I'm baffled NPO

[potato]

Somehow, the only results from this co-ordinated spy op that I have seen are only the top 20 warchests.

If you have the spy data, give the warchests for all 181 nations paying this, not just the 28% that meet the requirements.

Turtling is supposed to stop nukes now?

Please, share more of these godlike strategies of yours.

It is very funny actually, because Karma is posting math that does not even address the scenario we are giving them. Instead of trying to prove the numbers we give them wrong, they use Handwavium and claim that warchests will make up all the difference.

Your math involved a nation being nuked 3 times a day.

[Letum]

Your math involved a nation being nuked 3 times a day.

No it did not.

14 nukes, 1 per day, 1120 in tech damage.

[Asriel Belacqua]

turtling stops GAs as you well know. considering i've seen Cortath argue that you can be nuked 3 times a day i'm sorry to say but i've lost faith in his knowledge of game mechanics.

I've been in 4 circles of war with 2 nuke capable (and fighting) opponents each time. The total damage i took was 3.2k infra and 1.2k tech. When this war started i was at 67k NS meaning of a comparable size to the banks we are discussing frankly my firsthand observations do not match your allegations.

According to Cortath, you're just a liar and your math is wrong. DO THEM AGAIN!

PRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Also: Steelrat has officially won this war NPO, give it up, he's a genius in math, and so are many others, and we have backed up the numbers many times. You're just making yourselves look uncoordinated (in terms of "can't get 90%") and incompetent.

[Ejayrazz]

I think its hard to throw in calculations when you are asking what nations can pay reparations to take a huge hit to themselves. I'm surprised to see a Gramlin supporting such harsh terms against a former ally and against any alliance. Shame

The word harsh is subjective in itself. Steelrat, though a member of Grämlins, has the right to his/her/its opinion, whether he/she/it wishes you perish or not doesn't reflect on Grämlins itself, though as an alliance we have the same principles, each individual surely has their own beliefs. I felt this should be stated, but it seems you ignored the essence of his post:

P.S.:

I´m not saying those terms given to you are lenient, I´m saying you use excusions and propaganda to lift them.

Steelrat doesn't approve of mathematical fallacies when it comes to gaming mechanics, he never stated he particularly supported the terms, he just proving your arguments are invalid, in his opinion. Steelrat is trustworthy, he wouldn't have added the side note if he truly was 100% in support of them terms, but if he views something incorrect, he will surely point it out.

[KingEsus]

Present your math, and we can talk.

But you won't present your math, because I know exactly how your 2-3 months estimates come about.

It assumes these things:

• 100% activity
  
• 100% slot efficiency at 6 slots
  
• 100% participation by 100% of the nations who have more than 1K+ tech
  
• And that all these nations will be able to pay out every single time after being destroyed in war
  

As I stated in my post, these assumptions are unrealistic.

It also assumes none of those nations

[*] Goes rogue

[*] Just quits

[*] Surrenders before terms

[*] Moves on from the NPO.

The terms are vindictive, cruel and unusual. And they are not possible in any case.

Worst. Terms. Ever.

[Cortath]

and your famous post is calculated with a tech factor of 6k and the assumption that every single attack hits and your nations don't know how to turtle.

So i guess your calculation is unrealistic as well?

I give Karma the credit that what they say is true: that they have been monitoring our banks and such. Given that they will have and have had ample time, I also presume that were these terms accepted, they would be prepared to attack.

Given that there are 18 alliances against us, I don't think it's a stretch to say that they're going to be able to attack our nations 3v1.

The tech factor isn't "6K" but "WRC and 3K," which is something entirely different, and not at all unrealistic.

Additionally, my numbers are very conservative. They only assume 14 days of war, which isn't what's going to happen. Our nations who respond to our orders most quickly will go into war mode, and then get hit, waiting for several days until we hit the 90% number. It's not unreasonable to think that it could take a week, which means 21 days of war for the people who respond to the orders most quickly. And who are those people? But the very people who are most active, most responsible, and who will be most instrumental in paying off reparations. It's their nations who will get hit the most.

I´m not going to argue or discuss that quotes neither i will present my math or anything more i did in my op. There are so many replies with exact math which proves you, NPO, wrong, it´s not funny anymore.

All i´m saying is you look incompetent at worst, at best it is propaganda.

*shrugs* You called me out on my math. I replied. That you don't wish to debate the matter means these things to me:

• You have no math
  
• Your math is wrong
  
• You didn't read my original math
  
• You didn't read my post
  
• All of the above
  

If you don't want to talk math, don't start threads pretending to talk math.

He clearly says "at best 2-3 months at worst 5-6." If you're going to debate anything, debate the worst case. Right now you're claiming that your alliance does not have an infrastructure in place to obtain maximal efficiency from your banking system. Therefore, you would be arguing his worst case situation situation, not his best case. So challenge his 5-6 month mark, not the 2-3 month mark.

The 5-6 month mark is unrealistic for the same reasons. The math is amateurish at best. All he did was multiply his answer by two-ish. If his estimates were based on a single independent variable, it would work, but this is a multi-variable equation.

All he did was take these assumptions: 100% slot efficiency, 100% activity, 100% of 181 nations participating, and 100% of them able to pay, and divide one of those variables by half. But in the "real world," which evidently isn't where his economics live, which, I might add, is surprising, because I've usually found Grämlins economics people to pretty knowledgeable and forthright, all of these variables are going to be significantly less than 100%. Making one of them 50% does not a "realistic scenario" make.

And the whole thing that he isn't considering as part of this problem, is that we're only talking about part 1 of 2 of the reps. The reps include the 300K tech from 1K+ tech nations, AND the 7/8B or 233.3/266.6K tech, which as per the terms, must be paid simultaneously. That means these same nations that are also sending out tech in his equations also have to be helping to send out tech/money for part 2.

Again, I've yet to see a systematic and comprehensive analysis by anyone in Karma about how these reparations are going to be paid, after the damage that will be dealt in the 14+ days of war.

[Letum]

Steelrat doesn't approve of mathematical fallacies when it comes to gaming mechanics, he never stated he particularly supported the terms, he just proving your arguments are invalid, in his opinion. Steelrat is trustworthy, he wouldn't have added the side note if he truly was 100% in support of them terms, but if he views something incorrect, he will surely point it out.

I am quite sure he is trustworthy, but none of his numbers address the fact that we will be left with 250,000 tech, and 50 nations trying to pay out 533,000 tech.

[Matthew Conrad]

Somehow, the only results from this co-ordinated spy op that I have seen are only the top 20 warchests.

If you have the spy data, give the warchests for all 181 nations paying this, not just the 28% that meet the requirements.

Someone put up the top 20 to prove the point that you can easily pay off the monetary reps after several of your members were whining that the alliance was bankrupt. There is not really a point in releasing the rest of the list because his point was proven and Londo specifically stated these intel reports helped in determining the reps. Why should I need to post the top 181 for you when you yourself should know what their warchests are.

[Cortath]

Additionally, let me add that none of my math assumes that you can be nuked three times a day. In no post I've made on this forum have I said that. My math assumes that in 14 days of war, you get 13 nukes.

[King DrunkWino]

Steelrat, though a member of Grämlins, has the right to his/her/its opinion, whether he/she/it wishes you perish or not doesn't reflect on Grämlins itself...

As a sidenote: Can we completely KILL that most idiotic line of thought that every word written or syllable uttered by any member of any alliance is the official viewpoint of that alliance unless it's clearly stated as such.

/one of my biggest pet peeves really.

[Ejayrazz]

As a sidenote: Can we completely KILL that most idiotic line of thought that every word written or syllable uttered by any member of any alliance is the official viewpoint of that alliance unless it's clearly stated as such.

/one of my biggest pet peeves really.

Once you get everyone else on board, sure. Till then, enjoy.

[Ogaden]

As a sidenote: Can we completely KILL that most idiotic line of thought that every word written or syllable uttered by any member of any alliance is the official viewpoint of that alliance unless it's clearly stated as such.

/one of my biggest pet peeves really.

It's a bit hard to do that when the person in question is a member of government.

[BastardofGod]

The word harsh is subjective in itself. Steelrat, though a member of Grämlins, has the right to his/her/its opinion, whether he/she/it wishes you perish or not doesn't reflect on Grämlins itself, though as an alliance we have the same principles, each individual surely has their own beliefs. I felt this should be stated, but it seems you ignored the essence of his post:

I got the essence of his post. But what if his post is completely wrong. Then hes just stating faulty facts. Just putting kindling into a fire that could completely destroy a sovereign alliance.

[Ejayrazz]

I got the essence of his post. But what if his post is completely wrong. Then hes just stating faulty facts. Just putting kindling into a fire that could completely destroy a sovereign alliance.

When one states "I do not necessarily agree the terms are lenient", which is ignored and then responded with a "I am sad to see a Gremlin supporting such terms"..it is mind-bottling. As for the numbers in question, have fun. I am not stepping into your mathematical equations. We are not involved with the peace negotiations and if Karma is unwilling to budge, the longer you wait the harder it'll be to recuperate. That is the only advice I can give, but like I said, I am not getting involved with the mathematics right now. That is between Steel and you.

(Hangover, etc)

Edited June 14, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[King DrunkWino]

It's a bit hard to do that when the person in question is a member of government.

Horsehockey I say, HORSEHOCKEY!!! All it takes is the following phrase or some variation there of: "The following is the official position of (insert alliance here.)"

[kevin32891]

That's like... your opinion man.

[Aurion]

Turtling is supposed to stop nukes now?

Please, share more of these godlike strategies of yours.

No one could possibly be this ignor-

Oh.

Wait.

Nukes themselves don't destroy cash, you abysmal fool.

And yes, turtling works if you're desperate to save money since you wont be spending cash on your air force. Or navy. The most you'll lose is 5 mil per day from a DA + however much it costs you to buy a nuke for the day. As opposed to losing cash from DAs/GAs, and having to rebuy your planes a couple times a day plus however much of your navy you need to rebuy.

Is it an optimal war strategy? No. It's more a survival strategy.

Will it save you money? Yeah. And since you're complaining about money one would assume that you would attempt to save money.

[Asriel Belacqua]

I got the essence of his post. But what if his post is completely wrong. Then hes just stating faulty facts. Just putting kindling into a fire that could completely destroy a sovereign alliance.

... Like NPO has NEVER completely destroyed a sovereign alliance (*looks at the various viceroys, forced disbandments, etc, etc, etc*) yeah... that's going to help your case.

Not saying I want NPO to disband, just saying don't destroy the legs you stand on here.

[Jacques Cousteau]

Steelrat=awesome.

Last i checked, the losers in a war did not get to dictate their surrender terms.

In the words of OK GO, "Get get get get get over it!"

[Vladimir]

The word harsh is subjective

The whole issue brushed aside with such ease. I applaud you sir. Who would have thought that all it'd take for Gramlins to completely change their opinion on everything they ever stood for was a spot of upwards mobility in the power structure.

"Peace terms shall not be used to humilate the opponent or to cripple him economically beyond the need to remove the current and immediate threat to the alliance. No terms shall be offered which The Grämlins would not consider acceptable if the sides were switched." - Gramlins Codex

Heady days. We were all so young and naive.

[Letum]

Someone put up the top 20 to prove the point that you can easily pay off the monetary reps after several of your members were whining that the alliance was bankrupt. There is not really a point in releasing the rest of the list because his point was proven and Londo specifically stated these intel reports helped in determining the reps. Why should I need to post the top 181 for you when you yourself should know what their warchests are.

Unfortunatelly, those 20 nations are only able to pay out 6000 tech per cycle.

I am not contesting those top 20 exist, I am merely pointing out that the total number of people able to pay reps with the restrictions posited will be about 50, and that is very likely to drop below the borderline for minimum reps.

What point was proven? That we have 20 nations with big warchests? We never claimed we didn't. We claim we have 50 able to pay; you claim that we have 181. If you have all these reports that prove that the number is 181, release them.

Because you know, somehow, twenty is less than one-hundred and eighty-one.

Nukes themselves don't destroy cash, you abysmal fool.

You know another situation when cash cannot be destroyed?

When it doesn't exist.

[Ejayrazz]

The whole issue brushed aside with such ease. I applaud you sir. Who would have thought that all it'd take for Gramlins to completely change their opinion on everything they ever stood for was a spot of upwards mobility in the power structure.

"Peace terms shall not be used to humilate the opponent or to cripple him economically beyond the need to remove the current and immediate threat to the alliance. No terms shall be offered which The Grämlins would not consider acceptable if the sides were switched." - Gramlins Codex

Heady days. We were all so young and naive.

Did we offer you those terms? Simple question, yes or no.

We are so terrible we even gave white peace to your long time supporter. I see no argument here. I merely pointed out what YOU feel is harsh is what others feel are leinent. I never supported anything my friend, furthermore I believe your alliance supported terms which others perceived to be harsh in which you felt otherwise. It is a two way street - harshness is subjective.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Ejayrazz

[bkphysics]

...

They only assume 14 days of war, which isn't what's going to happen. Our nations who respond to our orders most quickly will go into war mode, and then get hit, waiting for several days until we hit the 90% number. It's not unreasonable to think that it could take a week, which means 21 days of war for the people who respond to the orders most quickly

...

I wonder how hard it would be to negotiate with Karma the following:

1. Here is a list of the current bank nations in PM

2. We will order them out of PM to endure the 14 days of fighting

3. Karma (and NPO) will track the exit from PM and the subsequent 14 days of warfare.

4. After nation endures 14 days (consecutively) they are taken off the list and allowed back into peace mode

5. Completion of already stated terms must be done in X time frame.

Taken into account the above, no nation would endure over 14 days of warfare.

I am sure many outside 3rd parties would be willing to track and maintain the lists and make sure it is done correctly.

Bottom line, rather than going on and on about 'OMG WTF BBQ!!111!! Peace terms are injustice to humanity!!!' etc ... negotiate the points you are so pantie twisted about and cover you biggest concerns.

The whole, NO WAY WE CAN PAY THIS ... has been proven as false. Accept and determine how the variables in all the analysis can be locked down into certainties (more than 14 days of war, inactives, incompetent management of nations, etc)

[Archon]

Mm, I'm not sure why people are complaining so much about the inability to have the requisite activity. Has it not been the pedigree of the NPO in the recent past to enforce mandatory weekly installments, which actually forces activity? But hey, I'm not a game economist.

[Aurion]

You know another situation when cash cannot be destroyed?

When it doesn't exist.

To be frank, if the levels of cash necessary to rebuild your banks to a viable economic level after two friggin' weeks of war does not exist, you are far more utterly and completely incompetent than any of us could have ever imagined.

Italics on banks. Not only is it ludicrous you have bank nations in the age of warchests and massive Infra counts, but if they don't even have cash on hand, well...

If that's true, again frankly, you are utterly and completely pathetic.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Aurion