An Proposed Alternative to the New Pacific Order Peace Terms

[Seerow]

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.

I don't see this as a bad thing really. Any alliance that NEEDS reps to strengthen their position is doing something wrong. If the NPO ceases tech dealing to avoid paying massive reps their position will be weakened relative to the rest of the game that is actively tech dealing. Missing 10 months or even 4-6 months of tech dealing effectively nullifies your upper tier nations war ability. (Since we are at the point that everyone is growing at the same roughly 600 tech per month, that puts them 3600 tech behind the rest of the world after terms are up).

Or the NPO might choose to keep just a few at on par strength by focusing tech on a few upper tier fighting nations, while restricting tech dealing for the rest, which would end up providing a moderate amount of reparations overall. But it would put the choice of how NPO wants to hurt itself in their hands. However no matter which way it goes Karma comes out ahead because of it.

[Prime minister Johns]

Or a better alternative would be to continue to attack until they are at a strength level you deem acceptable and then give them reasonable terms.

Wars are for punishing your enemies,

And reparations are for creating a period that will allow you to rebuild your military and economic strength and your diplomatic ties.

And for the former adversaries to repair their relationship and perhaps work together in the future.

If you want to punish someone then attack them with your armies, and when you have punished them enough offer them reps.

It will be a lot easier to enforce a reasonable reparations deal than to work through the myriad of problems that a harsh settlement would create.

[Seerow]

Or a better alternative would be to continue to attack until they are at a strength level you deem acceptable and then give them reasonable terms.

Wars are for punishing your enemies,

And reparations are for creating a period that will allow you to rebuild your military and economic strength and your diplomatic ties.

And for the former adversaries to repair their relationship and perhaps work together in the future.

If you want to punish someone then attack them with your armies, and when you have punished them enough offer them reps.

It will be a lot easier to enforce a reasonable reparations deal than to work through the myriad of problems that a harsh settlement would create.

Given that the sheer volume of nations in peace mode makes the minimum strength obtainable still above what Karma deems acceptable, then something to make Karma feel better about the result will need to happen as a part of the peace terms.

This can be done in several ways:

1) Punishing the peace mode nations. Forcing them to stay in peace after the war is over, forcing war on them when they exit peace, adding terms based on the peace mode nations to be paid by peace mode nations. These are all options that accomplish essentially the same goal. Karma has tried these in one form or another, usually without much success.

2) General high reps. This seems to be the preferred method of most alliances, and reps are generally the guideline of what is considered harsh. Require someone to pay 500k tech, and you're being ridiculously harsh. Force them to decom all factories, nobody blinks an eye.

3) Creative punishments. The idea presented in the OP is one such idea. I also particularly liked the blanket restriction on aid within the alliance. Any NPO member receiving any aid fights one cycle of war. Either of these causes the alliance to leak smaller members and older members who are bill locked with no way out without aid like a sieve.

There's more of course. These are the primary economical ones that don't cause lasting harm (ie destroying econ wonders, !@#$@#$ with improvements, etc). There's of course political stuff, military decom (though forced max military I think would be the better option), etc.

[Haflinger]

I don't see this as a bad thing really. Any alliance that NEEDS reps to strengthen their position is doing something wrong. If the NPO ceases tech dealing to avoid paying massive reps their position will be weakened relative to the rest of the game that is actively tech dealing. Missing 10 months or even 4-6 months of tech dealing effectively nullifies your upper tier nations war ability. (Since we are at the point that everyone is growing at the same roughly 600 tech per month, that puts them 3600 tech behind the rest of the world after terms are up).

Or the NPO might choose to keep just a few at on par strength by focusing tech on a few upper tier fighting nations, while restricting tech dealing for the rest, which would end up providing a moderate amount of reparations overall. But it would put the choice of how NPO wants to hurt itself in their hands. However no matter which way it goes Karma comes out ahead because of it.

I agree in general with these statements.

However, there's no way that NPO would deal enough tech under this proposal to wind up paying out the 300-500K tech that has been mooted in reps to the alliances at war with it. There just aren't enough slots to make that a worthwhile proposition for them.

And that's at the core of the reparations discussions. The Citadel is not at war with NPO, and is actively dealing tech, and already has a massive tech edge on pretty much everyone. For some of the alliances who are fighting NPO, this could pose a problem down the road. Everyone's been keeping quiet about it, but that's one of the key issues here, and I'm sure the people negotiating with NPO are aware of it.

[Seerow]

I agree in general with these statements.

However, there's no way that NPO would deal enough tech under this proposal to wind up paying out the 300-500K tech that has been mooted in reps to the alliances at war with it. There just aren't enough slots to make that a worthwhile proposition for them.

And that's at the core of the reparations discussions. The Citadel is not at war with NPO, and is actively dealing tech, and already has a massive tech edge on pretty much everyone. For some of the alliances who are fighting NPO, this could pose a problem down the road. Everyone's been keeping quiet about it, but that's one of the key issues here, and I'm sure the people negotiating with NPO are aware of it.

It was my impression that the terms were staggeringly high to force the NPO to direct more effort into paying the terms than rebuilding. If the NPO front of Karma had a different point of view on that then I apologize for my misinterpretation.

Reparations will never fully pay for the damage caused in war, or give any significant advantage to an alliance that has not been devastated and needs the reps to get back on their feet (which none of those on the NPO front who would receive reps are). The point of reparations as I have always seen them is to slow down the rebuilding of the losing alliance. Which the proposed solution does elegantly, while still arranging for some reps depending on the speed of which the NPO decides to rebuild.

Also, if the NPO does begin actively tech dealing it could very quickly exceed the terms offered by Karma. You say they dont have enough slots for that to be possible, but over the course of 6 months, it can add up. I'll assume 1/2 MKs activity rate for taking in tech, then modify it for size, you're looking at importing roughly 16k tech per cycle not counting internal deals. That adds up to over the course of 6 months (18 cycles), 288,000 tech. Which is pretty close to spot on what they were offered.

Now if this is their maximum tech flow period it easily turns into 80k tech to NPO, 160k tech being exported to others. But I was only looking at importing, so if they import that tech then use internal dealers to supply the taxed tech back to Karma, that is a fairly reasonable amount.

As to Citadel gaining tech potentially being the next threat... meh. We'll see.

[Haflinger]

It was my impression that the terms were staggeringly high to force the NPO to direct more effort into paying the terms than rebuilding. If the NPO front of Karma had a different point of view on that then I apologize for my misinterpretation.

Your impression is in line with the public stance of the alliances at war with NPO, and is probably actually true for a number of them. I'm suggesting it's not the only reason they're pushing for these terms, tho.

[Gondor]

As someone who joined after real war between NPO forces and Karma Forces, I think the opening was very good. Because while it keeps the NPO from coming back to be the superpower it was at least for a long time. At the same time, it doesn't embitter NPO forces to look for revenge sometime in the future.

These terms alone destroy their aid, basically no Tech Deals. It also makes sure that the NPO will probably not have much recuritment. Who is going to join an Alliance that has to pay reps for months?

[ty345]

This seems pretty fair, plus NPO has already lost, what, 17mil NS? I think revenge has been served.

[kevin32891]

This seems pretty fair, plus NPO has already lost, what, 17mil NS? I think revenge has been served.

You know when you eat one cookie? Well to be honest who eats only one cookie?

[Tygaland]

No restriction on nukes. I see what you did there!

[Seerow]

No restriction on nukes. I see what you did there!

Let them keep nukes but make firing them an offense that causes all alliances to redeclare war

[Sal Paradise]

You know when you eat one cookie? Well to be honest who eats only one cookie?

And they taste so much better with milk.

Where milk in this case is your tears.

[Baldr]

Let them keep nukes but make firing them an offense that causes all alliances to redeclare war

I've been in the NPO for about a year and a half, since I started playing. They've had a "No Nuclear First Strike" policy that entire time, and I have no reason to believe that will change.

This turned into a nuclear war because that's what Karma wanted. After they started nuking us, we started nuking back.

Personally, I don't think suggesting alternative terms to Karma is going to make any difference. Any terms that don't destroy the NPO won't be acceptable to Karma, and any terms that do destroy the NPO won't be acceptable to us.

[Essenia]

I've been in the NPO for about a year and a half, since I started playing. They've had a "No Nuclear First Strike" policy that entire time, and I have no reason to believe that will change.

Actually, they had a no nuke first strike policy because nuclear war isn't in one's strategic interest when you have a crushing NS edge on your opponent.

You know when you eat one cookie? Well to be honest who eats only one cookie?

Many alliances have lost a larger percentage of NS during a war. Your allies at TPF certainly have. Other alliances don't even exist after a war.

[shaiker]

i think these terms would be good but only after they are held at war for the same duration that they held fan there.

[Baldr]

Actually, they had a no nuke first strike policy because nuclear war isn't in one's strategic interest when you have a crushing NS edge on your opponent.

NPO certainly had no "crushing NS edge" against the 18 Karma alliances who attacked us and nuked us first. We were not surprised that it went full nuclear, but we still didn't nuke first.

NPO has been consistent with that policy, both in this war when we were outnumbered, and in previous wars where numbers were on our side.

[Systemfailure]

Military wonders and Improvements being de-commissioned would have to be added to get any sort of nod of approval from me.

they wont be needing them since they will become protected by one of the largest forces assembled.

[Seerow]

Military wonders and Improvements being de-commissioned would have to be added to get any sort of nod of approval from me.

they wont be needing them since they will become protected by one of the largest forces assembled.

Decomming wonders is painful, yes.

Forced upkeep of military improvements though is so much better than forced decom of military improvements.

The improvements could be rebought in a day if they wanted, and forcing them to keep them they're paying extra bills, possibly taking happiness penalties on collections, etc.

[HeinousOne]

Decomming wonders is painful, yes.

Forced upkeep of military improvements though is so much better than forced decom of military improvements.

The improvements could be rebought in a day if they wanted, and forcing them to keep them they're paying extra bills, possibly taking happiness penalties on collections, etc.

I was curious about the improvements myself. When the purpose is to slow down the growth why would you force them to lower their bills? As stated, they will have quite a large protection force, why would they care to maintain a large military and military improvement force?

[Matthew Conrad]

NPO certainly had no "crushing NS edge" against the 18 Karma alliances who attacked us and nuked us first. We were not surprised that it went full nuclear, but we still didn't nuke first.

NPO has been consistent with that policy, both in this war when we were outnumbered, and in previous wars where numbers were on our side.

You've only been outnumbered in 2 wars if you include this one. That's not really a pattern considering they were 3 years apart.

[Essenia]

You've only been outnumbered in 2 wars if you include this one. That's not really a pattern considering they were 3 years apart.

I believe that WAEgis very briefly outnumbered The Initiative and its Allies. That's still 24 others wars.