NPO - A Suggestion

[Azhrarn]

To bad. Rules are rules if you break them their are consequences.

As I've already stated before, and as you've obviously chosen to ignore, show me where in the terms you specified no more than 20%.

[kingzog]

To bad. Rules are rules if you break them their are consequences.

And it's posts like this that are precisely the reason the Emperor should impose radio silence on you clowns.

The 'rule-breaking' has already been refuted elsewhere. Besides, many of the alleged infractions were by nations who were eventually shown to be planted by the NPO ghosts.

Regardless, as has been noted by many former NPO members and former NPO allies, there was never any intention of letting FAN's terms expire.

Now....I'm trying really hard not to care about the terms, so that I won't be too disappointed when Karma just gives up and lets you off scot-free. But really....fools like you are slowly pushing ambivalent people like me into the "bleed them 'til they die" camp.

Do yourself and your alliance a favor.

Shut up.

[enderland]

To bad. Rules are rules if you break them their are consequences.

Yeah this was a bad idea.

[zzzptm]

To bad. Rules are rules if you break them their are consequences.

Good sir, you should copyright this statement before someone uses it in a sig graphic.

Also, consider hiring FAN to handle the PR work for NPO. They have much more experience in the situation NPO now finds itself and, frankly, much more class.

[Petrovich4]

And it's posts like this that are precisely the reason the Emperor should impose radio silence on you clowns.

The 'rule-breaking' has already been refuted elsewhere. Besides, many of the alleged infractions were by nations who were eventually shown to be planted by the NPO ghosts.

Regardless, as has been noted by many former NPO members and former NPO allies, there was never any intention of letting FAN's terms expire.

Now....I'm trying really hard not to care about the terms, so that I won't be too disappointed when Karma just gives up and lets you off scot-free. But really....fools like you are slowly pushing ambivalent people like me into the "bleed them 'til they die" camp.

Do yourself and your alliance a favor.

Shut up.

Just wanted to say that I've come to enjoy your posting style very much in the last several weeks B)

OP: First suggestion is to surrender.

[the rebel]

As I've already stated before, and as you've obviously chosen to ignore, show me where in the terms you specified no more than 20%.

1. Destroy all factories, nukes, air force, CMs and tanks. FAN will only keep enough soldiers to keep their population happy. Decommission must happen within seven (7) days. This state of decommission shall last three (3) months from the time the terms are ratified.

I like how you persist in "nit picking" the way the terms didnt say this or that, now the bolded part is the key point that destroys your argument, because anyone with a good understanding of the english language will know that to "only keep enough soldiers" means to keep enough soldiers to aviod anarchy which is 20%. For if you had more than 20% then it would be more than enough and classed as a violation.

[Azhrarn]

I like how you persist in "nit picking" the way the terms didnt say this or that, now the bolded part is the key point that destroys your argument, because anyone with a good understanding of the english language will know that to "only keep enough soldiers" means to keep enough soldiers to aviod anarchy which is 20%. For if you had more than 20% then it would be more than enough and classed as a violation.

It's the NPO which enjoys "nit picking" terms, and the terms quoted don't say anarchy, and don't say 20%. What they do say is "keep their population happy" and just one single negative event could easily raise the required percentage of troops necessary to accomplish that above 20%.

[the rebel]

It's the NPO which enjoys "nit picking" terms, and the terms quoted don't say anarchy, and don't say 20%. What they do say is "keep their population happy" and just one single negative event could easily raise the required percentage of troops necessary to accomplish that above 20%.

FAN will only keep enough soldiers to keep their population happy

Reading that as a sentence, means minimum soldiers to keep population happy which is 20% because under that they become unhappy and anarchy, If you can't understand it means that isn't anyone's problem but your own. Also in the long time ive been playing CN I have yet to hear or come across one single bad event at that time which required you to buy troops.

[Azhrarn]

Reading that as a sentence, means minimum soldiers to keep population happy which is 20% because under that they become unhappy and anarchy, If you can't understand it means that isn't anyone's problem but your own. Also in the long time ive been playing CN I have yet to hear or come across one single bad event at that time which required you to buy troops.

I'm not interested in your assumptions. If you can't read a simple English sentence without injecting your own assumptions into it that isn't anyone's problem but your own.

As for negative events affecting troop levels, I've come across several of them, so apparently you just haven't been paying attention - which is easy to believe, since you obviously haven't been paying to the argument I've been making in this thread.

Nation population and nation happiness are both variables which can and do continually fluctuate due to a wide variety of factors, including trade resources, bonus resources, negative events, government type, environment, global radiation, national religion, population density, infrastructure level and a nation's age, to give just a few examples.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Azhrarn

[Baldr]

NPO better make sure to follow those peace terms once they're accepted then.

I agree. And that's why I'm opposed to accepting the terms that have been offered.

We're expected to pay huge reps - by far the largest reps that Planet Bob has ever seen. There are minimum payments required, else we break the terms.

And even then, we could make those payments - except for the other limitations. Most of our nations are not *allowed* to make the payments. Only a small fraction (nations with over 1,000 tech) are allowed to do so. Many of those nations are already at ZI. The ones who are not (the banks and the nations with low activity who have been in peace mode for most/all of the war) must be nuked down first, and then make the payments.

And if we can't meet the minimum monthly payment, then we've sat back, given Karma the chance to nuke our banks, and we're *still* at war.

In the meantime, even if we are able to make the minimum number of payments, we've got a large alliance which needs to be rebuilt, and that requires some aid slot usage - but if we aren't very careful, we'll end up in a situation where more than 1/2 of our aid slots are used for internal rebuild instead of rep payments. Again, that leads to war.

In particular the first month (maybe 2) it will be very difficult, maybe impossible, to meet the minimum requirements.

If the only "peace offer" we are given is for terms we can not meet, then there is no point in accepting it.

[the rebel]

I'm not interested in your assumptions. If you can't read a simple English sentence without injecting your own assumptions into it that isn't anyone's problem but your own.

As for negative events affecting troop levels, I've come across several of them, so apparently you just haven't been paying attention - which is easy to believe, since you obviously haven't been paying to the argument I've been making in this thread.

I'm not making any assumptions, learn the meaning of "only keep enough" not everything has to be told in simple english so a child can understand.

Sure they're the possibilities of negative population events, loss of trade and enviroment to an extent, the others you listed don't matter, so now your implying that them nations who were in violation could not compensate the troop percentages by decomissioning the surplus when a change in circumstances occured.

Edited July 6, 2009 by the rebel

[lordliam]

NPO is like the Japanese, except worse. The Japanese gave up when America dropped 1 nuke. But NPO wouldn't give up even if Karma dropped 10 000 nukes on them.

[ShinRa]

NPO is like the Japanese, except worse. The Japanese gave up when America dropped 1 nuke. But NPO wouldn't give up even if Karma dropped 10 000 nukes on them.

I'd ask for such comparisons not to be made within this thread, yes the NPO's arrogance and pride limits them to do what's best for their alliance when they are losing a war but they do not deserve to be compared with World War 2 Japan.

Bar the fact that they have not created actual death camps for their enemies to be executed and killed over time under the guise of something justified and productive (though I will mention FAN and GATO here), they do not deserve to be compared with a people competent enough to overrun most of Asia and hold it for several years without help.

It's well known the NPO can't take on any alliance with over a hundred members in a pitch battle (or war if you preffer) without someone to be used as cannon fodder or One Vision holding their hand all the way.

Edited July 14, 2009 by ShinRa

[Ogaden]

NPO is like the Japanese, except worse. The Japanese gave up when America dropped 1 nuke. But NPO wouldn't give up even if Karma dropped 10 000 nukes on them.

Actually, the Japanese did not give up after being nuked, they had to be nuked twice.

[Haflinger]

It's well known the NPO can't take on any alliance with over a hundred members in a pitch battle (or war if you preffer) without someone to be used as cannon fodder or One Vision holding their hand all the way.

Uhh, are you serious here? Have you been tracking what's been happening to RoK and VE stats?

[Elendil old]

I'd ask for such comparisons not to be made within this thread, yes the NPO's arrogance and pride limits them to do what's best for their alliance when they are losing a war but they do not deserve to be compared with World War 2 Japan.

Bar the fact that they have not created actual death camps for their enemies to be executed and killed over time under the guise of something justified and productive (though I will mention FAN and GATO here), they do not deserve to be compared with a people competent enough to overrun most of Asia and hold it for several years without help.

It's well known the NPO can't take on any alliance with over a hundred members in a pitch battle (or war if you preffer) without someone to be used as cannon fodder or One Vision holding their hand all the way.

Don't conveniently ignore facts when they don't suit you.

[WarriorConcept]

Uhh, are you serious here? Have you been tracking what's been happening to RoK and VE stats?

Expect them to surrender soon enough

[Rebel Virginia]

Expect them to surrender soon enough

Well, they seem more interested in ending this war than the NPO does. Of course that should come as no surprise considering they have more to lose.

[Master Hakai]

That was a suggestion

[Ganjazistan]

I like how you persist in "nit picking" the way the terms didnt say this or that, now the bolded part is the key point that destroys your argument, because anyone with a good understanding of the english language will know that to "only keep enough soldiers" means to keep enough soldiers to aviod anarchy which is 20%. For if you had more than 20% then it would be more than enough and classed as a violation.

NPO has had many people throughout their history that are quite competent with the English

language and should have had no problem with making their terms very specific.

When something is worded, "only keep enough soldiers" as opposed to ,"shall not have more

than 20% soldiers", it is quite reasonable to think that maybe, just maybe it was worded

that way intentionally as a loophole for redeclaration.

Which is all a moot point as it is pretty obvious that the real "class" move was waiting until

there were only 4 days left on the terms to enact this clause.

Unless you want to try to tell us that it just wasn't noticed till then?

edit:forgot a word or two

Edited July 15, 2009 by Blanstonia

[ShinRa]

Uhh, are you serious here? Have you been tracking what's been happening to RoK and VE stats?

I do not consider simple acts of desperation and death throws to be any indication of an alliance's overall fighting capability or nature. I base that upon their past history of fighting.

The NPO loves to win and hates to lose, so it is targeting some of the weaker alliances fighting specifically to try and form some sort of victory as it dies out. Nothing more.

Edited July 15, 2009 by ShinRa

[WarriorConcept]

Well, they seem more interested in ending this war than the NPO does. Of course that should come as no surprise considering they have more to lose.

If NPO doesn't want the war to end I think they'll more than oblige.

edit: to, not the, need sleep D:

Edited July 15, 2009 by WarriorConcept

[Systemfailure]

Well, they seem more interested in ending this war than the NPO does. Of course that should come as no surprise considering they have more to lose.

no no no RV, in war you GAIN casualties you dont LOSE them.

[Haflinger]

I do not consider simple acts of desperation and death throws to be any indication of an alliance's overall fighting capability or nature. I base that upon their past history of fighting.

The NPO loves to win and hates to lose, so it is targeting some of the weaker alliances fighting specifically to try and form some sort of victory as it dies out. Nothing more.

Your claim was that NPO is unable to win a war against a 100+ alliance without allied support. Do you really think that VE could have stood up to NPO by themselves? Seeing as they have a lot more than 100 members.

And honestly, I don't know where you get the idea that VE is a weaker alliance.

[ShinRa]

Your claim was that NPO is unable to win a war against a 100+ alliance without allied support. Do you really think that VE could have stood up to NPO by themselves? Seeing as they have a lot more than 100 members.

You seem to misunderstand me, I was not commenting upon the fact that they would not win but instead the fact that the NPO always uses it's allies in whichever war it fights and is unable to fight any actual ‘war’ against any alliance one on one no matter how great an advantage in terms of strength of arms and numbers they may have. The only times in which they seem to have ever fought alliances in single combat are when the outcome is clearly to be a crushing victory in their favor, and even then they have the tendency to bring in their allies.

Here are a few examples:

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/FAN-WUT_War

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Reeducation_of_Devildogs

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Woodstock_Massacre

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/GATO-1V_War

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/NPO-Jarheads_War

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Karma_War

And honestly, I don't know where you get the idea that VE is a weaker alliance.

I said weaker, I never said that they were weak and I consider both they and RoK to be very strong in terms of capability and experience. I was mearly commenting upon how the NPO refuses to fight those who are stronger than them in terms of overall alliance strength and instead targets those still below them in what appears to be a desperate attempt to not let this war become a crushing victory and to make sure that they at least take one alliance with them.

The NPO seem to be more than willing to remain cowards and simple thugs without a shred of honour until the very end.