Sir Scarfalot

Actually, my stance that all wars should result in beige has been consistent ever since fortify was nerfed. If anything, both coalitions have pretty consistently agreed on the matter that beige should not be removed, so please frick off with those accusations of inconsistency. Yes, there's some debate as to exactly how beige should be tweaked, but when the idea was floated that offensive losses should not result in beige it was shot down by both coalitions as stupid and unfair. Which it was. As for your suggestion, hell yes most will not like something that ridiculously stupid. That suggestion would result in ground battle rushdowns to obliterate enemy military being the ONLY viable tactic in the meta. On top of that, 24 turns to rebuild? That's 3 buys at best. Know what you can max out with 3 buys? Nothing, not even soldiers since you'd have no reserves to pull on. That would be horrifically unfair for coalition B, since the whales would just need to burn through their aircraft by sheer ground/naval rushdowns. And yeah, I just called out something that would be unfair in my team's favor as unfair.

If anything, the main bottleneck for being a nuke turret is cash, as far as I've found. At extreme low infra levels, you can indeed build nukes/missiles, but you have to scrounge up the cash and refined materials somehow anyway. If I'm not mistaken, you need to be out of bill lock to launch the nukes/missiles? Ground battles can usually get around the cash issue, but even then you need to be out of bill lock and have a ground force. As for the refined material, a dedicated blockade can eventually sap the refined materials needed to produce the missiles/nukes, and since you can't produce refined materials under bill lock that's also a bottleneck. But then, looking at your suggested fixes, I feel like I might be misinterpreting your concerns... you're worried about nuke/missile stockpiling? To even fire those, you need to pay the upkeep for them for one turn AFAIK. They add score, sure, but other than Fraggle who spent literal years diligently producing her stockpiles to the point of being unable to actually declare on anyone, that's not going to actually affect anything in an unbalanced fashion. I always caution people against over-stockpiling nukes/missiles due to the score inflation that causes. Besides, they're vulnerable to spies. Tl;dr: I don't think the proposed changes are necessary or warranted.

IQ nations have declared wars against their allies and coalition partners in OFA. (And therefore UPN has an obligation to declare war on IQ, and therefore themselves, but let's ignore that part for now). The question is, are coalition civil wars permitted to be declared in the middle of a hot war between coalitions? Right now, there are only four possibilities outside of the wars being slotfililng: Either 1. OFA is going to get beiged, 2. OFA is going to get sit on, 3. OFA is going to do the beiging, or 4. OFA is going to be doing the sitting. Now, the 4th possibility is nonsense, but each and every one of those result in preventing the Chaos/KETOG coalitions from attacking several OFA and/or IQ nations. Which is the definition of slot-filling. Since their entire CB is that they specifically DON'T want OFA to beige Chaos/KETOG, how can they justify the 4 possible outcomes of filling those slots, having those slots filled, getting beiged or beiging as being within the rules? If this behavior is allowable, and allies *can* farm beige/fill slots off each other, then that needs to be set in stone for all to understand as allowed and useable. If it is not then it must be clarified as such and penalties need to be applied. To clarify: The question is not of damage. IQ is definitely zeroing out OFA's planes. The questions are: Is IQ permitted to declare on their own allies with the effect of preventing their enemies from attacking their allies? (That doing so is their express purpose should also be considered in this.) And if so, is IQ allowed to beige OFA heavily and permit OFA to rebuild their air under beige protection? Or is OFA permitted to beige IQ heavily and thus permit IQ to rebuild their air under beige protection?

Wow. A. The USSR was part of the coalition that defeated the Nazis, yes. This was despite their tactics, strategy, and ideology; the objective deficiencies of each compensated for, inefficiently I might add, by raw economy of scale. B. The USSR lost the cold war, due entirely to the same kind of shenanigans that you're so proud of right now. C. Sure, you might only care about the result... but does everyone else you work with appreciate the means?

"It should come as no surprise to whatever viewers remain out there, that stagnation on Bob is endemic. Almost all alliances have shown a continuous downward trend in overall strength and technological capacity on account of most leaders being too bored to rule their people." What possible interpretation of that statement conflicts with "It's dead, Jim"? If you're willing to maintain your objectively false opinion in the face of conclusive proof to the contrary, then you're just not acting sapient. There's no reason to bother arguing with a brick, so that's the last I'll say on the matter.

Two weeks. Oh, wait, NPO protectorate? One week.

I'm just waiting on that juicy OPSEC :3

Actually, I'm going to have to agree with Milton and Akuryo here; the advantage lies in score range manipulation. We can already build or sell infrastructure to up/downdeclare on someone; what this tool does is make that process faster and therefore makes it harder for opposing forces to find counters or otherwise react. That's a competitive advantage.

You're really not kidding when you call them "Subprime", are ya.

That boot is looking like it's fitting very comfortably.

Oh, so OFA are just NPO's soldiers to be executed for non-compliance? An action which you define as "cooperation"? Aight then.

Read Curu's posts; he clearly states that the intention is to keep us away from declaring on OFA. And even if that wasn't the main intent, the effect remains: Their slots are filled, and due to that we are unable to attack those OFA nations. What part of that isn't literally filling slots?

They're your coalition partners and protectorates of another coalition partner of yours. That's just three individual levels of treaty violations, that's no better.

NPO did it to prevent us from attacking. They don't want us to attack OFA, since OFA has a track record of beiging us due to their own poor discipline. That's their reasoning. Which is very clearly scummy behavior at best, and quite literally "filling slots" of an ally. While the means may not be direct, they are declaring wars on their allies to prevent hostile actions against their allies. You know though, a refinement to the mechanics where all wars end up in beige would be a really good idea, maybe I should suggest that 🤔 The rules are there, the report is made. If you can find any instance of our coalition declaring war on ourselves for the purpose of denying your coalition an aggressive option, then feel free to make an actual report. That you have not and indeed cannot do so shows that you're the one desperately acting in bad faith.

So, NPO is the entity that provides "judicial review" of BK's treaty partners? Is that what you're saying? And here people wonder where I get the idea that IQ doesn't respect their protectorates' sovereignty. Sure, but selling a treasure or clearing a bounty during peace-time, without completely filling the targets' slots, is in no way comparable to large-scale and complete slotting of allies during war when said allies would otherwise be attacked by their actual enemies.

Heck, seems we been found out. Rip.

Win against which enemies, the ones that are attacking you or the ones that aren't attacking you because your other enemies are attacking you? You've been declared on by both coalitions, and therefore the only appropriate measure is to defend yourselves against both.

The definition of slot-filling is the abuse of game mechanics to prevent hostile action from taking place. In this case, we are being prevented from attacking our enemies in OFA. Your entire admitted reason for attacking your allies in OFA is to prevent us from attacking them ourselves. Tell me, can you find a war TKR declared that filled a slot in our coalition and prevented you from hitting one of our allies? Or one where our side beiged ourselves? No? Then your narrative is completely irrelevant to this report.

That doesn't answer the question of whether it is beige farming, slot-filling, both, or just treaty violations.

Our “point” is that “your” bloc is “entirely” treatied to “BK”, which you just “confirmed” is the “case”, and “therefore” is not an “independent” “bloc” but in fact a “part” of BKsphere, and therefore is not a bloc at “all” but just a “bunch” of pretentious “goons” that haven’t made a single “move” without “acting” in lockstep with BK. “Quotes” added purely “to” “troll” “you”. If you want me to shoosh, all you gotta do is stop giving me accurate things to say about you. Also, neither Justin nor I speak with any FA authority, but then again it seems neither do you.

NPO entered the war on my birthday. It was the best birthday present they’ve ever given me, and frankly it’s sad when you feel that war isn’t something to celebrate and have fun with. I mean, who doesn’t play games on their birthday? Sad people is who.

The TKR information from months ago and that predated the both supposed split of IQ and large-scale military losses by TKR? That information? The information that even if it were relevant (which it very much never was nor could have been) still doesn't actually disprove (and indeed provides fairly compelling evidence towards the existence of) a paperless tie to BK? Or perhaps you mean the logs that clearly show an anonymous source describe how there were no plans to hit NPO or syndicate? Even after Syndicate declared war on two of our coalition partners? Attacks that were clearly promised, by your allies, to be isolated from the main war and wouldn't be expanded on by you? A promise that you broke? That information?

In their alliance affairs section, there's 2 threads that have been posted in this week. And that top one? It's a news article, which includes this excerpt: Your move.

....Yes... that's our point. They're wholly part of BKsphere. Glad we're on the same page. That first sentence just makes no sense at all though.

Wait, I'm confused... Are you saying it was Citadel's policy to not have BK enter in their defense? Why sign treaties with BK then? Or was it Citadel's policy to not enter into wars in BK's defense? If so, then why did they do exactly that? Either way, that's transparently nonsense.