck to the letter and just reduced, it will most likely end in an increase in the reps they will pay on top of the months they wasted that could have been spent rebuilding. They have more to lose from the war continuing than their opponents, otherwise they wouldn't be seeking peace at all. Without growing they will lose relative strength: peace mode in the long term is very harmful. Time is money.

That tactical ability means just as much now if it's used now than it will mean later. Their is little they can do with that control so it is relatively meaningless.

They've made it clear that vague assertions that the base terms are light are utterly meaningless to them. They stand to lose the most by allowing all of their opponents to freely beat on them for an indefinite amount of time and ceding any power they may have left to try and steer eventual peace. That is what these pre-terms are asking them to do.

They have no way of being certain, but that doesn't preclude the point that some events are far more likely to happen than others and that knowledge can reasonably be used as a basis for action.

If X + Y = Z, X is the base terms, Y is the peace mode penalty, and Z is total reps, you don't need to know X to know that Z will increase if Y increases. Nor does it make the equation irrelevant, it just means you can't complete it yet.

I have a personal theory that as Y grows, X will decrease, and that if Y had been neglible, X would have been greater (or the period of war would have been extended before X was ever released). It's a very reasonable theory, and from the perspective of someone who cannot reliably estimate what X is or how X is being treated or have any influence, at present, over X, it makes much more sense to treat it as a fluctuating variable than as a constant.

What it comes down to, regardless of whether it would be feasible to possibly pay off these reparations or not, or regardless of what the unknown, hidden X is, is what I posted last night.

If the goal was to legitimately try to lure NPO nations out of peace mode, this policy is and will be a failure, and how anyone can not grasp that is beyond me.

If the goal was simply to provide an excuse to prolong the war or force harsher reparations, then it was entirely unnecessary and a pointless waste of time.

Either way, it's useless and meaningless.

[Kahnite]

Honestly, if you walked into a dealership to buy a car and the salesman said, "I'll sell it to you for $30,000 plus fees." And you ask "How much are the fees?" To which the reply is, "Something reasonable, less than infinity."

Would you buy?

[Scarlet Ellen Red]

KingEsus, I assume there was an announcement that you could speak here or you are a high ranking gov official. Other wise, doesn’t this mean you are ignoring your radio silence order?

Evidence: here, and here, and there, don’t forget about here, and also there, and lastly this one.

Don't care for the rules much, eh? Also are you only saying this is bull because you yourself are one of the ones above 5k NS and in peace mode? You yourself, unless the NPO has given you the right to speak on this thread which I doubt, are disgracing your leaders. Are you trying to prove to the world that your leadership has no control over its members? That is not the pacifican way i remember... unless of course you are not a true pacifican?

[Seerow]

KingEsus, I assume there was an announcement that you could speak here or you are a high ranking gov official. Other wise, doesn’t this mean you are ignoring your radio silence order?

Evidence: here, and here, and there, don’t forget about here, and also there, and lastly this one.

Don't care for the rules much, eh? Also are you only saying this is bull because you yourself are one of the ones above 5k NS and in peace mode? You yourself, unless the NPO has given you the right to speak on this thread which I doubt, are disgracing your leaders. Are you trying to prove to the world that your leadership has no control over its members? That is not the pacifican way i remember... unless of course you are not a true pacifican?

I'm sure the NPO is more than happy to police its own members without your help. Please let him continue, this is just getting interesting

[Azaghul]

Honestly, if you walked into a dealership to buy a car and the salesman said, "I'll sell it to you for $30,000 plus fees." And you ask "How much are the fees?" To which the reply is, "Something reasonable, less than infinity."

Would you buy?

If the alternate was getting murdered, sure.