I'm baffled NPO

[ChairmanHal]

Karma: "Stand in front of the firing squad like a man, you baby! We won't shoot the kill, we promise!"

NPO: Hell no.

Karma: See? See how unreasonable they are being?

NPO: Actually no we aren't.

Karma: Liar! We did the math!

NPO: You did the math, which is objective, based on subjective criteria, right?

Karma: This web site proves your wrong!

NPO: Actually, no it doesn't, since you don't know all the facts.

Karma, when you are finished making NPO actually look like the reasonable one in all this, how about you climb down from the pedestal you had made for your statues for winning the war and decide if you actually want to give NPO workable, objective, measurable terms or just kill them. I'm sure they'd appreciate knowing one way or the other.

EDIT: I'm not a member of the NPO Fan Club by any means. If I'm sitting here pointing all this out, it should tell you that perhaps you are doing something wrong.

Edited June 14, 2009 by ChairmanHal

[Steelrat]

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.

I have not discussed or stated the terms were lenient, i pointed out that those terms are doable what NPO deny and try to use "their" math as proof.

It´s obvious that NPO is trying to get the best terms they could get and saving those high Infra bank nations, i never said you shouldn´t but then you should not try to use proof able math.

So again, incompetent or propaganda.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Steelrat

[Letum]

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.

Our nations with cash on hand can rebuild. The thing is, we don't have 181 banks.

[Qaianna]

I generally pride myself on trying to poke holes in theories. I've already often stated my opinion of the feasibility of the 90% parts of the terms (especially given the 6.9/7 allowed peacemode quality).

However ...

Nukes are responsible for 80% of this damage. And we are talking about 14 nukes, 1 per day. That is the figure used in all calculations presented to you. If someone claimed otherwise, they probably made a mistake due to temporary confusion.

Nukes are banned in the first 24 hours of a war. Granted, this assumes only 14 days of war, which is actually NOT part of the terms. Assuming that the Order somehow meets the two 90% requirements, then this means FIFTEEN days, since the clock was stated to not start until the day AFTER they all came out of peacemode. Of course, day 1 could be only 'technical' if they all came out at 23:50 CN time.

[Archon]

Karma: "Stand in front of the firing squad like a man, you baby! We won't shoot the kill, we promise!"

Actually, I think they maintain that the NPO already walked in front of the firing squad. They just want the NPO to stand still.

[Aurion]

Our nations with cash on hand can rebuild. The thing is, we don't have 181 banks.

* Aurion facepalms

You have got to be kidding me.

Well, it wouldn't be the first time we have vastly overestimated your level of competence.

Protip: Warchests. Universal. A standard for these you badly need if you are indeed telling the truth. Which I'll continue to doubt unless you post definitive proof, personally. But that's just me.

Edit: I mean Jesus, after all the bragging about your banks and economic prowess, this? "lol" does not begin to describe...

Edited June 14, 2009 by Aurion

[KingEsus]

I have not discussed or stated the terms were lenient, i pointed out that those terms are doable what NPO deny and try to use "their" math as proof.

It´s obvious that NPO is trying to get the best terms they could get and saving those high Infra bank nations, i never said you shouldn´t but then you should not try to use proof able math.

So again, incompetent or propaganda.

Oh man. It's very entertaining watching both the proposers of these horrible terms and those that support them trying to talk their way out of this being anything other than blatant hypocrisy.

brilliant.

[Stonewall Jaxon]

Turtling is supposed to stop nukes now?

Please, share more of these godlike strategies of yours.

It really is a shame when stuff like this happens. Potentially good, active players look to the NPO for guidance, and they are blinded by the propaganda NPO spins out endlessly. Letum: Karma, and especially Gremlins, has some of the brightest nation-builders and mathematicans on the planet, so I'd trust them ahead of Coranth and Vladimir, people who usually enter topics when Pacifica screwed something up and needs spin doctoring. Your comment, for example (and I do realize it probably came from NPO's internal areas, where one of your leaders stated it matter-of-factly knowing nobody was there to point out its stupidity), shows a lack of mathematical reasoning. Turtling is a tactic of survival in desperate times that saves an outnumbered nation from losing too much cash (and other factors, but ultimately cash is the base unit of CN) each day, and thus the ability to turtle wuld allow a large nation to better survie and rebuild after being beaten on for two weeks. Nobody said anything about stopping nukes, it's all about minimalizing damage from repeated successful ground attacks.

[Cortath]

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.

What many economists fail to understand about the NPO is that its size makes it very different.

I got into an (surprisingly, given it was on these forums) intelligent discussion with some some Grämlins people a while back where we were both refuting certain people who were saying that Grämlins was much better at tech than we were.

What we (me and the Grämlins guy) were trying to explain to this guy was that our alliances are entirely different. The NPO is a mass-member alliance. Grämlins, and many other alliances are/were invite-only, or require certain strength requirements before letting them in.

The NPO is a mass-member alliance, and an alliance that has been #1 for a very long time, on most ways one might measure "#1." As a result, a lot of people want to join us, simply because we're the best. That's the nature of human psychology, I suppose. This yields a caliber of applicant that is probably one of the lowest in the game. To combat that, early on in our existence, we constructed, and maintain, an Academy that is extremely difficult to get through (on the spectrum of academies that various alliances have that I have observed), in an attempt to weed out these people. But they still get through. And in a very large alliance, these people can still meet various mechanical activity checks our alliance can construct, but still fall through the cracks in that they don't actively contribute or participate in various jobs of our department, or fight as many wars they should.

As a mass-member alliance, we deal in vary large numbers of people when it comes to economic programs. Small alliances (let's say under 150) and medium alliances (let's say 150-400), tend to be able to focus more on mircoeconomics (nation level economics) when it comes to development programs whereas large alliances (400+) need to focus more on macroeconomics (alliance level economics). That is, a small alliance, when it creates an economic program, can reach a higher slot efficiency than a large alliance, because a small alliance generally has more active members, and fewer people in each program.

Smaller alliances, and newer alliances, have more active members, because you have to actively join a new alliance. That takes considerably more effort than sitting in an alliance you've been in for years. Thus, smaller alliances have much more efficient economics at the microeconomics, whereas larger alliances have to focus on macroeconomic efficiency, that is, constructing programs that are effective in creating efficiency at masses of low-activity nations.

I think this is how you get a lot of differences in economic analyses that Karma and NPO have had. I look at say, MK, or VE, with about 150 and 300 nations respectively, and you can see that their understanding of economics is generally based on higher slot/participation/activity estimates than ours are. Similarly, alliances like Grämlins, which are "elite" rather than "mass-member" have similarly different understandings of economics.

That's fine and good. Everyone has different understandings of economics because their economics is grounded in the material realities of their alliances, as it should be. When it becomes problematic is when people apply their understandings of economics that are particular their alliance's reality to another alliance that has a fundamentally different reality.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Cortath

[Matthew Conrad]

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.

You know another situation when cash cannot be destroyed?

When it doesn't exist.

Perhaps you should go back and read what that particular fellow was responding too. Some of your less informed members were claiming that NPO wouldn't be able to pay the cash sum in the reps. I don't think anyone said 181 of your members had large warchests. They were saying 181 would be capable of helping to pay the reps because they would still be in a position to provide cash, regardless of if they have a large excess of it or not.

I also never said we had intel on 181 as I've only personally seen the intel on the top 50-60ish. I mean, we might, but you'd have to go to another person if you want that information. Of course, you're in the alliance so you could simply ask those members yourself.

[Vladimir]

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

Irrelevant. This is you two weeks ago:

"[T]imes are changing and the way we play changes as well, former actions pertaining to reperation requests will one day be moot because the gameplay then and the gameplay now is rapidly changing [...] A weird analogy I saw stated elsewhere was at one point slavery was socially accepted and thus not frowned upon, though as time continued on this idea changed, they compared it to EZI as you are just this - a slave, or a dead one nontheless, living in fear. Times are changing, and we don't want this big bad EZI theory to exist anymore. I am comparing this to terms, as time is changing we as alliances are changing and I honestly feel within the coming months we will be able to identify those who really wish for lessen-harsh terms as compared to those strategically planning, as you suggest."

Now when the harshest (to the point of impossibility) reparations ever seen by several factors appear you are of the strategic mind that "the word harsh is subjective"?

[Big Z]

Actually, if NPO were to accept the terms, no NPO nation coming out of hippy would receive longer than the agreed upon war time, which is 14 days. We would use something akin to bkphysics's suggestion, which would be maintaining a list of who has warred the requisite 14 days and who hasn't. Once there has reached 90 percent compliance, then the other portions of the terms begins.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Big Z

[bkphysics]

Actually, if NPO were to accept the terms, no NPO nation would receive longer than the agreed upon war time, which is 14 days. We would use something akin to bkphysics's suggestion, which would be maintaining a list of who has warred the requisite 14 days and who hasn't. Once there has reached 90 percent compliance, then the other portions of the terms begins.

Don't say that, you will completely undermine all their pretty mathematical analysis and fantastic bawwinggg!

[Azaghul]

Even 4999 is kind of high and an ideal level. You only really need 3999 infra to send out tech and/or money on 6 slots. That costs $80,489,059.

Anyway for calculations of slog usage, here is an NPO recovery plan that I came up with.

Azaghul's NPO banking plan

Let's go with 50 nations with enough left over warchest to spend 150 million on infra and be a bank immediately, as Letum gives us. Let's assume you are able to get 45 to participate, and they should all have DRAs. However to account for not having 100% efficiency, we'll just go by 5 slots each. Those two concessions are giving you 75% of optimal efficiency.

Month 1

25 start paying money reps immediately. Possibly tech too. 25*5*3per month*3mill&50 tech= 1.125 billion & 18750 tech.

5 banks send 3 mill each to 25 nations in the 1000 tech+ category. Those 25 nations send 50 tech each off of their existing stockpiles at 4 slots each (3mill helps them out of bill-lock or whatever if they are in it). 25*4*3*50= 15,000 tech.

Of the other 15 banks. 5 help get random people out of bill lock. 10 devote themselves to aiding people back up to banking condition who have full economic improvements and a dozen economic wonders, and maybe a little money on hand. Likely the peace mode guys without large warchests. My experience with new nations is it takes about 4 rounds to build them up to 4K infra or so, and with rebuilding after the noCB 3 rounds or 1 month.

First month's reps paying total= 1.125 billion & 33,750 tech.

Banking condition: 45 old banks, 10 new banks, 55 total, + 25 nations got 3 mill and 75 slots towards getting others out of bill lock.

Month 2

25 banks continue to pay reps like in month 1. 1.125 billion & 18750 tech.

5 banks continue to send to fund 25 nations sending 4 slots of tech each. 15,000 tech.

5 banks continue to work on bailing people out of bill-lock if they are still in it.

20 banks aid 20 more nations back into banking condition.

Second month's reps paying total: 1.125 billion & 33,750 tech

Banking condition: 55 old banks, 20 new banks, 75 total, + 25 nations got 3 mill and 75 slots towards getting others out of bill lock.

Months 3-6

(calculated as per month)

30 banks send money and tech to pay reps out all slots: 30nations*5slots*3per month*3mill&50 tech= 1.350 billion & 22500 tech.

10 banks fund 50 sending tech on 4 slots: 50nations*4slots*3cycles*50tech= 30,000 tech

10 banks send 50 tech on 5 slots: 10*5slots*3cycles*50 tech= 7,500 tech

25 banks create 25 new banks in month 3, 50 to 100 in month 4, etc. These new banks can all be used for internal aid and rebuilding or some siphoned off to pay reps even faster, or some siphoned off if you need to account for extra inefficiency beyond what not counting DRAs compensates for.

Reps per month 1.35 billion & 60,000 tech using 110 nations.

Summary

Total tech over 6 months: 33,750+33,750+60,000*4= 307,500 tech

Total money over 6 months= 1.125 billion + 1.125 billion + 1.35billion*4= 7.65 billion

More than the total reps in 6 months, and leaving a 75% efficiency rate initially, 83% overall, and including a reasonable proportion of banks for internal aid every month that grows exponentially and could be siphoned off slightly to account for extra inefficiency.

Edit: I really need to proofread things BEFORE I post them.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Azaghul

[Archon]

What many economists fail to understand about the NPO is that its size makes it very different.

I got into an (surprisingly, given it was on these forums) intelligent discussion with some some Grämlins people a while back where we were both refuting certain people who were saying that Grämlins was much better at tech than we were.

What we (me and the Grämlins guy) were trying to explain to this guy was that our alliances are entirely different. The NPO is a mass-member alliance. Grämlins, and many other alliances are/were invite-only, or require certain strength requirements before letting them in.

The NPO is a mass-member alliance, and an alliance that has been #1 for a very long time, on most ways one might measure "#1." As a result, a lot of people want to join us, simply because we're the best. That's the nature of human psychology, I suppose. This yields a caliber of applicant that is probably one of the lowest in the game. To combat that, early on in our existence, we constructed, and maintain, an Academy that is extremely difficult to get through (on the spectrum of academies that various alliances have that I have observed), in an attempt to weed out these people. But they still get through. And in a very large alliance, these people can still meet various mechanical activity checks our alliance can construct, but still fall through the cracks in that they don't actively contribute or participate in various jobs of our department, or fight as many wars they should.

As a mass-member alliance, we deal in vary large numbers of people when it comes to economic programs. Small alliances (let's say under 150) and medium alliances (let's say 150-400), tend to be able to focus more on mircoeconomics (nation level economics) when it comes to development programs whereas large alliances (400+) need to focus more on macroeconomics (alliance level economics). That is, a small alliance, when it creates an economic program, can reach a higher slot efficiency than a large alliance, because a small alliance generally has more active members, and fewer people in each program.

Smaller alliances, and newer alliances, have more active members, because you have to actively join a new alliance. That takes considerably more effort than sitting in an alliance you've been in for years. Thus, smaller alliances have much more efficient economics at the microeconomics, whereas larger alliances have to focus on macroeconomic efficiency, that is, constructing programs that are effective in creating efficiency at masses of low-activity nations.

I think this is how you get a lot of differences in economic analyses that Karma and NPO have had. I look at say, MK, or VE, with about 150 and 300 nations respectively, and you can see that their understanding of economics is generally based on higher slot/participation/activity estimates than ours are. Similarly, alliances like Grämlins, which are "elite" rather than "mass-member" have similarly different understandings of economics.

That's fine and good. Everyone has different understandings of economics because their economics is grounded in the material realities of their alliances, as it should be. When it becomes problematic is when people apply their understandings of economics that are particular their alliance's reality to another alliance that has a fundamentally different reality.

You'll have to forgive me answering your lengthy response (which I appreciate) with what will amount to a simple query, but the NPO does have a banking infrastructure, right? So would it not be possible to, from your massive quantity of nations, extract a subset that could function similarly to a smaller alliance's system? I understand that this would of course result in a longer time spent paying reparations, however that might also motivate more loyal Pacificans to join this more active subset, no?

[Bilrow]

Perhaps you should go back and read what that particular fellow was responding too. Some of your less informed members were claiming that NPO wouldn't be able to pay the cash sum in the reps. I don't think anyone said 181 of your members had large warchests. They were saying 181 would be capable of helping to pay the reps because they would still be in a position to provide cash, regardless of if they have a large excess of it or not.

I'm part of the 181 and in bill-lock with $58,207.68 (Surplus). Hardly in any position to provide cash. There are lots of us:

http://www.cybernations.net/allNations_dis...Pacific%20Order

Take a look at that list of those over 1000 Tech but yet under 100 infra and hitting 0 Infra - with almost two months of war most of those are in bill-lock and have no money left. 34 to be exact under 100 infra that are expected to pay reps and in bill-lock. Good luck getting that imaginary cash from them.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Bilrow

[Stonewall Jaxon]

I think as of right now, NPO's nations could pay the necessary reps easily, but those two weeks of damage scare NPO out of accepting the terms, since how much damage occurs in those two weeks can vary tremendously. Thus, I think Karma should take Pacifica's suggestion and increase the amount of reparations, maybe to the range of 10-15 billion, and let the peace mode nations be.

Well, actually if I were Karma I'd let NPO stay in peace mode until they lose their sanction and then impose reps, but I suppose that'd take a while.

[Cortath]

You'll have to forgive me answering your lengthy response (which I appreciate) with what will amount to a simple query, but the NPO does have a banking infrastructure, right? So would it not be possible to, from your massive quantity of nations, extract a subset that could function similarly to a smaller alliance's system? I understand that this would of course result in a longer time spent paying reparations, however that might also motivate more loyal Pacificans to join this more active subset, no?

Of course. That's what we do. The issue is that we have this subset of nations, and they're about to get pounded into oblivion. While many have disputed our military estimates, I believe that they are sound, and in fact, conservative.

And the issue of course, is that these reparations cannot be paid with "just" Banks. Banks will have to fund hundreds of nations as tech farms in order to push out the tech from both the 1K+ tech nations and for the other portion of the reps. That's where you lose a lot of efficiency. What people again, do not understand when they make their estimates, is that the NPO is now an extremely low-level NS/infra heavy alliance, and that in order for those nations to push out tech (since they obviously can't push out money), they're going to need to be funded, and that's where you're going to lose the efficiency. Moreover, those nations aren't 6 slot nations, but 4-5 slot nations, and with at least one slot used for money coming in to fund tech, a 5 slot nation's at best output would be 4 slots, and not at 100% slot utilization/efficiency.

Let me end by saying that I appreciate the civility with which you have responded to my post.

[Cortath]

I think as of right now, NPO's nations could pay the necessary reps easily, but those two weeks of damage scare NPO out of accepting the terms, since how much damage occurs in those two weeks can vary tremendously. Thus, I think Karma should take Pacifica's suggestion and increase the amount of reparations, maybe to the range of 10-15 billion, and let the peace mode nations be.

Well, actually if I were Karma I'd let NPO stay in peace mode until they lose their sanction and then impose reps, but I suppose that'd take a while.

What is interesting, Stonewall Jaxon, and I'm sure a nation in an alliance such as yours can appreciate this, is that I presume they rejected our counter-offer, because they were scared of us. They fear that if we have anything that would allow us to rebuild in under one year, we'll go after them and kill them all. Strategies of long-term war or reparations that are based off of our enemies coming back with a chip on their shoulder and hatred in their hearts are mistaken, as we have learned from our conflict with FAN, and I wish that we had learned it sooner.

[Seerow]

What is interesting, Stonewall Jaxon, and I'm sure a nation in an alliance such as yours can appreciate this, is that I presume they rejected our counter-offer, because they were scared of us. They fear that if we have anything that would allow us to rebuild in under one year, we'll go after them and kill them all. Strategies of long-term war or reparations that are based off of our enemies coming back with a chip on their shoulder and hatred in their hearts are mistaken, as we have learned from our conflict with FAN, and I wish that we had learned it sooner.

It would have done better for you if you had spread this message of change before you attacked OV.

But then, if you had actually changed you wouldn't have declared on them like you did. It's always convenient how people losing a war see the light.

[Letum]

Even 4999 is kind of high and an ideal level. You only really need 3999 infra to send out tech and/or money on 6 slots. That costs $80,489,059.

Anyway for calculations of slog usage, here is an NPO recovery plan that I came up with.

Azaghul's NPO banking plan

Let's go with 50 nations with enough left over warchest to spend 150 million on infra and be a bank immediately, as Letum gives us. Let's assume you are able to get 45 to participate, and they should all have DRAs. However to account for not having 100% efficiency, we'll just go by 5 slots each. Those two concessions are giving you 75% of optimal efficiency.

Leaving 1 slot per nation for rebuilding aid is part of the peace terms, so nations will already be using 5 slots each prior to the efficiency adjustments.

And really, all you've done in your "plan" is find another way to reach the "how much tech 50 nations with 5 slots at 100% efficiency can send out" figure. Your calculations are effectively assuming a 100% rate, even when you claim they do not.

[Ejayrazz]

Irrelevant. This is you two weeks ago:

"[T]imes are changing and the way we play changes as well, former actions pertaining to reperation requests will one day be moot because the gameplay then and the gameplay now is rapidly changing [...] A weird analogy I saw stated elsewhere was at one point slavery was socially accepted and thus not frowned upon, though as time continued on this idea changed, they compared it to EZI as you are just this - a slave, or a dead one nontheless, living in fear. Times are changing, and we don't want this big bad EZI theory to exist anymore. I am comparing this to terms, as time is changing we as alliances are changing and I honestly feel within the coming months we will be able to identify those who really wish for lessen-harsh terms as compared to those strategically planning, as you suggest."

Now when the harshest (to the point of impossibility) reparations ever seen by several factors appear you are of the strategic mind that "the word harsh is subjective"?

Yes. It is subjective. Some feel you deserve it as you felt others deserved the terms you gave them. I never stated I supported them nor did I say I was disgusted by them. If you'd like my opinion, ask.

[Seerow]

Leaving 1 slot per nation for rebuilding aid is part of the peace terms, so nations will already be using 5 slots each prior to the efficiency adjustments.

And really, all you've done in your "plan" is find another way to reach the "how much tech 50 nations with 5 slots at 100% efficiency can send out" figure. Your calculations are effectively assuming a 100% rate, even when you claim they do not.

If you read the rest of his plan it allows for the aid being sent internally to raise new banks and get your members back on track. He doesn't need to give that extra slot in the initial figuring of efficiency because it's accounted for further in.

[kriegsdrachen]

My question is this: If you believe that hitting our bank nations for two weeks won't truly have any large or lasting economic pitfalls, then why enforce it? You are arguing that we will be able to rebuild even with banks taking two weeks of war, so what then is the point?

[Vladimir]

Yes. It is subjective. Some feel you deserve it as you felt others deserved the terms you gave them. I never stated I supported them nor did I say I was disgusted by them. If you'd like my opinion, ask.

What is your opinion?