japan77
-
Posts
159 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by japan77
-
-
well, that's 3 people deciding to solo dec on TKR over the years....why do we get these and no one else does?
-
2
-
1
-
-
On 2/13/2020 at 9:33 AM, AkAk said:
Here's an idea: Ask Alex first. Get it in writing. Be very specific about your ACTUAL plans and let him know if they change before going through with it.
That's all NPO ever had to do but they, of course, knew Alex wouldn't approve of what they ended up doing with the tax farms. Being transparent isn't an idea they think is important. They would rather cheat and then lie about it repeatedly.
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.-
1
-
3
-
-
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 !@#$.
-
1
-
-
33 minutes ago, Prefonteen said:
Noctis is not a part of our coalition. Your snapshot is irrelevant?
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.
-
21 minutes ago, dragonshardz said:
Oh my god, someone call the frigging FBI! Someone spied on an unfriendly nation in a game about politics and war, which have never once in the history of man involved espionage! Call the CIA! Call the FSB!
Trumpet loud and clear that mans are bad for spying on other mans for the sake of a browser game!
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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, brucemna said:
A. Quit posting here
B. Process agreed upon apperently
C. U dont know what the terms are cause u walked from the process meaning TS negotiations where to happen after the rest of ur coalition came to agreement.
D ur right not CN but with that in mind ur assuming disbandment without hearing any terms
E. U dont know cause u didnt wait to hear them or stay in talks once ur paranoia and suspensions got the best of u
F. Actually may be possible but u dont know agian for fact unless the actual talks happened . Meaning hence why they were separated for a agreement meaning yes they may have had to fight a lot longer but that time would of been determined by the lengths of the negotiations for the rest of ur coalition...
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.
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, AppealDenied said:
If you think GOONS is controlled by the remaining members of OD you are going to have a very bad 2020.
I'm pretty sure negotiations had commenced, and your side walked away. So, to think we wouldn't accept peace is a silly narrative.
From publicly available information, this is straight up false. (For reference, Go see T$'s entire post on this issue)
-
5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Yes. Negotiations will be done in private. If you haven't heard anything yet then wait until you do. Patience is a virtue. Despite any stalling, you are all simply prolonging the period of silence towards peace talks while you are continuing this public show that no one apart from Coalition A really cares about.
If you feel that strongly that your members dont deserve this then tell them to ask for individual surrenders.
"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.
-
2
-
Ah yes. Another mosquito incident. Why are we the only alliance that manages to get these?
-
1
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:
Also I love how Japan77 and JustinM have some sort of crazy idea that Chaos is allowed to team up with other mini spheres to hit alliances, but the NPO can't because it'd kill the game. Your entire position is predicated on TKR's right to win and everyone else's right to loose and I'm terribly sorry if we aren't going to let that fly. You don't have a monopoly on winning or "just" actions. Your own actions led to this, so own up to it rather than raving in apocalyptic terms that we've broken some agreement or word we made with TKR. We made neither, nor did you make one to upkeep mini spheres, since you broke that concept first, we just answered your provocations with actions to protect our interests, same as you. It's nice to see you try to pull some honour card again, its quite nifty to see. Do tell us more how TKR are all just and right and every one else who does something against the TKR is absolutely wrong. Your narcissism is fun to read.
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.-
2
-
3
-
-
10 minutes ago, Roquentin said:
No you'd be surrendering on x conditions and you'd be able to accept or reject the other terms until we finished a final agreement. Any terms wouldn't be binding on you unless you agreed to them.
So let's say "okay we have the admission of defeat out of the way, so next term is TKR has to rename to the The Knights Rodent and put a guinea pig on its flag." You could say no at that point and we'd either have to drop it or talks would stall out until someone gave in.
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?
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Roquentin said:
You'd be agreeing to surrender/admission of defeat as one of the terms. You wouldn't be formally surrendering at that point. The guarantees you have is that you aren't agreeing to any of the other terms in advance and the other terms that you'd be able to negotiate on would have guarantees. The Japanese for instance had to accept unconditional surrender as part of the Potsdam declaration which meant the the Japanese armies had to obey commands from he allies and SCAP could do whatever they wanted in terms of reorganizing the country. This is some awkward wordplay if you insist on continuing this line of thought.
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. -
19 minutes ago, Roquentin said:
You don't know what unconditional surrender is, so stop using it. It's like some Princess Bride shit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconditional_surrender
Here you go buddy. Come back when you've read up.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Pop said:
That's a lot of words from someone who hasn't fought an offensive war in over a month. If you truly believe Coalition B is a game killing hegemony that shouldn't be allowed to win then you're being a pretty bad citizen of the game by not fighting us at all. Mil up or shut up.
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.-
3
-
3
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
40 minutes ago, Tarroc said:I don't decide anything, I'm not in gov. From what I heard though, it's that defeat is admitted, but the terms can be negotiated beyond that. Admission of defeat in the war does not mean accepting all of the terms of peace, from what was being said. As I said though, I'm not gov, I can't speak for BK's official position, and I don't know the exact details of anything.
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.
-
3
-
20
-
1
-
Awww, my nation's namesake is back
-
1
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, Sphinx said:
Well that's good news for once... Considering you all whined when I did it to escape a cycle blockade yet dozens on your side are guilty of using the same tactic, maybe you shouldn't just run to the admin and complain when things aren't going your way.
I agree so when is half of KT and all of Oblivion going to get banned for war slot filling because according to Alex...
Looks like suicide attacks are off the table, ;,p
I made sure I hit micros not involved in the global war, and ones that had a full 3 slots open so it didn't prevent anyone from attacking them. At the time I looked I couldn't see any treaties that showed they were allies but with some of them having 2 dozen treaties on their own I apparently missed that one was allied to ES. But the vast majority of them aren't not allies.
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. -
35 minutes ago, Inst said:
The actual ratio is about 5:4 or about 13:10 if you want to be precise (17500 vs 13500). Then you have to remember the fact that your alliances trimmed a lot of fat during SIKE (Surf's Up); CoS, for instance, is down from 38 members to 21, while Empyrea went from 80 to 50. I'm not saying this to accuse your alliances of sucking; it's very hard to deal with Grumpy blockade holding you, or being eaten up by Chaos assets downstairs. It's just to say that all the weak hands and milquetoast members have already been applicant-ed. Meanwhile, BK was in peacetime and still contained a lot of garbage assets which inflated their nominal strength, but this is closer to the actual qualitative downdeclare I was talking about (efficiency advantage, not tiering advantage).
3 24s (72) are actually quite qualified to take out 5 18s (90, or about 5:4 city ratio), if we just do Lanchester's Square Law it comes out 1728 vs 1620. When you put in adjustments for air superiority and ground control, it gets much grislier than that. One key factor is always the first strike; 18:24 is a planestrattable number, but it might take multiple waves, #1, and #2, if the 24s get the jump on the 18s, as you did, you're in much better position to destroy and suppress the C18s.
====
I appreciate that you and I are not getting personal about this. I have strong reservations about the propaganda line about "we're outnumbered" and so on. I mean, I can actually admit local dogpiles; i.e, in the BK-NPOsphere zones of control it is very nasty to be a KERCHTOG member. There are insurgents who are reasonably successful at the task (sub 1k), but there are also people who are getting combo-tossed with blockades (provided a sufficiently competent alliance is handling the case). But in upper tiers, you have advantages and you're beating up on BK-NPO whales. And when we consider P^2 (i.e, squares to account for the concentration of planes), the concentration advantage upstairs is so flagrant that despite a declining P^1 value, you actually have twice the effective planes of BK-NPO. And on a C2.8 basis, you're still ahead of BK-NPO.
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.
-
23 hours ago, Tiberius said:
Yet its okay to amass consolidation when you do it? Upper tier consolidation isnt killing the game, but lower/middle is?
So as an alliance leader your view of dynamic is getting a coalition of multiple spheres together to take down BK-sphere. Im sorry but this is what alliances who try to consolidate their power do. No one either looks to "win" this game. They compete to the best of their abilities. If the others can't compete that is on them to work harder to bring the dominant side down. The thing that will kill the game is people giving up because one alliance or the other is on top at some point. The dominant alliance has changed so many times in P&W. Heck NPO, who you say is in it to win it has only reigned since Knightfall.
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.
23 hours ago, Tiberius said:What I'm alluding to is that multi spheres the way your coalition wants them to work is not achievable. There will always be onr alliance who becomes dominant and then others will work together to take it down. If you really wanted dynamic multi spheres Chaos + Rose would have hit BK sphere and KETOG would have hit N$O. For multi spheres to work you need no collaboration between the spheres, win, lose or draw you stick to your own spheres. Collaborating with another sphere brings us back to the same old way the P&W has always operated.
It's fairly reasonable to predict Chaos, KETOG and Rose together, with the advantage of first strike will overcome BK-sphere. You have the upper tier advantage and overall the better activity in your membership. There is no "against massive odds", you were odds on favourites when you attacked.
At this stage it doesn't look like anyone has changed the tune they dance to. In my opinion the best way for real dynamic multi spheres would be to draw spheres out of a hat or similar. So in example you'd have one pot of whale tier alliances, one pot of mid tier alliances and one pot of lower tier alliances. Every sphere gets one of each. It is then up to you to develop Protectorates to strengthen your sphere. Ultimately this would fail too, because people will never let grudges go. The same people who hate NPO/BK/KT/etc will always hate them as has been proven over time. That's not to add to the fact people will leave alliances to go to different alliances which will likely alter the balance.
So, we have you shooting down something that hasn't even been tried because of you. Congrats, that's like shooting yourself in the foot and then complaining about a bullet being in your foot. Also, why is KETOG hitting N$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)-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, Inst said:
I really don't understand why you don't grasp the downdeclare principle. 3 24 city nations are worth more than 4 18 city nations. You can sim it whether in battle simulator, actual combat experience, or on the Test server.
Likewise, claiming that BK-sphere had more alliances than Chaos KETOG Rose was plain BS. If, say, you had decided to protect a bunch of micros, would it now be impossible for you to go to war if you brought the micros along because you'd have more alliances? Member counts, likewise, don't guarantee military superiority. Would 20 15 city nations be able to beat down 19 20 city nations?
I think we discussed the concept of a qualitative downdeclare, but that doesn't mean you just ignore tiering. When KETOG hit you in SIKE, they brought out all sorts of weird charts to argue that they were updeclaring because you had more members (who had lower average city counts), and you were losing then. In actuality, the fight was essentially fair until NR disbanded; Chaos had more members, but KETOG had better average city counts, and this canceled out. Once NR died, Chaos began falling apart because of the loss of only 100 members.
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. -
1 hour ago, Shadowthrone said:
Again what a load of crock. There never existed any agreement with Aragorn of BK. The agreement was with Kayser to defend any sphere that’s hit by a combined sphere in this game. Any sphere meaning if BK decides to combine with chaos to KETOG, we’d most likely have been in defending KETOG under the terms of that agreement we made.
Though continue lying. Nothing like an alliance being run by lying trash no?
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.
-
1
-
Deus Ex Machina! (DoW)
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
the three are this guy, the guy that decided to do it during the last global, and Mosquito from several globals ago.