NPO Annoucement: 2nd Triannual Report of the 6th Year of Order

[TrotskysRevenge]

[quote name='Ashoka the Great' date='04 May 2010 - 12:21 PM' timestamp='1273000848' post='2286600']
(Personally, I think NoR 1.0 set the bar with the whole Norway thing. Whatever a 'Norway' is.)
[/quote]



Oh my. What is happening? I completely agree with you on this. No other alliance has accomplished anything of this magnitude, and for this NoR 1.0 should be remembered.

[AirMe]

[quote name='Shan Revan' date='04 May 2010 - 03:55 PM' timestamp='1273002884' post='2286645']
This, is not true.
[/quote]

If you can point me in the direction where in the course of GW1, Karma and what ever this last war was, where any of my allies at the time officially asked for wonder decom?

[AirMe]

[quote name='The AUT' date='04 May 2010 - 03:32 PM' timestamp='1273001551' post='2286613']
I understand, but it's being used under the impression that it was an option or an alternative that could have been taken. Pacifica would've still been alive had the forces against them made the decision to keep them under perpetual warfare if they so chose. Disbandment couldn't have happened even if the other side wanted it too, and I've a feeling there were some who did.
[/quote]

No it wasn't. It was said in disbelief at Rebel Virginia said alliances hadn't won the war because they didn't disband someone.

[Haflinger]

[quote name='AirMe' date='04 May 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1272991920' post='2286492']
You can buy tech in your nation at any point in time, just because it isn't economical to do so doesn't mean you can't do it. Wonders can only be purchased 1 time a month under any circumstance and can cost in excess of 200 million to replace.
[/quote]
At my current tech level, 200 million dollars will buy me a bit over 300 tech. The comparison is quite valid.

[quote name='AirMe' date='04 May 2010 - 01:21 PM' timestamp='1272993676' post='2286508']
It all depends where you put your priorities. When you are surrendering to an opponent that has a history of attacking alliances they have under surrender terms you want to be able to cause as much damage as possible and to deter the same thing from happening to you. I can say for a fact, that the reason MK agreed to pay so much tech to you in the noCB war was because we wanted to keep our wonders in case you tried to pull the carpet out from under us. We were also willing to pay more tech instead of having a viceroy or our treaties canceled. We paid off our enormous debt in 3 - 4 months, despite the inefficiencies of the Pacifican bank at the time.
[/quote]
It's also because MK was allowed to send tech from any nation, not being restricted to only using high-tech nations, which meant they could pay tech sellers to handle the load. This does make it easier.

[quote name='AirMe' date='04 May 2010 - 01:32 PM' timestamp='1272994313' post='2286525']
I will agree to that. But I don't think anyone has ever been offered terms 100k tech or your WRC's. I know in every war I have been on the winning side of, my allies have never even thought of asking an alliance to decom wonders.
[/quote]
I'd rather destroy WRCs than pay reps. Really.

WRCs are a lot easier to rebuild than tech, especially large amounts of tech. Before Karma, NPO had over a million tech. Now they have a bit over 200K. That 800K tech is going to take a very long time to replace. Assuming every NPO nation over the 5K infrajump (there are 201) buys 500 tech per month, it will take them eight months just to get back to where they were, and that's after a year of having been prevented from buying tech - first by the war and then by the terms.

It's pretty unlikely they'll be able to find that many tech sellers, and it's also pretty unlikely that every single one of the two hundred will be active enough to maintain that many tech deals.

On the other hand... replacing a WRC is just a matter of spending an extra 150M and waiting a month.

[D34th]

[quote name='Bob Janova' date='04 May 2010 - 02:08 PM' timestamp='1272989278' post='2286443']
No-one should trust either Order considering their respective history, but Pacific is the better of the two I would say. It does not often betray its allies and it has never pulled out of a war it started to leave its coalition partners to be rolled.
[/quote]

See Pacifica? We're evil than you, we won, you must disband and quit now!

[Shan Revan]

[quote name='AirMe' date='05 May 2010 - 05:57 AM' timestamp='1273003039' post='2286652']
If you can point me in the direction where in the course of GW1, Karma and what ever this last war was, where any of my allies at the time officially asked for wonder decom?
[/quote]
It was during our Karma war negotiations. Fark briefly demanded we decommission our FACs so the we could not send secret aid to NPO. Granted this particular demand was short lived, and seemed more a factor of the fact that no-one in (at least our section of) karma communicated with each other about our surrender terms. If you require logs, I can try and find them, but will have to pm you with them later. (OOC: My longtime computer has finally died and I need to find something to hook my old hard drives up to, to get at them.)

[AirMe]

[quote name='Haflinger' date='04 May 2010 - 04:00 PM' timestamp='1273003200' post='2286656']
At my current tech level, 200 million dollars will buy me a bit over 300 tech. The comparison is quite valid.


It's also because MK was allowed to send tech from any nation, not being restricted to only using high-tech nations, which meant they could pay tech sellers to handle the load. This does make it easier.


I'd rather destroy WRCs than pay reps. Really.

WRCs are a lot easier to rebuild than tech, especially large amounts of tech. Before Karma, NPO had over a million tech. Now they have a bit over 200K. That 800K tech is going to take a very long time to replace. Assuming every NPO nation over the 5K infrajump (there are 201) buys 500 tech per month, it will take them eight months just to get back to where they were, and that's after a year of having been prevented from buying tech - first by the war and then by the terms.

It's pretty unlikely they'll be able to find that many tech sellers, and it's also pretty unlikely that every single one of the two hundred will be active enough to maintain that many tech deals.

On the other hand... replacing a WRC is just a matter of spending an extra 150M and waiting a month.
[/quote]

It would cost you 200 million but not a month. Money can be replaced, time cannot. It all comes down to what your time is worth.

NPO has about as many nations to send tech as MK had in the whole alliance when we took terms, during the course of the terms we dropped to about 150 members. So your point isn't as valid as you want it to be. Plus we had probably the best banking system of the time so we were able to work as efficient as the restrictions allowed.

There are a lot of tech sellers out there, they just can't sit there and wait for the sellers to come in they need to go out and find them. Plus if they are going to re-instate the revenge doctrine as some NPO members have claimed they are going to do, they will have a built in tech farm right on red. Well farm isn't really a fair term, but nations who they protect will be more willing to sell them tech.

[Penkala]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='04 May 2010 - 02:44 PM' timestamp='1272998678' post='2286571']
[color="#0000FF"]You were an experienced nation fighting new rulers. I did that to Fark, and I ravaged them. However, despite how much I like to tote this is a fantastic victory over the Fark that cannot fight, I know Fark is actually a decent military. One nuclear armed nation, with years of fighting experience, decimating new and weak nations should not bring a rational mind to the conclusion that an alliance is useless in war. Then again, you're not a rational mind.[/color]
[/quote]

Now now, let's a) Use facts and b) Stay consistent here.

NSO has claimed before that their members are among the most active and experienced. Is NSO no longer asserting this? I don't really remember how many I fought, but something like 5% of their alliance. So either NSO are, as a whole, inexperienced and ineffective in general or they just aren't good at war. Which is it?

I made it a point of tackling active nations (a theme I kept throughout the entire war, from the beginning, where I fought a 15k NS nation with a $440m warchest (and I believe an MP but I forget) to the end, when I fought one of the few low-NS nuclear IRON nation.). Why? Because I had nukes and knew how to use them. I wasn't going to waste them on "new and weak nations". I wasn't decimating "new" and "weak" nations. I generally attacked at or above my own strength.

When I attack 6 or 7% of an alliance and have only 1 nation give me any trouble (we had a nuclear shootout. He got bill locked after his fourth nuke firing), I believe I can safely say that I beat on NSO pretty well.


[quote][color="#0000FF"]Winning a war does not necessarily mean an alliance has character or personality. Look at NSO. They have personality. NPO. They have personality. I'll even go as far as saying that GOONS and \m/ have personality. They make interesting things happen. CSN really doesn't. It follows treaties and you couldn't ask for a better ally, but you can't honestly say that CSN is an alliance that moves and shakes the world.[/color]
[/quote]

Very few alliances change the world. NSO would not make my list (yet). 3 other Orders would (P, p, TO).

Not sure what this has to do with NPO's report, though....

[quote]Look, I don't much care for this silly little argument, but is that seriously the most exciting point you can come up with about the alliance? Seriously?[quote]

We're led by an old man who shakes his cane at "kids" who steps on his lawn. There's not much to work with in the "excitement category..."


(no, that's the most exciting thing, but it's something that wouldn't start a massive tangent which I wanted to avoid.)

Edit: NPO claims I fought 4, and I can't remember, so they may be right. *shrug*

Edited May 6, 2010 by Penkala

[AirMe]

[quote name='Shan Revan' date='04 May 2010 - 04:25 PM' timestamp='1273004735' post='2286686']
It was during our Karma war negotiations. Fark briefly demanded we decommission our FACs so the we could not send secret aid to NPO. Granted this particular demand was short lived, and seemed more a factor of the fact that no-one in (at least our section of) karma communicated with each other about our surrender terms. If you require logs, I can try and find them, but will have to pm you with them later. (OOC: My longtime computer has finally died and I need to find something to hook my old hard drives up to, to get at them.)
[/quote]

Nah I trust you, but I do point out that FARK are not my allies currently, nor were they back then. And anyone who accepts a term like that is foolish. I bet you guys wouldn't have accepted terms with that clause in it.

[Penkala]

[quote]WRCs are a lot easier to rebuild than tech, especially large amounts of tech. Before Karma, NPO had over a million tech. Now they have a bit over 200K. That 800K tech is going to take a very long time to replace. Assuming every NPO nation over the 5K infrajump (there are 201) buys 500 tech per month, it will take them eight months just to get back to where they were, and that's after a year of having been prevented from buying tech - first by the war and then by the terms.
[/quote]

If you don't want to lose tech, don't start an offensive war with a shoddy cb that you know is going to turn into a nuclear firestorm? I dunno, just an idea there...

[quote]Nah I trust you, but I do point out that FARK are not my allies currently, nor were they back then. And anyone who accepts a term like that is foolish. I bet you guys wouldn't have accepted terms with that clause in it.[/quote]

Probably the reason the term was "short lived" and not enforced *shrug*

I know plenty of people who [i]discussed[/i] keeping NPO in perma war. It didn't happen. I don't see how you can hold that against someone as if it did happen.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Penkala

[Branimir]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1272994073' post='2286516']In your own words, "things were different 2 years ago".[/quote]
Yes, its the nature of the beast.

At the same time things which have changed are not those which you mention (in any or that big extend), nor does the change that has happened, had anything to do with your propaganda show and dance before, during and after "karma" war. You still continuing it, even after everything, is a fruitless effort on your part.

Stating how you are "better and always will be" in comparison to us, is an attitude you can drop as such.
[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1272994073' post='2286516']Vox was the beginning of the end of the Pacifican Hegemony and existed (or perhaps caused) during a decline in your power.[/quote]
Isn't then that convenient. I have even a better idea, why dont you re-re-re-re-define "Pacifican hegemony" period only as times when TBB posted (which you mentioned) or any other poster which you didn't like and before he got an answer,....2-10 minutes later?
Hm? Sounds even better, doesn't it. You are a riot,....you are goverment you say? Interesting.
[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 07:28 PM' timestamp='1272994073' post='2286516']Again, if you had actually read my post instead of constructing a cheap strawman and attacking that, you would know exactly what my definition was.[/quote]
If you were serious in talking about the factors that brought down level of debate here (and not just desperately trying to paint NPO as the only and ultimate "evil" and how you are so much "better" then us) then you would know the relevance of things I mentioned which were important in creating a mentality of fear in some which in result created auto censorship in people which was the major factor of the problem (lets call it like that) which you brought up. As such, the phenomena preexisted even your re-re-re-re-re defined "Pacifican hegemony" and as such can not be proscribed to it as its unique consequence and even further was overcome during that same period.

Now, while this was fun as I mentioned in my last post its ultimately fruitless. I am not spending more words on you (nothing personal). Feel this is gone enough from the topic matter, as such Ill stop here. You can have your last response in which you again re-re-re-re-re define "Pacifican hegemony" period, "draconian terms",..or whatever you want.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Branimir

[President HiLow]

[quote name='Rebel Virginia' date='04 May 2010 - 08:20 AM' timestamp='1272954021' post='2286183']
[color="#0000FF"]There are too many alliances these days anyway. Quite frankly we could do with less. Mainly the ones with no flash or style. Alliances like your own, for example.[/color]
[/quote]

So what in your opinion makes an alliance "flashy" or "stylish" ?

Being the cause for a war? A war with no CB maybe?

[applesauce59]

[quote name='Lord Brendan' date='04 May 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1272991500' post='2286482']
No it isn't. The tech raid on KoNi was never meant to be damaging; it was, after all, a tech raid. Even if there had been no outcry (speaking of which, you all realize that Penkala was the whistleblower, right? If not for him the raid might have gona unnoticed), it would almost certainly have ended after a single round of war.

Not sure what you're trying to prove by saying that you beat down sanctioned alliances. Aren't you supposed to be arguing [i]against[/i] me?

I think the core of the Hegemony had a similar amount of strength as SF, C&G and LEO do today. Power is surely less concentrated, but I think our ability to start wars of aggression is quite comparable. There are less sheep today than there were then as well, another upside.

[/quote]

Actual am i just trying to explain where there is more freedom of speech right now. I already admitted to NPO mistakes in the past in an earlier post. I simple can't see how you have more power. Sure SF, CnG, and LEO may equal in power but i really am not sure how united that group could be. I simple think you would silence us if you had the choice and made sure we never got back in sanction during the war if you had the power. I mean i guess you could say you don't want those things but than i have to question why you would want more powerful enemies. Doesn't seem effective. The attack on KoNi by Athens is a better example than you think since it was an act of aggression on a small alliance. I would say similar to the wolfpack war through we actual had some sort of a CB. Athens of course got ridiculed for there actions in the war but when it comes to NPO we actual go praised for the most part at the time and it was no big deal. So we had the powerbase behind us that people didn't say anything.

[Rebel Virginia]

[quote name='Mathlete' date='04 May 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1273001565' post='2286614']
So this qualifies us as a "garbage alliance?" What is it to you that many of our members aren't interested in the political sphere as much as maintaining their own nations? Most of the politics in this game are idiotic in nature anyways. And before you say, "Then go join GPA or any other neutral alliance," our members found friendships on our forums, thus they choose to stay here. What does it matter that we're not hellbent on gaining a number one or even a sanction?
[/quote]
[color="#0000FF"]I never said CSN was not involved in global politics. I just said you were boring. Now, how about we not make this about you, although I am sure you would love some attention. Let us remember what this occasion is about: celebrating the inevitable rise of Pacifica. Again.[/color]

[Geoffron X]

CSN is basically GGA with a stable government and more WRC's. Basically, all they provide is propaganda for the other side.

Also, yes! Inevitable rise of Pacifica. We are pretty much awesome and stuff.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Geoffron X

[Letum]

[quote]Money can be replaced, time cannot. It all comes down to what your time is worth. [/quote]

That's why you have the phrase "time is money"

Though you could justifiably say that money is time as well. After all, you need time to replace lost money. Everything has a "value" attached to it. The problem here is that it is hard to quantify the value of replacing a wonder, since there there is no market economics to determine prices, and it can depend a lot on the context.

But it is undeniable that there is a value attached, and a point where you might be faced with a hard decision between the two. For example, I stated that I would prefer losing a WRC to losing the tech earlier; however change that to 4 or 5 wonders for my nation, and it would be close enough for me to have to look very closely at the specifics of the situation.

And pretty much comes to my point; the current widespread perception that the loss of wonders are the absolute worst thing that can be done to a nation isn't really that logical - from a purely technical perspective at least - as there are several situations where people would seriously consider between it and some of the commonly employed alternatives. Of course, you can run into additional, non-technical factors such as vulnerability or psychology, but those are not ubiquitous like the technical ones are.


[quote]If you don't want to lose tech, don't start an offensive war with a shoddy cb that you know is going to turn into a nuclear firestorm? I dunno, just an idea there...[/quote]

Can I ask you something? Why do you feel the need to butt into an amicable debate, and throw in a random dig with emotive adjectives? This is a polite discussion on the relative impact of different punitive terms, using reasoning and economic evidence, whilst avoiding any moral characterisations or attempts to denigrate one side. Your comment does not contribute anything to the ideas in question. It's not like you have some quota of baiting posts to make per day, so if you have nothing relevant to give, you really should not be replying.

Unless of course you feel that the "offensiveness" of a war or the "shoddiness" of a cb somehow affect the economic realities of replacing lost wonders or lost tech, and the relative balance between the two. In which case, please go ahead and enlighten us.

(And if you do reply, please avoid the "evil aggressor must get massive reps" line. We're talking about impact, not justification)

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='Branimir' date='04 May 2010 - 04:42 PM' timestamp='1273005731' post='2286704']
Isn't then that convenient. I have even a better idea, why dont you re-re-re-re-define "Pacifican hegemony" period only as times when TBB posted (which you mentioned) or any other poster which you didn't like and before he got an answer,....2-10 minutes later?
Hm? Sounds even better, doesn't it. You are a riot,....you are goverment you say? Interesting.
[/quote]

Yes, how convenient that I define the Pacifican Hegemony as the period where Pacifica had complete hegemony. I am such a riot.

If you want to include the Vox era, I suppose that's reasonable, although as I said your power was waning at that point. The fact that dissenters were silenced or PZIed holds true though.

[quote name='applesauce59' date='04 May 2010 - 05:02 PM' timestamp='1273006946' post='2286718']
Actual am i just trying to explain where there is more freedom of speech right now. I already admitted to NPO mistakes in the past in an earlier post. I simple can't see how you have more power. Sure SF, CnG, and LEO may equal in power but i really am not sure how united that group could be. I simple think you would silence us if you had the choice and made sure we never got back in sanction during the war if you had the power. I mean i guess you could say you don't want those things but than i have to question why you would want more powerful enemies. Doesn't seem effective. The attack on KoNi by Athens is a better example than you think since it was an act of aggression on a small alliance. I would say similar to the wolfpack war through we actual had some sort of a CB. Athens of course got ridiculed for there actions in the war but when it comes to NPO we actual go praised for the most part at the time and it was no big deal. So we had the powerbase behind us that people didn't say anything.
[/quote]

SF, C&G and LEO are capable of co-operation when necessary. We're probably at least as stable as Continuum itself was internally, although I suppose that doesn't mean much. You don't think we could silence you? You don't think we could have held you in an eternal war? I believe we could, but I do not want either of those things.

[OOC]Rivalry is a very important aspect of this game. In a game with no resets such as Cybernations, it is necessary to allow your opponent to get back up to allow the game to continue. When you continually beat down those people that have no hope to win (sound familiar?), that isn't really fun. Not to mention whatever kind of IC morality you want to relate to it.[/OOC]

The rest of your post seems to be agreeing with me, so I'll take heart in that, maybe you Pacificans aren't so incorrigible after all.

[WorldConqueror]

How exactly would SuperComplaints silence the New Pacific Order?

[Lord Brendan]

[quote name='WorldConqueror' date='04 May 2010 - 06:10 PM' timestamp='1273011031' post='2286822']
How exactly would SuperComplaints silence the New Pacific Order?
[/quote]

Well we probably couldn't have silenced you [i]and[/i] kept you in an eternal war. Nobody can do that. But we could have done one or the other.

[Owned-You]

Frankly, I find the excessive posturing and overall lack of respect from various figures, allies, and acquaintances on my own side to be disturbing. Firstly, this is not the place for this type of conduct; many of you all have a treasures trove worth of grievances accumulated over years of experiences on this game whilst others are simply riding a wave of misplaced fervor. Control yourself and realize that your making yourself and those associated with you look like fools. As anything you say in this topic will not contribute towards any long-term effect on anyone in this game nor be cited as the driving factor in future events. Now, whilst it was once popular to blame NPO for any and all wrongdoings years ago, and don't get me wrong they have committed there fair share of them over the long and storied past. These are however events or rather relics of an Age that has long-since passed on this world. Learn it, get over it, and live in the present time frame please.

To continue to hold the NPO for crimes attributed to a Pacifica long-since passed is nothing short of hypocrisy. For have we not allowed GOONS, \m/, and most recently /b/ to reform on Planet Bob? Surely, none of these alliances were beacons of justice, and goodwill towards the people and alliances of Planet Bob. Yet, here they are with a fresh-slate and a second chance. Now, would you not agree that it it would be the greatest injustice of all to simply withhold this same gift to the NPO for the events of an ancient time?

Maybe the conduct of NPO has changed, maybe it hasn't, either way it is rather arrogant and absurd for anybody here to try and claim that the New Pacific Order should not be afforded the same good wiled nature that others have been afforded in this game. For it is simply that, a game. Now with that being said, everyone needs to tone down there levels of rhetoric in this topic and realize that your either not in a position of relevance to do anything to anyone and by continuing to beat on your chest, in fact are only providing yourself to be a steady supply amusement for your enemies, and embarrassment to your own alliance as well as those associated to you. Like myself for instance.

So in conclusion, control your outbursts and sit down already; your not helping anyone with your chest-beating. If your wondering who this is directed at, it's anyone whom associates themselves with Nueva Vida or by extension SuperComplaints.

[Thrash]

Thank you, Owned-You! Well said. I knew I still liked you guys even though you declared on us.

Unfortunately, your words will fall on deaf ears.

[NationRuler]

[quote name='Owned-You' date='04 May 2010 - 05:45 PM' timestamp='1273013106' post='2286868']
Now, would you not agree that it it would be the greatest injustice of all to simply withhold this same gift to the NPO for the events of an ancient time?
[/quote]

No I wouldn't. It's the same NPO. And I don't give a clean slate to GOONS, \m/, or /b/. If they didn't want to be the same alliance, they wouldn't have the same name.

I want people to remember all of the honorable things CSN has done. I'll remember all the things those alliances did too. Not grudges, just judgments based upon past actions.

[silentkiller]

[quote name='NationRuler' date='05 May 2010 - 12:25 AM' timestamp='1273015500' post='2286917']
No I wouldn't. It's the same NPO. And I don't give a clean slate to GOONS, \m/, or /b/. If they didn't want to be the same alliance, they wouldn't have the same name.

I want people to remember all of the honorable things CSN has done. I'll remember all the things those alliances did too. Not grudges, just judgments based upon past actions.
[/quote]

In that case await our wars of vengeance against your alliance and most of Karma then

[Lord Brendan]

NR, the whole point of imposing reparations was so that they could make amends for the wrongs they've committed. Once they've completed their terms, they should not be treated with any prejudice based on actions taken before the Karma War.

A criminal who completes his prison sentence might still be put on some kind of dangerous offender list, but they are nevertheless given the chance to show if they've changed.

The New Pacific Order has suffered for what they've done. Some think the punishment was too light, some think it was too heavy. I'd say it was just enough. No more is necessary unless they fall back into their old ways once again.

Edited May 4, 2010 by Lord Brendan

[Owned-You]

[quote name='NationRuler' date='04 May 2010 - 06:25 PM' timestamp='1273015500' post='2286917']
No I wouldn't. It's the same NPO. And I don't give a clean slate to GOONS, \m/, or /b/. If they didn't want to be the same alliance, they wouldn't have the same name.

I want people to remember all of the honorable things CSN has done. I'll remember all the things those alliances did too. Not grudges, just judgments based upon past actions.
[/quote]

Then I assume you'd be advocating war on GOONS, \m/, and /b/? As others have been passively and directly doing in this topic against NPO? Furthermore, I'm not telling you to forget the past by any means; to do so would be idiotic as the only means of judging a persons character is there record. What I am saying though, is that until NPO is given an opportunity to demonstrate there actions free of surrender clauses and saber-rattling as the alliances above are doing at this very instance; then NPO should be afforded the same opportunity.