Sketchy

So, I can't be the only thinking HeroOfTime and Phoenyx are both Inst multis and he is out here arguing with himself. Right?

Now now, relax guys. You'll have plenty of time to rehash this argument in 4 months for the next dogpile of t$!

Should have been a white peace. @Eumirbago deserves better.

Tyrion will shoot Alexio on the privy with a crossbow then be smuggled out in a box by Abbas. We just need a blonde lady and some dragons.

One side is Swamp, the other side is The Swamp.

Indeed, I am truly the most Loyal Syndicate Supporter. I shall continue to set an example for my fellows.

I agree, this insensitivity cannot go unpunished! And you sir are truly an inspiration to us all, a cyclist amongst men!

See, I told you I would not share funds with the enemy. Why did you ever doubt my loyalty to the mighty Syndicate.

Rose should feel utterly ashamed for not considering the emotional wellbeing of the mighty Syndicate members and her allies before declaring war against them. We will not let this stand!

Thank you for recognizing my work! I understand you cannot provide the party line to me in such a public setting, I wait in eager anticipation for your direction in private!

I would never provide monetary support to enemy! I am a loyal Syndicate supporter. Any inaccuracies in my deployment of the party line will rectified I promise! On that note, I find myself requiring your guidance, how should I respond to those who ask me why The Syndicate has reversed their position on dogpiles? I will deploy the appropriate response handed to me, just as I see my other fellow Syndicate supporters have done.

This slander against the mighty Syndicate can be tolerated no longer. When we planned a coalition with NPO to strike at all the other spheres, and entered a war to provide much needed foreign relief to the Black Knights, it was for the greater good of the game! You can't dare compare that to this! Sure, the origin of our foresight into future aggression is also Sphinx, but its not the same! Our record is impeccable, every single one of our many dominant deployments is perfectly justifiable! That you would dare compare our glorious strategic allocation of superior resources, to your pitiful and spineless canine accumulation, is downright unconscionable! The consolidation of 1000 profitable nations was merely a tactical deterrent against the dastardly schemes of our devious rivals. Had we not been subjected to such unwarranted aggression, we would never have deployed those resources against anyone! We would have sat aside and taken no action at all undoubtedly!

I don't care about the topic at hand lmfao. I just enjoy seeing how much you care about it. Too much I'd say lmfao.

I would say scouring through the rulebook to find nebulous wording you can use to prosecute a sarcastic shitpost is about as Karen as it gets. Don't need to presume much lmfao.

Oh you are actually serious lmfao. There was no coercion or force, it was a sarcastic joke, as you acknowledged yourself. But feel free to report me to the manager if it gets your rocks off Karen lmfao.

Yes I'm going into vacation mode immediately. Good luck with this one Lefty.

Protip: don't institute gunboat diplomacy if you suck at war and have no allies.

Might as well be able to trade them. Would honestly rather see them reworked, replaced or removed though. Treasures were made to replace color blocs, which were removed to stop color colony abuse. Then treasures themselves were nerfed to stop treasure stacking abuse. Then color blocs were reintroduced, albeit in a different manner. At this point the entire mechanic is redundant and outdated.

An ape can muster together the money to buy a credit. There is enough crap that shouldn't cost credits as is. This doesn't do much. One year is too long. While most people shouldn't be making alliances without experience, some people pick things up faster, and you'll naturally drive out people that might have been good leaders by forcing them to wait an entire year. The key issue is people who go straight to making their own alliances. 4 Months and 10 cities (or perhaps more) minimum if you are going to go that route. You risk killing many middle tier alliances and splinters this way. If a person can rise through the ranks within an AA and form a splinter in under a year, they should be able to follow through. How would this be enforceable if the formation of those alliances isn't restricted for pirates, finance groups etc? Would players under a certain age simply be unable to apply to them? If that is what you a suggesting, seems fine. Game has needed something like this for awhile. Preferably some sort of keyword/tag system to allow alliances to define their identity and attract like-minded people.

"For an alliance war to reach Great War/Global War status, it requires at least half of the top twenty alliances to be involved" That is the current wiki standard. Probably needs updating, especially if we remain in a multi polar politics. 11 alliances were in the top 20 when the war started.

Considering there is already an artificial project timer in the form of the infra requirements, which require you to buy more cities over time to meet them, I don't see any reason not to remove it.

Battle of the Bastards

Blame the new war system. Ground and pound is way too effective of a strategy now to come back from without additional fresh counters to enter in.