An Open Letter to the NPO

[Petrovich4]

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?

I am not at war with FOK. I am at war with you. I am punishing you for attacking my ally, OV.

Side note: Since people have brought up the past, people argue about the validity of how far in the past is relevant to the current situation. Well, the past, regardless of the passage of time, is relavent if your present actions are simply a continuation of your past. Your present actions are a continuation of NPOs past, hence, I do not blame others for using the past an argument against NPO.

[Cortath]

I am not at war with FOK. I am at war with you. I am punishing you for attacking my ally, OV.

Side note: Since people have brought up the past, people argue about the validity of how far in the past is relevant to the current situation. Well, the past, regardless of the passage of time, is relavent if your present actions are simply a continuation of your past. Your present actions are a continuation of NPOs past, hence, I do not blame others for using the past an argument against NPO.

That's fine. You're at war for us attacking OV. I get that. You guys can use that argument, because none of you are attacking OV.

Response to side note: if the past is relevant for judging our actions, then it's relevant for judging our opponents, and I cry hypocrisy to those alliances who gladly picked up a sword, fought on our side and reaped the benefits of our victories, and now leave our blocs days before the conflict in a sudden "change of heart," and plunge the very sword they carried underneath our banner into our people.

[edit spelling]

Edited July 5, 2009 by Cortath

[NoFish]

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

Well, his damage numbers are crock, for one. They assume that all of the attacking nations will have 3k tech and WRC's or 6k tech and no WRC. Even assuming there are enough 3k tech WRC'd nations to triple up on all 181, and in range to do so, Cortath's own approximations would have the nations being hit quickly knocked out of range of these heavy hitting nations, thus drastically reducing the damage they'll take.

Also, as enderland said, the amount of money lost to such a war is about 100m. Any more than that is entirely dependent on how much the attacker decides to spend.

[Cortath]

Well, his damage numbers are crock, for one. They assume that all of the attacking nations will have 3k tech and WRC's or 6k tech and no WRC. Even assuming there are enough 3k tech WRC'd nations to triple up on all 181, and in range to do so, Cortath's own approximations would have the nations being hit quickly knocked out of range of these heavy hitting nations, thus drastically reducing the damage they'll take.

Also, as enderland said, the amount of money lost to such a war is about 100m. Any more than that is entirely dependent on how much the attacker decides to spend.

You're telling me that 18 alliances, having months to plan to this operation, choose their crack, elite troops, and select targets, aren't going to have their best fighters, with WRCs and lots of tech, target these nations?

I did not create my analysis assuming incompetence from the other side.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Cortath

[enderland]

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."

Step 1: decommission all soldiers.

Step 2: leave peace mode.

Step 3: be attacked for 14 days (losing 5M in defeat alerts daily, possibly more)

Step 4: after 14 days, pay bills (considerably less), buy a bunch of infra with the remaining money that you had (anything over 70M of your starting cash)

This means that any nation with over 100M will easily be back to 2999 infra, if not higher, after the war and a single back collection. Probably higher since they will be able to use their back collection taxes on further infra.

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.

Some have yes, but there are a large amount that have not had anywhere near "dozens of wars."

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

I never saw NPO taking issue with "monthly quotas" - especially given the crux of your argument is that it will take a year minimum to pay them off.

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.

It's not my fault you guys chose to not take the terms and now have fewer nations eligible for payments. Perhaps if you had done the math correctly the first time this problem would not exist.

~30% efficiency means that roughly 1/3 your nations could use none of their slots for reps, and the remaining use 4/6 a cycle (not sure why they wouldn't use 6/6 if they are sending out tech to begin with but for the purpose here use 4/6 instead).

(181 * .6667 * 4 * 50 = 24100 tech a cycle being sent out a cycle. this clearly would take slightly longer the longer terms are not offered as a result of NPO stubbornness).

The tech is hardly relevant to the nation growth at all since the vast majority of those nations will have some if not a significant amount left over after the war initially, with the ability to use all their generated income for infrastructure (regrowth is fast with wonders/improvements) and easily be to 3999 or 4999 infra by the time money is required to be sent.

Note that for 300k tech, 6000 offers of 50 tech are needed. Also note that for 8000M in cash, only 2700 (roughly) aid slots are needed. That means for the first 2/3 of your reps you would not need to pay off any cash (assuming that the victors allow this, I do not know if this was stipulated anywhere tbh) and will have probably 4 months of rebuilding with no cash being forced to be sent from these nations to Karma.

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.

Many weeks of this is a direct result of NPO stubbornness. I have no sympathy for this anymore - by intentionally not accepting terms you guys are forcing this upon yourselves as a larger problem. You cannot shoot yourself in the foot intentionally then complain how your foot hurts and your terms should be accommodating a self inflicted wound.

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.

Not at all. 1/3 of your nations (as said above) could send no tech and simply send rebuilding aid. Using 100% efficiency here gives 181*(1/3) * 5 = 300 aid offers that could be sent, barring no DRA. This does not even take into account the numerous smaller NPO nations who could eaisly be built up with proper back collections and hit 2999 or 3999 infra easily, creating even more bankers, OR the NPO nations who were below the 1k tech limit but having plenty of cash available still.

This is a possible 60 nations receiving 15M back collections every 10 days, even dropping this down to a 50% efficiency here gives a total of 30 nations becoming bankable (able to send out some cash every 10 days, perhaps not 15M/18M). Considering the sheer number of former 30k+ nations you have that have lots of wonders a back collect will almost assuredly put them into a good range for getting income (as someone who has rebuilt from the 2-3k infra range a few times over the years trust me, with wonders and/or improvements its possible to buy 50+ infra daily in these ranges - hell even without wonders/max improvements you can sometimes do this.

You're telling me that 18 alliances, having months to plan to this operation, choose their crack, elite troops, and select targets, aren't going to have their best fighters, with WRCs and lots of tech, target these nations?

I did not create my analysis assuming incompetence from the other side.

Yes you did, you assume Karma has 100% activity and competence with all their nations, whereas NPO has some "bad banking efficiency" card they can play.

[Cortath]

Step 1: decommission all soldiers.

Step 2: leave peace mode.

Step 3: be attacked for 14 days (losing 5M in defeat alerts daily, possibly more)

Step 4: after 14 days, pay bills (considerably less), buy a bunch of infra with the remaining money that you had (anything over 70M of your starting cash)

This means that any nation with over 100M will easily be back to 2999 infra, if not higher, after the war and a single back collection. Probably higher since they will be able to use their back collection taxes on further infra.

As my analysis indicates, nearly all nations be at ZI. It will take considerably more than 100M to bring them back to a level where they could pump out 18M per cycle.

Some have yes, but there are a large amount that have not had anywhere near "dozens of wars."

No, there aren't. I can see every single war every single NPO nation has fought. Since we're using quotes to indicate sarcasm, there is not a "large amount" that have not had those numbers of wars.

I never saw NPO taking issue with "monthly quotas" - especially given the crux of your argument is that it will take a year minimum to pay them off.

Uh yeah, we do take issue with it, because under your estimates, we fail to meet the monthly quotas. And what happens then? Does Karma not intend to enforce the monthly quotas? Or do they re-declare war on us? Perhaps you understand our concerns in such a matter?

It's not my fault you guys chose to not take the terms and now have fewer nations eligible for payments. Perhaps if you had done the math correctly the first time this problem would not exist.

~30% efficiency means that roughly 1/3 your nations could use none of their slots for reps, and the remaining use 4/6 a cycle (not sure why they wouldn't use 6/6 if they are sending out tech to begin with but for the purpose here use 4/6 instead).

(181 * .6667 * 4 * 50 = 24100 tech a cycle being sent out a cycle. this clearly would take slightly longer the longer terms are not offered as a result of NPO stubbornness).

We are required to pay 1/12 of the terms every month. Your estimates only take tech into account, and fail to meet the tech quota at that. Your scenario has us violating the terms and us having war declared on us once again. And you haven't even begun to account for the 7B.

The tech is hardly relevant to the nation growth at all since the vast majority of those nations will have some if not a significant amount left over after the war initially, with the ability to use all their generated income for infrastructure (regrowth is fast with wonders/improvements) and easily be to 3999 or 4999 infra by the time money is required to be sent.

That's not correct. Assuming my damage estimates due to tech, fewer than 60 nations who are presently above 1K tech will have more than 0 tech. That's not the "vast majority" of 147 or 181 by any stretch of the word "majority."

So yes, your conclusion is wrong, because tech will be relevant to growth, because that tech will have to be purchased.

Note that for 300k tech, 6000 offers of 50 tech are needed. Also note that for 8000M in cash, only 2700 (roughly) aid slots are needed. That means for the first 2/3 of your reps you would not need to pay off any cash (assuming that the victors allow this, I do not know if this was stipulated anywhere tbh) and will have probably 4 months of rebuilding with no cash being forced to be sent from these nations to Karma.

You are incorrect. It was stipulated that the money will have to be paid off in tandem with tech.

Many weeks of this is a direct result of NPO stubbornness. I have no sympathy for this anymore - by intentionally not accepting terms you guys are forcing this upon yourselves as a larger problem. You cannot shoot yourself in the foot intentionally then complain how your foot hurts and your terms should be accommodating a self inflicted wound.

We will not accept terms that we cannot pay. Your own analysis here would doom us to being re-declared after we violate the terms. I am glad you are coming around to our side.

Not at all. 1/3 of your nations (as said above) could send no tech and simply send rebuilding aid. Using 100% efficiency here gives 181*(1/3) * 5 = 300 aid offers that could be sent, barring no DRA. This does not even take into account the numerous smaller NPO nations who could eaisly be built up with proper back collections and hit 2999 or 3999 infra easily, creating even more bankers, OR the NPO nations who were below the 1k tech limit but having plenty of cash available still.

This is a possible 60 nations receiving 15M back collections every 10 days, even dropping this down to a 50% efficiency here gives a total of 30 nations becoming bankable (able to send out some cash every 10 days, perhaps not 15M/18M). Considering the sheer number of former 30k+ nations you have that have lots of wonders a back collect will almost assuredly put them into a good range for getting income (as someone who has rebuilt from the 2-3k infra range a few times over the years trust me, with wonders and/or improvements its possible to buy 50+ infra daily in these ranges - hell even without wonders/max improvements you can sometimes do this.

Your rebuilding does not take into the account the restriction on internal to external aid slots. Our internal slot usage must equal our external slot usage. Furthermore, as your analysis does not have us meeting the quota, this part of your analysis is flawed.

Yes you did, you assume Karma has 100% activity and competence with all their nations, whereas NPO has some "bad banking efficiency" card they can play.

The difference is is that Karma gets to choose from a bountiful supply of nations its fighters. You have more fighters than we have nations you would attack. Karma can approach a higher efficiency because their supply outweighs the demand. When they do a roll-call, or whatever they do, 100% of the people who answer it are active. 100% of them can be assigned. Sure, I bet there will be some inefficiencies, but they will be tiny.

The inefficiencies the NPO has to deal with, however, are of a different nature. 100% slot alignment is impossible on this scale. 100% participation by *all* nations in the alliance, which is what many Karma analyses assume, is obviously ridiculous. 100% participation by those who answer a roll-call in a military endeavor which doesn't have the problem of "slot inefficiencies," and also doesn't have to worry about staggering due to the nature of these terms, is a very different kind efficiency scenario.

[Petrovich4]

Response to side note: if the past is relevant for judging our actions, then it's relevant for judging our opponents, and I cry hypocrisy to those alliances who gladly picked up a sword, fought on our side and reaped the benefits of our victories, and now leave our blocs days before the conflict in a sudden "change of heart," and plunge the very sword they carried underneath our banner into our people.

[edit spelling]

It is your right to cry hypocrisy, since I can see your perspective in that regard.

[KingEsus]

Many weeks of this is a direct result of NPO stubbornness. I have no sympathy for this anymore - by intentionally not accepting terms you guys are forcing this upon yourselves as a larger problem. You cannot shoot yourself in the foot intentionally then complain how your foot hurts and your terms should be accommodating a self inflicted wound.

"Stubbornness"!? I'm shocked there are people still trying to defend those horrible, horrible terms on their merits. At least most people have moved on to just stating that they hate us and want us to die and the terms help to do that. You're actually trying to justify the detail! Vindictive and unprecedented in their cruelty, we are not accepting terms which will result in a situation we may never get out of. Its been said 100 times. By going on and on about your interpretation of the maths you're getting nowhere. This argument is just going around in circles.

[Cortath]

It is your right to cry hypocrisy, since I can see your perspective in that regard.

I'm glad we can agree on that. As I posted here (link), I think that such common truths are unfortunately the casualty of war. Because opponents disagree on some points does not mean they disagree on all points.

[edit to fix tag]

Edited July 5, 2009 by Cortath

[Petrovich4]

"Stubbornness"!? I'm shocked there are people still trying to defend those horrible, horrible terms on their merits. At least most people have moved on to just stating that they hate us and want us to die and the terms help to do that. You're actually trying to justify the detail! Vindictive and unprecedented in their cruelty, we are not accepting terms which will result in a situation we may never get out of. Its been said 100 times. By going on and on about your interpretation of the maths you're getting nowhere. This argument is just going around in circles.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics!

[Mandrivia_2]

I see NPO members complaining of treatment that they themselves imposed on other alliances. How dare you complain about the risk of being attacked after surrender terms when you did the exact same thing to FAN? Or about the massive amount of reparations. What about th $900 000 000 you made Legion pay at the end of GW3 which were unprecedented at the time? You all are a bunch of babies with huge and obvious double standards.

[Elendil old]

I see NPO members complaining of treatment that they themselves imposed on other alliances. How dare you complain about the risk of being attacked after surrender terms when you did the exact same thing to FAN? Or about the massive amount of reparations. What about th $900 000 000 you made Legion pay at the end of GW3 which were unprecedented at the time? You all are a bunch of babies with huge and obvious double standards.

Well if they're fighting against the standard we raised how's this different

[Cortath]

I see NPO members complaining of treatment that they themselves imposed on other alliances. How dare you complain about the risk of being attacked after surrender terms when you did the exact same thing to FAN? Or about the massive amount of reparations. What about th $900 000 000 you made Legion pay at the end of GW3 which were unprecedented at the time? You all are a bunch of babies with huge and obvious double standards.

While it's easy to throw pot shots from the sideline, it doesn't really solve the problem.

Presuming that both sides sincerely want peace (which I doubt for many of our opposites), they need to come together to recognize each other's mutual concerns.

Furthermore, the FAN issue was quite different. FAN's terms were possible. These terms are impossible.

[Haflinger]

Even assuming there are enough 3k tech WRC'd nations to triple up on all 181, and in range to do so, Cortath's own approximations would have the nations being hit quickly knocked out of range of these heavy hitting nations, thus drastically reducing the damage they'll take.

Uh, the proposal was for at most 2 weeks of war. The damage to the NPO nations will only affect the second half of that. Also, is it your contention that Ragnarok, VE and FOK in particular contain no heavily-damaged WRC nations that are now difficult to get below the range of? If yes, then I would call your attention to the situation on the ground which does not reflect that idea.

As for how many WRC nations there are...

Athens - 5 Weapons Research Complexes

Avalanche - 0 Weapons Research Complexes

Deck Of International Card Experts - 2 Weapons Research Complexes

FOK - 38 Weapons Research Complexes

Global Order Of Darkness - 11 Weapons Research Complexes

Greenland Republic - 8 Weapons Research Complexes

Global United Nations - 1 Weapons Research Complexes

The International - 3 Weapons Research Complexes

=LOST= - 0 Weapons Research Complexes

Majestic Order Of Orange Nations - 5 Weapons Research Complexes

Ordo Verde - 1 Weapons Research Complexes

Ragnarok - 10 Weapons Research Complexes

RnR - 8 Weapons Research Complexes

Sparta - 30 Weapons Research Complexes

Union Of Communist Republics - 0 Weapons Research Complexes

Vanguard - 22 Weapons Research Complexes

Viridian Entente - 23 Weapons Research Complexes

Total - 167 Weapons Research Complexes

So yeah, you wouldn't be able to tripleteam NPO's peace mode nations with WRCs. But I'd make a vague guess that a lot of those WRCs are on nations with more than 3K tech. A more interesting study would figure out what the top 500 or so Karma nations' tech levels are, weighted by WRCs, to figure out whether Cortath's damage estimates are reasonable.

[Iceknave]

I see NPO members complaining of treatment that they themselves imposed on other alliances. How dare you complain about the risk of being attacked after surrender terms when you did the exact same thing to FAN? Or about the massive amount of reparations. What about th $900 000 000 you made Legion pay at the end of GW3 which were unprecedented at the time? You all are a bunch of babies with huge and obvious double standards.

Surrender terms for the Legion at the end of GW3

The monetary term was as follows:

4. Legion, with the assistance of the Pacific Bank, pays $800 million over a feasible period, which is to be negotiated as necessary.

4a. The Initiative will submit bankers to help coordinate payment.

4b. Any Legion nation attacked by the Initiative in error will be absolved of all payment responsibilities.

It was 800 million over a feasible period of time, not 900 million. In addition, there were NO restrictions on either the time or who can pay the reps.

One should not be making the comparison you've made as they are incomparable to the terms imposed by Karma. Karma's terms as presented to NPO restricts who can pay the tech reps and further more in the terms assumes that total repayment is possible within 6 months. It has been shown by a number of individuals inside NPO, include 2 or 3 IO (Cortath, noob5, Letum) and a member of the Body Republic (Iceknave) who has never held any government position in any alliance that it is impossible to pay the reps off without breaking the clause that states the minimum amount needed to be paid per month.

Karma may make the argument yet again that the terms do not restrict who in NPO can pay reps. However, if those terms were NEVER presented to NPO for acceptance or rejection, then there is no basis for NPO to use said terms for calculating whether it is possible to even met the minimum required payments per month. Instead, NPO must rely on the terms that were presented to us for this calculation and these terms clearly state that NPO is restricted in who can pay reps.

Edit: Clarifcation

Edited July 5, 2009 by Iceknave

[TypoNinja]

Snippity.

Because your entire set of numbers are based on false premises.

1. You assume rather large amounts of tech.

2. You assume max damage, when anyone with two brain cells to rub together will turtle.

3. You completely ignore warchest sizes. I saved these, I'm sure you remember them.

4. you even assume maximum payment when its only a possible maximum on the off chance you are actually unable to pay the numbers go down. This sliding scale completely counters ALL of your numbers because you did not calculate based on a variable.

*sigh*

Your banks will be fine, anyone with a warchest over 200 million, no wait lets say 250 to be generous, after the two weeks are up can rebuild themselves from ZI all the way to a range where they will be wanting to buy tech again.

The beatdown of those nations will not do them lasting harm, what it WILL do is deplete their warchests and making it less likely that the NPO will be able to engage is another war in the near future.

Edit: since it might not be obvious to those who don't pay attention, 250 mil is a small sum for nations of the size were talking about.

B2) Reparations of up to 300,000 tech and $7,000,000,000 will be assessed upon the New Pacific Order. This shall be determined dependent on their ability to pay after the aforementioned period of war, in the judgement of the Karma signatories of this document. All reparations of technology must be paid by nations with greater than or equal to 1000.00 technology at the end of the above-mentioned 14 day period.

Lets be really clear here, in fact lets be brutally honest. You have right now 60 nations in peace mode over 5k infra. If any of them are carrying LESS than 400 mill on them they are the stupidest banks on planet bob. Of course we know they are not broke, thats what the IG spy function (gather intel ftw!) is for we can see that you in fact have a good number of people sitting on a billion or more.

The damage your peace mode nations might take is entirely irrelevant, the entirety of your post focusing on that damage is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to dodge the point. They can all be reduced to ZI during their two weeks and will still be able to spend their warchests to rebuild to AT LEAST 3999 infra the instant the war is over while still having hundreds of millions on them in most cases.

[Iceknave]

Because your entire set of numbers are based on false premises.

1. You assume rather large amounts of tech.

2. You assume max damage, when anyone with two brain cells to rub together will turtle.

3. You completely ignore warchest sizes. I saved these, I'm sure you remember them.

4. you even assume maximum payment when its only a possible maximum on the off chance you are actually unable to pay the numbers go down. This sliding scale completely counters ALL of your numbers because you did not calculate based on a variable.

Lets be really clear here, in fact lets be brutally honest. You have right now 60 nations in peace mode over 5k infra. If any of them are carrying LESS than 400 mill on them they are the stupidest banks on planet bob. Of course we know they are not broke, thats what the IG spy function (gather intel ftw!) is for we can see that you in fact have a good number of people sitting on a billion or more.

The damage your peace mode nations might take is entirely irrelevant, the entirety of your post focusing on that damage is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to dodge the point. They can all be reduced to ZI during their two weeks and will still be able to spend their warchests to rebuild to AT LEAST 3999 infra the instant the war is over while still having hundreds of millions on them in most cases.

1. Calculations have shown that the large values in Cortath's analysis are within the expected range for possible damages.

2. Even while turtling, the damage estimated by Cortath are reasonable given that any NPO will be facing 3 enemies, all in a superior position to maximize the damage inflicted.

3. Warchest size is irrelevant to this discussion because rebuilding infra has virtually no effect on paying tech reps espeically given the belief that EVERY NPO nation at this time has an insane amount of cash left in their warchest. That money ain't there, folks after 2 months, going onto 3 months of warfare. War is extremely expensive in almost all ranks, regardless of NS.

4. This position I've countered before with the following:

Karma may also make the argument that the reps terms would be adjusted after the 2 week war period based on NPO's ability to pay such terms. However, Karma fails to recognize that being in the superior position, espeically after 2 weeks of war, that it is far too easy to abuse the power and the opportunity presented to make it such that disbandment is preferable to being under Karma's dubious "guidance" even against the supposed "backlash" from the rest of the community.

When in a superior position, terms are dictated by the one in the superior position, not by the one in the inferior position as is often stated by members of Karma. Logically, there is no reason for Karma to adjust the terms to reflect the ability of NPO to pay said terms while being in the superior position.

5. The tech damages that the peace mode nation might take is entirely relevant because that affects who can and can not pay tech reps. They can be ZI and pay bills via whatever remaining warchest they have, but the sheer lack of nations at the end of 2 weeks warfare with enough tech to qualify to pay reps means meeting JUST The minimum payments per month is extremely difficult to impossible. Just a few nations screw up and we're back at war in a worse position than had we not accepted terms.

You may then object to the very fact that NPO has been restricted who can pay. The terms presented to NPO clearly states that only nations with at least 1k tech AFTER 2 weeks of war can pay tech reps. Karma states otherwise.

Edit: Clarifications.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Iceknave

[enderland]

You may then object to the very fact that NPO has been restricted who can pay. The terms presented to NPO clearly states that only nations with at least 1k tech AFTER 2 weeks of war can pay tech reps. Karma states otherwise.

*sigh*

This is not the case.

[Big Z]

As my analysis indicates, nearly all nations be at ZI. It will take considerably more than 100M to bring them back to a level where they could pump out 18M per cycle.

I'll once again point out that it does not take considerably more than 100 mil to bring a ZI'd nation back to banking range. It will cost about 112 million for former upper nations who were ZI'd. On average, the cost for all nations will run about 134 mil to get back into banking range.

These numbers are also assuming banking at 4999.99 infra. With wonders, a nation can easily bank at 3999.99 infra, which has a pricetag of only 74 mil on average and a lower spectrum cost of 61 mil.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Big Z

[Lord of Destruction]

These numbers are also assuming banking at 4999.99 infra. With wonders, a nation can easily bank at 3999.99 infra, which has a pricetag of only 74 mil on average and a lower spectrum cost of 61 mil.

He's not assuming that bankers in the Order are 4,999.99 infra and up. He's stating it.

[Cortath]

Because your entire set of numbers are based on false premises.

1. You assume rather large amounts of tech.

2. You assume max damage, when anyone with two brain cells to rub together will turtle.

3. You completely ignore warchest sizes. I saved these, I'm sure you remember them.

4. you even assume maximum payment when its only a possible maximum on the off chance you are actually unable to pay the numbers go down. This sliding scale completely counters ALL of your numbers because you did not calculate based on a variable.

1. Yes. I have no reason to believe, given Karma's intransigent attitude over negotiations that we will one penny less than what those terms say.

2. My damage estimates are reasonable. In fact, they aren't max damage, but damage done by a 3K+WRC/6K attacker.

3. The "warchest" argument neglects that the overwhelming majority of our PM nations have been in nuclear war for some number of weeks. It neglects that WCs are depleted by months of peace mode.

4. I don't do business on the "off chance" that I'll be successful. A gambler doesn't bet his pot on the "off chance" they might win. See #1.

Lets be really clear here, in fact lets be brutally honest. You have right now 60 nations in peace mode over 5k infra. If any of them are carrying LESS than 400 mill on them they are the stupidest banks on planet bob. Of course we know they are not broke, thats what the IG spy function (gather intel ftw!) is for we can see that you in fact have a good number of people sitting on a billion or more.

The damage your peace mode nations might take is entirely irrelevant, the entirety of your post focusing on that damage is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to dodge the point. They can all be reduced to ZI during their two weeks and will still be able to spend their warchests to rebuild to AT LEAST 3999 infra the instant the war is over while still having hundreds of millions on them in most cases.

Post your spy figures. I've been hearing about them for months.

[Big Z]

3. The "warchest" argument neglects that the overwhelming majority of our PM nations have been in nuclear war for some number of weeks. It neglects that WCs are depleted by months of peace mode.

Inaccurate. As our spy reports have indicated, many NPO nations are actually growing in peace mode (though at a very slow rate) and any dips in warchest figures are due to wonder purchases.

[Cortath]

Inaccurate. As our spy reports have indicated, many NPO nations are actually growing in peace mode (though at a very slow rate) and any dips in warchest figures are due to wonder purchases.

You show me yours I'll show you mine?

I showed my numbers. Why don't you show us how all 200-odd NPO nations in PM have billion dollar warchests.

[Lord of Destruction]

Inaccurate. As our spy reports have indicated, many NPO nations are actually growing in peace mode (though at a very slow rate) and any dips in warchest figures are due to wonder purchases.

If people are actually digging into their warchests to buy wonders and other things, then they're going to get yelled at.

That said, I have to echo Cort at the second - please show these spy reports. I don't expect you're actually lying, but hard evidence is nice to come by.

[Midkn1ght]

You're telling me that 18 alliances, having months to plan to this operation, choose their crack, elite troops, and select targets, aren't going to have their best fighters, with WRCs and lots of tech, target these nations?

I did not create my analysis assuming incompetence from the other side.

It's hard to believe, but when you spend months fighting, and not cowering in peace, you wind up loosing a lot of your top end nations. Not all of us are your loyal troops hiding in peace mode. Yes we still have WRCs, but not as much tech to back them up.

And I've addressed this a few times, and you lot just refuse to answer it. I've got updated stats on the top 60 folks you have sitting in peace mode right now, nearly all of them have been there the entire war, they're sitting on over Edit, it's actually 35.707 billion, not 36 Billion now, sorry, and that's just in the top 60. How the hell is 14 days of war per person going to ruin them? There is 5 or 6 I think atm, that will not be able to rebuild instantly back to 4K+ infra. Who cares if your pixels get zeroed out, You have the money to rebuild. Oh right, poor nations.

Poor nations my butt. They could send out assuming 5 slots and max efficiency nearly a billion a month in money, and 45K tech. Easily making terms reachable by just 60 folks max aiding, and even if they weren't max aiding, you could make up even more ground by having others aid.

We know you're not poor, we've got stats on many, if not 80% of your war mode nations that're updated as well, so quit the BS of you can't do it, shut up, and do it.

Inaccurate. As our spy reports have indicated, many NPO nations are actually growing in peace mode (though at a very slow rate) and any dips in warchest figures are due to wonder purchases.

Yep, and dont forget them getting tech influxes from quitters and folks trying to hide it.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Midkn1ght