mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 how many nations will have more then 1k tech after they fought 2 rounds? By the time the "counter" starts and 90% of both alliance and nations over 4k have complied, it is estimated around 40-50. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Let me at first simply state, I hold no sympathy for the Emperor of the New Pacific Order or most of his cadre. They have long ago broken the ancient codes of brotherhood that have existed since before they came to being. They have bled blood of their brothers. They have chased people they used to call comrades to the world’s ending, tarnishing their own past in the process. They have destroyed too many heroes and they have rewritten history too many times. Yet it seems as if all the “horrible” things that have taken place in this planet were the sole work of the New Pacific Order. The world, as we see it today, was shaped by a large coalition of people, under different names and affiliation, who agreed on several basic pillars of Order dominance. I can cite a few: that spying is an act of war, that alliances should be held responsible in their entirety for the actions of their leaders and, most importantly, that a credible threat to an alliance should be put down by any means necessary. Many rulers, some of them at the peak of the Karma hierarchy, have aided the New Pacific Order and profited from this dominance. They have built their reputations and careers under the wings of the Order. They have built their alliances benefiting from their dominance. The people I speak of were accomplices to these crimes. And here they are, today, wrapping this war up by the rules of the old world. Participants and accomplices to a new “crime”. These terms will not end a cycle of war and destruction. They will perpetuate war and destruction. The leaders of this war coalition will eventually be held to their record, past and present. I praise the Emperor of the New Polar Order for staying away from these proceedings. He saw what was in the making long before any of us did. To the nations of the New Pacific Order, I hope you have the patience to endure what is coming soon. There is some semblance of hope, in that what your enemies do to you today is the start of their own undoing. Stand tall and brave. You have been humbled, but you will not be broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Now redo the numbers to account for the loss of nations that fall below the 1k tech limit after an estimated 20 days of nuclear war? Anyone with less than 2500+ tech would be below that limit, giving you around 50 nations. The terms explicitly state the amount can be evaluated if it's unpayable. Karma dont list:EZI (check) Harsh reps (check) Perpetual war (check) Forcing nations to come out of peace (check) Destruction of alliances (check) Reps force alliances to disband (check) Forcing policy change (check) Forum bullying (check) Forced regime change (check) Viceroy (banned from CN) shame, it was the only one left Congrats to the Karma bloc, you are everything you said you wouldnt be and more. Uh, the only thing I'm possibly seeing there is harsh reps and forcing nations out of peace mode. And that's only been for the original instigator, all of NPO's allies have gotten off with relatively light terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 By the time the "counter" starts and 90% of both alliance and nations over 4k have complied, it is estimated around 40-50. Fortunately it does not matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerius Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Whilst the terms are no doubt hefty, it brings me nothing but satisfaction to see the NPO remain at war. Onwards, Karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffasamini Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 That would depend on who would be paying the tech and the reps.If it would be the majority of your lower tier nations, than I would imagine it would not suffice. The lower tier nations are the majority of our alliance. Why should a minority pay for a majorities actions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Read revanches post about not changing things due to "NPO incompotence' The difference is if NPO is legitimately not able to comply, the terms will be scaled. If NPO is incompatant, or tries to instigate campaigns and fake numbers to try to make it seem as if they are "incompatant", the terms will not be scaled. We will not tolerate NPO's games, they will adhere to our terms, they could have done it a month ago, they refuse. They could have done it yesterday, they refuse. That is already 2 chances, and 2 rejections of peace terms. The terms to end this war will be dictated by us, not by NPO or NPO games. If NPO lacks the capability legitimately, I fully suspect that unlike their treatment of FAN, that NPO would be treated fairly. Or much fairer than can be reasonable accepted give their treatment of FAN, their backstabbings of allies like GOONS and \m/, and other incidents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadshot Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I've caught up!That deserves a smoke, which at my age is something. By the time I get back, I expect at least 10 more pages! I agree. I've smoked half a pack reading through this now. Also, I am pretty certain that NPO would agree that the top 90% of their nations would be paying reps. And if that would suffice, I don't see the reason for denying their counter. What if they countered again, but specifically saying that this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Fortunately it does not matter. I take it your word from an alliance unrelated to the front should be taken over the word of presumably a main leader on that front? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balkan Banania Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 As I see it, the Karma people can easily evaluate the damage done in 14 days of war for the large nations and projectile the development of these nations for the time span they want. Then they can calculate an amount that would compensate for leaving them out of the war and add the specific amount on the final terms. I think it is better to have specific peace terms, than peace terms that can be easily used for prolonging the war, while you have gained a strategic advantage (banks leaving PM etc ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 That's about right for the reps I guess. Except when I quoted the reps at 7billion and 156k tech someone from Karma told me I had overshot the amount by a large margin......... Annnnyyyywayyy.....If you guys are serious about wanting to war them for the two weeks at least let them pay the reps by whatever means they can muster. C'mon.......You'll still be getting what you want. Quit trying to add insult to injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The difference is if NPO is legitimately not able to comply, the terms will be scaled.If NPO is incompatant, or tries to instigate campaigns and fake numbers to try to make it seem as if they are "incompatant", the terms will not be scaled. We will not tolerate NPO's games, they will adhere to our terms, they could have done it a month ago, they refuse. They could have done it yesterday, they refuse. That is already 2 chances, and 2 rejections of peace terms. The terms to end this war will be dictated by us, not by NPO or NPO games. If NPO lacks the capability legitimately, I fully suspect that unlike their treatment of FAN, that NPO would be treated fairly. Or much fairer than can be reasonable accepted give their treatment of FAN, their backstabbings of allies like GOONS and \m/, and other incidents. I'm sorry but leaving a group of very bitter, angry, and vengeful individuals to determine if something is possible seems more like a trap than a legetimate attempt at peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George the Great Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 After reviewing the situation more closely, especially since a couple of people, including Cortath, have argued that you can be nuked thrice in one day and thus convinced me, I've determined that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geopet Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Let me at first simply state, I hold no sympathy for the Emperor of the New Pacific Order or most of his cadre. They have long ago broken the ancient codes of brotherhood that have existed since before they came to being. They have bled blood of their brothers. They have chased people they used to call comrades to the world’s ending, tarnishing their own past in the process. They have destroyed too many heroes and they have rewritten history too many times.Yet it seems as if all the “horrible” things that have taken place in this planet were the sole work of the New Pacific Order. The world, as we see it today, was shaped by a large coalition of people, under different names and affiliation, who agreed on several basic pillars of Order dominance. I can cite a few: that spying is an act of war, that alliances should be held responsible in their entirety for the actions of their leaders and, most importantly, that a credible threat to an alliance should be put down by any means necessary. Many rulers, some of them at the peak of the Karma hierarchy, have aided the New Pacific Order and profited from this dominance. They have built their reputations and careers under the wings of the Order. They have built their alliances benefiting from their dominance. The people I speak of were accomplices to these crimes. And here they are, today, wrapping this war up by the rules of the old world. Participants and accomplices to a new “crime”. These terms will not end a cycle of war and destruction. They will perpetuate war and destruction. The leaders of this war coalition will eventually be held to their record, past and present. I praise the Emperor of the New Polar Order for staying away from these proceedings. He saw what was in the making long before any of us did. To the nations of the New Pacific Order, I hope you have the patience to endure what is coming soon. There is some semblance of hope, in that what your enemies do to you today is the start of their own undoing. Stand tall and brave. You have been humbled, but you will not be broken. Incredibly well stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Also for those who care:181 nations, assuming it takes 3 weeks to rebuild to a reasonable amount of infra. 15M/250 tech being sent out per nation (assuming no DRAs even though most probably have it). That amounts to 2.7B/45k tech per cycle that can be paid out. HARDLY undoable. The cash part could be paid off quickly, or, put off towards the end to "further rebuilding." Stop trying to tell me these terms are undoable. There's a couple critical errors here. First and foremost is those numbers assume all slots will always be filled. That is not reality. Second is the amount of nations able to send out all this cash and tech after the war. That's the sticking point. NPO has enough slots and enough nations with sufficient funds to pay these reps at this point in time. They've even counteroffered more reps in fact. They countered because when the war is offer, they won't have enough nations with enough cash to pay these reps or rebuild quickly enough to pay them. The 90% is going to take somewhere between 3 and 5 weeks. 3-5 weeks of 3v or 4v1s is going to bring those nations with the ability to pay right now down to practically nothing. As for the rebuild with warchest argument: Some will be able to, but most won't. 3-5 weeks of fighting 3v1 or 4v1 all out is extremely expensive. The billion dollar warchests people keep talking about are not enough to rebuild afterward unless they go into war with the express purpose of conserving warchest. BUT, if they try to get anywhere near winning the ground game, they're going to have to spend everything they have and many will be bill locked before it's over. I believe somewhere in this thread one of the NPO members goes over the numbers and states they would expect to have 25 members able to to pay these terms after the expected war period. Even if the actual number is twice that, it's still not possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) You have complained about it nearly every day for the last 11 months. You are asking less nations than you had to pay 39 times more than you after a nuclear war that lasted 7 times as long. Sorry you're not even close. Athens at the time was a bunch of relatively new nations (IIRC they had only one guy that had even had nukes) without massive war chests, economic improvements, and wonders and so they weren't really comparable to this collection of very high ranked nations. Edited June 13, 2009 by Azaghul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The lower tier nations are the majority of our alliance. Why should a minority pay for a majorities actions? When the minority holds all the power in the alliance, has been there in the past and has profited directly from the unjust actions of your alliance in the past, that is why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverlordOeboema Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 As I see it, the Karma people can easily evaluate the damage done in 14 days of war for the large nations and projectile the development of these nations for the time span they want. Then they can calculate an amount that would compensate for leaving them out of the war and add the specific amount on the final terms. I think it is better to have specific peace terms, than peace terms that can be easily used for prolonging the war, while you have gained a strategic advantage (banks leaving PM etc ). i agree with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) I'm sorry but leaving a group of very bitter, angry, and vengeful individuals to determine if something is possible seems more like a trap than a legetimate attempt at peace. Its a better deal than you and the NPO gave to FAN. This way NPO gets terms prior to coming out of PM. Edited June 13, 2009 by Caliph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Athens at the time was a bunch of relatively new nations (IIRC they had only one guy that had even had nukes) without massive war chests, economic improvements, and wonders and so they weren't really comparable to this collection of very high ranked nations. I agree they were not comparable, but nor were the rep and term figures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 No outside pressure will be able to change what we think to be just and fair terms for the NPO. JGoods mighty purveyor of the might makes right meme. Still you guys though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Its a better deal than you and the NPO gave to FAN. This way NPO gets terms prior to coming out of PM. No it doesn't. It is clearly stated nothing occurs toward peace until 90% of both nations over 4k and 90% of total alliance are out. Only then will 2 weeks of war lead to peace and payment of the largest reps in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rush Sykes Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 There is a difference between being humble and admitting mistakes (as was done in the op) and submitting to any willy nilly desire of those that wish nothing but your destruction. Funny thing about the timing of the admission of those mistakes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Funny thing about the timing of the admission of those mistakes. So you won't stop until NPO is humbled and admits mistakes, however if they do admit to mistakes, it is only because of your military might and therefore not sincere and deserving to be accepted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balkan Banania Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) nvm Edited June 13, 2009 by Balkan Banania Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts