Leaderboard

Sorry to interrupt your regular pixel burning, but I felt like talking about the pig-disgusting habit of pixel huggery. As Orbis is where it should be (with - almost - everyone reking each others' pixels), I thought it was a good time to reflect on this fascinating phenomenon, which directly correlates to war dodging. Over the years I've been playing this game, I've come to observe many people, and a few alliances in particular, repeatedly war dodge. The 2 best examples are Dark Brotherhood and RnR. DB is yet to participate in an alliance war (Yoda did fight a bit in Knightfall which led to some TKRsphere nations hitting DB but it ended quickly), having been around for a considerable amount of time. RnR, which has several nations that originated from the former (and also pixel hugging) RnR, plus a bunch of other nations versed in the ways of war dodging, is also yet to take part in an alliance war. Imo this requires a lot of skill, mainly political. I would have thought for sure that joining NPO's side would inevitably make DB finally fight, but apparently I was wrong. I hope at least they're serving as cash cows for their allies, which would somewhat help justify their pathetic existence. RnR is a slightly different case. Led by one of the biggest pixel huggers in the game (thanks for the embargo on my alliance btw honeybuns :*), you merely have to take a look at their war stats to come to the conclusion that we're talking about pixel hugging / war dodging professionals. Politics aside (I've pretty much stopped caring about them since Knightfall ended), I think this is where we as a community have failed. We used to talk trash about GPA war profiteering. This is much worse. These are neutrals disguised as real alliances. When you see several nations (some of them with incredibly low city count) with ridiculously high amounts of infra in one alliance, and p much the rest of the game is burning, you come to the inevitable conclusion that these folks have been outsmarting the rest of us pretty hard. So I just hope one day someone (I don't care who although I hope I'll participate) will finally roll this pixel hugging trash into the dirt, and make them see they can't always play in peace mode. I for one have been doing my part and will give a forum cookie to anyone who's kind enough to calculate the total damage I've dealt RnR with my solitary roguery.

Ketog, Chaos and Rose, each completely non-aligned to each other, can join a war together against a common foe, with CB "BK and N$O planning a war against them". ✅. Alright, everything's fine until here. N$O, a bit alligned to BK due to the treaty-web, is not allowed to declare a war against blocs, that used "BK and N$O planning a war against them". ❓ Where is the logic behind that? Doesn't need much brain matter to know who would have been rolled in the next or a bit later in the same war.... While I indeed condemn the content of that leak, attacking two smaller blocs like that, that original war itself has never happened. It was a "What if" case, if "Surfs Up" never had happened. The reality was another one: The first mentioned alliances, instead of dealing with it diplomatically, decided to use their low Infra situation to completely sweep over BK in an Offensive War. None of you know how tight the bonds between N$O and BK really were until it became necessary to bond again together, since the CB was one that was only a coin throw away to simply affect the other one. Any further complaints about the righteousness of anyone's war entry is by now just plain salt. Salt especially over the ingames war mechanics that can't simulate a "Desert Storm". The initial Blitz was nicely executed, really well done. I wondered sometimes if the 25% downdeclare range still exists. But in the end and finally coming to the topic of this thread: This war will go as long as we need to kill all the pixel-hugging whales on your side. Thanks to Ketog here for thinking they're an advantage. Against whom was this dual-joke idea of Guardian/Grumpy directed? As you can see, they're nothing but useless baggage starting round 2 if there's no counterpart on the enemy side. ...Happily building cities at war (from trade income) and bunkering up while the rest of you is bleeding.

So I was considering something, and I think I realized something really interesting. All the intended parties(BK, TCW, TGH, KT, TKR, CoS, and NPO) all achieved their war goals with this war, albeit at different times of the war. KT/TGH/TKR wanted to incapacitate BK sphere for targeting them. They are, and you could honestly say that FA-wise, they lost a lot of allies and meatshields, so this war crippled their FA pull. BK/TCW wanted to incapacitate the 2 smaller spheres, they did so, they achieved their goals as KTsphere and Chaos can’t realistically fight them anytime soon. NPO wanted to incapacitate KTsphere and Chaos from being able to roll NSOsphere post war. While their may be smaller things, this is what every sphere wanted. Sooooo why can’t everyone end the war and move on? It’s literally gotten to the point where everyone won what they wanted.

You'll never see a faster backtrack/excuse-making than when TGH realizes their members/gov have said something(s) dumb and hostile again. Good luck Hodor, you're doing your best!

if you give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk

None of what you said contributes to the mini-sphere argument you put on me, but I do admire the stretch on the last few statements you have. They are either liars or hypocrites, or both. Their (Well, NPO's) actions contradict everything they've stated, and they haven't shown anything of real substance to back up their "innocent" claims. We have attempted multiple times to give NPO the benefit of the doubt. @Hodor and @Keegoz have both reached out to your leaders multiple times in the past. Even with this war, we decided to give you the benefit of the doubt based on those leaks from TCW. Each and every action you've taken recently have pretty much spit all of our efforts towards your alliance back in our face. EDIT: Just keep in mind, for whatever spin of a minisphere toxicity whatever argument you were trying to pin me on - we literally left Syndicate/HS/NPO out of this mess. And we made it very clear that we would. We kept our word. You folks brought yourselves into it. EDIT #2 (Since I read some further replies): It's odd that "expanding the war" has become a point now. There's only one side that has expanded the war, and it wasn't us. Citadel activated on us. (Which is understandable) N$O hit multiple parties of us. You guys dragged in disbanded remnants of FR, as well as AD. You guys dragged in TFP. Just wanted to make that clear. The actions certainly speak louder than the words that some of you are spewing out there.

Nah you're right. And it's not even close. This misses a few guys in bank AAs on both sides because I'm lazy, but you can get the general picture. That's 2.41x as many nations at 21+ and 7.4x as many at 30+ It evens out a bit if we go down to C20 since NPO is tiered there, with 218 in Coalition B, to Coalition A's 270. And it gets way worse if you go up to C25 with just 34 nations in Coalition B having 25 or more cities, in comparison to the 121 nations in Coalition B who are at that level. In fact, Coalition A has more nations at 30+ than Coalition B has at 25+.

Uhm. Edit: let's also bear in mind that minispheres was not some contrived plot dreamed up by the rest of the game to try and pigeon-hole NPO. That's just paranoid and silly. What it was, was something that your allies in t$ pushed as their rationale for their FA moves. I can't tell you what the comms you had with t$ were; maybe you guys were very upfront about thinking their entire idea for signing them was stupid? But I'm sure I wasn't the only person who was assured NPO was ready to break from IQ, and I have trouble thinking of a better scenario for you guys to have done it if you really had a mind to. Ergo, I conclude you never really had that intent. That's my reasoning, and I think it's pretty sensible honestly. There's a pretty large amount of back channel stuff that does not look good for your alliance's intent as well. Far more than that cobbled together mess you guys tried to pull on TKR. If I send bitter on that point, well yes. I am. As someone who was actually bored with IQ vs not-IQ bipolarity, it sucks having your side parrot that intent only to fall back into it instantly and deliberately.

Your arguments for disbanding alliances are toxic and hostile. Like I pointed out earlier, we haven't lied. We based our actions on the facts that have been laid out before us. You can choose to ignore the facts, or choose not to believe the reasons we expanded the war to TKR. As I pointed out earlier, before our expansion was solely TKR since that is where our CB lay. You're free to counter for you coalition mate and I'm not dissing you for it. But making it clear, we expanded in our official DoW to TKR. I don't remember including KT/TGH in it, but you decided to focus on us. That is a technicality rather than a specific grouse/issue. I mean there hasn't been any serious reaching out in the last few months, and neither have we reached out. I just don't see where we had mutual interests at the given time. But that doesn't mean we're antagonistic towards you either. We've not really done anything to spit on your face. We're in this war because TKR was hoping to use the predicament to roll us. The point regarding minispheres is far more nuanced than what you're attempting to point here. When I was part of signing up for it, the idea that was agreed principally that the consolidation of two or more spheres is a threat to the idea itself. If the counter point is BKsphere/blob was too large and needed such numbers, I posit multiple reasons for that: 1) The actions of Chaos specifically Soup hitting Fark at the start of minispheres ensures that folks who remain outside or are too small by themselves, will be hit. There are alliances who do not wish to be pinatas for the fun of KETOGG or Chaos. 2) The idea of minispheres requires balance. As long as individuals are allowed to hit whomever might be too small to defend themselves but have a right to exist, they will seek protection from any and all larger alliances willing to offer that protection. In this case it was BK. The security umbrella they built through Citadel and tying up with tC simply existed because those alliances aren't interested in being your weekly statpads to pat yourselves on the back for being great military fighters. 3) If the threat of war, or security through a larger party was the option, a rational actor would choose the latter. If minispheres are to exist, it requires maturity in the nature of war and not weekly/monthly beatdowns to make someone feel happy that they've done a war. At the end of the day, the failure of minispheres as an idea is due to a comprehensive failure of every sphere to push the idea forward while ignoring how rational actors would function to protect their communities. Far too often folks have pushed that idea as a cudgel to weaken their opponents while maintaining unofficial ties in the case of Rose always rolling with KT/TGH 99% of the time Abbas is alive and kicking in the game, and a seeming affinity for folks to keep these going. If one side is constantly doing it, I'd posit it's only natural others may think of competing in the said grand politics to ensure their security is protected. At the end of the day, minispheres can exist so long as people aren't rolled for existing. Until that maturity exists, minispheres fail due to folks forgetting the security paradox leaders have to constantly face in protecting their communities from constant warring and seemingly persecution, like in the case of Sketchy calling for the disbandment of communities or perma war because he's salty one morning. Until folks start acting differently, one cannot expect the others act differently. But I mean this parallels real world theories regarding IR, since unilateral changes in action may backfire tremendously. So at this moment we're in a loop of security vs security on different sides of the game, with 0 trust/faith in between and I'm fine with that. But to argue that KETOGG/Chaos haven't added to the toxic failure of this idea, is your shirking your responsibility for the meta of the game you seem to keep proclaiming to defend.

I've had the same problem @Sphinx which is why I posted in that different font. And what you said about wars making aliances stronger is obviously accurate. They help trim the fat and you end up with the troopers. I have no doubt that the likes of TKR and TCW are better alliances after getting rolled in the last global. Ultimately wars teach you basic stuff as well, like not rebuilding infra in a recently nuked city. Unless you had forgotten to put 2 nuclear power plants there and one got nuked ofc. Otherwise those are the basics that only war can teach a player. Plus war has a purging effect. I used to hate NPO back in my t$ days. Having fought them (several times) completely eliminated that feeling. Now I got nothing but respect for them, same for TKR which I used to hate back in my Arrgh and TEst days. Fighting (unless the opponents behave like dicks) helps build mutual respect, at least that's how I see it. So not only shouldn't alliances avoid war, they should see it as na opportunity to fight alongside allies, learn something new and even make friends on the opposite side. Some of the people I like the most in this game have fought me, and that's a pretty awesome thing in my book.

I doubt any of you all remember me, and you all probably don't care. But I first started playing this game on its second day of release, and I found myself a home in a alliance called Infinity(I believe it was its been so long). I don't actually remember much, I don't think it was long before we merged into The Atlas Confederacy. Little did I know for the entirety of the time I have been on this game, I would be sticking with this alliance until now, and little did I know I would have such a fun group of people to talk shit with. Anyway, these were some of the best years and the funnest times were had. One notable happening during this time was the war with the United Purple Nations and the Empire of Spades, eventually they sort of collapse any a lot of people ended joining and more friendships were to be had. Eventually we changed into Rose, and I think this where my activity started dying pretty much. This whole thing was a long time coming, I'm probably gonna stay until this war Rose has is over, and then I'm going to delete my account. This probably strangely written but I'm not too good with writing this whole thing. Thanks to CMDR Adama, Belisarius, Pubstomper, Redarmy, Kurdanak, Ockey, and everyone else for the good times. P.S I got 47 credits to giveaway, so if anybody knows anyway I can do a drawing of some sorts, leave a suggestion in this thread.

Join Medellin Today! Escobar: Gatorcock Capos: Otto Von Bismarck - Milcom Head Kitschie: FA Head Kiwi: IA Head Chapsie -3iC

Currently, beiging is bad. If you want to win a war, u dont beige. Why? Because if you beige an opponent it rewards them with time to rebuild, restock, and regroup. They can exit beige at any time and declare a new war with no negative aspects. My suggestion: Change the beiging system, so that it becomes the focus to win a war without hurting the winners. Instead of x amount of days without being attkd. Cap it to 12 turns of non attks, after which time the beiged nation can be attkd but cannot start any offensive wars until beige ends... And cap total beige time to 4 days which can be reset Everytime a nations res drops to zero. So, recap.... 4 days of beige when an opponent beats you, the beige cap can be reset Everytime your res drops to zero and your bank is looted. The first 12 turns you get a reprieve and cannot be attkd. The next following 3 days you cannot start offensive wars but can continue to be targeted with defensive wars.

No.

@Sir Scarfalot advocated for all wars ending in beige, for both attackers and defenders, regardless of the outcome. This would get rid of beige cycling, as the beiged defender can replace their units and hop back into fighting.

Dude. Beige is supposed to help nations rebuild after losing a war, not make them a sitting duck for 3 days. This is completely contrary to the whole point of the beige system.

Thrax is right about this. @Edward I - Let’s try not to ignore the context to what provoked Sketchy’s comment. NPO was given the benefit of the doubt, multiple times, and... well... you acted. His comments come after your actions. And while I don’t back any terms or forced methods of separating (or creating) treaty ties, I certainly do back him on his cynical attitude towards NPO and BK. There’s absolutely no reason to trust you folks now at the moment. (Also lol@BK and their ties being a minisphere) Fixed it for you.

Please, PLEASE, tell me you're not this dense... Just read my posts.

I tried to reply to this before but the forum was glitching out for me, it still seems its just this thread which is making it hard for me to select text and to write my post...... Couldn't agree more mate, alliances that don't at least fight contribute nothing to the game. If you want to play a peaceful game of building a nation there are plenty of nation sim games on Steam you can play in single player where you don't need to fight or lose pixels. But this is a competitive game and pixel hugging shouldn't be tolerated. Also, Dreadnought war stats especially for a 1,051 day old nation are just pathetic: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=47239 War's make alliances stronger, they sort the chaff from the wheat. tCW is testament to that since KF made us stronger, despite us taking $120 BILLION in damages in that one war. But if an alliance has never fought they'll crumble very quickly. I don't expect they'll last very long if their leader's definition of taking massive damage is being nuked for $1.5 billion in damage. Also I don't think your thinking was off point, it was pretty spot on TBH. DB I suspect would handle being attacked worse than Quichwe and TFP do, which is an astonishing achievement if I might say so myself.

Antagonism begets antagonism, that much is obvious. If antagonism (concessions) is the the tool to discourage antagonism, we’re going to be stuck in the cycle forever.

Literally these were posted in THIS thread mere posts above your own: I'll make the same statement I usually make. I'll assume you're arguing in good faith and eager and that's why you didn't actually read my post in detail. I made clear my stance and you seemed to miss that part. As for operational control, I do think this is a good metric, thank you for presenting it. The counter argument I've made to this is two fold. Operational control *should* be reflected in the stats. If you are preventing military buildup, while still inflicting damage, you will be netting small gains in net damage. This is supported by what the stats show right now AND what we've been saying that you may have operational control but the rate at which you do damage once it's established is so slow that you won't flip damages for months, if ever. Additionally, in order to continue to exert operational control it requires a relatively large amount of effort and coordination that is also a drain on economic activity for both sides. I've posed this to Roq and I'll pose it here. NPO entered due to fear of CHAOS/KETOG taking advantage of the fact that their whales lost their infra and they would use this advantage to hit NPO to minimize damage to themselves. You've pulled our whales (except the ones you actually wanted), so you've created the insecurity you were afraid of. Low infra whales with not much to lose who are able to thwart an all planes strat with ground and naval buys. In sum (this is the important stuff), I don't expect to convince you of our narrative, and you shouldn't hope to convince me. We have our rationales for our actions. What's important is we understand that neither is talking out their ass and is engaging in dialogue in good faith. There are few people in this game's leadership that I know of that lack that ability, so I'm optimistic. No. Your reading comprehension is lacking. I literally said " I am open to any and all talks without precondition" I'm not sure what is more clear than that? I'm not really sure what the word decisively is supposed to mean in this post... I addressed the rest of your points above.

As high gov, this is as good as stating permawar. This is one piece of why peace talks have not and will not happen in the foreseeable future. The other piece is this war is not yet decided. There has still not been any sort of description from the other side as to what their definition of victory is. We've submitted our narrative and it's relatively digestible. I am eagerly awaiting your metrics for how we are losing the war and will lose decisively. I think I've made it clear to at least one member of your coalition's high gov that I am for white peace, because the best we believe you can hope for is a draw, and a draw in 3 months. See response above. I am with Thrax here. I don't agree with the salt the earth rhetoric, but I can understand where it came from. I can't speak for Scarf or Sketchy, but I was about as upset as someone can be at a nation sim when t$ and then NPO entered. I deleted the t$ embassy from our discord. This is to say, we say things when we are pissed. On the first paragraph, I believe I addressed it in my above response. For the rest, permawar and harsh terms are directly threatening to the existence of an alliance. While these threats have been made out right, we are not surrendering. Which brings me to NPO. Again I agree with Thrax, logic doesn't mean what people think it means. You can act on incorrect assumptions and still be logical, and this is the argument we make. If the assumptions made by NPO were true, they'd be correct. They are not and are not founded on strong evidence, so we find the assumption lacking and cannot agree with the following assumptions. In sum, we won't surrender, you won't end the war unless we surrender. I am open to any and all talks without precondition, which is not what is being proposed by the opposition, and as far as I am aware is not the united front of the opposition, just BK and TCW.

That's from the dead statekraft I see. Nice. Religious wars sound fun.

Good. Maybe Citadel will finally become a bloc now that Elijah's influence is out of it. I have high hopes for their future; don't disappoint

Ouch, no wonder why our whales got dragged down to my score in a couple of days. The rest of the fight will be funny to watch. Dozens of 6k+ score trying badly to escape the meatgrinder. Keeping thousands of tanks and hundreds of ships to avoid the war. Sadly for them, we're catching up a bit in high tiers, and some of those pixel huggers won't be able to hide for much longer.

Why should we believe that it's genuine now and not just a charade you're putting on because you've lost and are trying to backpedal onto the moral highground after you jumped off? The fact is at the beginning of the war you thought you were going to win and therefore you were honest, and now that you're losing you want us to believe you? The crux of the issue is you're refusing to respect our intelligence, everything your coalition posted at the beginning of the war clearly indicated you wanted to permanently destroy us, you can't doubleback now that you're down a month later and expect anything better than ridicule. You're coalition is acting like the person who runs to VM at the beginning of a war claiming their busy IRL and jumps out the second that it's finished and for some mind-boggling reason expects people to believe they weren't just war dodging despite all the evidence to the contrary. The fact that NPO is still trying to engage you even somewhat reasonably speaks to their immense naivety in expecting honest and good faith discussions from your side. It's politically incompetent actions like this that made me so anti-NPO and that combined with the pointless in-game antagonism by BK is what made me so anti-BK which is why UPN has always been as far away from IQ as we possible could while maintaining the only tie we cared about at the time.

I thought you just had the one straight forward question? Pretty sure this is the same question reworded to somehow get me to throw Sketchy under the bus. I've said it, and Buorhann has said it, in differing ways. We understand Sketchy's frustration. The amount of work that went into shifting the paradigm of the game was a labor of literal years. To see such promise only to have it thrown down on what we see as weak premises is sure to frustrate the hell out of anyone, let alone someone so intimately involved in the pursuit of its success. We don't want to perma war you and drive you out of Orbis. But we are upset.

Just out of curiosity, is this before or after you attacked Guardian and us? I dont think this has been answered yet.

Yes Sketchy sinking ships and burning everyone involved with us, isn't a threat to our existence whatsoever. Good attempt at trying to deflect though. We never have had hegemonic ambitions and none of our actions has ever led to that. That being said, it's chill that you're not walking back your words. @Hodor here mate, tell me why again we have to somehow give you the benefit of the doubt when your leader has no interest to deny he's not out to disband/scorch the earth with regards to the NPO?

Idk he’s not very bright from what I’ve seen. He dose not understand that micros are important for the game.

Has anyone stopped to think about all of the news coming out of Coalition B recently? BK forces all the protectorates into war. NPO attacks OFA from their own coalition. Commerce Union disbanded because of their "buddies" in Coalition B. - I mean how thick do you have to be to forcefully disband a coalition buddy? The Originals were forced to cancel their MDP with House of Arryn, so that Coalition B could attack AH. Micros from Coalition B have peaced out and found new protectorates. As a result Coalition B has attacked them. NPO having to defend BK, because apparently IQ never disbanded. TFP (Coalition B ) peaces out after extensive losses. BK lets them rebuild infra and attacks with no casus belli. Lets just all remind few simple things here about who Coalition B is fighting: An enemy half their size Made up of alliances who quite literally a week before this global war were at war among themselves. What are you guys doing there? Suffering under reign of terror? Seeking couples counseling? How can anyone get away with that much and still keep half a coalition together?

Bad Company/Frontier Records was also another pixel hugging, war dodger-y alliance. I prefer to get my shit pushed in and have people scream in my face that they rekt me vs hiding on candy mountain circle jerking each other tbh. To each their own though I guess.

There is indeed a paralel in the other direction, where the side that felt it was winning wanted to hold out for a surrender. T'would suggest that wanting it isn't enough to get it. I don't think many on our side think you can't try for a surrender, we just don't think the war situation warrants it. I can say personally, if I felt we had decisively lost, I would be willing to surrender. Rightly or wrongly, that is not how we see things. In any case, I found it funny that people now suggesting white peace is innapropriate for aggressors had themselves demanded that for their own aggression. You can tack on the other way as well, though I think less strongly. History repeats itself I guess.

I did not. I would prefer if you did not presume what I said, since it comes off as sanctimonious and cheapens your arguments. Sphinx, Aragorn and the operative portions of my rebuttal point to the same strain of logic. We aren't interested in opening peace talks, and are content continuing the war. If you want peace, send your terms through the official channels and the coalition will be alerted and respond as and when that offer is received. If the condition is we're not interested in peace, but if you are and hit us up, guilty as charged. NPO has been net positive continuously since the 10th of July? The last couple of weeks, we've been killing roughly 5x planes of your coalition, in comparison to the planes lost by us. We alone have what the total plane count as your entire coalition and that is giving us control that you do not have. If the question comes to other military units, you may have a solid argument to make regarding that, but I'd say the fact that we have overall control and can switch builds and move into other into the other commons when we desire, gives us unrivaled control and a luxury your coalition does not have at the present moment. Operational control is not to flip damage counts. Firstly, that argument falls flat here because of the following reasons: 1) Given the damages done in Surfs Up and barely any rebuilding, that damage is something your coalition has eaten and hardly recovered from. Expecting us to cover that damage done is unrealistic and disingenuous, given there is nothing there to damage. 2) Our coalition isn't looking to flip damages, since point 1) holds true. What we see is, if the damage done in Surfs Up is added to your damage eaten (given little or no rebuilding for the vast number of members of your coalition), we maybe behind, but not by the sums that you're going off. If 1) and 2) hold good, then we're taking about a few billion in damages that can be done, given we've reached nations on within KETOGG who didn't eat much damage during Surf's Up and therefore that's fresh damage, which gives us enough *actual* damage to flip the total damage done to your side. It may not have been done entirely by us, but that's what you get for trying to run two back to back wars. Damage has been done, you've eaten those losses, and we're nailing you down with more losses your sphere (KETOGG) specifically haven't eaten. That being said, our coalition does not consider the total damage metric as a sign of victory, unless you account for the damage you've already eaten during Surfs Up + the fresh damage this war has done, that gives you the best picture of the total damage your coalition has eaten and therefore the real economic terms of damage you've eaten. If all of that somehow still showcases 350 billion+ in a damage gap, I'd be surprised, but running the plain numbers off the top of my head, I don't think that would be the case. So even then by your own metric, given the real value of damage you've eaten, combined through these set of wars, you're at a far greater handicap. You may respond with the usual "upper" tier argument and I can partly buy that in the case of KETOGG, but Chaos/Rose can't really claim that, unless of course GoB is going to be funding all their rebuilds too, and you've officially moved into a single sphere format. If that's the case, it's fine, but given that we're able to damage GoB, it'll reduce their capabilities to do so, and in the long run, hurt them more than it'd hurt us, since we're basically hitting your piggybank at that point. tl;dr Operational control is all that really matters and given that we have that, we can continue pushing forward and you folks don't have the luxury of responding to the plethora of options available to coalition B. Even if you disagree with that premise, given the damages you've eaten since May, you'd have a far better picture of the real damage done to your coalition, and the gap between ours won't be so wide as you'd like to claim. Any additional damage we do over and above that starting point, is in essence covering the tiers you didn't have an issue with earlier, and that's a huge setback. NPO entered due to the credible threat of Chaos/TKR attempting to hit us, and we have no tools to keep them down if that happened. It isn't solely low whales with no infra. The insecurity you claim that we were worried of, is inherently false and based of your assumptions, that has no rational basis in our operational strategies. Low infra whales and dealing with them is something we've accounted for and don't mind. Your whales aren't thwarting much at this point, and given the extension of this war, it gives us time to switch focuses/strategies as we need to and that is a luxury we enjoy, that you do not. The command of the commons within this game is always important, and as long as we're able to maintain that, low infra whales would not be as big an issue as you seem to be implying. Again if the precondition is when you're ready for peace, send your offer over, then guilty as charged. If there are any other specific conditions, I have heard of none. I have seen Sphinx's screenshot regarding North Point, and he cleared that claim out here in this thread earlier. If you believe Aragorn's implying anything nefarious within his post outside of he's not really keen on peace or offering anything at this moment, but if you are, knock yourself out, feel free to bring those specific issues to my DM's' and that could be easily remedied. I'd say the problem with that statement lies with your coalition in begetting this level of antagonism. We could have been better in answering the said provocations with lesser bravado and counter-threats but alas, when people are pushed with continuous threats of disbandment, rumours regarding reparations/breaking up spheres unilaterally/ punitive terms for some sort of revenge from Knightfall floats around, you wouldn't expect any good to come out of it. Just a couple of nights ago in the PnW discord channel, Akuryo basically flat out stated that the terms were going to be reps/ revenge terms from Knightfall on BK and co. Given that, and given when you were in a position of victory, to come out, with your very own leader calling for disbandment/salt the earth terms that have never really been denied up till last night by your 2IC and I imagine yourself, its hard to believe we'd have to be the "better" people. Like Roq said, when you were in a position of victory, your leaders publicly and privately have stated of wanting to go for the jugular. You have given us no reason to return those proclamations with good will and faith. Moreover, your own coalition has spent time gaslighting and posting OOC nonsense of NPO's Emperor, and given those individuals were enabled and promoted at some level by your very own coalition leaders, it's hard for me to suddenly find kindness in dealing with your coalition. If you want good will, it'd be best trying to build that good will with your opponents, rather than running a toxic and vile attempt at going after Roq in an OOC manner. Yes, the issue might have died down, and it has been a few weeks, but the actions of a few still sting, given in some sense it continued post the said video itself. So if you really want to cut the cycle of antagonism, holding your own coalition leaders to a higher standard would help. If there are grievances against Coalition B leaders, I'm all ears, and I can't promise changing their behaviour much, but sure as hell let them I disapprove of said behaviour. So I mean it works both ways, but here I'm pointing out the specific conditions and a small set of events that your specific coalition has carried out that is a huge sticking point, if you truly want to break this cycle, this a good starting point. EDIT: Apologies for any grammatical errors you may find in the post.

I speak for myself and not the rest of Respublica Romana . I am new to the game and still learning the economic aspect of things before war aspect. Respublica Romana is extremely helpful for new nations. We had treaties on both sides. We were on a 1-10 scale 10 being declaring 1 being declaring perma neutrality till the end of time, we were at an 8/9 for a bit. above all, why must we participate in something that we don't really care about? Why must we be in a war we don't believe in? if that is the case why are you not calling on every alliance and nation in the game to pick a side?

I would be a pixel hugger too in their situation

I don't understand why anyone would sign treaties with these two in particular, a MDP ain't worth shit if they'll war dodge when the time comes

No. Trying to paint it this way is super immature on your end. They know by beiging it harms the other people on this side. It has nothing to do with me acting like I supercede anyone else. If people are going to do stuff that is harmful to our side, then I'm going to act on it. People harming us in the war is a transgression. If I was just going around and demanding tribute from people then you might have a point, but when it's our ass on the line when it comes to these malicious intent beiges, then this dog won't hunt and you keep trying to paint it as hegemonic, but anyone would defend their interests and people have threatened people over beiging before, including KETOG. If it's our ass as a whole on the line, they don't get to play games with beiging.

It's not bullying. He knew we weren't in a super strong position in the war and the popular consensus that it was over for us and "our hegemonic ambitions have failed" and it'd be "scorched earth" from then on out. People have been warned about getting reported ahead of time before. I remember there was a situation with a treasure and I was told ahead of time our members would be getting reported for it. I treated it as an innocent move at first but warned him of how I'd interpret it if he continued doing what he was doing. I don't see that as blackmail. It depends on the situation really. I've seen plenty where it did, but the implications of this statement are pretty bad. As I brought up the suicide ground attacks or just grounding someone without ground/navaling someone without air, missiling, etc. Several other wars were cancelled like dai viet on brooklyn who missiled after simply fortifying. The simple matter is not having to hope it gets a ruling fast is better given the amount of time it can take to get a ruling. If someone does something on a day Alex won't be around e.g. July 4th it won't get resolved super quickly. A lot similar things happened a few years back when he wasn't around for Memorial Day. I don't really like the idea that I should just take it up the butt because you feel upset that a report is raised ahead of time when rulings aren't instant.

You're the only kid here smh

Never in my time of this game have I ever threatened a player with reporting them to moderation if they don’t do what I say. Ever. I have, however, threatened to roll people/alliances though. Pretty big difference. The people who actually sent in the reports are pathetic. What Alfred did was nothing against the ruling of “slot filling”. He had full intention to win the battle (He was going for a treasure after all). Regardless of how he fights, as long as he’s aiming to fight - he’s in the clear. This “Do Airstrikes or we report” is complete nonsense. Slotfilling does not take major wars into consideration, it’s only battles in general. And it certainly doesn’t care if you beige or not. Alfred did nothing wrong in his situation. Had @Roquentin gone with threatening to roll TFP for “interfering”, that’d be legit. He didn’t. Don’t get me wrong, I fully agree with their perspective that they shouldn’t care about the treasure swap. It’s in their way and it’s an annoyance. But they chose to go the route of using moderation as a weapon first. Had it gone the proper route (threaten to roll instead of reporting), then we’d just be here making further propaganda about one side hitting those who had previously supported them. Instead, we got this dumb pathetic shit of threatening players with reports. It’s beyond childishness at this point. I’d rather have @Malal spam kid on people in his usual cringeworthy ways than this. This is just ridiculous. On a somewhat separate note: @Quichwe10 only “flexed” (lol) after he found out Alfred got reported. @Alex, if for some odd reason you nation striked Alfred, you need to work on that ruling in a much more clarified way. Also stop letting yourself be used as a weapon. (Personally I’d have nation striked those threatening players with reporting, but Discord is out of your jurisdiction)

I'm tired of seeing SNN bootlegs that are not creative and just use _NN as their name. I'ma bring back SNN, but as the New Testament of Shifty S. Stranger with bible format.

If and when you move continents to drill oil, don't just build oil rigs in all of your cities. That's stupid and wasteful. Instead, pick one city, and build 12 oil rigs. No less. Do that every 3-5 cities, and also build maximum oil refineries in one city per number of oil cities you have. Basically, if you have 12 oil rigs in one city, have 5 gasoline refineries in another. Or the same city, if you have enough infra, but I don't recommend it.

Coalition B clearly took lessons from the Bolsheviks. Soldiers who underperform or retreat from the battlefield are summarily executed. Such inspiring leadership is hard to find.

Are you saying that your coalition is so bad that it’s falling apart to an enemy that supposedly can’t put up a fight?

*check his alliance*

I hope you mean August 2020