ArcKnox

I will concede the point if you admit that you're as much of a piece of shit that you're accusing sketchy of being.

Since you are a brainlet I will explain it in fine detail I am calling you a hypocrite for continuing to fight people who were trying to surrender because your leadership wanted to get as many of our players to delete or go inactive as possible. This is you kicking people when they are down. I hope I cleared up your misunderstanding.

You're exceedingly ignorant of anything you're not told to repeat. Pre was in "coalition a" (yarr didn't really want anything to do with us so that's dubious) for like 2 rounds before getting peace. If you think he's on our side because he recognized NPO's blatant cheating you're even more delusional than you let on.

Okay zoomer

>There's been a lot of talk on both sides about how the action taken was too much, while the other side has said that there was not enough action. That's an indicator of a solid compromise, a reasonable middle. People on one side are outraged that after being held at war with every dirty trick in the book (culminating in the revelation that it was funded by wholesale cheating) being used to beat them down until they delete/disband/pay exorbitant sums of money, the perpetrators (except one) are now unable to play the game for about as long as they have. People on the other side are indignant that Sheepy dared to touch them. One side refused any peace but total and complete victory. The other has been trying to surrender for months, and granted white peace immediately. Please don't compare the toxicity of "our" side to theirs.

One last time, just for you But I guess dragging a war out for months doesn't count, does it? Take your crocodile tears somewhere else.

Why can't goons keep their word? It's heartbreaking.

Still waiting on yoso's coup

Why do goons members keep posting. You promised us you would leave!

>making available any information made available through the Service in any manner that infringes any copyright Funny how you ignore that part huh

So has anyone going OMG I'M LEAVING deleted yet? Or is this going to be another I'M MOVING TO CANADA thing?

Thank you sweet jesus

Have players make a blind bid every 4 ingame years for the right to host the olympics. Make a leaderboard section for olympic host countries.

@Alex Have we hit the level of OG submarine warfare, or do you still need more convincing?

> As others outlined extensively in the thread I linked, "balancing" planes by nerfing them would unbalance the game by neutering nations' (and alliances') ability to effectively updeclare. The nominally unbalanced role of aircraft isn't a good enough reason to nerf updeclares. That line of thinking is analogous to demands to make the game more "realistic": where that complaint fails to understand that the game isn't meant to be a realistic simulation, the "planes are overpowered" complaint fails to understand the importance, if not outright primacy, of group play compared to individual play. Your complaints of harder updeclares ring hollow when you consider that hitting up may be difficult, but hitting down is impossible due to the very restrictive nature of downdeclare ranges. Combine this with the fact that nations that lose military units naturally drop in score makes life even more difficult for someone who should ostensibly be rewarded for making the investment in their nation. The top heavy group is at a severe disadvantage because the bottom heavy group can pick the time and place of the engagement, strike with impunity, and then hold them down indefinitely because of the glacial pace at which planes (the only unit that matters) are built. The top heavy group may win an individual battle, but their opponents are then dropped down below their range and are able to rebuild in peace for another round. This group is afforded very little opportunity for group play because they are perpetually on the defensive. Giving ground forces the ability to destroy planes would add another dimension and tactical depth to a currently 1 dimensional affair.

I find it amusing that you see giving viability to ground units as unbalanced, while the current meta of only planes matter perfectly fine. >Downvotes Popular mechanics are not always good mechanics. The reverse also holds true.

Split ground attack types similar to airstrikes. 1. Assault Enemy Positions Would be the dogfight analogue. Either nerf all other types or give this one a bonus to fighting ground forces. 2. Scorched Earth Tactics Does more infra damage than all other types. Maybe buff improvement destruction chance so it's comparable to naval attacking. 3. Loot Steal cash as ground attacks do currently. Remove stealing cash from all other types. 4. Raid Enemy Airfields Ground analogue of target x airstrike. Would destroy enemy planes on the ground.

Roq holds enough grudges for the rest of the game combined.

Correction It doesn't matter what he builds, Scarf will launch missiles at him

The basic principle of this game is that, aside from a basic activity requirement, clicking buttons does not provide any additional mechanical benefit. Money, resources, and military action points are generated in this game at set intervals. The only way to get ahead of other players is by better planning (optimizing builds), or exploiting the community (trade speculation/arbitrage or raiding/warfare). Baseball flies in the face of every other mechanic in the game that you can just click buttons and magic money into the game. @Alex grow a spine and fix your game.