NoFish Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Does anyone really think NPO will be able to get revenge any time soon? Even without the reps they've been crippled and completely isolated. They certainly aren't still sanctioned and treatied to MHA and RIA, thus connecting them to two of the biggest blocs in the game! Edited June 13, 2009 by NoFish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristospherein Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 You never answered me, did I say the two were the same? Your definition of white peace then is unrealistic if it includes 300K in tech and 8 billion in reps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Is this merely an attempt to troll or do you actually have a point here?The NPO feels the surrender term regarding taking our banks and forcing them into war (after we surrender) is what makes these surrender terms unrealistic. This was stated in the OP and has been repeated many times. This post is unnecessary. I don't troll, I was pointing out the likeness between what was said now and what was said during the NPO's war with FAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sethb Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Ok, I see the 'spying' incident has been brought up again. I've said it once, I'll say it again: I did not actively spy on the NPO, I clicked a damn link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sylar Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 They certainly aren't still sanctioned and treatied to MHA and RIA, thus connecting them to two of the biggest blocs in the game! there treaties were not honored the first time so why would it be different the next war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) About the 90%/ people are on holiday thing, I'm not seeing a wide scale 10% of people in every alliance going into peace mode because they have work to do. Are you implying onlypeople from the NPO have holidays and finals...? Edited June 13, 2009 by Jens of the desert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Does anyone really think NPO will be able to get revenge any time soon? Even without the reps they've been crippled and completely isolated. Actually, I think there are a lot of hidden friendships and sympathizers with the NPO who would gladly help them get back into the political game and help get revenge. My basis, well, just a hunch and opinion and I am sure you or many others will tell me how silly or stupid it is to think that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddyyo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 there not doing this for the money lol Sylar, my friend, these reps alone without the 14 days would put Karma far ahead of NPO for atleast a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 That's not entirely true.You want to pay them and not risk your banking system taking a hit so you can be back into the political arena and on the rebound ASAP to, my guess is, dole out some Karma of your own. ASAP? You think we can recover from 600,000 tech lost and something like 3-4 million infra lost ASAP? Unless by ASAP you mean September 2010, you are just falling into the trap of believing we have some kind of superpowers or we're mutants or something. Look at what you are saying. If you want our banking system to take a hit so as to not "rebuild us ASAP", how can you expect that same banking system that won't be strong enough to rebuild us to be able to pay out 213% of the level of tech we have? You'd much rather keep fighting for an indefinite amount of time and then surrender.I see. There's a clear and distinct difference between the two. We want terms we can pay after we get peace. Not terms we can pay before the war damages us. So, basically, you are saying that getting your nations in war to get peace is a dumb idea? We're saying war damages nations. Damaged nations aren't able to pay the same amount of reps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Kremlin Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 They certainly aren't still sanctioned and treatied to MHA and RIA, thus connecting them to two of the biggest blocs in the game! I thought MHA cancelled on them... They won't be leading a coalition in a war in any case. They don't have the political capital and I'm guessing those treaties are going to be canceled after the war or are hanging on by a thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KillerKoel Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Did anyone really think Karma would refuse 300,000 technology and 8 billion dollars in reps? I am happy they did... much too ordinary of reps... excluding the size part. This was never an ordinary war... especially the Pacifica part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
medtech Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) It's not like the NPO was expecting white peace, lol. We knew terms would be very high, but excessive is excessive. Maybe that should have been considered before the same types of terms were implimented on other alliances. You all thought you were the almighty and untouchable. You never considered the fact that all your harshness would some day turn around to bite you in the A$$! Well guess what? IT HAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KARMA - What goes around comes around Now would it truely be Karma had you been let off the hook with mild terms? I DON'T THINK SO! Edited June 13, 2009 by medtech Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarikmo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Your definition of white peace then is unrealistic if it includes 300K in tech and 8 billion in reps. You still haven't answered my question. my original post did not say the two were the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpoiL Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Holy Moses...78 pages Such a large alliance does large amounts of damage. I lost 200mil in infra and I am one person. You guys should have accepted the peace terms before getting so beat down. Or, better yet, you guys should have not attacked a micro alliance for such a trivial reason. I reckon that you were attempting to draw the 'other side' into a curbstomp to maintain your hegemonical[ ] crown. Unfortunately for you, you underestimated your opponent. Oops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkphysics Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 ASAP?You think we can recover from 600,000 tech lost and something like 3-4 million infra lost ASAP? Unless by ASAP you mean September 2010, you are just falling into the trap of believing we have some kind of superpowers or we're mutants or something. Look at what you are saying. If you want our banking system to take a hit so as to not "rebuild us ASAP", how can you expect that same banking system that won't be strong enough to rebuild us to be able to pay out 213% of the level of tech we have? We want terms we can pay after we get peace. Not terms we can pay before the war damages us. We're saying war damages nations. Damaged nations aren't able to pay the same amount of reps. The math points have been argued to death. Just because I didn't partake in the futility of that argument please don't regurgitate it here. I can read, I can understand. The debt can be paid back, and yeah, it may take a hell of a long time but maybe next time you will not enter into an aggressive war without being better prepared. Less we forget who actually started this whole Karma war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 You guys should have accepted the peace terms before getting so beat down. It's already quite well-established that they weren't offered definite terms before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 there treaties were not honored the first time so why would it be different the next war. RIA's treaty has a clause that it reverts to a NAP if both alliances are on opposite sides of a war; I'll thank you not to slander my allies. You can take MHA's treaty obligations up with MHA; I have no obligation to defend them and I'm sure they and those who do can speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddyyo Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 You still haven't answered my question. my original post did not say the two were the same. Sure, maybe not directly, but it is easily infered; if you did not mean to say that, make it more clear, mmk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicalTrevor Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Did anyone really think Karma would refuse 300,000 technology and 8 billion dollars in reps? Yes, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kristospherein Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Maybe that should have been considered before the same types of terms were implimented on other alliances.You all thought you were the almighty and untouchable. You never considered the fact that all your harshness would some day turn around to bite you in the A$$! Well guess what? IT HAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! KARMA - What goe around comes around Now would it truely be Karma had you been let off the hook with mild terms? I DON'T THINK SO! 213% of our tech in reps vs. Athens only requiring 85% of their tech in reps...yep those are mild terms. Also, the war against Athens lasted a considerable amount shorter than this war has already lasted. This war plus these reps is beyond Karma now. It's about revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoFish Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 It's already quite well-established that they weren't offered definite terms before. He was referring to those offered in the early stages of the war, I believe, which were withdrawn when NPO was found to be getting its nations into peace mode during the negotiations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurion Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Whoo, what a thread. Is this merely an attempt to troll or do you actually have a point here? Oh god he's stating an opinion contrary to yours he's clearly trolling stop the presses! Your definition of white peace then is unrealistic if it includes 300K in tech and 8 billion in reps. Did he say it was white peace? It's fairly obvious you have a sheet of talking points and so getting a actual answer from you is apparently about as easy as pulling teeth, but it would kinda invalidate your whole argument if he didn't say it was now wouldn't it? And no, I'm not going back to read the last twenty pages to find out for you. Figure it out yourself eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 They certainly aren't still sanctioned and treatied to MHA and RIA, thus connecting them to two of the biggest blocs in the game! The only MADPs the NPO still has are to the GDA and TPF. A policy of aggressive behaviour without MADPs to support it isn't going to go very far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEWBert Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 About the 90%/ people are on holiday thing, I'm not seeing a wide scale 10% of people in every alliance going into peace mode because they have work to do.Are you implying onlypeople from the NPO have holidays and finals...? No I'm not. What I'm saying is that the counter begins as soon as we meet those 10% demands. Meaning you end up w/ banks/senators being attacked for longer than 2 rounds of war. It would really never be 2 rounds of war, even w/ perfect communication. Not everyone checks into CN daily, which is part of the reason some people are bank nations to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin McDonald Posted June 13, 2009 Report Share Posted June 13, 2009 Only on page 27, but unless there were some huge revelations between there and page 78, I have to say this thread is just hilarious. The fact that NPO really, sincerely seems not to understand why these terms are not only fair but lenient is mind-boggling. After acting with total impunity for ~3 years you haven't understood that actions have consequences? Come out of peace mode, take the two weeks of war, and pay the damn reps. Even if it takes a year, it is still fair. How many alliances did you stop from growing or even existing for years at a time? You're getting off light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts