Sardonic

He will peace out or be removed, worry not.

Even were one to accept your ridiculous framing (there's plenty of animosity on both sides of that situation from what I've gathered), that utterly fails to prove in any meaningful way that GOONS has, nor will ever betray anyone. All you've successfully proved is that we're allied to NPO. You'll note that we didn't even enter the war until we were heinously agressed by espionage activity. We are guilty only of following our treaties, you absolute hack.

You do realize, to us, you're like the sitcom character from an earlier series that they put into the reboot to reassure the fans right?

WOOT!

I think you'll find a lot of people will controvert that, because you're spouting nonsense. You have absolutely zero evidence for your claims, both in this world, and our incarnations in our many years of experience in previous worlds. Stay mad though.

Uh dude, do you smell burnt toast? Seek help, you're utterly incomprehensible. GOONS has never nor will ever violate a treaty.

Oh I get it now, I get it now everybody! The reason Col A hasn't come to terms is because they legitimately do not understand that a peace treaty definitionally means a secession of hostilities! Please, I know this is a hard pill to swallow, but you must inform the others, posthaste!

Did you like, not read the OP? We defended our sovereignty with maximum force and extracted a suitable deal in reparations. Are you legitimately arguing that there is no such thing as negotiating position? I suppose it's to your advantage to deny reality, but don't expect anybody with more than two brain cells to rub together to go along with such a laughable farce of an idea as that.

You really don't get the material reality of this world works do you? Not all alliances fight at the same strength. Strength enhances one's negotiating position, and negotiating position matters, no matter how much your side pretends otherwise. Also yes, I'll take the wonton betrayal with extra sedition sauce, thanks.

Maybe your mercy board term can be an essay debating the relative merits of Blitzball.

War Victory% Speedrun WR achieved.

Being willfully dense is a bad look. Diplomacy was attempted, multiple times.

We take our protectorates seriously.

Congratulations on getting your ass kicked and wasting a nuke on my 1200 infra city I guess?

I don't think we want to get into the business of even more beige generation. Aside from the fact that that could potentially be a reward for the attacker to prevent additional counters. Ehh, I think that's still putting the incentive on the wrong side of the equation. I get where you guys are coming from, but I think it makes a lot more sense IC to increase the war loss penalty than invent a war expiration penalty. Increasing the war loss penalty also has the added advantage of increasing the velocity of conflict, and speeding up the duration of wars, whereas penalties effecting the attacker would likely just slow it down even more.

Yours is not a new or particularly interesting dance, Sir Postsalot.

Horseshoe theory is real, only the center of the shoe is anime

How about losing a war destroys 2 random improvements in each city?

Methrage, instead of posting AMVs of dumpster-tier anime perhaps you could post something of higher quality that actually has anything to do with the situation at hand? Here, I'll start:

I've got bad news. The current meta of the game is literally to keep people pinned down forever, hence people letting wars expire or even losing to prevent their opponent from receiving the reprieve. Moreover, in the long run, beige mode isn't going to meaningfully prevent a nation's destruction in an alliance war, it's just dragging it out over a longer period. It doesn't even do anything if properly cycled. I believe the beige mode system should be replaced with something else that creates less counterintuative incentives, but that's a discussion for another day I expect. Reducing the amount given would be a reasonable step to increasing war velocity.

Strong agree on the tributary idea.

Currently, there is not enough of an incentive to win wars. In many, arguably most cases right now, more damage is done during the war and implicitly as a result of the blockade than the final victory. The benefit of being put into beige mode is significantly too high too. I would argue that increasing the velocity of wars and conflict in general would lead to more engaging combat overall, where counterintuative things like letting wars expire, or even intentionally losing the war are not the optimal strategy. Rather than adding incentives through new systems or complexity I think the most straightforward improvement is to make two simple changes: Infrastructure Damage from 4% to 8% Maximum beige mode duration per war lost reduced to 16 hours.

Oh Methrage. After all we've been through, after all these years, across all these worlds, you still legitimately don't get it. With every post you add to our story, with every failed attempt at resistance, you have made us that much more entertained. I thank you for all you have done for us. I eagerly await your mercy board submission.

Plato had a cave. I guess Aristotle had a wall.

OP, don't worry, we have plenty of the worst kind of electricity™.