Buorhann

And that’s a problem??

Important to keep spies up, or don’t buy the nuke till you have the MAPs to use it. There are ways around it. Right now nuke turret nations are annoying because there’s no possible counter to them. You can eliminate all the spies, zero out their infrastructure, blockade them, and they can still have enough resources to buy Nukes/Missiles without you being able to loot them. Within a single battle, you’re guaranteed 2 Nukes. The daily bonus plus the cash limit you can loot is enough to cover that “free” damage. Normally it’s only an annoying issue as it is, but doubling their improvement damage now? With all the safety of the resources and immunity? Thats a bit much imo. I don’t disagree that Nukes/missiles need a buff, but it’s quite a bit with the current safety of resources and immunity. Adjust the safety net if you’re going to buff them imo.

If Nukes are going to be like this, the immunity needs to be removed. Especially with Spies going public too.

Damn, I had my hopes up.

Were any of those saved?

By now, for some of you alliances, 8bn should be a drop in the bucket.

Wait, which one? NPO or Polaris? The latter I definitely get jittery for.

I see that you edited out a message there.

This wasn't deserved, it was needed. Take a break, come back, and hopefully you'll have a better mind about things instead of constantly getting baited in dumb chats. You're a good person, but damn you're terrible at directing and leading. I mean, @Keegoz is in the game and you made him look good.

ITT: People not catching on that darkblade is using Chat AI.

I'm starting to see "legacy" being thrown around more often here. Do people understand how legacies are defined? Just look at their history. It's not a great legacy. It started off great early PNW, but when it fell - it fell hard. There's lots of OOC drama, some stupid shit, bad management, and some serious stagnation. To the outside eye, there's lots more negatives than positives (I can't comment on their internals comparatively). If you want to uphold your name for that kind of legacy, no one can stop you but to me, it's not a good point to bring up. Keeping it together for the community I can understand, but anything beyond that... some of these alliances just need to go. They're just meat shields for other people's wars. And UPN isn't the only alliance that falls under this. Any player could run a 1man alliance, keep it for many years, then go "I'm keeping it for the legacy". Ugh.

@James II This is how you run a nuke bombing alliance.

@Roberts isn't wrong. UPN should've disbanded a long time ago. Just not for the reasons he listed.

So who’s right?

>legacy Thats too much of a compliment.

Hodor.

Let me fix that real quick.

Color bloc wars!

Isn’t it the same avatar picture?

It takes a lot to disband an alliance after being an established name for a period of time. I’m positive your group of guys will find another adventure to begin again. Glad you guys are honoring Red. He was one of a kind.

More pixels to burn.

Got em.

@Abbas Mehdi

Ugh, this treaty web looks ugly.

#1 is there to make it simple. There’s also questions #2 and #3, that breaks it down more. What you just replied would fall under multipolarity with alliance oriented focus.