Sir Scarfalot

Moderation presumably suppressed it for the purposes of allowing it to be reposted as a proper and full topic. Which it really should have been from the start. Anyway, it was Epi going on a big accusatory rant against a TCW guy who was going into OOC places.

This definitely happens with subways as well, somehow subways can be 'double-killed' even though that's a logical impossibility in the first place.

Woah hold on there. As far as I've been aware, Epi's built all his micros ever since The Royal Dragons, which died when he was couped and robbed from. As much as his coalition has been overwhelmingly dishonest/pactbreaking/toxic both IC and OOC, Epi and Camelot have been at worst misguided. Now, I haven't been paying that much attention, so if I'm wrong here please let me know the specifics, but it sounds like you're confusing Epi with someone else, or else referencing something that happened multiple years ago. Mate... you know perfectly well that's a new thread. As much as I agree with the sentiment that Colliwobbles' behavior is unacceptable, that's a complete thread derail. Well, more than it already was, but still, that deserves its own thread anyway. Why post it here...?

Actually, I did. NPO blitzed their own allies plenty of times this war, directly attacked their allies in T$, you broke your NAP with TLE and with TI. That's four right there. There's more than even that, so yes, you're constant pactbreakers.

I'm plenty happy to be bashing the fascist Goons/BK/NPO all day long.

NPO broke a hell of a lot more than that on multiple occasions, slotting and beiging their own allies this war alone. You're also neglecting the fact that Goons attacked TLE, not the other way around, TI never actually broke their pact which means that you actively did, undercutting your point entirely. I'm not familiar with the specifics regarding #1 or #3 so I'll not comment on those, but there's zero way around the fact that NPO, Goons and BK 100% violated their active alliance with T$. Thus, I'd say that pacts no longer have validity. Anyone is free game for anyone else, since that is the environment IQ has deliberately created with their bad faith agreements with basically everyone. It's entirely on you that we're at this point.

His point very much stands, pactbreakers.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Oh MAN that's rich. Top meme, right here lads. Has to put the goalposts that far back bahahahahaha ok yeah, I really can't make a better argument for my side than you've made yourself. GG.

I really don't see any point in you trying to make any promises at this juncture, they mean less than nothing. I have every confidence that you will violate any or all NAPs for no reason, as you and yours have done, constantly.

Bahahaha, look at all the toxic IQ hypocrites trying to spin this as "look, we are willing to peace". That the terms of this peace do not include reparations speaks way, way, way more than anything else. Coalition A has: Not attacked their own treatied allies nor protectorates thereof Always been willing to entertain peace talks in good faith Always been willing to peace under reasonable terms Meanwhile, lest we forget, Coalition B has never once, not once fit any of those basic, common decency categories outside of extreme duress.

You are straight up describing IQ's chance for peace. Please stop your useless gaslighting, you're not fooling anyone at this point.

Wewlad

Any time a nation is at war, they can declare 'surrender'. In that mode, they cannot attack, and the first attack against them in every war instantly ends it with the current victory/defeat system. While in 'surrender', the nation cannot declare more wars nor can wars be declared against them, and once their current wars end they get exactly one week of security before their safety expires. Surrender mode can only be invoked again after a full month passes. And there you go, a safety mode that leaves you in the meatgrinder for a solid month before you get a single rebuild. Which fully allows you to get into the fight, so you still can't be fully destroyed. Nobody's unhappy, unless they're disingenuous toxic !@#$ that just want mechanics that enable them to fully sit on their opponents forever with no possibility of rebuilding ever.

War length is purely a function of the politics of the game, not the mechanics. That much has been proven ad nauseam this war, as IQ damn well knows. Trying to sell a mechanical suggestion as fixing a political problem is just flatly disingenuous. If you really want a 'safe mode', though, then a way to implement it that won't be a bald-faced hegemonist power play by a toxic !@#$ with wishful thinking and a declared intent to drive everyone out of the game is to: Any time a nation is at war, they can declare 'surrender'. In that mode, they cannot attack, and the first attack against them in every war instantly ends it with the current victory/defeat system. While in 'surrender', the nation cannot declare more wars nor can wars be declared against them, and once their current wars end they get exactly one week of security before their safety expires. Surrender mode can only be invoked again after a full month passes. And there you go, a safety mode that leaves you in the meatgrinder for a solid month before you get a single rebuild. Which fully allows you to get into the fight, so you still can't be fully destroyed. Nobody's unhappy, unless they're disingenuous toxic !@#$ that just want mechanics that enable them to fully sit on their opponents forever with no possibility of rebuilding ever.

Just install Avast or another firewall, and it's also good practice to run a noscript extension. That should keep you reasonably safe.