Jump to content

A Call to Arms


Lord Tyrion
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Douglas MacArthur said:

When your alliance gets crushed like the rest of your coalition, the only surriender i would be satsified with is unconditional surriender to coalition B as that is the ONLY situation in which peace in orbis can be achieved.

You are more unhinged than Roquentin, and that is a very high bar.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how they all completely ignore the fact we have been trying to surrender since day one.

 

Your leaders said verbatim we are not allowed to surrender and that they want many of us to disband and delete.

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, James II said:

I like how they all completely ignore the fact we have been trying to surrender since day one.

 

Your leaders said verbatim we are not allowed to surrender and that they want many of us to disband and delete.

So we've gone from "force us to disband and delete" to "want us to disband and delete". However I like how you completely ignore the fact that you can surrender if you agree to the terms on the table. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So we've gone from "force us to disband and delete" to "want us to disband and delete". However I like how you completely ignore the fact that you can surrender if you agree to the terms on the table. 

Can you tell me why OD has so much hatred for other alliances in what is, if I might remind you, a game?

You were winning...not anymore but whatevs, get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So we've gone from "force us to disband and delete" to "want us to disband and delete". However I like how you completely ignore the fact that you can surrender if you agree to the terms on the table. 

I like how you ignore the fact y'all add random terms in the middle of peace negotiations with the intention of not allowing us to peace so the conflict is prolonged. Your folks even said it in their 'opsec' leader channels of a handful of people. And it was not friendly banter either. It was planning.

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, King Olafr of the Faroes said:

Eat your God damn pride and take a knee. If you're unhappy. Surrender. It's not that difficult.

 

This isn't WW2 with far reaching implications where we have to treat you better than last time in the fear of some jackass coming in to ruin the show. The latter IS happening, over and over again, no matter if we let you peace out after initial skirmishes or 18 years later. In this game, there's 100 Hitler's for every Churchill. Because we can. You and I know that better than anyone.

Reminder your leaders are asking, is it 50 or 70b in reps now?

For, remember, at BEST getting caught red handed plotting to hit people. At BEST, and getting slapped for that. Also reminder the highest reps ever in game were 1b.

 

Are you sure it's not like WW2? Cause your leaders and allies all seem to disagree. See they believe this is exactly like that, where they've treated the enemy so bad they've guaranteed the world will come after them full force for round two, and they probably won't win that. 

That's, like, kinda why they're rolling with the...50? 70? Is it 90 yet? Billion in reps. This is well, WELL beyond a WW2 situation my friend, you're straight up past Versailles at this point.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Akuryo said:

Reminder your leaders are asking, is it 50 or 70b in reps now?

For, remember, at BEST getting caught red handed plotting to hit people. At BEST, and getting slapped for that. Also reminder the highest reps ever in game were 1b.

 

Are you sure it's not like WW2? Cause your leaders and allies all seem to disagree. See they believe this is exactly like that, where they've treated the enemy so bad they've guaranteed the world will come after them full force for round two, and they probably won't win that. 

That's, like, kinda why they're rolling with the...50? 70? Is it 90 yet? Billion in reps. This is well, WELL beyond a WW2 situation my friend, you're straight up past Versailles at this point.

I think it's in the realm of 150 bil total.

"Most successful new AA" - Samuel Bates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, King Olafr of the Faroes said:

Eat your God damn pride and take a knee. If you're unhappy. Surrender. It's not that difficult.

 

This isn't WW2 with far reaching implications where we have to treat you better than last time in the fear of some jackass coming in to ruin the show. The latter IS happening, over and over again, no matter if we let you peace out after initial skirmishes or 18 years later. In this game, there's 100 Hitler's for every Churchill. Because we can. You and I know that better than anyone.

I'm not very prideful, friend. And I have no knees. The war continues because the demands are too steep. It's simple.

  • Like 1

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Reminder your leaders are asking, is it 50 or 70b in reps now?

For, remember, at BEST getting caught red handed plotting to hit people. At BEST, and getting slapped for that. Also reminder the highest reps ever in game were 1b.

 

Are you sure it's not like WW2? Cause your leaders and allies all seem to disagree. See they believe this is exactly like that, where they've treated the enemy so bad they've guaranteed the world will come after them full force for round two, and they probably won't win that. 

That's, like, kinda why they're rolling with the...50? 70? Is it 90 yet? Billion in reps. This is well, WELL beyond a WW2 situation my friend, you're straight up past Versailles at this point.

Quite a few debts your side defaulted on and is refusing to pay.

 

Daily reminder that T$'s generative capacity is roughly in the realm of 1 billion per day. TKR is probably in the same tier, same with GoB. TCW, on the other hand, has this totally beautiful 5% tax rate.

Edited by Inst

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*punches the James II in the teeth*

 

(Sorry not sorry, my cadet asked me to)

[Me punching people on the OWF is 100% IC, and anything I say is not representative of the views of the New Pacific Order unless explicitly stated otherwise.]

Edited by Ballpit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Inst said:

Quite a few debts your side defaulted on and is refusing to pay.

 

Daily reminder that T$'s generative capacity is roughly in the realm of 1 billion per day. TKR is probably in the same tier, same with GoB. TCW, on the other hand, has this totally beautiful 5% tax rate.

I mean revenue is almost directly proportional to city count, and in this metric NPO beats all.  I think pre-war NPO was at 2800 cities, most at 2k infra.  You're talking about basically 2 billion per day, and the alliance collects ALL of it.  With BK, it's a similar story in the range of 1.7 billion at 2400, 2k infra cities.  

Pre-war TKR had a lot of cities below 2k infra and wasn't at full capacity yet with 1900 cities, so likely around 1 billion.  T$ was around 1700 cities albeit at higher infra levels, so probably closer to 1.5 billion.  In the previous two examples though, their taxes aren't even close to 100/100.

This whole debate about wealth is stupid because in terms of actually wealth generation, no one has or is beating NPO, BK and GOONS.  Once those GOONS are tiered to C15 and eventually C20 at 2k infra, that's probably the better part of 10 billion a day between just those three alliances.  Every single day of peace, these alliances tier closer and closer to the upper tier and generate more revenue in a more efficiently-used manner.  Forcing my members and those of Coalition A to pay for the advancement of NPO from 2 cities to 3 cities ahead of TKR in average city count isn't really solving things just further entrenching the wealth creation divide that exists right now.  Props to NPO for having a great econ, but don't gaslight us into thinking that you're somehow poor given that you're literally the only alliance in the game who can single-handedly fund an entire coalition.  

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how the reps we're asking for get larger each time the other side brings them up. Literally in just this page we went from 50b to 150b in two posts. A couple more and we're going to be asking for several hundred trillion.

 

Also, NPO isn't asking for any reps. But if you guys want I can totally write a reps term for you guys to pay NPO. Roq won't like it but he's a a tiny hamster so what's he gonna do, scratch my shins?

Edited by Malal
  • Haha 1

Orbis Wars   |   CSI: UPN   |   B I G O O F   |   PW Expert Has Nerve To Tell You How To Run Your Own Goddamn Alliance | Occupy Wall Street | Sheepy Sings

TheNG - My favorite part is when Steve suggests DEIC might have done something remotely successful, then gets massively shit on for proposing such a stupid idea.

On 1/4/2016 at 6:37 PM, Sheepy said:
Sheepy said:

I'm retarded, you win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

I mean revenue is almost directly proportional to city count, and in this metric NPO beats all.  I think pre-war NPO was at 2800 cities, most at 2k infra.  You're talking about basically 2 billion per day, and the alliance collects ALL of it.  With BK, it's a similar story in the range of 1.7 billion at 2400, 2k infra cities.  

Pre-war TKR had a lot of cities below 2k infra and wasn't at full capacity yet with 1900 cities, so likely around 1 billion.  T$ was around 1700 cities albeit at higher infra levels, so probably closer to 1.5 billion.  In the previous two examples though, their taxes aren't even close to 100/100.

This whole debate about wealth is stupid because in terms of actually wealth generation, no one has or is beating NPO, BK and GOONS.  Once those GOONS are tiered to C15 and eventually C20 at 2k infra, that's probably the better part of 10 billion a day between just those three alliances.  Every single day of peace, these alliances tier closer and closer to the upper tier and generate more revenue in a more efficiently-used manner.  Forcing my members and those of Coalition A to pay for the advancement of NPO from 2 cities to 3 cities ahead of TKR in average city count isn't really solving things just further entrenching the wealth creation divide that exists right now.  Props to NPO for having a great econ, but don't gaslight us into thinking that you're somehow poor given that you're literally the only alliance in the game who can single-handedly fund an entire coalition.  

NPO doesn't do even 2250 infra, it just sticks to 2000 infra. You forget that many nations on your side not only typically do 4k infra in peacetime, but also have copious reserves of land which creates plenty of food production.

 

Moreover, you're mistaking centralization (NPO is a large alliance) for actual economic production. Lump together a bunch of nominally independent but ideologically aligned alliances that nominally have lower city count, and you're looking at greater city counts without even having to consider economic output.

 

Then consider that partial mlitarization means that while infra meets exponential decreases in cost effectiveness, infra also results in considerable increases as the number of improvement slots that are eaten by "anti-raid" improvements (military improvements) decreases as a percentage of total improvements and that the interaction between population and improvements is a stacking multplier (infra * commerce * health).

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Inst said:

NPO doesn't do even 2250 infra, it just sticks to 2000 infra. You forget that many nations on your side not only typically do 4k infra in peacetime, but also have copious reserves of land which creates plenty of food production.

 

Moreover, you're mistaking centralization (NPO is a large alliance) for actual economic production. Lump together a bunch of nominally independent but ideologically aligned alliances that nominally have lower city count, and you're looking at greater city counts without even having to consider economic output.

 

Then consider that partial mlitarization means that while infra meets exponential decreases in cost effectiveness, infra also results in considerable increases as the number of improvement slots that are eaten by "anti-raid" improvements (military improvements) decreases as a percentage of total improvements and that the interaction between population and improvements is a stacking multplier (infra * commerce * health).

Every reason you listed in each of your paragraphs is a decision made internally by NPO regarding its own economic policy. These reasons have nothing whatsoever to do with Coal A yet somehow they are being brought up in talks regarding peace?

So basically peace talks now have to revolve around NPO's own economic shortcomings and not about the war itself?

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opus Dei hasn't asked for anywhere near 50b in reps, can someone who was actually in the peace talks come correct your minions or is blowing up the narrative too much of a risk?

  • Upvote 1

Queen of Chaos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

Opus Dei hasn't asked for anywhere near 50b in reps, can someone who was actually in the peace talks come correct your minions or is blowing up the narrative too much of a risk?

My handler says it's actually 500b now, just here to update you Mr Jazz.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

Opus Dei hasn't asked for anywhere near 50b in reps, can someone who was actually in the peace talks come correct your minions or is blowing up the narrative too much of a risk?

You are asking us to shell out  around $50 billion cumulatively, without accounting for additional reps which may be demanded from TCWsphere. The narrative does not change, friend.

Edited by Prefonteen

 

os9LcJK.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Curufinwe said:

@Lord Tyrion can I join? I am but the leader of a tiny micro, but your eloquence has moved me.  Please let me bleed for your dream of freedom.

Please bleed for me, @Curufinwe

22 hours ago, Koala said:

I believe this will never happen because everyone is being unreasonable

Asking for White peace is not unreasonable.  Certainly after such a long war.

  • Upvote 1

Legal Disclaimer:

My opinions do not necessarily reflect of the opinions of my alliance, allies, enemies or neutrals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

Opus Dei hasn't asked for anywhere near 50b in reps, can someone who was actually in the peace talks come correct your minions or is blowing up the narrative too much of a risk?

*Coalition B not Opus Dei alone but since you asked nicely....

  • 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the KERCHTOGG half of Coalition A to Coalition B
  • 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the Starksphere half of Coalition A to Coalition B
  • 500m from TGH to GOONS
  • 500m from CoS to UPN (already paid)
  • 50m from Soup Kitchen to UPN
  • 300m from Soup Kitchen to TCW
  • ~15b in money/resources from KT to Polaris
  • 2b combined from KT/TKR/t$ to UPN
  • 2b from CoA to The Covenant
  • 5b from CoA to BK
  • 50m from CoA to UPN
  • An undisclosed amount from t$ to Coalition B (Gringotts Bank term)

 

That all adds up to ~45.45b w/o the Gringotts term and that's just Coalition A and not TCWsphere.

  • Upvote 6

BrOQBND.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said:

*Coalition B not Opus Dei alone but since you asked nicely....

  • 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the KERCHTOGG half of Coalition A to Coalition B
  • 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the Starksphere half of Coalition A to Coalition B
  • 500m from TGH to GOONS
  • 500m from CoS to UPN (already paid)
  • 50m from Soup Kitchen to UPN
  • 300m from Soup Kitchen to TCW
  • ~15b in money/resources from KT to Polaris
  • 2b combined from KT/TKR/t$ to UPN
  • 2b from CoA to The Covenant
  • 5b from CoA to BK
  • 50m from CoA to UPN
  • An undisclosed amount from t$ to Coalition B (Gringotts Bank term)

 

That all adds up to ~45.45b w/o the Gringotts term and that's just Coalition A and not TCWsphere.

Actually this makes more sense that the total was near50b .. as for tcw my understanding they were offered to come to the table with the last peace talks with the Panth and co ....  but I guess with the new treaties signed is why they didnt come ... them treaties probably hung on them staying in.   And just saying but it seems to me that NPO does not really benefit as much as certain peeps in coalition A are trying to make people beleive ... hmmmmm 

Edited by brucemna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Douglas MacArthur said:

You will be crushed as with the other members of your coalition.

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

So we've gone from "force us to disband and delete" to "want us to disband and delete". However I like how you completely ignore the fact that you can surrender if you agree to the terms on the table. 

 


 
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Malal said:

I like how the reps we're asking for get larger each time the other side brings them up. Literally in just this page we went from 50b to 150b in two posts. A couple more and we're going to be asking for several hundred trillion.


Also, NPO isn't asking for any reps. But if you guys want I can totally write a reps term for you guys to pay NPO. Roq won't like it but he's a a tiny hamster so what's he gonna do, scratch my shins?

1 hour ago, Jazz R Oppenheimer said:

Opus Dei hasn't asked for anywhere near 50b in reps, can someone who was actually in the peace talks come correct your minions or is blowing up the narrative too much of a risk?

43 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said:

*Coalition B not Opus Dei alone but since you asked nicely....

  • 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the KERCHTOGG half of Coalition A to Coalition B
  • 10b bond (under easily exploitable conditions) from the Starksphere half of Coalition A to Coalition B
  • 500m from TGH to GOONS
  • 500m from CoS to UPN (already paid)
  • 50m from Soup Kitchen to UPN
  • 300m from Soup Kitchen to TCW
  • ~15b in money/resources from KT to Polaris
  • 2b combined from KT/TKR/t$ to UPN
  • 2b from CoA to The Covenant
  • 5b from CoA to BK
  • 50m from CoA to UPN
  • An undisclosed amount from t$ to Coalition B (Gringotts Bank term)

 

That all adds up to ~45.45b w/o the Gringotts term and that's just Coalition A and not TCWsphere.

@Malal @Jazz R Oppenheimer

I'm genuinely curious to hear what your response is to what Adrienne said. 

  • Upvote 1

new_forum_sig_2.png

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.