magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Ok, some of this is fair. There are definitely ways to go too far. I'm not sure that I agree that the only place from which it can be seen is from within the NPO though. I do agree that it's probably hard to see the line from this side. Based on past activities I think it's unlikely that there's anything that can be done to prevent the NPO coming for vengeance though, and I haven't seen anything from them that indicates otherwise. Well in 4 days time the side reps will be almost 3 billion and 100k tech which I figured would be around the initial reps. Don't you think that is going a little bit too far? You should have given them a flat rate instead of something that stacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Future wars will be very interesting if all past actions are taken to account regardless if they involved the alliances fighting in the war when punishment and reps are being considered. *How far back will people look when they cash in. *rhetorical question Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Ok, some of this is fair. There are definitely ways to go too far. I'm not sure that I agree that the only place from which it can be seen is from within the NPO though. I do agree that it's probably hard to see the line from this side. Based on past activities I think it's unlikely that there's anything that can be done to prevent the NPO coming for vengeance though, and I haven't seen anything from them that indicates otherwise. I started visiting the Pacifican forums about a week ago or so. I don't recall having even seen the word revenge and I've certainly not seen any discussion of it. However, what I have seen is a pretty close group of people. That combined with their numbers would give me caution in pushing too far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Well in 4 days time the side reps will be almost 3 billion and 100k tech which I figured would be around the initial reps. Don't you think that is going a little bit too far? You should have given them a flat rate instead of something that stacks. By the tone of some of the key people posted...3bn & 100k tech are peanuts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) By the tone of some of the key people posted...3bn & 100k tech are peanuts. I would say closer to $5b and 250k tech. Edited May 28, 2009 by Alterego Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 By the tone of some of the key people posted...3bn & 100k tech are peanuts. Well I judged it by IRON's reps. You paid what 1.5 Bill and 35K tech? I figured 3 times that amount for NPO. Which would push the cash figure a little higher but the tech is close enough. I guess it's on them but when "side" reps look as bad as some of the worst reps ever given there is certainly cause for looks like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I would say closer to $5b and 250k tech. Too light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 I would say closer to $5b and 250k tech. I wouldn't be surprised. Whatever the reps are if OV doesn't get at least half I'll be pissed. In any case no one alliance should get more than OV in the venture or else they'll look like they were in it for the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 To all those claiming NPO has "no incentive" to get out of peace mode and fight, here are the three possible scenarios I see happening: 1) NPO comes out now and fights. After what will probably be a couple of weeks of war and the nations that were in peace mode beaten down, they get peace with reps that will take up a few weeks/months tying up their aid slots. Their nations rebuild, many with the help of left over improvements, wonders, and warchests and in a 6 months to a year from now (if they have competent economic leadership) they have a solid foundation of middle and upper-middle ranked nations with lots of wonders and surpass their current strength. Look at what MK and NpO did. 2) NPO waits a few weeks/months and eventually realizes that their little ploy here failed, comes out, and is where they would have been at the end of the war in #1 but having thrown away those seeks/months and have more reps to pay. 3) NPO in its stubbornness refuses to ever come out and never gets that chance to rebuild and is stuck in their current state for a very long time. What's the better option, choosing permanent war (it IS their choice, grandstanding to the contrary) or a few weeks of hard war and then the chance to start recovering? If I had to choose between fighting for a few weeks and getting ZI'd or near to it, but then having a year to grow with only the first few months of aid slots being tied up to inhibit it, and my left over warchest, improvements, and wonders to speed it up, or spending a year in peace mode, I'd choose the former. In the short term it's harder. In the long term it's a lot easier. NPO is just trying to have its cake and eat it too by facing neither war for many of their nations or permanent war by the current misleading propaganda campaign spearheaded by Vladimir so that those fighting them back down. They underestimate the resolve of those fighting them on the matter. I've talked with several of them and none of them are buying it and are willing to fight this long term if NPO chooses to go down that route. They also fully intend for NPO to get peace and hard but not impossible terms. From what I've heard they've even pretty much agreed on those terms. This whole "we haven't seen the terms or timelines so they don't exist" argument is crap. Because stating them publicly now would be stupid. People don't do it and haven't done it for good reason as it just gives the enemy something he can manipulate. In all but a few wars that have occurred the winning side intends to give terms but doesn't give a set time table because restraining yourself like that is idiotic. So yea, there is a very huge incentive to come out, the chance to get the war over with and then start the process of rebuilding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shahenshah Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Well I judged it by IRON's reps. You paid what 1.5 Bill and 35K tech? I figured 3 times that amount for NPO. Which would push the cash figure a little higher but the tech is close enough.I guess it's on them but when "side" reps look as bad as some of the worst reps ever given there is certainly cause for looks like The IRON rep negotiation and NPO rep negotiation are vastly different. I believe RoK is the only common factor. If you read the IRON surrender thread closely you will see your formula greatly underestimates what is likely to be demanded from NPO...but I'd be happy to be surprised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECUMSEH Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) After what will probably be a couple of weeks of war and the nations that were in peace mode beaten down, they get peace with reps that will take up a few weeks/months tying up their aid slots. This is the key assumption in that entire argument, and it's the part that NPO just has to "trust" Karma on. Edited May 28, 2009 by TECUMSEH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 This is the key assumption in that entire argument, and it's the part that NPO just has to "trust" Karma on. Yeah I wouldn't trust them either. Give them some specifics to ponder and then you'd probably have gotten them out. 1 cycle of war? 2? Who all is on NPO anyway? Sparta RoK GR OV VE Athens And who else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Yeah I wouldn't trust them either. Give them some specifics to ponder and then you'd probably have gotten them out. 1 cycle of war? 2? Who all is on NPO anyway? Sparta RoK GR OV VE Athens And who else? Avalanche. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 (edited) This is the key assumption in that entire argument, and it's the part that NPO just has to "trust" Karma on. It's better than a permanent war. And they have very good reason to trust them on it, even if they are pretending otherwise so that have an excuse to stay in peace mode. It's happened in all but a handful of wars in the past and nearly all have said that they intend on NPO eventually getting peace. As I said saying exactly what "eventually" means would be stupid and just give NPO something to manipulate, but realistically we are talking about a few weeks of war and reps that will be a modest economic drain (they can still be rebuilding) and tie up their aid slots for a few weeks or months. Look at where MK and NpO are now. NpO was nearly all ZI'd and faced large reparations that took off all of it's nations that were at the end of the war in good banking condition. They now have almost 5000 average infra and are the 4th strongest alliance. Edited May 28, 2009 by Azaghul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Avalanche. Anyone else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bzelger Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 GOD FOK R&R The International MOON Dice Vanguard RAD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Anyone else? http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Karma_War Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Karma_War GOD FOK R&R The International MOON Dice Vanguard RAD Sparta RoK GR OV VE Athens Avalanche How many of these alliances have ever had to pay reps to NPO? I know Athens at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caligula Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 and the Karma pr machine eats itself. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 GODFOK R&R The International MOON Dice Vanguard RAD Sparta RoK GR OV VE Athens Avalanche How many of these alliances have ever had to pay reps to NPO? I know Athens at least. Greenland Republic, VE went down fighting its first time around, Avalanche missed getting destroyed in the WoTC barely because of the kindness of GR, Vanguard is LUE scum 3.0, and that's really all I can remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nizzle Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 If I was running FA for some of the alliances posting in this thread, I would be busting some heads because some of you are making their job incredibly hard in the future by posting like some thick skulled, bitter, ignorant fools.INB4 ZOMG AIRME YOU HAVE DONE IT TOO. Yes I have, and in the past I had made my job harder and had regretted what I done. Remember how your words will affect your alliances path in the future. Perhaps it would be best if you contacted such people via PM. Also, I don't think it helps to call people thick skulled, bitter, ignorant fools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Greenland Republic, VE went down fighting its first time around, Avalanche missed getting destroyed in the WoTC barely because of the kindness of GR, Vanguard is LUE scum 3.0, and that's really all I can remember. We'll count current incarnations only. VE collected reps alongside NPO anyway. So Avalanche fought NPO in the WoTC? How much did they pay in reps? GOD FOK R&R The International MOON Dice Vanguard RAD Sparta RoK GR OV VE Athens Avalanche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TECUMSEH Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 but realistically we are talking about a few weeks of war and reps that will be a modest economic drain (they can still be rebuilding) and tie up their aid slots for a few weeks or months. I understand that is a possible scenario. If that was what was going to happen, then I-- me personally--would think that's about as good a deal as [NPO] can get. I also understand that you obviously don't speak for Karma. No one really speaks for Karma unless expressly stated. I also understand that if I were in a similar position, I'd want concrete terms. I'm not sure what Karma gains by not offering concrete terms other than te ability to manipulate them as they see fit. Again, to me, these particular "pre-terms" coupled with a "trust us" approach on the actual terms virtually guarnentees a perma-war, whether that's your intent or not. But, hey, Karma won. It's Karma's imperative to dictate terms how and when they see fit. If "trust us" is the consideration they wish to offer in exchange for the "pre-terms", then so be it. I just can't fathom NPO accepting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilien Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 We'll count current incarnations only. VE collected reps alongside NPO anyway. So Avalanche fought NPO in the WoTC? How much did they pay in reps?GOD FOK R&R The International MOON Dice Vanguard RAD Sparta RoK GR OV VE Athens Avalanche I guess that we shouldn't extract reps after all. Thanks magicninja. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted May 28, 2009 Report Share Posted May 28, 2009 Well in 4 days time the side reps will be almost 3 billion and 100k tech which I figured would be around the initial reps. Don't you think that is going a little bit too far? You should have given them a flat rate instead of something that stacks. If it was a flat rate there would be no incentive to pull out. Well I judged it by IRON's reps. You paid what 1.5 Bill and 35K tech? I figured 3 times that amount for NPO. Which would push the cash figure a little higher but the tech is close enough.I guess it's on them but when "side" reps look as bad as some of the worst reps ever given there is certainly cause for looks like How big is NPO compared to how big MK/Athens were? And, was NPO not given the chance to not pay anywhere nearby that amount but instead are choosing to not? 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.