Jump to content

An Proposed Alternative to the New Pacific Order Peace Terms


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 195
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For every 1 unit of cash or tech received by a NPO nation, they must pay karma 2

Broken into blockings of $3,000,000 for the purpose of payment with the remainder carrying over, yes.

Also an aid cycle is 10 days and not 7, you might want to amend that. :)

Imprecision on my part - the seven day period would be for the purpose of tabulating new totals - essentially, the oversight committee could mark a day of the week (let us say Thursday) and run the calculations on that day. Payments would obviously have to conform to a ten-day cycle.

And these terms last 10 months, (approx.~30 aid cycles) you might want to adjust that to exactly 30 aid cycles for the sake of neatness.

That's actually a rather good idea - I hadn't considered that. My suggestion on the timeline was more based in something reflective of the period GATO had served since that's been waved time and again as the benchmark.

But consider this.

The NPO's lower ranks are pretty much ZIed and will be receiving a LOT of aid to rebuild and in some cases to get out of bill lock.

So this would make for actual terms that will be in all probability be even higher than those previously stated.

One of the main aims of the Karma Coalition, repeatedly stated, has been to curb the growth of the New Pacific Order and to gain some sense that they will not pose a threat in the future. This addresses those concerns as well as empowering the New Pacific Order to take a part in their own fate as opposed to having it dictated to them in absolutes.

An amendment I would make to this would be to make this clause only apply to external aid transactions.

This will limit their growth but not completely strangle it.

I could see that working as well, though that opens the possibility of the New Pacific Order taking "loans" from other alliances for future repayment after the terms have expired.

My main issue with this is: who do you think you are to sit in your ivory tower and tell people what terms they should give? (And yes, I appreciate the irony :P.) Why do you think you can solve a problem that the alliances on the NPO front cannot?

Coming from you, Bob, I find this comment to be deeply amusing. As for what I've written, it is a suggestion designed to spark discussion which might possibly provide ideas to those who are actually in charge of drafting the terms. Many times I've had others suggest things to me which I simply had overlooked or considered, at first glance, to be impossible but which turned into good ideas. As I've noted, I have zero stake in my suggestions being accepted or rejected.

The other issue is that it is much harder to police than a fixed rep amount. With an alliance the size of the NPO, it is tricky to keep track of all the aid that could happen while off AA, and even if that was made a term violation, people would still try it. Also, it seems like a back door route to getting much lower reps, since most nations will be able to grow naturally without aid and then there will be almost zero reps. The reps are important to rebuild Karma alliances, not just to keep Pacifica's growth under control.

Two points:

1. The Gramlins have repeatedly made it clear they can track nations going onto and coming off of an alliance affiliation using the NORAD system. I simply do not accept that, suddenly, this capability does not work. Change the parameters from "Karma POW" to "New Pacific Order" and your problem ends very quickly. If this is a reference to national rulers assuming new identities only to return later then I fail to see how the current plan of action does anything to affect that possibility more effectively than what I have proposed.

2. No amount of reparations will restore the totality of damage sustained by the alliances of the Karma Coalition. Reparations are a punitive measure designed to illuminate the consequences of warfare.

The point is to not leave NPO with a threatening top tier, which they retain by hiding it in peace mode.

Threatening to to what, precisely? Begin another war which will see a repetition of this one?

I see no "terms" beyond a moratorium on aid. No cash, no tech, nothing. That's not an instrument of surrender but rather an armistice....and precisely the kind of thing that would allow the NPO to come back later and claim that they ultimately "won".

There's not a thing in the Cyberverse which can prevent the New Pacific Order from producing propaganda. Facts and numbers, however, tend to speak for themselves. I challenge the global community to provide a convincing argument that the New Pacific Order is, in fact, winning this conflict.

I'm not even part of the Karma coalition and I can tell you this suggestion will be ignored. Or laughed at. Maybe a bit of both. (In my case, the latter.)

I accepted that even as I wrote the original post, but sometimes it's worth attempting to take the discussion in a new direction. If anything, I've found the debate here to be (mostly) enjoyable and in a few instances rather objective. Even if this suggestion isn't used specifically in this instance it might prove useful in another war assuming it isn't forgotten (which is terribly likely).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no "terms" beyond a moratorium on aid. No cash, no tech, nothing. That's not an instrument of surrender but rather an armistice....and precisely the kind of thing that would allow the NPO to come back later and claim that they ultimately "won".

I'm not even part of the Karma coalition and I can tell you this suggestion will be ignored. Or laughed at. Maybe a bit of both. (In my case, the latter.)

I find that rather hilarious, as alliances that were forced to pay reps have recovered swiftly compared to some who were restricted in their foreign aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ OP.

If you think them terms are nice and fair, then they would of been fair for any previous war and alliance who had to pay reps and for those in the future. looking at previous war reps from the past and seeing at most alliances buy tech and send/receive rebuilding aid after war, if they had to pay double what they send in tech and aid over a duration of months you would come to find that they would have to pay more than the terms they would of had to pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ OP.

If you think them terms are nice and fair, then they would of been fair for any previous war and alliance who had to pay reps and for those in the future. looking at previous war reps from the past and seeing at most alliances buy tech and send/receive rebuilding aid after war, if they had to pay double what they send in tech and aid over a duration of months you would come to find that they would have to pay more than the terms they would of had to pay.

I think the terms I've suggested as an alternative go towards addressing the major complaints of both sides. As for the fairness or lack-thereof, the numbers can always be adjusted. The point here is the methodology of the terms, not the actual amounts themselves - a new take on how to approach the process as it were.

So FAN won the war with NPO?

I could see a very reasonable argument able to and, in fact, having been made for this being the case. The war between those powers reached a defined conclusion at which point one side had failed to achieve its mission objective while the other side had. In the instance of the New Pacific Order and the Karma Coalition there has been no defined ending and, without a victory, you cannot have a victor or group of victors.

Victory cannot be achieved without NPO losing.

The later part will take a while...

My suggestion goes toward offering an alternative to a continuing conflict with no end in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victory cannot be achieved without NPO losing.

The later part will take a while...

NPO has lost, I would think that's obvious.

However, now they are winning the "post-season" games since their attackers can't avoid the "They want us to disband" argument. Why are they winning? Because the folks with nothing to lose make the rules. It's the oldest lesson in war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Double up the reps and extend to at least one year. IE: 1 dollar = 3 dollars / 1 tech = 3 tech , and make the terms last 1 year , anything less and the only aid they will move will be for immediate bill lock relief . The bottom line quickly becomes that as soon as the majority of their alliance is at 3999 infra , aid packages quickly become useless. ANY nation can become an effective bank @ 3999 infra and / or self building at a rapid rate and the cost to aid them to that level is marginal in the larger picture. Even at my suggested rates I fear these terms would be largely useless and laughable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe no one's made a point of how weak the proposed disarmament terms are. The only things they limit (troops, tanks and CMs) can be rebought instantly, while they don't limit navy, nukes, or improvements that take time to recover. If an alliance under terms wants to resume war with a nuke/navy decom term then it will take them at least 10 days (more likely 20 or 25) before they're fully capable, giving the victorious parties plenty of forewarning do intervene. It's just a common sense way to ensure that any other terms can be enforced. It could be very tricky to try to enforce terms on an alliance that still has the capacity to nuke you 3000 times or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I like the basic idea behind the terms Tokugawa proposed, I that this could be realistically adopted. I'm not saying that the NPO's current members can't be monitored, but the NPO (and TPF for some reason) got paranoid about the possibility of Karma turning 'two weeks of war after exiting peacemode' into an eternal war. Seems to me like they would also fear Karma using the daunting nature of monitoring an alliance as big as the NPO for ten months maliciously. Like arbitarily deciding that the NPO needs to pay more than it should or that it broke the terms etc. Although it would just be Pacifican paranoia over their own atrocities against FAN, there's some true concerns to it too. Say if a member left the NPO and did a bunch of tech deals or received reconstruction aid, and a couple of months later reapplied to join the NPO - that's going to be an issue.

Nonetheless this is a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit-never mind. I realized internal aid also counts in this. This is a pretty good idea actually, but I don't see how it's much different from the original reps proposed. These terms serve the same purpose, but take a lot more effort to coordinate. (ex, Karma sends $3mil to NPO nation, NPO bank sends $6mil to Karma, as opposed to NPO bank simply sending $3mil to NPO nation and $3mil to Karma)

Edited by XRCatD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a pretty good idea actually, but I don't see how it's much different from the original reps proposed.

Because the reparations to be paid are based on the actual NPO aid sent, this idea, by definition, this reparation agreement can be fulfilled by the NPO.

That's the big difference. It avoids all the arguments about what the NPO can afford by basing the reps on an empirical analysis of what the NPO can afford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the reparations to be paid are based on the actual NPO aid sent, this idea, by definition, this reparation agreement can be fulfilled by the NPO.

That's the big difference. It avoids all the arguments about what the NPO can afford by basing the reps on an empirical analysis of what the NPO can afford.

According to the terms on the first post, it's not based on the actual NPO aid sent, but the total aid they receive. NPO can receive a lot more aid than they can send, and it would take careful coordination to get all its members to cancel aid that it can't afford to receive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to the terms on the first post, it's not based on the actual NPO aid sent, but the total aid they receive. NPO can receive a lot more aid than they can send, and it would take careful coordination to get all its members to cancel aid that it can't afford to receive.

A simple warning to not accept money for external tech deals would be enough, surely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do the victors have to make concessions and settle for a compromise?

Because if we didn't, much later another war would start up again. After WW1, the victorious powers put massive reperations on Germany and they couldn't pay the victors back. This led to hyperinflation, the fall of the Weimar Republic, Nazism, and WW2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any terms need to include an unambiguous surernder and concession of defeat, withdrawl or contradiction of which by an IO or above on 3 public instances should be considered a violation. Just because I'm sick to death of the "We never lost GWI" BS. Hell, make it surrender and concession for the Karma War and GWI. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This proposal is an interesting approach to the financial aspect of reparations, despite the extra monitoring required. Also, by all means let NPO keep those extra soldiers, tanks and CMs, I'd rather they tore down their navy and nuclear arsenal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...