Rose's Surrender

[Auctor]

It's hinged on an entire set of of postulates that aren't applicable. Yes, we're unlikely to win a future war in a political atmosphere that doesn't radically change, No, it won't radically change. If we kowtow to this falsehood that acting aggressively towards defensive threats is wrong, then we will merely be targeted again and again and lose more than we can hope to gain through any means. I guess it's pretty sad for you that you got nuked a few times or whatever, but the bottom line is that what you are offering doesn't improve the outcome for our membership, even if there's a few dollars here or there in it for them.

 

You also seem to assume that we can afford just to buy up to 1.5k infra per city(we can't) or that we could afford to do that while paying out 800mil(lol). At the end of the day though, the principle that continued war is more justifiable to our membership than peace along the lines proposed remains.

[Etgfrog]

BK:

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

This number is a bit skewed since we recently kicked ALOT of inactive nations.

[Woot]

If NPO won and had BK under their thumb I can only imagine what they'd ask for. Dissolve all the treaties, pay (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) level reparations for the next year?

 

Of course, 500 million is more than it sounds like if you adjust it for how impoverished NPO has always been in terms of nation/infra wealth. Maybe the rest of their inseparable anti-Syndisphere coalition can pitch in?

[Roquentin]

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.

 

Um, we've always had issues with some people not being too active due to a lack of general interest in PW or feeling they're doing too much if they focus on both games or RL and it's not do with the war. I've been very frank about it. Tbh, part of the reason we're in the position we are financially is precisely because we funded a lot of cities and 1500 infra builds earlier on and had a really high rate of attrition, and they didn't pay back entirely before deleting due to a loss of interest in nationsims/RL so it left us in a precarious position financially for the last war. 

[Auctor]

If NPO won and had BK under their thumb I can only imagine what they'd ask for. Dissolve all the treaties, pay (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) level reparations for the next year?

Gosh, that would be a really good point if it wasn't based on events so old and people so long gone that my balls have moss growing on them just reading it.

[Guest Curufinwe]

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.

 

I think Psweet's point was that the opportunity costs associated with not paying the requested reps are higher than the costs associated with paying them and ending the war.  As in you've likely lost more than 800mil (which is actually a deceptive number, since our last request was actually 200mil up front and 600mil over 30 days when we last spoke, meaning that the bulk of your current hoard would be available to finance rebuilding if peace was signed tomorrow and the remaining 600mil would therefore be easier to raise through taxes) by choosing to continue the war (in both lost taxes and in infra and military destroyed) than you would have if peace had been signed a couple of weeks ago.  From an economic perspective he's probably correct, but then this seems to transcend economics for you guys so perhaps it's not an argument NPO finds compelling.

 

 

Tbh, part of the reason we're in the position we are financially is precisely because we funded a lot of cities and 1500 infra builds earlier on and had a really high rate of attrition, and they didn't pay back entirely before deleting due to a loss of interest in nationsims/RL so it left us in a precarious position financially for the last war. 

 

As for that, you probably shouldn't have started the war if your financial position was so precarious.  Just throwing that out there  

[Roquentin]

I think Psweet's point was that the opportunity costs associated with not paying the requested reps are higher than the costs associated with paying them and ending the war.  As in you've likely lost more than 800mil (which is actually a deceptive number, since our last request was actually 200mil up front and 600mil over 30 days when we last spoke, meaning that the bulk of your current hoard would be available to finance rebuilding if peace was signed tomorrow and the remaining 600mil would therefore be easier to raise through taxes) by choosing to continue the war (in both lost taxes and in infra and military destroyed) than you would have if peace had been signed a couple of weeks ago.  From an economic perspective he's probably correct, but then this seems to transcend economics for you guys so perhaps it's not an argument NPO finds compelling.

 

 

 

As for that, you probably shouldn't have started the war if your financial position was so precarious.  Just throwing that out there

 

I'm talking about the last war. We deliberately kept things cheap and stayed low so this wouldn't be as hard to recover from and we could have somewhat of a reserve.

 

Buying 1.5k infra for even 500 cities would require billions we don't have and would take a while to raise.  The reps would make it difficult. We could have restarted building now, yes, if we had agreed to your terms, but it'd be in a precarious position where we'd be subject to attack whenever someone is ready.

 

As you said this isn't just about the economics, though.

 

It's still less bad than waiting for you to start the next war and this way we got to do damage.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[Auctor]

Yeah, this "you shouldn't've started the war" stuff is pretty disingenuous when the other option was to wait for you guys to fully militarize and hit first instead. It'd've been better for you but not really better for us.

[Beatrix]

Um, we've always had issues with some people not being too active due to a lack of general interest in PW or feeling they're doing too much if they focus on both games or RL and it's not do with the war. I've been very frank about it. Tbh, part of the reason we're in the position we are financially is precisely because we funded a lot of cities and 1500 infra builds earlier on and had a really high rate of attrition, and they didn't pay back entirely before deleting due to a loss of interest in nationsims/RL so it left us in a precarious position financially for the last war. 

 

You're an alliance that has come from another browser game, actively recruits & has become one of the biggest alliances in the game very quickly and you're telling me you have "activity issues" that significantly supersede any issues other alliances have? I don't think so. Your alliance has 1 member above 1k TS, 1/4th of your alliance hasn't been active in days, you've led your alliance through slaughter in a failed war and now you refuse to surrender to the detriment of your own members.

 

It's no wonder tS keeps winning with incompetent people like yourself at the helm.

[greatkitteh]

I'm telling you that NPO will suffer most from the decision of your government & your first response is "So?" ?

This isnt your Tto. NPO members dont go pixel hugging because Roquentin did something stupid or fought a war.

[Auctor]

You're an alliance that has come from another browser game, actively recruits & has become one of the biggest alliances in the game very quickly and you're telling me you have "activity issues" that significantly supersede any issues other alliances have? I don't think so. Your alliance has 1 member above 1k TS, 1/4th of your alliance hasn't been active in days, you've led your alliance through slaughter in a failed war and now you refuse to surrender to the detriment of your own members.

 

It's no wonder tS keeps winning with incompetent people like yourself at the helm.

 LEAVE NPO MEMBERS ALONE! OMG OMG OMG!

[Roquentin]

You're an alliance that has come from another browser game, actively recruits & has become one of the biggest alliances in the game very quickly and you're telling me you have "activity issues" that significantly supersede any issues other alliances have? I don't think so. Your alliance has 1 member above 1k TS, 1/4th of your alliance hasn't been active in days, you've led your alliance through slaughter in a failed war and now you refuse to surrender to the detriment of your own members.

 

It's no wonder tS keeps winning with incompetent people like yourself at the helm.

 

Yes. I could go down the list and describe why each person happens to be inactive since I know the reasons in most cases.  There's also less incentive for us to purge with the tax system.  BK purged a ton of people recently. You can't really try to chalk this up to NPO.

 

I couldn't care less what you think frankly. Ever since you started posting, you've just been a tS sycophant. I've proven my value to the people who matter.

[Guest Curufinwe]

I'm talking about the last war. We deliberately kept things cheap and stayed low so this wouldn't be as hard to recover from and we could have somewhat of a reserve.

 

Buying 1.5k infra for even 500 cities would require billions we don't have and would take a while to raise.  The reps would make it difficult. We could have restarted building now, yes, if we had agreed to your terms, but it'd be in a precarious position where we'd be subject to attack whenever someone is ready.

 

As you said this isn't just about the economics, though.

 

It's still less bad than waiting for you to start the next war and this way we got to do damage.

 

Fairly limited damage, given your somewhat compressed score range, but sure.  Of course, keeping you in a low income, low infra spot while larger coalition nations on our side can begin rebuilding without fear of attack due to your limited range arguably helps us more than it does you if we're looking forward to this next war you believe is going to occur, since it limits your economic potential more than it does ours.  This in turn limits your military potential for the hypothetical next war (through lost income), meaning that NPO may end up being less effective than it otherwise might be in any future conflict (especially if the current state of affairs leads to attrition on your side, which is likely to occur).

 

But yes, you are doing damage.

[Pangui]

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.

Absolutely false. UPN and Polaris are stuck in a state of perpetual war with BK because the BK wants to petty. The Covenant had terms given to us by coalition we are fighting against just to have them pulled because they also want to throw the New Pacific Order in with us. Meanwhile, VE, Rose and SK were all granted seperate peace. I'll gladly stand by the New Pacific Order if you wish you group us together.

 

I also laid a finger on the BK upper tier, I did fine.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Pangui

[Roquentin]

Fairly limited damage, given your somewhat compressed score range, but sure.  Of course, keeping you in a low income, low infra spot while larger coalition nations on our side can begin rebuilding without fear of attack due to your limited range arguably helps us more than it does you if we're looking forward to this next war you believe is going to occur, since it limits your economic potential more than it does ours.  This in turn limits your military potential for the hypothetical next war (through lost income), meaning that NPO may end up being less effective than it otherwise might be in any future conflict (especially if the current state of affairs leads to attrition on your side, which is likely to occur).

 

But yes, you are doing damage.

 

I was talking overall and not just now. The benefits of having attacked you are clear.  There isn't exactly a "future conflict" where we have a shot anyway and we'd just get knocked down anyway.  You are essentially trying to sell us on "well you guys might have more money for when we curbstomp you next"  and it doesn't really work on us on various levels.   There's going to be attrition anyway.

Edited October 2, 2016 by Roquentin

[Yosodog]

I also laid a finger on the BK upper tier, I did fine.

 

I felt violated. Then we were getting help, and !@#$ing John nuked you. smh

[Kastor]

If NPO won and had BK under their thumb I can only imagine what they'd ask for. Dissolve all the treaties, pay (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) level reparations for the next year?

 

Of course, 500 million is more than it sounds like if you adjust it for how impoverished NPO has always been in terms of nation/infra wealth. Maybe the rest of their inseparable anti-Syndisphere coalition can pitch in?

Rose has about $250m after the massive reps you guys took from them and they were the richest alliance.

 

Congratulations, you've effectively killed yourselves simply by taking their money and prolonging this war. You may think it's on NPO for paying the reps but it isn't. After everyone war the sides usually have money to rebuild, or at least Rose does and can rebuild easily. If you take all of NPO and UPN's money pretty much everything will be done for Paracov. They'll just get back below to where they are in 3 months and you can't hit them there because they'll be too low to hit. So you'll end up infighting or stagnation. Which both make people leave.

 

You're literally killing your own bloc by doing this.

[Guest Curufinwe]

Yeah, this "you shouldn't've started the war" stuff is pretty disingenuous when the other option was to wait for you guys to fully militarize and hit first instead. It'd've been better for you but not really better for us.

Actually I'd argue that it's you that's being disingenuous here by implying that our decision to order a buildup is what led to the war breaking out.  We ordered a buildup less than 20 hours before we were hit and that was only in response to the fact that AAs on your side of the treaty web had been building for about a week at that point.  In that sense, our decision to mobilize was purely reactive - we were responding to a decision made by your coalition partners, not the other way around.  Whatever your opinion on hypothetical future wars that may or not broken out at some time in the future, the fact remains that you and your allies deliberately choose the time and place of this one - trying to turn it around and claim that you only attacked us because we ordered a buildup completely overlooks that we were responding to a cycle of events you and your friends initiated.  

 

 

I was talking overall and not just now. The benefits of having attacked you are clear.  There isn't exactly a "future conflict" where we have a shot anyway and we'd just get knocked down anyway.  You are essentially trying to sell us on "well you guys might have more money for when we curbstomp you next"  and it doesn't really work on us on various levels.   There's going to be attrition anyway.

 

I'm not actually trying to sell you on anything - I'm simply pointing out the disadvantages to your position from an economic standpoint.  Yeah, you can do some limited damage to our lower tier (which isn't where we make the bulk of our money) and your upper tier will remain in the 800 to 1k score range (or go inactive, which seems to have already occurred in a few cases) because if you try to rebuild them our unengaged middle and upper tier will knock them back down again.  You do a little damage now and thereby remove your ability to potentially do a greater amount of damage later.  It's your call to make; I'm highlighting the opportunity costs associated with doing so. 

[Pangui]

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.

The thing is, we did untie ourselves. Paragon and The Covenant separated, it was Paragon's way to try to create a more interesting game. SK then joins with them. "Yay less treaties, more spheres!"

 

The Syndisphere's next major move? BK signs with Mensa to even further consolidate your sphere. What I see a lot of is "You guys are too big so you guys should separate, and you FORCE us to do things because you won't separate". No, you are actively choosing to consolidate your sphere regardless of what we do. Your treaty with Mensa is proof of that. Just like you can't force us to accept reps, we can't force to you to sign alliances. 

 

Let me flip the script for you. Maybe that Syndisphere's consolidation FORCED ParaCov to align again? 

Edited October 2, 2016 by Pangui

[WarriorSoul]

Absolutely false. UPN and Polaris are stuck in a state of perpetual war with BK because the BK wants to petty. The Covenant had terms given to us by coalition we are fighting against just to have them pulled because they also want to throw the New Pacific Order in with us. Meanwhile, VE, Rose and SK were all granted seperate peace. I'll gladly stand by the New Pacific Order if you wish you group us together.

 

I also laid a finger on the BK upper tier, I did fine.

I don't think we're being petty. My total infra destroyed stat is just shit and I really wanna get it up.

[hadesflames]

If NPO won and had BK under their thumb I can only imagine what they'd ask for. Dissolve all the treaties, pay (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) level reparations for the next year?

Speculation is not a substitute for actual evidence. This statement is completely unfounded, whether or not it may be true, it's yet to be seen.

 

Maybe the rest of their inseparable anti-Syndisphere coalition can pitch in?

You must have missed the point where it DID separate, and your side forced it back together...

 

if we're looking forward to this next war you believe is going to occur

Can we stop this disengenous garbage about how the only reason the same war keeps on happening is because of ParaCov, and that you people were totally not planning to hit them? I mean sure maybe you weren't planning to hit them within a week or two of when the war happened, but unless you're telling me you were planning to split your sphere in half and hit each other for lulz, you know for a fact that eventually you would have rolled Paragon or Cov, and then after destroying one effortlessly, turned your sights on the other to do the same. This war was forced by the fact that when ParaCov tried to split, all tS-OO did was further consolidate among each other. What exactly are we supposed to extrapolate from that? lol.

 

This in turn limits your military potential for the hypothetical next war (through lost income), meaning that NPO may end up being less effective than it otherwise might be in any future conflict (especially if the current state of affairs leads to attrition on your side, which is likely to occur).

The next war will surely be loads of fun. tS and OO hitting the inactive remains of whatever's left of the world not in your sphere...I can see the circlejerk already!

[Foltest]

While I appreciate being mentioned in a Roq Wall of Words, I do have to correct one thing. I don't think I somehow influenced NPO to offer reps. I petitioned BK gov to ask for them.

 

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.

 

I quoted these two because they're an excellent summary of the arguments thusfar without being overtly wordy.

 

Gosh, that would be a really good point if it wasn't based on events so old and people so long gone that my balls have moss growing on them just reading it.

I know we're doing the whole narrative/propaganda thing right now but I really can't let this one slide.

 

Look at who your Emperor is and get back to me on how old and gone the people who have demanded crazy reps are.

[Foltest]

The thing is, we did untie ourselves. Paragon and The Covenant separated, it was Paragon's way to try to create a more interesting game. SK then joins with them. "Yay less treaties, more spheres!"

 

The Syndisphere's next major move? BK signs with Mensa to even further consolidate your sphere. What I see a lot of is "You guys are too big so you guys should separate, and you FORCE us to do things because you won't separate". No, you are actively choosing to consolidate your sphere regardless of what we do. Your treaty with Mensa is proof of that. Just like you can't force us to accept reps, we can't force to you to sign alliances. 

 

Let me flip the script for you. Maybe that Syndisphere's consolidation FORCED ParaCov to align again?

This is so wrong it could be an article on the Onion.

 

Black Knights aggressively sign a new treaty in an attempt to provoke newly-separated ParaCov.

[Woot]

The next war will surely be loads of fun. tS and OO hitting the inactive remains of whatever's left of the world not in your sphere...I can see the circlejerk already!

 

First they cry that they're all totally beaten and splitting up, and as I start to actually believe it I wake up to a surprise attack.

 

Now they're say that they're quitting the game and not even going to play anymore. But for some reason, I'm not letting my guard down.

[War Hawk]

I also laid a finger on the BK upper tier, I did fine.

 

It's not how you start, it's how you finish. Have fun rebuilding.