Hansarius

Good luck guys!

Dear Guardian and Mensa HQ War Much love - UPN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78XJVBDktbo#t=1m08s

I'm curious about this Amanda Torres I don't think women can be knights. And certainly not a prince Can be a Dame/Lady and a member of an order of Chivalry though In any case, welcome and good luck

Congratulations to both parties.

Isn't once a year enough?

Yeah, it's exactly what you think it is. And there's not really much to say about it except that we're both awesome so here goes: The Purple Cheese Accords Article 1. Mutual Defense- Both signatories agree to defend each other in the event one is subject to an aggressive attack. Article 2. Optional Aggression- Both signatories are strongly encouraged to back each other up in an aggressive attack, but it is not mandatory. Article 3. Non-chaining- In the event one of the signatories is attacked as a result of the activation of another treaty, the Mutual Defense becomes optional. Article 4. Cancelling- Should either side decide relations are not working out and wish to cancel this treaty, a 72 hour notice must be given, during which this treaty will remain active. Signed for The United Purple Nations Hansarius - Primarch Saru - Chief Librarian Ole - Warsmith Aenir - Acting Master of the Forge Emmad - Chooser of the Slain Signed for The Black Knights

interesting read. I'm sure you're an alliance that will have an interesting life here on Orbis

Good read. Always interesting to see the perspective of the guy on the other side.

I like it. Just hope it's used for what it is intended for and that it won't turn into a war-strategy to keep your nation safe from harm

That's why we love/hate him so much here in UPN. He's a godawful troll, but he's our godawful troll.

Well this is going to be interesting

Congratulations guys!

I don't know, Under has shaped up a bit as of late.

I'm happy to see Diabolos has been granted peace.

Congratulations on your ascent to power Keegoz

I find that the alliance announcement section can easily get cluttered by the amount of outdated alliance announcements. I propose that we add the ability to delete announcements so that we are able to some cleaning up when it is needed.

Fine, I will grant you the point, you did not outright say that you do not consider blindly supporting your ally an unjustifiable act. But don't tell me this: is not a loaded question where the implied answer in the affirmitive would be considered inexcusable. And whether you outright said it or merely implied it, it still calls your current action and the justification of that action into question.

From my understanding of the situation, CU is admitting to not being able to fight back, I call that being wrecked. And your alliance is taking part in it. Care to address my first point as well or are you going to just continue using veiled insults from this point on?

Concerning reason 1 & 2 1: It's interesting that you seem to fall back on "supporting your ally" as justifiable reason to go to war in it's own right And yet, when we discussed UPN's decision to support our late ally EoS in attacking TAC way back when you said this and I quote: 2: I can not fathom that you would take part in wrecking an alliance so that you could provide them with experience, and call it just.

How about these numbers then? VS

increasing ship damage might not be that bad of an idea to increase the interest in using other units than missiles. But this is probably stretching it a bit. Perhaps capping the damage at 100infra would be more reasonable? Also, the fact that the attacker took no casualties also seems a little bit too good to be true. There should be some risk involved when you go to battle, even where you have the upper hand. Not so much as to discourage attacking of course, but enough so that it's felt.

Now, I don't have a stake in this conflict But Prefontaine, I have to ask: What happened to you having no interest in curb stomping? because, regardless of how many Guardian Nations who actually take part in the fighting, your declaration of war against CU turned this into precisely that.

40% seems fair to me

These tactics are already encouraged and are already what wins wars. Breaking control/blockade might be possible in conflicts were you are on the winning side, but for those on a losing side of a conflict, it's next to impossible as all those you'd need to coordinate with are all suffering the same fate. #5 is making it so that the losing side of a war now has even less chance of fighting back, no chance in fact and all you can do once you've lost your footing is watch as your nation is destroyed. The other changes are all good and should be enough to put the proper balance to missile warfare, and it was needed. But #5 now leaves missiles a weapon that is only reliable for those who are already winning the war