Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 nations that have all their improvements, 15 or 16 wonders, and two billions saved, can get ZId and then rebuy 10k infra after the two weeks are over. that's what about half of gremlins did when they lost thousands of infra in their war against IRON. Yeah,.. we... can't say I know the state of anyone else's war chest, but I burnt through over 120 million and was bill locked in 2 weeks of conflict. So.. yeah... unless there are some people out there with war chests well beyond 200M I don't anticipate seeing that kind of recovery rate, though it would be nice. I just have no idea how much the fellows up top have remaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Very good terms imo, i'd remove the 90% requirement for the entire alliance as we all know NPO couldnt do that easily due to the lack of organisation in their ranks. But 90% above 4K inf should be done easily enough. Don't complain about the reps Pacifica, you reap what you sow. People seem to be forgetting Pacifica actually commited a crime, and must now pay the price. No alliance in the history of Bob has commited crimes to the magnitude of NPO, they must be held accountable for their actions. Personally i dont see the reperation values as high enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innerspeaker Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 B2) Reparations of up to 300,000 tech and $7,000,000,000 will be assessed upon the New Pacific Order. This shall be determined dependent on their ability to pay after the aforementioned period of war, in the judgment of the Karma signatories of this document. All reparations of technology must be paid by nations with greater than or equal to 1000.00 technology at the end of the above-mentioned 14 day period. These terms do two things: first, they destroy the ability of our economically strong nations to pay reparations, and they restrict who can pay the terms. Both of these things serve a clear purpose: to make these reparations impossible to pay off. Neither we nor anyone on Planet Bob have ever been subjected to terms with such clauses designed to keep an alliance destroyed for so long. We, specifically, have never included in any terms given any sort of restrictions on how reparations are to be paid. We do not believe these terms are possible for us to pay. We were and are prepared to accept any terms we believe we can pay. We presented Karma with a counter-proposal, that we pay more than the amounts requested, but with the lifting of those two clauses. Our counter-proposal (which is by far the largest amount of reparations in the history of the Cyberverse) was this: I find this amusingly ironic, and also disgustingly hypocritical, given the circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angrator Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I have not done these things. I've been around since June, and most of the wars since June 08 have been justifiable. I mean, you got the jackboot off your neck, now you want your jackboot on mine and I've done nothing to you.. ever. There are individuals, probably the vast majority in the alliance, that have also done nothing to you. You're assuming we're not learning from this war. And the people who had put their boots on your neck.. again.. what about the half that have gone elsewhere? They get the free meal ticket? Nah. You've already seen enough pain. The people at the top haven't. This is the whole point of the this. They are the ones who brought people like you into this mess. It isn't fair for them to expect others to fight and then refuse to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I have not done these things. I've been around since June, and most of the wars since June 08 have been justifiable. Attacking OV in the middle of negotiations is totally justified. I mean, you got the jackboot off your neck, now you want your jackboot on mine and I've done nothing to you.. ever. There are individuals, probably the vast majority in the alliance, that have also done nothing to you. I believe that Karma accepts individual surrenders. You != alliance, and this peace terms is not directed at you. But by being part of the NPO you lend your approval to your alliance actions, both past and present. You're assuming we're not learning from this war. Why course, Pacificans are totally against harsh terms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrovich4 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I have not done these things. I've been around since June, and most of the wars since June 08 have been justifiable. I mean, you got the jackboot off your neck, now you want your jackboot on mine and I've done nothing to you.. ever. There are individuals, probably the vast majority in the alliance, that have also done nothing to you. You're assuming we're not learning from this war. And the people who had put their boots on your neck.. again.. what about the half that have gone elsewhere? They get the free meal ticket? Sorry, but to many (including me), you have inhereted the 'sins of your father' whether you have realised it or not. Next time, study the full history of a potential alliance before joining them. You reap the positives and negatives simultanously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Yeah,.. we... can't say I know the state of anyone else's war chest, but I burnt through over 120 million and was bill locked in 2 weeks of conflict. So.. yeah... unless there are some people out there with war chests well beyond 200M I don't anticipate seeing that kind of recovery rate, though it would be nice. I just have no idea how much the fellows up top have remaining. Uh. There are pacificans with billion dollar warchests. You know, the banks? If this is referencing the NPO/OV situation, we had no intentions of crushing the alliance. That's just ignorant. I suggest you review the peace term(s) that was offered, revolving around sethb. You wanted to ZI someone for accepting screenshots, but wasn't willing to allow the same for your own spy. How very consistent. Edited June 13, 2009 by Teriethien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Everything else is fluff since the competent people will not buy NPO's crying and whining. First, NPO tells us that Karma is a sham and does not exist in our hearts. Then in this thread they tell us to play nice for their current, malicious mistake (attacking OV) and live up to our 'Karma' ideals which apparently we should just instill in our angelic hearts.I read the first 11 pages. Thank you for the mixed emotions from certain people Anyone who thinks that in an organization of over 400 that people are going to share the same perspective.... I'll leave others to complete that. Edited June 13, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEWBert Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Uh. There are pacificans with billion dollar warchests. You know, the banks? So every single bank has a billion dollar warchest. Yes, makes perfect sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 So every single bank has a billion dollar warchest. Yes, makes perfect sense. It was responding more to where maelstorm said, "unless there are some people out there with war chests well beyond 200M" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrovich4 Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 We really should make public on these boards how damn big many members of NPO's peace mode nations have many hundreds of millions and billions in their war chests and then show Matt Miller's infra bounce due to his war chest after two weeks of war! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BraveNewWorld Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) I'm sure my point has already been made 100 times in this thread but I'm too outraged by the lies in the OP to read through 50+ pages to find out. These terms do two things: first, they destroy the ability of our economically strong nations to pay reparations, and they restrict who can pay the terms. Both of these things serve a clear purpose: to make these reparations impossible to pay off. Neither we nor anyone on Planet Bob have ever been subjected to terms with such clauses designed to keep an alliance destroyed for so long. We, specifically, have never included in any terms given any sort of restrictions on how reparations are to be paid. And here is the lie. Moo, I can't believe that you would post this. Well...maybe I can. This is the same as what what done to the New Polar Order. Our technology could be paid only by our peace-mode nations, and our top 40 nations were restricted from sending any aid to our war-devastated nations. We were forced to re-grow ourselves from the ground up without any help from our banks. During terms negotiations we spoke up, we said these terms serve only to rub our faces in our defeat, to restrict our ability to re-grow and keep us weak for longer. But who else spoke up moo, who supported Crymson and his crowd? You did Moo! You spoke to us in that condescending way you do and said we deserved it for keeping those banks in peace mode. You lying hypocrite. Edited June 13, 2009 by BraveNewWorld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEWBert Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 It was responding more to where maelstorm said, "unless there are some people out there with war chests well beyond 200M" It's pulling strings out of context the same. If a few people have billion dollar warchests, it doesn't mean you can make the assumption that everyone is sitting WAY above our warchest requirements (which of course were publicized at the beginning of the war situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mason Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Hey Moo, remember when you asked TDSM8 to pay more reps than we had? Remember when you changing the terms and holding us demilitarized for 6 months killed our alliance? Remember when you asked Athens for 6/7 of their tech? Remember when you held GATO in a viceroy for a year? Remember when you perma warred FAN? Remember all the people you forced out of this game? Remember all the homes you destroyed? Shut the $%&@ up. You are playing a pity boat when you deserve none. I'm so sick of you guys trying to act like you deserve any better than this. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
presidentpants Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) NPOers talking about greed? you joined every war you ever took part in for the sole purpose of growing off of others' reps. even if you think the extent of our warfare is too great, the goal is protection of fellow members and allies this slander shows an unawareness of our brave NPO soldiers It's pulling strings out of context the same.If a few people have billion dollar warchests, it doesn't mean you can make the assumption that everyone is sitting WAY above our warchest requirements (which of course were publicized at the beginning of the war situation. not to mention even people with full warchests at the beginning of the war can only be expected to have some remaining I'd call it justice more than revenge. As your side has pointed out endlessly, a number of the alliances on the Karma side were never wronged by the NPO, so how could it be revenge?OOC: I enjoyed the 40k reference. some people seem to think so, see how posts refer to nebulous "past crimes" and hoping that we are de-sanctioned Edited June 13, 2009 by President Pants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyInc Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I thought the Karma creed was "change" but as far as I can see the only thing that has changed are the faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teriethien Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 It's pulling strings out of context the same.If a few people have billion dollar warchests, it doesn't mean you can make the assumption that everyone is sitting WAY above our warchest requirements (which of course were publicized at the beginning of the war situation. Heh. You seem awfully determined to try turn my comment into an arguement about how many people have billion dollar warchests. The point I was originally making was that the banks should have no problem rebuilding sufficiently to bank at maximum capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Quite a few of them do. And even if they don't, it's not Karma's fault that you didn't have your alliance prepare properly for war before starting one. As someone said, your nations are not the only ones to lose significant amounts of infra; many Grämlins have rebuilt thousands of infrastructure, as have many in IRON. Matt Miller rebuilt 15,000 infra after fighting for a month. Don't claim that two weeks will completely destroy a nation, unless the NPO is a special brand of weak. No longer can you claim that terms have not been offered. The terms are harsh, but not without reason, unlike many of those issued in the past by the Hegemony. NPO has shown in the past that it will take mercy and spit it right back in the face of those that offered it, so you're not going to get it again. Yes, the purpose of the terms is to reduce the scale of your upper tier threat, much of which you have been hiding throughout the war, and which is still larger than many alliances – particularly for those Karma alliances which have also been fighting and had their upper tier destroyed. NPO still has a stronger top 25 than Ragnarok or VE, never mind OV. Edit: Also, discussing peace terms in public doesn't usually end well. I think Pacifica explicitly added time to the war for doing so, though I'm not sure about that. Finally, a good move on Moldavi and Revenge. It is a shame that it required you to humble yourselves in war to drop your military occupation of Red, which has long been anachronistic, but I am glad you have acknowledged that reality now. I wish you the best of luck with a successful and friendly free Red. It will be interesting to see how other alliances approach Revenge, and whether similar initiatives can be developed in other colours now that there is no oppressive Hegemony to destroy them. Edited June 13, 2009 by Bob Janova Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tojamn Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Okay first of all, I wasn't part of the NPO sphere at any time. Secondly, I was destroyed for speaking out against you guys. I only came out of retirement to fight you guys. Thirdly, I don't care about your former allies. This war isn't about them attacking a small alliance and trying to crush them. Nope sorry, you were the ones who did it. I apologize too you Angrator.. I didnt notice your NSO tag as i am extremely tired, bien upp all night reading 1089 posts my eyes are getting crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) I'm going to note, There's yet to be a war I've participated in where the reps ever even remotely covered my damages. So the warring for reps thing, it's a myth to when the war costs more than the reps it makes no sense. Edited June 13, 2009 by Maelstrom Vortex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 The reps taken in several non-nuclear wars covered the damages done, for example 70,000 tech from a largely inert GPA. Also, I forgot to mention in my last post: If any individual feels that their nation is being treated unfairly for sins of others, you are (and have been for some time) free to surrender individually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I won't surrender individually because I won't leave the side of those who are not at fault for the policies most dislike.. which, as I said, is the majority of the NPO. Those policies are changing. If Karma can't accept their victory, I don't see how things will ever conclude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innerspeaker Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I'm going to note, There's yet to be a war I've participated in where the reps ever even remotely covered my damages. So the warring for reps thing, it's a myth to when the war costs more than the reps it makes no sense. You failed to realize that reps are never about recovering damages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alterego Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 I thought the Karma creed was "change" but as far as I can see the only thing that has changed are the faces. If you look again you will see most of them are ex-hegemony, the only surprise is that people believed their rubbish about change. They really meant a change of those in power, not the way those in power act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 They are in my views. I'd love to recover if I'm on the butt end of a provoked war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts