Tenages

The horror! I'll make sure to fix that in the next one

Attention hog.

I fail to correct some error everytime I do one of these. Twice in a row it's been dates though. One more time and it's a trend. lol I'll fix it tomorrow.

o/ VoC o/ SK Cheers mates. /me goes back to mah whiskey.

P.S. SK celebrates it's fouth birthday today! We can't think of a better capper on the celebrations, antics, and debauchery then to publicly announce a treaty that's been in the works for a little while now, and to let the world know these magnificent heathens in DEIC are our good friends. The only thing left is to convert them to the Faith of the Seven.

Valar Dohaeris

Our head is only unattractive because we let Cody do our hair. That was a low blow Ashland. I think VE would do pretty well, but they'd need a little time to shift from econ to military mode. I obviously don't know, but I suspect their WC and cash on hand are comparatively low given their understandable focus on growth, being a newer alliance.

^Truth What's it about?

Well everyone's entitled to a bad idea now and again. o/GR TEK can fall in a lake and drown though.

The score breakdown pie chart hasn't been fixed to account for the decrease in score assigned to missiles. For example, I have 10 missiles. The score pie chart still shows missiles as contributing 100 points to my score, rather than the correct 50.

Also jealous.

Good to figure out you're going on different paths sooner than later. Drama for the drama mill? Don't be a tease Ashland.

This is 100% accurate.

Then you're wilfully naive Sheepy. Or lying to yourself. Look at every war that's happened to date. Once you lose A/G/N superiority, unless the people you're fighting have no idea what they're doing you aren't getting it back. The attackers have the advantage of surprise to start with, allowing them to inflict significant damage before you even realize there's a war going on. Assuming a coordinated attack (which we're going to assume because that's how alliance warfare is run) you're getting hit by multiple opponents, and your forces are severely depleted. Because of restrictions on buying military, once your forces have been initially worn down by a surprise attack from multiple opponents, you simply aren't going to be able to build enough of an A/S/G force to change that equation. All of your other changes already limit the utility of missiles. If they have an Iron Dome (which anyone who isn't stupid will buy under the new system) there's a 50% chance the missile won't hit you anyway. If it does, you lowered the amount of damage it does. As you said it's possible you can steal the money so they can't launch one. Missile upkeep tripling means they won't have a huge stockpile on hand. All #5 does is completely remove an attack option, when a nation literally has no other realistic avenues left to defend themselves. Why on earth should superiority completely remove the ability to launch a missile? It doesn't remove your ability to launch any other kind of attack. Change #5 overpowers attack to such a ludicrous extent that I can't even believe we're talking about it. It's obvious. If you lose A/S/G superiority you've basically got two options now. Find a way to self-beige, or just take a vacation until the war is over, since there's no point in you being present anyway. The fact is, you designed a game/way system that prioritizes blowing the !@#$ out of infra, rather than anything else. In an alliance war, there is no incentive to "defeat" (game mechanics wise) your opponent. You then designed a weapon that blows the !@#$ out of infra way better than anything else, making in the natural be all end all of warfare. And now, while "fixing" your previous mistake, you've made it so nations who are losing can't use that superior weapon, but have to sit there and continually get hit by said weapon. Saru is 100% right. There's no other way to describe what you've done than as !@#$ retarded. I've said my piece. It's your game. Do what you want. But this recent change was poorly thought and !@#$ stupid.

Hans remains 100% correct. What this change has done is condemned those on the losing side to sit back and get blasted for literally as long as the winning side feels like it, with absolutely no ability to do anything at all to fight back. To pretend otherwise is so blatantly untrue that it's actually offensive anyone would true. If you want the system that way, fine it is your game (though it's a stupid way to set up a war system.) But for the love of god stop pretending that isn't what you've done.

Hans and under are completely right about this. Cutting off missiles when your opponent has superiority was an awful idea when you first mentioned it months ago, and it remains an awful idea. War was already firmly tilted in favor of the attacker. Now it's unbelievably, hilariously tilted in favor of attackers.

Congrats to your new gov. o/GR

This is 3 announcements in one post, for a few reasons: I like bombarding you with graphics. I don't like cluttering the forums I don't actually have a third reason, but I like sets of three. Anyway, without further ado. Seven Kingdoms Government Changes Marionette War Awards and Decorations Seven Kingdoms Raiding Policy It has come to our attention that Seven Kingdoms has never publicly shared it’s current raiding policy with the inhabitants of Orbis. We now rectify that oversight. While some may find this unnecessary, or irrelevant, we believe that it is to the public benefit when alliances make these sorts of policies public — it’s the type of knowledge that allows others to develop informed opinions on the character of the alliance in question, and to make better judgements about what path relationships should develop along. The Seven Kingdoms holds a diversity of nation building approaches within its ranks. While some of our members prefer to rely exclusively on trade and internal improvements for growth, not all are so peacefully inclined. There are amongst our ranks those who pay the Iron Price, and view it as a sacred way of life. And we allow them to practice their beliefs, albeit with restrictions. Nation of the Seven Kingdoms may conduct raids on nations that meets any of the conditions below. Is an unaligned nation Is in an alliance of 7 members of less, and holds no military treaties with an alliance of more than 7 members Is on the list of Enemies of the Seven Kingdoms Signed: Cody K, King Solomon, Lord Commander

Eh, it happens. I just wrote an announcement and dated it December 21, 2013 XD It wasn't until the second proofreader that someone actually caught the mistake. Though Brooklyn claims it's not that he didn't catch it, it's that he didn't check it, because he didn't think it was possible to !@#$ that part up. Also, o/ ESA

That's only because of your charming personality and all around likeability Speaker. I do have to say I think you guys were better off without the charter amendments you made. By better off, I mean more likely to achieve your stated goal of a high white color bonus (and your presumed goal of not having to go through an expensive war to move other alliances off.) For instance, if our situation from before had cropped up after this thread, with all of the chest thumping, machismo and threats thrown around by several members of your bloc in this thread, it's far less likely there would have been an amicable resolution. It's very probable we'd have stayed stayed just to teach a lesson to those strutting around the forums showing off their big swinging dicks (as I said to you in private during our discussion a few weeks ago). Your previous approach invited reasoned discussion and ultimately amicable resolution. This announcement, and the attitude taken by many CC members in the thread, invites belligerence and war. If that's what you want, well done. If it isn't, as Impero said, you may want to rethink the approach. That being said, wish you and ESA well, and hope CC continues to work out for all it's member alliances.

Welcome back Hereno.

Hi Sindorin. Welcome. Good to see you. As long as you aren't going to sue me that is

All of these things are simultaneously 100% true.

I basically agree 100% with Chey and TheNG. This is a terrible idea for all the reasons they've listed. It would be an excellent first step to killing off the casual playerbase, which is an excellent first step towards killing the game.

So have all secret trades tracked on the backend, and give one or more of the mods the ability to check the list. They can flag anything that might need your attention (or deal with it themselves, depending on how much leeway you want to give them.) Speaking from experience with a similar system, it's an effective method. There are valid reasons to object to this on gameplay reasons (though I like it) but the idea that it shouldn't be implemented because it might make it marginally more difficult to police trades is weak.