Sketchy

Lmfao, that was also hashed out in the old thread. You guys were the first ones to post public stats, and neither the ones I posted nor the ones you did included the resource loot because neither side had the scripts necessarily to collect all that information. I can't tell if you are being intentionally obtuse or you didn't read the other thread and are jumping into this debate for the first time blind. Should I give you the benefit of the doubt on that one? EDIT: On recollection, we actually had a discussion about the old thread in private, so you did read it. Intentionally obtuse it is then.

"your side is trying to force your standards as the only standards" >proceeds to claim that your standards are the only standards Self awareness is really not your strong suit. Of course, you dodged my argument in my first reply to you, which is that by your own logic, literally nothing you did to win matters because the circumstances prevented any other outcome. You want to apply circumstances only when it benefits your argument. Trust me, if I wanted to make an actual case using circumstances as the basis rather than the stats as they are, I could, and it wouldn't be hard to make a good one.

Part of our extensive treaty discussion:

Finally a story that accurately portrays me.

I could also just say "you hit with more people, more military and better tiering" along your line of logic and invalidate your entire lead. You can't pick and choose when to apply situational circumstances to stats and when you can't lmfao. Either they do or they don't.

Latest War Stats btw. I'll post a complete one when the remaining wars are finished. EDIT: Also just to clarify, since I know people will whine otherwise,: Damage totals include value of military damages taken, infra damages taken, cash loot lost, and resources used. Damage totals DO NOT include value of resource loot lost, bank cash loot lost, nukes launched or missiles launched.

If you count the start and finish date, it was 66. Depends at what time it ended I suppose.

Actually, that is 66 days.

inb4 "nah we totally don't have paperless treaties" I wouldn't be surprised if most of those are correct.

If you agree the label is redundant and subjective, what exactly is the point of arguing against other peoples subjective labels of TKR? You were the one who objected to TKR being an upper tier alliance and pushed the conversation in that direction. This whole debate is fairly redundant.

Id settle for it being an independent timer from cities to avoid people hotswapping out projects at a whim, given the on the fly strategic benefits they can sometimes grant.

I'm running positive this war but you can always fight for my honor Scarf

Micchan is downplaying the use of gas. Nazi confirmed.

No idea who this Smetchy guy is, but I made the exact same claim as Thrax did, which is that labels are redundant. Of course I also said that I think quantity of upper tier matters more than proportion, and that I would personally define TKR as an "upper tier" alliance, but that is why the label is kinda pointless, since its subjective. Whenever people throw out these labels I usually bring actual stats to the discussion to avoid this particular debate anyway. So yes, In an actual war scenario, TKR is the most dominant alliance in the upper tier, in the game currently. How you choose to define that is up to you.