Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/12/19 in all areas

  1. TFP left with FR, TFP also bought treasure of KT or TKR, can't remember which, NPO didn't like this, roq threatened to tell sheepy they were slot filling, TFP weren't having it, NPO got mad, asked bezzy to attack, bezzy BK attacked, TFP said "frick this", "we're gonna join KERTCHOG" P.S. join LUX it was reported there
    14 points
  2. 14 points
  3. August 9th - The Coal Mines and The Socialist League officially recognize white peace with House Arryn and officially agree to a NAP*. August 12th - The Coal Mines and The Socialist League officially admit defeat to KERCHTOGG**. Following the admission of defeat the following terms have been accepted: -Complete and unconditional surrender -No other terms will be pressed The Coal Mines The Coal King ~ Nokia Rokia The Coal Prince ~ Evernt The Socialist League The Supreme Leader - Justin The Great(Deadsec) Bolsheviks ~ Abdul razk, Allend. Annotations: *NAP - Non Aggression Pact ( A term for not declaring war on each other for set duration, and is a lovely time for pixel huggers) **KERCHTOGG - Knights Templar, Empyrea, Rose, CHaos, The Golden Hoard, Oblivion, Guardian, and Grumpy Old Bastards. (Otherwise known as the aggressor coalition in "Dial UP***") ***Dial Up - The War that started with way too much lag. P.S. And All that say Nobody cares can go hug the nearest tree cause this post doesn't give a shabblenak. And we are gracious enough to add this for the select few apathetic people out there. Edit: A comma was placed in between Rose and Empyrea.
    13 points
  4. Uh, I dunno, I'd say a surrender with a lack of conditions is pretty unconditional
    11 points
  5. While checking out NPO list (that's finally work again). I shouldn't help but notice that the alliance that brave and beautiful Black Knight, have done the most damage against is The Fighting Pacifists. That got me curius, because The Fighting Pacifists joined the war on the side of BK, as seen on the wiki. Where they bravely and beautifully fought together. But the wiki didn't say anything about why BK are now fighting with TFP. https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/Global_War_14 In fact accoding to the wiki TFP should have left the war, but then again you can never trust the wikis. So i checked the forum, and i found nothing. And still i shouldn't help but wonder what happened? Afterall they make up such a big part of BK positive net damage, that they have worked so hard for. And we can't have anyone accusing brave and beautiful BK of duing anything wrong. Afterall that might lower their self esteem. So i like to ask BK, what happened? Did they cheat on you? Did TFP say something rude? Or did you just grow apart? I like for everyone to be positive and respectful, we need to keep this a safe space for brave and beautiful Black Knights.
    9 points
  6. You are only positive in net damage by dragging in other alliances who have left your coalition. Why deviate from the strategy now?
    8 points
  7. Please allow me to introduce myself I'm a man of wealth and taste I've been around for a long, long year Stole many AA's logs to leak And I was 'round when Pantheon Had its moment of doubt and pain Made damn sure that Akuryo Washed his hands and sealed his fate Pleased to meet you Hope you guess my name But what's puzzling you Is the nature of my game This is Shifty bringing you the death of another AA. Press F
    6 points
  8. > CoS joins the war to help in the only front it was needed. To hit the whales. > SRD gets mad CoS rolled him and stole his TKR-toy, so hits CoS after that war. > It doesn't look like the upper tier nations are ever planning to fight each other again! It was all to break IQ. Honestly Roq, you are giving your alliance too much credit. CoS didn't fight for so many months and with that many losses because it wanted NPO to do X, Y or Z. And, for the sake of our members, I won't accept such declarations from you. CoS fought for the reasons presented in our DoW. My apologies, but NPO is not the center of the universe. It doesn't define the policies of CoS, SK, TKR or whoever else, and it is not the reason blocs like Chaos are formed.
    6 points
  9. i know you assume everything is about NPO, but i was replying to ripper.
    5 points
  10. We are micros, so doesn't matter when we formed, and our existence isn't important to you.
    5 points
  11. From the desk of ChoCho Fraggle The Most Excellent Nation of Fraggle Rock Greetings Friends! We're packing up and leaving. The time has come. Now is your chance to own a piece of Fraggle Rock. Everything must go. All proceeds will go to the Fraggle Chaos Fund run by our trusted friend Partisan. You can buy a nuke for half the resource cost Missiles for 30 cents on the dollar Credits for 17 mil each All resources half off. Pick the place clean. Everything must go. Many Hugs, ChoCho Fraggle
    4 points
  12. No one likes math, let me drop the truth on y'all. In this world, there are two types of nations: Those who have open slots, and those who do not. BK exists for one reason, one single all-defining purpose - to take those nations in the first category and transfer them into the second. TFP was merely another step down that sacred path.
    4 points
  13. "Only Singaporeans can be trusted"
    3 points
  14. if it isn't zim! gib money to a fellow pirate
    3 points
  15. Pretty sure what was meant was that there would be no terms, not that anyone from our coalition would try and add terms after the fact. Good luck, TCM and TSL, enjoy peace
    3 points
  16. I'm still amazed Roquentin is calling BKSphere a paper tiger even in the hypothetical situation BKsphere tried to put itself into. I'll grant you that fighting against a wide coalition of older alliances with more experienced players and Milcom, especially if the enemy has first strike, downdeclare ability, and in spite of being half it's number, would shatter alot of the less experienced alliances. Which it certainly did, there was significant struggle to take full control of tiers where their superiority far superseded the coalition wide 2:1. However now you're also saying that BKSphere, who without you btw was able to amass some 1500 nations behind it's banner, could not defeat the elements of KERCHTOG in their separate forms as the 3 tiny spheres they actually are? Mind you the largest of these at its peak was Chaos, where during Surf's Up and just before the Nova Scandal came to light, was around ~450 nations. You insist utterly, that even with offensive advantage, up to a 3:1 numerical advantage (at WORST), up to a vast superiority in every tier but the whaley bois in CoS/GG, that BKsphere was a paper tiger who could not have handled that? Where then lie the line they could handle? KETOG at ~250-300ish nations? What about Rose who was at best 200 nations? At which point do you draw the line here between a paper tiger who can't catch it's prey and an indomitable steam roller? When you ask the question this way, you no longer need to wonder why Rose entered, or why this was a threat worthy of unification. The other two would get massacred in a 1v1, and had BKsphere pre empted them with their full force may yet have been massacred even together. It took all 3 of them combined with an offensive advantage AND higher tiering to create the gaps in enemy lines necessary for a heavily outnumbered, largely war-torn-already coalition that had superior coordination and member-to-member activity and fighting ability to get the result seen before NPO entered. There are underdogs, undoubtedly in this story, @Roquentin, but if you're looking for that part of the story in the coalitions as wholes, i'm afraid you won't find it. At best one could attribute this status to KERCHTOG as they struck with a significant part of their forces not yet fully recovered and were still besting 2:1 advantages. I, personally, don't count self-inflicted handicaps when assigning such a label though.
    3 points
  17. This is really indicative of one of the main problems with the game. If you look at basically ever major alliance in the game you will see consistent leadership changes (Rose, tS, BK, etc) that often bring political change with them (partisan bringing tS into knightfall, Curu helping form IQ etc). How can anybody expect the political meta of this game to change when the largest alliance in this game has had the same leader forever, continually brings up grudges from 3 years ago and continually attacks the same alliances?
    3 points
  18. You spelled "preferred" incorrectly.
    3 points
  19. From the desk of Praggisan Exorock, the greatest nation ever Greetings, friends! As the official special spokesperson of whatever this alliance is called and as the leader of the greatest alliance of Terminal Jest, I want to assure you that we are indeed, not connected! Furthermore, I am happy to field any inquiries you may have. Please submit them via discord dm and I will post our official answers once Fragglesan completes his jeu de boules course. Hugs and kisses PRAG
    3 points
  20. Fair enough. I'll leave you with one parting thought then: We knew we'd be dragged through the coals for this, and we did it anyway. For better or worse, power gives us the luxury of being both intransient and intransigent (not sure if that was a typo or not ). For better or worse, power gives us some say in what the rules of the metagame should be. We haven't fully made up our minds, honestly. Like I said, NPO always had misgivings about multipolarity, but they were primarily - if not exclusively - about the details, not the principle. If the details are properly worked out and the credible assurances against bad actors I mentioned earlier are incorporated, I imagine we'd be fine with it. This will likely be a high bar for many people, though. An incomplete list would (probably) include, in no particular order: No expectation of a cage match between NPO and BK. We're not against fighting them at some point in the future, but we're not going to hate them overnight, and blowing up all the infra in the mid-tier while the whales sit and watch is going to be a hard sell in itself. A better definition of what a sphere is, and what kinds or sizes of spheres aren't allowed. For instance, if BK-sphere was too big for the system to handle, that's as much a fault of the system as it is of BK because, as far as I can tell, no one bothered to work that out before early April when this all came together. This will also need to be a discussion about the nature of the Paracovenant-IQ model of large numbers of less active, less experienced players, not just an exercise in plopping scores and city counts into spreadsheets. A better definition of acceptable ties and cooperation between spheres. If there's a sense, even a misplaced one, that some people are dealing under the table it will kill the whole endeavor. This needs to take into account IC and OOC friendships, what ad hoc cooperation between spheres can and should look like, and how many traditional treaties define a sphere. (I'm waiting for someone else to tell me an ODP between NPO and one BK-sphere alliance means we're a hegemony.) A model for change. Unless we're going to delineate permanent alliances later this year and keep them until the servers get shut off, there needs to a way to change treaties or FA goals without breaking the system. A contingency plan. What happens if (probably when) this all goes south? As we've said before, it's not just a matter of stylized, multipolar separation between groups; it's also a matter of incorporating and accommodating other agendas. We don't want to be stabbed in the back, we don't want to see upper tier consolidation or runaway upper tier growth, and it would be nice if we could hit people over a grudge every once in awhile. And that's just NPO; I don't know what every other alliance wants, but I can't imagine their only goals are a pretty treaty web and smaller wars. Those conditions alone may very well be unattainable. Personally, I'm skeptical that it's even possible for minispheres to be truly self-sustaining. But, regardless of what happens, I think it would be nice if most of us could figure out and agree on what went wrong and why. If there isn't an existential disagreement, maybe future wars will feel less existential.
    2 points
  21. Here's a really quick note. I don't trust you, Roq. I think you're overly concerned with a kind of technical, semantic-based truth and never work on faith, so I find dealing with you tedious (that's where I come from calling you disingenuous. You seem to take it quite personally when I say you lie... I think you try very hard not to, but I do know that what you said about TKR plotting against you is flatly untrue, so that's where that was coming from). I also think our goals and ideologies don't align, because I think you are unable to conceive of anything other than bipolarity (and it seems like your idea of bipolarity always has the same people on the same sides), which is something which bores me. I find it frustrating, because it's hard to politic around a gigantic, stationary stone. And when you lie about my allies in the same narrative you're pretending you can't notice that BK and UPN are toxic, I kinda throw my hands up. There isn't much middle ground there. I've had logs thrown out at me by you out of context more times than I can count, so I do my speaking to NPO in public now, and the way I see it, you've reneged on your word enough times that it's just not particularly fruitful or wise to make deals with you. ...clear? Good. Deep breath. Because the next part is that it doesn't matter. I'm not the ring leader of my sphere; I'm someone who recognized a while ago that my own opinions and grudges, though I do think them legitimate, could be stifling to my alliance, for one, and the game as a whole. In recognizing that, I passed FA authority to a different player, and he's had his own agenda ever since: one aligned with many of my goals, but far fewer of my historical friends and enemies. In this respect I relate with you, and it's damned easy for me to get frustrated with you, because I have the same flaws. If you find a way to actually let go of some of this, you may be surprised. Don't talk to me: we have a lot of people on our side who can do a better job. While I've certainly been critical, I believe that you're disappointed with how this war turned out, actually. Start from there, perhaps, if you have a mind to.
    2 points
  22. How d'you like your news? — uncensored, unbiased and with a hint of humour? Join LUX today to stay up-to-date with all the recent happenings in and around Orbis as well as the real world. At LUX we offer all kinds of news— business, war, micro— we even have a fake news channel for people that way inclined— as well as a wide range of shows to keep you entertained and informed. As we like to put it, " at LUX, *a click a day keeps ignorance away*". Join LUX: the passion for broadcasting. https://discord.gg/6aBz5aN
    2 points
  23. There have literally been threads about this. Try harder and get some original anti-BK material.
    2 points
  24. top 10 questions science cant answer
    2 points
  25. Greetings, friends! For the most part I think you have my motivations and stances in the leadup to knightfall correctly. For those following these discussions and thinking to themselves" GOSH DARNEST ITS ALL PARTISAN AGAIN", I will provide you with a beautiful bullet point overview of why t$ is the most straightforward, friendly and relatable entity out of all the knuckleheads involved: 1. When Chaunce gave me the reigns, I was given a mandate to bring t$ out of paperless. There was a myriad of options, but decisiveness was required as (from my personal pov), t$ needed to jump out of its slumber. My personal agenda upon taking over was to end EMC-IQ. Which pathway to take would depend on how relations and politics develop. 2. In Rose and HS we found partners whose objectives overlapped in the sense that they ideally wanted no part of either EMC, or IQ. I can not speak as to whether they were motivated to *end* that dynamic, but at the very least their agendas aligned. We situated our sphere in the middle tiers to facilitate this. We had enough bodies to hypothetically bolster IQ and defeat TKR. On the flip side, we had the bodies to flip the other way and downdeclare on IQ, effectively recreating ToT. We also invested heavily in e$ while signing a large(r) quantity of protectorates and Pantheon.This was intended as the beginning of *some* degree of ability to compete with IQ. Ultimately, I intended to capitalize on the bipolarity of the game by turning our third sphere into the wild card factor, and using that as bargaining power. If no bargain came: We'd continue to pull dissenting parties into our orbit, and we'd use our momentum to consolidate. There was no real need for quick action. Both EMC and IQ could take us out at any moment, but doing so would mean utter defeat at the hands of a merged coalition down the road. 3. When the war on TKR was pitched to me, I made it clear (first to pref and later to roq) that beating EMC was not a priority for t$. I also clearly stated that t$ FA did not distinguish much between IQ and EMC in terms of threat assessment. They were different types of hypothetical threats, but threats nonetheless. 4. Our interest was in breaking up IQ/EMC. This agenda did not align with either NPO or the EMC alliances- we'd already stepped on toes by canceling our paperless tie and i'm fairly sure some ex-EMC still resent me for that-. For NPO, what I understood was that they saw IQ as their safety net in a world which they view as inherently hostile to them. While I don't agree with their assessment, I do understand the logic behind it. 5. Long story short: We went back and forth in multiple, very lengthy discussions. prefontaine just wanted his EMC fight, and so acted in a facilitating role. Roq sought to protect his interests, I sought to protect mine. Rolling TKR came across as a prerequisite to any further movement on NPO's end. On my end, I made breaking the BK-NPO tie a prerequisite for any t$ involvement. Neither the war nor a sphere could continue without those 2 items being either agreed to or compromised on. 6. Ultimately, we agreed to the war, and a post-war shakeup in which NPO and t$ would link up. Dropping BK was a component of this initial deal. The concept was to sit down during the war and post war and balance who we would invite to our sphere. Roq and I both had concerns about potential imbalance in power dynamics if the other party was able to bring more allies. Practically speaking, I envisioned a tooth-for-tooth kind of thing, in which we'd bring a roughly equal amount of firepower initially. Enough to be a foundation and force a new political playing field, but not enough to be hegemonic in nature. If anything, our tier distribution would already mean a more competitive playing field than the status quo. 7. CoS-TEst were agreed to protect our sphere during the transition (as mentioned, we would not be large enough to singlehandedly take on IQ remnants and EMC) 8.During the war, Roq and I worked pleasantly and I can't think of any real moments where he broke word or trust. There were various speedbumps however, with squabbles over targets, misalignment of sphere interests etcetera. t$ clashed with BK on a few occasions, but I suppose that is to be expected with such a rag-tag coalition. With regards to how things were pitched: I think all 4 individuals had their own perspectives and agendas on knightfall. Misinterpretation might have occurred, but I do think our stances were clear to one another going into this. EDIT: This breakdown was *my* agenda. Hilmes' agenda overlapped but I suspect his stance was less hardline when it came to the BK-NPO ties/relations. I can't speak much on what happened after my departure. I heard the deal died in the water when I left (which is understandable). The current NPO-t$ relationship is as I understand it based on my deal with roquentin, but it is not the exact same. Anything post-my departure is better explained by t$ gov.
    2 points
  26. To say that CoS rolled us a bit of a stretch, to say that your entire coalition rolled us would be more accurate. Also I didnt mind the getting rolled part, I knew we had it coming and we gave your side our best shot. What pissed me off was the bullshit reps you guys pushed afterwards. I will also admit I was pretty annoyed that you got TKR to downgrade its allies tho. But you did me a favor, and gave me an enemy to focus on, and games like this are more fun when you have an enemy.
    2 points
  27. Complete and unconditional surrender? Seems the conditions got stricter.
    2 points
  28. Not to be rude, but who the hell are The Coal Mines and The Socialist League? When did you join the war? Hell, when did these alliances even FORM?
    2 points
  29. 3. Calling your allies incapable is pretty rude. 4. At least your side accepts that BK was losing before you intervening. Still, it's rude wounding your ally's ego. Too late of what? Of BK losing a war? ----------------------------------------------------------- In any case, thanks for being sincere about the ties you had with BK. Although no confirmation was really needed from you, it makes me smile when I think you supposedly launched the previous war to condemn secret treaties between alliances, only for you to do the same right after the end of the war. ---------------------------------------------------------- P.S. Regarding the "logs" you mention again and again, as I said, I would love to see some that are not 6 months old and are post-IQ ones. And a kind reminder: Thrax hasn't been a leader of CoS for over a year. I couldn't care less about any personal grudges between you two. Saying or even implying that a whole bloc was formed "because Thrax doesn't like us" is plain silly and childish. I am sure you don't form your blocs based on such factors. Right? Well, seeing how you behave towards Adrienne, I think you just believe that I also don't lead my own alliance and Thrax is the old school player that defines CoS's policies. Either that or that's what you want to let others think. @Nizam Adrienne love, come to my corner and let's cry together.
    2 points
  30. TIL I'm an old school player. TIL TKR's entire high gov is made up of old school players. Looks at nation ages of everyone involved. Care to try again? I had almost no relations with virtually anyone when I started leading TKR. Funnily enough, the people I had the best relationships with - or so I thought I did - when I started were actually on your side. Phoenix, Keshav, and a few others from then IQ sphere were people I thought I got along with and had good relationships with. I didn't know any of the "old school players" you're trying to pretend I do and the vast majority of our FA during the early part of my reign ran almost exclusively through me. For better or for worse, that was the reality of our FA from basically last March/April up until Knightfall. My relations with NPO took a sharp decline in the lead-up to Knightfall when you guys accused me of not even leading my own alliance, of a shadow gov running TKR, and used all of that and your three year old grudge against our "old school players" to justify your refusal to even consider giving me a fair shot. Even after that, I still attempted to talk to you guys and work on that relationship up until peace talks started. Since then, you've waffled back and forth as convenient on whether I actually lead TKR or not but I probably shouldn't even give you that much credit because every point you try and vilify me over is an action you probably believe old school TKR would be likely to aim for. You don't trust me because you still don't believe I actually lead my alliance. That belief comes from your grudges against our old school players and a refusal to believe anything other than the backwards story you've concocted in regards to what happened when our treaty talks with you came to an end last February/March.
    2 points
  31. You've already brought this up, and I've already addressed it many posts ago in a thread far far away but I went ahead and found the link for you ❤️ Using events from 1-2 years ago to explain your reasoning ESPECIALLY given you have never once reached out to me to find out where my issues with you or your alliance were founded instead going to who at the time was a mutual ally of ours. Now that you've brought it up again I'm going to go ahead and assume that you're referring to the times I've brought up my issues with NPO to Polaris in private, I might add (bad play on my part assuming it would stay between polaris and I). Certainly I had brought up your shit talk with them before but that was most definitely not what lead my decisions, it was merely the cherry on top of a multi-layered cake. I'm sorry my actions from years ago still threaten you today and I'm sorry we've never had the conversation to possibly quell your paranoia rather than receiving second hand information from mutual allies but my DM's are always open if you want to clear the air Roquentin.
    2 points
  32. I think I wasn't even around at that time, so you are talking about something that happened... 3 years ago or so? How is that relevant with anything? Maybe you should learn from BK and turn the page too. 1. So, that made you not want to ally t$ (since they didn't keep confidence) which resulted in you... signing t$? Or you are accusing just Pre and me specifically for leaking things? 2. Well, thanks for your sacrifice, Roq. I am sure you didn't want to hit TKR et al. t$/CoS/TEst made you sell your soul to the devil. Leaving jokes aside, can you explain what's the good and what's the bad part of the deal? If the bad part is signing t$... well you still did it. I don't remember something like this in our DoW. 2 of its members literally fought beside you at the previous global war. No idea what you are talking about here. Nonsese. Who is mixing up the timelones now? Whatever you have against Bezzers, he became leader during this very war, a month ago. I am lost here. Are you talking about the previous conflict between Chaos and KETOG? If yes, do explain to me this plan of "restoration". Oh Roq. The previous plot was not to roll NPO/BK. It was to roll IQ (for CoS at least, that was the case in case you were to not keep your word for the split). You did make the split though. Well, at least technically. From what we got from t$ during this global though, you decided to keep secret ties with them anyway.
    2 points
  33. I mean I can lift the quote "A new technique that separates truth from lies finds it takes about 30 percent longer to fib." Anyways the best way to debunk a lie is show evidence to the contrary. As of yet all we have is hearsay and unsubstantiated claims, so independent of all of our biases that isn't a way to justify a claim. Though, I think you're missing the point, it's that if roquentin had this rock-solid claim and evidence it wouldn't take paragraphs to explain. This is basically a corollary of occam's razor: the simplest solution is the likeliest solution. Addendum (Edit): And the fact that ya'll publicly attack Adrienne for being a liar is outrageous and unbecoming of alliance leaders/government. It's one thing to dispute facts and argue about whose side is righteous, but to go ad hominem (albeit IC) is uncalled for in this case. If anyone has the audacity to call out @Nizam Adrienne (who I interact with more than all of you), then you ought to be showing the evidence because she's more transparent than literally everyone else on these forums. I'm sorry, but this has to be said lest these forums devolved into some post-fact trumpian concoction. We are better than this.
    2 points
  34. Well, this isn't a criminal justice system, this is an online browser game. I'll never have 100% surety that anyone is a multi. It's not like I can sit behind people in real life and watch them make and operate multis. If we went by your system, everyone could have as many multis as they want and just say "hey, it's my brother, don't ban us we're totally different people I promise" and the game would be very unfair and broken.
    2 points
  35. Since everyone seems to be too sensitive when people use the words "liar" or "lies", I will just state that this is 100% untrue... ... unless you are talking about this: The only suggestion (and not really agreement) that was made between KETOG and Chaos during our war was that we would stop fighting each other in case an outsider was to try and intervene in the said war. Which kinda happened, and that's why we are all here. Regarding the offers/help that you never got, TEst and CoS had agreed to protect you and t$ when N$O was to form (supposedly, after the previous war, as it was agreed between you, Partisan, Prefontain and I). Plenty of alliances have given you chances and made more than one leaps of faith for you. And we never asked you to hit BK. --------------------------------------------------- Regarding your previous posts about "trust issues" you supposedly have against Chaos, I know there are none. You are focusing on TKR on purpose, since you have enough bad history with them and can sell the story about them telling lies untrue things by mentioning past events, etc. See though, Chaos has 3 more members. SK, Soup and CoS. For Soup, you cannot know a lot of things, but for CoS and SK... ... we literally fought side by side at the previous war for months and have talked for hours. You've seen how CoS and SK work, what our vision is, how we behave towards allies, temporary allies and even enemies. So, I am confident that you trust our word. Still, if you have reasons to not trust our word, I would love some logs and screenshots (preferably not from 6 months ago). Edit: To stay on the topic of the thread. "I give it 2 weeks".
    2 points
  36. If you had every justification to enter the war, why didn't Syndicate and NPO just declare on every alliance instead of trying to nitpick? Seems like your attempts to pressure the Syndicate community into hitting all of KETOG and not just choice alliances (Guardian/Grumpy) didn't exactly go according to plan, did it? Or perhaps you weren't completely honest with the talks you've had with Kayser (And others)? Seemed ill timed that Kayser had to go inactive, otherwise your planning alongside with BK could've gone off without a hitch - maybe, since he'd still have to persuade Syndicate to follow NPO's desires (Which is a long shot). I find it fricking hilarious that you and other NPO members claim the toxicity of others, yet... none of you denied the attempts of others to work with NPO before this war too. Seems a bit of a contradiction there. Personally, I think you don't want to outright admit that you had plans with Kayser and Leo. That the whole leak from TCW was indeed entirely true, that N$O were originally going to hit KETOG at an assigned date the same time that BK/Cov would hit Chaos. I'm still unsure whether Syndicate/HS leads still knew of that particular timing (Well, they knew of the "time" but weren't aware that it'd line up along with BK/Cov's hit too), but so far the signs point to "no" on that. Which leads me to think that this was strictly a collaboration between NPO and BK, just behind everybody else's backs. Now the other plan was that if Chaos/KETOG were to form up, that you two would indeed team up against it. Which seems to be what you're trying to get at in some half-assed round-about way (Or are you sure it's just TKR planning a hit on you that caused this? lol). Despite the fact that BK/Cov had their unfortunate leak, which provoked both of our spheres to react to it. Despite all the bullshit being spewed, there is one common denominator here: NPO and BK are still tied together. Any one thinking that your two alliances are not, are simply fooling themselves. Of course you could throw in Acadia, UPN, Camelot, etc. but they're not nearly as relevant. Everything, from Frawley and Leo admitting that BK/NPO would not fight each other to all the way up to this... just shows that there is no working with one of you without having the other attached to it.
    2 points
  37. This was no going away post. I just wanted quick cash. The amount of easy new marks around here does not surprise me.
    1 point
  38. Currently, beige is very impotent, the mechanic can be avoided almost entirely through the two steps of: 1. Having low infra, so infrastructure damage is trivial 2. Good WC / bank management, so that no loot is derived. Because of these two factors, as well as how beige benefits the defender by giving 25 turns of being undeclarable, people prefer beige chaining or not beiging people at all. One suggestion might be to increase the damage dealt by beige, by making it so that beiging now destroys military assets; i.e, in the chaos and commotion of being defeated, troops desert, tanks are destroyed, airfields get wrecked, and ships in harbor get sabotaged. I'd suggest 2.5-10% of the loser's military assets be destroyed every beige, depending on war type. I'd like to see what others thing about this. Not sure what you'd think of this, it'd finally allow tanks and ships to destroy aircraft, albeit indirectly by causing a beige.
    1 point
  39. I don't believe I have ever made an OOC comment about anybody in this game. Not everyone blurs the lines between what happens on the screen and outside of it. I believe I know which post you are referring to, and although a lot of that was just rhetorical flourish because the conversation was going nowhere, I did indeed call you lairs. Given repeated claims of 'proof' of Chaos plotting against you from deleted logs of unknown sources that are directly contradicted by my own personal experience as someone with access to to our planning, I stand by that. OOC I don't have any judgements and have no reason to distrust any statements not related to PW. But while I don't think in-game action is a good judge of character, I do believe it a good judge of the characters we choose to play. My trust towards said characters has admittedly lessened since your entry into the war. Do we? I never heard the radio show you mentioned, but aside from that one post-war rant, I can't really think of any other interactions. Obviously one of our recent interactions have been cordial, but that is all in the context of your entry into this war. We attacked your sphere in AC, true. I guess if attacking one of two existing spheres in the game one time is the pattern of hostility to go off, we're pretty boned FA wise because I can't think of anybody who doesn't have a CB against us now. Maybe Squeegee really didn't trust you, I don't know. It never came up because you weren't on the radar - ironically from our perspective,you were a non-hostile alliance with no real negative history to be concerned with. I probably would have pushed for a round 2 against KETOG later to see if we could actually put up a good fight. But we were far to busy dealing with shambolic internals to be plotting anything, let alone people we did not, at the time, consider a problem.
    1 point
  40. We fought previous allies. Multiple times. Even agreed to have support sent your coalitions way. You can keep harping about distrust and bring up the past, but again - actions say otherwise. >BK were the only ones willing to work with you Uh, yeah... this is bullshit You should ask around. You may be able to get something.
    1 point
  41. > I'm not allied to NPO > We were planning wars on precisely the same date, side with each other in every global conflict since over two years ago, they entered for fear of us losing a war that we instigated, and we apparently run a merged FA department where we answer questions directed at each other > We ran a multi-year whining narrative about other people's supposed secret ties > None of the above is contradictory and none of if constitutes proof we are lying > Orange man bad
    1 point
  42. No they wouldn't have because a leader of a Citadel alliance had already admitted they have an MDAP with BK, which means mutual aggression. They would've been dragged in anyway.
    1 point
  43. Dont ban him He is just speshul
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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