Quichwe10

Good luck to TCW and co out there. Let's see this kept quick and clean, everyone.

I'm likely a dissenting opinion compared to others in the game, but for me, I usually expect protectorates who sign on with TFP to be capable (or mostly capable) of independent and reasonably competent behavior (usually meaning they don't start a ton of FA shit). The protectorate treaty is there as a big red emergency button if disaster strikes, but their ability to resolve things on their own is something I prefer to encourage. Protectorates who make some pretty regular issues will usually find themselves dropped by us if it remains a pattern. There are limits to what we would have our protec

I'm not exactly fond of a lot of these ideas, I think. Most of them reduce counterplay, and make being on the defense as unfavorable as it possibly can. Multiple measures, the MAP stacking, increased MAP gain, and increased defensive slots result in the side that's blitzing being nearly guaranteed a win in a war. As well, changes such as attacking nations across the world are already present. The issue with that though is who you can or cannot attack is determined by score, rather than physical location. The addition of coinage resources doesn't really seem to add anything major, and functiona

We may no longer be allies, but it's been an honor to have fought and worked alongside everyone at Ming, @Norge, from Jeremy to Trajan and you. Best of luck to you and the rest of Ming in your new home with Rose.

I think I remember you guys doing this a few wars ago as well. While I do agree with Sheepy's ruling, props for ODN's willingness to stick it out.

In terms of disbanding the alliance, they actually can. The leader can just kick everyone else from the alliance before removing themselves and disbanding it. Whether or not the membership will reform it, is another question, but yes, the leader can just red button it themselves.

Congrats on the peace. It's been a good, if long, fight. Best of luck to you and the rest of Acadia in the rebuild, @TheNG, and may we meet in the future in better circumstances.

Damn, I'm sorry to see you guys go. Well, best of luck to you and your members. It's been a good fight (if long), and we over at TFP will be sad to see another old name disband. Godspeed to all of you, wherever you may go.

Well, while I may have to agree with Alex's ruling on a violation of game rules, congrats on peace, @King Arthur, and best of luck to rebuilding for Camelot.

Then so be it. Let us go over your thesis, and subsequent posts yet again. We start with your OP, in which you have asked us, the leaders of Coalition A, to "think of our members", and to peace out, rather than stroking our egos. You state then that it doesn't matter what IQ has done, but that it's all really just spin, and us putting off the blame to IQ. There are two major issues that have been raised with your OP. Firstly, that Coalition A has been able to surrender, and that IQ's very leadership outright saying that they plan to war us until we are either disbanded or have left the game en

Then if you know better than I, then exactly lay out what facts you claim to know. Coalition A's leadership would greatly appreciate knowing what facts a member of but a single alliance in your coalition knows about the peace process that we do not. Perhaps you could once again go over how a refusal of your side to offer the remainder of peace terms is apparently the fault of ours? If we are truly discussing this, then outline for me what parts I have said are false, what parts are spin, and why they are as such.

Firstly, I am unaware of a war in the past where terms were given sequentially, and secondly, it's a bit hard to do things in sequence when we're waiting on another term to come in through the mail. As for this... Perhaps you did not read my previous post? The only people who know for sure what the terms are Coalition B, because Coalition A has not received them. To explain again, the leaked logs on the terms were taken from an internal IQ channel Coalition A does not have access to where they were discussing what terms to issue. Coalition A is not sure if these are the terms IQ wishes

Firstly, the only terms given to us from that list was that the war ended, and that there was a NAP, both of which are no brainers since it's a peace treaty. No other terms had been given to us at that point in time. Those leaks were rather from an internal IQ leadership channel that Coalition A was not privy to. Since then, IQ has deemed it fit to refuse to confirm those terms or issue terms to us in the stead of the leaked terms. As well, IQ has repeatedly told us that there are ten terms in total, of which only 6 were mentioned in the leak. So no, we don't have terms.

Eh. I view their usage of downvotes as stating their hefty disagreement with what has been stated. Merely being on the losing side of a war should not mean that one loses the right to voice either their displeasure at less than stellar actions done by their opponents, nor to correct continually and demonstrably false statements. Coalition B itself made mention way back during the beginning of the war when they were on the ropes by planning to mass downvote Buorhan's posts, though that in of itself was also done to attack his total forum Karma to get a rise out of him. That incident right there

According to the thread, we are being criticized for not not giving terms to Coalition B good enough for them to want peace, and that it's not the job of the victors to tell the losers what they want from them. Speaking as an alliance leader in Coalition A, it takes two to peace, and Coalition has made its opinion clear that it does not want peace enough to tell us what terms they demand of us.