Shiho Nishizumi

Soon...

I guess he didn't appreciate having his cherry popped.

*Checks OP.*

>We'll protect you... for a fee.

Eh, this is a fairly minor and niche addition which wouldn't really upset the meta or system too much, if at all. Furthermore, having air take some sort of damage, even if it's chip damage, from anything other than other air and spy ops is always good. So it should be a fairly positive, albeit minor, addition. The main question I have @Alex is; weren't there other project ideas that are more worthwhile to be implemented first? The Federal Reserve (or whatever other name it also had) comes to mind.

Yah I know, I was there when it happened.

That intro with Madden, 10\10.

No, the infrastructure didn't exist. The materials for which to build up stuff did exist, but the platforms themselves didn't. It'd be akin to arguing that a bunch of tar and cement (or its materials) on containers, and a cement mixer is the same as a paved road. It isn't. The only real, objective improvement was the mass DM which likely had the biggest impact on the turnout. The rest is a this for that trade, with some preferring the transparency while the others prefer the surprise.

To be fair, there aren't any on-site services for stat tracking. Prior to Frawley's stats, they were made by other individuals and put up in Google Spreadsheet. So stats never had a platform in the forums themselves. Which is the opposite of yearly awards, which has it's own subforum (this one) for it. The infrastructure already exists.

I just checked. Seems about right with what we were tracking at the time. Thank you for taking time from your day to fix it. Also, I just noticed that attakcs made/defenses mounted pertain to attacks themselves rather than wars declared. That explains the counts.

So, something like this:

That fixed the overwhelming majority, though it seems like nations that were not in KT/TGH proper at that moment (ID's: 60700, 12021, 47112) are not displaying their performance properly, instead it looks like only their loot damage is being accounted for. Also, some wars linked to those seem to be missing (for example, in my case I got attacked twice but it doesn't display any defences being mounted [On the flip side, it displays as having mounted 12 attacks while I only attacked 6 people]). Also, the distribution of the damage seems off for some people. But this is relatively minor stuff. The work y'all are putting on this is astounding and we very much appreciate it.

Quite curious that all of them stopped playing between the 4th and 7th of november.

ALLIANCE CATEGORIES Alliance of the Year: Knights Templar. There's a night and day difference between KT under it's original founding members, and KT under the leadership fo Theodosius, and subsequently Keegoz. The substantial improvement, alongside it's actions throughout this year doesn't leave a doubt in my mind that they're the alliance of the year. Most Powerful Alliance: Black Knights. TKR would've been up there as well, but at the time of writing, there's little doubt that, due to the ongoing war, alongside other reasons, BK (and NPO) enjoys an edge over TKR which they'll continue to hold for a period after the war as well. Best Military: Knights Templar. Best is quite subjective. However, I consider Knights Templar to be the most capable militarily, especially when speaking relative to their size. Sufficient member count, combined with good membership activity and competence, alongside a milcom that's most likely second to none, means that they're likely to become a pivotal player in any engagement they find themselves in, and can do well above than what a simple glance at their count would otherwise suggest. Best Rookie Alliance: N/A Best Flag: N/A Best War Flag: N/A Most Active Alliance: Knights Templar. Most Honourable Alliance: No one. Everyone's willing to throw honor under the bus for further gains. Most Improved Alliance: Knights Templar. Theodosius and Keegoz improved Knights Templar greatly (thus gaining my main nomination), but the substantial change (for the better) which Church of Spaceology underwent with Ripper taking leadership can't go unnoticed, thus gaining a honorable mention. Best Diplomatic Team: N/A Best Economic System: N/A Best Recruiting Staff: N/A Best Propaganda Staff: Black Knights. Seriously, BK puts more effort into those than anyone else in the game. Best Alliance Growth: N/A Best Forums: Forums are a fragment of the mind we've lost. Alliance Most Likely to Succeed in 2019: Black Knights. This war's outcome will likely leave BK (and NPO) in the best position out of all the combatants. As such, it's no stretch to think that they'll do the best in 2019. Most Immoral Alliance: The Golden Horde. Most Controversial Alliance: The Revolutionary Front. Largely due to the 69 Day War, and the OOC drama. Furthermore, not partaking in the current global in spite of still-then existing ties which either encouraged or necessitated them to join. Best Alliance for New Players: Anyone from the top 10 should be decent enough. Most Missed Alliance for 2018: Imperium of Man. An alliance that did far more than was expected from them, given their size and time span. Orbis needs more of their kind to replae the deadweights that currently saturate the listings. Best Re-started/Re-branded alliance of 2018: Terminus Est. I don't think I need to elaborate on this. PLAYER CATEGORIES Player of the Year: Abbas. Most Powerful Player: N/A. Best Alliance Leader: if former leaders count, Theodosius. Otherwise, Buorhann. Most Controversial Player: Queen M for OOC and Admin related reasons. Most Dynamic Player: N/A Best Player Sig: N/A Best Player Avatar: N/A Best OOC Poster: N/A Best IC Poster: Rozalia, but he's gone. Nicest Player: Yui. She can't be mean even if she tried to. Funniest Player: TheNG. His memes speak for themselves. Most Active Player: N/A Player Most Likely to Achieve Greatness in 2019: LeoTheGreat (Thanos). By virtue of the AA he leads. Best New Addition to the Community: N/A COMMUNITY CATEGORIES Best Wall of Text: N/A Best P&W Forum Topic: (At least up until it stopped working). Biggest Controversy: Queen M's bounty and it's disclosure. Funniest Event: N/A Most Entertaining Discord Channel(Please don't include Slack): Knights Templars' Discord. Best Treaty Announcement: N/A Best Declaration of War: Biggest Meme: Cultural Victory. Largest E-Peen: SRD. Best Villain: Buorhann. Most Hated Poster: Inst recently, Element historically. Most Missed Player (Player that has gone inactive/quit): Partisan. The snek and his WoT's and humorous ways will be missed. WORST CATEGORIES Worst Alliance of the Year: The Revolutionary Front. For their actions prior and during the 69 DW/DDR, alongside those related to the ongoing war. Worst Military of the Year: Too many to mention. Basically, anyone who rolled over without offering any meaningful resistance, or those who were in the offensive and got absolutely trashed. Worst Diplomatic Move: TKR and co. declaration of war on KT/TGH. I'd rather list their FA for much of this year (and probably the latter half of the past one too) as a reason for their current situation, but the nomination calls for only one. Most Inactive Large Alliance: N/A Alliance Most Likely to Fail in 2019: The Commonwealth. It needs much reestructuring and culture change to avoid a collapse, IMO. Worst Player of the Year: N/A Worst Princess of the Year: N/A. Worst Alliance Leader of the Year: If former leaders count, Felkey. Much of tCW's current positioning can be attributed to him. Furthermore, VM'ing right before the beginning of a war, even with the reason provided, was just a very poor decision, which both resulted in ridicule externally, and set a poor example internally. Worst Treaty of the Year: N/A Worst Forum Poster: Re: Most hated poster. Worst Nation Setup: Madden. Sorry Madden, but your setup doesn't make sense. Worst Fighters of the Year (must have fought in 2018 ) : Repeat of Worst Military of the Year. Alliance Most Likely to get Rolled in 2019: Anyone who hesitates to partake in a war in general, TFP in particular.

We signed IoM about a week after our formation. So no, the launch happened without any ties whatsoever. *Edit* The point I was making was that the formation happened without any expectation of foreign assistance. Yes we did benefit from the IoM treaty (so did IoM in turn) and the AO merger, but these came about afterwards and they weren't being taken for granted upon creation. If they were we'd have just done them right away and not bothered with launching with 0353 standing military. Though, rip IoM. They were a great lot.

I've already elaborated why openly declaring war on pirates is a stupid thing to do, and something that people roll their eyes over in the DoW thread. If you are unable to properly understand that, in spite of the extensive explanation provided by several people who're more knowledgeable than you in the subject in particular, and the game in general, then that's on you, not me or anyone else. You're also the only person who's foolish enough to think that hitting by-large ZM'd nations that can be countered with half-decent activity and standing military, is more important than joining a global, which was both more interesting and challenging than hitting pirates. ''We did something dumb which annoyed our original protector, so let's go sign the one alliance that they nearly ended up warring over some protectorate drama.'' By the nature of the treaty itself, protectorates relinquish most if not all of their FA capabilities and let their protectors cover those in their stead. What this means is, if they do something dumb FA wise, it's the protector that has to sort it out for them. There's also the fact that rather than trying to stand on their own two feet, they just ran to someone else to cover them up, which should be a dead giveaway that they aren't worth signing to begin with because they aren't dependable, choosing to let others deal with the consequences of their actions, rather than man up themselves. Oh, and congrats on disregarding most of my post outright, rather than trying to formulate a response, even if it took some research to do so.

TGH launched on February, without allies or protectors, and joined a global war where both sides were fairly even roughly three weeks after. Then we signed KT and both of us fought off TKR and friends, month and a half after said global ( and in spite of obvious disadvantages for us), for two months and some extra days in change. Empi and Obv came afterwards. AK launched on June, and so far, unless I'm missing something, all it has done is join a global which is heavily on their favor four months after their inception, declare war on pirates, and when they found themselves in mildly hot water, ran off to another AA to protect them (likely annoying their original protectors in the process). Your counter argument falls flat because you failed to acknowledge (either due to ignorance or indifference) the track record of both alliances, and their actions in easy and (relatively or otherwise) hard times. You failing to read up on some basic FA story is why people end up downvoting your posts. It isn't because of a circlejerk; it is simply because you're speaking out of your ass and posing as if you were knowledgeable enough to provide any meaningful insight on the subjects you're trying to opine on. Thank you for basically confirming what I said on my 3rd paragraph.

Raiders tend to look for red and purple activity levels, which is 3+ days or a week+ of not logging in.

I'm aware, though it doesn't keep others from taking notice.

Countering =/= 'letting them off'. Again, have a talk with your MA or IA dude because either is failing at his job and giving Arrgh openings to raid you. Inactives with no ships make for very appealing raid targets.

I wasn't talking about, nor do I particularly care of, your perspective. I was talking from the perspective of alliances that simply don't want Arrgh to raid them. Which is ultimately the point of discussion in this thread.

That's not how you deal with Arrgh. They're profit-oriented, so if your intent is to keep them away, simply mantain decent activity levels and some ships as MMR's. And if a random raid does happen, just counter the guy and make sure that the guy who got raided comes back online and doesn't get beiged. Openly warring them is a waste of time and money. They're used to having no military, so if your intent is to subdue them that way, you won't be having much success.

So, they win/win? GuP's a good show, though I've yet to watch Das Finale.

Deja Vu! I've just been in this place before. On top of what Akuryo said, RNG mechanics like these don't really add any fun into the game. All they create is a pick your poison scenario, where you either: A) Run nuclear and accept that you'll get fricked by a meltdown sooner or later because 'lulz'. B} Run coal/oil power and get fricked by pollution. C) Run wind and effectively have only 800 usable infra per 1k you build (in fact, less if you consider minimum military requirements and the likes). The notion that this would somehow affect whales (the ones at 3k) the most, is a fallacy, because at that high infra levels they end up having production slots to spare if they're running commerce oriented builds (the only reason you'd build that high to begin with, other than to run farms or get infra for projects), since they can't fill those out with industry because the pollution would kill their monetary income. As such, this update would end up jeopardizing the 2k< infra people the most simply because they have less slots to work with than whales. If your intent is to curtail 30+ cities growth, then you'd be better served coming up with something aimed specifically at them, and leave the rest of the playerbase alone.