Otherworld Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) Yes, another thread about the reparation in this Karma war. BUT WAIT, this one is not about NPO. This is about Echelon. To refresh peoples memories.. 1. The following reparations will be paid by Echelon for instigating the war and the damage caused thereafter:10,000 technology and three jars of jam to GOD 300 million and 5,000 technology (Aided in packages of 3m/50) to MA 10,000 technology to MK on behalf of GR 2,500 technology to Apocalypse 1,500 technology or money equivalent, at an exchange rate of 3 mil per 50 to TDE 5,000 technology to TTK 1 technology to R&R 1 mil to Gen lee of RoK 1a. No Echelon nation under 1,000 tech will be allowed to pay reparations. That totals to... 34,001 tech, 301 million and three jars of jam. All to be paid by members of 1,000 tech or more. Putting maths aside for the minute...we can all agree these are harsh reps to say the least...right? The following reparations will be paid by Echelon for instigating the war and the damage caused thereafter: Well considering Echelon weren't even in the start of the war...this line just fails. What I am interested in is what has caused this total for Echelon? Other alliances have got away with much less and even nothing in several cases. You call yourself Karma..which makes sense when it comes to NPO as they have actually done something worth the harsh reps, but what have Echelon done that is so bad? They don't have a history of asking for harsh reps, and compared to the alliances that were given white peace early in the war the only difference is with them and Echelon is that Echelon have shown they have balls and not surrendered. So what is Karmas aim? To encourage alliances to just drop treaties at the first sign of trouble? Because that is what it seems like for me. Basically put, in a more coherent way, the aim of Karma was to basically right the wrongs of the NPO regime, right? Echelon have done nothing wrong but honour their treaties...I am not saying they should get white peace (although as other alliances did, perhaps they should) but these terms are much too harsh...especially from a coalition set up because these stupidly high reps were occurring. It makes sense that NPO were given huge reps, but was has Echelon done that is so bad? I feel that somebody needs to actually ask this instead of jumping on the Karma bandwagon and assuming they are always right. Please keep this on topic and civil...for once. Thanks. Edited June 19, 2009 by Otherworld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steodonn Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Because you have been in the war so long and done lots of damage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 They didn't surrender because is it took that front like a week or two to get terms organized finally after they started asking and then they didn't like them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HellAngel Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Yep those terms are pretty harsh for an alliance of Echelons size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicninja Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 10,000 technology to MK on behalf of GR This one is my favorite though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 34,001 tech, 301 million and three jars of jam. All to be paid by members of 1,000 tech or more.Putting maths aside for the minute...we can all agree these are harsh reps to say the least...right? To note, Echelon currently has 27 members at or above 1000 tech. Of those 7 are under 1000 infra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Brendan Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 About two month's worth of reps. Harsh certainly, but not entirely unreasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 About two month's worth of reps. Harsh certainly, but not entirely unreasonable. Two months at 100% slot usage. Including 1 set of slots being 3M+50 tech. It's actually kinda hard to buy 300 tech per 10 days when you're >1000 tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WcaesarD Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Two months at 100% slot usage. Including 1 set of slots being 3M+50 tech. It's actually kinda hard to buy 300 tech per 10 days when you're >1000 tech The point isn't to buy the tech, the point is for them to send out the tech they already have. Assuming they are allowed proper time, it shouldn't be too tough to buy a bundle or two every cycle too though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shimmer Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Doesn't look very impossible to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Two months at 100% slot usage. Including 1 set of slots being 3M+50 tech. It's actually kinda hard to buy 300 tech per 10 days when you're >1000 tech Why would you need to keep buying tech if you already have it? Also, they had more when the terms were offered, so it's gotten harder to pay since then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanveldez Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 well I have been watching all these threads and have come to the following conclusion. not being in the discussions over the reps I cant really have an opinion one way or another I mean obviously if Echelon or any other AA that were given terms and not white peace wouldn't take the terms if they thought that they had absolutely no way to pay them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caliph Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 This one is my favorite though. Yes, getting MK's 10,000 tech they had to give Echelon in the NoCB war. I love terms like that. The rest of it ...well, its harsh, but Echelon did either stand by or actively participate in a lot of what we blame NPO for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 The point isn't to buy the tech, the point is for them to send out the tech they already have. Assuming they are allowed proper time, it shouldn't be too tough to buy a bundle or two every cycle too though. Which takes a lot more than 2 months... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Which takes a lot more than 2 months... That doesn't actually affect the time it takes to send anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 In this particular conflict, Echelon was one of NPO's more honourable allies. However, I haven't forgotten the War of the Coalition, and the way they sold out Polar for One Vision entry. Therefore, I think they deserve reasonably hefty terms, but nothing alliance-crippling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death666Angel Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 In this particular conflict, Echelon was one of NPO's more honourable allies. However, I haven't forgotten the War of the Coalition, and the way they sold out Polar for One Vision entry. Therefore, I think they deserve reasonably hefty terms, but nothing alliance-crippling. Reducing all your nations to sub-1k tech levels qualifies to me as alliance crippling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChairmanHal Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Umm...did Echelon leadership actually sign off on these terms? Did they agree to the wording? Then why the debate? If you don't like it, blame them. Question them. Demand they ask for a reduction based a change of circumstance. Otherwise, you honestly aren't going to accomplish anything here except to elicit a few sympathetic posts and lots and lots of "Imma entitled to ma reps!" or "Ha ha! losers!" posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francesca Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Reducing all your nations to sub-1k tech levels qualifies to me as alliance crippling. Perhaps so. I did not advocate reducing your tech levels to that point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 The rest of it ...well, its harsh, but Echelon did either stand by or actively participate in a lot of what we blame NPO for.As a note, so did half of the alliances now attacking NPO.It really boils down to this. When NPO was on top NPO dictated the terms. When Karma is on top Karma is dictating the terms. Same car, same direction, different driver. As time goes on the only thing that changes is the speed of the car (size of the reps). Eventually (we appear to be at, or at the very least on the brink of, this point) there comes a point when the car is going too fast to control. The result is a crash in which everyone gets hurt. Many many nations/alliances admit that high reps are a reason they hate NPO but then are shocked to think that NPO might actually grow to hate them due to the reps they are attempting to impose. NPO imposing high reps might make it easier to justify overly high reps being imposed on us, however it doesn't make it any more right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Reducing all your nations to sub-1k tech levels qualifies to me as alliance crippling. It might be if that's what the terms would actually do. There are 27 nation that can pay right now (all in peace mode, so that shouldn't change). The tech reps divide up to about 1,200 tech per nation. There are 12 nations of the 27 that wouldn't fall below 1k tech if it was divided evenly. That number goes up if the ones at the top pay more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death666Angel Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 Umm...did Echelon leadership actually sign off on these terms? Did they agree to the wording? Then why the debate?If you don't like it, blame them. Question them. Demand they ask for a reduction based a change of circumstance. Otherwise, you honestly aren't going to accomplish anything here except to elicit a few sympathetic posts and lots and lots of "Imma entitled to ma reps!" or "Ha ha! losers!" posts. Echelon has not signed those terms, we have had issues with 2 or 3 items, the amount of reps was amount the least concerns though, but the opposition did not budge. However, I am not qualified to represent the official position of Echelon gov't and I myself surrender individually yesterday, after battling over 20 wars and spending nearly 2bill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 That doesn't actually affect the time it takes to send anything. You can send out 900 tech per nation per month (30 days). At that rate Echelon would be able to send out 26100 tech. The reason this isn't 900*2*27 is because most nations have <2800 tech meaning they can't send out a full 1800 tech without having to purchase the tech at an extremely high price. That lease roughly 12-13 nations (those who have a mediocre or better infra level and would be at 1000 tech) to pay off the remaining 9,000. So instead of having 20 nations buying 6 sets of tech you have 12-13 buying 6 sets of tech for periods ranging from 2 months to a week (depending on when they are 'reduced' to 1000 tech). Note: I've never said the reps are *impossible* to pay, only that they are very harsh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Death666Angel Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 (edited) It might be if that's what the terms would actually do. There are 27 nation that can pay right now (all in peace mode, so that shouldn't change). The tech reps divide up to about 1,200 tech per nation. There are 12 nations of the 27 that wouldn't fall below 1k tech if it was divided evenly. That number goes up if the ones at the top pay more. 1a. No Echelon nation under 1,000 tech will be allowed to pay reparations. If I read your post correctly, this term is worded incorrectly then. As a nation that falls below 1k tech after pay the reps partially will still be allowed to pay the reps. Once again, the reason for this term becomes more obscure. Edit: Crap, I was avoiding the OWF so nicely most of this war, now I get sucked in again ^^. Stupid, stupid me! Edited June 19, 2009 by Death666Angel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlin Posted June 19, 2009 Report Share Posted June 19, 2009 If I read your post correctly, this term is worded incorrectly then. As a nation that falls below 1k tech after pay the reps partially will still be allowed to pay the reps. Once again, the reason for this term becomes more obscure. Edit: Crap, I was avoiding the OWF so nicely most of this war, now I get sucked in again ^^. Stupid, stupid me! According to the terms a nation at 1001 tech may send out 50 tech. They then must buy at least 49 more tech before being allowed to pay again. If that's not the meaning than the terms are poorly worded. 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.