Baldr Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Really? Well, that definitely sucks for me. Please get back at me by spending at least the next 2 years in peace mode I'm not in peace mode, and I've spent a total of 5 days in peace mode since I started the game. I'm currently at ZI, (and I've been nuked once even after I reached ZI) and I'm willing to fight it out at the lower end for the next two years if I have to. I'm willing to pay any terms that Moo tells us to pay. (Though with the present terms, I'm not allowed to pay terms at all.) But if it was me making the decisions, and if these were the only terms offered, I'd figure that since we would be unlikely to be able to meet the terms if we tried, that there would be no reason to agree, then have our banks nuked down, then send payments for a month, at which point Karma re-declares war because we didn't meet the minimum payments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadie Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Moving beyond the 90% number that the two sides can't agree on.... Another very real issue is the issue of protection for the duration of the terms. The duration estimates vary drastically, but going somewhere in the middle at say, 8 months, can these alliance really commit to not getting in any serious wars for that long? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 This ignores, like your previous stuff, that many of our nations are not allowed to send rep payments, and that we must always use 50% of our aid slots for Karma payments. Since only 25% of our nations are allowed to send to Karma, that means that at least 50% of our aid slots *CAN NOT BE USED*. Of the 25% of the nations (the 181, it was, and now it's less) that are allowed to send payment, many are already at ZI.Karma has intentionally designed the terms to make sure we can't meet the terms. I see no reason to allow you to nuke down our banks first, for peace at an undetermined date, then to send you reps for a month, only to have you say "You didn't meet the minimum payments this month, so we're back to war". It uses 45 banks (within the number of nations with reasonable warchests that both Letum and our spy reports agree on) and 100 tech producers, well under the number with 1000+ tech. Also IIRC there are no limits on who can send money. The only potential issue you might have is if you're done with money payments and still reaching the limit on tech payments. If that were the case you could negotiate the term I'm sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 At 83% That is a bit much. 67% for the majority of the nations. Reps and rebuilding have a way of motivating people to particiapte that peace time banking doesn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhawk Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 They were at war with tC. Learn your history. NPO declared - http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=16532 Who posted terms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruthenia Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Who posted terms? Are peace terms only determined by those who post them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stonewall Jaxon Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) I'm not in peace mode, and I've spent a total of 5 days in peace mode since I started the game.I'm currently at ZI, (and I've been nuked once even after I reached ZI) Man, you really showed me. Someone please give NPO a white peace, I don't think I can take it any more! Edited June 16, 2009 by Stonewall Jaxon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Just wondering about your sig involving wolfpack, didn't they get hit by IRON, not NPO? Who posted terms? http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=17871 Really, mhawk, just take some time and read the wiki. The New Pacific Order was at war with Wolfpack, and was one of the five alliances to sign the peace terms and receive technology reparations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelrat Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I question how fair Bob Janova is. When I was an applicant to NPO and new to the game, I got on #NSA and asked about a tech deal. I thought #NSA was essentailly a NPO and friends channel at the time. Bob Janova did my first tech deal, and he took advantage of me. I trusted that he had made a reasonable offer, and I paid off, but I've always remembered that he took advantage of a nube. Do I trust him? No, not really. Describing BobJanova like that is somewhat like parellel Universe? Tell us exactly how he took advantage of you because otherwise that is nothing more than blantant low shot on a well known character. The usual tech deal conditions are 3m for 100tech, way back it was 3m for 150tech and i really really doubt that Bob gave you other conditions. If you would have dealt with me i could believe i outsmart you but BobJanova, no way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apriland Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) If you would have dealt with me i could believe i outsmart you but BobJanova, no way. Did you just call BobJanova dumb? Edited June 16, 2009 by apriland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelrat Posted June 16, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Did you just call BobJanova dumb? Uhmm my dictonary says out·smart (out-smärt') pronunciationtr.v., -smart·ed, -smart·ing, -smarts . To gain the advantage over by cunning; outwit. To get the better of by cleverness or cunning: outmaneuver, outthink, outwit, overreach. See win/lose/recovery. I would never ever call Bob dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Dont worry Steel, eventually you will win your crusade against the english language Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azaghul Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Dont worry Steel, eventually you will win your crusade against the english language The Gremlins: a secret plot against America by the Germans! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denial Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) Pacifica will be under protection until they pay the reps. That protection will end at that point I would assume. Yes, that is what I said. The terms stipulate that the New Pacific Order will be under the protection of Karma forces while the surrender terms are in effect. This will provide Pacifica with an extended period of time (we estimated 5-6 months, as this is the length of time proven to be required to pay the reparations) where they will not have to concern themselves with coming under attack. Pacifica has a deep pool of human resources, and there will certainly be plenty of foreign affairs officials capable of being active whilst the alliance is also organising reparations payments and reconstruction efforts. As I mentioned previously, the terms offered to Pacifica did not forbid the signing of treaties, nor take away their ability to establish new links and friendships. Your original assertion that Pacifica will be relegated to the Cyberverse's punching bag after the terms end is ridiculous. Besides, why should Karma be concerned with that? The New Pacific Order initiated this war; it is not our responsibility to become the New Pacific Order's guardian angel for the next year. It is our responsibility to defend Ordo Verde, win this war, and reprimand NPO for pushing the world into conflict. If there are still alliances looking for Pacifican blood 7 or 8 months down the road, all I will have to say to them is "Welcome to the world the rest of us have been living in for the past two years." It is up to them to act accordingly and avoid further conflict. I think you underestimate how quickly they will be able to rebuild. They have a lot of nations but it's a lot of small nations. They people who could get the rebuilding going will be giving aid. It is the plan of Karma to make sure Pacifica is down for at least 12 months. Oh, thank you for informing me of Karma's plans. It's comforting to know that if Karma alliances ever need an update on where their ad hoc coalition is heading in terms of policy and goals, we can head over to the all-knowing TPF membership. Karma's Pacific front plans to maintain surrender terms for as long as it takes Pacifica to pay adequate compensation for initiating a global war in a pathetic attempt to maintain their hegemony. It has been displayed that the surrender terms are capable of being met within six months. Karma is not interested in oppressing the New Pacific Order, unlike the Order's own previous behaviour to alliances such as FAN, GATO, LUE and NAAC. I further think you overestimate how many friends they will be able to make after this war. Again, not something Karma is concerned with, nor responsible for. Perhaps Pacifica should have conducted more prudent foreign policy over the previous months. So what is to stop them from getting rolled again? There is much hate and a large number of people that want Pacifica to go away, cease to exist, be kaput. There will be little to stop them from banding together and rolling Pacifica all over again and the reaction will be "Lulz!! They did it to FAN now it's happening to them!!! Lulz!!!" And? Why should we care? How is this any sort of argument against imposing surrender terms on an alliance that initiated a global conflict without adequate justification? For your last paragraph, Pacifica may have began the cycle (I really don't know if they were the first alliance to ever ask for terms/reps but I'm sure they'll be blamed for it anyway). Yes, Pacifica did begin the cycle. See: Citrus War. But originally Karma claimed it was out to end the cycle of extremely harsh terms, I believe this was even stated by the Voice of Karma. The majority of Karma alliances sought to lead by example in providing fair, just and reasonable terms, which reflected the behaviour, policies and actions of the defeated alliance prior to and during the war. The general belief amongst most of Karma was that alliances that were acting upon wholly defensive obligations, and were considered only periphery alliances, were to be given fairly lenient surrender terms. This goal was achieved - see the terms given to majority of Hegemony alliances over the past several weeks. At no point has there ever been a statement that Karma would not check and reject aggression and force those belligerents to face justice at the conclusion of the conflict. Pacifica started this war and have committed innumerable crimes and injustices over the past three years, and the surrender terms reflect that. So as has been pointed out, the cycle will continue. The hate will flow. Bob will war. Nations will burn and terms will be draconian, even more so than these because the need to constantly one up. Alliances will disband because they don't have the will to continue. Their members will filter out and spread the hate and the same thing will happen over and over again. You can come down off of Alterego's soapbox any time now. Karma had one shot to try and change things as they claimed to want to do, but in the end revenge and grudge carrying ruled the day, all the light reps/white peace handed out earlier in the war will be forgotten. These terms will live on and set the standard for the future. At least you openly admit that critics of Karma are more than willing to purposely forget the leniency and fairness displayed by Karma towards the alliances that deserved it. Edited June 16, 2009 by Revanche Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 The majority of Karma alliances sought to lead by example in providing fair, just and reasonable terms, which reflected the behaviour, policies and actions of the defeated alliance prior to and during the war. The general belief amongst most of Karma was that alliances that were acting upon wholly defensive obligations, and were considered only periphery alliances, were to be given fairly lenient surrender terms. This goal was achieved - see the terms given to majority of Hegemony alliances over the past several weeks. At no point has there ever been a statement that Karma would not check and reject aggression and force those belligerents to face justice at the conclusion of the conflict. Pacifica started this war and have committed innumerable crimes and injustices over the past three years, and the surrender terms reflect that. I wholeheartly agree with this statement. You cant expect the initiator of this conflict to receive the same leniency alliances who joined in for defensive obligations received. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Since I've been called out personally over a tech deal, I believe we did a deal at $3m/150 (since if it was $3m/100 you wouldn't be complaining). That is a low price, but it is still profitable for the dealer (considering you only have to provide 50 tech a cycle, you can invest most of the money into infra), and it was the standard rate in the past. (With the large number of new sellers now, it might become more common again.) The Grämlins grew to one of the highest ANS in the game by selling tech at rates almost that low (mostly $1.2m/50 iirc). Considering the risk to me of sending $3m to a brand new nation, I was in no way taking advantage of you to give you the same type of deal that grew my nation. As for the question of if I have handled rep payments: Not directly, but I have been (in the past) in charge of Grämlins' banking aid slots, and also managed our end of the Polar 'reps' so I do have some insight into how reparations from high end nations work. Are we done with the ad homs against me yet? Letum: As I pointed out in the other thread (where it's more on topic), the issue of why the NPO was let off at the end of GW1 is not relevant. You lost (you had to follow terms, even if they were light), you were bitter and you held onto that bitterness for two years until what you call the 'War of Retribution', and then you kept your former opponents down for the long term. Several posters from the NPO have said things like 'we won't forget this' (before the instruction came down to be conciliatory, like Guido here) and the strong impression is that you will hold onto bitterness again. But originally Karma claimed it was out to end the cycle of extremely harsh terms I've fielded this several times earlier in the war. No, Karma is out to end the cycle of unfair terms – and you can clearly see that in action in the pattern of terms given to peripheral alliances. It does not mean that alliances which have been at the core of the hegemony will get easy terms. [Also, this is pretty much trampling all over the line between IC and OOC since it's all about politics] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gfloyd2002 Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I question how fair Bob Janova is. When I was an applicant to NPO and new to the game, I got on #NSA and asked about a tech deal. I thought #NSA was essentailly a NPO and friends channel at the time. Bob Janova did my first tech deal, and he took advantage of me. I trusted that he had made a reasonable offer, and I paid off, but I've always remembered that he took advantage of a nube. Do I trust him? No, not really. It's cool to debate the numbers, and to make sure that everyone is keeping all the factors in mind. Lots of that going on in here, awesome, and more power to you for raising concerns and asking them to be addressed. But this is too much for me. Bob Janova is one of the better people you'll find in CN. Honest and straightforward, would do nothing that wasn't his best attempt at fair. You are mistaken that you were taken advantage of, though you may have feared so at the time because you didn't know. Lots of snakes in CN, but Bob Janova is absolutely not one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chaoshawk Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Since the beginning of 2006 !@#$%* (Admin) made cybernations simply for things like this to happen. !@#$%* (Admin) made cybernations not as a game but simply as a social experiment. We're being watched over by Admin and his fellow scientists (admins) have made Planet Bob simply to see what would happen if numerous anonymous people from the other realm were displaced here and the result is the cycle of hatred. NPO came from !@#$%* after being damaged there (possible other science group?) and made their revenge here and placed a iron fist on the inhabitants in this world. Now that they have fallen we shall follow their footsteps in cruelty, oh the irony. Soon others will take their empty seats once their blood stains are removed. Admin has decided his theory was correct. In the beginning we may not notice it but later on we will see a new enigma rise and it will start over again. The real enemy is Admin for allowing this to happen! Revolution I say! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Legion defended Pacifica in this war. Well you certainly proved Joracy wrong there about the ease of which it takes to mend relations with the NPO. All it takes is losing two wars to either the NPO or NPO supporters followed by disbandment, reformation, a Pacifican Viceroy and reparations paid to the NPO and her supporters. Just remember to follow this example to become best buddies with Pacificans, Karma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enderland Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Well you certainly proved Joracy wrong there about the ease of which it takes to mend relations with the NPO. All it takes is losing two wars to either the NPO or NPO supporters followed by disbandment, reformation, a Pacifican Viceroy and reparations paid to the NPO and her supporters. Just remember to follow this example to become best buddies with Pacificans, Karma. I do not think GATO ever disbanded >_> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I do not think GATO ever disbanded >_> Legion did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Letum Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 (edited) I was initially viewing this as pointless, as it would simply lead to the same cycle of "No u" and "No U" these forums have been for the past few days, but since you are demanding so much that I respond to Azaghul, here you go: It uses 45 banks (within the number of nations with reasonable warchests that both Letum and our spy reports agree on) and 100 tech producers, well under the number with 1000+ tech. See, this is the problem. When I give you a figure of "50 nations will be able to pay this", it means 50 nations. It does not mean 50 banks + everyone else is who is not a bank, It does not mean 75, it does not mean "50 + up to 100 that can be built up", it does not mean "50 + 30 potential banks", it does not mean any amount of tech procurers. It means 50 nations. In order to have "50 + 100 that can be built up", the restriction on the top 181 tech nations sending reps would have to be relaxed. That looks absurd to you? Unfortunatelly, there are a number of factors working against the numbers you want to get. The first is the very simple fact that war induces a Darwinian self-selection; excluding those ordered into peace, it is the most able and active that fight, and it is the most able and active that get knocked out of the top 181. Whilst some of those that remain are amongst the ranks of "active" (about 1/3), this process of self-selection means that those ranks are most concentrated with those unable to pay the reps and withstand the damages incurred. Does this mean that 100 nations would just give up and desert? No, it does not. A sizeable number (though not 100) would indeed desert or delete their nations (and we have seen quite a lot of deletions), another number would be chronically inactive people that have been around primarily for protection, and would not be willing to spend the time on an online game to pull this off, and other people being marginalized due to similar reasons. Does this sound strange? I'm afraid it is not really so. It is not uncommon to have a fairly low % of the overall players of an alliance being active participants, more so when dealing with numbers-based alliances. Most large alliances would have low turnouts for votes; the monthly elections in the Pacific generally have a turnout of under 150 people, most often less. Yes, it is true that larger nations are more likely to be around longer, and be more active as a result. That is already accounted for; the activity figure for those nations is already more than double the ratio of voters:nations; likewise, the aformentioned self-selection further weakens the likely rate of people that would contribute. Does this sound like me whining that all our ranked nations suck and we are incompetent? If you want to interpret it as such, you can go ahead and do so. This is non an IC forum, and I am talking in terms of the players behind these nations. It has very little to do with any specific quality of the New Pacific Order. If the numbers sound excessive, it is because they are wrought on by a combination of the restrictions on who can aid, the additional war proviso, the war already in place and most importantly, the size of the alliance. If I was discussing an alliance the size of MK, I would expect these numbers to drop to about 10-20, which wouldn't seem that far-fetched to you. One issue that might occur to you is that many of these issues would persist even without the war provision; that is true. But their effects would be less pronounced, to the point that it would be possible to meet the minimum payment without any significant risk. As it stands with the terms proposed, we are vacillating around that figure and pushing at that limit (for the short term); with the restriction lifted, we would be able to safely meet it with certainty, in large part due to the reduction in damage that would up our short-term capacity. Without this change, the only way the logistics could be met is with a lot of sheer dumb luck in the factors I have mentioned, and making a decision based on luck is not really the way to go. It might sound like a small thing to make such a big difference, but it will. The 181 restriction and the 2 week restriction are both aimed at accomplishing the same thing, weakening the NPO's upper ranks (or, depending what kind of language you like using "punishing" them). The point is that when combined, their effects act together so as to increase the overall impact beyond the cumulative effect of each individual term. I.E, you can still damage the upper ranks without rolling everything into one and creating the problems we mentioned. Now, you can go back to repeating the points that you people have made 100 times, and we can repeat the counter-points that we have made 100 times, and still be nowhere, ever. Leo Tolstoy really is awesome. Edited June 17, 2009 by Letum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 See, this is the problem. When I give you a figure of "50 nations will be able to pay this", it means 50 nations. It does not mean 50 banks + everyone else is who is not a bank, It does not mean 75, it does not mean "50 + up to 100 that can be built up", it does not mean "50 + 30 potential banks", it does not mean any amount of tech procurers. It means 50 nations.In order to have "50 + 100 that can be built up", the restriction on the top 181 tech nations sending reps would have to be relaxed. It means '50 + up to 131 that can be built up'. Unless somehow the NPO's aid slots don't work and you can't build people up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cortath Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 It means '50 + up to 131 that can be built up'. Unless somehow the NPO's aid slots don't work and you can't build people up. You are precisely correct. Our aid slots don't work. Not under these terms, they don't. These terms required a reparations:internal aid slot usage of 1:1. We can't build up 131 nations with 50, while still maintaining the requisite reparations monthly allotments. That's been the problem with every single Karma analysis I've seen from anyone. None of them analyze the totality of the situation. Some of them only consider the tech, and not the money. Some of them don't consider the damage to war. Some of them don't consider realistic efficiency percentages. I could go and on. I understand why. You're not in our shoes right now. You're not poring over data, with a full understanding of theoretical and actual economics of the New Pacific Order. There's also the fact that I believe that many in our opposition want to see us try to pay impossible-to-pay reparations, but that's a whole different matter entirely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Janova Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 Azaghul's plan earlier in this thread fulfils that requirement and proves that it is possible with no problem. Since internal aid doesn't have to be sent from high tech nations, some of your other nations sitting on large warchests can send that. 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.