Avakael

No.

Have you got these stats for all alliances, or just TKR? Would be interested to see t$.

Alliance Categories: Best Fighters: Us of course, but if I can't self nominate I'll take Hogwarts. Worst Fighters: SK Most Surprising Entry: Hogwarts Best PR: Worst PR: Playmaker (In other words, who had the largest impact): Most Improved: Rose Failed to Meet Expectations: NPO Best DoW: Acadia Best Blitz: Hogwarts Worst Blitz: VE got eaten alive lol Player Categories: Best Fighter: Cazaric Most Friendly: Ryleh Most Salty: Noremak (http://i.imgur.com/nISCnEV.png) Best Rookie (for those who popped their war cherry): Best Troll: Best eLawyer: Community Categories: Best Post: Funniest Post: Saltiest Post: Best Propaganda:

A good apology generally doesn't leave the reader unsure what's even being apologized for.

I'd talk about the war but it's all I can do to find the targets to fill my offensive slots at this point really

Similarly, our members are reporting opponents entering vacation mode mid war. That shouldn't be possible either.

Live feed of the enemy coalition leaders giving the speech to the troops planning to launch round 2:

No

I asked myself a very similar question when I opened it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8iOmVd1W_g BONUS: Guess the alliance of this enthusiastic responder!

This. The number of empty defensive slots we had could've been counted on one hand. Different story now, even among the non beige nations. No idea why.

This is also quite valid.

The idea behind fortify makes sense, but currently it is clearly broken- an automatic 10% no matter what you actually have to fight back with, even if that is nothing, prolongs wars; and someone who dominates in all but one area (and we're all thinkings jets I imagine) should be better at resisting, or else why bother trying to maintain troop/tank/ship levels after you've lost in the air? An alternative; fortify still exists, but it's effectiveness depends on how many troops, tanks, aircraft, ships, and spies you have compared to your enemy. Having 0-33% of a unit type compared to your enemy provides 0 resistance; Having 34-80% of a unit type compared to your enemy provides 1 resistance; Having 80-120% of a unit type compared to your enemy provides 2 resistance; Having 121-180% of a unit type compared to your enemy provides 3 resistance; Having 181%+ of a unit type compared to your enemy provides 4 resistance; Fortifying would therefore provide between 0 and 20 extra resistance depending on the actual operational capacity of your military.

It's unfortunate, but the server isn't biased towards one way or the other.

The whole problem behind treaties is clarity in diplomacy, but clarity in diplomacy is also what makes the (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) style treaty system imported over here so good. That clarity is fundamentally advantageous for alliances. A treaty between me and another alliance isn't just a formal agreement of friendship with me and that alliance, it's a statement to every other alliance out there that attacking (or sometimes even just pissing off) that alliance has consequences. It would be fundamentally disadvantageous for me to not have that statement out there somewhere, in some form. It would also be fundamentally disadvantageous for the attackers to not have access to those statements and thus they would expect clarity as well (which is why secret treaties still occasionally exist). There are very few circumstances where, despite the treaty only continuing due to nostalgia/concern of offence/other stuff, it would actually be a good idea to cancel that treaty. When those circumstances arrive, such treaties are usually cancelled anyway. Stuff like escape clauses and expiry dates already exist; non chaining agreements, non aggression against other treaty partners, agreeing to review a treaty in x month's time to see if it's still working then. Artificially forcing weird stuff like mandatory cancellation after x time on alliances will never catch on, because there is no way to introduce game mechanics to force people to not work together, and because weird requirements like mandatory expiry dates are non advantageous to the vast majority of governments playing the game anyway.

Most as in a comparative measure, but true.

It's kind of disappointing, Lordaeron has arguably been the most competent of the 7 alliances against us on the battlefield, but everyone involved is annoying as shit.

I really hope you didn't start the war on this information, because the percentage of t$ members cycling through discord daily to coordinate is somewhere around the 80% range. :|

And the battle stopped for a few seconds as all the savages said; "D'awwwwww! That's so nice!". Then the killing commenced once more.

I can't believe the alliances fighting us are so bad that we've still got time to write walls of text about whatever the !@#$ that Alpha shit was.

If the membership of The Syndicate had discovered that our government had shaken hands on that, we'd have probably gutted them even if it wasn't a trick. Also, be more specific than "Syndisphere". The Syndicate itself was only ordered to buy anything beyond general peace requirements, like, 4 days ago.

You'd been a t$ ally for a fair old time. You really think we'd ever take a mutual decom deal? We must have been burned trusting people on those at least 3 or 4 times now?

Eh, I get that. But it's the winners who write history, so don't !@#$ it up.

Don't miss.