Shiho Nishizumi

You sack of shit. Paint 3D is soo much worse than PS.

1) That is a byproduct of the war going on for an extended period of time. Of course, the longer it goes, the more time the losing side has at it's disposal to generate opportunities and play catch up, and close in on the damages that they sustained upfront on the first few rounds. In other words, if you'd rather the gap remain wide, you're better offer relatively light terms so the war ends sooner. If you would rather play economic warfare and try to outproduce the enemy (as is mentioned ahead), then go ahead with it, but accept the tradeoff that ground will be lost on the stats simply because the other side has more opportunities to get damage in than you do. 2) Generally correct. That still requires the other side to have tanks/ships to blow up to begin with. Them being employed by TKR/tCW/TRF is a direct consequence of the strategy that was chosen and employed. Presumably, they were there to either prevent someone from getting GC in and then AS'ing stuff, to prevent cash looting, or to prevent being nav spammed. All fair enough reasons, but the tradeoff is that you have expensive military that can, and will, be targetted. 3) That is true, to an extent. If you had 16-20 cities and managed to get 5-6 days of beige, then you bought enough air that it would put you in range of 2.8k people, which for the 3200-3600 people, isn't hard to reach with a decomm. If they are truly low, then they most likely were either cycled and lost quite a bit of infra (and thus don't have as an effective of a double buy), or had only a few days of beige to build with, in which they would not put as much harm as they otherwise could. I do think that you are being a bit disingenuous with the "similar number of nations involved" thing, as that says nothing of the combat capabilities that either side had (which, at least to me, comes off as suggesting that there was some equal ground in this regard), and obviously, TKR/tCW/TRF had plenty more mil to work with than KT/TGH (at least in anything above 1k ns). Furthermore, there was the possibility for more nations in your side to partake which were comfortably within range (notably from tCW), but those simply didn't act upon it. 4) It is a handy metric to indicate who is being efficient with their resources and who isn't. Plus, it is an actual cost of waging warfare, so I fail to see why it shouldn't be accounted. Your stance would be similar to pretending that it is dumb to factor in the money you'd spend on gas for commuting. 5) That is an argument of economic warfare, and not statistics. It is of course a factor for, say, peace talks (or gauging the feasibility of waging a war), but it is not a metric you can go by to include in statistics. Just like how you can't reasonably (or practically) include military upkeep, or decomm costs, into it (even though we all know it's there). 6) Already addressed by several people, so no point in bothering with it. I'd argue that it shows that there were still avenues for us to get damage in (which didn't include nukes), in spite of the common perception that the war was "effectively over" in like the first one or two weeks. You can go ahead and recite the reasons you listed earlier, but the truth of the matter is, if we really were unable to do anything, the gap wouldn't have closed as much as it did (particularly for the likes of KT, that managed to flip mil damages into a positive net when they were originally in the negs for that too), simply because the perma cycling would have prevented us from doing anything in such a situation. As for the standards thing; you mean the fighting style or the gas/muns thing? If it is the former; hardly. You pick a strategy for the particular needs you need to satisfy. Making a standard out of it would be stupid for any situation. Plus, I've not seen that many people contest whether this was a W or an L. Some contested the magnitude of such (which is an entire argument on it's own), but not the W/L status. As for the latter; as I've said earlier, it gives an insight on how well each side managed their resources. Wasteful tendencies shouldn't be encouraged simply because you can restock those with new production. And no, we were aware that you were going out of your way to airstrike worthless infra just to pad that stat, so it is hardly a matter of merely forgetting to not use muns when attacking with soldiers. Again, if you want to pad infra destroyed, then go for it, but accept the cost (pun intended) of doing so.

Shut the frick up Kastor.

75% of gaming be like: No, this video never gets old.

I'm guessing he quoted from Kastor's response to Bollocks.

They're heroes. Their sacrifice saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people .

It's the acronym of the AA (Ordo Paradoxia).

I've never had problems with Seb either, EB or otherwise. Are you talking about safekeeping? If you want to do that, you can always just hit up a person of trust and ask him to hold your stuff momentarily, assuming said person's not involved in the war either. You can also safekeep *to an extent* by buying credits off the market, although this varies with the price for them at that given time, plus of course monthly caps. There prob are another alternatives which I'm forgetting off the top of my head, but the main point is, there's no need have Alex hardcode a bank. Particularly not when there's other stuff that could be added and be way more valuable instead (such as new projects).

This still leaves my question unanswered.

Excuse me for a moment. Are you calling us out for calling out someone who VM'd for medical reasons (a reason we didn't, nor couldn't know beforehand), while defending Sargun calling out someone who VM'd for work-related reasons, because he didn't/couldn't know Ivan's reason for VM'ing beforehand? It'd be quite hypocritical if that was the case. Those people got that treatment exactly because of the given context, and other variables (govt position, activity in PnW-related platforms in spite of in-game VM, etc etc). Plus, Ivan wasn't in TGH during that war, so if you think that giving him that treatment is karma coming back, then you're targetting the wrong person.

Mods add much of the replayability that paradox games have.

I mean, Kastor said activity, not nation color.

One can't compete with the power of anime tiddies, it seems .

And more short-term, and given that anime seems to be such a despicable thing; when will Avien get the boot? This is quite the large amount of anime he's got on his nation.

Silly you. Of course Jan Orwell, with his astonishing 8 days of history, knows more about years-old history than you, a person that has been playing for the paltry sum of 1237 days. How dare you go against what such a knowledgeable and well-versed person has to say?

''Things went from bad to worse in an exponential fashion ever since we took over. Should we examine whether we had a hand on it or not?'' ''Nah, let's blame people who haven't been in the AA itself for months now.'' 10/10 plan.

And kicking/banning the people who were asked to help them out.

Hopefully this won't be a repeat of the 1st time.

Who Me ITT be like: ''Wahh why can't our rivals do clear-cut propaganda to favor us? We're too busy playing baseball to afford new cities to be able to PR for ourselves in OWF!'' Seriously though @Who Me, the smaller groups are individual and unrelated entities. Them not liking you (not a hard thing to get them to do, given your bullshit ''WAHH WE'RE THE VICTIMS AND DER WELT IS OUT TO GET US'' narrative) is not a strong enough factor that warrants lumping all non-IQ groups up as one, particularly since plenty of AA's did not act upon that dislike when they had a chance to do so in the last global. Plus, such chart would be useless for conflicts that didn't concern IQ (which are bound to happen). So no, we're not going to make a chart that favours your narrative just because you keep whining about it. And perhaps if you lot stopped saying such dumb shit, people would feel a bit more sympathetic towards you. But nah, screw that. Better to just act in a condescending and insufferable way, while spouting nonsense in a thread that had basically nothing to do with us to begin with. It's them the ones that gotta approach us and kiss our feet, after all. ''BK best FA and PR 2017''. More like ''BKLUL''.

AA's won't be funding people 10 cities right away due to risk factor. Lifting the timer simply means that AA's have more freedom on setting their own timetables for city grants, and can exercise flexibility with it. We'll still see them boosting u to 5 cities and have the member stay at that range for a bit, whilst he gets accustomed to the overall feel of the game and it's mechanics. Once he is likely (or guaranteed) not to quit, they will fund the remainign 5 at whichever pace they decide to go with.

What about increased raw production bonus, alongside or instead income? Income is reliant on pop, which is directly related to infra, and at those levels they won't be having that much infra, thus reducing the effect of the income coefficient. Plus, raws would require them to sell it on the marketplace for the cash, adding a step of interactivity that would give them a(nother) reason to log in daily.

Such metric is worthless, simply because it would be stupidly easy to circumvent that stipulation if your metric were to be used. No, ''mass ghosting'' refers to individual AA's, and the percentage of people that leave them temporarily to war. What can constitute as ''mass'' per each AA in particular would be up to debate, since say, 25% of a 10 nation alliance is different from 25% of a 80 nation alliance, but that's unrelated to the issue at hand (that being whether ''mass'' refers to collective AA's or individual AA's).