Saru

We were the one of, if not the first, big alliance to publicly denounce it, despite people taking the piss out of 80% of UPN being beiged. But maybe it was before your time. If you really didn't need the help and were so comfortable why did you reach out to pay them, followed with the claims of if we win the game will never be the same/our dominance is too great etc etc... Perhaps they started to beige en-masse when they realised that noone in the coalition gave a !@#$ about them.

Alpha and Arrgh both coming in changed things drastically. The way I recall it atleast is that we had tS in trouble at one point, they were getting back into it as time went on, but then the fresh alliances with full builds coming in completely wiped out our near max built up guys... which obviously has a massive effect because a lot of the guys in war were relying on them to get the forces of the enemies down so they could attack and so on.

Just a follow up point in terms of even wars. Had Arrgh and Alpha not entered in Oktoberfest, it would of been the closest or "fairest" perhaps by far. If I recall correctly your side wasn't unprepared, and while we had the first move advantage -- this would likely be offset by more coordination and activity on your side. It would be interesting to know what the outcome would of been.

Had the offensive advantage at first, and I would say that we were winning obviously... however the likes of Alpha/Arrgh and some others were able to build up completely, while obviously some of our forces took a hit -- because you were still prepared militarily, so first mover advantage wasn't as great as when you managed to catch us with our pants down. So my point is that even sometimes saying "well you started the war technically" doesn't tell the true story, because it's more nuanced than that... Claiming that either side had a major advantage in score is wrong, I agree. Hence why I said the guy who said they had the "statistical disadvantage in every war" was outright lying... Let's not pretend that the advantage is solely in score. Tiers matter (and average strength can be an indicator, but it's not great), context matters -- context in the sense of how committed are the alliances (for example putting TEst into the coalitions side wouldn't give the true picture) as well as other things, and military stats and first mover advantage matter the most... So saying you guys have been disadvantaged in every war you go in, is just blatantly not true. Another misrepresentation. Yes we were waiting in the sidelines... but in actuality us sitting in the sidelines is what helped you significantly. It ensured Mensa was not countered. I think you have it wrong... the general consensus is that Mensa etc. have players who are more active and committed (or call competence). Focusing on nation numbers would be a silly way to determine the advantage. Obviously there is... The leadership of the alliances cannot do anything to make people become active. I guess your response will be, well just kick the inactive ones... well that doesn't do much to change anything, since it's not like there's a massive influx of players into the game. Mensa are the anomaly in terms of activity, and would keep their levels whatever happens I would guess. You have to realise that with most people interest level in the game is somewhat determined by how the game is going too... for example UPN has gradually got less and less active with every war that we lost. Not that I am saying it's your fault or whatever, just pointing to the observation that the losing side will always get less active if things aren't competitive.

That's one war (that nobody claimed to have the score 'advantage' in before the war had started)... please do go on to find the numbers for the others. ... and it should be obvious that this isn't a war you guys were "disadvantaged" in -- for obvious reasons. Not that anyone should be surprised at people using convenient numbers for them lol

Again, you guys keep repeating this but never back it up. The only time I saw someone try to back it up, they lumped in alliances onto our side that actually were not with us -- and even then the calculations weren't heavy on either side. I know for a fact that your coalition has not always been disadvantaged from a score point of view: and that's ignoring the fact that obviously score is not necessarily the greatest gauge for determining who has the advantage -- as tier match ups and such do matter. This whole narrative of you guys overcoming massive odds and coming out victorious just isn't true... But obviously the latter part of that is true, and that's what matters -- no need for over exaggerations, and outright lies.

I don't understand why you keep repeating this myth... You have not always had less 'statistical odds' than your enemies in the war. Unless you are talking about tS alone, which has had a couple of wars (one against Rose I recall) that were fairly evenly matched, and you came out on top -- due to having 'spies'/leakers in their ranks.

I don't think DEIC-tS ever had a treaty? I was responding to Manthrax proposing that Cornerstone is the greatest ally and saying that their best ally is undoubtedly tC. As far as we're concerned, yes DEIC has been our greatest ally. I think NAC/Polaris would also be there for us no matter what, and I believe we have a good working relationship with NPO.

Willingness to go on the "offensive" and pre-empt in certain situations should also be considered, as well as past fighting record (in terms of surrenders etc...), as well as length of time they have been reliable... WIth that tC is by far your "greatest" ally.

I guess the argument would be that DEIC could easily qualify as the best ally to another alliance(s) (UPN for example). But the common perception is that they valued some treaties higher than others, which in fairness is done by most. Back to the question, obviously I am biased but I would say UPN. I can't think of an ally that we had that we didn't help significantly at some point. From protecting Mensa at the start, to making sure they weren't countered in some wars, as well as offering rebuild aid for them. To pretty much single handedly funding BK's war effort (although this war very early on, and I am not sure if we were allied at this point). Getting our bloc allies BoC/DEIC to either take easier targets to minimise damage or sit out completely for relative growth. Helping VE without any obligation to do so, subsequently allying them, and having a good working relationship with them going forward. Plenty of support to EoS and NAC. Obviously with NPO in this war... Literally the only 'fault' I can think of, would be when we declared on tS -- and had BK/Mensa as mutual allies. But this was due to the perception that BK/Mensa would side with tS over us in the future. I think everyone in the Covenant bloc (UPN, DEIC, Polaris, NAC) have been the greatest allies, from my experience. Not that the likes of VE/NPO are bad -- but traditionally you would think of them as alliances who still consider what is best for them in potential wars and such, NAC/DEIC/Polaris would ride with UPN no matter what I feel like. Notable others from the 'other' side would include the Coalition, Guardian and Mensa... and Cornerstone (if you are attacked, less so on the offensive). As for worst allies, obviously from my experience, it would have to be: TLF, BoC (used to have some great people like LF and a few others, but also it's fair share of pixel huggers), and BK (not great with UPN anyway).

Well fought SK

I will buy your alliance for $230,750

... If believing it makes you feel better, then sure.

I am pretty confident it is UPN, with GPA a close 2nd. We also finished #1 in both of the previous rounds. And yeah historically #1 has always been a curse haha.

Thanks haha! Yeah I have it -- but the head of the University couldn't even hand-sign it haha. Taking a couple of months off to do some independent study and then hopefully find work as a web developer

Thanks for the help NAC, always honorable! And fair play to TKR for not milking the most out of the situation.

Wasn't talking about Mensa/tS (and lol for putting their lapdogs in the same bracket). Let's not pretend that Pantheon wasn't a paper tiger though. And yeah i'm good, finally graduated from University haha.

-content removed-

Not sure what you think you are proving... I was talking to Boony in general, about the whole cancellation routine most of the time just being a facade. I have already said that Alpha-tS bickering back and forth has been way worse than any of UPN's cancellations, so obviously I am not talking about you upkeeping the facade, as everything was out in the open... My point is that it's funny to see tS members of all, criticise us for 'airing our dirty laundry in public'. Unless you apply Ivan's logic to it and determine amicable/respectful splits exclusively based on the OP. Anyway that's the last thing I will say on this. Back on topic: This was disappointing to say the least, TLF.

It can be, if you are going around otherwise to other people. i.e the usual "we wish you no hard feelings/you were a great ally/sad but necessary" routine often comes with those same people talking shit about the alliance in question elsewhere. That's obviously being untruthful.

Yet the fact that remains is that our break ups with our allies have been a lot more cordial than yours. So perhaps you should inspect the actions of your own alliance, instead of focusing exclusively on the OP. Also off topic and not relevant to the game: But I literally have no problem with calling a wife/girlfriend that cheats on me, a whore. If you want to sleep around -- that's fine, don't get into a relationship. Just like if you have no intention of defending an alliance (and also plan to war with an alliances tied to the alliance in question), then don't sign a treaty... Forgive me that we don't go around parading a facade, and saying things for the show of it. Being deceitful may come naturally to you, but we prefer to be real, and won't go around saying that they have been great allies, and how much luck we wish them... when the reality is that we feel let down. Keep in mind this is public knowledge. Did we expect Under to come up with a tactful response? No. And I imagine we didn't particularly care, at least I don't. Respect goes both ways, and if anyone should feel disrespected by the way things turned out, taking everything into account, it should be us. But that's another discussion, and I have already spent enough time trying to have a discussion with you.

You are either incapable of comprehension or just haven't read what was said. And sure keep on calling us out, it just makes you look more like an idiot. Anyone who has frequented these forums will be able to tell that none of UPN's break ups with former allies, including this one, have escalated to the type of petty back and forth that tS-Alpha did as an example -- with others out there. (Sure maybe it wasn't posted in the OP, in the alliance affairs section or in the same post as the cancellation. What matters is the actual outcome and how things went down -- so I don't see why you are fixated on the "original post". I would be surprised if some of your own gov wouldn't admit to certain cancellations being handled better.) Just go look at your own post history to find out why it is hypocritical of you to call us out for criticising a former ally. Or is 'airing dirty laundry' permitted in posts but not threads?

You can have my address, but never my steam id.

I don't know what specific situation you are talking about, so I can't comment on it. However when you can see clearly and know that someone is RP'ing, trying to deliberately misrepresent it is pretty low imo... of course I can't even tell if this thread is serious or just tongue in cheek humour, so perhaps I am misinterpreting it. And again, I haven't been that active here, and pay no attention to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) at all, but from my limited time looking at these forums, it is mainly you guys who appeared to intertwine the different worlds... whist simultaneously accusing of NPO of doing the same, when I haven't seen any of that in this 'realm', apart from a recruitment message -- which is perfectly understandable.