Chief Savage Man Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300352445' post='2667517'] Actually, I'm assuming the opposite of the idea that all your slots will be filled all the time. Hence why you continue tech deals. Surely an alliance with your vaunted organizational skills shouldn't have trouble organizing both tech deals and reps payments. [/quote] It's a two way street. It would require both Umbrella and NPO to be equally organized and equally motivated to send reps. Remember that the people who send aid payments have to actually send those payments. We can't do that for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300351801' post='2667513'] 2-3 days times 3 aid cycles (number of aid cycles in a standard tech deal)= 6 to 9 days lost. That's below the 10 days you'd need to lose in order for it to be of equivalent efficiency to a standard tech deal. Still not correct. [/quote] It's not correct by your standards, it works for us. If you want to start the argument that Umbrella's standards and systems for importing tech are flawed then good luck with that one. Like I said, there is little confidence that an alliance paying reps would be able to match our own importation even with the round that is used for paying for the tech is taken out. If we had poor slot usage and tech importation then it might be worth the hassle, but for us it wouldn't be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysol Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Ryan Greenberg' timestamp='1300342344' post='2667291'] Karma did nothing. It was a grudge war. The rhetoric was mostly propaganda. Hell, most of the Karma alliances were in the Hegemony until the very end... [/quote] Yeah, NpO had a treaty with the grand hedgemeister of them all, NPO, and canceled on them mid war after refusing to come to their aid. How dishonorable NpO is.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1300352579' post='2667519'] It's not correct by your standards, it works for us. If you want to start the argument that Umbrella's standards and systems for importing tech are flawed then good luck with that one. Like I said, there is little confidence that an alliance paying reps would be able to match our own importation even with the round that is used for paying for the tech is taken out. If we had poor slot usage and tech importation then it might be worth the hassle, but for us it wouldn't be. [/quote] So basically what you're saying is, the math works out, reps are more efficient, but I'm going to continue claiming that they don't in magical Umbrella-land, with no evidence to support me. Ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasin Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300351433' post='2667507'] I think you missed the point. [/quote] the point is that NPO and NSO are two different alliances with different circumstances, so they'll be treated differently. is that so difficult to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 The whole inefficiency dynamic isn't the only reason. The TOP example was used where people kept slots open waiting for reps and didn't get them very fast. However, the bottom line is this: it's been a long standing unofficial policy not to take reps, regardless of how unpopular or popular they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Kalasin' timestamp='1300353002' post='2667524'] the point is that NPO and NSO are two different alliances with different circumstances, so they'll be treated differently. is that so difficult to understand? [/quote] No, the point is that these "terms" are designed to cripple NPO, not create a fun war for DH and ensure that everyone's fought like they claim. Also, your irrational hatred of NSO is amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalasin Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300353103' post='2667527'] No, the point is that these "terms" are designed to cripple NPO, not create a fun war for DH and ensure that everyone's fought like they claim. Also, your irrational hatred of NSO is amusing. [/quote] i don't hate NSO, i just think they are awful. there is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300352899' post='2667523'] So basically what you're saying is, the math works out, reps are more efficient, but I'm going to continue claiming that they don't in magical Umbrella-land, with no evidence to support me. Ok. [/quote] Yeas, magical Umbrella-land, where we operate with a 90% aid slot efficiency and import more tech in a given period than an alliance five times our size. If only such a place existed then we might actually know what we're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300352899' post='2667523'] So basically what you're saying is, the math works out, reps are more efficient, but I'm going to continue claiming that they don't in magical Umbrella-land, with no evidence to support me. Ok. [/quote] Reps are more efficient than Umbrella's importation system [b]assuming that the reparation-payers keep all of Umbrella's slots all of the time[/b]. This has never happened and it certainly will not happen with NPO. Technically they [i]can[/i] be more efficient but assuming many many many different things, the likelihood of which is low. And since there is plenty of evidence that NPO is not that fast at paying reps (due to their huge reparations from the Karma War), it would make no sense at all for Umbrella to take reparations from the New Pacific Order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Conrad Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='D34th' timestamp='1300348701' post='2667482'] I know and I'm talking exactly about that, one of the functions of preemptive attacks is forbid the enemy nations to hide in peace mode. Isn't NPO fault if DH's members were so excited in attack NPO that started to talk about the attacks and make propaganda more than a week before of the attack happen, DH was predictable and incompetent in their preemptive attack and are the only one who should be blamed/punished for it. [/quote] Will the great Polar war machine teach us how to fight next time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1300353198' post='2667530'] Reps are more efficient than Umbrella's importation system [b]assuming that the reparation-payers keep all of Umbrella's slots all of the time[/b]. This has never happened and it certainly will not happen with NPO. Technically they [i]can[/i] be more efficient but assuming many many many different things, the likelihood of which is low. And since there is plenty of evidence that NPO is not that fast at paying reps (due to their huge reparations from the Karma War), it would make no sense at all for Umbrella to take reparations from the New Pacific Order. [/quote] In order for this to be true, you would have to be operating a tech-importing system where you don't pay for your tech. Is that the case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300353541' post='2667533'] In order for this to be true, [/quote] Incorrect, it is possible for receiving free tech to be less efficient than paying for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Kowalski' timestamp='1300353796' post='2667534'] Incorrect, it is possible for receiving free tech to be less efficient than paying for it. [/quote] Only if you assume that NPO is more than 3 days late for each batch of tech for a month. Edited March 17, 2011 by Varianz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300354099' post='2667536'] Only if you assume that NPO is more than 3 days late for each batch of tech for a month. [/quote] Which they will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrwuss Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300353541' post='2667533'] In order for this to be true, you would have to be operating a tech-importing system where you don't pay for your tech. Is that the case? [/quote] Yes they force us to send them tech with no return of dongs. If we don't then we are forced to read posts from you about why we should demand reps. Let's give it a litmus test; you send Savage 50 tech a round for a year and if you never miss a cycle then you win the useless areguement and can continue to send tech to savage forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varianz Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Chief Savage Man' timestamp='1300354178' post='2667537'] Which they will be. [/quote] And now we've reached the point of assumptions, and I'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kowalski Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Are you saying we should assume that they'll be on time? Now we've reached the point of assumptions, I'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) I love how Doom House thinks we're on the ropes. Hell, I'm just getting into the part of the war where I start eating their little ones. *Works on fashioning his next warhead for delivery. With great and delicate care not to damage the core.* Anyone have some timer cord? Needs to be precise to about a millisecond. Edited March 17, 2011 by Maelstrom Vortex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Savage Man Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300354448' post='2667540'] And now we've reached the point of assumptions, and I'm done. [/quote] It's a safe assumption. Not meant as an insult to NPO. No alliance has paid off their reps at that rate, not TOP, not NPO, not MK, not anybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobb Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300349300' post='2667491'] I'm kind of curious about this too. It's not like you have to stop tech-dealing or your own internal aid programs while getting reps. I'm more inclined to believe that the DH alliances know it would be political suicide to charge NPO reps, and are making excuses for not doing so. [/quote] I'm not sure if you noticed it, but yes, they're both part of the reasoning why we're not seeking massive reps from NPO just as Ardus said on the page before your post: [quote name='Ardus' timestamp='1300346325' post='2667446'] 1. You could not pay such reps after emerging from peace mode. 2. Reparations are inefficient and would result in us growing at a slower speed than is otherwise attainable. 3. There is no point in continuing the war once your top-tier has emerged and fought. 4. Doing so would wipe out diplomatic capacity save with a few allies. This would result in the demolition of the Doomhouse's power and influence. 5. I've said since very early on in the war that we would not demand reparations of NPO and have remained constant in that. OOC: 6. It'd be bad for the game. [/quote] And to add, from my personal experience I can say that the flow of reps can be quite unreliable, even to the point where tech buying gets you better efficiency at tech import. The same experiences are shared throughout the Kingdom, which is why a large number of us think reps are not always worth the trouble. Edited March 17, 2011 by Lord Gobb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banksy Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300349694' post='2667496'] - reps are efficient etc - [/quote] bro, we've been taking in reps for the last couple of years now, and we are sort of becoming experts in them. they are inefficient. our nations that were designated reps always have lower aid slot usage than those who were doing normal tech deals. people sending reps send them late, they don't send them, we have wasted open slots and the whole system is a mess to organise. the people who send the reps are inevitably small nations who need the cash sent to them, so they are just as inefficient as 3/100 or 3/50 tech deals. unless we forced the NPO to only send tech with its large nations (which is not going to happen) then the aid would be late. history shows us that the NPO doesn't want to pay its reps timely. it also shows us that even if an alliance wants to (TOP), it often can't. so no, we don't want reps. and yes, they are inefficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyman Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 Doomhouse: A ) Let us Cripple you. B ) We will eventually cripple you if A does not occur. This sounds perfectly reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neneko Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Varianz' timestamp='1300348224' post='2667479'] NSO has nations who have not yet fought. Can we too expect a demand that we expose them to a month of being stomped? [/quote] I can obviously not speak for the government but I'd be surprised to see any heavy terms on NSO. The fact that you have actually fought this war have not gone unnoticed in the kingdom at least. edit: Actually think I misread your post but I'll just leave my comment there anyway. Edited March 17, 2011 by neneko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uaciaut Posted March 17, 2011 Report Share Posted March 17, 2011 [quote name='Heyman' timestamp='1300356931' post='2667558'] Doomhouse: A ) Let us Cripple you. B ) We will eventually cripple you if A does not occur. This sounds perfectly reasonable. [/quote] NPO: A) let us heavily damage your middle tier because we outnumber you there and we can even put nations into PM and back due to that. B) let us keep most of upper tier intanct C) give us white peace too Next thing you're gonna ask for OUR surrender as well, right? Hell maybe even dump 50k tech on you, at least we'd be doing it efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts