Jump to content

LukeTP

Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

84 Excellent

About LukeTP

  • Rank
    Casual Member

Profile Information

  • Leader Name
    LukeTP
  • Nation Name
    Comtona
  • Nation ID
    124083

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Literally the only thing TCWsphere could do was nuke. That sort of war is no fun for anybody. That said... MOAR NOOKZ
  2. I know they weren't. Why would they be given that you've already demonstrated that you can't stick to the terms you've agreed in the past? Why are who doing it? There aren't 100+ nations hitting you... your entire alliance only has 69 defensive slots to begin with.
  3. If you are so flattered by it, why are you begging for terms to be presented (for you to ignore again) so you can peace out? You thought you could raid with impunity and then were countered, hard, then countered the counters saying that raids are allowed. Then when you agreed a NAP with Terminus Est, after finding out you couldn't get away with that, you broke it within 8 hours. You clearly don't understand diplomacy. Half of Orbis hates the other half (IC at least) and yet they managed to make a NAP last 5 months (so far), yet you couldn't even last ONE DAY of the 4 week NAP you negotiat
  4. Don't flatter yourself, no one said you're a global threat.
  5. Sorry, your bait post? Deulos posted it? Or are you actually the same person? "A Epic FA moment" [sic] - there's a difference between laughing with somebody, and laughing at them...
  6. Good news everyone, war's back on as Deulos wasn't being serious... just like when they tried to negotiate peace first time round...
  7. Agon aren't really any good at foreign affairs from what i've seen. They have Error 404 babysitting their embassies too and that hasn't helped them at all...
  8. I didn't realise that Agon spoke for Terminus Est's Foreign Policy? Imagine being a small, insignificant alliance like Agon (#79), and trying to decide when somebody else (#18) will no longer attack you. By the way, I see no fewer than 8 new wars declared today by Terminus Est against Agon.
  9. On the basis that the precedent no longer applies, I consider this matter closed.
  10. Thanks for doing the right thing.
  11. Alex, the fact that the "main difference here" is to do with being allied to the target, when there is no (to my knowledge) rule about only attacking targets that you are not allied to, makes that a completely irrelevant point. What If i told you that Agon were allied to THL? Agon would of course deny it, but you have no way of knowing because paperless treaties are commonplace in PnW so it is impossible for you to know whether or not two nations or alliances are allied unless you make it a requirement to lodge all paperless treaties with you. All we are asking for is a consistent enforce
  12. Nope, strikes are forever.
  13. I'd just like to know what the rules actually are... I'm even more unclear about what they are after this whole fiasco than I was before, and they were already a confused mess. There seems to be a huge scope for "moderation discretion" which seems to be closer to "if i feel like it" than actual discretion.
  14. Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=97925 Ruler Name: Deulos Nature of Violation: War Slot Filling The Rule (emphasis is mine): Evidence: Firstly I draw attention to the following thread which shows a precedent set by Alex for issuing Nation Strikes for nations who are trying to raid "economically". The Precedent: The precedent I am drawing on is that the nation strikes were issued for, and I quote: All of the attacks for which the nation strikes in the precedent were with a greater number of units as a percentage of what could reali
  15. Alex, I really fail to see how even if Dillon's strike is warranted that Sidd's can be. It looks like you've looked into Dillon's case and decided that based on some (at best) circumstantial evidence that the OP admitted they had taken completely out of context, that Sidd is guilty too. Sidd would have required between 296,221.16 and 592,442.32 soldiers in order to loot the amount that they were looting. They have a maximum soldier count (assuming they are running a 5 barracks setup) of only 425,000. If you go down the middle and say that Sidd was getting a rand value of 0.75 then they ne
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.