MisterShadow Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32875 58k tech http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32765 5000 tech http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32764 4000 tech http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32762 8000 tech http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=28756 (GATO no reps) http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=16985 (10k to NPO 70k total) http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/GW3_Leg...Surrender_terms (800mil) Totals: 800mil, 85k Tech (145k if you count all of continuum) This is what NPO has gotten in terms of Monetary Reps from the wars its been in (after GWIII) Not sure the reps gotten from GATO. But at the time the legions was the steepest ever. So Basically (if you take the NPO counter offer) it is 10x the sum of the cash (I know there is more from past but nothing like that) and 3.5x(2.0x if you count NPO for the entire continuum) the sum of tech. Edited June 14, 2009 by Mr.AdmiralX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
o-dog Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I don't know how people can not roll their eyes every time revanche claims these are merciful and lenient. Reminds me of a little kid trying to play world police using weapons he doesn't understand. Revanche's phrase of choice is more along the lines of "fair and reasonable". The terms aren't fair and reasonable and if NPO had been the one's dishing them out, all 18 of those alliance leaders that allegedly signed them off would be complaining about their harshness ( although a good many of those alliance leaders would have been fighting with NPO, if NPO stood a chance of winning). Perhaps the terms must be fair and reasonable by definition as they have been issued by Karma, a fair and reasonable allegiance. It will be fun to watch all the fair and reasonable alliance leaders fairly and reasonably debate who will fill the power vacuum their fair and reasonable terms help to maintain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weirdgus Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Revanche's phrase of choice is more along the lines of "fair and reasonable". The terms aren't fair and reasonable and if NPO had been the one's dishing them out, all 18 of those alliance leaders that allegedly signed them off would be complaining about their harshness ( although a good many of those alliance leaders would have been fighting with NPO, if NPO stood a chance of winning). Perhaps the terms must be fair and reasonable by definition as they have been issued by Karma, a fair and reasonable allegiance. It will be fun to watch all the fair and reasonable alliance leaders fairly and reasonably debate who will fill the power vacuum their fair and reasonable terms help to maintain. Very well put, this sums up the situation extremely well in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterShadow Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I think if we look at the woodstock massacre we get the best representation for this war. GPA on the day it was signed had 374 members (roughly half what NPO is now) and 3.2mil NS (roughly half what NPO is now) oh yah and they were at war for a month, not 2 months like the terms presented are http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Continuum-GPA_War The reps were huge for the time 70000 tech or 2.1billion in 3 months. The terms we have seen are none of the political consequences. (but there probably are some) But lets say that because NPO has double the members and double the NS then rough the NPO should have double the reps. So lets say you take 35000 tech and turn it into cash. It is now 35k tech and 1.05billion. So tech is about 8x amount and cash is about 8x the amount. Lets factor in the 2x factor, so now you have 4x the cash and tech based on size. Oh NPO was the aggressor so lets do another factor of 2. So okay that is now still far harsher. Legion, they had 3mil NS and they had to give 800mil, so again a factor of 2 so you have 1.6billion. Harsh compared to that. I also dont have access to the stats for the War of the Coalition. In terms of NS, I know the tech value has been thrown around but I cant say for sure what the relative tech level was in those alliances. They were probably no where near as infra devastated as we are. So lets face it this IS the harshest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 That is a most ludacrous claim.At the beginning of the game, nations had nothing but a few points of infra. How do you think they got all this that we have today? f!@#ing magic? And many NPO nations will have tonnes of resources left after this conflict ends - should you choose to end it. You will be able to pay the reps - you are just trying to weasel out of it, playing victim - something which you really suck at. The minimum payment for this is 25k tech a month. Under ideal circumstances, we will be able to pay a max of 26.5k a month. If we have just 2 of our banks leave the game or something along those lines, we will drop below that capacity. If our damages are a bit larger due to one or two more days of war than planned, we will drop below that capacity. If we're just a little bit less efficient that what we're estimating we'll be, we will drop below that capacity. If we are trying to weasel out of paying reps, why did we offer to pay 300,000 tech and 8,000,000,000? We can pay reps, we just want the war to end now so that we'll be able to pay them. It's not about "fairness" or "victimhood" anymore, it's about Karma allowing us the ability to pay the reps they want. For more on why we want to pay now without the war continuing after we surrender, go to the links in my sig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Actually, Karma wants 90% of our banks out of peace mode, as per the terms. The banks are the only ones with more than 4k infra left. First of all - that doesn't make sense, as there are more nations in the abovementioned group, than the highest possible amount of banks NPO has - as stated earlier by whats his name. Second of all, this proportion of nations being banks could have been lower if you accepted peace sooner - again, it is entirely your own fault for not doing this. http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32875 58k techhttp://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32765 5000 tech http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32764 4000 tech http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=32762 8000 tech http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=28756 (GATO no reps) http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=16985 (10k to NPO 70k total) http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/GW3_Leg...Surrender_terms (800mil) Yes, let's incorporate NPO's past given terms into their surrender terms. I especially like these; 3. Those nations in peace mode will continue to be in a state of war until OneVision says otherwise. VI. MK will cancel its nuclear first strike policy permanently and publicly condemn the use of first strikes. MK recognizes that the use of nuclear weapons as a first strike, or the violation of any other term in this agreement, will provide the NPO with a valid casus belli to enforce the agreed terms. And why don't we bring out all the past terms which included wonder decoms and colour changes and well as a host of other measures. And viceroys...oh this is dejavu - haven't I mentioned this already? And don't even @#$%ing bring GPA into this. YOU orchestrated a smear campaign against them, YOU made up false claims against them, and YOU tech raided them shamelessly, then forced them to admit wrong doing and even pay reps for YOUR crimes against them. Your whole alliance are pathetic, disgusting pigs for doing all this and not accepting what you damn well deserve for it - believing that you are "too good" for the generous terms you were given - something which you failed to do, to countless other alliances. Totals:800mil, 85k Tech (145k if you count all of continuum) First of all, I do believe yourself to be missing several wars. Second of all, these numbers obviously need to be adjusted for inflation. If we are trying to weasel out of paying reps, why did we offer to pay 300,000 tech and 8,000,000,000? We can pay reps, we just want the war to end now so that we'll be able to pay them. It's not about "fairness" or "victimhood" anymore, it's about Karma allowing us the ability to pay the reps they want. Uhh...because it would put you in a better position than otherwise? Stop being such nancies and accept the peace terms you're given. If you couldn't pay the reps, then they wouldn't be asked of you. What the heck do you think will happen if you fail to pay some required amount in a specific amount of time? Nobody is going to kill you - Karma isn't like NPO, you won't be randomly declared war upon because the alliances fighting you are some evil, conniving scumbags - you would be given more time. You will be given an adequate amount of time to repay the reparations - and in the end, you will pay them. Your stalling isn't going to help you at all. It just makes your alliance look foolish for thinking you are going to get away with more lenient terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I don't like them because they are far too lenient, doubling all the reparations and demanding the expulsion of their government would be a good start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterShadow Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Starcraftmazter, Check previous page. Someone suggested NPO pay only monetary amounts as a sum. That is what I was referring to. You are completely taking my post out of context. I was directly replying to that person. I am not saying we wont pay the reps. I was saying a few things 1. In terms of relative monetary amount (with stats that I could find) this is by far the most expensive. 2. All those amounts I took from the wiki so please show me these other monetary amounts. 3. Wars such as the GATO one had 0 reps (in terms of monetary) 4. Why is there inflation? Its not like the formula for NS has changed that much infact it is worse now. 12Million NS now would probably be like 11.5 then (because navy adds NS, and you can have more planes now so more NS, and also the land growth would also make the NS inflated) so really why is there inflation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Starcraftmazter, Check previous page. Someone suggested NPO pay only monetary amounts as a sum. That is what I was referring to. You are completely taking my post out of context. I was directly replying to that person. I am not saying we wont pay the reps. Learn to use the quote feature of the forums. 3. Wars such as the GATO one had 0 reps (in terms of monetary) Gee Wiz, it's hard to impose reps when you literally ZI every single nation in an alliance. 4. Why is there inflation? Its not like the formula for NS has changed that much infact it is worse now. 12Million NS now would probably be like 11.5 then (because navy adds NS, and you can have more planes now so more NS, and also the land growth would also make the NS inflated) so really why is there inflation? Because We can send a hundred million to a new player who joined our alliance right now, whereas this is more moeny than every single nation in CN had for quite some time, after it started in 2006. If you cannot comprehend the simple concept that money used to be worth a hell of a lot more than what it is now, a trend which always remains constant, then you have no business discussing reps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterShadow Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Gee Wiz, it's hard to impose reps when you literally ZI every single nation in an alliance. How many GATO nations were Zi'd because of this term? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 How many GATO nations were Zi'd because of this term? This question does not make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otherworld Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 In ANY other context these reps would be far too harsh, but come on. Who can really say it hasn't been coming? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterShadow Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 This question does not make sense. Well how many GATO nations were in a P-Zi situation as a result of this term. Since continous state of war generally is refered to as PZI, I simply just forget the letter P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykep Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Meh, could have been better. I mean, its like you are 18 again, and your parents by you a Ford Focus. The Mustang would have been alot better, but you arent getting alot of action with the bike. No, but I doubt that the NPO will accept them so it is a moot point. Its actually a Moo point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcraftmazter Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Well how many GATO nations were in a P-Zi situation as a result of this term. Since continous state of war generally is refered to as PZI, I simply just forget the letter P. This term is a result of GATO being being ZIed - not the other way around... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petrovich4 Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 The minimum payment for this is 25k tech a month. Under ideal circumstances, we will be able to pay a max of 26.5k a month. If we have just 2 of our banks leave the game or something along those lines, we will drop below that capacity. If our damages are a bit larger due to one or two more days of war than planned, we will drop below that capacity. If we're just a little bit less efficient that what we're estimating we'll be, we will drop below that capacity.If we are trying to weasel out of paying reps, why did we offer to pay 300,000 tech and 8,000,000,000? We can pay reps, we just want the war to end now so that we'll be able to pay them. It's not about "fairness" or "victimhood" anymore, it's about Karma allowing us the ability to pay the reps they want. For more on why we want to pay now without the war continuing after we surrender, go to the links in my sig. Tick, Tock. Tick Tock. You want to end this war now because you now realize the consequences of staying in a state of war/peace indefinitely. You, and many others are not going to change the bedrock of these terms through complaining via the OWF or posting numbers which are inherently incorrect (see others' numbers which are accurate). We will be getting your bank nations if you ever want to see peace. We really don't mind staying in an official state of war with you while unofficially our alliances are shifting back to tech trading and other 'peaceful' goodies while many NPO nations are stuck in a state of stasis. I encourage NPO members to continue to post and whine about having an apparently inefficient alliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MisterShadow Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 As I pointed out in another thread there is approximately 56 nations above 2k infra in NPO that has not been at war, I used public information (IE the 1 week wars stats thread and checked for infra loses). So that means all but 56 above 2k infra have been at war there is 105 above 2k infra right now, so 49 either were at war at some point and made it to peace (in which case you "had" them already or they joined). As for tech movement at the time it was originally 181 nations that had 1000 tech or more, now we sit at 176. I dont think it is unresonable to lose 1k tech in a 2 week time frame, which means there is 76 nations at the end of 14 days that would be responsible for reps. Which is 22.8k per cycle or 68.4 per month, so no it is not impossible, this is 6 aids slots. If you say you will lose 1400 tech that is only 52 nations 15.6k per cycle or 46.8k tech per month. It would take 6 months to do this, and another 11 cycles (4 months) for money. So you would have to maintain your top 52 nations for 10 months paying reps non stop. You will have probably about a quarter quitting so that does take it to lets say a year and 3 months. So once again not impossible, just not probable. 1 year and 4 months is definately longer than we have ever seen, and only 41 of those 52 have even been here that long (as in NPO) However I do think there should be a revision on there of instead of the after the 14 days it should be before the 14 days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desperado Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 (edited) Revanche's phrase of choice is more along the lines of "fair and reasonable". The terms aren't fair and reasonable and if NPO had been the one's dishing them out, all 18 of those alliance leaders that allegedly signed them off would be complaining about their harshness ( although a good many of those alliance leaders would have been fighting with NPO, if NPO stood a chance of winning). Perhaps the terms must be fair and reasonable by definition as they have been issued by Karma, a fair and reasonable allegiance. It will be fun to watch all the fair and reasonable alliance leaders fairly and reasonably debate who will fill the power vacuum their fair and reasonable terms help to maintain. All 18 didn't sign off on the current ones. Edited June 14, 2009 by Desperado Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I voted yes but I think you should have put a few more options and divided it into three questions: 1. Are the reparation amounts fair? (7B + 300k Tech)"Too high" "Fair" "Too low" 2. Is Clause B1 fair? (90% war mode + 2 weeks of war) "Impossible to complete" "Too harsh" "Fair" "Not harsh enough" 3. Is Clause B2 fair? (only nations at 1k tech at the end of the war can pay tech reps) "Impossible to complete" "Too harsh" "Fair" "Not harsh enough" Because with the current wording you might as well be asking "Are you in Karma or Hegemony?". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ebony Wings Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 No, I don't agree with the terms. I don't believe that NPO should have been offered surrender terms in the first place. 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 I voted yes but I think you should have put a few more options and divided it into three questions:Because with the current wording you might as well be asking "Are you in Karma or Hegemony?". I already said this, thanks for actually making the new options though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Stalin Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 I don't like them because they are far too lenient, doubling all the reparations and demanding the expulsion of their government would be a good start. I agree with this man here. Voted no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeternalis Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 not satisfied with reps. Money amount isn't high enough and all the other !@#$%^&* is just annoying. 3 trillion in reps or bust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tromp Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 One thing I've learned from this poll: You can't please everyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echoic Posted June 14, 2009 Report Share Posted June 14, 2009 Your whole alliance are pathetic, disgusting pigs for doing all this and not accepting what you damn well deserve for it - believing that you are "too good" for the generous terms you were given - something which you failed to do, to countless other alliances. Dude, they're not Nazis, they didn't knock up your sister and shave her head, get a grip on yourself. Its comments like this and that Ravenche person that are alienating a lot of the rank and file of Karma who still remember that this is just a game. 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.