How long will this war go on for?

[Sketchy]

6 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Yes Sketchy sinking ships and burning everyone involved with us, isn't a threat to our existence whatsoever. Good attempt at trying to deflect though.

We never have had hegemonic ambitions and none of our actions has ever led to that. That being said, it's chill that you're not walking back your words. @Hodor here mate, tell me why again we have to somehow give you the benefit of the doubt when your leader has no interest to deny he's not out to disband/scorch the earth with regards to the NPO? 

 

 

Yes. And it doesn't say anything about "disbanding communities" lmfao. Thank you for proving my point for me.

As I have stated many times in the past, a community can only disband if it chooses. Disbanding an alliance isn't a realistic goal for anyone.

Keep saying you don't have hegemonic ambitions. Your secret treaties and fake splits have already been revealed. All the shit you attack TKR for doing you do yourself.

Also, you have Buorhann and I mixed up, I'm the 2ic, he is the leader. I assumed it was a mistake in the first post but guess not.

[Buorhann]

Name me one minisphere we threatened or rolled with toxic intentions behind it, @Shadowthrone.  (And don’t tell me Citadel because of Elijah’s paranoia of Sketchy, they weren’t even on my radar until they jumped in this war)

I personally supported the treaty tie between N$O.  I supported the disbanding of IQ to the point of telling my members that we’d aid any of those alliances within it if need be.

The only criticism I’ve had since the disbanding of IQ was strictly centered on BK (Because, let’s face it, their frickyuge treaty web isn’t a minisphere).

It wasn’t Covenant or Citadel (Until this clusterfrick of a war).

And with our hit on Chaos, I’ve maintained good intentions with their leaders despite some alliances having issues (Grumpy/CoS).

So I really have no idea where you or @Edward I are getting these ideas from.  It sounds like you two are trying to say stuff and see what sticks.

[Thor]

I honestly had mixed feelings at the beginning of this war. But the true colors are really starting to show. I now feel right on the side I'm fighting for. 

[Edward I]

42 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Name me one minisphere we threatened or rolled with toxic intentions behind it, @Shadowthrone.  (And don’t tell me Citadel because of Elijah’s paranoia of Sketchy, they weren’t even on my radar until they jumped in this war) 

I personally supported the treaty tie between N$O.  I supported the disbanding of IQ to the point of telling my members that we’d aid any of those alliances within it if need be. 

The only criticism I’ve had since the disbanding of IQ was strictly centered on BK (Because, let’s face it, their frickyuge treaty web isn’t a minisphere).

It wasn’t Covenant or Citadel (Until this clusterfrick of a war).

And with our hit on Chaos, I’ve maintained good intentions with their leaders despite some alliances having issues (Grumpy/CoS).

So I really have no idea where you or @Edward I are getting these ideas from.  It sounds like you two are trying to say stuff and see what sticks. 

It's two minispheres per Sketchy's comments on BK, NPO and their respective allies, actually. Threatening to war people out of the game because they failed to adhere to the contrived rules of a metagame that, at times, seemed deliberately constructed to constrain them specifically is toxic.

If the framing of your intentions is a years-long time period ("three years giving you ample opportunity") and almost apocalyptic ("If you thought people were targeting you before...you are going to find out what that actually looks like now. The new norm is scorched earth...anyone still tied to BK or NPO will sink with the ship.") then yes, it's fair to say that you intend to force BK and NPO out of the game, via long-term attrition and isolation if by no other means.

Your "support" mostly seemed to be constant complaining that the split didn't go far enough, and no, the criticism was not strictly centered on BK. The ODP police I referred to earlier was the effort by you and others to shame NPO into dropping its already-downgraded, optional treaty with Polaris based on the nonsensical claim that it amounted to sphere-level cooperation between BK-sphere and N$O.

[Spaceman Thrax]

8 minutes ago, Edward I said:

 nonsensical claim that it amounted to sphere-level cooperation between BK-sphere and N$O.

Uhm.

 

Edit: let's also bear in mind that minispheres was not some contrived plot dreamed up by the rest of the game to try and pigeon-hole NPO. That's just paranoid and silly. What it was, was something that your allies in t$ pushed as their rationale for their FA moves. I can't tell you what the comms you had with t$ were; maybe you guys were very upfront about thinking their entire idea for signing them was stupid? But I'm sure I wasn't the only person who was assured NPO was ready to break from IQ, and I have trouble thinking of a better scenario for you guys to have done it if you really had a mind to. Ergo, I conclude you never really had that intent. That's my reasoning, and I think it's pretty sensible honestly.

There's a pretty large amount of back channel stuff that does not look good for your alliance's intent as well. Far more than that cobbled together mess you guys tried to pull on TKR. If I send bitter on that point, well yes. I am. As someone who was actually bored with IQ vs not-IQ bipolarity, it sucks having your side parrot that intent only to fall back into it instantly and deliberately.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Spaceman Thrax

[Sweeeeet Ronny D]

On 8/4/2019 at 12:55 AM, Shadowthrone said:

We entered because we believed in TKR looking to roll us, and had people tell us the same.

Just out of curiosity, is this before or after you attacked Guardian and us?  I dont think this has been answered yet.

[Kastor]

8 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Yes Sketchy sinking ships and burning everyone involved with us, isn't a threat to our existence whatsoever. Good attempt at trying to deflect though.

We never have had hegemonic ambitions and none of our actions has ever led to that. That being said, it's chill that you're not walking back your words. @Hodor here mate, tell me why again we have to somehow give you the benefit of the doubt when your leader has no interest to deny he's not out to disband/scorch the earth with regards to the NPO? 

 

 

As someone who isn’t apart of any sphere really. This is a huge reach to “disbanding communities”.

[Guest Curufinwe]

17 minutes ago, Kastor said:

As someone who isn’t apart of any sphere really. This is a huge reach to “disbanding communities”.

I mean, not really.  His statement is that is BK and NPO would be politically isolated and targeted relentlessly by TGH and its allies, which would hardly have a positive impact on our communities and sounds an awful lot like a promise to try to drive us out of the game.  Same deal with talking about 'scorched earth' - that isn't something you do when you're willing to let bygones be bygones and tolerate any sort of co-existence.  You guys can try to walk it back now, but when a leading figure in KETOGG is making apocalyptic statements about targeting us and anyone who continues to be our allies for the foreseeable future, regardless of the circumstances, we're not going to see it as anything except a threat to our existence. 

[Spaceman Thrax]

24 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

I mean, not really.  His statement is that is BK and NPO would be politically isolated and targeted relentlessly by TGH and its allies, which would hardly have a positive impact on our communities and sounds an awful lot like a promise to try to drive us out of the game.  Same deal with talking about 'scorched earth' - that isn't something you do when you're willing to let bygones be bygones and tolerate any sort of co-existence.  You guys can try to walk it back now, but when a leading figure in KETOGG is making apocalyptic statements about targeting us and anyone who continues to be our allies for the foreseeable future, regardless of the circumstances, we're not going to see it as anything except a threat to our existence. 

Your leader sat in a coalition channel last war laughing about making players quit. Far be it from me to suggest slursphere isn't toxic: they're slursphere. But you're in the same boat.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Spaceman Thrax

[Edward I]

1 hour ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Edit: let's also bear in mind that minispheres was not some contrived plot dreamed up by the rest of the game to try and pigeon-hole NPO. That's just paranoid and silly. What it was, was something that your allies in t$ pushed as their rationale for their FA moves. I can't tell you what the comms you had with t$ were; maybe you guys were very upfront about thinking their entire idea for signing them was stupid? But I'm sure I wasn't the only person who was assured NPO was ready to break from IQ, and I have trouble thinking of a better scenario for you guys to have done it if you really had a mind to. Ergo, I conclude you never really had that intent. That's my reasoning, and I think it's pretty sensible honestly.

There's a pretty large amount of back channel stuff that does not look good for your alliance's intent as well. Far more than that cobbled together mess you guys tried to pull on TKR. If I send bitter on that point, well yes. I am. As someone who was actually bored with IQ vs not-IQ bipolarity, it sucks having your side parrot that intent only to fall back into it instantly and deliberately. 

Perhaps you don't think it was contrived reasoning, but from our perspective it absolutely was. An ODoAP treaty - one by which its signatories reserves the right to fight alongside one another - isn't substantively different from at-will cooperation between alliances in general. Many alliances don't sign them precisely because they feel they are meaningless and that their option to go to war in conjunction with any other alliance is inherent.

The apparent failure to understand that minispheres wouldn't happen in a vacuum - that alliances wouldn't suddenly agree on a comprehensive, universal set of rules regulating every aspect of their foreign affairs - was also contrived. It was never reasonable to assume that everyone would immediately arrive at a consensus on how treaties should be signed, especially since (to the best of my knowledge) a standard one was never articulated. Instead, many people assumed the standard way treaties should operate was "semi-paperless", where the number and number of degrees of visual connections was prized over almost everything else. However, just because some people were hung up on the aesthetics of a treaty web doesn't mean that everyone was. PW managed to produce bipolar wars for years despite an observer's near-constant ability to trace a line from almost any major alliance to almost any other major alliance via treaties. It's a little strange to assume that multipolarity would be killed solely by the continued ability to do the same thing.

Treaties obviously aren't the only way foreign affairs are conducted. The history of a working relationship between NPO and Polaris, for instance, wouldn't have disappeared if we'd cancelled our treaty altogether. The relationships and friendships in former EMC, former IQ, and anywhere else didn't evaporate in early April when Chaos formed and The Inquisition dissolved. The failure to realize this is both another contrivance and the basis for a double standard beginning in April. For all the whining about the supposedly-hegemonic ambitions of BK and NPO and the injustice of their supposed collusion, first in the plot from Sphinx's leak and then in NPO's decision to enter the war against TKR, there has been almost nothing said about Rose's involvement in the war. Chaos had a rock-solid CB and KETOG, while on thinner ice, arguably had one as well. Rose, however, was never mentioned in TCW's plans. If the root problem is NPO and BK's behavior, then surely Rose is at least as much of a bad actor here; after all, they didn't even present a CB like NPO did.

Furthermore, NPO was probably the most vocal skeptic of minispheres for all of these reasons. Roquentin, Keshav, Frawley and I all pointed out flaws we saw in the concept well before it became a reality. However, unlike many other actors in this drama, NPO came up with contingency plan, namely the doctrine of interfering against collusion devised by Kayser and NPO's government. Despite our skepticism, we tried to make minispheres work the best way we knew how.

Of course, this landed us where we are now: NPO was the target of months of public sniping claiming that an ODoAP was proof it lied about the Inquisition's dissolution, two minispheres colluded to roll a third one, and one of the alliances in that group leaked its intentions to take advantage of the situation to roll NPO as well. Forgive us if we chose our own defense over deference to a version of game play that never fully took into account our objections or our play style.

[Guest Curufinwe]

4 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Your leader sat in a coalition channel last war laughing about making players quit.

 

 

You've mentioned that a few times - I'm sorry if Leo offended your tender sensibilities.  Doesn't really challenge my point that Sketchy's comment sounds an awful lot like a threat to try to drive BK/NPO out of the game though.

1 minute ago, Edward I said:

two minispheres colluded 

 *three minispheres - Chaos, KETOGG and Rose

[Buorhann]

10 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Your leader sat in a coalition channel last war laughing about making players quit. Far be it from me to suggest slursphere isn't toxic: they're slursphere. But you're in the same boat.

 

 

Thrax is right about this.

@Edward I - Let’s try not to ignore the context to what provoked Sketchy’s comment.

NPO was given the benefit of the doubt, multiple times, and...  well...  you acted.  His comments come after your actions.

And while I don’t back any terms or forced methods of separating (or creating) treaty ties, I certainly do back him on his cynical attitude towards NPO and BK.

There’s absolutely no reason to trust you folks now at the moment.

(Also lol@BK and their ties being a minisphere)

2 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

You've mentioned that a few times - We’re sorry if Sketchy offended our tender sensibilities.

Fixed it for you.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Buorhann

[Edward I]

6 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Thrax is right about this.

@Edward I - Let’s try not to ignore the context to what provoked Sketchy’s comment.

NPO was given the benefit of the doubt, multiple times, and...  well...  you acted.  His comments come after your actions.

And while I don’t back any terms or forced methods of separating (or creating) treaty ties, I certainly do back him on his cynical attitude towards NPO and BK.

There’s absolutely no reason to trust you folks now at the moment.

See my wall of text that came after the post this was in response to. The details are there, but the short version is that we reject the notion that we had - or needed to be given - the "benefit of the doubt." The minisphere construct which we were all but commanded to support wasn't one we thought was fully sound. Its advocates accused us of undermining it from the start, seemingly without listening to our concerns and certainly without addressing them.

If trust in NPO is predicated on its deference to your preferences regarding the metagame, then you have every reason to distrust us. We will never value the preferences or concerns of others over our own. That doesn't mean we aren't willing to compromise or listen, though. If you want NPO to be a full partner in building whatever world it is you want, perhaps consider doing the same.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

Just when I thought that there were enough "collusion" claims going on irl, it comes and bleeds over into this game.

[Spaceman Thrax]

53 minutes ago, Edward I said:

Despite our skepticism, we tried to make minispheres work the best way we knew how.

Of course, this landed us where we are now: NPO was the target of months of public sniping claiming that an ODoAP was proof it lied about the Inquisition's dissolution, two minispheres colluded to roll a third one, and one of the alliances in that group leaked its intentions to take advantage of the situation to roll NPO as well. Forgive us if we chose our own defense over deference to a version of game play that never fully took into account our objections or our play style.

This is pretty much exactly my point. Your "best way" to make them work was undermining them by maintaining a paperless tie to BK. Which goes against both your minisphere's stated goal, and is a pretty harsh about-face from how much your government caterwauled about other people's supposed paperless ties in the past. You tied the largest grouping to the second largest while purporting to "try" minispheres: surely you can posit where I might be getting the "disingenuous" thing, even if you're only working from what's out in public? Between that and the fact that you have continually lied about my ally, people are going to have a lot of trouble believing you. You can read that as hostility if you wish, but from my end it's quite reactionary: frankly, I would be quite content to ignore you guys if you ever did anything other than mess with my ally in your attempt to build a hegemony.

You act as if you have no hand in things. That is very simply not the case. You had the luxury of doing virtually whatever you wanted when we were already engaged. You chose what you chose.

Edit: I don't want to speak for Rose, but they had a post that outlined their reasoning. I'll ping @Mhearl here: sorry to drag you to this Hellhole of a thread but I don't want to speak for your alliance without you being aware.

 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Spaceman Thrax

[Edward I]

10 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

This is pretty much exactly my point. Your "best way" to make them work was undermining them by maintaining a paperless tie to BK. Which goes against both your minisphere's stated goal, and is a pretty harsh about-face from how much your government caterwauled about other people's supposed paperless ties in the past. You tied the largest grouping to the second largest while purporting to "try" minispheres: surely you can posit where I might be getting the "disingenuous" thing, even if you're only working from what's out in public? Between that and the fact that you have continually lied about my ally, people are going to have a lot of trouble believing you. You can read that as hostility if you wish, but from my end it's quite reactionary: frankly, I would be quite content to ignore you guys if you ever did anything other than mess with my ally in your attempt to build a hegemony. 

You act as if you have no hand in things. That is very simply not the case. You had the luxury of doing virtually whatever you wanted when we were already engaged. You chose what you chose.

I thought we'd been over this. An agreement between t$ and NPO - allies with a public treaty - is not a paperless tie with BK.

If you're saying that, in this instance, it had a similar effect to a paperless tie, then you're kind of agreeing with the central point of my argument, which is that there is an undue focus on appearances at the expense of substance. Does cooperation between Chaos and KETOG via a coalition mean they have paperless ties? I don't think so, but it's had the same substantive effect as an alternate scenario in which they do. Does an ODoAP between NPO and Polaris do or promise anything that couldn't have been without it? Not really, but that hasn't stopped people from claiming otherwise. Does the notion that everyone really separated because they deleted lines on a treaty web amount to anything more than an unverifiable promise - an appearance, in other words? Not really.

Just because others chose to define minispheres in almost purely aesthetic terms doesn't mean we had to.

[Spaceman Thrax]

3 minutes ago, Edward I said:

I thought we'd been over this. An agreement between t$ and NPO - allies with a public treaty - is not a paperless tie with BK.

If you're saying that, in this instance, it had a similar effect to a paperless tie, then you're kind of agreeing with the central point of my argument, which is that there is an undue focus on appearances at the expense of substance. Does cooperation between Chaos and KETOG via a coalition mean they have paperless ties? I don't think so, but it's had the same substantive effect as an alternate scenario in which they do. Does an ODoAP between NPO and Polaris do or promise anything that couldn't have been without it? Not really, but that hasn't stopped people from claiming otherwise. Does the notion that everyone really separated because they deleted lines on a treaty web amount to anything more than an unverifiable promise - an appearance, in other words? Not really.

Just because others chose to define minispheres in almost purely aesthetic terms doesn't mean we had to.

You guys had an agreement with BK. Please check with the rest of your gov, if they haven't told you already.

Even without that though: no, there's no over-emphasis on appearances if you guys side with BK every war. That's just you being allied to BK. That's the substance. Bear in mind: considering you sold all your infra as part of your hit this war, I don't put much stock in your assertion it was about your own security. You literally made the worst-case scenario for NPO happen, yourselves, from a mechanical perspective. And uhhh... I'd posit that the political end isn't much better than other things you might have done, either.

The only sensible reason for you to enter would be fear of BK losing the war. I could care less about if you guys have an ODP, a paperless treaty, a bloc, whatever. The substance is you continually siding with them. The rest is fluff.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Spaceman Thrax

[Shadowthrone]

42 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

You guys had an agreement with BK. Please check with the rest of your gov, if they haven't told you already.

That's categorically false. Being the first one to post about the tS-NPO agreement in public, I always mentioned it was our agreement with Kayser, not BK. 

43 minutes ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

The only sensible reason for you to enter would be fear of BK losing the war. I could care less about if you guys have an ODP, a paperless treaty, a bloc, whatever. The substance is you continually siding with them. The rest is fluff.

Continuing to side with them? Again, we wouldn't be siding with them if it was not in our interests. In this circumstance it is. Tomorrow it may not be. That's the nature of not being allied with BK  

[Odin]

Ketog, Chaos and Rose, each completely non-aligned to each other, can join a war together against a common foe, with CB "BK and N$O planning a war against them". ✅.

Alright, everything's fine until here.

N$O, a bit alligned to BK due to the treaty-web, is not allowed to declare a war against blocs, that used "BK and N$O planning a war against them". ❓

Where is the logic behind that?  Doesn't need much brain matter to know who would have been rolled in the next or a bit later in the same war....

While I indeed condemn the content of that leak, attacking two smaller blocs like that, that original war itself has never happened. It was a "What if" case, if "Surfs Up" never had happened. 

The reality was another one: The first mentioned alliances, instead of dealing with it diplomatically, decided to use their low Infra situation to completely sweep over BK in an Offensive War. None of you know how tight the bonds between N$O and BK really were until it became necessary to bond again together, since the CB was one that was only a coin throw away to simply affect the other one. Any further complaints about the righteousness of anyone's war entry is by now just plain salt. Salt especially over the ingames war mechanics that can't simulate a "Desert Storm". 

The initial Blitz was nicely executed, really well done. I wondered sometimes if the 25% downdeclare range still exists.   

But in the end and finally coming to the topic of this thread: This war will go as long as we need to kill all the pixel-hugging whales on your side. Thanks to Ketog here for thinking they're an advantage. Against whom was this dual-joke idea of Guardian/Grumpy directed? As you can see, they're nothing but useless baggage starting round 2 if there's no counterpart on the enemy side. ...Happily building cities at war (from trade income) and bunkering up while the rest of you is bleeding. 

[Shadowthrone]

5 hours ago, Hodor said:

This isn't strictly true. I think serious efforts have been made, but have not trickled down. Things like this take enormous political will and time. We didn't have either of those (on either side).

I mean we had all of Knightfall and post Knightfall. So that's October 2018 - June 2019. I guess the problem came down to a lack of will on either side which is fair. But I don't believe any concrete offer was made in earnest or significance. The only other offer we had was to roll BK, which we kindly turned down since we weren't interested at the time. 

 

5 hours ago, Hodor said:

I am not trying to be a dick when I say I think you're doing the same thing I was doing. I was taking Leo and Sphinx's words, as high government members, as the position of the coalition. You corrected me and I accepted your correction, so let's not jump right back into the same old song and dance.

Because I've made it clear its coalition decision and pointed out that Sphinx/Aragorn stating what they'd like to see is simply that. I'm hearing nothing from your side, and no significant repudiation of those comments from anyone else from the coalition. You may feel its an insignificant matter to have other members of coalition repudiate, but to us, its a sign of tacit support from others for the same. Straight forward question, does your coalition as a whole concur with Sketchy's view on a scorched earth and burning NPO/BK permanently? Till there's a clarification from say other members of your coalition, like I offered to your to clear that up, I'm hard pressed to believe that there is no tacit support for said demand. 

 

5 hours ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Reps were never going to be a term for Coalition B and I don't know what you mean by "revenge for KF".

That's literally what Akuryo claimed was your coalition demand in the public PnW discord a couple of days ago. I have the screenie somewhere, I'll post it up when I find it. Akuryo stated the original terms before NPO entered was punitive reps and revenge KF terms from what was spoken about in your coalition server.  

[Adrienne]

13 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

That's literally what Akuryo claimed was your coalition demand in the public PnW discord a couple of days ago. I have the screenie somewhere, I'll post it up when I find it. Akuryo stated the original terms before NPO entered was punitive reps and revenge KF terms from what was spoken about in your coalition server.  

I just found the post you're talking about. You should know that Akuryo doesn't have access to any part of the server where we've seriously discussed terms and doesn't have a say in what the terms are except through Rose. Rose never raised reps as a possibility and anyone from the coalition who did bring it up was shot down. Reps were never a part of the terms we were going to have for Coalition B. There was nothing referencing Knightfall either.

Edited August 5, 2019 by Nizam Adrienne

[Shadowthrone]

4 minutes ago, Nizam Adrienne said:

Akuryo doesn't have access to any part of the server where we've seriously discussed terms and doesn't have a say in what the terms are except through Rose. Rose never raised reps as a possibility and anyone from the coalition who did bring it up was shot down. Reps were never a part of the terms we were going to have for Coalition B.

I see, should probably have Akuryo stop going around posting those as terms and then claiming to be in servers with coalition gov regarding this stuff. Probably you know ideal to clarify that, since what Akuryo said isn't the first time I've heard about those terms. 

[Adrienne]

Just now, Shadowthrone said:

I see, should probably have Akuryo stop going around posting those as terms and then claiming to be in servers with coalition gov regarding this stuff. Probably you know ideal to clarify that, since what Akuryo said isn't the first time I've heard about those terms. 

Edited the above post slightly, just FYI. But yeah, suffice to say I wasn't aware it was said, so thanks for bringing it up here to clarify.

[ArcKnox]

16 minutes ago, Odin said:

Ketog, Chaos and Rose, each completely non-aligned to each other, can join a war together against a common foe, with CB "BK and N$O planning a war against them". ✅.

Alright, everything's fine until here.

N$O, a bit alligned to BK due to the treaty-web, is not allowed to declare a war against blocs, that used "BK and N$O planning a war against them". ❓

Where is the logic behind that?  Doesn't need much brain matter to know who would have been rolled in the next or a bit later in the same war....

While I indeed condemn the content of that leak, attacking two smaller blocs like that, that original war itself has never happened. It was a "What if" case, if "Surfs Up" never had happened. 

The reality was another one: The first mentioned alliances, instead of dealing with it diplomatically, decided to use their low Infra situation to completely sweep over BK in an Offensive War. None of you know how tight the bonds between N$O and BK really were until it became necessary to bond again together, since the CB was one that was only a coin throw away to simply affect the other one. Any further complaints about the righteousness of anyone's war entry is by now just plain salt. Salt especially over the ingames war mechanics that can't simulate a "Desert Storm". 

The initial Blitz was nicely executed, really well done. I wondered sometimes if the 25% downdeclare range still exists.   

But in the end and finally coming to the topic of this thread: This war will go as long as we need to kill all the pixel-hugging whales on your side. Thanks to Ketog here for thinking they're an advantage. Against whom was this dual-joke idea of Guardian/Grumpy directed? As you can see, they're nothing but useless baggage starting round 2 if there's no counterpart on the enemy side. ...Happily building cities at war (from trade income) and bunkering up while the rest of you is bleeding. 

It wasn't "BK and N$O planning a war against them" it was "BK planning a war against them." There were assurances from both sides that "Hey we're not involved we don't even know what he was talking about" and "I don't have any evidence that you were so I believe you." The only reason NPO would possibly think KERCHTOGGGGGGGGGGGG was gunning for them post war would be if they weren't being entirely truthful about their involvement in the plans laid out in the sphinx leak. Or maybe it's the fact that they hit KERTOGG members while they were busy with the war, but I guess don't hit alliances if you don't want to put a target on your back ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Since this seems to be a recurring problem I'll put a disclaimer here: The opinions and analysis contained in this post are solely my own. If you think I represent in any way either The Golden Horde or KERCHTGOAGAGAGDGDGASFGSGDGDGGGG in general, you have serious brain damage. I'm a glorified janitor.

[Hodor]

22 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Straight forward question, does your coalition as a whole concur with Sketchy's view on a scorched earth and burning NPO/BK permanently? 

No.