Lord Brendan Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Methrage' date='09 March 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1268187171' post='2220257'] In the Karma War when those fighting Echelon were keeping them at war very long and TOP had already assisted for the most part, but I thought it honorable when they gave white peace to Echelon separate rather than sign with terms they were highly against and had no say in. Despite the flak TOP took and that partially leading to their current situation, I found that very honorable of them at the time despite not holding a high opinion of Echelon then. At a certain point if the terms don't represent you and the war is out of your control separate white peace makes sense for some alliances here in my opinion. If anyone fighting TOP or others are against the high terms they could peace out separate and that would pressure MK to go with lighter terms somewhat. There is no precedent that once you go to war you need to stay at war until everyone can get whatever reps they want out of your opponent. [/quote] The two situations are very different. The entirety of C&G is at war with TOP, and I can't imagine any of them leaving one of their own on the field, regardless of their stance on the terms. Incidentally, TOP and TSO's actions did not help Echelon achieve peace in the Karma War and Echelon ended up paying the same reparations when they finally surrendered that had been offered a month prior. Edited March 10, 2010 by Lord Brendan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sephiroth Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Lord Brendan' date='09 March 2010 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1268187567' post='2220269'] The two situations are very different. The entirety of C&G is at war with TOP, and I can't imagine any of them leaving one of their own on the field, regardless of their stance on the terms. Incidentally, TOP and TSO's actions did not help Echelon achieve peace in the Karma War and Echelon ended up paying the same reparations when they finally surrendered that had been offered a month prior. [/quote] Echelon I doubt had any fight left at the time, TOP is still inflicting damage and are more powerful than MK alone, so alliances splintering with separate peace would make them want it to end it sooner while still having the leverage of as many alliances as possible behind them. With over 20 alliances officially at war with TOP I find it hard to believe all are fine with assisting the extortion of record breaking reps, some names in alliances fighting TOP & allies wouldn't really be ones I'd expect to see signing terms forcing them surrendering alliances to pay reps setting new high precedents. Even though those not asking for reps to their own alliance might not look as bad, you still show support for horrible terms by signing them as a condition of you giving peace to the opponent getting extorted. Edit: My advice to MK if they don't want to come out of this war looking like complete my idols is to just ask a small sum of reps from TOP and a simple admission of defeat, asking the biggest reps out of anyone ever and forcing your allies to keep fighting a prolonged war in support of such reps doesn't make you more popular when all is done among allies or foes alike. Edited March 10, 2010 by Methrage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 Why do you think it's just MK that wants these reps? Our offer was endorsed by the entire front. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doitzel Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 [quote name='Sandwich Controversy' date='09 March 2010 - 10:09 PM' timestamp='1268190866' post='2220405'] Why do you think it's just MK that wants these reps? Our offer was endorsed by the entire front. [/quote] They weren't high enough if you ask me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 [quote name='The Reccesion' date='09 March 2010 - 07:39 PM' timestamp='1268181887' post='2220014'] Their reps are way to high, so they are being hit harder to make the reps worthless. [/quote] Since you seem to be up to date on the ongoings of IAA's rep's, please tell me what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandwich Controversy Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 [quote name='Elyat' date='09 March 2010 - 10:16 PM' timestamp='1268191320' post='2220420'] They weren't high enough if you ask me. [/quote] You're not alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryuzaki Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 [quote name='Methrage' date='10 March 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1268187932' post='2220283'] record breaking reps [/quote] Stop using this stupid term please. First of all, there is no final rep amount so to declare it record breaking is idiocy. Secondly you are looking at it in absolute terms which is silly since everything in this game inflates. Proportionately they aren't the highest or anywhere near it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Blair Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 I don't really care if they take the extremely reasonable terms offered or if they burn by the righteous fire they invoked when they attacked complaints and grievances. You do not attack us and walk away looking anything like you did before. The mightiest alliance will be the lowest, the mightiest blocs will fall. Let this act of unwarranted aggression from these thugs in the TOP/IRON coalition be a stark lesson to any others who would tempt fate and come for us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prime minister Johns Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 [quote name='Ryuzaki' date='10 March 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1268197684' post='2220575'] Stop using this stupid term please. First of all, there is no final rep amount so to declare it record breaking is idiocy. Secondly you are looking at it in absolute terms which is silly since everything in this game inflates. Proportionately they aren't the highest or anywhere near it. [/quote] The true measure of reps severity can be measured in the one resource not subject to inflation. Time. The length of time it takes for an alliance pay the reps is the best measure that can be used to determine their severity. This can be calculated by determining the income of each individual nation in the alliance using the known formulae for determining income that have already been worked out by many of the more mathematically minded players and calculating the most number of slots of aid that they can send per cycle. Then the total reps payment is divided into how many aid slots it will take to pay them off. Then divide the total aid movement capacity (AMC) of the alliance that has been calculated by adding the AMC of its individual nations by the total aid amount needed to be sent. This will give the number of aid cycles it take to pay off the reps ammount. Consideration will also have to be given in the calculations as to whether cash and tech can be sent to the same target and thus save an aid slot. If this is permitted then only consider the larger of the two aid types to be sent and if it is not permitted then add them together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Horror Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 [quote name='Prime minister Johns' date='10 March 2010 - 01:53 AM' timestamp='1268207929' post='2220762'] The true measure of reps severity can be measured in the one resource not subject to inflation. Time. The length of time it takes for an alliance pay the reps is the best measure that can be used to determine their severity. This can be calculated by determining the income of each individual nation in the alliance using the known formulae for determining income that have already been worked out by many of the more mathematically minded players and calculating the most number of slots of aid that they can send per cycle. Then the total reps payment is divided into how many aid slots it will take to pay them off. Then divide the total aid movement capacity (AMC) of the alliance that has been calculated by adding the AMC of its individual nations by the total aid amount needed to be sent. This will give the number of aid cycles it take to pay off the reps ammount. Consideration will also have to be given in the calculations as to whether cash and tech can be sent to the same target and thus save an aid slot. If this is permitted then only consider the larger of the two aid types to be sent and if it is not permitted then add them together. [/quote]Varies with activity and size of an alliance and terms specifications. 150k TECH (3K slots) + 150k tech paid for by them (1.5k slots). Full slot efficiency, that's about 1000 slots (assuming TOP has a lot of DRA's, I don't doubt). 50 days. Leave time out of it, non-rep terms have taken several months in the past, and rep terms for less capable alliances have certainly done so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 (edited) [quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='09 March 2010 - 10:55 PM' timestamp='1268193620' post='2220489'] Since you seem to be up to date on the ongoings of IAA's rep's, please tell me what they are. [/quote] 200M and 5,000 tech between DAWN and TORN. Not sure of their counter but it was not taken kindely. I can tell you that and I'm not even in their alliances lol. Edited March 10, 2010 by The Reccesion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haflinger Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 [quote name='Ryuzaki' date='09 March 2010 - 01:53 AM' timestamp='1268117898' post='2219058'] Its kind of hard to be well connected when you no longer exist. [/quote] They stopped being well-connected well before that happened. [quote name='Methrage' date='09 March 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1268187171' post='2220257'] There is no precedent that once you go to war you need to stay at war until everyone can get whatever reps they want out of your opponent. [/quote] Yeah, there is. Ask Xiphosis about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted March 10, 2010 Report Share Posted March 10, 2010 [quote name='The Reccesion' date='10 March 2010 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1268254866' post='2221234'] 200M and 5,000 tech between DAWN and TORN. Not sure of their counter but it was not taken kindely. I can tell you that and I'm not even in their alliances lol. [/quote] I'm just going to go ahead and say you are wrong at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted March 11, 2010 Report Share Posted March 11, 2010 [quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='10 March 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1268259399' post='2221299'] I'm just going to go ahead and say you are wrong at this point. [/quote] So your saying these were not the first set of demanded reps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
President Sitruk Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 [quote name='The Reccesion' date='10 March 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1268265735' post='2221447'] So your saying these were not the first set of demanded reps? [/quote] it was 36.5k(from 43 nations) tech from C&G and several other alliances outside of C&G. but you're right, it wasnt taken kindly at all lol. the fact that alliances like IAA think they deserve anything is laughable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 I didn't say all the reps, only IAA related. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Curzon Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 [quote name='Voodoo Nova' date='10 March 2010 - 05:11 PM' timestamp='1268259399' post='2221299'] I'm just going to go ahead and say you are wrong at this point. [/quote] Really? Thats the number IAA gave us, I don't know what your referring to but your first offer is common knowledge by now.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Thanks for validating my point TORN peoples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Curzon Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 [quote name='The Reccesion' date='11 March 2010 - 08:35 PM' timestamp='1268358063' post='2222734'] Thanks for validating my point TORN peoples. [/quote] Anytime o/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mussolandia Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 It's in my interest that TOP continue fighting. I don't know if it's in their interest. Voted option 2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 Much respect for IRON, TORN, TOP and co. Keep whoopn $@!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voytek Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 [quote name='The Reccesion' date='12 March 2010 - 01:10 PM' timestamp='1268360161' post='2222774'] Much respect for IRON, TORN, TOP and co. Keep whoopn $@!. [/quote] What's wrong C&G? Can't take a joke???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Curzon Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 [quote name='Voytek' date='12 March 2010 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1268373954' post='2223120'] What's wrong C&G? Can't take a joke???? [/quote] hehe, you guys are awesome, I for one am personally enjoying our little war. More casualties for everyone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalaskan Posted March 12, 2010 Report Share Posted March 12, 2010 [quote name='President Sitruk' date='11 March 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1268357024' post='2222710'] it was 36.5k(from 43 nations) tech from C&G and several other alliances outside of C&G. but you're right, it wasnt taken kindly at all lol. the fact that alliances like IAA think they deserve anything is laughable. [/quote] What else do you expect from IAA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Reccesion Posted March 13, 2010 Report Share Posted March 13, 2010 [quote name='Voytek' date='12 March 2010 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1268373954' post='2223120'] What's wrong C&G? Can't take a joke???? [/quote] Yaaa dig? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.