Shiho Nishizumi

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.

That's assuming Camelot's implicated on all of this. I can't fathom them doing something like this and risking the potential backlash that it'd generate (not to mention the obvious shittyness of doing such a thing from a moral standpoint) over what's effectively chump change of essentially worthless money. I find it more likely that someone's trying to drive a wedge between t$ and IQ by proxy of their protectorates, and they thought that making Camelot the target alliance would've made for a plausible scenario.

Perhaps you need to comprehend what reparations actually entail in this game first.

TKR wouldn't pay anything. The trades are simply undone and each party gets back what they had pre-transaction. Try again.

Except case three would become case two because (there is no point in talking hypotheticals that will not materialize) TKR may not return the resources, and after some time has passed the likelihood of someone going to war over this is close to nil. For reps to happen there needs to be a transaction of the sort. That is the core definition of it. There's none to be had here. In fact, it'd terminate future trades that came to be as a result of a mistake. Stop trying to bend definitions so to try to portray your rivals as of doing something they are not.

It's not a rep term, implicit or otherwise, simply because there's no transfer of wealth to be had, which is the main factor for reparations in this context. The mistakenly posted trades that were taken advantage of aren't (to my knowledge) going to be returned/paid back. TKR (or whoever) not being able to make use of the bot doesn't mean they're paying 'implicit reps' or something of the sort. It simply means that they'd no longer profit from mistakes anymore. And monetary reps are usually not something people are forthcoming in accepting, especially when the side that's making the payments are the ones that got attacked (and such a precedent is a precedent that people try to avoid setting, due to obvious reasons). Plus, as already portrayed here several times, the different members in Coalition A have different motivations for their terms, so reparations would not be suitable for what they want either way (some want to see those pixels burned or torn down, not have them spared in exchange of resources).

Tbh, I think that Pre was being facetious with that offer.

Fraggle is not a participant of this global war, and she posted that as a joke. Check the OP to see the actual participants.

Could you even be bothered to read the OP? There are no reparation demands.

Sort of pointless for it to oblige side A to do so, since it's already on their best interest to cleanse their own deserters.

THE The Fighting Pacifists?

One man AA got looted.