Duke Nukem Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Recently I have seen some of the terms offered too NPO in order to obtain peace. Some of these terms have been criticized as too harsh. I want your opinions. Do you believe the terms presented by Karma to the NPO are too harsh? Edit: In no way is this Ragnarok's personal opinion this is only based off my opinion. Edited June 14, 2009 by jorjor110 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Systemfailure Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 for those that missed the news Ragnarok is now the new head of KARMA and yes we are planning to re-name NPO, OTTO (Old Trashed Techless Order) this will be brought up in a 117+ page thread next week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Autumn Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 for those that missed the news Ragnarok is now the new head of KARMA and yes we are planning to re-name NPO, OTTO (Old Trashed Techless Order) this will be brought up in a 117+ page thread next week. This got a genuine chuckle out of me - thank you for that As for harshness, becoming what is being sought to be destroyed/curbed/whatever, the rules of the Cyberverse are what they are. To remain on top you must keep someone else down lest they steal your place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal Paradise Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 In Bat Country we execute war criminals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Archer Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 for those that missed the news Ragnarok is now the new head of KARMA and yes we are planning to re-name NPO, OTTO (Old Trashed Techless Order) this will be brought up in a 117+ page thread next week. God I love you System. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brinoceros Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 In Bat Country we execute war criminals. You too? That last bit about them moving there nations out of peace mode was tough but NPO shouldn't complain after what they did in the past. also, hey jorjor, it's been a while. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Death II Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Also no we are not harsh. We were just. They got what they deserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 CoaLUEtion: LUE, GATO, CGS(CDS), SRI, ICSN, DDA, AoAN, GGA, TAGA, OIN, NAAC, ONOS, FIS, LOSS, ODN How many of these alliances are still around Then how many alliances are shadows of what they once were NPO get to continue to play the game. Anything less than forced disbandment are light terms Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Not harsh so much as illogical unless the goal is anything but to continue the war even long past the end of the war, which won't be for some time if the terms are kept the way they are. Terms are supposed to entice the other side to give in as opposed to continue fighting, not galvanize them against you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jens of the desert Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Dont we have too many of these threads already? Also, high jorjor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeaR_LeSs Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I think terms are too light. If they were us, they would make us disband the AAs and owe them more tech/$$ then we are asking from them. You should make interest go up everytime they turn it down. What do you have to lose? You're beating NPO anyways right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BastardofGod Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 CoaLUEtion: LUE, GATO, CGS(CDS), SRI, ICSN, DDA, AoAN, GGA, TAGA, OIN, NAAC, ONOS, FIS, LOSS, ODN How many of these alliances are still around Then how many alliances are shadows of what they once were NPO get to continue to play the game. Anything less than forced disbandment are light terms Its easy to sit back and blame their troubles on the Pacific. They started it. NAAC chose their own disbandment. ODN is still kicking. Its foolish to try to lay all of histories troubles in Pacifica's lap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Not harsh so much as illogical unless the goal is anything but to continue the war even long past the end of the war, which won't be for some time if the terms are kept the way they are. Terms are supposed to entice the other side to give in as opposed to continue fighting, not galvanize them against you. No they are not. They are meant to punish the loser. Its terms or a very long war NPO have no hope of winning. I personally don't care what NPO. I am happy to keep fighting them Its easy to sit back and blame their troubles on the Pacific. They started it. NAAC chose their own disbandment. ODN is still kicking. Its foolish to try to lay all of histories troubles in Pacifica's lap. NPO have started the vast majority of the wars in CN Answer me this. Has NPO ever had war declared against it ( in a serious way ) with out the other allaince being obligated due to a treaty to declare war Edited June 14, 2009 by steodonn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newhotness Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 obviously voted no. they are only "too harsh" because its NPO receiving them now instead of handing them out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BastardofGod Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 No they are not. They are meant to punish the loser. Its terms or a very long war NPO have no hope of winning. I personally don't care what NPO. I am happy to keep fighting themNPO have started the vast majority of the wars in CN Answer me this. Has NPO ever had war declared against it ( in a serious way ) with out the other allaince being obligated due to a treaty to declare war Peace and prosperity is our game brother. Pacifica brought about eras of peace. LUE and the likes were to blame for past conflicts. Many of them jealous and others just having a blind hatred. You cannot blame all past wars on Pacifica. Unless your intent is to distort history. I didn't quite follow your question.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gantanX Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 OP I don't think the terms is harsh.. you just scared of their revenge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I voted no because the question was 'too harsh'. Yes these terms are harsh, thats the point. The NPO has earned harsh terms, the harshest CN has seen to date, they have earned every penny, every lost infra, every peice of tech gone. They earned it and more. So yes, harsh. But no, not Too harsh. Because there is a lot of terms in there you don't see. You don't see a demand for disbandment, you don't see a viceroy, you don't see forced government expulsions, you don't see indefinite tribute or disarmament, you don't see attempts to put our men in their leadership, you don't see a demand to rewrite their charter to our liking, you don't see wonder decoms, I could go on, but you get the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locke Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 No they are not. They are meant to punish the loser. Its terms or a very long war NPO have no hope of winning. I personally don't care what NPO. I am happy to keep fighting them All I can say is, Treaty of Versailles vs. the end of WWII. In WWI, many of the agrieved countries heavily pushed for not only damages, but punitive reps as put forth here. History proves how well that worked out. Then at the end of WWII, rather than punishing Germany or Japan, America involved themselves in the rebuilding efforts. History proves how well that worked out too. Punitive reps are just a bad joke that fail in real life and fail in CN. Reps for damage are only slightly less so. The way I see it, you can't ask for it both ways: you either ask for reps or you ask for war. Asking for both is plain retarded. NPO offered not only to pay the large reps, but offered to pay more. This was, of course, denied by those who claim they don't want an eternal war. If they don't want an eternal war, they need to learn that peace is about compromise. Dictating this, that, and the other thing just doesn't work. If peace is truly desired, reason and logic must be respected. It is not logical to ask for large reps and then destroy the banking nations. "But surely the NPO has large warchests!" people cry. Yes, I'm sure they did at the beginning of the war. I'd be willing to wager not nearly so much so by now. The way I see it, ask for war, or ask for peace. Either accept the NPO's offer to pay plus a billion more, or keep fighting. The way I see it, if Karma is so eager for blood, lower the rep requirements, if they 2 weeks of war need to be there. Something that more battered nations can actually pay. If it was up to me, I'd say just drop the reps and have 3 weeks of no-peace mode war, and that any nation that doesn't exit peace mode within a week has to personally pay reps of some amount depending on how long they were there(no need to punish the whole alliance for the insubordination of a few). Have a set start and end time and be done with it. The way this war is currently going, it's looking less and less like a war, and more and more like a PZI sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 These reps are neither punitive, nor do they cover damages. The top one nation from each alliance fighting NPO could probably account for all 7 billion in damages before you even have to look at the rest of their members. I know its hard to believe but 7 billion dollars amounts to TOKEN reparations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Totally unfair terms for NPO. They should simply be held to the same standard they held other alliances to and after that pay a sum equal to the one they extorted from others.. oh wait.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Totally unfair terms for NPO. They should simply be held to the same standard they held other alliances to and after that pay a sum equal to the one they extorted from others.. oh wait.. Sounds good to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fort Pitt Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 The terms fit what NPO should have to pay to a T, if anything other than perfect, its a bit too small. You just better consider yourselves lucky NPO that I'm in no way involved in the terms talk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogaden Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 The terms fit what NPO should have to pay to a T, if anything other than perfect, its a bit too small. You just better consider yourselves lucky NPO that I'm in no way involved in the terms talk. This is pretty rich coming from a Spartan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypoNinja Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Sounds good to me. You uhh might wanna reconsider that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Archer Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 This is pretty rich coming from a Spartan. You may wanna look at his alliance name and not the tag he's using. 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.