Tiberius

The irony is strong with this one.

Still waiting for evidence of constant NAP breaking.......

Ok I'll rephrase for Leonard, name all the times we have constantly violated NAPs. I'm expecting a big list of consistent NAP violations here after your claim.

Yet you still want to achieve peace with us. Stockholm syndrome is alive and well.

So peddling bs. Good to know.

Has anyone in a leadership position said that Chaos pre-empting BK sphere was the wrong thing to do or are you simply peddling bs?

What's on the other side of that globe you may ask? Coalition A's peace terms.

There are many variables to be factored in too. It's not as clean cut and simplistic as you make out.

One thing I have enjoyed this war is the mini-sphere project come to prominence. We've had Chaos - Ketog vs BK Sphere - N$O vs Farksphere - Schrutesphere - Cockblock. One global war comprising of a war triangle of multiple mini-spheres.

It's not as simplistic as that, by the 10-30 member alliance I was referring to the whale alliances. I suppose I should have been more clearer.

The Federation members I fought did fight hard. Nice showing from you guys. Good luck on the rebuild and I hope you can find better allies going forward.

Nope, it's all about the return on investment. Its difficult to predict when the next war is going to come about, though using historic data, it's possible to give a good estimate. We dont have 10-30 members to spread the investment into, we have over 100, so we need to make sure its worthwhile to do.

Jazz is so good he is good cop and bad cop at the same time.

At some point you have to have faith if you want peace. Using the example of Farksphere planning to hit Col B and us pre-empting them isn't a stellar piece of evidence, unless you plan to plot to roll us during the war ending NAP and brazenly tell us to our face? Every global war that has ended, the NAP has for as long as I can remember been upheld from alliances in Coalition B.

Give or take that puts you back what a month, maybe a month and a half? Then you have a huge NAP period, which historically has always been adhered to, to rebuild thoroughly. Is that really that bad it's worth losing further members for?

Lol, and you are crying over 45bil, 20bil which isn't even payable unless you frick up. So in total 24.5 bil is to be paid. Most of the bigger figures is bank loot return, which works out at around 20b of the reps. So really, minus the bank loot, you are paying 4.5bil. Wow incredible.

So we've gone from "force us to disband and delete" to "want us to disband and delete". However I like how you completely ignore the fact that you can surrender if you agree to the terms on the table.

Way to degrade our banter bromance, the divorce letter is in the post.

No, less pay to win please.

Tldr; TI leaves Farksphere and joins Coalition A.

I answered the main question. You can derive from that what you wish.

I mean I literally just said we hit Guardian and GOB aggressively which technically encompasses Ketog. Aggresive/Defensive is simply semantics to me. All it tends to be is a circular argument.

Yes, we hit GOB and Guardian aggressively.

I'm not coalition A. I'm merely explaining one of the reasons why we went the tiering route. Sure, you argue in those wars that we pre-empted that we were the aggressors of that's what you want to think, be my guest.

I've explained the reason for the economic disparity, and it ties in to why we went the tiering route. Getting rolled war after war, and at one point the P&W hegemony wanted to roll us out of existence due to other worldly politics, meant the only option was to tier. Safety in numbers, we might not win the war but we will dominate a tier. Knightfall was the first victory for us and it still didnt give us a chance to change tact. The likes of those leaders would make sure your alliances disbanded.