Jump to content

Peace In Our Time


JT Jag
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Tiberius said:

It's pretty entertaining to see you spout that we are selfish, when you refuse to relinquish your hordes of cash for peace and instead let your communities delete away. There is a reason you are economically in a better position in peace time to us, and that is because 1. Your longevity has put you in a position to have more cities and thus a better commerce base to rebuild/stock cash etc and 2. Because you constantly rolled everyone that was ever a threat to you in quick wars which meant you never really took much damage while the defeated alliances took twice as long to be able to rebuild and that is if you didnt hit them while rebuilding. You always made sure opposing alliances could never surpass you in political and economical power. Now the script is flipped and we are going to push to level the playing field. If you want peace then you have to accept your rebuild will be compromised. You wont be able to rebuild and restock as quickly as you are used to. 

There are members of NPO who have been around just as long or even longer than members in coal A and have fought in just as many wars or even less than coal A members. Yet they are a good 4-6 cities behind their coal A counterparts with a corresponding drop in longterm productivity.

If you need to find a reason to understand the disparity in economic power, you need to look closer to home and examine the tiering choices NPO made a few years ago and their subsequent impacts.

The fact that NPO relies on 20 billion dollar loans from whales across the web to sustain its own growth  speaks volumes.

7 hours ago, Salt Meat said:

Spent a good majority of my time in "your old world" opposed to NPO, but you couldn't be more off the mark. They dominated from the very beginning, and arguably the world peaked with their defeat, and went into decline thereafter.

So you can shelve the melodramatic world killers bull.

To be honest, the quality of NPO's leaders when it first rose to power was far better than the shabby excuses we have to put up with here.

The likes of Ivan, dilber, Vlad and so on would not be overly impressed with this realm's NPO.

Can't compare two entirely different NPO's separated by a decade and a half. Heck, I was a member of that old school NPO and I would likely join an alliance like the original NPO if it was formed here. But not this poor excuse we have for an NPO which is basically a personality cult fueled by fumes of paranoia.

Edited by Charles the Tyrant
  • Upvote 4

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

There are members of NPO who have been around just as long or even longer than members in coal A and have fought in just as many wars or even less than coal A members. Yet they are a good 4-6 cities behind their coal A counterparts with a corresponding drop in longterm productivity.

If you need to find a reason to understand the disparity in economic power, you need to look closer to home and examine the tiering choices NPO made a few years ago and their subsequent impacts.

The fact that NPO relies on 20 billion dollar loans from whales across the web to sustain its own growth  speaks volumes.

To be honest, the quality of NPO's leaders when it first rose to power was far better than the shabby excuses we have to put up with here.

The likes of Ivan, dilber, Vlad and so on would not be overly impressed with this realm's NPO.

Can't compare two entirely different NPO's separated by a decade and a half. Heck, I was a member of that old school NPO and I would likely join an alliance like the original NPO if it was formed here. But not this poor excuse we have for an NPO which is basically a personality cult fueled by fumes of paranoia.

Stop comparing different times from old age to new age. People have to change and adapt as time progresses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

There are members of NPO who have been around just as long or even longer than members in coal A and have fought in just as many wars or even less than coal A members. Yet they are a good 4-6 cities behind their coal A counterparts with a corresponding drop in longterm productivity.

If you need to find a reason to understand the disparity in economic power, you need to look closer to home and examine the tiering choices NPO made a few years ago and their subsequent impacts.

The fact that NPO relies on 20 billion dollar loans from whales across the web to sustain its own growth  speaks volumes.

To be honest, the quality of NPO's leaders when it first rose to power was far better than the shabby excuses we have to put up with here.

The likes of Ivan, dilber, Vlad and so on would not be overly impressed with this realm's NPO.

Can't compare two entirely different NPO's separated by a decade and a half. Heck, I was a member of that old school NPO and I would likely join an alliance like the original NPO if it was formed here. But not this poor excuse we have for an NPO which is basically a personality cult fueled by fumes of paranoia.

I've explained the reason for the economic disparity, and it ties in to why we went the tiering route. Getting rolled war after war, and at one point the P&W hegemony wanted to roll us out of existence due to other worldly politics, meant the only option was to tier. Safety in numbers, we might not win the war but we will dominate a tier. Knightfall was the first victory for us and it still didnt give us a chance to change tact. 

The likes of those leaders would make sure your alliances disbanded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Micchan said:

You were the aggressor, you are the agressor, you will be the aggressor, don't play the victim card

I'm not coalition A. I'm merely explaining one of the reasons why we went the tiering route. Sure, you argue in those wars that we pre-empted that we were the aggressors of that's what you want to think, be my guest. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I'm not coalition A. I'm merely explaining one of the reasons why we went the tiering route. Sure, you argue in those wars that we pre-empted that we were the aggressors of that's what you want to think, be my guest. 

Do you believe you’re the aggressors this war? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Yes, we hit GOB and Guardian aggressively.

If you guys hit Chaos + Ketog defensively because of logs showing a potential threat to your security, then Chaos + Ketog hit BK defensively because of logs showing a potential threat to their security.

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, REAP3R said:

If you guys hit Chaos + Ketog defensively because of logs showing a potential threat to your security, then Chaos + Ketog hit BK defensively because of logs showing a potential threat to their security.

I mean I literally just said we hit Guardian and GOB aggressively which technically encompasses Ketog. Aggresive/Defensive is simply semantics to me. All it tends to be is a circular argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

I mean I literally just said we hit Guardian and GOB aggressively which technically encompasses Ketog. Aggresive/Defensive is simply semantics to me. All it tends to be is a circular argument. 

Seemed like you were (and still are) just avoiding the main question.

Look up to the sky above~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:

It's not a leadership problem, it's a base problem.  Your base signed up with the promise of a particular brand of "fun," and when that fun stops, they aren't going to stick it out, they're going to head home.  GOONS is a glass cannon.

As somebody who witnessed our lunar incarnation, you know this to be explicitly false.  In many incarnations we have been at material disadvantages and yet we persevered.  This world will not be rid of us so easily.  Particularly as the mechanics lend themselves well to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sardonic said:

As somebody who witnessed our lunar incarnation, you know this to be explicitly false.  In many incarnations we have been at material disadvantages and yet we persevered.  This world will not be rid of us so easily.  Particularly as the mechanics lend themselves well to us.

I'll be honest, I always forget that the lunar surface was a thing.  I couldn't remember a damn thing about that place, and I barely remember what alliance I was even in (I think it was FAN?)

I would be thrilled if your stay here was extended.  My expectations do not match my hopes.  Please surprise me.

Worst Poster Ever (2011)
zapdos.jpg.28ab9e9c974c8dc4fc52998d0e3adf14.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

I've explained the reason for the economic disparity, and it ties in to why we went the tiering route. Getting rolled war after war, and at one point the P&W hegemony wanted to roll us out of existence due to other worldly politics, meant the only option was to tier. Safety in numbers, we might not win the war but we will dominate a tier. Knightfall was the first victory for us and it still didnt give us a chance to change tact. 

The likes of those leaders would make sure your alliances disbanded.

No they wouldn't actually. Their successors, Moo onwards, were the ones who went down that route. Zi lists and so on were all products of Moo's reign. 

So you agree the economic disparity between the two spheres is a result of an internal decision made by NPO? Plus, that tiering decision wasn't made after being rolled war after war, it was made very early on, perhaps after your second war or shortly after your first perhaps iirc?

 

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

So you agree the economic disparity between the two spheres is a result of an internal decision made by NPO? Plus, that tiering decision wasn't made after being rolled war after war, it was made very early on, perhaps after your second war or shortly after your first perhaps iirc?

 

Nope. We came in later than the others, got rolled a bunch of times and were under constant threat of rolling. The necessity of tiering overtook the idea of laissez-faire growth. The economic disparity that began with the alliances being undefeated for years, including the TI shenanigans, and really never having their upper tier damaged are all things you conveniently ignore. 

2 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

No they wouldn't actually.

They actually would have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

idk why people bother responding to Charles at this point. 

1. NPO isn't its entire sphere.

2.  laissez faire alliances borrow money as well. tS borrowed a frickton from Orion. Rose borrowed a ton from horizon and others for their wo thing.

3. he doesn't know anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:

Nope. We came in later than the others, got rolled a bunch of times and were under constant threat of rolling. The necessity of tiering overtook the idea of laissez-faire growth. The economic disparity that began with the alliances being undefeated for years, including the TI shenanigans, and really never having their upper tier damaged are all things you conveniently ignore. 

They actually would have.

Which war did the tiering system come into place at then and when did NPO first implement 100% taxes bearing in mind that 100% taxes would have been the first requirement necessary for tiering

And no they wouldn't have, take it from someone who spent years talking to them almost daily whilst being a member of the same alliance after they left NPO (NSO if you are interested) due to their opposition of what NPO was becoming. Were you even around back then?

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Which war did the tiering system come into place at then and when did NPO first implement 100% taxes bearing in mind that 100% taxes would have been the first requirement necessary for tiering

And no they wouldn't have, take it from someone who spent years talking to them almost daily whilst being a member of the same alliance after they left NPO (NSO if you are interested) due to their opposition of what NPO was becoming. Were you even around back then?

Several other alliances have had tiering without it. 100% taxes were at the start and it wasn't tiered well(it was a different orientation) so we got killed by BK. We re-designed to fight BK as  BK was going to always hit us in wars if we were on opposite sides. It worked with BK too as we had to work together to fight bigger nations.

Plenty of alliances on our side don't have tiering and aren't super rich. 

Most alliances with really high amounts of cash relative to size are ones that don't fight much or had years or relatively minimal fighting. Your case is if we had outliers who'd get beat up and just nuke in wars that we'd be super rich, but they wouldn't have the luxury of the high infra needed or no war.

You'd have a better argument if you said we should have just raided everyone the entire time.

Anyway, I hope it helps to note that when individual members get overly invested in their nation size you end up with people like Gorge getting into trouble because he got too high on his growth or people who bail if their alliance takes too many hits, so I'm glad I never indulged in that.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

And no they wouldn't have, take it from someone who spent years talking to them almost daily whilst being a member of the same alliance after they left NPO (NSO if you are interested) due to their opposition of what NPO was becoming. Were you even around back then?

Why yes I was ;) 

15 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Which war did the tiering system come into place at then and when did NPO first implement 100% taxes bearing in mind that 100% taxes would have been the first requirement necessary for tiering

 

100% taxes has been there since inception since Frawley specifically designed our original economic idea, since it was the most efficient. Tiering came into place after GPW (NPOFT) as a necessity. Given that as Roq pointed out, we were designed to fight BK, and imagined it would be BK v NPO for the foreseeable future. We then redesigned it for TKR and tS' midtier to a greater success in ToT. Post ToT, other alliances started implementing tiering systems without 100/100 and it came to be advantageous during AC/KF and here. If anything tiering as a military strategy has worked. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

idk why people bother responding to Charles at this point. 

1. NPO isn't its entire sphere.

2.  laissez faire alliances borrow money as well. tS borrowed a frickton from Orion. Rose borrowed a ton from horizon and others for their wo thing.

3. he doesn't know anything.

 

1.  This point is relevant how?

2. how does a laissez faire alliance borrowing money from other laissez faire alliances counter the question of NPO's own growth suffering from its own internal decisions? Strawman much? There are people who were at City c8/10 during ToT whilst NPO were around c12/14 city average who are now at c24/26 whilst NPO is c18/21ish. That's a pretty large loss of potential revenue and productivity. Granted you can justify it by saying you amassed a huge stockpile resource which is now funding a large part of your coalition but that does not justify the argument that coal A's whales are large because they dodged wars and that is why NPO lacks a whale tier. You lack a whale tier because of your own inefficient econ system. I say inefficient not because of it being 100/100 taxes but because of your growth being deliberately held back due to NPO's decision to do so. With the amount of time NPO has been around with the collective wealth at its disposal, NPO has no excuse not to have a whale tier of its own.

This begging of 50 billion in reps which is being bandied about is nothing more than an indirect admission of NPO's poor economic management which is now on open display. A war is being prolonged for no other reason than ending it without reps will bankrupt NPO and their coalition.

3. I know enough to see through you and your shabby leadership and that's enough for me.

  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

 

1.  This point is relevant how?

2. how does a laissez faire alliance borrowing money from other laissez faire alliances counter the question of NPO's own growth suffering from its own internal decisions? Strawman much? There are people who were at City c8/10 during ToT whilst NPO were around c12/14 city average who are now at c24/26 whilst NPO is c18/21ish. That's a pretty large loss of potential revenue and productivity. Granted you can justify it by saying you amassed a huge stockpile resource which is now funding a large part of your coalition but that does not justify the argument that coal A's whales are large because they dodged wars and that is why NPO lacks a whale tier. You lack a whale tier because of your own inefficient econ system. I say inefficient not because of it being 100/100 taxes but because of your growth being deliberately held back due to NPO's decision to do so. With the amount of time NPO has been around with the collective wealth at its disposal, NPO has no excuse not to have a whale tier of its own.

This begging of 50 billion in reps which is being bandied about is nothing more than an indirect admission of NPO's poor economic management which is now on open display. A war is being prolonged for no other reason than ending it without reps will bankrupt NPO and their coalition.

3. I know enough to see through you and your shabby leadership and that's enough for me.

1.It's relevant because you're attributing overall economic disparity to us when it existed before the war and a lot of the alliances that dropped out weren't particularly well off regardless of this stuff. We don't have whales because we don't want to spend a disproportionate amount on one person.  We're not talking about NPO at all. We're talking about overall sides.  If we had a whale tier it wouldn't outnumber the other side's. The biggest nations on the other side have other sources of revenue like bank loots and other stuff that are disproportionate. Again, we could turtle and nuke but that wouldn't be productive to our aims.

It's not because the money isn't for us. We're not asking you to fund us. The money is partially due to concern of roguing with the bond and foul play and other reps for actual misdeeds. It would never go to us because we weren't the offended parties. We're just reiterating the coalition's case. I would never ask for money directly for NPO.

It won't bankrupt our coalition at all. It's about comparative advantage.  it might if we got hit right after yeah, so that's a valid fear for some alliances. We don't want to end it before some goals are accomplished. They can either be accomplished via the terms or extended duration.

 

Edited by Roquentin
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Why yes I was ;) 

100% taxes has been there since inception since Frawley specifically designed our original economic idea, since it was the most efficient. Tiering came into place after GPW (NPOFT) as a necessity. Given that as Roq pointed out, we were designed to fight BK, and imagined it would be BK v NPO for the foreseeable future. We then redesigned it for TKR and tS' midtier to a greater success in ToT. Post ToT, other alliances started implementing tiering systems without 100/100 and it came to be advantageous during AC/KF and here. If anything tiering as a military strategy has worked. 

I don't doubt it's military effectivess, it's proven without a doubt to be particularly adept during this war and only a fool would not adopt something similar. It's the Econ rammifications I question. 

So tiering came into place three and a half years ago ( after NPO's first time which is called that for a reason), 8 months after NPO's founding and yet somehow you disagree with it being a pretty old innovation that hasn't had long term effects on attaining your own whale tier? That's 3 and a half years ago I might add, long before whales became a major issue. You have had 3 and a half years to rectify that issue and with the huge wealth at your disposal through 100/100, you surely should have been able to attain some level of parity in the upper tier, particularly when considering you have been taking billion dollar loans (20 billion dollar loans I recently heard) to boost your own growth.

Granted attaining resource self-sufficiency is a worthy goal but my point is, you can't point the finger at coal A using their possession of whales as justification for continuing the war when the lack of whales in your own coalition is due to your own internal decisions.

If you really wanted whales, you would have some. If it requires a slight change to your Econ system then surely it is worth it. And to try claim I don't know what I am talking about is laughable when there is one top ten alliance still using a tax system I implemented over two years ago to help grow its own upper tier with proven success.  Granted they lost a few whales through a few beatdowns but the system itself is proven to work though granted I believe TKR have modified it slightly since then in certain aspects. 

But yeah, whatever ? 

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, HeroofTime55 said:

I'll be honest, I always forget that the lunar surface was a thing.  I couldn't remember a damn thing about that place, and I barely remember what alliance I was even in (I think it was FAN?)

I would be thrilled if your stay here was extended.  My expectations do not match my hopes.  Please surprise me.

I miss Jack :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brucemna said:

I miss Jack :(

RIP Uncle Tarr. By far one of the finest players to grace any of the worlds. 

2 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

So tiering came into place three and a half years ago ( after NPO's first time which is called that for a reason), 8 months after NPO's founding and yet somehow you disagree with it being a pretty old innovation that hasn't had long term effects on attaining your own whale tier? That's 3 and a half years ago I might add, long before whales became a major issue.

Whales have always been an issue. Their city range has just constantly increased as the game has progressed. NPO's tiering being across the board while facing sustained threats from EMC, ensured the necessity of self-reliant Econ. One can't just switch over and do what Alpha did with Wampus, if it harms our WC and has no military effectiveness. It's such a silly assumption. 

2 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

You have had 3 and a half years to rectify that issue and with the huge wealth at your disposal through 100/100, you surely should have been able to attain some level of parity in the upper tier, particularly when considering you have been taking billion dollar loans (20 billion dollar loans I recently heard) to boost your own growth.

Boosting one or two members at the cost of everyone else is surprisingly a stupid idea. There's no point having one member at 30 cities if we can't afford to maintain a war. Our military will always be dictated by economics. We're competing with alliances that have never lost a war till this one, who through the years has rolled multiple alliances, and grown a war chest that's not only crazy, but surpasses what most others on the losing side of a war ever could imagine. 100/100 doesn't magically induce huge wealth, especially when spread over 130 nations. Again seems like basic understanding of 100/100 or externally induced tiering does not seem to be your forte. 

 

2 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

Granted attaining resource self-sufficiency is a worthy goal but my point is, you can't point the finger at coal A using their possession of whales as justification for continuing the war when the lack of whales in your own coalition is due to your own internal decisions.

I enjoy this tangent but that's simply untrue. TKR et all had unimpeded growth for years and were able to spend extra cash as they saw fit, while we simply did not have that luxury. Mind you, between ToT and (what 16 or 17 months?) did not really have much of an economically taxing war. We fought AC to a stand still and also had certain upper tier/ higher infra members get hit right after building that thanks to TJest, which threw a whole lot of money invested down the drain. The peace between AC and KF we were playing catch up, and within months after KF, here we are. Unlike a tonne of alliances on your side that had 10-15 months of peace to build, we've always been under the threat of war, and fighting wars/raids all of which costs way more than most of you have had to face in this game. So its really disingenuous of you to even try to claim otherwise. Maybe if y'all didn't keep focusing on damaging the NPO for years, this war would have taken a different turn. 

2 hours ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

If you really wanted whales, you would have some. If it requires a slight change to your Econ system then surely it is worth it. And to try claim I don't know what I am talking about is laughable when there is one top ten alliance still using a tax system I implemented over two years ago to help grow its own upper tier with proven success.  Granted they lost a few whales through a few beatdowns but the system itself is proven to work though granted I believe TKR have modified it slightly since then in certain aspects. 

Also I'd prefer no one having an untouchable tier ever. I'd rather ensure all tiers are held down and take damages so that everyone is at the same starting point at the end of each global. To do that though,  we have to invert the present structures to ensure those who have had the economic capital so far are knocked down a peg or five, to ensure at the end of this war, we are at similar standing points. 

It's great some fancy Econ system you suggested has a great upper tier. Maybe if all the upper tiers weren't in one consolidated mass for years, it'd have been less effective. Here's to hoping more upper tier damage and attrition ;) 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.