Shiho Nishizumi

They're not the ones making a thread in OWF every time they get triple countered.

Which strategy games have you played?

They weren't as belligerent because Romania didn't get !@#$ed over after WW1. If they had emerged in a similar context as the NSDAP/PNF did, they would have shared a lot of the same belligerency.

#Victors

All the money we make on Keno and baseball should go towards funding them tbh.

You're intentionally disregarding that tTO and CKD came in fresh and basically hit on those nations of ours that were proving troublesome to BK. As for BK fighting Rose beforehand, you're failing to acknowledge that BK was nearly as big as Rose and us combined back then, in terms of member count. And yes, I'm talking about the low tier members not having a decisive advantage. And no, we don't feel the need to recruit new members just for this war. We aren't going to do it just because you're butthurt about concentration of wealth or whatever bullshit you feel like spewing. Bottom line, you said that we were n1 because we sat around and didn't fight as much, and that's flat out wrong because we fought tTO and CKD basically single-handedly until coalition countered CKD like 4 or 5 days after they attacked us, by which point they were already crippled. tTO had already peaced out by then. This is without factoring in BK and VE, which are still fighting.

tTO and CKD peaced out before you even created your account (probably why you were ignorant about their involvement early on), so there are no active wars with them. And no, it's not decisive advantage when only about 30 of our members are facing off an entire alliance that was beat down to around the same score as theirs.

I think we consolidated on him needing to git gudder next time he tries to raid an alliance.

There are no enemies above us, and they (Mensa) have been downdeclaring whenever it was deemed viable. Downdeclaring has it's limits, and you can't expect 15 city nations to be able to easily downdeclare against 1200-1400 nations without decomming a good portion of their military, airforce included.

Pretty much this. We traded the N1-N2 slot with TKR plenty before war was on the horizon (then it was N1 TKR, N2 BK, N3 Panth).

I guess you earned the award of being our resident Dunning–Kruger raider.

You're not expecting me to believe that you have insiders, do you? You don't have a reputation or anything else to back it up, so without evidence, your word is worthless around here. I'm fairly sure that your rationale is the one that's flawed here. I'm quite sure that the rest agrees as well. Obsessed is an interesting word. This thread is pretty entertaining, hence why I'm here. Responding extends it's length so why would I not seek to keep my entertainment going for as long as possible? That's a pretty weird way to word 'I can't really counter your points because you're right, so I won't bother.' if you ask me, because you could have answered the first part, and the last two sentences just fine. No. I respect raiders that own up to the good and bad parts of being a raider. I certainly respect Rangarok, even though he was *very* annoying. However, he was annoying because he was !@#$ing good at what he did. Unlike you. Son, I think that you are the one twisting this into something else. You raided. You got rekt. You !@#$ed about it in OWF. People shat on you because you're being stupid. Everyone in this thread said essentially the same thing as I did. The only difference was the wording.

People pick up games, try it out, and either keep playing if they think it's worth it, and drop it if they think it isn't worth it. Oh? Insiders you say? Got some juicy screenshot to confirm? If not, I'm afraid that your insider is imaginary. There's nothing irrational about how they behaved in this particular instance. Some alliances would have only sent a guy or two to counter you. Sending three doesn't make them irrational and therefore losers though. So you're just ranting without a basis. Good to know. A single raider constantly attacking an allianze the size of Lordaeron is not something they'll sweat. If you *really* become an annoyance, they will just set up a perma-ZI on you. No, they're not biting the bullet by making your life miserable. They're doing a service to themselves directly (which is what matters), and to others indirectly. No. Downdeclaring means that they decided to bring in bigger guns to shut you down. The reasoning behind bringing bigger guns to shut you down is one of utilizing the maximum firepower available to them to minimize their own losses, by neutralizing you faster. It's smart play, not coward play... ...are you trying to school me on raiding? Son, I raided months before you even knew about this game. I used raiding to grow from city 3 to city 8 and to fund my ID. I stopped at 8 cities, which is when targets were lacking. Raiding is obviously a temporary (albeit huge if done right) source of income until commerce really kicks in later on. I'll let you know that there was only one instance where my raiding backfired. In that case I hit a guy that had nukes on him (and I had p high infra back then), something I didn't notice at first. He came back, I offered peace and held back from any attacks (as anyone that only raids inactives does), but I got the rough end of the stick and got nuked once. It was my fault though, for not realizing that he had nukes on him. I didn't make a post on OWF about how someone 'overreacted' by nuking a raider (it was the only thing he could do to be fair), and I certainly didn't get ZM'd for it. It's true that going through something doesn't exactly mean that they'll learn it 100%. I think that this is a good case, with you ranting about how Lord didn't show you leniency and how irrational they were, instead of being like 'Hmmm, I hit two of their members. Maybe that's why they countered me full force, and why I shouldn't do this kind of stuff again in the future.'. And no, I don't think that these AA's would be interested in recruiting raiders of all things. You mention a lot of novel stuff that doesn't actually happen in game. And I'm still inherently opposed to having people get free stuff just because. It's a lazy game concept. These ways of dealing raiders are probably standard for them, and not specifically tailored for each case. It matters in wars. It doesn't matter when dealing with raiders. The only thing that is worth a damn when dealing with raiders-by-profession (so to speak) is military might. No, the alliance you attacked doesn't owe you anything for going 'overboard' in a counter. You see, they don't care about whether you can carry on to another target or not. They don't have to.Just like how you didn't care that you were looting their bank by hitting their members. The only thing that should concern them is to neutralize a hostile force. Nothing else. Nah. You're expecting to be treated nicely when you're attacking someone else. It's within their right to either be lenient on you or to !@#$ your shit up throughoutly. You aggressed them, not the other way around. Suck it up.

Yes, getting somewhere takes time and effort. That's natural in games. I fail to see why should inactive player's resouces be recycled. How would they be? What would the parameter be? Given to the poorest/smallest nations? If that was the case, it'd be an easily exploitable mechanic as people would have 0 infra 1 city nations hoarding those resources for themselves or for their AA. Plus, how do you know that Lord allows or forbids VM'ing? VM is there if you got stuff to deal with and you don't quite want to quit, but you don't want to do anything with the game in a bit. Or maybe they go inactive after getting into Lord? People losing interest in the game can happen regardless of where they are. It's a matter of how each AA wants to handle their members, if they do. It's up to each AA's leadership to handle raiders diplomatically or not. You are in a raider alliance, so you expecting to be asked to stop is wishful thinking at best, and delusional at worst. You should expect to be met with a sword when raiding other Alliances. Is this going by your personal experience or you're just making this up? It's up to each alliance how they handle raiders. So long the method is effective at driving them away, how apparently harsh it is doesn't matter. Refer to the post above. Plus: 1) Maximizing the damage the enemy receives and minimizing your own is a very basic of warfare. I don't really understand why you're complaining about getting slotfilled. 2) No, it's not cowardly. And even if it was, you complaining that it is is an exercise of hypocrisy. Raiding is about maximizing profit at the least possible risk. This means hitting nations that hold bank and that are unlikely to react, and if they can react, be unable to topple you. Wouldn't that be cowardly since you're hitting people that can't/won't defend themselves? 3) This is about the only somewhat reasonable point you made. However, in a context of an alliance that left an Orbis-wide war not too long ago, experience isn't something that their low tier lacks at the moment. 4) I frankly doubt that they care about a random raider hating them. As long as such raider doesn't hit again they couldn't care less. And if said raider does hit again he'll get shat on like the first time around. It's a non issue for Lord. No. If you're going through the lengths of countering him, might as well !@#$ him up throughoutly. Go back to the whole 'How AA's handle the raiders threat' part. Plus, no. This isn't Age of Empires. This isn't Company of Heroes. Leadership doesn't have total control of their members. So, a member/couple of going gung-ho doesn't necessarily mean that the leadership is disorganized. Members countering raiders is not something that any alliance would put behind a seal of approval. Wait. You're expecting to be compensated for 'excessive damage'? After attacking *them* for easy profit? And you expect your denounce to be worth anything? I'd suggest you to drop your Rum. And no, beige isn't a magical mirror that can't be removed earlier. You can, quite literally, click on a nation and declare war. It will simply kick you out from beige automatically. As for the animosity thing, it was already cleared. I don't know, all I see is a guy that got butthurt because he attacked *two* members from one alliance and expected to go scot-free (something he didn't get). And when things didn't go his way, he made a petty thesis on why an alliance that countered him sucks.

As long as the IP's don't match, you don't have to worry about it. And they don't match. https://politicsandwar.com/nation/unique/id=56394

Logs can be either flimsy or solid, depending on their content. If you have logs that firmly show that we were indeed planning to hit you, then I fail to see why you would be holding them back. Granted, those don't exist simply because such a conversation didn't happen in the first place. You likely have (if you do indeed have logs) logs with either rumors or third parties claiming X. Granted, how legitimate these are depends on what's actually in there, and whether your rationale for hitting us was solid or not would come after it's scrutiny. You see, the problem is that you can't go about saying 'I think X' and then refuse to explain why, or provide some sort of backing to it. It's like as if I said 'I think that Nissan is shit.'. People are going to ask me 'Why? What experience or proof do you have at hand to make your opinion be of any worth?'. If I just say 'I'd tell you but I don't think that my reasoning will convince you, so I won't bother.' then they have all the right to disregard or shit on my opinion because it's unfounded. As for the latter one, I think that we all would have preferred that to be this war's CB than the current one. At least it would have been no-nonsense and honest, and spared us of all this discussion about whether the CB is legit or bs.

Month and a half iirc.

Wars have been started on less, but those less weren't based on vaporware CB's as opposed to this one. I won't really change my previous stance. Until you throw in the logs solidly proving your CB, I'll just assume that you attacked us to impose yourselves as the dominant sphere, in spite of your fancy discourse of political diversity and whatnot. Facts can be trusted, propaganda cannot.

Until you disclose it, your claims of a syndisphere attack on IQ will remail baseless, and therefore lack any value as a legitimate CB.

We weren't going to entertain anything less than a plain surrender, but that didn't stop you from sending us about four white peace requests before that 'narrow' victory thing.

By 'playing the market', you'd be playing yourself since the current prices favour buyers for reselling later (or buyers that do it to replenish their WC), not sellers. But hey, that means lost $$$ for you, so by all means, go ahead.

Selling? I thought that you had hundreds of millions to keep this going.

The issue with this is that the attacker would gain an even bigger edge. Currently, being the attacker is beneficial because you get to deal the first strikes and inflict heavy losses upon your target, given that you would have one or two friendlies declaring on him. Plus, you can establish Air Superiority and/or Ground Control. With the training/experience mechanic factoring in, you would not only be killing units, but also killing trained units. Trained units which would need to be replaced with inexperienced troops. Which would then face off an enemy which more or less still preserves most of it's experience/training advantage. In short, the defender would be in an even shittier place than they are atm, because not only would they have less units (and deal with debuffs), but they would also be less experienced. In a bid to prevent zerg rushes, you'd be, funny enough, encouraging it even further because not only would the attacker be gaining AS/GC/etcetc from carrying out blitzes, but also the experience edge.

Didn't say anything about creating accounts in game. I said about taking ID's from nations in game. Since ID's are numbers, they can simply fill out a random 5-digit number that could redirect to a nation in game. Maybe they !@#$ up and pick an ID of a deleted nation and then get denied, but it's still not as a reliable of a choice. Only way to stop them is to set up proper countermeasures against them. They'll just spam for as long as you allow them to, although each bot just sort of caps out after X amount of posts.