Rose's Surrender

[Yosodog]

Think your bottom tier is complaining a lot more than our alliance is/will. We just did the economic calculations, and we can do this indefinitely, or until you pay us the 1 billion in reps, or however much we are asking for now - should be going up with your losses in the war. This war has done miracles for pretty much every stat I have - so thank you.

 

Of course you guys can keep going at war. The question is, can you guys continue to grow while at war? BK can. Can your allies continue to grow? Can your allies continue to perma-war?

 

The damage you guys are doing right now is negligible compared to the lost revenue and growth you all will have.

Edited October 1, 2016 by Yosodog

[Sam Hyde]

-snip-

 

reps when

[War Hawk]

This argument about how members will suffer has always been a silly one in every universe it gets played out in. In this one it is particularly silly because the alternative you are offering is paying a giant amount of what could be our rebuild fund for the privilege of getting jumped on in three months again. It's cheaper and more internally justifiable to continue fighting.

 

Your members aren't the only ones being dragged through the mud. Both UPN and Polaris are stuck in a state of perpetual war because the government of NPO wants to be petty. 

 

Your entire coalition can't lay a finger on BK's upper tier - the same upper tier that can fund our lower tier indefinitely.

[Auctor]

Lol, anything we could possibly make would just be taken out in 3 months anyway. And frankly, after paying the kind of reps we are being asked anyway, we'd be lucky just to get to where we were before the war in time to get rolled next one. It's pretty easy for a side that is used to losing minimal amounts of infra to discount the costs to rebuy it.

You guys are choosing to hold UPN and Polaris hostage, that's not on us.

[Sam Hyde]

Lol, anything we could possibly make would just be taken out in 3 months anyway. And frankly, after paying the kind of reps we are being asked anyway, we'd be lucky just to get to where we were before the war in time to get rolled next one. It's pretty easy for a side that is used to losing minimal amounts of infra to discount the costs to rebuy it.

You guys are choosing to hold UPN and Polaris hostage, that's not on us.

 

reps when

[Auctor]

try harder.

[Kastor]

Except the amount of reps you'd be paying is *utterly inconsequential* compared to the opportunity costs of continuing a pointless war, and also compared to how much you guys generally make in taxes once you are rebuilt.  

 

Keep making them excuses though.  If you really believe what you said, your alliance must be terribly fiscally mismanaged.

Roq sounds really legit to me. I wouldn't pay them reps either.

[War Hawk]

Lol, anything we could possibly make would just be taken out in 3 months anyway. 

 

That's rather presumptuous of you.

 

You guys are choosing to hold UPN and Polaris hostage, that's not on us.

 

That is on you. I'm pretty sure UPN was more than willing to pay us a reasonable amount in reps, but NPO didn't want to pay its share.

[Auctor]

That's rather presumptuous of you.

 

 

That is on you. I'm pretty sure UPN was more than willing to pay us a reasonable amount in reps, but NPO didn't want to pay its share.

 

Try and keep up with what you're saying. Our "share"? If UPN was willing to pay its "share", then what would it matter if they paid and we didn't? It only matters because yall've put into place a completely artificial construct of peace for UPN being contingent on peace with us. That's not something we created, that's on you.

[WarriorSoul]

You guys are choosing to hold UPN and Polaris hostage, that's not on us.

For one who always seems to decry others pushing narratives, you seem to be doing an awfully good job yourself. Paint us to be the bad guy, despite spearheading a preemptive attack against us.

[Roquentin]

For one who always seems to decry others pushing narratives, you seem to be doing an awfully good job yourself. Paint us to be the bad guy, despite spearheading a preemptive attack against us.

 

Turnabout is fair play. I get you weren't in BK when they hit us but you inherited their previous actions when you joined.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[Auctor]

For one who always seems to decry others pushing narratives, you seem to be doing an awfully good job yourself. Paint us to be the bad guy, despite spearheading a preemptive attack against us.

I'll boldly suggest that extrapolating one line in one post I made into an entire worldview is kinda goofy. I don't honestly give a good gosh darn who the good guys are, but if this was entirely about preemptive attacks, then BK's attack on us last war would require similar reps to be paid to us. You and I both know "that's different" because this reps thing is entirely artificial construct. There's no requirement to do anything you don't choose to do. Only a victim claims otherwise.

[Who Me]

Try and keep up with what you're saying. Our "share"? If UPN was willing to pay its "share", then what would it matter if they paid and we didn't? It only matters because yall've put into place a completely artificial construct of peace for UPN being contingent on peace with us. That's not something we created, that's on you.

Perhaps it is you that should try to keep up. You attacked together, the lack of Dow's not withstanding, you can leave together, or not at all. The choice is yours.

[War Hawk]

I'll boldly suggest that extrapolating one line in one post I made into an entire worldview is kinda goofy. I don't honestly give a good gosh darn who the good guys are, but if this was entirely about preemptive attacks, then BK's attack on us last war would require similar reps to be paid to us. You and I both know "that's different" because this reps thing is entirely artificial construct. There's no requirement to do anything you don't choose to do. Only a victim claims otherwise.

 

The amount mental-gymnastics in your statement is astounding. Please see a medical professional before you hurt someone - in Wyrdgar, of course.

[Auctor]

Perhaps it is you that should try to keep up. You attacked together, the lack of Dow's not withstanding, you can leave together, or not at all. The choice is yours.

Certainly, if that's how you want it. But that's a choice you are making. You get to own it.

[Sans]

I mean if NPO thinks taking responsibility for its actions are not what it wants to do, keeping them at war until they do is fine with me. No use in trying to convenience them otherwise until they're ready. They can enjoy the scene of their cater of an alliance until they do. Feeding their egos and contributing to their martyrdom fantasy really is a waste of breath. 

 

Keep thinking you can continue to do the same thing and get different results. I'm sure it will work eventually, lol. 

[hadesflames]

The amount mental-gymnastics in your statement is astounding. Please see a medical professional before you hurt someone - in Wyrdgar, of course.

That's funny, I was just thinking the EXACT same thing about your posts.

 

I mean if NPO thinks taking responsibility for its actions are not what it wants to do, keeping them at war until they do is fine with me. No use in trying to convenience them otherwise until they're ready. They can enjoy the scene of their cater of an alliance until they do. Feeding their egos and contributing to their martyrdom fantasy really is a waste of breath. 

 

Keep thinking you can continue to do the same thing and get different results. I'm sure it will work eventually, lol.

Oh right, we should fight the exact same war on YOUR terms instead. Makes sense. I don't know what I was thinking how silly of me. =/

Edited October 2, 2016 by hadesflames

[Psweet]

Lol, anything we could possibly make would just be taken out in 3 months anyway. And frankly, after paying the kind of reps we are being asked anyway, we'd be lucky just to get to where we were before the war in time to get rolled next one. It's pretty easy for a side that is used to losing minimal amounts of infra to discount the costs to rebuy it.

You guys are choosing to hold UPN and Polaris hostage, that's not on us.

Let's split this up so it's easier to tackle.

 

"anything we could possibly make would just be taken out in 3 months anyway."

 

I'm not really sure what you're actually claiming here.  Are you trying to claim that BK would force further reps on you?  Are you saying that NPO has no chance of winning any future war?  Or are you saying that regardless of winning or losing, the war would cost you more than you could hope to make in three months?  

 

The first statement is so defeatist that if you truly believed it, I'd have to tell you that the only rational response on your part is to quit the game.  Why continue trying to win at a game that you think is unwinnable?  Why subject yourself to that Sisyphean task?  This isn't hell.  Orbis is generally a pleasant place.  The fact that you're still here, still posting, and refusing to pay reps is proof that you have not given up hope.  So, that interpretation is out, unless you're lying, trying to manipulate opinions, or are just not terribly smart.  All of those are possible, but the point is, this interpretation makes it  a stupid statement and holds no water.

 

The second statement is quite possibly true, but highly doubtful.  BK has low tax rates, a high level of military preparedness (we call it MMR), and has fought in every major war since I joined the game over a year ago.  I still manage to grow between wars, as do my alliance mates.  If NPO cannot manage to do the same, they are horrifically run.  There are no buts about that.  There may possibly be a number of butts, but no buts.  

 

You may claim that the reps being demanded change the whole picture.  Let's run some numbers.  The last amount I've been told we were asking of you is 800m.  That might have gone up, or down, but since it's the last number I have, and since you rejected it anyways, that's what I'm using.  I recently rebuilt the infra in my own nation with cash I had been saving pre-war to build a new city.  It cost me roughly 80m to get back up to 1500 in 13 cities.  I was not hurt as badly as many of your nations were.  However, this works as a very conservative baseline:  THE REPS YOU WERE REQUESTED TO PAY IS EQUIVALENT TO REBUILDING A WHOPPING TEN NATIONS AT UPPER-MIDDLE TIER.

 

I repeat, if you cannot handle that level of payment, your alliance is run by a gaggle of monkeys with a single calculator shared between them.  This statement is stupid and holds no water.

 

 

"And frankly, after paying the kind of reps we are being asked anyway, we'd be lucky just to get to where we were before the war in time to get rolled next one. It's pretty easy for a side that is used to losing minimal amounts of infra to discount the costs to rebuy it."  

 

I think I addressed this above.  We've gotten badly hurt before.  I personally ate 7 nukes at the end of the previous war thanks to Sparta.  I had to rebuild infra mid-war just so I could keep building max military.  Don't try to palm us off as not knowing the costs of rebuilding.  Our upper tier gets utterly destroyed pretty much every single war.  We also have state-of-the-art infra calculators on the home page of our forums for easy use.  And guess what - BK keeps growing.  Our nations keep growing.  But I guess since your alliance is badly run, it can be expected that the cost of rebuilding a whole ten nations, paid out as reps, would completely incapacitate your ability to rebuild the 113 actual members. 

 

Last note: To expand on my previous post's point, continuing the war is costing you far more than the reps would, by something called "opportunity costs".  Since you guys seem to not be terribly good with finance, I will explain - Opportunity costs are costs you incur by choosing to do something else.  For example, you have $100.  You can invest that $100 in a 5% savings bond, or you can spend it on a nice pair of headphones.  If you buy the headphones, the opportunity cost is the 5% interest that you're NOT making, because you didn't buy the bond.  Alternatively if you invest it, the opportunity cost is the pair of headphones that you DON'T get to listen to, because you didn't get them.  

 

Now, your alliance has spent a lot of money, a lot of resources, and has incurred a lot of damage over this war.  But let's ignore all that as a fixed cost and be as generous to your argument as possible.  Let us assume that this war is causing your income to be reduced by half. (and we all know that it would be much much less than half realistically, but I must make this simple in case the monkeys do not let you use their calculator).  If we assume that each city creates, when built to 1500 infra, creates around $200,000 of income per day inclusive of resources (using my own nation right now, which still has significant military and is being taxed 20%, as a baseline), that means that instead you are creating only $100,000 of income per day.  NPO has over 800 cities.  800 x 100,000 = 80 million.  

 

This means that the cost of war, being OBSCENELY GENEROUS to your point of view, will pass the cost of the reparations, after ONLY TEN DAYS.  How long have you been in negotiations now?  You're only digging your hole deeper while complaining that your shovel isn't good enough quality.  

[Auctor]

It's a nice set of assumptions in a ceteris paribus world. It's a bit disingenuous to pretend this is one.

 

But if we want to talk about opportunity costs, the cost of ceding to an argument that going on the attack in a mechanical world that absolutely mandates it for the best possible outcome would have vastly more financial consequences than missing out a few months of a rebuild we wouldn't be able to afford anyway after paying reps.

[Psweet]

I was quite literally as generous to your position as I possibly could be.  Point out actual flaws instead of alluding to them, or you're just throwing out words hoping something sticks  

[Roquentin]

Yeah, you can talk about opportunity costs in an ideal world all you want, but we're living in the here and now. Our side is basically not competitive  and isn't really going to be a thing going forward from all the signs and like I said, getting the alliances together was the only way anyone outside of Syndisphere had a shot of winning a war. We took it. It didn't work out. That's that. When we we didn't keep a high military, we got mass raided and sustained over 200m in infra damage in one day from getting mass raided since there was more expensive infra at the time and we hadn't recovered the costs on a lot of it. It's very easy to sustain damage when your situation is precarious.

 

You have 13 cities, but you're not having to account for the costs of doing that on a massive scale. It adds up, so you said could build up a total of 130 cities to 1500 with 800m and have nothing left over.  Think about it for more.

 

For us, not having that would hurt significantly as it would stall our own rebuilding which would take a while without reps. We'd still have to pray we didn't get hit in a war or mass raided  while we recovered the costs of funding the purchases we could make and there are other circumstances that would factor in. Given the current situation, it's very possible for both of those to happen.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[Psweet]

If you are concerned that Syndisphere as a bloc is too powerful and cohesive, FORCING THEM to band together for self protection in the face of an aggressive attack is not the right way to go.

[Roquentin]

If you are concerned that Syndisphere as a bloc is too powerful and cohesive, FORCING THEM to band together for self protection in the face of an aggressive attack is not the right way to go.

 

You were just signing more treaties with each other anyway. This argument is very weak when taking into account the actual things preceding the war.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[WarriorSoul]

Let's split this up so it's easier to tackle.

 

"anything we could possibly make would just be taken out in 3 months anyway."

 

I'm not really sure what you're actually claiming here. Are you trying to claim that BK would force further reps on you? Are you saying that NPO has no chance of winning any future war? Or are you saying that regardless of winning or losing, the war would cost you more than you could hope to make in three months?

 

The first statement is so defeatist that if you truly believed it, I'd have to tell you that the only rational response on your part is to quit the game. Why continue trying to win at a game that you think is unwinnable? Why subject yourself to that Sisyphean task? This isn't hell. Orbis is generally a pleasant place. The fact that you're still here, still posting, and refusing to pay reps is proof that you have not given up hope. So, that interpretation is out, unless you're lying, trying to manipulate opinions, or are just not terribly smart. All of those are possible, but the point is, this interpretation makes it a stupid statement and holds no water.

 

The second statement is quite possibly true, but highly doubtful. BK has low tax rates, a high level of military preparedness (we call it MMR), and has fought in every major war since I joined the game over a year ago. I still manage to grow between wars, as do my alliance mates. If NPO cannot manage to do the same, they are horrifically run. There are no buts about that. There may possibly be a number of butts, but no buts.

 

You may claim that the reps being demanded change the whole picture. Let's run some numbers. The last amount I've been told we were asking of you is 800m. That might have gone up, or down, but since it's the last number I have, and since you rejected it anyways, that's what I'm using. I recently rebuilt the infra in my own nation with cash I had been saving pre-war to build a new city. It cost me roughly 80m to get back up to 1500 in 13 cities. I was not hurt as badly as many of your nations were. However, this works as a very conservative baseline: THE REPS YOU WERE REQUESTED TO PAY IS EQUIVALENT TO REBUILDING A WHOPPING TEN NATIONS AT UPPER-MIDDLE TIER.

 

I repeat, if you cannot handle that level of payment, your alliance is run by a gaggle of monkeys with a single calculator shared between them. This statement is stupid and holds no water.

 

 

"And frankly, after paying the kind of reps we are being asked anyway, we'd be lucky just to get to where we were before the war in time to get rolled next one. It's pretty easy for a side that is used to losing minimal amounts of infra to discount the costs to rebuy it."

 

I think I addressed this above. We've gotten badly hurt before. I personally ate 7 nukes at the end of the previous war thanks to Sparta. I had to rebuild infra mid-war just so I could keep building max military. Don't try to palm us off as not knowing the costs of rebuilding. Our upper tier gets utterly destroyed pretty much every single war. We also have state-of-the-art infra calculators on the home page of our forums for easy use. And guess what - BK keeps growing. Our nations keep growing. But I guess since your alliance is badly run, it can be expected that the cost of rebuilding a whole ten nations, paid out as reps, would completely incapacitate your ability to rebuild the 113 actual members.

 

Last note: To expand on my previous post's point, continuing the war is costing you far more than the reps would, by something called "opportunity costs". Since you guys seem to not be terribly good with finance, I will explain - Opportunity costs are costs you incur by choosing to do something else. For example, you have $100. You can invest that $100 in a 5% savings bond, or you can spend it on a nice pair of headphones. If you buy the headphones, the opportunity cost is the 5% interest that you're NOT making, because you didn't buy the bond. Alternatively if you invest it, the opportunity cost is the pair of headphones that you DON'T get to listen to, because you didn't get them.

 

Now, your alliance has spent a lot of money, a lot of resources, and has incurred a lot of damage over this war. But let's ignore all that as a fixed cost and be as generous to your argument as possible. Let us assume that this war is causing your income to be reduced by half. (and we all know that it would be much much less than half realistically, but I must make this simple in case the monkeys do not let you use their calculator). If we assume that each city creates, when built to 1500 infra, creates around $200,000 of income per day inclusive of resources (using my own nation right now, which still has significant military and is being taxed 20%, as a baseline), that means that instead you are creating only $100,000 of income per day. NPO has over 800 cities. 800 x 100,000 = 80 million.

 

This means that the cost of war, being OBSCENELY GENEROUS to your point of view, will pass the cost of the reparations, after ONLY TEN DAYS. How long have you been in negotiations now? You're only digging your hole deeper while complaining that your shovel isn't good enough quality.

As a budding economist and statistics geek, this post gave me a solid half-chub.

[Beatrix]

I was a bit curious to see how NPOs & UPNs activity levels compared to BK & VE, and Rose. Since VE and Rose left the war, and BK is comparable to NPO in sheer numbers;

 

NPO:

29/113 members have not been active in the last 4 days or above 25% of your alliance.

 

BK:

11/126 members have not been active in te last 4 days or about 8.7%.

 

 

UPN:

13/64 members have not been active in the last 4 days or a tad over 20%

 

VE:

11/72 members have not been active in the last 4 days or a tad over 15%

 

 

Rose:

6/60 members have not been active in the last 4 days or exactly 10%. 

 

 

I'm not sure what your activity levels were pre-war, but I'm almost certain that you're going to kill your alliance this way. Alliances that have "your" activity level out of the war are more active, and if you ask me, these numbers are going to just get worse.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Beatrix