An Open Letter to the NPO

[Azhrarn]

We've already taken our lumps. It's called losing 20 million alliance strength, most of our allies, and all our political capital. We are defeated, beaten, have lost the war.

Then start acting like it. Put down your bullhorns; stop demanding special treatment, and accept the peace terms. In fact, just to prove your sincerity, I'd like to see Vladimir write an essay, 10,000 words minimum, explaining just why you lost the war.

As I've said 100 times, fear is the sole motivating factor in these fake terms and the refusal of the alliances fighting us to show any sign they are truly interested in peace. Nothing we can say or do, outside disbandment which won't happen, will satisfy Karma and leave them feeling 'safe'.

Fake terms? Let's try this for the umpteenth time, shall we?

The NPO was long the dominant power on Planet Bob. Prior to this conflict, it had only known defeat once before. So, given its long history of dominance, the NPO has been in a unique position to demonstrate, by both actions and words, just what it considers to be "fair terms."

Requiring banks to leave peace mode is a fair term.

Requiring crushing reparations payments, of both cash and tech, are fair terms.

Requiring the decommissioning of military wonders and improvements are fair terms.

Requiring the expulsion of both government and ordinary members are fair terms.

Installing a Viceroy is a fair term.

Taking control of an alliances' forums and IRC channels are fair terms.

Causing the disbandment of an alliance is a fair term.

This is what your own alliance has said, time and again. Basically anything and everything, up to and including the destruction of the defeated alliance itself, is a fair term.

Thus, you are being treated fairly, because you're being treated in the same manner that you have treated other alliances.

[Petrovich4]

We've already taken our lumps. It's called losing 20 million alliance strength, most of our allies, and all our political capital. We are defeated, beaten, have lost the war.

Excellent. Now surrender.

[Waterana]

When we're offered real terms instead of a loop hole ridden impossible to honour load of rubbish, I'm sure our government will seriously consider doing just that.

[NoFish]

Sarcasm aside, if one's nation's primary functions in an alliance is monetary support and NOT MilCom, at the beginning of war what else is one to do but go into peace mode in order to maintain your primary function capabilities for after the war is over?

Please don't take my words out of context. I was making that remark in response to Waterana's statement that NPO currently had control over the situation. Personally, I don't mind the level of control that NPO has at the moment and told him that he could "enjoy peace mode." I have no complaints about anyone using peacemode on an ideological level. I would prefer that NPO nations we not in peace mode so we could better kill them with nukes, but that's not really a very good argument, is it?

We've already taken our lumps. It's called losing 20 million alliance strength, most of our allies, and all our political capital. We are defeated, beaten, have lost the war.

As I've said 100 times, fear is the sole motivating factor in these fake terms and the refusal of the alliances fighting us to show any sign they are truly interested in peace. Nothing we can say or do, outside disbandment which won't happen, will satisfy Karma and leave them feeling 'safe'.

Accepting the terms as offered will make us feel safe. A counteroffer involving indefinite nuke decom or a viceroy would also make us feel safe, c'mon, go ahead and ask your government to make that offer, I'd be happy to do what I can to get our side on board it. Just promise me the logs when you do. Or, perhaps, do you think that some of the terms you've imposed in the past are harsher than the ones we're offer?

[Waterana]

So are the alliance that fought right beside us in the past, including several of those at war with us now, going to pay their share of reps too, and be punished right alongside us for these 'sins'? We didn't do any of this on our own.

I love the way NPO is being blamed for anything bad that has happened on bob for the last 3 years from GW1 to someone's grandmother's cat getting hit by a car, and treated as though we did it all alone. Nobody else was at our side. No other alliances names are on any of these harsh terms surrender documents, and all our allies were braindead puppets that said and did only what we told them to [/sarcasm].

Like others have asked, I'd really like to see this list of 'crimes' we're being punished for in regards to those 'terms'.

[OOC]PS, I'm a her. Know a lot of females on the net don't care being called a him. I do. Old woman syndrome I guess[/OOC}

Edited July 5, 2009 by Waterana

[ShinRa]

So are the alliance that fought right beside us in the past, including several of those at war with us now, going to pay their share of reps too, and be punished right alongside us for these 'sins'? We didn't do any of this on our own.

I’d respond to this, but you seem to have ignored the reply to this question every single damn time people answered.

I love the way NPO is being blamed for anything bad that has happened on bob for the last 3 years from GW1 to someone's grandmother's cat getting hit by a car, and treated as though we did it all alone. Nobody else was at our side. No other alliances names are on any of these harsh terms surrender documents, and all our allies were braindead puppets that said and did only what we told them to [/sarcasm].

Well, there is the case of GGA and the Legion. Both of those might as well just be NPO extensions after the viceroyships and everything else. But it was your ambition which made them join you in the end, which influence them.

With the NPO’s case in the last few years leading up to this war there seems to be two actions you could have taken if you ever got their attention: join the NPO’s empire and make a Mutual Aggression Pact with them, or eventually be stepped on for one mistake or a reason the NPO finds to kick the living hell out of your members until you surrender then become subservient to them anyway.

In simple terms, you blame the officer’s choices, not those of the troops who carried out orders.

Like others have asked, I'd really like to see this list of 'crimes' we're being punished for in regards to those 'terms'.

Here’s a start:

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Militar...w_Pacific_Order

The other examples are in my signature.

[Walt Schmidt]

Please don't take my words out of context.

Sorry, my fault; a knee-jerk reaction.

So many continue to make subjective statements and then claim them as fact [ smile ].

Let's try some simple facts...

Fact: NPO were beaten in the current war

Fact: The complete 'terms' as given us would result in NPO (eventually) being 'removed' from Planet Bob [ sure would like Karma to post the complete terms here for all to read ]

Fact: As such, not accepting such terms is the obvious choice - better to 'die' on ones feet than on ones knees.

Fact: If the complete 'terms' as given us would not result in NPO being eventually 'removed' from Planet Bob, such terms become the obvious choice

added p.s. and if Karma would post the full terms, I stand ready to discuss my opinion why such terms do result in NPO eventually being 'removed' from Planet Bob

Edited July 5, 2009 by Walt Schmidt

[Waterana]

I’d respond to this, but you seem to have ignored the reply to this question every single damn time people answered.

Well, there is the case of GGA and the Legion. Both of those might as well just be NPO extensions after the viceroyships and everything else. But it was your ambition which made them join you in the end, which influence them.

Do you have any idea how loud the happy cheering was within the NPO when GGA cut their last ties with us? We love Legion as friends, not puppets. Know that is hard for you to understand, but it's true. If they want to kill the treaty with us, if they were forced into signing it, if they feel in any way that being tied to us is a bad thing, don't you think the treaty between both alliances would have been canceled before the war started? Or now? We're not the big scary boogyman anymore.

With the NPO’s case in the last few years leading up to this war there seems to be two actions you could have taken if you ever got their attention: join the NPO’s empire and make a Mutual Aggression Pact with them, or eventually be stepped on for one mistake or a reason the NPO finds to kick the living hell out of your members until you surrender then become subservient to them anyway.

In simple terms, you blame the officer’s choices, not those of the troops who carried out orders.

Funny, many of our members don't like ODN too much, can't remember killing them recently, or within the 2 years I've been in the Order for that matter. Can't remember us signing a treaty with them either. They seem to be alive and well today. Just one example off the top of my head.

[NoFish]

Sorry, my fault; a knee-jerk reaction.

So many continue to make subjective statements and then claim them as fact [ smile ].

Let's try some simple facts...

Fact: NPO were beaten in the current war

Fact: The complete 'terms' as given us would result in NPO (eventually) being 'removed' from Planet Bob [ sure would like Karma to post the complete terms here for all to read ]

Fact: As such, not accepting such terms is the obvious choice - better to 'die' on ones feet than on ones knees.

Fact: If the complete 'terms' as given us would not result in NPO being eventually 'removed' from Planet Bob, such terms become the obvious choice

added p.s. and if Karma would post the full terms, I stand ready to discuss my opinion why such terms do result in NPO eventually being 'removed' from Planet Bob

Given the way you're posting it sure sounds like you know what the terms are pretty well, why don't you do it?

I mean, you should would look silly saying "Fact" all the time if you didn't actually know what the terms were.

[NoFish]

Funny, many of our members don't like ODN too much, can't remember killing them recently, or within the 2 years I've been in the Order for that matter. Can't remember us signing a treaty with them either. They seem to be alive and well today. Just one example off the top of my head.

Didn't you kill the !@#$ out of them and then make them sign a NAP with you?

[Stargazer Alchemist]

Fake terms? Let's try this for the umpteenth time, shall we?

The NPO was long the dominant power on Planet Bob. Prior to this conflict, it had only known defeat once before. So, given its long history of dominance, the NPO has been in a unique position to demonstrate, by both actions and words, just what it considers to be "fair terms."

Requiring banks to leave peace mode is a fair term.

Requiring crushing reparations payments, of both cash and tech, are fair terms.

Requiring the decommissioning of military wonders and improvements are fair terms.

Requiring the expulsion of both government and ordinary members are fair terms.

Installing a Viceroy is a fair term.

Taking control of an alliances' forums and IRC channels are fair terms.

Causing the disbandment of an alliance is a fair term.

This is what your own alliance has said, time and again. Basically anything and everything, up to and including the destruction of the defeated alliance itself, is a fair term.

I would to see Vlad or Waterana speak up on this.

With no offense to the friends I have over at Paficica, there is one fact that everyone has to get through their head, now.

War. Isin't. Fair.

Peace and surrender are controlled by the winners of the war. Pacifica has to reason or right to complain, at least not with their history of surrender terms. You would rather let their alliance crumble then surrender, which good and all. But pride is the one thing Pacifica has never been short of, but it's also your greatest downfall.

Btw;

Z'ha'dum explains their reasoning:

"It absolutely was a stalemate. The entire world fought us, they demanded we disband, they demanded we pay reps, they demanded we accept a Viceroy, they demanded all manner of terms and the NPO fought back. In the end, the only "victory" they got out of the NPO was something that cost the NPO nothing. When tallying up the war gains and losses, you cannot put an apology down in the gains column. Furthermore, we did a hell of a lot more damage than we took. We never fell lower in the ranks than any of the CoaLUEition. Legion only was above us for a couple weeks meaning our repair mechanisms were clearly left virtually untouched by the war leaving us in a good strategic position. If the end of the war cost us nothing and gained them nothing, it was a draw, or a stalemate."

Karma is now targeting that, and for all we know, you guys have hidden banks amongst None AA on Red Sphere. What better way to stay rebuilt then to have banks no one knows about, not even your own members?

You say that we are all afraid of Pacifica rising up again, but I think it is Pacifica that is afraid. They have finally met their match, know they are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. They have been put into a situation that has never been experienced before and it terrifies them.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Stargazer Alchemist

[ShinRa]

Do you have any idea how loud the happy cheering was within the NPO when GGA cut their last ties with us? We love Legion as friends, not puppets. Know that is hard for you to understand, but it's true. If they want to kill the treaty with us, if they were forced into signing it, if they feel in any way that being tied to us is a bad thing, don't you think the treaty between both alliances would have been canceled before the war started? Or now? We're not the big scary boogyman anymore.

Since when? since when you realized that OV had enough allies to turn the tables on you, allies who weren’t going to fall for the same trick twice.

I also think that I agree that you love legion as friends after peace terms put them under vicetroyship for god knows how long and most of their veteran members left. As for GGA, I think that you might have been cheering for very different reasons when GGA cut their ties with you.

Funny, many of our members don't like ODN too much, can't remember killing them recently, or within the 2 years I've been in the Order for that matter. Can't remember us signing a treaty with them either. They seem to be alive and well today. Just one example off the top of my head.

I know it’s hard but please at least glance at evidence when it’s presented to you.

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

[Waterana]

Didn't you kill the !@#$ out of them and then make them sign a NAP with you?

Not that I can remember, and I think I'd remember going to war with Legion's (the alliance I was with on and off for over 12 months before joining the Order) closest ally. Was in ODN for 5 days right before joining NPO. Can't remember a war with the Order then either. Do you mean the citrus war? Hell, that war is ancient history.

I would to see Vlad or Waterana speak up on this.

With no offense to the friends I have over at Paficica, there is one fact that everyone has to get through their head, now.

War. Isin't. Fair.

Well, duh. Think we've figured that one out for ourselves.

Peace and surrender are controlled by the winners of the war. Pacifica has to reason or right to complain, at least not with their history of surrender terms. You would rather let their alliance crumble then surrender, which good and all. But pride is the one thing Pacifica has never been short of, but it's also your greatest downfall.

Btw;

Well as Karma have thrown the surrender ball into our court and washed their hands of it, I'd say it is us in control. Yes, I know you consider impossible to honour surrender terms 'fair'. We know they are a death sentence. Eternal war was the aim from the beginning and I've yet to see a convincing statement to the contrary. Just lots of 'well you deserve it, now accept the terms'.

Karma is now targeting that, and for all we know, you guys have hidden banks amongst None AA on Red Sphere. What better way to stay rebuilt then to have banks no one knows about, not even your own members?

You say that we are all afraid of Pacifica rising up again, but I think it is Pacifica that is afraid. They have finally met their match, know they are dammed if they do and dammed if they don't. They have been put into a situation that has never been experienced before and it terrifies them.

The old hidden bank thing. Only one response to that .

Our alliance strength has bottomed out pretty much and is starting to rise again. What do we have to be scared of? Eternal war with a foe that doesn't want peace maybe. We aren't scared, we're mostly angry at Karma and bored with this war. It is your side that constantly brings up GW1 and goes on how we need to be totally crushed/disbanded/kept under terms forever (or whatever other inventive things Karma members have come up with over the last few months) because most of you are petrified we'll rise up and kill you all. The very idea of that deserves another one of these

[Walt Schmidt]

Given the way you're posting it sure sounds like you know what the terms are pretty well, why don't you do it?

Given the history of forum posts, it is my opinion that the complete terms should be posted only by Karma.

[enderland]

Well as Karma have thrown the surrender ball into our court and washed their hands of it, I'd say it is us in control. Yes, I know you consider impossible to honour surrender terms 'fair'. We know they are a death sentence. Eternal war was the aim from the beginning and I've yet to see a convincing statement to the contrary. Just lots of 'well you deserve it, now accept the terms'.

It's funny because if your government would stop insulting those negotiating peace on behalf of karma and/or giving the finger to the coalition attacking you, you might have a better chance of getting it.

You would do well to understand those seemingly ignored paths your alliance has taken. Complaining that karma is bringing eternal war is outrageously naive (unless you preface it with "after repeated diplomatic stiffs from NPO..." or something along those lines.

edit - if the foot soldiers are arrogant enough to make posts such as yours it is clear that NPO still has a long way to go before they lose this war. Though considering your gov still insults people on the other side unashamedly I guess it's not all that surprising.

Edited July 5, 2009 by ender land

[Haflinger]

Well, there is the case of GGA and the Legion. Both of those might as well just be NPO extensions after the viceroyships and everything else.

I'm not going to speak to the example of The Legion.

However, do you really feel the alliance between GGA and NPO ever provided any significant benefits to Pacifica?

Or was it more a case of one alliance using another to prop itself up for several years, only to desert its benefactor immediately once the times got tough?

[shahenshah]

The obvious difference here being that not all other alliances are run by/consist of obsessive hypocrites who are determined to 'win' [ooc]this game and call abuse of the game's programming 'battle tactics'[/ooc],

Hey did you inform the mods?

[Letum]

I would to see Vlad or Waterana speak up on this.

With no offense to the friends I have over at Paficica, there is one fact that everyone has to get through their head, now.

War. Isin't. Fair.

Peace and surrender are controlled by the winners of the war. Pacifica has to reason or right to complain, at least not with their history of surrender terms. You would rather let their alliance crumble then surrender, which good and all. But pride is the one thing Pacifica has never been short of, but it's also your greatest downfall.

"Fairness" is in the eye of the beholder. Two different people will have different perspectives on what is fair, which reduces the whole concept to nothing more than an emotive word used in every day speech to display an individual or group's feelings.

As you've said, we really don't have an option to decide what happens to us based on "fairness". What we do have is two options: Option A) Continue with a Crippling War and option B) Accept a Crippling Peace. There are not many things in life that are such a clear-cut dichotomous choice, but in the absence of any realistic prospect of significant change in the terms over the near future, the choice the NPO faces is a simple one. Whichever of the two is the lesser evil is what would be in our best interests to pursue.

Now, how "fair" or "just punishment" you think either of them is, will be irrelevant to our decision. Karma may like them, Karma may think they are fair and all-right, but Karma isn't the one that has to pay them. We are, and understandably, our criteria for judging them is quite different. It is not about being too "proud" to give up; it is a very simple, cold and rational calculation of which path has the combination of damage and risk that is slightly less bad than the other.

Karma is now targeting that, and for all we know, you guys have hidden banks amongst None AA on Red Sphere. What better way to stay rebuilt then to have banks no one knows about, not even your own members?

For all you know, this entire war is in fact a secret plot to serve as a hazing process to induct Pacifica into the ranks of C&G against the new evil hegemony.

But you know, just because you cannot disprove a conspiracy theory doesn't mean it is automatically true.

I know it’s hard but please at least glance at evidence when it’s presented to you.

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

Congratulations. You proved the point by having to present evidence from three years ago. Very recent stuff that. It's not like spending three years without being rolled by the NPO would prove anything [/sarcasm]. Great evidence.

[Haflinger]

Funny, many of our members don't like ODN too much, can't remember killing them recently, or within the 2 years I've been in the Order for that matter. Can't remember us signing a treaty with them either. They seem to be alive and well today. Just one example off the top of my head.

Didn't you kill the !@#$ out of them and then make them sign a NAP with you?

That NAP was cancelled in Great War I. I mean, come ON. Waterana said "recently."

I know it’s hard but please at least glance at evidence when it’s presented to you.

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

Reading comprehension is on the rise, I see.

[Cortath]

Then start acting like it. Put down your bullhorns; stop demanding special treatment, and accept the peace terms. In fact, just to prove your sincerity, I'd like to see Vladimir write an essay, 10,000 words minimum, explaining just why you lost the war.

Fake terms? Let's try this for the umpteenth time, shall we?

The NPO was long the dominant power on Planet Bob. Prior to this conflict, it had only known defeat once before. So, given its long history of dominance, the NPO has been in a unique position to demonstrate, by both actions and words, just what it considers to be "fair terms."

Requiring banks to leave peace mode is a fair term.

Requiring crushing reparations payments, of both cash and tech, are fair terms.

Requiring the decommissioning of military wonders and improvements are fair terms.

Requiring the expulsion of both government and ordinary members are fair terms.

Installing a Viceroy is a fair term.

Taking control of an alliances' forums and IRC channels are fair terms.

Causing the disbandment of an alliance is a fair term.

This is what your own alliance has said, time and again. Basically anything and everything, up to and including the destruction of the defeated alliance itself, is a fair term.

Thus, you are being treated fairly, because you're being treated in the same manner that you have treated other alliances.

Excellent. Now surrender.

See, this is an argument Karma should not be making.

You can't be making an argument that we were bad in the past. The problem with that argument, is that for nearly every "evil" act we may have done, there's an alliance on your side of the aisle who proudly did it with us. This is going to cause you problem down the road. If you're punishing us, for, say, NV, then you have to punish FOK too, because they were with us. See how that's problematic for you?

Moreover, the problem with this argument is that it doesn't actually examine the actual terms that we've been given. You can compare these terms to past terms until the cows come home (pun intended), but it doesn't speak to the fact that these terms are not doable.

On more than one occasion, people have linked you to the economic analysis in my signature, always with the response that "these have been discredited." I am eager to see a Karma analysis of how these are discredited. If simply respond with "It's been done," and not link me to them, or not make one on your own, I will simply assume it does not exist.

No one in the New Pacific Order is demanding special treatment. We're not "demanding" anything. During negotiations, we simply wanted terms that are doable. Terms that would not result in a re-declaration of war. Terms without large loopholes. And moreover, terms that by a facial reading of them, we felt we could accomplish. We were not given such terms.

This leads me to doubt the sincerity of some of the alliances who gave us such terms, since I neither think them stupid nor we particularly smart. I think many of those alliances can and indeed did, come to the same conclusions that we did regarding the terms, but they found the terms acceptable for the very same reasons that we did not -- they were impossible.

[enderland]

No one in the New Pacific Order is demanding special treatment. We're not "demanding" anything. During negotiations, we simply wanted terms that are doable. Terms that would not result in a re-declaration of war. Terms without large loopholes. And moreover, terms that by a facial reading of them, we felt we could accomplish. We were not given such terms.

This leads me to doubt the sincerity of some of the alliances who gave us such terms, since I neither think them stupid nor we particularly smart. I think many of those alliances can and indeed did, come to the same conclusions that we did regarding the terms, but they found the terms acceptable for the very same reasons that we did not -- they were impossible.

Making up your own calculations to "prove" terms are undoable is not exactly evidence that they are so unjust.

Just because your alliance has no morals and is willing to set up terms such that alliances are bound to fail, then stab them in the back the day before terms expire does not mean that others are the same.

[Cortath]

Making up your own calculations to "prove" terms are undoable is not exactly evidence that they are so unjust.

Just because your alliance has no morals and is willing to set up terms such that alliances are bound to fail, then stab them in the back the day before terms expire does not mean that others are the same.

You state that my calculations are "made up."

I invite you to read my posts and point out which calculations are made up. To help you, I shall copy and paste my posts into this post:

The above is a little image thrown in for my NPO economics folk. You should get it.

Many people have thrown out numbers in this thread about what we "can" pay. Here is my analysis.

Background

The economics is this:

300K tech from the nations who have 1K+. That's about 180.

7B or 233.33K tech from anyone.

At least 25K/month from the 300K must be given every month. And something like 580M from the money. That means about 34K tech, if you convert it to tech.

Firstly, what should be recognized is that you're creating two alliances, essentially. An alliance of 181 people that have to pay 300K tech, and the whole alliance that can pay the 7B/233.3K tech.

Getting to War

Before we get those lovely 2 weeks of peace mode, we have to get 90% of our nations above 4K infra out of PM, and 90% of our total alliance out of PM.

That means we can get 7 nations in PM above 4K infra, and about 70 nations alliance-wide still in PM.

This is mid-June. The New Pacific Order presently has orders for nations to be cycling in and out of peace mode as needed to lose nuclear anarchy. Many nations aren't following those Orders. Why? [OOC]Probably RL. Sometimes those of us who are able to up late at night posting on these forums forget that a lot of people are not able to engage in a war the way we want them to. It's June, people. Most schools are ending. Most colleges are ended/ending. Kids are starting summer jobs. Let's face it, most of the CN user base is in school or young and working.[/ooc] Achieving a 90% war mode rate is ridiculous. Karma's demand that we expel loyal members, some of whom have been around for years, who might be a little busy right now, is ridiculous.

But that's what we have to do to get to 2 weeks of war.

A significant point to consider also, is the number of ghosts in our alliance. While normally we are very good at removing ghosts, they're obviously not a top military priority. Ghosts frequently stay in the NPO, because most alliances are/were afraid to attack an NPO nation, even if it does appear to be a ghost. With an alliance as ridden with ghosts as we are, and that's not even beginning to consider any foul play that may be afoot, we have a lot of PM nations as well.

However long it takes, some things are certain: more nations will lose money, infra, tech, and land. More warchests will be depleted. Those nations in PM will continue to lose money due to the PM happiness modifier.

Two Weeks of War

Then comes two weeks of war for PM nations. Except it won't be just two weeks of war. Many of our nations will be in war much longer because as they get out of peace mode, there will be a lag from the time they get out, to when the "magic numbers" of 90% are hit.

Karma isn't fools. They prepared these terms, and I assume they're prepared for war.

We expect no less than 3v1 on our banking nations. Karma is 18 alliances on our front, and they can pick the choicest, elite fighters from their alliances to carefully plan and orchestrate an attack on a much smaller foe.

Assuming a single attacker at a high NS, with all the improvements and wonders such a nation should have, etc., etc., these are the damage estimates for such a war:

Nukes: 240 infra/day

Ground: 64 infra/day

CM: 32 infra/day

Aircraft 64 infra/day.

Multiple all but nukes by three and then 14. Multiple nukes by 13. Add it all together.

You lose 9,840 infra.

Tech:

80 from nukes.

16 from ground.

9.6 from CMs.

Do the same calculations, and your nation loses 2115.2 tech.

Land:

240 from nukes.

64 from ground.

Do the same calculations and your nation 5808 land.

So, let sum up war here. A nation at war will lose 9,840 infra, 2115.5 tech, and 5808 land. All nations but 25 will be ZIed. We will have two nations above 5K infra. Certainly, as one gets lower, the damage will lessen, but once you're that low, it doesn't matter much, from a rebuilding perspective. It's buying higher infra that is impossible.

Analysis of the Effect of War on the Ability to Pay Reparations

Alrighty. So an alliance of 700 odd nations now have 300K tech to pay from 181 nations, all of whom are ZI except 25, none of whom are banker level except two. We also have to pay 7B, or 233.3K tech, if you convert that to tech, but that can be from everyone.

Now, some people are going to claim "massive war chests." It ain't there people. 7 weeks of nuclear war, plus stints in PM, or for our banks, 7 weeks in PM, hurts those warchests a lot, even billion dollar warchests. Yes, some nations might have billion dollar warchests at the end of the war, but the catch has never been the size of the warchest, but how much you can send out. 18M/cycle just doesn't even take out a chunk of these types of reparations.

Generally speaking, when one has had to give out reparations or produce tech, that tech can be funded somehow, or subsidized. No can-do here, because the banks are gone. Smaller nations are also not allowed to sell tech outside the NPO due to these terms.

Now, again, generally speaking, people point to 180 nations, and say, oh look, you can just multiply all the slots by the nations over time and pay it off easy!

Here's the problem with that kind of thinking:

1. It assumes all 180 nations are active. Really, with programs like these, you can't expect much better than 50-60% activity. You know how I know? I asked the MK guys during negotiations how many nations paid off their tech reps, and it was far less than that percentage as a percentage of their alliance.

2. It assumes that every single slot will always be used, always. That's just ridiculous. There are very few nations on the Planet that manage that have all 4/5/6 slots filled every day, and we're no different. You lose efficiency from that.

3. It assumes that all these nations will have money with which to purchase and send tech, or just plain good ol' money lying around to send to Karma. Right now, we literally have 47 nations at ZI. I don't mean people with 100 infra, I mean people with 0.00 infrastructure. We have 402 members under 200 infrastructure, 511 under 500. You can look up the stats for yourselves, but we don't have nations who can either produce money or tech to send as reparations, particularly not when the Bank, which possibly could be used to fund a rebuilding/reparations effort, will have been destroyed by war.

4. Most Karma estimates I've seen presented only looked at paying off the 300K, or the 7B, but but not both at once. It would be a monumental task to do either one of them, but it's entirely a different story to do both, particularly given that they both come from different sources due to the 1K+ tech restriction on where the 300K tech has to come from.

Conclusion

The New Pacific Order seriously considered these terms. We went to the negotiation table about a month ago asking Karma alliances for terms to surrender. We went to them in good faith that they would present something that would be possible for us to pay. What was presented was not possible in anything less than a year at the best, most likely a year and a half. There's a range because there are ranges of slot efficiencies that you can make estimates for, a range of participation levels from your members you can make estimates for, and a range of damage you can make estimates for based on the 14 days of wars.

Karma did not give us terms we could possibly take. We presented them a counter-offer. It was more money and more tech than any alliance or group of alliances have ever received in any war, ever. It was more than the amount that they had asked for initially. Why they did not take that counter-offer, I could not tell you.

An analysis of Term #1:

Based on tally done after the 6/10 update, we had 148 nations flying the New Pacific Order Alliance Affiliation that met the following conditions:

1. Nation was in peace mode.

2. Nation had no wars that expired 1 cycle ago according to the "Search Wars" tab. (i.e. no wars 7 days or earlier)

3. Nation had a flat or positive nation strength trend since mid May.

After doing some background checks, we found that 22 of those nations were in fact ghosts flying the AA without actual membership, with membership being determined by a matching nation link in our forum's member nation roster.

Additionally, a sizable chunk of 36-56 of those nations were banks. (exact number omitted for security reasons)

Thus, we found 70-90 so-called "peace mode violators" who refused to leave peace mode despite repeated orders to fight.

The quoted text indicates that 90% or more of NPO nations must exit peace mode for two weeks for this conflict to end. If this term is accepted, it is reasonable to think that the aforementioned peace mode violators will not exit to receive their mandated punishment. Having been told repeatedly to fight over the course of this extended war, there is no reason to believe that they would leave when ordered again.

The number of peace mode violators significantly crosses or runs very closely to the specified threshold dictated by the Karma coalition. (We currently have 731 nations flying our AA, a number which will likely decrease over time, increasing the percentage.) The degree of variance introduced by the estimated number of banks is almost irrelevant, as we skirt dangerously close to 10% in even the most "optimistic" of scenarios. Remember, by assuming we have less banks, you assume that the payment of reparations will be harder too.

From here, one can see that this term is nigh impossible.

And this is even working under the assumption that Karma accepts that 22 of our violators are ghosts, and accepts that a decent portion of these peace mode nations are banks. It is very possible that Karma refuses to take our word on these matters. In this eventuality, the number of violators *they* would perceive would be much, much higher, once again jacking up the percentage.

We are also assuming that all non-violating nations in peace mode (i.e. all nations that are in peace but have fought a war in the past week and so on) will exit peace mode when ordered. There will undoubtedly be less than a 100% compliance rate among this number due to inactivity or possible insubordination.

Therefore, the demand that 90% of our nations leave peace mode is not even possible to comply with. Even the most ideal conditions do not make this particular term viable, making the terms as a whole unacceptable. The New Pacific Order cannot bind itself to an agreement it knows it very well cannot carry through with.

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.

Who said it has to be good economics . I just want the tech to bleed from NPO

See. This is what I like. Honesty.

I don't believe that these reparation amounts were in any way based off of calculations on how much we could pay. I think Karma came up with a number that sounded good to them, and gave it to us. When we responded that we felt it was not payable and provided a lot of economic analysis to back it up, they were forced to try to come with unrealistic economic models to prove that we can.

But when it comes down to it, steodonn, I think your opinion reflects that of Karma best than many other posts I've seen in the past few days. These terms weren't made to be payable. Many alliances in Karma, against us, wants eternal war with us. They know that PR-wise, that's going to be hard to get. So they sit around and think, "What terms would be impossible to pay, just like eternal war, which is what we want? That way, we get the benefits of eternal war, without the negative PR" This is the result.

I think that Karma's attempts are pretty transparent, made more so by the rejection of the counter-offer and their stated unwillingness to drop the peace mode clause, and tech coming from 1K+ nation clauses, no matter what was given by NPO in exchange.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Cortath

[Haflinger]

Making up your own calculations to "prove" terms are undoable is not exactly evidence that they are so unjust.

Look, nobody has replied to his calculations. If they're made up, they should be easy to break down.

Just because your alliance has no morals and is willing to set up terms such that alliances are bound to fail, then stab them in the back the day before terms expire does not mean that others are the same.

The NPO's morals or lack thereof are not the issue. What's at issue is whether or not the alliances at war with NPO were all being open and honest, and whether the terms are in fact doable.

Cortath thinks they're not, and what's more, he thinks that the reason why they're not is that at least some of the alliances at war with NPO do not wish the war to end.

You think they are, and what's more, you think that the reason why NPO isn't accepting them is due to dishonesty on their part as well.

The truth is, it doesn't matter what people's motivations are. Can someone just reply to Cortath's analysis? That's what matters.

[enderland]

The truth is, it doesn't matter what people's motivations are. Can someone just reply to Cortath's analysis? That's what matters.

Considering it is based off a flawed understanding of the offered terms, and the most you are "forced" to lose in 2 weeks of war is 7M a day (assuming opponents do destroy money spy ops). So over 14 days you would suffer at most 7*14 or just under 100M worth of money losses.

If such a high percentage of your banking nations do not have more than 150M on hand I guess then yes your analysis could be correct, assuming that no other nations in the NPO have any money available to aid them perhaps 15M total for a back collect, easily getting them to the 3k infra range. But considering any nation with 150M or more can guarantee it is at least at 2999 infra after a back collect (set up nicely by 14 days of war in fact) I do not see that it is a problem, no. And any nation with perhaps even 50M to 100M can be there with a roughly 15-18M back collect as well, no.

It is not valid to say that your 181 banking nations are going to be destroyed to the point where they can not pay reps in the slightest.

If you have 30% efficiency if will take roughly 6 months from the start of paying the terms until they are paid off (300k tech). Considering how many gov nations are included in the 181 I imagine that 30% efficiency is incredibly possible to achieve as well.

Regarding rebuilding, in a month it is quite easy to rebuild an alliance significantly. Look at what happened to NpO.

[Cortath]

Considering it is based off a flawed understanding of the offered terms, and the most you are "forced" to lose in 2 weeks of war is 7M a day (assuming opponents do destroy money spy ops). So over 14 days you would suffer at most 7*14 or just under 100M worth of money losses.

How is it flawed? The numerical analysis of war damage is based on exactly 14 days of warfare.

I fail to see how your predictions are remotely accurate. You're telling me Karma isn't going to nuke these nations? They're just going to do spy ops on them? Why didn't someone tell me this?! I would have told the Emperor to accept it: "Don't worry, Moo, they're just going to do so spy ops on our nations, not nukes, air attacks, ground attacks and cruise missiles."

If such a high percentage of your banking nations do not have more than 150M on hand I guess then yes your analysis could be correct, assuming that no other nations in the NPO have any money available to aid them perhaps 15M total for a back collect, easily getting them to the 3k infra range. But considering any nation with 150M or more can guarantee it is at least at 2999 infra after a back collect (set up nicely by 14 days of war in fact) I do not see that it is a problem, no. And any nation with perhaps even 50M to 100M can be there with a roughly 15-18M back collect as well, no.

I don't think you understand how devastating months of nuclear war and/or peace mode. Most of the nations in peace mode have had dozens of war during this conflict. One round of nuclear war with three nations can easily cost more than 100M. Less than 25% of them have been in PM the whole war. Those nations, of course, have lost significant income due to the length of peace mode.

It is not valid to say that your 181 banking nations are going to be destroyed to the point where they can not pay reps in the slightest.

It's not "in the slighest" that matters, but enough to meet the monthly quotas that are specified in the terms.

If you have 30% efficiency if will take roughly 6 months from the start of paying the terms until they are paid off (300k tech). Considering how many gov nations are included in the 181 I imagine that 30% efficiency is incredibly possible to achieve as well.

Again, your estimates are simply ridiculous. Firstly, there are now 147 nations with more than 1K. At your stated number of 30%, it would take about 8 months. However, you estimate does not properly take into account the fact that we have to pay both the tech reps and the monetary reps simultaneously. Many of those same nations who have to pay tech, will also have to pay money. Moreover, your efficiency rate encompasses multiple variables: participation and slot efficiency, which you haven't counted for.

That does not even begin to take into the account the necessity that much of our aid will have to be directed internally for a long time, in order to ameliorate the bill-locked state of many of our nations.

In order to make these kinds of estimates you have to examine the totality of our alliance's economic situation. You can't just look at one part of the terms, but all of them. You can't just consider external aid, you have to consider internal aid too. This is what your present analysis lacks.

Regarding rebuilding, in a month it is quite easy to rebuild an alliance significantly. Look at what happened to NpO.

NpO's war was quite different circumstances. It lasted only a month. Ours is fast approaching its third month, with no end in sight. While I admire Polaris's rebuilding efforts, I also recognize that their realities are not our realities.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Cortath