IRON Notice

[Goldie]

I think a lot of the alliances in here who are angry at IRON for canceling on them should, instead of completely blaming IRON for the loss of their pacts, look internally to seek out what in yourselves caused IRON to feel that a defense pact was not in the cards at the time, and strive to fix those issues so that maybe in the future this kind of thing won't need to happen.

[lmcfalcon12]

[quote name='Hymenbreach' date='18 July 2010 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1279477584' post='2377434']
Short memories some people have and a low level of loyalty too.
[/quote]

I have to agree. Iron's not the only ones though. Legion has purged quite a few in the last few weeks. Probably getting close to this many, only Legion and others didn't do it all at once. Interested to see what happens in the near future. I smell some interesting barbecue cooking and I don't think I'm the only once.

Good luck to all.

[NoFish]

[quote name='shilo' date='19 July 2010 - 03:29 PM' timestamp='1279567756' post='2379179']
My FAC doesn't increase aidslots. Do you have a different version?



If you check numbers, alliances had more members back then, since there were more nations around.
Regarding warchests, back in the day when I fought in the UJW, my warchest was decent enough, allowed me to fight Goons in nuclear war long enough

But I understand, noob mistakes happen
[/quote]
No, but your FAC does increase the amount of money you can move per aid cycle, which I believe is the important part as reparations are measured in money or tech, not in number of slots. Also yes alliances had more members, but they still had less total infrastructure and presumably a lower total income, thus meaning that the same amount of monetary reparations provided more of a burden on an alliance at the time.

I won't even start on the warchest tangent, as it clearly says something about your alliance's war machien if you think the warchest you had then was anywhere near sufficient for the modern age.

[ROMMELHSQ]

[quote name='NoFish' date='20 July 2010 - 03:04 AM' timestamp='1279584255' post='2379527']
[b]No, but your FAC does increase the amount of money you can move per aid cycle[/b], which I believe is the important part as reparations are measured in money or tech, not in number of slots. Also yes alliances had more members, but they still had less total infrastructure and presumably a lower total income, thus meaning that the same amount of monetary reparations provided more of a burden on an alliance at the time.
[/quote]
That's assuming that the receiving nation have a FAC. A quick look at the stats show it as one of the lowest owned wonders....



Anyway, good luck to everyone involved in this topic.

[Emperor Brutus]

[quote name='Timberland' date='19 July 2010 - 07:13 PM' timestamp='1279581185' post='2379464']
The nation of Timberland carries many cheeses to go with your wines
[/quote]
/thread

[Emphix]

You proved a lot of people wrong by taking this step, IRON Hopefully this will bring many good things to you.

[Roadie]

I personally enjoy the members of IRON very much and wish IRON the best in the future.

I can't speak for the other treaties obviously, but the cancellation of ours is the right move for both parties. It's something that I'm sure we could all see coming long ago, but as friends often do, we hang on and hold out for as long as possible.

o/ IRON
o/ Duckroll

[Locke]

This has probably been said, but I wonder if orange has a new VE.

[shahenshah]

[quote name='Vol Navy' date='19 July 2010 - 11:02 PM' timestamp='1279562503' post='2379063']
Well, we bled pixels for days waiting on you to enter in early January
[/quote]

Everything was done in coordination and consultation. Feel free to discuss this anytime, in the end it saved from much more dmg.

[quote]
EDIT: I missed the conclusion that makes the post in-topic. Such a big demonstration of ungratitude on a thread about the cancellation of a treaty that NATO valued alot (and apparently IRON not so much) is something I hadn't seen yet. I am sorry you and your friends have to be like that.
[/quote]

Yev's opinions are his and may not necessary reflect the opinions of IRON or his own AA of TOP.

Cant blame us for not having the opportunity to go to war on some's behalf.

What frankly would you want? We repay for the pixels lost? Good will price on the treaty cancellation? We apparently get all of you in wars you dont want to fight, but now you are unhappy we are lesser connected? See your own paradox?, I mean do you even know what would you want? Many of you were singing one side of the PR story of war, as soon as the treaty goes, you're quite suddenly singing the other, hell some of you were there, I know the emotions are high, and I sincerely sincerely understand some of the sentiments, but at-least be intellectually honest with ourselves.

Edited July 20, 2010 by shahenshah

[Louis Balfour]

Bold move.

I'm actually pretty interested to see what IRON has up its sleeve.

Any chance of getting a snapshot of your current treaty web up?

[Derantol]

[quote name='Louis Balfour' date='19 July 2010 - 08:52 PM' timestamp='1279597935' post='2379898']
Bold move.

I'm actually pretty interested to see what IRON has up its sleeve.

Any chance of getting a snapshot of your current treaty web up?
[/quote]

I'd be interested to see Bob's treaty web after this, actually. I wonder if these have been noted in his treaty compendium yet.

[Banksy]

It'll still looking $%&@ed up. Nothing can save the treaty web.

[Derantol]

[quote name='Banksy' date='20 July 2010 - 12:00 AM' timestamp='1279609220' post='2380216']
It'll still looking $%&@ed up. Nothing can save the treaty web.
[/quote]

I suppose you're right. Still, IRON's position may have changed a little.

EDIT: Didn't really think that comment through very thoroughly. Changed to reflect that.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Derantol

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Louis Balfour' date='20 July 2010 - 04:52 AM' timestamp='1279597935' post='2379898']
Bold move.

I'm actually pretty interested to see what IRON has up its sleeve.

Any chance of getting a snapshot of your current treaty web up?
[/quote]

Are you serious of just joking? IRON and having something up its sleeve. I wonder which ally of them orchestrated this, TOP or Valhalla. IRON isn't really an alliance that is leading, they are more the kind of followers as has been seen in the past 2-3 years.

Edited July 20, 2010 by kriekfreak

[StevieG]

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='20 July 2010 - 10:19 PM' timestamp='1279617530' post='2380336']
Are you serious of just joking? IRON and having something up its sleeve. I wonder which ally of them orchestrated this, TOP or Valhalla. IRON isn't really an alliance that is leading, they are more the kind of followers as has been seen in the past 2-3 years.
[/quote]

Keep talking out of your $@!. IRON does consult with her close allies, and obviously takes their viewpoint into consideration. The argument that this is a puppet/puppet master move holds no water.

[shilo]

[quote name='NoFish' date='20 July 2010 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1279584255' post='2379527']
No, but your FAC does increase the amount of money you can move per aid cycle, which I believe is the important part as reparations are measured in money or tech, not in number of slots. Also yes alliances had more members, but they still had less total infrastructure and presumably a lower total income, thus meaning that the same amount of monetary reparations provided more of a burden on an alliance at the time.

I won't even start on the warchest tangent, as it clearly says something about your alliance's war machien if you think the warchest you had then was anywhere near sufficient for the modern age.
[/quote]
Your attempts to first explain a non-existant inflation of prices by a supposed increase in aidslots, despite that not being true, won't find the support you're looking for by hanging onto that FAC argument. First of all, it's one of the least popular if not the least popular wonder out there. Second of all, as most reparations in war are not sent symmetrically, ie from large to large nations, or small to small, rather from large to small (money) or small to large (tech), thus guaranteeing that very likely one of the two parties not having an FAC, thus making it completely useless.
Regarding financial capabilities, that too isn't true. ODN had to pay several hundreds of millions to Goons after GW3, after a substantial loss of membership and infrastructure, and it was payed back quickly. In the UJW, nations had long since rebuild, and I remember from my own nation, most had definitely gained strength. I had 10k infra at the start for example, and I had around 200 million in my warchest. Of course that's nothing compared to today, but 2.5 years ago, it wasn't bad, and that is all that matter since you said that back then it was supposedly so much harder to accumulate money.

However, inflation had any merit would simply always be money the issue. But looking at the last war and the reparations, it's not even money, but technology.

So no, there is no inflation, there are no more aidslots, FACs are simply irrelevant in the context of this argument, and financial capabilities are not the issue, it's clogging up aidslots for weeks and months with reparations that is.

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='20 July 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1279617530' post='2380336']
Are you serious of just joking? IRON and having something up its sleeve. I wonder which ally of them orchestrated this, TOP or Valhalla. IRON isn't really an alliance that is leading, they are more the kind of followers as has been seen in the past 2-3 years.
[/quote]
A quality post, top notch content. Definitely worthy of being read again, it's that good.

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='StevieG' date='20 July 2010 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1279625307' post='2380399']
Keep talking out of your $@!. IRON does consult with her close allies, and obviously takes their viewpoint into consideration. The argument that this is a puppet/puppet master move holds no water.
[/quote]

You are absolutely correct cause since the last 2-3 years IRON has totally be independent right?

[nitropenta]

How will this affect the IRON-Grämlins war?

[Lord Emares]

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='19 July 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1279551384' post='2378832']
What do BAPS have to do with ANYTHING? Your logic is seriously flawed, because we bailed on BAPS(don't quote me on that, I cannot be bothered to history right now) we're not allowed to comment on an alliance taking a new FA direction and how stupidly they're going about doing it?

What?
[/quote]

Didn't say you couldn't. Was just pointing out the hypocrisy of Quinoa Rex on his high horse when he said "I guarantee that had MK done such a thing" referring to the (in his view) objectionable nature of cancelling on allies who went to bat for you. Sure criticise away, I don't really give two beans whether or not you criticise people, but if you are going to criticise don't do it in a "hurf durf we're better than you" way when your alliance has done precisely the same thing in the past.

so tl;dr I wasn't attacking the message, but the delivery of said message. Now back to your regularly scheduled criticisms please.

[Bob Janova]

I wish I had saved a link to the post I wrote about nation inflation in the thread about the reps being demanded of TOP and IRON. But essentially, inflation in terms of aid capacity and therefore the burden of rep demands stopped in 2008, as alliances reached the point where almost all their nations have the required infrastructure (around 4000) to send out $15m a cycle. The only reason that 'pre-Karma' and 'post-Karma' reparation precedents are different is because of increased greed.

Oh, Search did my job for me. [url=http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=83752&view=findpost&p=2249028]Here's some food for thought about using 'inflation' as an argument for ever-increasing reps[/url].

[Seipher Caim]

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='20 July 2010 - 11:19 AM' timestamp='1279617530' post='2380336']
Are you serious of just joking? IRON and having something up its sleeve. I wonder which ally of them orchestrated this, TOP or Valhalla. IRON isn't really an alliance that is leading, they are more the kind of followers as has been seen in the past 2-3 years.
[/quote]

I generally like your style but you're completely wrong here my dear Arexes.
And I can only smile and laugh at the thoughts of Valhalla "orchestrating" IRON's FA
Valhalla has nothing to do with those moves and we wish good luck to all the alliances involved, current and former treaty partners of ours or not !

o/ IRON
o/ MCXA
o/ NATO

[kriekfreak]

[quote name='Seipher Caim' date='20 July 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1279630586' post='2380468']
I generally like your style but you're completely wrong here my dear Arexes.
And I can only smile and laugh at the thoughts of Valhalla "orchestrating" IRON's FA
Valhalla has nothing to do with those moves and we wish good luck to all the alliances involved, current and former treaty partners of ours or not !

o/ IRON
o/ MCXA
o/ NATO
[/quote]

I think those Duckroll / Poseidon cancellations came a bit too fast after each other to think it's just a simple coincidence. And since IRON never does anything that even closely resembles 'leading', I'd like to think it was a move that was thought out by a competent ally of them. If I then take a look at their current allies, Valhalla is the most competent ally of DuckRoll and TOP the most competent ally besides Duckroll (which IRON already followed last war), I come to the conclusion that it has to be either of those.

If I am correct, I also know that you cannot admit this publicly . If I'm not correct about Valhalla orchestrating this move, it has to be TOP then.

Either way, issue solved

[chefjoe]

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='20 July 2010 - 06:06 AM' timestamp='1279631157' post='2380473']
I think those Duckroll / Poseidon cancellations came a bit too fast after each other to think it's just a simple coincidence. And since IRON never does anything that even closely resembles 'leading', I'd like to think it was a move that was thought out by a competent ally of them. If I then take a look at their current allies, [b]Valhalla is the most competent ally of DuckRoll [/b]and TOP the most competent ally besides Duckroll (which IRON already followed last war), I come to the conclusion that it has to be either of those.

If I am correct, I also know that you cannot admit this publicly . If I'm not correct about Valhalla orchestrating this move, it has to be TOP then.

Either way, issue solved
[/quote]

Whether you are wrong or not about us influencing IRONs FA, I will say thank you for the compliment

[Dom Zak]

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='20 July 2010 - 09:06 AM' timestamp='1279631157' post='2380473']
I think those Duckroll / Poseidon cancellations came a bit too fast after each other to think it's just a simple coincidence. And since IRON never does anything that even closely resembles 'leading', I'd like to think it was a move that was thought out by a competent ally of them. If I then take a look at their current allies, Valhalla is the most competent ally of DuckRoll and TOP the most competent ally besides Duckroll (which IRON already followed last war), I come to the conclusion that it has to be either of those.

If I am correct, I also know that you cannot admit this publicly . If I'm not correct about Valhalla orchestrating this move, it has to be TOP then.

Either way, issue solved
[/quote]

Wow, you couldn't be even more wrong. This was a decision made by IRON and IRON only. Why can you not accept that?

[nikko]

[quote name='kriekfreak' date='20 July 2010 - 04:06 PM' timestamp='1279631157' post='2380473']
I think those Duckroll / Poseidon cancellations came a bit too fast after each other to think it's just a simple coincidence. And since IRON never does anything that even closely resembles 'leading', I'd like to think it was a move that was thought out by a competent ally of them. If I then take a look at their current allies, Valhalla is the most competent ally of DuckRoll and TOP the most competent ally besides Duckroll (which IRON already followed last war), I come to the conclusion that it has to be either of those.

If I am correct, I also know that you cannot admit this publicly . If I'm not correct about Valhalla orchestrating this move, it has to be TOP then.

Either way, issue solved
[/quote]

Yeah, it seems you've figured it all out. Well done !