japan77

the three are this guy, the guy that decided to do it during the last global, and Mosquito from several globals ago.

well, that's 3 people deciding to solo dec on TKR over the years....why do we get these and no one else does?

This. 100% this. The rules are sometimes vague, and as such it may be hard to know if something's allowed. TKR's rather infamous trade bot, was fully cleared by alex because we asked him if it was okay to do it, did it, and then had him check that it was within rules.

Just being curious, is the core issue that they were creating a bunch of inactive tax farms or the fact that they were restricting access to manhwa based on people playing pnw or both? Anyways, thanks for bothering with doing a thorough track down of evidence before making a decision and presenting all of it.

well then. This is just going to increase toxicity or forum bans. lots of people downvote instead of responding because quite frankly, they want to say things that would be very impolite to state in public. You forcing them to respond instead is almost certainly going to result in much more offensive and OOC attacks because surprise, people are !@#$.

cool. Apparently, claims made by 3rd parties are relevant. Alright, time to leave our AAs, state outright absurd things and have them accepted as evidence.

This may be news to you, as you are new here, but spying actions in this game are commonly considered an act of war, and have been cited in RoHs and DoWs in the past.

For D,E,F, there was a set of publicly posted logs that literally contained all of those. As for A, given that any and all OWF postings were made months after negotiations were attempted,. This happened before anything was posting. As for B, agreed upon mainly because yet again, we're trying to communicate and will take any offer to communicate if it's available. As for C, yet again, we've trying to communicate and obtain terms for months, and yet again we've gotten nothing beyond the basic surrender term (we literally found out about more terms from leaks than from your official negotiators). As such, please go educate yourself on what's actually happening instead of parroting random talking points like a broken speechbot.

From publicly available information, this is straight up false. (For reference, Go see T$'s entire post on this issue)

"Patience is a virtue" There's patience and then there's waiting around for a miracle to happen. In this case it's the latter, as we can see from publicly available information. A. Any and all attempts to negotiate have been trolled B. Only happen on the first of every month C. Despite surrenders on the OWF, no terms have been offered and no attempts to have communication between parties has been established properly (t$ literally hasn't gotten a server and has been kicked out of one) D. ColB leadership wishes for disbandment of ColA alliances. (No alliance in this game is every going to voluntarily disband from an external mandate, this is not CN) E. Apparently despite having literal months at this point, ColB hasn't figured out what terms it wants F. ColB leadership believes that T$ hasn't fought long enough and wants to continue the war against them And there's more, but I'm not going to bother with it since I have other things to do.

Ah yes. Another mosquito incident. Why are we the only alliance that manages to get these?

Let's be very explicitly clear here. Chaos+KETOG+Rose literally had less fire power than BK-sphere on its own. The way that power separated after knightfall was problematic in the sense of there being two huge blocs (N$O and BK-sphere), two smaller spheres (Chaos, KETOG), and one very small sphere (Rose). The last three had to team up if they ever wanted to beat one of the big two from a sheer numbers perspective (Skill can make up a difference, but it's rather limited due to how this game is designed). Honestly Rose-sphere's firepower isn't so much a sphere as Rose and a few friends. Ideally, T$ would've anchored a different sphere from NPO, and similar so for BK and TCW. So there would've been 7 spheres, but I digress. As soon as it became evident via leaks that BK-sphere planned to roll us with their literal 3:1 city advantage, we had two options, either ask for help rolling them or roll over and die. We did the former because that's rational. I believe we did reach out to someone in N$O with regards to this. We're merely stating that you had the opportunity to convince the world that N$O and BK-sphere were not allied in any way. Given your literal treaty obligations pre-war, there's no MD-level treaties for your entrance, and you never claimed entrance off your OD-level treaty with Polaris, which is the only treaty joining the two spheres, the world would have a 3+sphere system. (Let's not forget that KETOG and Chaos were happy beating up each other until the leaks happened). Your alliance's actions single-handily returned the world to a 2-sphere system. While you could and you appear to be arguing that Chaos's actions reduced the world from a 5-sphere thing down to 3, as I pointed out earlier, in terms of fire power, it was already that. For there to have been truly more than 3 spheres, BK-sphere and N$O would have had to be smaller. Thanks for confirmation that your interests literally placed a non-treaty partner over a MD-level partner. It's very enlightening, and makes it apparent that unless your name is BK, one should not even bother with considering NPO as an ally, as otherwise they'll stab you in the back if your actions threaten BK.

the definition of the term surrender is "cease resistance to an enemy or opponent and submit to their authority." So to be clear, you're asking for an admission of defeat, not a surrender. So, we could still keep fighting after admitting defeat? are you really trying to emulate the allies handling of the central powers in ww1? lmao. we all know that was effectively an unconditional surrender in all but name. Basically, your stance is that it isn't a "unconditional surrender" on a very minor technicality since if we admit defeat, how exactly are we supposed to oppose terms we don't like? fight?

So we'd be surrendering, then getting the terms of surrender yes? We have no guarantees of what those terms could be. You could literally insert "All of you disband and delete" as a surrendering term, and because we surrendered, we'd have to abide by it. Also, there's literally no reason You couldn't make one of the terms "I now control your armies and I get to reorganize your alliances any way I want". That's pretty clearly an unconditional surrender.

Literally the first line of the wikipedia article: An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party. We literally have no guarantees of what terms you're going to put down in terms, and you're asking for our surrender before outlining the terms. By definition of the term its unconditional.

The game died when NPO literally murdered the entire multi-sphere project with their decision to back BK. Due to their actions, and refusal by BK et al to turn on them, we have two fairly prominent alliances that we can literally never trust to not be on the same side. (This is ignoring speculation that BK sphere's plan to hit Chaos wasn't pre-approved by NPO). Given NPO and BK's basically guarantee to always be on the same side, there's really not enough sphere-centering alliances to create a multi-sphere game, at-best we might have 3 spheres, and more realistically, the game has been forcibly regressed into a 2-sphere game. (3-spheres isn't really sustainable, we need something similar to the 5-sphere setup we had before this war for a sustainable multi-sphere game). This is ofc ignoring NPO managing to bring over GPWC and GOONS, although who knows what they'll do from here. All the information we have both alliances is very limited, and it's certainly possible they could turn on NPO, but even this still doesn't break our 2-sphere problem unless something truly drastic happens. I'm mainly here at this point because I like fellow members of Chaos and esp tkr, and because I'm working on improving some basic bots (because I find that interesting), as well as watching to see just how badly can the actions of a single alliance kills a game, so the next time I play this kind of game, I can begin planning around such actions.

Bwahahaha. Nearly every sentence in that paragraph is wrong. Impressive. Let's talk about history and unconditional surrenders. There has never been and never will be a unconditional surrender in which the loser did not wind up agreeing to all terms imposed by the victors. That's how that works. Let's note that coalition B has refused to talk about any potential terms until after coalition A's surrender. That is by definition a unconditional surrender. You seriously expect people to be willing to surrender unconditionally when the opposing coalition contains actors known to have imposed ridiculous terms. And don't give me any of the NPO isn't the same as NPO nonsense. Either own your name or change it. Similarly, given that BK has put rather ridiculous terms on the table in the past, an unconditional surrender to any coalition containing either alliance is a bad idea. Let's next talk about precedent. This particular game has never had unconditional surrenders, and establishing that precedent will lead to longer wars as the best possible victory condition has changed dramatically. There's also the fact that coalition B winning would encourage longer wars, as we have opened up a path to victory of literally just waiting out an opponent instead of smashing through their infra, although given how long the last few globals have been, this isn't truly a new idea, but it would be the first time it worked. Up until now, dragging out a war has at most resulted in white peace, but the precedent of improving conditions by dragging out a war has resulted in longer wars. Thirdly, it would establish that having net negative damage, rolling coalition allies, having secret arbitrary treaties that one can twist into a CB, and bullshit CBs are valid things along a path to victory. If you truly believe these are not bad precedents for the game as a whole, give me what you're smoking because I need to escape reality.

Awww, my nation's namesake is back

It's only the same tactic if you abstract so far as to not consider the alliances involved. So shut up. There's a major difference between attacking members of the enemy coalition and attacking those uninvolved. The latter should be taking such decs as potential war actions against their AAs, and as such they'd be contacting your FA department and arranging peacing out or joining the war against you, as they're uninvolved. After all, your actions are Hostile actions against them, and as such would be more than adequate for an RoH. The fact that we're yet to see any such actions is interesting, and suggests that they're getting some kind of benefit from beiging you at minimum. The former is a literal standard war action, and given current game mechanics, it's up to your coalition and coalition milcom to effectively beige cycle those nations. As such, in the first case, you would get beige cycled by anyone comptent, in the 2nd, you're effectively extending the war to include these uninvolved AAs.

So, @Shadowthrone, to clarify, you're entire collection of evidence claiming TKR was going to hit you was literally some "deleted" messages (emphasis mine), a log where the person is blocked out and isn't even stating that, and logs talking about rolling IQ (which isn't supposed to exist)? LMFAO. For the first and second ones level of credibility, I could literally make claims about you spout out anything in 10 mins, as could anyone who understands how to operate a computer(which is 90% of this game base probably), and then you're surprised when we don't accept your logs and word as credible evidence?? (I won't since I'm not willing to sink to such levels, but how do I know that you're not willing to use such actions? I can't, and given you're own AAs purported goal of trying to win the game, I won't be able to since there's no reason to be moral if the goal is to "win", which you can only accomplish by getting everyone else to quit, there's no advantage to being moral) For the third one, the sole reason you'd consider it a threat to yourself is if you believed IQ still existed, so congrats, you confirmed for the rest of us it still exists.

Here's the problem with bring in Lanchester's square law. First, this is a hilarious unrealistic polisim relative to the real world (I haven't actually run exact numbers, but I doubt it works out anywhere near the model, given how unrealistic it is). Second, even IRL, most experts use an exponent of 1.5 since that's more realistic. We'd probably have to make a whole new model to deal with this polisim (I'm too lazy to do that, and sheepy hasn't leaked the formulas, so it'd be near impossible without huge amounts of data collection) As in any war with NPO/BK sphere, low tier goes to them, upper tier goes to us by sheer numbers, and the fight is in the middle. However, a basic analysis of this situation militarily suggests that in a fight between equally competent groups, the one with more cities is going to win. Yes, there's a minor advantage towards having more cities on average, but that's almost certainly going to get canceled out by the city count advantage enjoyed by BK-sphere. I'm too lazy to do proper modeling, but relying on IRL simulator rules is almost certainly a bad idea. Most of the reason we have more effective planes is because we have more active and competent members, which is due to the fact that our econ program encourages that relative to the other side's econ program. Our econ programs also attract and create more of an upper tier, so it isn't surprising that this has happened as well. As I said years ago, NPO's econ program is going to stunt its growth and hamper its activity, and I was right, and now we have them complaining about the results of exactly that.

double post.

what upper tier consolidation? unless you're insisting that GoB, Guardian, CoS, TKR, Rose, SK are going to keep teaming up to fight when 87% of those were literally blowing the shit out of each other right before literal leaks of a war planned mid-june with target AAs listed and literally leaked mid-june???? (Also, rather stretching to call TKR upper tier, but since we have one, I'll include it) To reiterate, the problem with BK sphere+N$O being allied is that each of those spheres has more cities, members, etc than Chaos+KETOG+Rose combined. If you can't count, I'm sorry, but I can't help you there. So, we have you shooting down something that hasn't even been tried because of you. Congrats, that's like shooting yourself in the foot and then complaining about a bullet being in your foot. Also, why is KETOG hitting N$O at that point? the leaks suggested N$O in on KETOG, but no assigned targets and dates unlike BK sphere. We literally collaborated with KETOG (jesus frick, you have me defending KT in public, which still tastes like barf) because Chaos+Rose+KETOG has fewer cities, members, etc than BK sphere alone. From a pure numbers perspective, we shouldn't be able to win this at all. Clap, clap. You're own econ program, which I have been on record for years now is going to lower your activity and stifle your growth, thereby literally resulting in this exact situation, has in fact resulted in this exact situation. So, either change your econ program, or stop complaining about the results of said program. I said this exact same thing in NPO's first time when NPO folk were complaining on the forums about activity differences. Nearly 3 years later, and I get to say it again. It's almost like people don't learn from history. drawing spheres out of hat wouldn't work at all, unless it happened to result in spheres that could trust, cooperate with, and like each other (unlikely and improbable tbh). That being said, that doesn't make it impossible for multiple spheres to work. Take for example the situation before NPO and especially before T$ entered this particular war. We had functionally 3 spheres (and more logistically, at least 5, as KETOG, Rose, and chaos are teaming up to deal with a direct threat to their existence, which was shown in a leak with targets and a planned blitz period of mid-june getting dropped in mid-june and were literally beating each other up for a month before that) of chaos+Rose+KETOG, N$O, and BK-sphere. If N$O had stayed out completely, which many of us here have established as the most economically and politically advantageous move for N$O, no matter who wins, we would indeed have at minimum a 3 sphere world, any suspicion of IQ continuing would've died (despite the polaris ODoAP), and we would have a multisphere system. Instead, because of NPO entering, all of that died. (Hell, T$ entering was problematic for that narrative surviving, but if they stuck to Guardian and Grumpy as their war dec stated, it probably would've survived)

3 24 is better than 4 18, sure, but that's not what we're talking about here, it's closer to 3 24 going against 5 or 6 18s. There's a sheer city count advantage. If we're being honest, that advantage is huge, and in favor of BK sphere or N$O in any theoretical engagement between one of those spheres and any other sphere than each other. Also, this just sounds like people !@#$ing about their lack of functional econ programs, which I've stated for years was going to come back and bite AAs that run such high tax rates in the ass, and it's seems that I'm right on that count. (For sake of argument, I'm not going to deal with the entire issue of covenant and citadel existing, but also being part of BK sphere, and just treat them as BK sphere since everyone else is doing the same) Member and Alliance counts, I agree don't inherently guarantee anything, however, when the advantages are so large that you can literally get away with blitzes so shit you get declared more on than you declare, get away with running nations with basically no WC, get away with zero-coordination, and force the enemy to win 2-3 v1s just to be able to reasonably have any chance of victory, it's apparent that the advantage exists and is so large that you've gained quality through sheer quantity. As for surf's up, there's more going on in that fight than a sheer number of cities vs members situation there. It's also worth noting that war white peaced before TKR could recover from the initial blitz, many of us in TKR were finally getting things working when the white peace hit.

Let's quickly note that BK sphere on it's own has more cities, members, and alliances than chaos+KETOG+Rose combined. Similarly so for N$O. As such, your "agreement" is either A. A blatant excuse to help defend BK sphere since the only time any sphere would team up is to hit a sphere so much larger than it that it would be suicide to fight it 1v1, or B. You're so naive that you can't count numbers. If it's the latter, I have serious questions regarding your intelligence, which given that Marina is your FA head, is rather shocking, so ofc, I'm going to assume it's option A.