ShiningLioness

"Us"? Broseph. You're in Arrgh. You're not at war with us (at least, not any more than you're at war with any other alliance on the planet...) We ain't gonna surrender to nobody, but certainly not you.

Your concern for them is touching, but as we have stated we're happy to offer TGH and IoM surrender terms at any time Your new ODN overlords are ever-benevolent.

I loved both Nik's post and Partisan's reply thread delivers

Os bro, I love you, but "lel lel a bunch of heavily outnumbered nations are losing their wars against me and SL used a nuke!!" is not worth replying to lol

Ouch. The old "you're irrelevant" accusation. That hurt me real bad, dude. Right in the hubris.

Not only that, but when we started out all our nations were literally one day old. We'd been considering updating the treaty with NPO to an MDP but hadn't got round to it yet.

It might've been a good move if you'd hit anyone but ODN. :smug: E: omg, there's no smug emoticon? Lame.

Well the other thing is that to force someone to accept those terms you've got to have the balls to keep them down for a bloody long time (because nobody is going to meekly suck up those terms unless they've been fighting for a really long time and have no prospect of ending it any other way) and frankly I don't think anyone in PnW *DOES* have what it takes.

Don't go getting ideas, now.

To be clear, speaking for myself I didn't see dropping NPO as a harsh term. It's understandable. If they could get us to drop NPO, they removed all reason for continuing to attack us and hence peace was sensible. Otherwise, they'd continue attacking so as to neutralise one of NPO's allies. Harsh terms are to my mind extorting massive reps or imposing viceroys or decommissioning projects or a whole variety of dick moves that nobody in this game has ever bothered to dream up, e.g. refusing to let the enemy alliance receive rebuilding loans from banks afterwards and having someone from the victor's alliance have access to the alliance bank to ensure compliance. PnW has never even SEEN harsh terms because nobody hates each other enough. Whether we would ever accept such terms is of course a totally different matter from whether the terms were "harsh". It'll be a cold day in hell that any alliance of mine drops allies at the behest of an enemy alliance.

There were more at the time of writing. As I've said, we're under no illusions that you're not offering us peace. We're not accusing you of being evil tyrants who won't peace us out. We're also not saying it was "wrong" of you to hit a protectorate. What we are saying is that we, personally, are annoyed about being pre-empted when we were peacefully minding our own business. There's a difference between being pissed off and thinking that you're doing something ~morally wrong~ (lol.) So we're not playing the victim here. We really are simply committing ourselves to a suicidal perma war just to get you back.

A certain group of moggies from c.2008 would be scandalised. (I have a looooooooooong memory.)

What are you doing in NPO, you were a spanish cat in a previous life dude Come join us for the ride.

Yeah, we're not denying it. The point Sylvia was making is that we got criticised earlier in this thread for not defending NPO, even though we're only a protectorate, yet her alliance (which is also an NPO protectorate) got criticised for defending NPO because they didn't have an MDP treaty. That's a completely separate issue from TGH's ebilness (or lack thereof.) And on that point: we're well aware we could receive peace if we chose to seek it. We're not claiming that TGH is evil or withholding peace or anything. We're freely committing to a long war for reasons which have already been explained.

It doesn't help that most of your nations at our level are currently on beige. Give it time.

Os said it better than I.

not seeing any butthurt in anything I said m8

WILL SOMEBODY THINK OF THE PIXELS You don't get it. We're not in this for what's best for our nations. At all. Some people get their kicks out of growing huge. We get our kicks out of being a complete pain in the neck.

The level of butthurt is this thread is rather telling I think. It's the entire reason we did this. We got pre-empted. We weren't expecting it. We can't do anything near equal damage. But what we can do is be a thorn in your side for the next 6, 8, 12 months. Firing missiles and doing spy attacks once a week once we run out of money and resources. And laughing at TGH's growing realisation that this is going to be a complete pain. Re: the comments that no alliance could last for the length of time we're describing... ODN is a close knit community which has existed for over 10 years. Our members have a strong attachment to our flag. Maybe some of the newbies we've recruited will drop out, but the vast majority of us ain't going nowhere. We have known each other for literally years. Re: the questions about NPO coming in, it's really a moot point. We're not asking them to come in, nor do we ever intend to. This is between us and TGH. Have fun, boys.

So not only is there no action on this, but admin's response is to propose actually getting rid of beige? o.O

Yes.

So ODN has been in a losing war over the past few rounds. The first round I got taken by surprise, although I had my airforce maxed as I always do in peacetime in event of raiding. Even so I wasn't able to hold my own. But by the time I came out of beige I had completely maxed my military: ground forces, aircraft, ships. It got wiped out again literally within one turn. Not one day: one turn. (Yeah, I'm new to war. I didn't know to expect this. I know none of what I'm saying is new to most people who are reading this thread but spare me taunts about my noobishness, thx.) I'm currently on round three of this cycle. My nukes were spied away daily while I was on beige. Although I knew it wouldn't do me much good, I rebought planes, but didn't rebuy ground forces because tanks cost so much steel and I knew it would go within one turn. That meant that when they ground attacked me I couldn't hit back with planes due to ground control. Air superiority swiftly followed. It means I'm unable to even get one hit back while they raze me once again because even when I have the same number of units, I can't use all of them. Literally all that I can do is fortify. As most people who will be reading this thread know, that leaves nukes and missiles, which you can at least fire without air superiority or ground control being a problem. But unlike The Game Which Must Not Be Named (at least in its early stages), nukes aren't as devastating in this game. (Which is dumb, because they're supposed to be nuclear missiles.) Conventional attacks are far more value for MAPs. But even nukes are not convenient to purchase once the war has actually started. I was purchasing them the entire time I was on beige and simply had them spied away each day. I don't know what should be done about this, but something needs to change. I don't mind being utterly wrecked in a war, but I think it's dumb that the system is set up so that I can't land a single hit and I end up with zero MAPs at the end of each battle while my opponents have 75-100. Removing air superiority/ ground control etc, or making it harder to get, could help. At least in The Game Which Must Not Be Named when I was rolled in wars from time to time, I could always hit back, even if I suffered disproportionate loss. If the war system doesn't change, I honestly intend to delete my nation. Again, not because I can't take a beating, but because the entire reason I built my nation in the first place was so that when I was ready I could fight some great wars. There is no point in accumulating pixels for its own sake: that's why it's called politics and *war*. I know I'll be accused of crying etc etc but I honestly don't care. It's not crying; it's pointing out legitimate issues in the war mechanic. Accuse away and observe my complete indifference.

bump

The politics of this game would be 10x more interesting with protectionism treaties. Unfortunately, that isn't going to happen with the current game mechanics, as it is very difficult to force (or persuade) members not to purchase the cheapest option available. Would sheepy consider adding in a feature so that governments of various alliance can impose financial penalties on people who trade with certain other alliances? (The money would go into the alliance bank.)

"Sir"? Please: it's ma'am. And I figured out admin was trolling us a long time ago.