Leaderboard

The answer was that by the end of KF, we had a choice to hate everyone or to move on. We chose the latter because grudges are pointless in the meta and it would clearly not be strategically sound to hate the 30 alliances that just rolled us. Ever since we dropped EMC in early 2018, our goal was to make a more interesting meta, and after KF we saw lots of opportunities save the giant treaty spam of stagnation that was IQ. We wanted to get rid of the hegemony of the game and to continue to add to what we saw as a dynamic future. During the formation of Chaos, the minisphere idea was a key idea that linked our desires with a realistic FA path to achieve it. Yes, our vision for the game required the dismantling of IQ because minispheres and the then IQ hegemony were mutually exclusive. This meant working with people who had just hit us and finding common ground with old enemies. Many of our plans were leaked by Sphinx. If you read them, none point to personal grudges against the constituent alliances of IQ rather just the bloc itself. If another hegemony had arisen that threw our desires for the game asunder, then we would've had the same response. I think your opening line seems a bit contradictory. Attrition is a significant impact. TKR lost a third of its memberbase, its upper tier was essentially gone, and it ended KF with better part of 1000 cities less than it started. It was a hard hit, but we survived and we grew despite it not because some TKR low gov said so. However, this concept has nothing to do with the hit on BK/Cov. Its extreme bad faith to just not mention the logs and myriad of evidence that started this war in the first place. They wanted to hit Chaos and draft you in to hit KETOGG. The validity of that CB is night and day. There is even public evidence that shows that Cov had plans to hit Chaos during rebuild. The only choice that was made was when this war started not if. And its not as if Coalition A is our ideal coalition of alliances. We had just come out of a war with KETOGG, and we were definitely not fans of KT especially. Frankly, we have a lot more in common culturally with your own alliance, Roq, than anyone in KETOGG (which honestly would've been a really interesting result of the aforementioned ideology). After some events that transpired during Surf's Up, many in Chaos and TKR gov were not having it with KT. This isn't a relationship of anything besides what we saw as survival because that's what the BK/Cov threat merited. KETOG and Chaos were no long-term allies, and neither of them coveted hegemony nor could really be considered EMC. We thought this was going to be the fight for our lives, and it was quite surprising to us when BK sphere got rolled in just a few days. Personally, I went into this war thinking that I was going to get rolled twice in a row because BK sphere was so massive. Perhaps, y'all were smarter than us and saw correctly that BK would crumple and offer no significant resistance, but we most certainly did not. It was a fight of the survival of our blocs, our alliances and of our ideology. And this is why TKR especially pushed as hard as it did to not expand the war you. We had believed your lack of relation to the initial logs and we knew that NPO's entry would ensure bipolarity, anathema to our ideals. After we saw a victory in sight for the war, our goals were simply to try to break up what we perceived as the hegemony of the game and end the war with three simple, easy terms. A big part of our goals is short, more frequent wars with less animosity, and at the moment we thought it possible even for a global war as such: a rolling, war goals achieved and peace. NPO's entry into the war changed all of this. It wasn't so much that we were losing. Remember that TKR had come out of KF just a few months prior and we were losing Surf's Up. Rather the problem was twofold. First, the ideals that we had were shattered. In the span of a DoW, the game snapped back into bipolarity with the same alliances against each other. What was TKR/KT/Rose (not a before-seen combination) against TcW/BK (similarly as unconventional) became TKR/KT/Rose vs. BK/NPO/Cov (IQ + TcW). Years of work on behalf of some of the Chaos alliances and even some in KETOGG was erased. It seemed at the time that no amount of relations-building, effort or even subjection to harm/risk would be enough to overcome the personal ties that bind us all in Orbis. IQ was too entrenched as a mindset. And for people like Sketchy, this hit a nerve. For something like 3 years, he had been working along with others across Orbis to change the meta out of bipolarity into something else. He made regrettable comments, which thankfully were disavowed months ago publicly by Hodor and coalition leaders. Second, NPO had broken the trust we had all placed in it to stay true to its breakup of IQ. We took a leap of faith when we believed NPO in its denial of involvement in Rainbow's leaks. We thought that good faith might lead somewhere in the future, or maybe it was the only way that we could keep the nightmare of bipolarity away. This was compounded by a shoddy CB, especially relative to the CB that started this war, against TKR, which is just a rehash of an age-old feud that I know TKR wanted desperately to put in the past in light of a path towards our desired meta. And the loss of trust just continued to compound. NPO broke T$' conditions, then they continually flopped on their reasons for attacking (even shifting to openly admitting that they did so in defenses of BK and the dynamic), to finally planning and conducting hostilities against a treatied ally. It seemed that there was no end to the breaking of precedent, and that this choice of NPO's was completely out of our control. To make these matters worse, NPO didn't just play dirty during the war, but also in the preparations for peace talks. Possibly, the focus here shifts to the coalition as a whole, but undoubtedly NPO plays an integral role of enforcing these actions. There was an unprecedented ask for a surrender before talks even began combined with a condition of talks only one day a month although fortunately they were only asking for a NAP, surrender and meme terms. It took many months of back and forth in the coalition to come to terms with our defeat with what it meant for the meta and for our alliances. Finally, in November, both T$ and KERCHTOGG both surrendered, our representatives were trolled, ignored and gaslighted. They weren't shown the terms as promised nor were the terms just a NAP, surrender and meme terms. The argument they presented against us was that we had pushed this war thus far because of comments from Sketchy and co that "crossed the Rubicon," and yet months after these comments in late June/early July the offers for simple surrender and peace terms was still on the table. It finally reached a point where we our good faith had run out, and rightly so we concluded that there was no interest in real peace talks. Partisan makes his post after days of researching, looking for the required evidence and exposing the truth to the public on how peace talks were going. Our situation was untenable. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. Yet coalition B was slandering us publicly for the lack of progress. The choice was clear. Predictably, the stance of coalition B changed because a lot of their bs had been called out although the worst was yet to come. George and Kastor leaked devastating (or what should be devastating) logs from the upper echelons of coalition B's internals. On the public record, was Leo, Keshav, Roquentin, Under, TheNG stating that their intent with the peace talks was to attrition us to death, to disbandment. Now, I have always tried to see the bright side of things and engage with as much good faith as possible, but for me and many others in our coalition, that was the line. What NPO had decried for a refuted microcosm was being perpetrated on a mass-scale to heinous effect. It was hypocritical and it was unbelievable. That wound will need time to heal, but despite these damaging logs being thrown into the open Coalition B didn't flinch. They gaslighted, they deflected and they even tried to justify it. Roq, the golden rule stipulates "do to others what you wish to have done to yourself," and even the vestige of this cardinal value escapes the NPO and the actions it enforces. If you want to find your metaphorical "rubicon," then here it is. For the living humans behind the discord users, nations, forum accounts and everything that makes up our own communities and the Orbis community, I choose that hill to die on every time. And a note is that I address this post to NPO mostly because I see them as a principal agent in many of these actions and it is in response to your post. It is possible that at least some of this can be contributed to your coalition. The thing is that pure hegemony isn't the point of this game. A lot of the above was about fleshing out how this game can be made better without it. I always find it funny that you were the one who coined EMC, easy-mode coalition. You had a point. This game is supposed to be a challenge in politics and in war. On that point, I'd like to say you usually make a great enemy and promise lots of fireworks and difficulties, and I respect that. To bested in the political theatre or mechanically in war is a part of the game, and the entertainment or the "fun" is overcoming those challenges with one's community to later become the defeater instead of the defeated. The evolution of paracov into IQ is a great example. Its simple choices that aren't always the easy path like BK leaving OO, TKR leaving EMC, or NPO originally joining up with cov that provide the dynamic framework that really lets these sims tick. I admonish you using your own words. Don't let Opus Dei become the new EMC. Different names, but the meaning still carries on. For the sake of NPO players and the orbis community, its not essential to milk out every little thing until you are unparalleled but to work in such a way that benefits your community. Evolving this game into a stagnated CN 2.0 isn't the way to achieve that. As I've said before, we're open to ideas on how to fix the game besides minispheres for the sake of a dynamic environment. And yet it's clear that consolidation, bipolarity and the sole desire for hegemony are only conducive for promoting stagnation and facilitating paranoia where none should exist. So @Prefontaine to answer your question after my magnum opus of a post. I think it boils down to three aspects. A difference in ideology of the future of the game. Personal relationships that have developed over time generally as a reflection of ideological alignments, mere exposure effect. Finally, a drastically distinct set of perceptions on the game, the meta and actions that we perceive to be justified or precedented. As a note though, I'm not a coalition leader, but I am intimately involved with TKR, the Chaos alliances and much of Coalition A in an FA setting.

Pre-emptive thanks to GOONS for purging this cancer from the face of the earth.

I consider this war a "fight to the death" because of the absense of an option to peace for my alliance. Should those circumstances change, then it follows logically that this is no longer a fight to the death. That's not what you want to hear or talk about though, so let me see if I can tackle this question... It's a hard one as the answer isn't straightforward. There is a myriad of events and factors which affect the nature of this war. Let's try though: 1. There are historical grievances in play which go back to 4 years ago as well as more recent grudges. Knightfall and this war are the first 2 wars where a side which had incurred a lot of consecutive losses over the years, managed to flip the script and have their old nemesis at its knees. Irrespective of how they got their: They find themselves in a position of power and scores are to be settled. I will leave my opinions on the justification or validity of these grudges at the door. That's a conversation for another time. - NPO and The Covenant are alliances you can think of as ones with grievances going back years. BK's grudge fest with TKR is at this point a few years old, but relatively new compared to the other ones. 2. Simultaneously, a lot of the party components making up coalition A just had their pipe dream shattered. t$ awoke from the nasty reality that its project with NPO - a project intended to move the game away from the EMC v IQ grudgefest- is shattered. Both t$ and NPO feel betrayed, and it's opened up a lot of barely healed wounds from past grudges. All diplomatic progress made to mend relations over the past year appears undone with the brush of a stroke (on both sides). Again, leaving personal convictions on those events aside. KETOG and Chaos had their ideological utopia of a fractured minisphere world with short wars between multiple competing spheres shattered. Having been forced back into bipolarity, they view the remerger of NPO-BK as not just an existential threat, but the manifestation of the playstyle they sought to avoid. Consequently, the view exists among a lot of coalition A parties, the war is both ideological and existential in nature. That combination raises the stakes significantly, and hence you see a higher degree of defiance. 3. The combination of the import of an NPO-centric GPWC and the invasion of a war-centric GOONS has not just impacted the battlefield; it has shifted the balance of power within coalition B to a degree where the succesful occupation of coal A alliances is no longer contingent on the more moderate fringes. This allows for the more radical elements within coalition B to force their objectives (which involve maximizing damage by delaying the war) without having to concern themselves with the fringes. Fringes in turn are pressured to follow for the ride for fear of retalliation (see: OWR/CTO). Where normally war weariness among moderates would begin factoring in, forcing the conclusion of a war before total annihilation has been reached, this is mitigated. 4. The game mechanic do tend toward linear increase in average war length As the game ages stockpiles increase and alliances can sustain their wars close to indefinitely. 5. Certain parties have been unable to move past old grudges, even if one could technically consider it fulfilled. This point is a continuation of the other points. A lot of people on both sides have been entrenched to a point where discourse is no almost no longer really possible. Trust has evaporated and paranoia rules the day. This lends itself well to self fulfilling prophecies. There's a lot more than can be said. Maybe i'll chip in again later. This should be a good conversation starter.

Going to die from curiosity now... I cannot even imagine what could have happened between HS and NPO for things to turn out like this...

It was a sunny day on the Pacific. The waters were calm, with a fleet of Stark ships bobbing gently on the surface. King Zygon sat in his cabin, poring over a series of letters and reports that had been accumulating on his desk. Marauders from all sides had laid siege and waste to the North. What was worse was being caught in the middle of warring factions. Although fighting alongside their lifelong ally $yndicate, House Stark also had an ally on the other side of the war. The New Pacific Order. A lot had transpired over the last several months. What had once seemed so clear and clean had become muddied and murky. The King had decided that waiting for the storm to pass was no longer a viable option; it was time to clear the water on their own. A gentle knock on the door interrupted his reading. “Yes?” Zygon inquired and a soldier opened the door. “My King, the Emperor is here at your request.” he said. Zygon stood up and sighed. “Very well. Send him in, please.” The door opened wider and Emperor Roquentin glided into the cabin, stopping in front of King Zygon’s desk. Although shorter than the King in the North, the Emperor still radiated power that only came with royalty. “It’s rare for me to step aboard your ship these days, Zygon. I wasn’t expecting to see you until Saturday for our golf game.” Roquentin said “Nor was I, but unfortunately some things have happened that require my immediate attention and decision. Please, sit down.” Zygon said. They sat. “I’ll try to be as brief as I can, Roq. As you are no doubt well aware, this war has placed many folks in an awkward position. I would venture to say that my House has been one of those folks. We’ve been caught in the middle for too long. Words have been said that can’t be taken back, and our honor demands action.” Zygon paused and Roq nodded. Zygon continued. “I’ve been reading reports for the better part of the morning and I am disturbed by some of what I’ve read. The Black Knights political ideals have no place in the North and your recent signing of them concerns me greatly. I know that you’d be unwilling to back down so I’ll make it easy for you. Seventy-two hours from now, you won’t see a single Stark ship left in your harbor. The only Stark flag will be above our dignitary.” Roquentin sighed. “I knew that this was a possibility, so I can’t claim that I’m surprised. I am sorry you were caught in the middle of this. I wish it had been avoided.” “As do I, Roq.” Zygon said, standing up. Roq followed suit and offered his hand which Zygon firmly grasped. “I wish you safe winds on your voyage home and luck in the battles ahead.” Roq said “Thank you, Roq. I am sorry it had to come to this.” Zygon replied. Roq nodded once before turning and walking out the door. Zygon waited for the sound of his boots to dissappear and then walked out onto the deck. “Sojourner! Prep the fleet to make sail. We’re going back North.” He commanded. As the fleet began to make its way out of the harbor, a strong, cold wind blew from the South, filling the sails and propelling the Stark fleet North. Zygon smiled as the wind picked up and chilled the air. “Winter is coming.”

tldr: IQ actually broke up. EMC is the real hegemony. Anyone who doesn't like IQ automatically belongs to EMC. EMC is responsible for the war stil not being over. IQ literally never did anything wrong.

I know different alliances have different reasons for fighting, to still be fighting, seeking peace, or whatever stance you currently have in this war. I don't want to debating the validity of those reasons, and I don't want the thread to go down that route (not that this part will be listened to) knit-picking the reasons people have but I wanted to ask the various leadership a question. Recently a certain idea has been presented by both major sides, that this war is a "zero sum" war, or a "fight to the death". Both sides blame the other for bringing it to this point. My question is why is it? I get wanting to see the other sides pixels burn, I get wanting to defeat them, I get wanting some form of terms for surrender and such. What I don't quite get is why you would want to eliminate the enemy entirely in a game like this. So why is this war a zero sum game now, why is it a fight to the death? What brought it to that point? What events does your side view the other side of having done to cause this? If you're not some level of gov, I'd rather you stay out of the conversation for the most part unless you have something to add to a post of your leadership. If you're just going to troll there are several other threads you can take the opportunity to do so. Having a civil thread would be a nice change of pace, no? Maybe having a respectful conversation about things could even help.

The real problem? This kind of game You are forced to play with everyone, you can't just play with your friends like with a videogame, move to another server or block that user to avoid him, to solve this situation you could move one of the two coalitions to another server, but we have one... when we are lucky There's no end or goal, no real rules, if you want to break a treaty and you don't care about your reputation you just do it, if you want to win a war you just have to join the biggest coalition, if you want to statpad your military stats you go to Arrgh in peace time and then you move in the winning coalition during war, if you want to pixel hug you go to RR Not all the players are equal, at best only 20% of us is really playing the game, and I don't talk about only activity but mostly knowledge of what happens in the game, this because not everyone can spend too much time for the game and becuase there's a lot of things you need to read and know, so there's an 80% of us who does what their gov wants and know what their gov let them know, an example are IQ players who ask why we don't surrender, I link the recent logs and they are like what? wtf? Government is a grat thing but can also really bad because only them can play politics and often just a few of them, the normal player has to follow the direction chosen by his gov, has no power to vote unless the gov is open to listen, has no power to decide who is in the gov, his only power is leaving the alliance, but it's hard to leave the alliance when you are there from the start and you made friends etc. The game sucks because is in an eternal beta version, a lot of things needs to be fixed but Alex is alone, then it's easy to use some mechanics to take advantage of other people, or just run a bot to make your life easy, right IQ? The game is very easy so to perform you need 1% skills, 19% activity, 80% numbers, and there's no real way to have a 33%-33%-33% Communities are too closed, most of the players spend their time only with their alliance, people lose objectivity easily and usually we all act like in sport where the ref always screwed your team and the other won for pure luck So the reason why we are in this situation is because the game is shit and we are too stupid to play a better game

Don't ?say ?you? love ?the ?anime? if ?you? haven't? read? the ?manga? 12 days of Shifty Christmas begins tomorrow! That's 12 threads, one everyday til Christmas. Shifty will leak anything you give him screenshots of. It's holiday Christmas sale. Come in today and save! >tfw no gift uwu

The lack of prior indication is perhaps best justified by the "ramifications" you mention here. As made evident by the actions of Coalition B both before and after we left the war, it was clear that any attempt to give prior notice of our exit would have resulted in retaliation. Considering being held hostage is hardly the most enjoyable thing, our delayed notice was fairly reasonable. With respect to us signing t$, it was actually just us pushing forward an FA move that we had been working towards for a while. The behavior of Coalition B and their attitudes towards us, meant that we had no interest in sticking around the powers that be for any longer. As for the continued portrayal of us as insolent pixel-huggers, I can only say that the primary reason for our exit was cumulative displeasure with our "friends" in the Coalition. After so many hours of being complained at and talked down to, despite laying $40 billion and 20 members on the great bonfire of destruction, in the first global for about 75% of our members - a war that began because of mistakes and plotting that we were not involved in, the actions and behaviour of the Coalition were such that we felt they simply weren't worth any further involvement.

It's quite interesting, isn't it? You'll have to forgive me, as I've been in-and-out of the game for awhile now. We have reached a point where the "meta" of the game has well outpaced the "mechanics" of the game. Most alliances still remaining that are actually relevant (lol micros) have mostly figured out fairly optimal paths to deal with the simple mechanics of gameplay. The builds, the infra and city building strategy, what units to target, how to raid or conserve resources, etc.; those have generally been well-solved aside from the occasional server hiccup or glitch. The development of major changes to the mechanics of the game has greatly slowed. I suspect this is in large part because the codebase is a very fragile thing at this point, and making even moderate changes of any substance is likely going to require a lot of time and labour to patch. That's not indicative of failure on the part of the game administration, but it does mean that you allow the invested and serious players a chance to really work out the optimal strategies that they feel will work for them. In Coalition A, I've noticed for the most part a relatively steady brain drain over the past few years. Many of the players who were well-known along alliances in Coalition A have either retired or left the game entirely. I would suggest this is because most felt accomplished with the way they have played, and thus they have moved away. Either that, or they feel as though the game does not have much to offer them at this point. There's been a fairly general decay in most of those alliances, yet for the most part they have a relatively diverse set of backgrounds and philosophies. Losing players of that calibre doesn't just hurt those alliances or the coalition itself; it also means that experienced players and personalities have left the game and no longer contribute to making it a community. I think the players in Coalition A are generally ready to move on with the "meta" of the game, but they find themselves unable to do so. Personally I was ready to delete months ago (maybe even beyond a year at this point to be totally honest), but I have stayed on due to the current global war - and had committed to staying on long before I knew I would actually be in the fight. It is more likely than not that I will delete post-war. While the memes of wanting to spite posters from Coalition B who want to drive people out of the game would be the thing that gets clicks and wows, the reality is more that I too, feel relatively accomplished in the game (inb4 lol you didn't do jack), and I have other things out of life that I'd like to turn my attention to. I don't actually think that everyone is like this, or that people will suffer from a lack of morale and leave the game because of this war. I've played these kinds of games for a long time. I honestly don't know why I've stayed on for the past two years even, other than the social community of people in the alliances I have been a part of. In Coalition B, I've noticed an ethos of taking every possible small advantage and rolling them in together to try and elevate beyond their normal limits. From the massive influx of referral bonuses and out-of-game allied help via GPWC and other communities, to providing tools and resources for the game and thus likely being granted some additional access to mechanical features, to well-organized baseball leagues to get cash; the major alliances on the side of Coalition B have found tiny bits of the fluff mechanics and used them to find an extra gear to the normal mechanics that they operate from. I don't think this is an awful thing in and of itself. Is it perhaps against the intended spirit of each of the bonuses? There's an argument about exploitative practice there that holds water. But I think it is perhaps a very good example of the "meta" outstripping the "mechanics", as I alluded to earlier. Other people in this thread have laid out the histories and reasons for why alliances in Coalition A and Coalition B (and I guess the neutrals count too) have acted and behaved in the way they have over the past several months and even few years. I don't have to reiterate that. I think part of the reason that Coalition A feels that Coalition B doesn't care about the PR battle (other than the fact that this is the OWF and it is pretty shi- as a general rule, let's be honest), is because Coalition B has taken the mechanics and imports and decided that they can go it alone without the help of peripheral allies or peeling off anyone from Coalition A to join them in a post-war world. Or, if for some reason they can't do that in a post-war world, then they've decided that Götterdämmerung is their only choice (and even then, it still mostly takes the concept of the PR battle and gives it the moutza). These games seem to have a somewhat limited shelf-life if the mechanics are not tweaked every so often. We have probably hit that point here. There was once a golden era for simulators of this type, but despite this probably being the best contemporary game of its kind, it is really fairly stagnant other than recent imported communities like GOONS and GPWC (who have all been ported over by Coalition B). The personalities aren't being refreshed or added, but rather dying off and stagnating. And if you don't have a new set of ideas to drive the "meta", then without innovations in the "mechanics", you'll come to a grinding stalemate soon enough. That's because our precious downvotes were removed from the forums so this is all we have left, amirite.

Who needs a Christmas truce? Noctis brings the world together in harmony.

If the governments won’t walk away from the war, perhaps alliance members should walk away from the governments. It’s all just a bit embarrassing now.

This right here is sort of the point of this thread. Both sides have a perception of the other, and a perception of what they think the other thinks about them. If you actually sit down and talk to each other honestly, you'll find everything has been blown out of proportion and there is a ground that both sides can stand upon and work this situation out. There has been a lot of stuff thrown around this war and if you can step back and try to look at it without your sides mindset, you can see things a little clearer. I talked to Roq recently regarding the logs and told him that there's some pretty damning stuff in there. There is. However if some of my old coalition leadership logs leaked there'd be some pretty damning stuff in there too. In wars like these, morale comes at a premium and sometimes you have to gas yourselves up to keep grinding it out -- even when winning. I'm sure somewhere along the lines I've said like I want to roll them out of the game, when all I really mean is I just wanna roll them. The point is no one really has clean hands in this mess, arguing about who has dirtier hands isn't going to solve things. Respectful dialog is a must, trying to look at things with less bias is important. If we can do that, small pockets of trust can be built and the there's a chance for actual peace and progress.

Well Roq if you are going to speak for Grumpy, please dont. My hit list post Knightfall, was CoS, BK, tS. In that order. The reason that list looked like it did was because of how CoS and BK acted in the peace talks for that war (and at the time I wanted to see tS lose a war). I expected to be hit, TKR sphere had it coming. I didn't even have an issue losing that war. That said those peace talks were such bullshit, that it was no longer in my eyes a, "shake hands, hey good war guys you got us" it was a you are specifically trying to stick it to me, so I guess we are actual enemies. BK and CoS became a future target in my eyes specifically because of the peace talks. I actually thought NPO was smart not to be in those talks because Thanos was such a dick in there, it put a giant ole target on his alliance post war. Maybe I am old school, but I miss the days when you fight a war, and post war you look at the people you fought and say those guys did a good job, we should see about getting closer to them. The toxicity now is so bad, not only do I not want to fight with many of you, I would be happier never having to talk to or deal with many of you ever again.

My main takeaway here is that you entered to defend BK from a curbstomp that would've eliminated them as a competitor to a KETOG/CHAOS hegemony (which is unfounded, but I'll include anyways). That means you assume we intended to launch a war that was unlike any war before, where we fought well beyond what was necessary to cut them down to size, well beyond what could reasonably be forgiven, and absolutely incapacitate them. Like I said, this idea of total war was unprecedented in this game, so to assume we would pursue that route perhaps speaks to your motivations (and currently I think I am being proven correct). The truth of the matter is, before your entry, this war was going to end in something pretty close to white peace for BK and Co. BK would not have been crippled. Maybe embarrassed, but we never would have even dreamed of driving them from the game or holding them under water indefinitely.

I also like 1 player games

Having been in gov with a close ally of an alliance Roq led for many years in another world, he is very paranoid and no level of statistical advantage or dominance is going to likely ever be enough for him to feel "safe". I say this not in an attempt to attack him but to provide context for his viewpoints and NPOs actions. No matter how much he hurts an opponent he's never going to be happy that they aren't a future threat, so he's never going to be happy with a peace agreement.

Instructions unclear, now my dick is stuck in the CD drive.

oh god how did this get here i am not good with computer It has been rough 2019. For the game, for myself, and for my alliance. After a war of unprecedented implications in the winter, the spring brought with it a fresh breeze of change and deceptive promises. Spheres and blocs were shifting, breaking up, and newly forming, all over the political globe. KT and TGH formed a new bloc with the Grumpy Guardians, and determined to do our part in shaping a new landscape of multiple spheres, of dynamic cooperation, of short-term commitments and perpetual choice between abundant options. As Saul Berenson said in Homeland: "I actually convinced myself we were gonna change the world." Our actions during that time, culminating in our war versus Chaos, were irrefutably taken in pursuit of those goals. The situation took an unxpected turn prompted by leaked plans to target both our blocs, and suddenly we found we could work together with the same people we were just fighting hours before. Still, it looked like our dream had become reality. But all that changed when one certain key alliance took it upon themselves to make the biggest possible decision on behalf of the entire game, crush all possibility and nuance, and throw the world back into brutal certainty. Today, there remains little doubt about the future of this game. The forces at the helm of both political hemispheres have forced each other to give up all other pursuits and goals, and to be utterly dedicated to stopping or destroying one another. In such a bipolar dystopia, no single alliance can truly find its own way while it remains part of the machine. Certainly not an alliance as uniquely skilled and freedom-loving as KT. Our commitments in this war are already made and can no longer be broken, but it will have been the first and last time we will have allowed ourselves to be NPCs in a black-and-white world. A new year is about to dawn, and a new chapter in the history of KT will be written by a new pen. With the beginning of 2020, Knights Templar will become truly paperless. We vow to never again be allied to any other alliance, neither overtly nor in secret. And never again will we wage war in pursuit of political goals. But we will wage plenty of wars, and we will always be open for military cooperation - be it for money or for fun. For the ongoing war, this means that on the 1st of January KT will sever all our ties to KETOGG and Coalition A. From that moment, we will no longer be party to their peace negotiations, and we will not be included in any peace deal between the 2 coalitions. We will then only consider negotiating for our own peace after the coalitions have peaced out, and the global war is over. Furthermore, KT will be treating our ongoing conflict versus IQ as a fun and friendly war, regardless of how it originally started. Our only goals are to shred more pixels and to have a good time. In case you're wondering, the unusual 3 week advance warning is to give both coalitions a reasonable window of opportunity to agree to a peace deal, if for whatever reason they wish to do so before this announcement takes effect. KT will be party to Coalition A's peace efforts and agreements for the remainder of 2019. tldr: Sorry, GOONS. Looks like we'll still be at war for the forseeable future.

You humiliate yourself more than we ever could. I told Polaris we were pursuing peace. My people sacrificed more for Coalition B than any of you deserved.

2 John 1:12 Having many things to write to you, I do not want to [do so] with paper and ink; but I hope to come to you and speak face to face, that your joy may be made full. Even the bible approves being paperless. Bless.

I'm not sure what the "3.5" vs "4.5" your talking about even is. Any 'advantage' you are eaking out this point is very marginal unless it is to drive players from the game. All the expensive infra has been blown up. You can't force anyone to spend their warchest and it's easy for us to fund ourselves just by raiding. Both sides are limited in what they can rebuild. The larger point that you are missing, and in my experience have always missed in this world and in previous worlds is that this is a game. It's not just about stats or eliminating all potential threats. It's about having fun and having a good community. Competition is fun. The seesaw of different alliances and groups going in and out of power and different coalitions forming is fun. Wars that involve months of both sides mostly just bombing and rebombing rubble aren't fun. If all you're concerned about is "strategic incentives" you're missing all that. Especially since as I said above, the actual in-game advantage you get from extending this war is very marginal.

I think you'll find that the reason why I left was because we no longer saw KT's original goal being viable any longer (minispheres is a dead dream). Horse believed he could take KT in a different direction and we agreed to allow him to do it. We however did not want to be in his version of KT and so we went our seperate ways. I've always been pretty open that I was going to join TKR but decided to join KT instead a long time ago. So I decided that I'd join them this time, there was no agreement for me to have any position within TKR and currently I am just a member. I am combating you because you're at war with me and because it seems you have an intent to disband this coalition or knock it so far into the dirt that you'll have a advantage that can never be questioned. I know you enjoy making boogeymans out of everyone but you made me your enemy not the other way around. Stop using any sort of resistance as an excuse to continue this war. We're unified in the belief that you don't want this conflict to end (despite us trying to conclude it) and that your ultimate goal is to eradicate us. It's the classic saying that an enemy of my enemy is my friend at this point.

Due to popular demand, here are the leaked logs proving my longstanding paperless ties to Rose. Context was the Halloween contest last year, where Sheepy gave ingame prizes for the pumpkins with the most votes (Announcement - Vote - Results).

Please elaborate how the alliance that decided to protect their protectorate from BK are war dodgers

When the double buy can change everything:

When the last war was ongoing, people raised the question of what would happen after. Would TKR/Guardian/GOB/etc. be more angry at the ex-EMC who had hit them or at Inquisition? The question was answered pretty quickly. It would be Inquisition. They coalesced with their brethren who had fought them and their brethren who had sat out the war to plot against the Inquisition. Their battlecry had always been that Inquisition was seemingly overpowered. Even though steps were being taken to fulfill the split, it became an uneasy affair when the knowledge became known the more rambunctious half would be likely targeted regardless. Thus, a stipulation was asked for to the FA head of tS that if the rest of the game ganged up on them, we would have the ability to enter. We knew their condition was relatively fragile. They had been targeted about a year before and largely heckled for their decision to stick with IQ before that and it did have an impact on the economies of all the alliances on that side. In contrast, EMC had barely been impacted by Knightfall. The attrition was the real damage and that was because they had coddled those members for years by avoiding harder fights in the upper tier. The TKR low gov had openly stated at the start of Knightfall that the war would accomplish nothing. As a result, the only damage done was losing members who could not cope with the hard fight. The financial dominance of former EMC was not affected in the slightest by the war. They felt entitled to beat down their traditional bugbears, however. When they interrupted their playfight, it became clear that they would be in an unparalleled position of dominance if the BK/COvsphere could not hold them off. One war had done little to them aside from the attrition. They were back to full form or as full as they could be given the attrition partially offset by the incorporation of KT/TGH/Oblivion and Rose to a lesser extent. They all cackled with glee at their initial success and only bad things could result. Rumors of forced treaty cancellations circulated. When we chose to try to make it a non-curbstomp, their entitlement incensed them into a rage and they vowed permanent enmity more or less. Simply not winning against "IQ" was beneath them. Only they could bring each other down. No one else. The rubicon had been crossed and it was clear they would not take it as a normal war. It was an existential struggle and they would only change their minds when it stopped going well for them. The words were not forgotten and it was clear who would benefit more from a quick peace. The historical elites sought to entrench themselves further and go for a better shot and with tS most likely with them. We dealt with the threat when they played their hand. The other side knows that is is easier for them to financially set back Coalition B vs vice versa. Thus, they play the victim of the long war. A long war requires more discipline and it can get tiresome, but that is the hand we have had to play. The refusal to come to the table earlier pushed us into more extreme stances. When people abandoned the coalition when it was about a refusal to surrender, they did so on the premise of seeking shelter from hostile powers. When this type of precedent has been historically enabled, action is required to thwart it becoming a norm. It has become clear they will treat any war as a severely rancorous conflict if it is not a playfight. It's not about eliminating them but there is no other way to wear them down until a suitable deal can be reached. They'll be fine if it ever peaces. They brag about how well off they are. Don't worry about them.

You mean 9 months? Don't want this to be premature. Oh yes, a world so foreign to the brainwashed NPO mind as to be called inconceivable.

That's photoshopped. There is no cow level.

Thass abot a vide gam charactr not u. Did u reed tha articl aboht da Cowz? Tha herd iz so prooud! MOOOO! OH we juss cannut contan ourselfs! MOOOO! Herd made da GOONS Gazzette!

Again proving Aza's point that no matter what level of dominance your side has, it will never be enough to placate your paranoia and that you will never feel safe. There will always be some dissent, on our "side" or in your own and trying to foolishly end it all is a fool's pursuit. Do you even realise you just proved him right? All smack talk aside, Coal A is defeated and a shell of their formerselves, probably lucky if 200 of us are still declaring wars and these of us still fighting are living off loot essentially. How much is enough? Do you actually want to kill whole communities and eradicate any hint of future opposition? Turn the game into a stagnant wasteland where no one ever does anything besides buy cities because your paranoia and ego demands it? Where the hell is the challenge in that going forwards? Enough is enough roq, let the paranoia go and be the better man. We are beaten, you beat us at long last. I suspect a large amount of our side will form new AAs with new leaders out of disgust at how this war has become a giant pissing match between leaders staking whole communities on the grudges of a few. Either that or they will cut ties with former coalition allies much as KT has done. We are done as a coalition and if our own leaders don't realise that then they are fools too. If you wish to continue the war on for a month or so to get your last kicks in, go ahead and do it, get your last kicks in and have all the fun you want. At the very least start granting and broadcasting lenient terms for individuals not wishing to fight any longer who want out of this mess of a war and who are rightfully pissed at their own leaders for how this has went down. You won, now it's time to end this charade. Edit: As for Ava's comment, well, I disagree with him. And if he and whoever else wants to take your side on again in 6 months they will be doing it on their own.

Congratulations to my favorite allies!

Hello Everyone, Not sure how good i’m to explain all the reasons behind this suggestion, but I will try to do my best. I want to make a suggestion for Nuclear Weapons to increase their cost as well as damage. Considering this cost increase, the nukes would create more damage than they currently do. That said, one detonated nuclear weapon would still destroy up to 2k infra, but also would destroy the improvements that are included in that infrastructure. The reason behind this idea is that currently, nuclear weapons relatively are quite useless as you can gain more infrastructure damage per cost with planes or ships instead. Adding to that, nations whose military is significantly weakened and resources are lost/looted use them on pointless targets due to the fact that they can't do anything else to the opposition front. And because they have still got that arsenal, the common player still believes in himself in winning said war. So, here's the idea: The cost of a nuke should be increased to $100 or $200 million. Upon detonating a nuke, the damage would still destroy up to 2k infra. However, it would also destroy the improvements that require that infra to sustain and work. Although the actual damage wouldn't increase much, the damaged nation would have to be rebuilt if the player decides to regain their economical and/or military autonomy. This therefore, would avoid endless wars from happening in future conflicts again and would prioritise smarter thinking and coordination overall. Let me know what your opinions are, and help spread awareness.

This thread reads like a who's who of bad posters. Enjoy your stupid war against GOONS that changes nothing.

This wasn't the tone when Syndisphere was on top of the game destroying everyone. You literally said the exact opposite(NPO did). You wanted to make the game more "fun" I remember these arguments because I was on your side when you were all saying this.

Cooper for prez. Goddamn boy. Hit the nail on the head.

When you opened with "I've been thinking about writing this for some time" I was expecting a lot more than what you wound up writing.

In regards to deletions in disbandment discussions within IQ vs other groups is, Roq, TheNG, Under, and a number of other coalition leaders, discussed deletions and disbandment as a pre-requisite for peace as opposed to people saying "I hope they delete." I don't think in any of the previous wars it was discussed as a pre-requisite to begin a peace process.

For reference purposes, this is the original gif: I dry-tested it on a few people while I was still operating fake nation screens. As it turns out, they didn't even notice the fake nation screens, which was the original objective, because of the disorienting background. === If you are not epileptic, and you know you're not, feel free to compare to actually seizure-inducing videos. Try the Pokemon episode, for instance. That, in my estimation, has roughly 3-10 Hz cycling between the relevant colors. This video, as a whole, is .5-1 Hz and tries to sequence into itself as a loop.

Pref; A big problem is that with regards to this becoming a long-term grudgefest, it's not entirely up to us. We have lost the war and sued for peace. There is not much more we can do besides waiting for our opposition to actually come to the table and present us with their demands in good faith. The leaks have shown that that has not occurred yet, and until then we will be in status quo. So long as no viable avenue to peace is given by the victor, the war drags on, grudges fester and the game becomes less hospitable to more people. I would love for this to change (god forbid; i'd really like to retire again eventually, and this war is a major roadblock to that), and my DM's have been consistently open. There have been private efforts to reasonably work on peace on my part prior to any public posts, and there have been paralel efforts right up until now. Dialogue has, in my opinion, been unattainable- and that is by design.

The last war was Surf's Up, just FYI.

Thank you, GOONS. Keep him distracted enough where he doesn't spam the forums, would you?

Do you think this relinquishes your friends of the guilt they bear for being your friends in the first place?

This was actually written well. Really did sound like I was reading from ASOIAF.

"Why, yes, we're KT members... how could you tell?"

When you talk to reasonable alliances in Coal B....

As leader of the Real Polaris, I don’t recall banning/kicking you? You must be talking about the Fake Polaris. They’re fake for a reason