Jump to content

Tiberius

Members
  • Content Count

    166
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-96 Pennywise

About Tiberius

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Alliance Pip
    New Pacific Order
  • Leader Name
    Tiberius
  • Nation Name
    Titanium
  • Nation ID
    85099
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Recent Profile Visitors

298 profile views
  1. Tiberius

    Really NPO

    As always. Likewise yourself I am sure , while you consistently say the same thing that has already been answered.
  2. Tiberius

    Really NPO

    Shut the frick up and cry in a corner, you are boring now.
  3. Tiberius

    Possible Multi

    Some restrictions will be imposed automatically on nations on the same network to prevent cheating. Using Alliance Banks to evade trade restrictions imposed on nations on the same network is a bannable offense. Two nations on the same network are allowed to be in the same alliance, but they are not allowed to declare war on the same nation. Failure to follow this rule will result in a nation strike the first time, and a ban the second time. Can you update the rules to say two Nations on the same network can also declare on the same Nation then please?
  4. Tiberius

    Make Beige damage military?

    I think the percentages would need to be increased. You take 10% out, you can easily rebuild that 10% in the 2 days of beige, kinda makes it pointless. Now if a beige takes the equivalent of 2 days worth of rebuys out then it becomes worthwhile? Also on people selling off military my idea would be that if you don't have 10% of your capacity then you lose the improvements that would have supported that capacity. As an example of you are at 0 soldiers, 0 tanks and 0 airforce, the game would calculate 10% of your maximum capacity and then destroy barracks, factories and hangars that would house that 10%. This would then make it so Nations would have to have some military on hand or lose the capacity.
  5. Tiberius

    Possible Multi

    They are fighting the same Nation. Though I suppose they technically haven't declared on the same Nation. Though you could say South Canada has declared on the same Nation that is at war with Central African Republic. Ultimately depends on the interpretation of the rules. 08/06/2019 12:03 am Attrition Raid Zero GoonBuster Electric Space Central African Republic Bartleby Arrgh Active War Timeline 08/06/2019 01:59 am Raid South Canada Kang Arrgh Raid Zero GoonBuster Electric Space Active War Timeline Also has happened here too: 07/27/2019 10:07 am Attrition Rivers Tami The Commonwealth South Canada Kang Arrgh Defeat Timeline 07/28/2019 04:39 pm Attrition Central African Republic Bartleby Arrgh Rivers Tami The Commonwealth Defeat Timeline
  6. Tiberius

    Possible Multies

    Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=85400 Nation Name: Grand Republic of Cosbia Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=151209 Nation Name: Jalixco Nature of Violation: Sharing a unique ID
  7. Tiberius

    Baseball bots

    It's feasible to play a game every 2 seconds when there isn't any lag. Hit that F5 and click host or play away.
  8. Tiberius

    War Stats: Global War 14

    If I remember correctly the percentage is 10%. As an example if the total war damage was $20million you'd get the following: Draw would be 8-12million net damage each Victory would need Net damage to be above 12million Defeat would need Net damage to be under 8million.
  9. Tiberius

    This is a brave new world we're living in

    No, what you all think is stupid. There will never be a true multi sphere landscape in this game, never has and never will. One sphere will always end up being hegemonic or larger and that will always lead to spheres joining together to take them down. This simply is the same as the current status quo. I don't sit here with rose tinted glasses with false hope that it will change anything.
  10. Tiberius

    This is a brave new world we're living in

    I'm not accusing you of anything and it wouldn't really bother me if you were creating a hegemony. What does bother me is the shens about multi-spheres rather than a bi-polar world and then spitting in the face of that with your very own actions. If you can't see that your actions are disputing your own words then who really is the stupid one here? PS: I don't have ties to BK. All the signs are there that this war isn't a victory for your side and that it will lead to a victory for coalition B. Hence why I said a losing war. I didn't say you had lost.
  11. Tiberius

    This is a brave new world we're living in

    You should have let Chaos take the beating. KETOG weren't the target for BK sphere, Chaos was. If you wanted to hit them afterwards then do that. Sure not a good use of resources, but that's the change you have been shouting about. Minispheres or whatever you want to call them only work if they work in isolation, otherwise it's the same as it always has been, but call me stupid all you like, facts are facts. Just like this war you can't face a losing war, and now you and your friends aren't the hegemony on top of this game the meta suddenly is bad. Keep doing what you are good at, soliciting people to downvote for you like good lapdogs.
  12. Tiberius

    The current meta and you.

    We have always measured the victor in a war by who forces the other side to surrender/admit defeat etc Usually this will entail war goals being met. Sure it's nice for the stats to back the victory up, but stats can always be skewed due to various conditions. There's probably been plenty of people who have "won" the majority of their in-game wars and end up on the losing side. Ultimately it's the political victory which defines the war. In future years when you look back all that will matter is which coalition won and which one lost.
  13. Tiberius

    This is a brave new world we're living in

    In short, yes. You can choose to pick things out in isolation, however the whole point of splitting spheres up was to move away from a landscape that had predominantly two sides. Micro/mini spheres was sold as more than two sides, not the actual size of those spheres. There will always be one sphere larger than the others and it is up to those spheres to bring other alliances in to their spheres to enlarge it, not join two spheres together. You'll find most will agree it made sense for your spheres to come together to take down BK, because that has always been the way things have been done here, you get enough of a coalition to take down another sphere. The whole song and dance about changing things up hasnt created a different environment at all and your coalition was the main instigators from what I could see. You backed that up with Surfs Up and then decided against carrying on with the course you had set out to do. All I see is claims about wanting change yet all I see is action to the contrary of that.
  14. Tiberius

    This is a brave new world we're living in

    That's the risk of micro/mini spheres. You aren't all going to be the same size. Also from my understanding, minispheres was about moving away from a bipolar landscape rather than every sphere being tiny. Everyone has the opportunity to recruit alliances into their spheres.
×

Important Information

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