An Proposed Alternative to the New Pacific Order Peace Terms

[AndrewHG]

Just bolt on a removal/eviction/decapitation of the current leadership and you guys can all go home and have kippers for tea.

Consume the reps and have a good summer.

Andrew

[Authur]

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 .) Why do you think you can solve a problem that the alliances on the NPO front cannot?

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.

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

I keep seeing people basing their opinions of the terms on fear.

Anyone who has been around for a spell knows what wins major wars and I'll give you a hint, it's not large nations. The NPO even with the help of some of the biggest alliances in this world still lost becuase they were significantly outnumbered. Allies are more important then internal military strength and you know it. In that area the NPO has been crippled. They have only a couple allies left and no one will be eager to join them now. Crushing their top nations is unnecessary to keep them down. You broke their legs kicking in their skull to keep them down is just cruel.

I know what the NPO has done. I hated them with a passion at times and even while allied with them I longed for their reality check. An eye for an eye vengence is not the way to go though. Pick a figure, the largest in history, and offer it to them. Asking them to allow you to kick them in the head for two weeks after they surrender is stooping to their tactics and excuse me for expecting something better from the alliances involved.

Edited July 11, 2009 by Authur

[muffasamini]

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.

It would be silly to GWI corrections into Karma war terms. But admission of guilt, offense, defeat, and blame have allways been a term of the surrender we are willing to accept.

[MagicalTrevor]

All NPO have to do with these terms is jump off and on AA when aiding, as it'll take a hella long time to go through all their nations checking slots. Also double counting will occur and NPO will dispute pretty much everything.

[Cortath]

All NPO have to do with these terms is jump off and on AA when aiding, as it'll take a hella long time to go through all their nations checking slots. Also double counting will occur and NPO will dispute pretty much everything.

Luckily, tracking the AAs of some two hundred peace mode nations to ensure that they exit peace, don't switch AAs, and get their two weeks of war is an easy logistical task.

[MagicalTrevor]

Luckily, tracking the AAs of some two hundred peace mode nations to ensure that they exit peace, don't switch AAs, and get their two weeks of war is an easy logistical task.

600 > 200

10months > 2weeks

[Haflinger]

All NPO have to do with these terms is jump off and on AA when aiding, as it'll take a hella long time to go through all their nations checking slots. Also double counting will occur and NPO will dispute pretty much everything.

The basic problem in the whole situation is simple, and illustrated nicely here.

• The NPO expects Karma to be as harsh as possible, and does not trust them to not re-declare
  
• Karma expects the NPO to be as tricky as possible, and expects them to use the peace time to undermine Karma alliances
  

What we have here is a complete lack of trust. I actually think both sides are wrong, but I don't really have a solution to the problem.

[Cortath]

The basic problem in the whole situation is simple, and illustrated nicely here.

• The NPO expects Karma to be as harsh as possible, and does not trust them to not re-declare
  
• Karma expects the NPO to be as tricky as possible, and expects them to use the peace time to undermine Karma alliances
  

What we have here is a complete lack of trust. I actually think both sides are wrong, but I don't really have a solution to the problem.

There is a solution, Haflinger, and it's a solution that we can speak with some authority on, as we have, for better or worse, dealt with giving peace terms before -- KISS: keep it simple, stupid. (not saying you're stupid; but the principle is called KISS)

For terms to be logistically manageable and not subject to any misinterpretations, intentional or otherwise by any side, keeping terms simple has always been our watchword. Maintaining compliance with simple reparations is difficult enough, without adding conditions such as restrictions on who can pay reparations and such. I know from experience that maintaining a ban on outside aid, as we did with GATO for the first couple of months, was both difficult to observe and monitor, and presented a host of difficulties from investigatorial and judicial to political in the enforcement of such.

[kingzog]

For terms to be logistically manageable and not subject to any misinterpretations, intentional or otherwise by any side, keeping terms simple has always been our watchword.

Just like you did with FAN the first time around.

Where's radio silence when you guys need it?

[Tromp]

[*]The NPO expects Karma to be as harsh as possible, and does not trust them to not re-declare

And this is what I don't get, I'm stunned really.

We have shown willingness to work with NPO. We openend negotiations after their, what would become a monstrous, thread in the AP section.

We have listenend to their arguments, and changed terms or given more details about our intentions with specific terms.

We were that close to peace, and they decided to walk out of the negotiations. Not once, but twice.

In no way does the NPO have any reason to not trust us.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Tromp

[Cortath]

And this is what I don't get, I'm stunned really.

We have shown willingness to work with NPO. We openend negotiations after their, what would become a monstrous, thread in the AP section.

We have listenend to their arguments, and changed terms or given more details about our intentions with specific terms.

We were that close to peace, and they decided to walk out of the negotiations. Not once, but twice.

In no way does the NPO have any reason to not trust us.

We were not "that close" to peace. We wanted to negotiate a term, and we were told "that term is not negotiable."

We will continue and have continued to attempt to negotiate, despite being told that.

[hammer]

It would be silly to GWI corrections into Karma war terms. But admission of guilt, offense, defeat, and blame have allways been a term of the surrender we are willing to accept.

To clarify, as I think you misinterpreted:

Denial of the term stating and accepting defeat by IO or above would constitute a breaking of peace terms.

I suggest it half-seriously as the GWI lines from Pacifica (ok, Vladimir most of all, but others too) really get on my !@#$.

The comment on including a similar term regarding the events of GWI were not serious (but would make me happy!)

[Tromp]

We were not "that close" to peace. We wanted to negotiate a term, and we were told "that term is not negotiable."

I'm not only talking about that one term...

That the only thing that kept us from peace was the timetable of that term was laughable.

We will continue and have continued to attempt to negotiate, despite being told that.

Walking out of negotiations really proves that, right?

You showed us no respect. You didn't the first time, and even created that now famous 200+ page thread.

You didn't the second the time, and here we are now, talking on the public boards about something that isn't meant to be here.

[Cortath]

I'm not only talking about that one term...

That the only thing that kept us from peace was the timetable of that term was laughable.

Walking out of negotiations really proves that, right?

You showed us no respect. You didn't the first time, and even created that now famous 200+ page thread.

You didn't the second the time, and here we are now, talking on the public boards about something that isn't meant to be here.

We said time and time again, that to remove the war clause would result in an agreement on principle to the proposed terms of surrender.

I'll say it again: the removal of the war clause would result in an agreement on principle to the proposed terms of surrender.

I don't know what kind of "respect," you're looking for. Our representatives addressed our opposites with nothing but courtesy and honor.

[Seerow]

Oh hey how did I not see this thread before.

Always good to see someone is listening to at least some of the ideas I put forward. Even if they aren't the people in a position to implement it.

[TehChron]

I'm not only talking about that one term...

That the only thing that kept us from peace was the timetable of that term was laughable.

Well, if they say thats the only term that is being disagreed with, then more or less that makes it the only obstacle to a surrender, isnt it? Hardly a laughable claim.

[Andre27]

@ 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 believe that was the general idea.

[neneko]

These terms fall short on the fact that NPO have plenty of banks in peacemode. They don't need to accept any aid at all to rebuild at a fast pace. zero times two is zero wich make these terms pretty close to white peace with the exception for the decomissioning.

I doubt this 'set you own terms' thing is going to catch on.

[Prime minister Johns]

These terms fall short on the fact that NPO have plenty of banks in peacemode. They don't need to accept any aid at all to rebuild at a fast pace. zero times two is zero wich make these terms pretty close to white peace with the exception for the decomissioning.

I doubt this 'set you own terms' thing is going to catch on.

No but the point is that they will send aid out to other nations that not so well off and that money will have a massive tax placed on it.

[Seerow]

These terms fall short on the fact that NPO have plenty of banks in peacemode. They don't need to accept any aid at all to rebuild at a fast pace. zero times two is zero wich make these terms pretty close to white peace with the exception for the decomissioning.

I doubt this 'set you own terms' thing is going to catch on.

It applies to internal aid. If those banks send aid to their own for post war rebuilding, then karma gets reps.

If the banks sit on their thumbs, not only are the smaller nations who are bill locked or heavily damaged likely to leave (thus achieving another Karma goal), but there's no internal rebuilding aid which is what reps are usually designed for (not really to cover the damages taken, but to slow the rebuilding of the enemy). Either way it's a win-win situation.

It's also important to note this would tax tech dealing. An NPO nation selling tech would cost the NPO 6mil in extra reps. An NPO nation buying tech would cost the NPO 200 tech in reps. Internal tech dealing does both at the same.

This leaves the NPO with the hard choice of either slowing their growth from tech dealing to nothing, or paying large amounts of reps, potentially dwarfing what the terms they had in front of them previously were. But of course nobody will pity them, they got the chance to choose exactly what they paid.

[Derantol]

There would be almost no incentive for tech growth. Money can be put towards infrastructure, which will eventually pay itself off many times over. But if a nation receives 50 tech, and NPO is required to send off 100, every tech deal that NPO does could lose the alliance exactly as much tech as they would normally gain. That's not necessarily a bad thing, from Karma's standpoint, but it makes sense to point that out. Tech can only be produced through tech farming unless you want to pay copious amounts of money for it - money is produced every day, and as has been mentioned, is hardly worth accepting once a nation is at 4k or 5k infrastructure.

Therefore, a 3 mil/50 tech farm would cost the buyer 9 mil (if the individual nations involved here were responsible) for 50 tech, while giving the tech seller the profit of a 3 mil/150 tech deal. There's still potential for tech growth there... but as 3 mil/100 tech or 3 mil/50 tech deals are far more standard, it would work far better for a small nation to leave the alliance.

Perhaps the manner in which the reps are paid could be adjusted? Instead of paying every aid cycle, rebuilding aid could be kept track of for 6 months, let's say. Rebuilding, tech farms, whatever. The tech amounts would be recorded throughout. Once the 6 months are up, the tech totals are calculated, and then paid like normal reps - the NPO would have an easier time paying them this way, since they'd be given totals once, and they could simply tech farm that amount. The money could be kept track of the same way, or paid as is suggested in the OP.

I recognize that waiting that long for reps would be a risk, and that Karma alliances aren't likely to want to take up that risk, but it would also increase that chance that NPO would buy more tech, and therefore give the Karma alliances more tech in the end. It would also make organizing the payment of reps exactly like it's done now, while leaving the amount of reps to be paid to be determined by the process in the OP.

[Seerow]

There would be almost no incentive for tech growth. Money can be put towards infrastructure, which will eventually pay itself off many times over. But if a nation receives 50 tech, and NPO is required to send off 100, every tech deal that NPO does could lose the alliance exactly as much tech as they would normally gain. That's not necessarily a bad thing, from Karma's standpoint, but it makes sense to point that out. Tech can only be produced through tech farming unless you want to pay copious amounts of money for it - money is produced every day, and as has been mentioned, is hardly worth accepting once a nation is at 4k or 5k infrastructure.

Therefore, a 3 mil/50 tech farm would cost the buyer 9 mil (if the individual nations involved here were responsible) for 50 tech, while giving the tech seller the profit of a 3 mil/150 tech deal. There's still potential for tech growth there... but as 3 mil/100 tech or 3 mil/50 tech deals are far more standard, it would work far better for a small nation to leave the alliance.

Perhaps the manner in which the reps are paid could be adjusted? Instead of paying every aid cycle, rebuilding aid could be kept track of for 6 months, let's say. Rebuilding, tech farms, whatever. The tech amounts would be recorded throughout. Once the 6 months are up, the tech totals are calculated, and then paid like normal reps - the NPO would have an easier time paying them this way, since they'd be given totals once, and they could simply tech farm that amount. The money could be kept track of the same way, or paid as is suggested in the OP.

I recognize that waiting that long for reps would be a risk, and that Karma alliances aren't likely to want to take up that risk, but it would also increase that chance that NPO would buy more tech, and therefore give the Karma alliances more tech in the end. It would also make organizing the payment of reps exactly like it's done now, while leaving the amount of reps to be paid to be determined by the process in the OP.

See, you hit on the exact purpose of what this suggestion was made for, then say that it works too well and should be changed to be more lenient towards the NPO.

$%&@ that, the NPO can pay its taxes as its rebuilding.

[Prime minister Johns]

See, you hit on the exact purpose of what this suggestion was made for, then say that it works too well and should be changed to be more lenient towards the NPO.

$%&@ that, the NPO can pay its taxes as its rebuilding.

This could make paying the reps hurt them more than continuing the war, and it would provide no incentive to surrender.

One of the points of reps in my opinion is to provide an incentive for the losing side to surrender and stop losing money and strength from the war.

If the reps are worse than the war then they will choose to go down in a last man, last bullet fight.

And this would be bad from karma's point of view because it will require 600+ karma nations to engage the NPO nations in war for an indefinite period to keep them in a weakened anarchied state or risk having them slip into peace mode and rebuild to a point where they could seriously harass the lower strength nations of karma alliances, which will cost money to rebuild them.

And by not offering reasonable surrender terms the opinion of the independents will gradually shift to sympathising with the NPO over time.

This is evidenced by several independents and even several former VOX members stating that the NPO is now beaten and karma has won and reps should be offered.

tl;dr:

Offering reps that will be worse than continuing the war will ensure an eternal war that will cost karma manpower, money and goodwill.

The Karma war was said to bring an end to this kind of behaviour, not to take it to the next level.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Prime minister Johns

[Seerow]

This could make paying the reps hurt them more than continuing the war, and it would provide no incentive to surrender.

One of the points of reps in my opinion is to provide an incentive for the losing side to surrender and stop losing money and strength from the war.

If the reps are worse than the war then they will choose to go down in a last man, last bullet fight.

And this would be bad from karma's point of view because it will require 600+ karma nations to engage the NPO nations in war for an indefinite period to keep them in a weakened anarchied state or risk having them slip into peace mode and rebuild to a point where they could seriously harass the lower strength nations of karma alliances, which will cost money to rebuild them.

And by not offering reasonable surrender terms the opinion of the independents will gradually shift to sympathising with the NPO over time.

This is evidenced by several independents and even several former VOX members stating that the NPO is now beaten and karma has won and reps should be offered.

tl;dr:

Offering reps that will be worse than continuing the war will ensure an eternal war that will cost karma manpower, money and goodwill.

The Karma war was said to bring an end to this kind of behaviour, not to take it to the next level.

In no way could it be worse than continued war.

Continued war = No tech dealing, no aid, and being beat down.

This term with them not wanting to pay reps = no tech dealing, no aid, not being beat down. At least getting natural growth.

This term with them attempting to grow normally = them devoting 2/3 of their alliance resources to paying reps while 1/3 to rebuilding.

No matter how you spin it the term would be better than continued war. Yes, it could turn into a huge amount of reps over the period of 9 months suggested (I personally am more in favor of 4-6 months), but there are zero worries of being redeclared on due to not being able to meet minimum monthly payments etc, and they begin growing again. Saying that them staying at war would be a step up from this is just playing dumb.

[Haflinger]

In no way could it be worse than continued war.

Continued war = No tech dealing, no aid, and being beat down.

This term with them not wanting to pay reps = no tech dealing, no aid, not being beat down. At least getting natural growth.

This term with them attempting to grow normally = them devoting 2/3 of their alliance resources to paying reps while 1/3 to rebuilding.

No matter how you spin it the term would be better than continued war. Yes, it could turn into a huge amount of reps over the period of 9 months suggested (I personally am more in favor of 4-6 months), but there are zero worries of being redeclared on due to not being able to meet minimum monthly payments etc, and they begin growing again. Saying that them staying at war would be a step up from this is just playing dumb.

Seerow's right.

The bigger problem with this as a proposed solution is that what they're saying is right: the NPO probably would not deal much tech under this agreement, and so the victorious alliances would not receive the tech that they need to strengthen their postwar political position.