The End. It's coming.

[Saber]

[quote name='Electron Sponge' date='20 February 2010 - 01:23 AM' timestamp='1266625407' post='2192689']
[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=34051]Well of course you would, and I'm frankly shocked that anyone with the ability to be reasonable could assert otherwise.[/url]
[/quote]
Do you want [b][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUOFV5TusE"]old school[/url][/b] or something more [b][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idh1yr1SJNA"]modern[/url][/b]?

[Krack]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='19 February 2010 - 05:58 PM' timestamp='1266623880' post='2192659']
Cash is meaningless to nations over 8000 infra ... or with the warchest to get there. That applies to most of TOP. But a lot of the alliances that they'd be surrendering to have lots of small nations who would not find cash worthless.
[/quote]

Wait you mean that we have all of the nations that TOP damaged (you know, the ones that would be in the range of TOP's 8,000+ infra nations) getting nothing ... and simultaneously, the winning nations get to have their small nations aided out of tech selling range? This seems to good to be true!!!1!!*
[size="1"]
*For everyone but the winning alliances[/size]

They've been saying cash is valueless because cash [i]is[/i] valueless. I just wanted to see if they'd be insulting enough to pretend like they were still actually offering anything when confronted with their own words. Of course, you stepped up and were insulting for them. Being insulting isn't really the best way to get people to feel sorry for you.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Krack

[Saber]

[quote name='Krack' date='20 February 2010 - 02:19 AM' timestamp='1266628793' post='2192745']
Wait you mean that we have all of the nations that TOP damaged (you know, the ones that would be in the range of TOP's 8,000+ infra nations) getting nothing ... and simultaneously, the winning nations get to have their small nations aided out of tech selling range? This seems to good to be true!!!1!!*
[/quote]
Wait you actually keep your members down so they can sell tech? No wonder TOP grew faster than other alliances. We actually have development projects.

[Krack]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1266629982' post='2192757']
Wait you actually keep your members down so they can sell tech? No wonder TOP grew faster than other alliances. We actually have development projects.
[/quote]

FARK had an aid drive once. The goal was to get it's smaller nations inflated so they could slip into Sanctioned status. It worked; they got sanctioned. It also set the alliance as a whole back six months, imho. There's a natural progression to any successful alliance in this game. And part of that progression is that the new nations sell tech to the larger nations until they are large enough to purchase tech regularly while still growing their nation properly. This is a necessary balance because if the larger nations can't buy tech, they can't defend the alliance as a whole - and wars (big wars) are fought and won at the top tier level.

You aid the smaller nations into the lower-mid tier, then you dry up the available supply of tech, and your top tier can no longer grow militarily (without going outside the alliance).

Your offer of cash is stupid and insulting. It actually insults your own membership more than anybody because it shows they just replaced one incompetent leader with a new incompetent leader. If their goal is to end the war, and you're their elected negotiator, and this is what you believe to be a reasonable offer likely to gain peace, then either you or your membership has failed (if not both).

[Saber]

[quote name='Krack' date='20 February 2010 - 02:51 AM' timestamp='1266630711' post='2192764']
FARK had an aid drive once. The goal was to get it's smaller nations inflated so they could slip into Sanctioned status. It worked; they got sanctioned. It also set the alliance as a whole back six months, imho. There's a natural progression to any successful alliance in this game. And part of that progression is that the new nations sell tech to the larger nations until they are large enough to purchase tech regularly while still growing their nation properly. This is a necessary balance because if the larger nations can't buy tech, they can't defend the alliance as a whole - and wars (big wars) are fought and won at the top tier level.

You aid the smaller nations into the lower-mid tier, then you dry up the available supply of tech, and your top tier can no longer grow militarily (without going outside the alliance).

Your offer of cash is stupid and insulting. It actually insults your own membership more than anybody because it shows they just replaced one incompetent leader with a new incompetent leader. If their goal is to end the war, and you're their elected negotiator, and this is what you believe to be a reasonable offer likely to gain peace, then either you or your membership has failed (if not both).
[/quote]
Or you can actually aid your nations, grow them when they are making serious money and all the time buy tech from outside? There are plenty of sources. There is no need to hamstring your own members just so you can get more tech for your high end nations. I'm not sure what you mean by "inflating", if they burnt it on things that do not generate income ofcourse it's a stupid plan. If they utilized it in a proper way and actually created more income down the line it will pay off very quickly.

TOP does it as I explained and I don't think we ever had issues with buying tech or growing our nations. You are hm, strange? if you think that aiding of your low end nations is not a good idea.

I'll pass your compliment on my incompetence to my membership. I'm sure they will be really upset and disappointed over my obvious incompetence.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Saber

[Krack]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 08:00 PM' timestamp='1266631250' post='2192778']
TOP does it as I explained and I don't think we ever had issues with buying tech or growing our nations.
[/quote]

Well, you know, different alliances are good at different things. TOP's good at finding tech sellers. Its opponents struggle with tech sellers, but are apparently better at things like building coalitions, OPSEC, entering wars tactically, not bullying others, not aggravating every other alliance on Planet Bob by acting smug, negotiating exit from the losing side of a war, etc.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Krack

[Electron Sponge]

[quote name='Saber' date='20 February 2010 - 12:32 AM' timestamp='1266625934' post='2192698']
Do you want [b][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByUOFV5TusE"]old school[/url][/b] or something more [b][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idh1yr1SJNA"]modern[/url][/b]?
[/quote]
Not quite the tempo I was looking for. How about a New Orleans-style funeral march for me to dance to?

[Nizzle]

[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 07:16 PM' timestamp='1266632162' post='2192796']
Well, you know, different alliances are good at different things. TOP's good at finding tech sellers. Its opponents struggle with tech sellers, but are apparently better at things like building coalitions, OPSEC, entering wars tactically, not bullying others, not aggravating every other alliance on Planet Bob by acting smug, negotiating exit from the losing side of a war, etc.
[/quote]

One wins at taming the sheep and the other wins at building nations.

I can see which one is more desirable in your eyes.

Honestly, the fact you mass member alliances are talking about tech being worthless makes me giggle on the inside.

[renegade4box]

[quote name='Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz' date='19 February 2010 - 04:45 PM' timestamp='1266615906' post='2192462']
Yeah, while I used to think like you, I don't agree any more. What you're saying is that you don't want to have enemies that can fight properly, right? Where's the fun in that? What's the point? My view is that Bob turns into a stale and boring place when you nobble your opponents but whatever, each to his own.
[/quote]

I completely agree in keeping the game "fresh". Enough people have been let us with minimal damage such that there won't be a huge power vacuum following this war. In fact, I think reparations are needed to reduce the huge edge that TOP still retains as far as large nations go.

[Krack]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='19 February 2010 - 09:01 PM' timestamp='1266634911' post='2192839']
One wins at taming the sheep and the other wins at building nations.

I can see which one is more desirable in your eyes.[/quote]

One wins by getting along with others socially and the other wins by buying a lot of tech and then bullying and threatening everyone into doing what they want.

I find the group that isn't anti-social and paranoid more desirable.

[quote]Honestly, the fact you mass member alliances are talking about tech being worthless makes me giggle on the inside.[/quote]

Who are these idiots? Let's laugh at them together. Oh, wait .. you read it wrong.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Nizzle' date='19 February 2010 - 10:01 PM' timestamp='1266634911' post='2192839']
Honestly, the fact you mass member alliances are talking about tech being worthless makes me giggle on the inside.
[/quote]

What? Did you even read the post you were quoting? Or any of the posts on this page?

Nobody has remotely suggested that tech is worthless.

[Archon]

So I had an idea for reps, something nice and mathematical and not too hard to understand, and computer-based:

(x*n)ln(x*n) tech/alliance, where x is the peak number of alliances TIFDTT was at war with and n is the number of times someone on the TIFDTT side of the war mentions something the lines of [negative adjective] reparations/terms, i.e. "unfair terms" or "draconian reps".

It doesn't grow that badly, I mean hell, with x=19 and n=500(an exaggeration, I'm sure), you come in around 87k tech/alliance.

I'll admit I started with 2^n, with n equaling the same as above

I just figured something nice, mathematical, and statistics based would appeal to certain folks.

Edited February 20, 2010 by TheNeverender

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='18 February 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1266525566' post='2190135']
So nobody is capable of discussing the issue without getting all emotional about it?

If you think 350k is too high, give me a number you think is reasonable, don't jump to "OMG draconian!!!".
[/quote]
How about, reps equal to what the offending alliances took from GPA?

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='18 February 2010 - 06:36 PM' timestamp='1266536182' post='2190533']
Ah, the redefining of 'draconian terms' is under way already.
[/quote]
It pretty much gets redefined every time someone who isn't on a very short list of people wins a war.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='renegade4box' date='19 February 2010 - 11:21 AM' timestamp='1266596481' post='2192095']
Yea, it's not like IRON has been opposed to us in every major war since our inception or something small like that to indicate that we may always be enemies. You guys can try to make horrible excuses for us to let them off to regrow and attack again, but to us it's pretty clear they're a threat that needs to be taken care of.
[/quote]
Go back three years.

Pretend this is an NPO poster, and change IRON to Legion.

I've seen this movie before, and I know how it ends.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 February 2010 - 12:04 AM' timestamp='1266642252' post='2192978']
How about, reps equal to what the offending alliances took from GPA?
[/quote]

10k tech to every alliance at war with TOP and indefinite nuclear disarmament?

Deal.

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 February 2010 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1266643150' post='2192992']
Go back three years.

Pretend this is an NPO poster, and change IRON to Legion.

I've seen this movie before, and I know how it ends.
[/quote]

So MK should give IRON a viceroy and turn them into their puppet?

Edited February 20, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='20 February 2010 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1266643155' post='2192993']
10k tech to every alliance at war with TOP and indefinite nuclear disarmament?

Deal.
[/quote]
Well, that's not what TOP received from GPA, which is what I said.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='20 February 2010 - 12:19 AM' timestamp='1266643155' post='2192993']
So MK should give IRON a viceroy and turn them into their puppet?
[/quote]
Mayyyybe.

[Prime minister Johns]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='20 February 2010 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1266643893' post='2193029']
Mayyyybe.
[/quote]
I can't believe what I am hearing here surely you don't think this is a good idea.

[Lord Brendan]

Haflinger for IRON viceroy?

[Feanor Noldorin]

[quote name='Krack' date='19 February 2010 - 08:16 PM' timestamp='1266632162' post='2192796']
Well, you know, different alliances are good at different things. TOP's good at finding tech sellers. Its opponents struggle with tech sellers, but are apparently better at things like building coalitions, OPSEC, entering wars tactically, not bullying others, not aggravating every other alliance on Planet Bob by acting smug, negotiating exit from the losing side of a war, etc.
[/quote]
I love how we are bringing out the hate in random people.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Feanor Noldorin

[Drai]

[quote name='Saber' date='19 February 2010 - 03:22 PM' timestamp='1266621736' post='2192613']
I don't want to comment publicly on this.

I can however state that I would find much more reasonable reparations in cash so alliances can use it to rebuild.
[/quote]
Nah, I'd rather tech. We'll manage to get money to our smaller nations, don't worry about that.

[Bob Janova]

[quote]Wait you mean that we have all of the nations that TOP damaged (you know, the ones that would be in the range of TOP's 8,000+ infra nations) getting nothing ... and simultaneously, the winning nations get to have their small nations aided out of tech selling range? This seems to good to be true!!!1!!*

*For everyone but the winning alliances[/quote]
Wait, what?

If this is such a disadvantage then we should lose a war so we can 'pay reps' by getting someone to aid our lower tier. I know I'd be damn happy at getting $15m to every low infra nation. You're weird

[quote]So I had an idea for reps, something nice and mathematical and not too hard to understand, and computer-based:[/quote]
Hey look it's just like GOONS v Fark!

[Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz]

[quote name='renegade4box' date='20 February 2010 - 01:07 PM' timestamp='1266635264' post='2192843']
I completely agree in keeping the game "fresh". Enough people have been let us with minimal damage such that there won't be a huge power vacuum following this war. In fact, I think reparations are needed to reduce the huge edge that TOP still retains as far as large nations go.
[/quote]
Ah, I see that you've shifted the goalposts in referencing reducing TOP's edge in top tier nations. To bring this back to the topic that interests me - what you wrote was that you wanted to see IRON's warfighting ability crippled, which is the point I was responding to.

[Drai]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='20 February 2010 - 04:38 AM' timestamp='1266669489' post='2193529']
Wait, what?

If this is such a disadvantage then we should lose a war so we can 'pay reps' by getting someone to aid our lower tier. I know I'd be damn happy at getting $15m to every low infra nation. You're weird
[/quote]
Uhh, if the alternative is our large nations getting tech, then it's definitely worse. Most alliances will still be able to get aid to their lower tier while receiving tech.

If TOP/whoever else still thinks we're worse off getting tech to our upper tiers than money to our lower tiers then they should stop complaining and let us choose the "worse scenario". Obviously I see it as them not wanting to have to pay tech reps because it would hurt infinitely more, but if that's not actually the case then they should stop talking already.

Again though, they've said multiple times they're not looking to end on anything but white peace so this is all pretty pointless if that's the stance.

Edited February 20, 2010 by Drai

[Bob Janova]

Obviously, paying out tech hurts large nations. If you want tech reps then paid for deals from some third party alliance is the best solution for everyone. But if your alliance has few large nations, receiving cash is probably better. For a mixed composition alliance, a mixture is probably better.