Worcestershire

I’ll give you credit for not using AI to write that at least.

All FA is based on assumptions. As much as we would like to know exactly what rumors to believe and what talk to dismiss, that simply isn’t a possibility. Couple our intelligence with the fact that former allies of TFP are in this very thread talking about them plotting against SAIL, add in that they are planning to ally Singularity, and to me our assumption seems more than reasonable. Given our history, we do know full well that alliances are capable of political nuance, but that simply isn’t the picture we have here. The picture we have is an alliance scheming against us and intending to ally another alliance who’s whole FA policy is based around wanting to see us rolled. We don’t want to believe that TFP will just go along with Singularity, it’s what we must believe based on a preponderance of evidence. And since you mention history, I would like to remind you of our rather unpleasant string defensive wars not too long ago. Given our history, we also know that it doesn’t pay to be reactive, to make moves only when absolutely positive of their necessity. Sometimes you need to act on logical assumptions. We have only created a self fulfilling prophecy in the event which the assumption that TFP was going to try to reel in Singularity is true, which I am very much skeptical of. I won’t speak for the alliance as a whole in this part, I personally don’t have any objections to Singularity’s actions at face value. They have an FA department that will do what an FA department does: try to promote their interests and work against the interests of their enemies. That’s the whole politics side of the game and I don’t fault them for playing it. My trouble with their actions is that they’re directed at us, so I think it naturally makes sense for us to respond in kind.

Well, fair enough then.

Do you feel bound by even the slightest degree of professionalism?

If you look at the tiering charts it’s not an unbalanced war. It isn’t a hegemony if there’s a similarly sized sphere to oppose it.

It’s been a while, but I’m happy to be allied with you all once again!

So if Midgard’s terms are voided, does that mean relations between Aurora and Carthago are no longer reset?

Happy hunting!

At a certain point one begins to wonder why people still bother to type up game suggestions. Every last one of them falls on deaf ears. Even if they didn’t it would take 2 years to implement any meaningful changes. Anyways I’ll probably get a strike on my account now for daring to question the work ethic of the dev team. I’m sure they’re working very hard to get us another two national projects out in the next year. I only pray that these won’t be designed to be useless and only exist as a poor justification for there being a dev team like military salvage or fallout shelter.

My apologies. I didn’t see the ending until after I made the post. It was certainly a mistake in my part. I meant to quote these earlier. Anyways sorry about that. I realized my mistake latter on. Probably should’ve read the full post, but I was rather annoyed at the people touting that idea around the other day.

I look forward to seeing the supposed legendary skill of TFP on full display. I’m sure it’ll be a marvelous spectacle, though perhaps not in the way you intend. Post Scriptum: In case it hasn’t been made clear, there’s no chance in this world Ripper deleted because of you guys.

It’s been a true pleasure to have fought alongside you all. I wish you all nothing but the best as you go on to forge your own destiny, and I hope our interests align again some day.

I suppose all those old men fell asleep at their keyboards for the duration of the war. It’s the only way getting over -70bil in net makes sense. That or I guess Grumpy had to uphold their theming and prove themselves to be the game’s premier retirement home and do absolutely nothing.

Saying someone has 0 IQ? You don’t want to know how many points that’s worth.

I think it is fair enough to point towards "Declaring war on a nation without the intention of fighting them is punishable by a nation strike" and claim that just about everything brought up was slot filling, but my issue is that the rule doesn't seem consistent with that being the case every time. It's been my understanding that slot filling is based on specifically trying to make sure someone (like an ally) can't be hit and therefore gain some unfair advantage over your opponents. It just seems like when the rule states things like this: "Declaring war on your allies is generally considered war slot filling and against the rules. In cases where relationships between nations or alliances are not clear, moderators will use their best determination to decide if nations are allied and therefore war slot filling or not. One example of this type of rule-breaking behavior would be leaving your alliance to declare on someone in your alliance or a nation in an alliance allied to your alliance, and then rejoining your alliance." it's geared towards collusion to gain an advantage. It makes it sound like the first part only really applies to declaring on allies, and that moderation will try to determine whether some advantage was gained, and therefore if it was slot filling or not. At the end of the day, I'm not really advocating for any change. I really don't mind just doing a few suicide ground attacks in the future, but I think it should be understandable how you can look at the rule and come to the conclusion that what happened wasn't slot filling in the way that was specified.