The New Grämlins

[Syzygy]

You should just ignore the clowns. The show is not even funny any more.

IRON shall just end the war unilaterally and move their nations out of PM and start rebuilding/paying reps whatever the others from the "losing side" do. The adequate response to this nonsense from Gre is just "lol blah blah blah go <snip> yourselves!".

Edited May 4, 2010 by Allan a Dale
ModEdit: filter evasion

[Baldr]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1272925996' post='2285411']
Step 1: They surrender (this means that the war stops)
Step 2: They are told to demilitarize
Step 3: We tell them what to do next.

The only possibilities for Step 4 are:
A) They comply and life goes on. -or-
B) They refuse to comply and hostilities resume.
[/quote]

I pretty much agree with you there. You are asking them to surrender, and as part of doing so, say "We agree to unconditional surrender". Once they do that, you will tell them that you will accept their surrender when they stop attacking and demilitarize. Presumably you will also agree to a cease fire while that takes place.

And then, once they demilitarize and are unable to fight back, you'll start giving them terms. These terms could be very light, in theory. But logically, if you were going to give them light terms, you could have done that at any point in time and saved yourself a lot of trouble and damage.

It only makes sense if the terms you plan to give them are harsh enough that they wouldn't agree to those terms unless they had no choice - which is why you want them to agree to unconditional surrender.

You aren't promising anything at all. Nothing. You expect them to surrender and for practical purposes, become your slaves, doing whatever you tell them to do. You could force them to decom wonders, become your tech farm for eternity, you could attack them - there are no limits, because you've made no promises.

You claim that all they have to do to get peace is to say "We Surrender". However, they already tried that. It led to the Easter Sunday accords, where they surrendered to everyone except Gramlins. They tried to surrender to Gramlins, but saying "We surrender" wasn't enough to make you happy. The reps they thought they had agreed to were not enough to make you happy, so it's clear you want something more.

But you refuse to tell them what, and they refuse to become your slaves.

You are losing this war. A week or two ago, the NS line was bout 35-40k NS. Below that, IRON owned, above that, you guys owned. Now the NS line is closer to 50k. Any of your nations below 50k NS get attacked, beat down, and will not have a chance to recover until this war ends. That line is going to keep rising. Slowly, bit by bit, nation by nation, they will drag your nations down, and the NS line will grow. IRON will be able to get a lot of nations just under that line, and each time they drag down one of your nations, the NS line will rise. It can also rise when your nations just above the line decide to drop into peace mode to keep from being the next nation dragged down. Either way, the line gets higher.

So far, you've thrown the Filipino Hero's under the bus. I seriously doubt that when they joined you, you told them "Hey, we're going to let you guys get chewed up, spit out, stomped on, completely destroyed, all because we aren't willing to give out surrender terms." I feel bad for those guys - though if they had any sense they would have left you before the damage was done.

You've lost some of your previous members who either left the game, or left the alliance.

And before long, it'll be the old time Gramlins who getting hit.

At this point, I can't see any reason for IRON to pay you any reps at all. They simply don't have much to gain, compared to continuing to fight and beat you down. The only IRON nations who are hurting at all are the larger nations in PM. If they start running low on war chest money, they can simply come out and fight for a week. Assuming Gramlins has the guts to attack them, which I find doubtful. After a week of war, they are safely below the NS line and you can't declare on them anyway. And anyone that fought them for that week is also probably below the NS line, staggered, unable to declare war due to nuclear anarchy, and will be drug down, never to recover.

You should drop the "Unconditional Surrender or else!" nonsense and hope that IRON will give you white peace. At this point, I'm not sure they will. I wouldn't, if I were in their shoes.

[JimKongIl]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='03 May 2010 - 10:53 AM' timestamp='1272902004' post='2285037']
Demilitarization was never a term of surrender. GRE has never asked them to demilitarize before they can surrender. Not ever.
[/quote]

The quotes from you in this post seem to contradict this statement or am I missing something?

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83465&view=findpost&p=2284887

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='03 May 2010 - 04:49 PM' timestamp='1272930539' post='2285514']
Matthew, do you really fail to understand this? oO

Whether they surrender and demilitarize; surrender and after that demilitarize; or demilitarize, dance naked for a while and then surrender - [b]changes nothing, in this context[/b]. Because they have to [b]demilitarize before learning the terms[/b]. So if they get unacceptable terms - they end up defenceless. And I cannot see why you are trying to cause confusement over this, since Ramirus seem quite fond of this idea.

I guess you could take a hint; just in how high regard people hold act of surrender itself. I really hope you're just trying to make some damage control and wait for change in gov.
Though personally I think Ramirus will get re-elected, and by a vast majority at that. Because apparently all you have, and care for - is his word.
[/quote]


It [b]does[/b] make a difference. If they were required to demilitarized before they surrendered then there would be no official end to hostilities; and (by the definitions everybody seems hung up on) attacks could resume.

If people want to argue about the issue of requiring a surrender before knowing all the terms they can do that (and you'll notice I haven't really argued with that opposition)

I've opposed the claim that GRE is demanding demilitarization before surrender.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Stetson' date='03 May 2010 - 05:19 PM' timestamp='1272932359' post='2285558']
I am in no way asserting that you will continue to fight with IRON/DAWN after demilitarization and in fact that is not the reason I decided to participate in this topic. I am merely pointing out that your statement that the only requirement for a cessation of hostilities is surrender is patently false and you confirmed it here. It's okay to say you made a mistake and misspoke, but instead you decided to question my reading comprehension and that of everyone else in this thread. It's hard to maintain a veneer of superiority when you can't keep a consistent argument.
[/quote]


After they surrender (which signals an end to hostilities) they will be given terms with which to comply.
Of course, if they choose not to comply with the terms then I suspect hostilities would naturally continue.
There should be no confusion about it.

There have been a number of claims in this thread that GRE has demanded demilitarization before surrender or that GRE would, for some reason, attack IRON while they disarm.
So it seems to me like you and I are talking about different things.
I apologize for being abrasive to you; too many people from too many angles to keep track of

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Baldr' date='03 May 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1272943780' post='2285951']
I pretty much agree with you there. You are asking them to surrender, and as part of doing so, say "We agree to unconditional surrender". Once they do that, you will tell them that you will accept their surrender when they stop attacking and demilitarize. Presumably you will also agree to a cease fire while that takes place.

And then, once they demilitarize and are unable to fight back, you'll start giving them terms. These terms could be very light, in theory. But logically, if you were going to give them light terms, you could have done that at any point in time and saved yourself a lot of trouble and damage.

It only makes sense if the terms you plan to give them are harsh enough that they wouldn't agree to those terms unless they had no choice - which is why you want them to agree to unconditional surrender.[/quote]

I disagree.
Firstly, by our codex we cannot give harsh terms that we, ourselves, would be unwilling to accept.
The "unconditional" process is noteworthy in itself, not because of what terms we may require.

[quote]You aren't promising anything at all. Nothing. You expect them to surrender and for practical purposes, become your slaves, doing whatever you tell them to do. You could force them to decom wonders, become your tech farm for eternity, you could attack them - there are no limits, because you've made no promises.[/quote]

If we told them to decom wonders or become our tech farm and they said "pound sand" you tell me, literally, what [b]could[/b] we do?
How could we [b]force[/b] them to do any of that?
Please spare me the rhetoric that IRON/DAWN would feel some obligation to us to follow through with such an outrageous demand. They would tell us to sod off (and they'd be right to do so) and the cyberverse would actually have a [b]real and valid[/b] reason to roll GRE; separable from all the speculation and posturing from them in this thread.

[quote]You claim that all they have to do to get peace is to say "We Surrender". However, they already tried that. It led to the Easter Sunday accords, where they surrendered to everyone except Gramlins. They tried to surrender to Gramlins, but saying "We surrender" wasn't enough to make you happy. The reps they thought they had agreed to were not enough to make you happy, so it's clear you want something more.[/quote]

I'm sorry for the apparent misunderstanding about terms. Really, I am.
They tried to surrender on their own terms and paying us off with tech. Yes, we're interested in something more than reps. That should be obvious.

[quote]But you refuse to tell them what, and they refuse to become your slaves.[/quote]

We are resolute and they are unreasonably cowardly in this circumstance.
The notion of "slavery" is ill-placed in this situation because there is no possible way, by any means, that we could [b]force[/b] them to do anything.

[quote]You are losing this war. A week or two ago, the NS line was bout 35-40k NS. Below that, IRON owned, above that, you guys owned. Now the NS line is closer to 50k. Any of your nations below 50k NS get attacked, beat down, and will not have a chance to recover until this war ends. That line is going to keep rising. Slowly, bit by bit, nation by nation, they will drag your nations down, and the NS line will grow. IRON will be able to get a lot of nations just under that line, and each time they drag down one of your nations, the NS line will rise. It can also rise when your nations just above the line decide to drop into peace mode to keep from being the next nation dragged down. Either way, the line gets higher.[/quote]

We'll see how this plays out. I contend that no IRON nation wants to grow into range and no in-range IRON nation wants to come out of PM.

[quote]So far, you've thrown the Filipino Hero's under the bus. I seriously doubt that when they joined you, you told them "Hey, we're going to let you guys get chewed up, spit out, stomped on, completely destroyed, all because we aren't willing to give out surrender terms." I feel bad for those guys - though if they had any sense they would have left you before the damage was done.[/quote]

They're big boys and can make their own decisions. We are supporting them and will continue to do so.

[quote]You've lost some of your previous members who either left the game, or left the alliance.[/quote]

Very few actually left specifically because of this course of action. All of the propaganda messages sent to us do not make it true or even believable because all Gremlins can see these peoples' resignation posts on the forum.


[quote]And before long, it'll be the old time Gramlins who getting hit.[/quote]

By my calculation, I am the third oldest Gramlin in the alliance. I joined in November 2007.
None of you have convinced me that what I'm doing is wrong (most haven't even tried, actually). Most have complained, speculated or outright lied about what we're doing.
I am prepared to get attacked. I've already been near ZI and back once in this war and I can afford to do it again; and if somebody intends to keep me there they had better have some volunteers ready to sell their infra down to my ZI range because I can afford to stay there a loooooong time.

[quote]At this point, I can't see any reason for IRON to pay you any reps at all. They simply don't have much to gain, compared to continuing to fight and beat you down. The only IRON nations who are hurting at all are the larger nations in PM. If they start running low on war chest money, they can simply come out and fight for a week. [/quote]
Don't overlook how long they've been in PM, how long some have waited to pay bills, and the resulting effects on tax revenue. You're too smart to ignore reality [OOC]game mechanics[/OOC] like this.

[quote] Assuming Gramlins has the guts to attack them, which I find doubtful. After a week of war, they are safely below the NS line and you can't declare on them anyway. And anyone that fought them for that week is also probably below the NS line, staggered, unable to declare war due to nuclear anarchy, and will be drug down, never to recover.

You should drop the "Unconditional Surrender or else!" nonsense and hope that IRON will give you white peace. At this point, I'm not sure they will. I wouldn't, if I were in their shoes.
[/quote]
If our top tier nations get pulled down, I suspect they will just hang onto their warchests and wait for other IRON nations to enter their range for a nuclear war. Do you actually believe that Torino can't afford to rebuild his infra? Do you think that any of us can't?

[Cormalek]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 07:52 AM' timestamp='1272952312' post='2286156']
It [b]does[/b] make a difference. If they were required to demilitarized before they surrendered then there would be no official end to hostilities; and (by the definitions everybody seems hung up on) attacks could resume.[/quote]
It does to you, for some reason, but as you're being told - it does not for IRON-DAWN. You can assume that all those people are just plainly stupid, or you're incapable of being wrong; [b]or[/b] maybe there is something to it.
No one is suggesting, that you want them to drop arms, and then continue to kick the S out of them. No one suspects something like that from you even now.
They are afraid, that they will surrender, the hostilities will stop, [b]no one will be fighting anyone[/b], they will be given surrender terms unacceptable to them - at which point they would be unable to defend themselves.

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 08:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']
I disagree.
Firstly, by our codex we cannot give harsh terms that we, ourselves, would be unwilling to accept.[/quote]

Matthew, for the love of Admin. With Grämlins "open mindeness" about interpretation of any and all definitions (unconditional surrender, peace terms just to name those from this thread. "Government" and "we" seem to be a bit controversial as well ;-) ), this part of codex is [b]meaningles[/b]s and I think you realize this. I openly call Shenanigans on this.

Examples of terms that Grämlins would definitely accept:
- Alliance cannot have any kind of open recruitment programme
- Alliance cannot sign any treaties
- Alliance cannot exceed 200 members
(and a bit over the top, but still fitting):
- Alliance will at all times remain at overall NS level below level of sanctioned alliances
(and with even higher WTF-index, yet still technically fitting your hollow declarations of "we, ourselves, would be unwilling to accept."):
- Alliance will not make any internal or external policies without acceptance of Grämlin Conclave.
- Grämlin Archons will be informed of any and all policies
- Alliance cannot attack, or aid nations attacking following alliances: MK, ODN....
- Any future peace terms will be negotiated by Grämlin Conclave

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 08:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']If we told them to decom wonders or become our tech farm and they said "pound sand" you tell me, literally, what [b]could[/b] we do?
How could we [b]force[/b] them to do any of that?
Please spare me the rhetoric that IRON/DAWN would feel some obligation to us to follow through with such an outrageous demand. They would tell us to sod off (and they'd be right to do so) and the cyberverse would actually have a [b]real and valid[/b] reason to roll GRE; separable from all the speculation and posturing from them in this thread.[/quote]
IRON and DAWN would be defenceless at this point, open to any and all attacks. Again - the concept of war-bettered nation [ooc: nukes and navy purchase limit, negative improvents]


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 08:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']We are resolute and they are unreasonably cowardly in this circumstance.
The notion of "slavery" is ill-placed in this situation because there is no possible way, by any means, that we could [b]force[/b] them to do anything.[/quote]
Well, by this rationale, it's not like slaves could be [b]forced[/b] to do anything, really. However, should they disagree with given tasks, the slaver would of course be able to apply whip, and any [b]force[/b] at his disposal (hence: [b]forc[/b][i]ing).[/i] The "slaves!" argument was IMO a total BS, however you were able to fight it with your own :|

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 08:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']Don't overlook how long they've been in PM, how long some have waited to pay bills, and the resulting effects on tax revenue. You're too smart to ignore reality [OOC]game mechanics[/OOC] like this. [/quote]
I think you might enjoy a piece in next Don't Panic! (honestly.[edit: the second one, not the one with restaurant]).

[Booter]

I'm going to ask this question directly to MatthewPK cause I don't think it has been done in the 138 pages thus far.

What are the [b]Gramlins official government[/b] response to showing the terms they seek and why not display them?

What is your, [b]MatthewPK[/b]'s response to why the terms are not being displayed to IRON and DAWN's government?

[SynthFG]

[quote name='Booter' date='04 May 2010 - 08:40 AM' timestamp='1272958832' post='2286224']
I'm going to ask this question directly to MatthewPK cause I don't think it has been done in the 138 pages thus far.

What are the [b]Gramlins official government[/b] response to showing the terms they seek and why not display them?

What is your, [b]MatthewPK[/b]'s response to why the terms are not being displayed to IRON and DAWN's government?
[/quote]

You won't get a GRE gov position until at least later today,
iirc the Defence and Internal chairs of there conclave are both up for election,

If Ram retains the judicator position as he might with his grip on a large chunk of the archon and templar votes then this retardedness continues,
If he's kicked out of office then expect the war to be over within hours of the result

[Cormalek]

[quote name='SynthFG' date='04 May 2010 - 10:43 AM' timestamp='1272962597' post='2286241']
If Ram retains the judicator position as he might with his grip on a large chunk of the archon and templar votes then this retardedness continues,
If he's kicked out of office then expect the war to be over within hours of the result[/quote]

And lead to me going rogue of both sides. Seriously, you people and your timing. I lost 3 pieces written, rewritten and formatted for "Don't Panic!", because 1-2 days before we publish, you always get this so-called [i]"peace"[/i]. Have a bit of compassion for newsletter writers!
But as far as I know, the vote doesn't end until Wednesday, the gov will be announced on Thursday, so we might be able to make it. And have the issue outdated within 24h

[shilo]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1272929443' post='2285479']
Interesting.

Well then, in your opinion, if Gremlins offered you reasonable terms in a conventional fashion right now, how would the government vote go?
[/quote]
I don't think gRAMlins are in any and will be in any position to demand anything from us. If they come to their senses very soon, it is my believe that the offer of white peace will most likely be acceptable to all parties.

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']
They tried to surrender on their own terms and paying us off with tech. Yes, we're interested in something more than reps. That should be obvious. We are resolute and they are unreasonably cowardly in this circumstance. [/quote]
More than reps? Man leave your altered reality and join the real world. Not only will you never get reps, you'd be extremely lucky to get "White Peace" at the moment.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']
We'll see how this plays out. I contend that no IRON nation wants to grow into range and no in-range IRON nation wants to come out of PM. [/quote]
No IRON nations needs to grow into range. We can hit every single Gramlin nation right now if we so choose, we control the battlefield all you guys can do is react. Nothing happens on the battlefield that we don't orchestrate, we are the conductors, Gramlins dance to our tune in battle.



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']
By my calculation, I am the third oldest Gramlin in the alliance. I joined in November 2007. None of you have convinced me that what I'm doing is wrong (most haven't even tried, actually). [/quote]
Of course you don't understand that you're doing it all wrong. If you did you'd have to be insane to keep doing it. Wait, one of those sentences is correct maybe both.



[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']
I am prepared to get attacked. I've already been near ZI and back once in this war and I can afford to do it again; and if somebody intends to keep me there they had better have some volunteers ready to sell their infra down to my ZI range because I can afford to stay there a loooooong time. [/quote]
Yeah, going to ZI is not a real issue when you can easily recover. IRON and DAWN are getting real good at it. We have over 300 nations ready and willing to keep you all at ZI. All we need is 17 to do the job and I suspect by the time we get all of you down to ZI it will only take a dozen or so nations to keep you there. So the question is can 330+ nations keep 50 or less nations at ZI long enough to run out their war chests and bill lock them. Assume the 50 nations at ZI remain in permanent nuclear anarchy and of the 300 nations only 17 at any one time are in nuclear anarchy for 10 days, but are able to collect out of anarchy every 20 days. By my calculations you guys will run out of money while we will have a never ending supply. I said this war would last 12-18 months, it could last longer. The only problem I see is that eventually we would not have anyone small enough to keep you all in nuclear anarchy. That would allow you to rebuild and come up into range and the problem would be solved. So your loooooong time isn't going to be long enough.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']
Don't overlook how long they've been in PM, how long some have waited to pay bills, and the resulting effects on tax revenue. [/quote]
Yeah but there are only 13 of them above 50k NS. We can fill their aid slots if needed. All they have to do is fight for a week and then they will be safe from attack. The 3 Gramlin nations they attack and the 3 that attack them however will now be at war and in nuclear anarchy for the remainder. I do however doubt any offensive declarations will be made. Gramlins like their pixels too much.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']
You're too smart to ignore reality [OOC]game mechanics[/OOC] like this. If our top tier nations get pulled down, I suspect they will just hang onto their warchests and wait for other IRON nations to enter their range for a nuclear war. [/quote]
Once your top tier get pulled down they will never be out of nuclear anarchy and they will never be able to declare on anyone. So even if one of us is within range there is not a darn thing you can do. So I guess you don't quite understand the game mechanics all that well, but that's okay it works to our advantage.


[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1272953616' post='2286176']
Do you actually believe that Torino can't afford to rebuild his infra? Do you think that any of us can't?
[/quote]
I think Torino can afford to rebuild. The question is will he while he is at war? I doubt it. Will he still have money enough to rebuild when the war is over? That depends on when Gramlins surrenders. If they surrender soon enough "yes", if they wait for 12-18 months. "No" his money will be gone by then and if he's the best you got then we will bill lock each and every one of you.

This war is lost to you in every manner. The fact that you don't realize it makes your alliance a real asset to have in the next major war. An asset for us for it wouldn't surprise me if the alliance you enter the next war to support attacks you because no alliance could ever afford to have you on their side when it comes to negotiating terms. You guys are done on planet Bob.

Let me put it another way, the options open to IRON and DAWN are "Unconditional Surrender" then start paying reps. Or continue to wage war on Gramlins, have about 5% of our combined forces engaged at any one time and put off paying reps until Gramlins surrenders. Meanwhile, none of the alliances we surrendered to can attack us as per the Easter Sunday Accords. So we can fight your nations more or less at our leisure. Every other month I can choose three Gramlin nations to nuke for a week. When not fighting I can build my warchest, aid the nations fighting you if needed and in general enjoy playing the game without needing to pay reps. So you see I am not highly motivated to consider "Unconditional Surrender" in fact for me "White Peace" has lost its appeal. The only thing that would motivate me to consider peace with Gramlins is if all the other alliances on the Planet started to feel sorry for you and public opinion started to support an end to the conflict. You see we do care about public relations and what others think of us. The question is how long will it be before we are motivated enough to accept your surrender.

[Alfred von Tirpitz]

How many folks here think that if/when people like Alekhine running for Grämlins senior government win; they will change the alliance stance on the current situation?

Can we get a pool going regarding this? No sorry electoral candidates you cant bet on this.

[shilo]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='04 May 2010 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1272981693' post='2286363']
How many folks here think that if/when people like Alekhine running for Grämlins senior government win; they will change the alliance stance on the current situation?

Can we get a pool going regarding this? No sorry electoral candidates you cant bet on this.
[/quote]
I no longer support the theory that just ram is completely banana and took over and otherwise reasonable but maybe too inactive alliance. I think considering the length and the scale of this insanity, there are many among the gRAMlins very much so complicit in his actions, and thus supportive of them, so logically no political opposition to him. Of course their newest acquisition getting pounded into the dust by us, and some other low ranked members may indeed disagree, but looking at their internal ranking system, having support of most their highest ranking members is enough to control any election. Of course, when they reelect their current government, or elect one with the same stance, it has been clearly confirmed that gRAMlins as an alliance itself are incurably insane, and thus require continued long lasting military therapy.

[Louisa]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 06:52 AM' timestamp='1272952312' post='2286156']
It [b]does[/b] make a difference. If they were required to demilitarized before they surrendered then there would be no official end to hostilities; ...
[/quote]
Yes I think that is what causes concern -- that the actual [b]surrender[/b] would some how not equal a official end to hostilities... [img]http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r7/Louisa00/awesomepwn.gif[/img]

I mean ... what? This is not my first language, but as far as I know, when you surrender, you are out of the war -- and if a whole Alliance/side surrenders, then the war is over. So why is it different in your eyes? In what way would a surrender [b]not[/b] mean end to hostilities?

[Cormalek]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='04 May 2010 - 04:01 PM' timestamp='1272981693' post='2286363']
How many folks here think that if/when people like Alekhine running for Grämlins senior government win; they will change the alliance stance on the current situation?

Can we get a pool going regarding this? No sorry electoral candidates you cant bet on this.
[/quote]

No-bet.

[list][*] Ramirus was re-elected after those terms were presented.[*] many of those who opposed him either quit ort deleted.[*] If Archons who are part of council don't [b]care[/b] about the terms, and follow blindly their leader to the extent where they don't even bother to check the facts before they argue for their leader, then others will probably piss on that as well.[*] Many of current Grämlins were brought there by Ramirus (ort so I'm being told)[*] Filipino Heroes have proven beyond doubt how strongly they back Ramirus.[/list]

I wouldn't bet a handfull of nuts against chest of diamonds on this one (unless I could do two bets ;-) ).

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='amad123' date='04 May 2010 - 06:48 AM' timestamp='1272980886' post='2286355']
More than reps? Man leave your altered reality and join the real world. Not only will you never get reps, you'd be extremely lucky to get "White Peace" at the moment.[/quote]

Thanks for the info!



[quote]No IRON nations needs to grow into range. We can hit every single Gramlin nation right now if we so choose, we control the battlefield all you guys can do is react. Nothing happens on the battlefield that we don't orchestrate, we are the conductors, Gramlins dance to our tune in battle.[/quote]

Doesn't look that way to me. I see a bunch of top-end IRON nations in PM who are bill-locked and a bunch more with no warchest (including some in DAWN)




[quote]Of course you don't understand that you're doing it all wrong. If you did you'd have to be insane to keep doing it. Wait, one of those sentences is correct maybe both.[/quote]

Crazy like a fox.




[quote]Yeah, going to ZI is not a real issue when you can easily recover. IRON and DAWN are getting real good at it. We have over 300 nations ready and willing to keep you all at ZI. All we need is 17 to do the job and I suspect by the time we get all of you down to ZI it will only take a dozen or so nations to keep you there. So the question is can 330+ nations keep 50 or less nations at ZI long enough to run out their war chests and bill lock them. Assume the 50 nations at ZI remain in permanent nuclear anarchy and of the 300 nations only 17 at any one time are in nuclear anarchy for 10 days, but are able to collect out of anarchy every 20 days. By my calculations you guys will run out of money while we will have a never ending supply. I said this war would last 12-18 months, it could last longer. The only problem I see is that eventually we would not have anyone small enough to keep you all in nuclear anarchy. That would allow you to rebuild and come up into range and the problem would be solved. So your loooooong time isn't going to be long enough.[/quote]

Your calculations are off. How long do you think 1 billion dongs at ZI lasts? How about 2 billion? How about 4 billion?


[quote]Yeah but there are only 13 of them above 50k NS. We can fill their aid slots if needed. All they have to do is fight for a week and then they will be safe from attack. The 3 Gramlin nations they attack and the 3 that attack them however will now be at war and in nuclear anarchy for the remainder. I do however doubt any offensive declarations will be made. Gramlins like their pixels too much.[/quote]

Ah, the old "GRE only cares about their pixels" line; that seems invalid particularly when we're putting ourselves at significant risk here when you "control the battlefield" and we "dance to your tune"
Not to mention, I've already countered TBB with that logic earlier in this thread (which was conveniently ignored).
A nation my size pays about $10,000,000 per day in bills. That means that if I were bill-locked (like many top-tier IRON nations are) and my tax collections were ZERO because of the length spent in PM. If you filled their slots, and everybody had FAC's it would still only be $2.7 mil per day.




[quote]Once your top tier get pulled down they will never be out of nuclear anarchy and they will never be able to declare on anyone. So even if one of us is within range there is not a darn thing you can do. So I guess you don't quite understand the game mechanics all that well, but that's okay it works to our advantage.[/quote]

You heard it here, folks! He wants to keep GRE in nuclear anarchy [b]forever[/b]




[quote]I think Torino can afford to rebuild. The question is will he while he is at war? I doubt it. Will he still have money enough to rebuild when the war is over? That depends on when Gramlins surrenders. If they surrender soon enough "yes", if they wait for 12-18 months. "No" his money will be gone by then and if he's the best you got then we will bill lock each and every one of you.[/quote]

If you had any spy reports you'd have a better understanding of why what you're saying is nonsense.

[quote]This war is lost to you in every manner. The fact that you don't realize it makes your alliance a real asset to have in the next major war. An asset for us for it wouldn't surprise me if the alliance you enter the next war to support attacks you because no alliance could ever afford to have you on their side when it comes to negotiating terms. You guys are done on planet Bob.[/quote]

Please, tell me more about what our friends think!

[quote]Let me put it another way, the options open to IRON and DAWN are "Unconditional Surrender" then start paying reps. Or continue to wage war on Gramlins, have about 5% of our combined forces engaged at any one time and put off paying reps until Gramlins surrenders. Meanwhile, none of the alliances we surrendered to can attack us as per the Easter Sunday Accords. So we can fight your nations more or less at our leisure. Every other month I can choose three Gramlin nations to nuke for a week. When not fighting I can build my warchest, aid the nations fighting you if needed and in general enjoy playing the game without needing to pay reps. So you see I am not highly motivated to consider "Unconditional Surrender" in fact for me "White Peace" has lost its appeal. The only thing that would motivate me to consider peace with Gramlins is if all the other alliances on the Planet started to feel sorry for you and public opinion started to support an end to the conflict. You see we do care about public relations and what others think of us. The question is how long will it be before we are motivated enough to [b]accept your surrender.[/b]
[/quote]

What are your terms?

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Cormalek' date='04 May 2010 - 12:18 AM' timestamp='1272957494' post='2286218']
It does to you, for some reason, but as you're being told - it does not for IRON-DAWN. You can assume that all those people are just plainly stupid, or you're incapable of being wrong; [b]or[/b] maybe there is something to it.
No one is suggesting, that you want them to drop arms, and then continue to kick the S out of them. No one suspects something like that from you even now.[/quote]

In this very thread people have suggested that GRE would force IRON to disarm but would keep attacking them before they were allowed to surrender. There are even some claims in this thread that we're deliberately not telling *how* to disarm so that they can't. It's a long thread; some things get lost.

[quote]They are afraid, that they will surrender, the hostilities will stop, [b]no one will be fighting anyone[/b], they will be given surrender terms unacceptable to them - at which point they would be unable to defend themselves.[/quote]

Unable to defend themselves? Please. Hasn't the last 10 pages of posturing been about how IRON/DAWN have more than 3 nations for each GRE nation and how many GRE nations aren't fighting back well? Yeah, because they would all immediately have to roll over and die if they only had 8 naval ships and 3 nukes per Gremlin...
and that's [b]assuming[/b] demil orders include decomming navies and nukes. They will *never* be "defenseless" and you know it.



[quote]Matthew, for the love of Admin. With Grämlins "open mindeness" about interpretation of any and all definitions (unconditional surrender, peace terms just to name those from this thread. "Government" and "we" seem to be a bit controversial as well ;-) ), this part of codex is [b]meaningles[/b]s and I think you realize this. I openly call Shenanigans on this.

Examples of terms that Grämlins would definitely accept:
- Alliance cannot have any kind of open recruitment programme
- Alliance cannot sign any treaties
- Alliance cannot exceed 200 members
(and a bit over the top, but still fitting):
- Alliance will at all times remain at overall NS level below level of sanctioned alliances
(and with even higher WTF-index, yet still technically fitting your hollow declarations of "we, ourselves, would be unwilling to accept."):
- Alliance will not make any internal or external policies without acceptance of Grämlin Conclave.
- Grämlin Archons will be informed of any and all policies
- Alliance cannot attack, or aid nations attacking following alliances: MK, ODN....
- Any future peace terms will be negotiated by Grämlin Conclave
[/quote]

That's actually one of the very few "good" points (by technicality ) in the thread; but it still doesn't address the point that if we actually demanded those things that people would have a pretty sound reason to attack us.


[quote]IRON and DAWN would be defenceless at this point, open to any and all attacks. Again - the concept of war-bettered nation [ooc: nukes and navy purchase limit, negative improvents][/quote]
Addressed above. Plus, haven't you noticed all the chest-thumping by IRON/DAWN about how none of them are hurting? What makes you think they'd have negative improvements?



[quote]Well, by this rationale, it's not like slaves could be [b]forced[/b] to do anything, really. However, should they disagree with given tasks, the slaver would of course be able to apply whip, and any [b]force[/b] at his disposal (hence: [b]forc[/b][i]ing).[/i] The "slaves!" argument was IMO a total BS, however you were able to fight it with your own :|[/quote]

You must have a pretty low opinion of the cyberverse if you think they'd tolerate us stomping and whipping poor IRON under foot after they have surrendered.


[quote]I think you might enjoy a piece in next Don't Panic! (honestly.[edit: the second one, not the one with restaurant]).
[/quote]

Uh oh.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Booter' date='04 May 2010 - 12:40 AM' timestamp='1272958832' post='2286224']
I'm going to ask this question directly to MatthewPK cause I don't think it has been done in the 138 pages thus far.

What are the [b]Gramlins official government[/b] response to showing the terms they seek and why not display them?[/quote]

Go find our leak(s) and ask them; or go nicely ask our government. One of those might work.

[quote]What is your, [b]MatthewPK[/b]'s response to why the terms are not being displayed to IRON and DAWN's government?
[/quote]

to make a point.

[Zangmonkey]

[quote name='Louisa' date='04 May 2010 - 07:57 AM' timestamp='1272985050' post='2286382']
Yes I think that is what causes concern -- that the actual [b]surrender[/b] would some how not equal a official end to hostilities... [img]http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r7/Louisa00/awesomepwn.gif[/img]

I mean ... what? This is not my first language, but as far as I know, when you surrender, you are out of the war -- and if a whole Alliance/side surrenders, then the war is over. So why is it different in your eyes? In what way would a surrender [b]not[/b] mean end to hostilities?
[/quote]

You have misunderstood.
A surrender does equal an official end to hostilities.
I was responding to claims that we would force them to disarm before allowing them to surrender.

[Letum]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 04:56 PM' timestamp='1272988586' post='2286435']
That's actually one of the very few "good" points (by technicality ) in the thread; but it still doesn't address the point that if we actually demanded those things that people would have a pretty sound reason to attack us.
[/quote]

A sound reason to attack you? I think you are confusing the reason for a war with the excuse for a war. In this current political climate, there is nobody who has a reason to wage war agains Gremlins that would use this event as an excuse. Anyone who has a vested interest in IRON's wellbeing is incapable of intervening. Anyone who has the ideological "morality" to intervene in the style of Grub with \m/ now finds it way too costly politically to do so.

Whatever you decide to do will not change that, not in the short term. Anyone who might be capable and willing to fight Gramlins already has a sufficient "excuse" to do so. People have been crying for someone to stop you for the past month, it is not going to happen.

[quote]to make a point.[/quote]

What's the point of making a point?

[amad123]

[quote name='Matthew PK' date='04 May 2010 - 11:42 AM' timestamp='1272987754' post='2286423']
What are your terms?
[/quote]

Send over a qualified Government official if your alliance is really interested.

As for your question about how long does 4 billion dongs last. Not nearly as long as our resolve. So give up now while you have something to salvage.

[The Big Bad]

I think its pretty clear even bothering to speak with Matthew PK is a waste of time. He has no idea what Grams plans are and just kind of makes things up as he goes. Not his fault, its not like his pathetic alliance is giving him anything to work with. I know a lot of people have said that the elections are Gramlins chance to get back on track. They have delayed action because they think that Gramlins is mostly full of nations trapped by loyalty to an alliance they know is doing wrong and when given the chance they will change that. I myself am curious to see if they do. If they do not, then they get what is coming to them and no one can claim they are innocent or were not given the chance to change.

[King Chill I]

[quote name='Alfred von Tirpitz' date='04 May 2010 - 10:01 AM' timestamp='1272981693' post='2286363']
How many folks here think that if/when people like Alekhine running for Grämlins senior government win; they will change the alliance stance on the current situation?

Can we get a pool going regarding this? No sorry electoral candidates you cant bet on this.
[/quote]

Ill start believing when Ram relinquishes to him the admin permissions for the Gre boards that come with the position.

[amad123]

[quote name='The Big Bad' date='04 May 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1272990451' post='2286463']
I think its pretty clear even bothering to speak with Matthew PK is a waste of time. He has no idea what Grams plans are and just kind of makes things up as he goes. Not his fault, its not like his pathetic alliance is giving him anything to work with. I know a lot of people have said that the elections are Gramlins chance to get back on track. They have delayed action because they think that Gramlins is mostly full of nations trapped by loyalty to an alliance they know is doing wrong and when given the chance they will change that. I myself am curious to see if they do. If they do not, then they get what is coming to them and no one can claim they are innocent or were not given the chance to change.
[/quote]
I agree that Matt is a lost cause but there are others in his alliance that hopefully see the folly of their actions. As for Gramlins plan, I would have to disagree with you there. Everyone knows Gramlins plan, they are going to have IRON and DAWN "Unconditionally Surrender". What they don't seem to have is a backup plan in case that one fails.