Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mikey last won the day on June 24 2019

Mikey had the most liked content!



  • Member Title
    Lazy Bastard

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location:
    The Reach
  • Leader Name
  • Nation Name
    The Reach
  • Nation ID
  • Alliance Name
    Seven Kingdoms

Recent Profile Visitors

2611 profile views

Mikey's Achievements

Veteran Member

Veteran Member (6/8)



  1. This was by far the hardest scroll I’ve had to make. It’s been a wild 10 years in this alliance, and while I’m sad to see our time here come to an end, I am happy we lasted this long. Even at our lowest points the community was always active and having fun. Before our recent decision to pull back from PW, very few of our members had ever left for other alliances, a testament to the strong community he built. Unfortunately many, including myself, felt themselves pulled away from PW altogether. It’s been a true honor playing with everyone over the years. I may have started SK, but it was our members who truly built it into what it is, and I am eternally grateful for that. I hope we can keep the bad together even as we leave this particular game. O/ SK its been fun.
  2. The man steals the credit for my scroll and DoW title, and can't even do a forum spoiler properly 🤦‍♂️ If anyone wants to actually read the scroll or view it full size, you'll need to open it in a new tab if you aren't on mobile. I don't know why, but the forums don't let it take up it's full width anymore and always scales them down heavily.
  3. Sure thing! I look forward to seeing which of your predecessors you will be channeling. The brash one who got himself and his family slaughtered? The know-nothing who was stabbed to death by his own subordinates, revived by a crazy witch, and then walked right into the very trap his top generals made him swear he wouldn't walk into? This time there won't be any Knights of the Vale to bail you out... Or maybe it will be the the wise one - a true king who recognized the hopelessness of resistance and, with a single act, bought centuries of peace and prosperity for his people. Be like Torrhen. Assume the position.
  4. Keep these pledges coming! The Iron Throne can always use new swords.
  5. On the one hand, I can get behind overthrowing Squeegee. On the other hand, when I retake my rightful throne, any remaining rebels might do well to remember what happened to the last few "Kings" in the North...
  6. We would have to consider ourselves a tiger in the first place
  7. It may be redundant, but it was an excuse to make a new scroll, so I'll allow it. Plus the humming is fantastic, new anthem for sure! It is ironic though that we put the most work into presenting a treaty that already existed That is definitely the exact same thing though, let's be real.
  8. Given the context that this apology is coming after Cam's behavior was savaged in the other thread and on Discord by nearly every other group, effectively backing them into an FA corner; and given the context that high profile members continue to defend past actions; I think it's fairly reasonable that people are skeptical. Look, you guys fricked up hard last war and a lot of people are rightfully pissed off about your actions. It isn't the first time an alliance has found themselves in that position, and it won't be the last, though it may be more heated than most. Take it from an alliance that has been there multiple times before - take the L and move on. It's not unreasonable to want to hold them accountable for their actions in some meaningful in-game way, such as say rolling them in a short war. With time, most people will move on if you will. T$ in particular, which seems to be singled out by detractors here, has an entire history of doing just that. The fact that we can exist on the same political axis as them again proves it. We - the various divergent alliances that made up col A - are not IQ. We don't hold permanent grudges over past behavior or past governments. Every single alliance of meaningful age on our side has at some point made friends out of enemies, enemies out of friends, and back again. If you truly change you will find most people's attitudes change with you, but you're going to have to face the immediate consequences first. Whether that's a war when the NAP ends. or just several more threads of people !@#$ing.
  9. I agree. I think it's good to play to win, but in a king of the hill kind of sense. You know you are going to get knocked off eventually, but your goal is to get a solid group together and then try and see how long you can last at the top. Once you get knocked down, re-asses your FA, maybe meet some new people, and try again later against new kings of the hill. There were blocs vying for dominance for years without trying to sign everybody and their grandmother and strangle the game to do it. Hopefully we can get back to that.
  10. Those 2013 and 2014 rankings are a huge wave of nostalgia! Thanks for putting this together. Looks like the 2017 image is of the current leaderboard though.
  11. Were you never a trium in Guardian? For some reason I thought you were in the beta.
  12. I mean, the whole point of the color mechanics, however poorly implemented, was to add another axis of politics. I can't really fault them for trying, especially when other alliances also act to defend their colors to varying degrees. Whether they went about it a good or blusterous way, idk, I skimmed the screens so I can't speak to their tone.
  13. This could be the first color war in 6 years! Interesting. Personally, I think the color bonus is pretty marginal and poorly implemented. I mean, if 20 Grumpys joined maroon, that would also tank the color bonus I'd say the claim that Clover is violating the NAP by marginally reducing color income is a bit flimsy. But then I also think NAPs are generally a poor idea - we had years of conflict where people didn't jump a recovering alliance, without the need for them - and it's too long in any case. So I wouldn't have any qualms, personally, if Camelot 'violated' it in this instance. If we are going to be stuck with these as a common feature of peace terms (please god no), though, this and the recent drama between TCW/CoTL suggest we might want to better define what, if any, legitimate grounds there are to break it. Or to consider it void between parties.
  14. Sorry, I'm just curious, the % air destroyed is based on your rebuy amount? The way I read it, higher tier nations do more damage than lower ones, even with equivalent militaries. If I am fighting someone with ten cities more than me, their rebuy is higher. Thus even if we both have 10,000 tanks, if he has GC, his 10000 will kill more aircraft than my 10000 would, if I had the GC. Is that right?
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.