Clive

Solid idea there. I'm pretty sick of all the 'crime' flooding in through my borders. Hell, I'd even throw down some serious credits to buy that.

It's really quite disappointing that you feel like that's the case. My thoughts are with you.

I think you need to stop selfishly focusing on your community and start thinking about the health of our community. We are all one in this beautiful experiment, and the improvement so far is obvious.

Honestly pleasantly surprised to see actual politics here. See, without NPO around you wouldn't have a game to defend: you lot would just be masturbating over game mechanics instead of developing a nice bit of animus.

Project: City deleting moon laser, powered by owning a treasure.

\m/ Biggp rises again \m/

Well then. Honestly I acknowledge that i'm playing a nation sim and all but christ thats some nerdy shit.

You chaps going into the train manufacturing business? Good on ya.

That would be a bizarrely convoluted conspiracy and a hell of a long con. I really hope you're right, because that's actually more interesting than just 'BC leaks a bunch'. Hopefully you'll needle out the true author of this byzantine plot.

Another one to chalk up for the good guys.

Very unlikely that. Still, brings back fond memories.

Gotta admit, love the reputation building: don't even have the score chalked up yet and we've already geared up to an unopposed reign of terror. Go us hey.

Winners justifying declaring each other due to an interpretation of a peace agreement despite being collectively considered a single entity (coalition A) within the agreement? Wierdly i'm into it just to see the byzantine legalese arguments that the DoW would have in it.

It would also invalidate the peace, justifying the winners re-engaging in the conflict?

I get what you're saying, i just don't think it would work the way you're imagining it. For fun lets take it as read that it is a 'bilateral screw-deserters initiative'. How do you envision that working as a condition within a peace treaty? If it is a bilateral agreement do you intend on having the losing coalition somehow enforce the terms on the winning coalition? If it isn't enforced to eithers satisfaction who has broken the terms of the peace treaty? As fun as i imagine requiring the loser to try and enforce conditions on the winner, i'm not sure if that's a precedent you'd be after either. Best case I guess would be an unactionable agreement, but that achieves frick all and has no reason to be in a treaty.