Accepting the Consequenses of War

[Voodoo Nova]

[quote name='Rey the Great' date='07 March 2010 - 03:44 PM' timestamp='1267994947' post='2217145']
CnG is usually the center of attention, though. There's pretty much no way for them to pull a GGA.
[/quote]

That's what I was getting at.


@Jinnai: Other blocs don't matter too much when CnG is intertwined with those outside their bloc and with those in other blocs.

[shilo]

[quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='07 March 2010 - 10:23 PM' timestamp='1267997293' post='2217178']
That's what I was getting at.


@Jinnai: Other blocs don't matter too much when CnG is intertwined with those outside their bloc and with those in other blocs.
[/quote]
We all know how untangling wars can be for the MDP web

[Baldr]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='07 March 2010 - 01:24 PM' timestamp='1267990134' post='2217059']
No, I'm saying they both kept fighting and the reps demanded of them did not change. They just got comparatively tougher for them to pay.
[/quote]

This isn't exactly correct. At one point, NPO was told that to get peace they had to bring all nations out of peace mode, and that for every nation in peace mode, the reps would go up by X amount a day. That didn't happen.

Later, a different offer was made, and it included bringing all the NPO banks out of peace mode and allowing them to be nuked daily for a couple of weeks. That didn't happen.

NPO was willing to pay high reps, and they are paying them. (Or at least, they were before this war started. I'm not sure of their current status - I think everything is on hold.) But NPO didn't agree to the first offer made to them, and several of the terms that NPO considered unreasonable (like "We get to ZI your banks first") were taken off the table before an agreement was made.

Based on the posts here, a number of MK nations think that they can beat TOP down to essentially no infra, low tech, bill lock - and still get any amount of reps they want. It won't work that way. If you've managed to beat TOP down that far, and still require huge reps, then TOP won't be able to pay them without spending a year or more doing it - and in that case, you might be able to chase them off of Planet Bob, but you won't get them to agree to spend years paying you reps.

Personally, I expect the two sides to reach some kind of terms at some point, most likely lower than the offer CnG has made and higher than the offer the TOP/IRON side has made.

[abdur]

[quote name='Baldr' date='07 March 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1267998048' post='2217201']
This isn't exactly correct. At one point, NPO was told that to get peace they had to bring all nations out of peace mode, and that for every nation in peace mode, the reps would go up by X amount a day. That didn't happen.

Later, a different offer was made, and it included bringing all the NPO banks out of peace mode and allowing them to be nuked daily for a couple of weeks. That didn't happen.

NPO was willing to pay high reps, and they are paying them. (Or at least, they were before this war started. I'm not sure of their current status - I think everything is on hold.) But NPO didn't agree to the first offer made to them, and several of the terms that NPO considered unreasonable (like "We get to ZI your banks first") were taken off the table before an agreement was made.

Based on the posts here, a number of MK nations think that they can beat TOP down to essentially no infra, low tech, bill lock - and still get any amount of reps they want. It won't work that way. If you've managed to beat TOP down that far, and still require huge reps, then TOP won't be able to pay them without spending a year or more doing it - and in that case, you might be able to chase them off of Planet Bob, but you won't get them to agree to spend years paying you reps.

Personally, I expect the two sides to reach some kind of terms at some point, most likely lower than the offer CnG has made and higher than the offer the TOP/IRON side has made.
[/quote]
This man speaks the truth.

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 March 2010 - 08:26 AM' timestamp='1267968647' post='2216827']
bigwoody thinks C&G will still be powerful enough to be a close second to SF. I don't think so. I think you're going to get killed, and be kept around by SF as loyal meatshields: useful but generally irrelevant.

If TOP was going to pay the 500K or so, he'd be right though.
[/quote]

Who's "you"?

Anyways so far C&G has lost roughly 4M strength in this war. They need to lose another 5M before they drop below LEO, who is the next bloc under them. I don't really see that happening, and it would surprise me if they're ranked below #2 at the end of the war (not counting Chestnut or Bastion).

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 March 2010 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1267993779' post='2217127']
Most of FAN's nations went into bill-lock.
[/quote]

FAN's nations could fight until bill lock and then re-roll. For TOP nations to re-roll would be more devastating to them than anything C&G could possibly inflict, so that isn't really an option.

Anyways, TOP has already agreed that they need to pay reparations (their counter offer). It's just a matter of haggling over how much now.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='07 March 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1267999604' post='2217223']
FAN's nations could fight until bill lock and then re-roll. For TOP nations to re-roll would be more devastating to them than anything C&G could [b]possibly[/b] inflict, so that isn't really an option.
[/quote]
That depends on your definition of devastating. Would 3 years of reps be more devastating than the FAN approach?

edit: bolded the appropriate word for clarity. C&G could possibly inflict 3 years of reps.

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='07 March 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1267999604' post='2217223']
Anyways, TOP has already agreed that they need to pay reparations (their counter offer). It's just a matter of haggling over how much now.
[/quote]
The haggling has ceased.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Haflinger

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 March 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1268000340' post='2217235']
That depends on your definition of devastating. Would 3 years of reps be more devastating than the FAN approach?


The haggling has ceased.
[/quote]

3 years of reps? I must have missed the part where C&G was asking for 6 billion tech.

[Trace]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 March 2010 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1268000340' post='2217235']
Would 3 years of reps be more devastating than the FAN approach?
[/quote]

Where do you come up with these things?

[Sandwich Controversy]

invictanomics at work

[Trace]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='07 March 2010 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1268001216' post='2217250']
invictanomics at work
[/quote]

Maybe that's why they got off easy. Nobody thought they were competent enough to pay off any reps.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Trace

[lebubu]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='07 March 2010 - 11:14 PM' timestamp='1268000340' post='2217235']
That depends on your definition of devastating. Would 3 years of reps be more devastating than the FAN approach?
[/quote]

I'm sure the numbers made your head spin, but unlike Invicta, these are functioning alliances that can pay the reps in less than 3 years.

Edited March 7, 2010 by lebubu

[Ejayrazz]

[quote name='Baldr' date='07 March 2010 - 04:36 PM' timestamp='1267998048' post='2217201']
This isn't exactly correct. At one point, NPO was told that to get peace they had to bring all nations out of peace mode, and that for every nation in peace mode, the reps would go up by X amount a day. That didn't happen.

Later, a different offer was made, and it included bringing all the NPO banks out of peace mode and allowing them to be nuked daily for a couple of weeks. That didn't happen.

NPO was willing to pay high reps, and they are paying them. (Or at least, they were before this war started. I'm not sure of their current status - I think everything is on hold.) But NPO didn't agree to the first offer made to them, and several of the terms that NPO considered unreasonable (like "We get to ZI your banks first") were taken off the table before an agreement was made.

Based on the posts here, a number of MK nations think that they can beat TOP down to essentially no infra, low tech, bill lock - and still get any amount of reps they want. It won't work that way. If you've managed to beat TOP down that far, and still require huge reps, then TOP won't be able to pay them without spending a year or more doing it - and in that case, you might be able to chase them off of Planet Bob, but you won't get them to agree to spend years paying you reps.

Personally, I expect the two sides to reach some kind of terms at some point, most likely lower than the offer CnG has made and higher than the offer the TOP/IRON side has made.
[/quote]

Rhetoric exists on these boards?
Well stated, I was beginning to lose hope.

[Denial]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='08 March 2010 - 07:44 AM' timestamp='1268000340' post='2217235']
The haggling has ceased.
[/quote]
Really? Gee, you should probably inform C&G and TOP leadership, so they can stop having those pointless peace talks!

[WarriorConcept]

[quote name='bigwoody' date='06 March 2010 - 11:07 AM' timestamp='1267891923' post='2215990']
We're in an OOC forum. So, yeah I am. People reacted similarly when I was calling a Pacific-Polar showdown all but days after the UJW ended.

"What? No way! That would never happen."
[/quote]

That was pretty easy to call even before UJW started.

However considering your track record on fortune telling lately (thinking you'll win karma and this current war) I think you''re still off on thinking SF will be fighting CnG anytime in the near future.

[Rocky Horror]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='06 March 2010 - 05:16 PM' timestamp='1267917647' post='2216356']A TOP government member told me in a query the war would "never end in any way other than white peace".

In the interest of full disclosure, it was Avernite.[/quote][url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=82298][/url]

Edited March 8, 2010 by Rocky Horror

[shilo]

[quote name='Rocky Horror' date='08 March 2010 - 04:15 AM' timestamp='1268018402' post='2217545']
[quote]A TOP government member told me in a query the war would "never end in any way other than white peace".

In the interest of full disclosure, it was Avernite.[/quote]
[url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=82298][/url]
[/quote]
Well, kinda outdated

Edited March 8, 2010 by shilo

[Urmom]

Here's my thoughts:

1) I don't mind paying reps. In hind sight, our attack was not the best move and was aggressive in nature. We should have just allowed CnG to attack us.
2) This is a game. I would like to be able to get the terms over in a month or two. The terms asked would have us paying them for probably half a year to a year. What would be the point of me going through that effort? I'd probably just quit or go rogue.
3) Yes we attacked you, but you prolonged the war. It should have just ended after Polaris $%&@ed us over, since that's who we were fighting for. The whole "well then you would've just been better prepared to attack us later" is bs. It would've swayed the minds of the people in TOP thinking CnG were out to get us since you committed an act out of good faith towards us. And at that point we would have wanted to kill Polaris not you. Now we are thinking less and less of CnG.

[lebubu]

[quote name='Urmom(U)' date='08 March 2010 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1268072993' post='2218121']
2) This is a game. I would like to be able to get the terms over in a month or two. The terms asked would have us paying them for probably half a year to a year. What would be the point of me going through that effort? I'd probably just quit or go rogue.
[/quote]

It's a rather hefty sum, no denying that, but the reps are payable in under 3 months - even 2 for an alliance with your organization. I'll refer you to [url="http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=80942&view=findpost&p=2217785"]this post[/url] (note: we're not asking for 500k from TOP, the figures are for a sum that was mentioned previously in that thread).

edit: clarity

Edited March 8, 2010 by lebubu

[Sandwich Controversy]

[quote name='Urmom(U)' date='08 March 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1268072993' post='2218121']
3) Yes we attacked you, but you prolonged the war. It should have just ended after Polaris $%&@ed us over, since that's who we were fighting for. The whole "well then you would've just been better prepared to attack us later" is bs. It would've swayed the minds of the people in TOP thinking CnG were out to get us since you committed an act out of good faith towards us. And at that point we would have wanted to kill Polaris not you. Now we are thinking less and less of CnG.
[/quote]
But Polaris is still our ally and it would have the same effect

[Sephiroth]

[quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='08 March 2010 - 01:57 PM' timestamp='1268074946' post='2218147']
But Polaris is still our ally and it would have the same effect
[/quote]
That it was part of NpO's War and they gave TOP the go ahead to attack you is whats ironic here, since you had clearly aligned against Polaris in that war even to them.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Methrage

[jaaku]

[quote name='Lord Stark' date='02 March 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1267554483' post='2211497']
Couldn't vote because neither option is correct.

The bottom line is that the reps are just asking for what has been lost by CnG et al. as a result of the aggressive actions by TOP. They are higher then reps in the past but more has also been lost in this war then wars in the past. We didn't declare this war we just want to be compensated for our loss as a result of the war of aggression launched by TOP.

With the said I'll happily keep fighting. As TonytheTiger points out TOP has bigger war chests and more nations in the 10k infra + then CnG does. Since we have such a numbers advantage though we can continue to deplete TOPs money and infra by spreading it over more nations causing less loss for us. Continue fighting and reps wont go away, but your only advantage will. So quite frankly - Please keep fighting. What we have offered is fair and there is no 'extortion' because we only ask to have returned what we have lost thus far in this horrible war that didn't even need to happen in the first place.
[/quote]
Paying reps to what CnG lost? Sure, I could understand that argument. Paying reps to everyone else because they decided to join in on a beatdown? That's not something i could agree with.

To allude to whoever posted that medical bill analogy. I'm pretty certain that TOP is willing to pay some cash to who they punched. But when the rest of their buddies at the bar decide to join in and want cash for their bloody knuckles, they can keep on walking.

[LiquidMercury]

[quote name='jaaku' date='08 March 2010 - 02:36 PM' timestamp='1268080884' post='2218247']
Paying reps to what CnG lost? Sure, I could understand that argument. Paying reps to everyone else because they decided to join in on a beatdown? That's not something i could agree with.

To allude to whoever posted that medical bill analogy. I'm pretty certain that TOP is willing to pay some cash to who they punched. But when the rest of their buddies at the bar decide to join in and want cash for their bloody knuckles, they can keep on walking.
[/quote]

This is pretty accurate.

[Starbuck]

Voted that TOP keep fighting, focus on the alliances your fighting one at a time, put everything into taking out one alliance and then move to the next.

[Seerow]

[quote name='jaaku' date='08 March 2010 - 03:36 PM' timestamp='1268080884' post='2218247']
Paying reps to what CnG lost? Sure, I could understand that argument. Paying reps to everyone else because they decided to join in on a beatdown? That's not something i could agree with.

To allude to whoever posted that medical bill analogy. I'm pretty certain that TOP is willing to pay some cash to who they punched. But when the rest of their buddies at the bar decide to join in and want cash for their bloody knuckles, they can keep on walking.
[/quote]


So to be clear, if the terms had included the same amounts, but were set to go to CnG nations only, to cover the amounts they lost during war, you would be perfectly fine about it, and we would have an end to these posts about extortion?

[Commisar Gaunt]

[quote name='Starbuck' date='08 March 2010 - 04:08 PM' timestamp='1268082819' post='2218282']
Voted that TOP keep fighting, focus on the alliances your fighting one at a time, put everything into taking out one alliance and then move to the next.
[/quote]


It's almost as if you don't know what being staggered does