Salt Meat

"Winning" seemed to be a common thought amongst your coalition, based primarily on stats such as the ones you brought up, like net damage. If that's not your own view, perfect. I'm just explaining why net damage is not a good indicator of how the war is going. I'm not touting any sort of great military prowess. I know full well that TKR had already been through months of war before we even existed, and you can thank your friends in TGH that we're even involved in this war, but we were given a strategic task to perform, and I'm confident in saying we've done it well.

Did you just completely ignore what I posted? You're not going to have much net damage against an alliance like TKR that's already bloodied and beaten down. There's nothing left to "damage", you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. The difference, as I already said, is that we can afford to maintain it. We're generating income at near peace time levels and continuing to grow our nations, while our opponents aren't. So yes, net damage is a dumb way for a nation reduced to glass to claim they're "winning", just because they're so destroyed that the opponent is spending more on keeping you down than what your nation is worth.

Net damage is a dumb thing to measure anything by. Fighting hollowed out shells of nations with 5-10 more cities than you is going to almost always be a net loss, especially if you're counting resources spent doing so as "damage" for the opponent. You can't come out ahead on net damage when there's nothing there to destroy. The real value is in the opportunity cost. Sure, they come out ahead when you twist the stats to show we're spending more to maintain the war than what's available to destroy, but the difference is that we're able to sit here at normal infra levels generating income and building up nearly at peace time levels, while the 20 city, 0 infra nations just sit there being paperweights generating nothing but dust.

Maybe stop being a whiny leech then and make your own?? You don't need to use his stats, yet you seem to be obsessed with them. Maybe a little less time playing forum detective and a little more time doing something useful for the community yourself?

But that's the thing though. Nobody "had" anybody do anything. Yes, we are a raiding alliance. Newbies are not only allowed, but encouraged to raid. They're told to only target inactive, small, or unconnected nations and alliances. Sometimes they screw up and target someone they're not supposed to. When that happens, our government deals with it and makes amends. Most are happy with an apology and/or reparations, others apparently decide to drag us into a global war and cause billions in damage to their allies.

Correct.

There's no trust required. Nobody is asking you to take any sort of leap of faith. The coalition leadership just wants you to admit that you've lost. There's been a lot of talk from your coalition about winning the war, even in your own post. That's not something I'm here to take away from you. It's fine, if you think you're winning, more power to you. But that's the rub. They don't want to negotiate terms until you no longer believe you're winning, because they believe they've won, and that you've lost. Legitimately all that they want is your coalition to come to them and say, "Alright, you win. Let's talk peace." That's it. No unconditional surrender, no blind trust, just acknowledging that you've lost, be it now or however long it takes for you to believe that you have.

I'm also getting this error very frequently when attempting to do a naval attack, and only on naval attacks. It's just the error showing up though. Doesn't affect anything or prevent me from attacking, it's just there.

That's cool. Stop complaining about the community contributions of someone else then and put your 3 billion people to work making your new unbiased stats site.

Cool, do it then. Or would you rather sit here and whine about biased stats. Maybe you'd prefer the term lazy then, rather than incompetent?

I'm trying! It doesn't help that apparently the meaning of the word has changed! Is he trying to say I'm bad at programming? Is it a cry for help? Does he need someone to set the time on his microwave? The world may never know.

Hoo boy, well have I got some good news for you!

Is this supposed to make sense or something? Are you just quoting random Goons and calling whatever they say ironic?

If you feel like Frawley's stats are biased or inaccurate, you are more than welcome to create your own database. Though I doubt most of the complainers are competent enough to program the time on a microwave.

Why ask for peace terms then if you don't want to end the war? It's really starting to get mesmerizing. "We want peace terms offered to us...but we don't want to end the war" "We won't admit defeat until we see all the terms... Also we're winning"

We're not that organized. We're more like a pack of rabid dogs let loose on the forums posting whatever we can to give our leadership headaches.

I'm fairly certain someone born 3 days ago would know enough to understand the peace process being presented to you.

I find I'm less attentive to my resource levels when on mobile with the new layout, and it's somewhat annoying to have an extra click to check(It sounds trivial but in game design the amount of clicks to do something is actually a major focus and something that you try to keep as low as possible at all times). But that said, it certainly looks better, and I'm sure I'll adjust to it with time.

Sleep well, friends.

Well I mean this is the crux of the whole peace issue right here. You don't think you've lost, and that's fine, but the coalition doesn't want to discuss terms with you until you have "lost", in whatever way you choose to define it.

What advantage is there though? The only difference I can see between preemptively bringing us in and us hypothetically entering ourselves is the mass spy killing campaign against us before we started combat, and considering most of our nations weren't old enough to even be at half capacity yet, it didn't really make a difference. As someone who had mine killed, the end result is someone once or twice a day blowing up 5-10 of my planes. Not really an advantage worth dragging in a potentially neutral alliance over. And on the other hand, you've allowed an alliance of 100+ new nations on "the other side" to gain valuable combat experience in a winning war where the stakes are low and mistakes can be easily learned from without much consequences.

I don't see why you wouldn't take it. There was absolutely no strategic advantage to dragging GOONS in against your allies. There were 2 possible scenarios. A. We were lying, and planning to enter the war against you, in which case you changed absolutely nothing by dragging us in early. B. We were telling the truth, and did not intend to get involved, in which case you've caused a ton of extra damage against your allies for no reason whatsoever.

Drunken radio, the cause of, and solution to, all our problems.

GOONS: Garbage, Outdated, Offal, Necrotic Swill