Jump to content

How long will this war go on for?


Kastor
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Roquentin said:

That isn't being a victim. It's showing we have to balance against you if you come together. A victim waits for things to happen. People do stuff to avoid being victims. What would have been a victim is waiting around to get hit at a later date. 

victim-mentality-signs-pinterest-lonerwo

In this case it's more of "The majority of people in the Game are against me" but ya'know.

  • Upvote 1

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Just saw this, but NPO essentially has my thoughts, albeit less skeptical then my own. No one does anything in this game that doesn't put them further ahead. Those who champion "mini-spheres" or decry how we harm "game health" have an obvious benefit from whatever virtue they extoll.  

I honestly thought you where just ignore me lol. So I'm going to guess nothing big to add to Keshav's post, then?

I do get the idea that everyone wants something. That's the nature of politics. Always has been and always will be. Everyone wants to be in a better spot than they were yesterday.

But from what I gathered BK/NPO have the same relationship with one another as everyone accuses everyone else of having with everyone else. Would you guys consider yourselves the counter to this "ruling class"? Would you just be a rival 'Ruling Class"? Like is this just shaping up to a War of the Roses for the rest of Orbis history? House of Lancaster vs. House of York style?

 

On 8/15/2019 at 10:24 AM, Shadowthrone said:

Roq pointed out the myriad of leaders stacked up, who've all worked together for many years and in comparison BK/NPO don't have such a pull, nor have we been given the opportunity to exist within such a scenario, given how we're always next on the chopping block thanks to the same folk pulling the same things over and over again. So here, the ruling class would be those who've ruled the politics of the game and have at past instituted a hegemony. 

But in that same regard, calling someone out for pulling the same thing over and over again and then, from the information I've gathered, doing the same thing with BK is a little hypocritical. Just from the myriad of posts from a myriad of leaders here in this topic and elsewhere on the forums I've been able to see and read multiple chances given to NPO to be included in on something, but the response was... less than what was expected I suppose? And it's mostly met with cries of conspiracy or paranoia. Even this here about constantly being on the chopping block as one of the top alliances in Orbis slightly smells of some paranoia. I can't say delusion because from what I can tell someone is always next in line to be rolled somewhere down the line. TKR in Knightfall, apparently, CHaOS in Surf's Up, and now BK for leaked logs about smacking ChaOS. I've only been involved in the last two. It seemed like people were more unwilling to work with whatever IQ was than anything actually NPO or BK on their own. And given the supposed split of IQ and the feeling towards the (blob?), I can see where people would be absolutely livid with seeing the reunion tour in this war. I've seen less opinions on working with BK because, they aren't the vocal-est on the forums in these drawn out, lengthy posts.

Accusations of hegemonic movements, from either side, give me a headache. I'd just. Just no. No amount of words will convince me one way or the other. Actions will. Once this whole thing is over, the dust settles, and the time to march home happens, we'll see who still stands as a unified army and who moves the frick on. I'm sure it will make for some fricking great political fodder, and I'm excited to see what happens.

On 8/15/2019 at 10:24 AM, Shadowthrone said:

We have. Roquentin is the second Emperor of the Order. Nevertheless, we've had countless government changes and the majority of our high government, have been in their positions since the end of Knightfall. I mean, if Roq sticking around for years as a leader is a grouse, than basically the entirety of KETOGG's' leadership is a whole different beast. SRD's been heading GoB's FA since its inception and before that was gov in VE. Sketchy was the leader of Rose before becoming 2IC of TGH. Buorhann has been around in high gov spsots for years, Memph has been a leader of Guardian for years as well. So no, your argument fails to take into account an important facet of the FA architecture, that would inherently be that club of leaders, neither BK nor NPO has had a seat in, since the formation of IQ.  

It would be fair to say, that we have a great relationship with Aragorn but outside of that and possibly the NG/Malal/Polar, almost everyone else within Coalition B are working together for the first time  The only real shift within that network was attempting to work together with HS/tS who's leadership nominally has always been a part of the above mentioned group of leaders, until Partisan/Kayser nuked that and attempted something different, while HS cutting Guardian to try something different. In exchange we cut IQ and was attempting to fit three different groupings into one sphere, which isn't perpetuating the said class.  

Where was Roq before he became emperor? Or did he seem to just bust out on the scene in a blaze of glory to take the reigns? How about the rest of the high gov. Surely they had some experiences elsewhere before becoming High gov of one of the largest alliances in the game? Or where they too just prodigies of their time? How is that different than the kettogg situation you described bellow?

I'm not exactly saying it's technically a grouse, but it's strange to call someone else a ruling class when you're on the same level as them, even if you haven't "taken a seat at the same table" with them. But by and by, your description of Kettogg leadership tells me they've moved around through different government positions, even breaking out of old government positions to take on new responsibilities, or less responsibilities. And Really, it looked like with the formation of IQ, y'all had your own table to be at. Just looking at the wiki, with a lot of names I recognize with even just being around a shorter while. And then BK absorbed some of the alliances in mergers.

But, You admit you maintained a great relationship with a member of IQ that you supposedly cut ties with, which is not wrong in any shape or form, you find out who your friends are I suppose, and then when they light be beacons of Gondor, you once again run in and help them fight like the split never happened. Just from my perspective ignoring anything else, it feels a little disingenuous. I've seen either you or someone else from NPO post about the idea that they couldn't just sit idly by and watch BK get killed or something along those lines. Do you guys honestly believe this would have merked BK for good?

Not to mention, there can be multiple ruling classes in one game. Claiming one side to be the "Ultimate Ruling Class" like they're all some Machiavellian Villains is; one: I being a High Gov Member in Val, to me a massive compliment, I love love LOVE playing a villain, two: definitely fits into your narrative of not having any trust in their words (More below on that).
 

On 8/15/2019 at 10:24 AM, Shadowthrone said:

I mean a few former leaders from that school of FA, have pretty much told me, that the idea is to keep a navigable distance, not too far that relationships decay, but not too close for the optics of it. That's the basic argument we've fought against for years. If you have a relationship, sign a treaty and be done with it.  

This right here I find hilariously hypocritical as a statement. By that definition of argument and the statement above it stating you've always had great relationship with Leo, you should have just resigned BK or never dissolved the treaty to begin with. You maintained a relationship that was not too far away to decay, but not too close for the optics, and yet you decry the very thing. It took the heat off you and placed it on BK, especially after the leak, to not be tied to them and to sign t$, but it seems when the fires got too heavy you had to come help put them out. So, why dissolve the treaty in the first place if your stance is "if you have a relationship, sign a treaty and be done with it" then you're not taking your own advice and breaking with BK under the pretenses of "trying something new" while maintaining this relationship is just in the same school of thought as them.
 

On 8/15/2019 at 10:24 AM, Shadowthrone said:

The lack of trust/faith in the changing of their behaviour brings us to this specific point in time, where the NPO has little to no faith in their promises that this is a one war situation and hence brought us in. As Edward has mentioned, minispheres work only if there is a system of rules, trust and faith in the other main players to make it work. There is none, and here we are. 

From what I've gathered though, people had more faith in you when the ties between you and BK broke but simply because of NPO's baseless, from the lack of actual proof, fear that they where next decided to show their cards. I mean. It's all wildly head-spinning to me to cry out that everyone else is doing the same old thing again and again while yinz do the same old thing again and again. You had a chance to show that you had an iota of faith in others, to prove them wrong, because from forum posts alone people suspected you'd be right into the fray, but you did the opposite. Trust begets trust.

It all does feel to me like old grudges are wounds that NPO just wont let heal. I think any form of game play in this type of sim is going to rely more on trust than anything else. Whether is bi-polarity or mini-spheres, there is going to have to be some sort of understanding reached between sides or group of sides. If NPO doesn't have faith in anyone but BK, really, then you're not doing anything really dynamic. Most of what I've seen from NPO is "Well, you guys didn't really want to bring us to the table, despite offering the chair, it was just a plot to stab us based on these events in the past." And then "Well, we've never been in the ruling class because they wont let us be at the table with them and that makes us not trust them." It's a bit circular logic. But I mean, all we've ever done on these forums from what I can see is go around the same roundabout at full speed.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know Roq has always been NPO Emperor in PnW; although I didn’t pay much (if any attention before creating my nation). Before that he was leading an alliance allied with NPO in CN; after fighting them for many years before finally trusting them enough to not keep try to keep them pinned down after the Karma War. (NPO’s first loss in CN). So he has history and experience with them.

So trying to get them to remove Roq is probably a bad approach & just make NPO harder to deal with. :P

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

As far as I know Roq has always been NPO Emperor in PnW; although I didn’t pay much (if any attention before creating my nation). Before that he was leading an alliance allied with NPO in CN; after fighting them for many years before finally trusting them enough to not keep try to keep them pinned down after the Karma War. (NPO’s first loss in CN). So he has history and experience with them.

So trying to get them to remove Roq is probably a bad approach & just make NPO harder to deal with. :P

I couldn't care less if they removed him or not. I was just wondering where he came from. I don't really find them hard to deal with now. But inexperience is a factor. But this is rather safe to say he's been aligned with NPO in general for awhile. I played CN I think for all of a month years ago and just shrugged it off, so my history there is even worse than my history here. XD I mostly have word of mouth and the wiki. Don't even have that half the time with CN. 

Bottom_Border Siggy.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

As far as I know Roq has always been NPO Emperor in PnW; although I didn’t pay much (if any attention before creating my nation). Before that he was leading an alliance allied with NPO in CN; after fighting them for many years before finally trusting them enough to not keep try to keep them pinned down after the Karma War. (NPO’s first loss in CN). So he has history and experience with them.

So trying to get them to remove Roq is probably a bad approach & just make NPO harder to deal with. :P

NPO removing roq is pretty much impossible due to a complete absence of popular sovereignty within NPO. It’s close to impossible for an alliance to perform an action which has little to no basis within its own ethos.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Charles the Tyrant said:

NPO removing roq is pretty much impossible due to a complete absence of popular sovereignty within NPO. It’s close to impossible for an alliance to perform an action which has little to no basis within its own ethos.

Other than maybe Rose, not really aware of any notable alliances someone can become the new leader by popular vote in periodic elections. So either way I don’t think anyone joins expecting to replace Roq. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/16/2019 at 12:37 AM, Shadowthrone said:

Not "fun" wars as your describe, but specific reasoning to war, to politics. Give specific ideological meaning to your action.

@Shadowthrone - Man, those words are pearls! I said about the same thing in a post weeks ago. Going to war over mindless stuff like boredom, fun, or a leader being dissatisfied with their Alliance "war reputation" totally destroys any potential for a rational geopolitical metagame in P&W to even get off the ground.

Dude, ya oughta be in government, if ya aren't already!

P&W SK Flag Small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Other than maybe Rose, not really aware of any notable alliances someone can become the new leader by popular vote in periodic elections. So either way I don’t think anyone joins expecting to replace Roq. :P

NPO has elections? Let me guess

Option 1: " o/ NPO"

Option 2: " Hail Pacifica "

2lsJlTp.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, alyster said:

NPO has elections? Let me guess

Option 1: " o/ NPO"

Option 2: " Hail Pacifica "

Doubt it, in BK the elections they vote on are purely for lulz. One week I spent as Duke already was above any Senate Position. So would have a pointless to run.

Fark has elections when someone steps down, probably the only times any alliances really decide on new leaders (Other than Rose being the exception here). I first met Roq when Umbrella applied to join The Citadel in CN. Since NPO was unbeaten & hadn’t tasted defeat yet, wanted to shift the dynamic in The Citadel to have more who’d be on my side opposing the hegemony of the day; while screening out any alliances who wanted to join them.

Eventually this worked & my political goals were in alignment with Umbrella when I favored bringing them in. So had a good relationship with Roq and The Citadel back then. Not sure if Shadowthrone ever told me who they were, but since they best remembered me as King of FCC when we were Citadel together; they likely know Roq as far back as 2007 when he was fighting NPO. So while Shadowthrone capable and active; as the name implies I think they prefer being effective support Gov & loyal to Roq. (Kind of support Gov it’s great to have & can make a huge difference when leading in not micro managing as much.)

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well your mistake is assuming that decent alliance like NPO is being run the same way as BK. PnW NPO charter looks similar to CN NPO's. 

https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/Charter_of_the_New_Pacific_Order

Also why coup Roq? He's as sharp as they come. However look at the others in high gov under him. ?

2lsJlTp.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, alyster said:

Well your mistake is assuming that decent alliance like NPO is being run the same way as BK. PnW NPO charter looks similar to CN NPO's. 

https://politicsandwar.fandom.com/wiki/Charter_of_the_New_Pacific_Order

Also why coup Roq? He's as sharp as they come. However look at the others in high gov under him. ?

Honestly haven’t looked at the Charter for any alliance I’ve joined this game. (Think maybe the Rose Charter to see how elections worked after someone suggested I join them over making a new alliance when thinking about is only time I’ve looked at one in PnW)

BK was pretty chill. Although rather than do their city builds; I kept it max commerce & did my own. So never could get used to the hive mentality, although when I carelessly raided a Valinor nation who hit Camelot w/o verifying anything; BK attacked to have my back. Me consistently ignoring their city builds got me promoted to Duke of Econ. So I dunno, if I didn’t end up leaving probably could have went Arch Duke eventually. Although high taxes was something I had a hard time getting used to & would have favored lowering or letting people get a lower tax rate if they haven’t got a grant after so long. So that would be the hardest thing for me to get used to in a high tax alliance like NPO.(Even If Roq can probably put the resources of most members to better use)

Although doubt the members care about the meta versus winning. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gudea said:

@Shadowthrone - Man, those words are pearls! I said about the same thing in a post weeks ago. Going to war over mindless stuff like boredom, fun, or a leader being dissatisfied with their Alliance "war reputation" totally destroys any potential for a rational geopolitical metagame in P&W to even get off the ground.

Dude, ya oughta be in government, if ya aren't already!

...

If you do talk about politics so much as you suggest, you really already should know who keshav is. 

NPOs 2ic. Meaning if Roq goes we have Keshavbots.

Edited by Akuryo
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Other than maybe Rose, not really aware of any notable alliances someone can become the new leader by popular vote in periodic elections. So either way I don’t think anyone joins expecting to replace Roq. :P

TCW had regular 6 month elections, before back in September 2018 during Felkey's Prime Ministership. Then it was changed so once elected the PM can remain in office as long as they like and new elections are only held if the current PM retires or is impeached with a 66% vote of the Membership and majority of the gov. So tCW's basically an elected autocracy now. 
However TBH I have thought on occasion of bringing back regular elections because I like the debates during the last one, and we've had no problems with it in the past. Although a caveat would be providing some requirements in place for eligible candidates. (IE, minimum membership length, previous gov experience required etc)

2 hours ago, Gudea said:

@Shadowthrone - Man, those words are pearls! I said about the same thing in a post weeks ago. Going to war over mindless stuff like boredom, fun, or a leader being dissatisfied with their Alliance "war reputation" totally destroys any potential for a rational geopolitical metagame in P&W to even get off the ground.

Dude, ya oughta be in government, if ya aren't already!

My reasons were much more than just "war rep", its amusing you guys are still going on about that. Haven't you got new talking points yet?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Just saw this, but NPO essentially has my thoughts, albeit less skeptical then my own. No one does anything in this game that doesn't put them further ahead. Those who champion "mini-spheres" or decry how we harm "game health" have an obvious benefit from whatever virtue they extoll.  

I mean this explains a lot. I think as a general rule this is true, but if you treat it like an absolute then I can totally see where your paranoia is coming from. I could also see this being true if you meant that having fun was an obvious benefit, but I don't think that's what you mean. It was pretty clear that many of us just didn't have fun being the hegemonic power else EMC would still be ruling the game.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally when I started playing CN, NPO’s hegemony was so strong & power great enough even speaking out against on OWF could get one rolled. There hegemony so strong it seemed hopeless to beat them, which for me made it challenge. Like defeating the final boss in a video game, so after they were defeated I lost most of my drive after with no enemies worth fighting for Citadel after.

However it took years to get everything in place they could be rolled with a coalition forming w/o NPO knowing; including alliances still in their mega bloc at the time. So I’m used to those on top making it hard for their enemies to take them down as possible. Still getting used to people here expecting the perceived hegemony of the time voluntarily making it easier for their enemies & listening to them. 

This being a perpetual game means alliances can’t win forever; although doesn’t mean they can’t try. I don’t think people should expect their enemies to make things easier for them. If hypothetically IQ says screw the meta, we’re going to try winning with brute force as long as possible. If they can last a year or 2 without getting rolled; it would be highly impressive. Although nothing lasts forever, so not sure if the meta arguments matter at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Aragorn, son of Arathorn said:

Just saw this, but NPO essentially has my thoughts, albeit less skeptical then my own. No one does anything in this game that doesn't put them further ahead. Those who champion "mini-spheres" or decry how we harm "game health" have an obvious benefit from whatever virtue they extoll.  

Pretty funny coming from an individual who plotted with NPO to roll the two smaller spheres after they just got done dogpiling one previously.

Let alone dragging in alliances who had very little, if any, involvement in the current war or previously aided your side.

But continue on about the “game health”.  I’d love to hear more.

Edited by Buorhann
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Hodor said:

I mean this explains a lot. I think as a general rule this is true, but if you treat it like an absolute then I can totally see where your paranoia is coming from. I could also see this being true if you meant that having fun was an obvious benefit, but I don't think that's what you mean. It was pretty clear that many of us just didn't have fun being the hegemonic power else EMC would still be ruling the game.

I mean I’m pretty sure Roq’s enduring point is that the EMC ties withered, but the relationships stayed intact with a few notable exceptions, Namely T$. To pretend tkr wanted EMC to fall apart is fantasy, and KETOG is a post emc construction. 

5 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

Pretty funny coming from an individual who plotted with NPO to roll the two smaller spheres after they just got done dogpiling one previously.

Let alone dragging in alliances who had very little, if any, involvement in the current war or previously aided your side.

But continue on about the “game health”.  I’d love to hear more.

This reads like you didn’t even read the logs. There was no plan only inquires of interest same to what everyone on your side did as well. I think it’s been made pretty clear Sphinx had at the absolute best an extremely optimistic view. 

Mall alliances dragged in have concrete ties to those who have started an aggressive war against us. Just as valid as the aligned but not involved people you hit. 

I have never once used game health as an argument to conduct actions in a certain way. While people may dislike it my words have been pretty consistent.  It seems you missed the quotations on it, as it is what your side has pushed for since Knightfall to varying degrees. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Akuryo said:

...

If you do talk about politics so much as you suggest, you really already should know who keshav is. 

NPOs 2ic. Meaning if Roq goes we have Keshavbots.

Where in my post did I suggest that I "talk about politics so much"?

Ah. Now I know who Keshav is: NPO's 2nd. in Command. Actually, I haven't got a clue who almost any Alliance leaders are, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is what I said in my post.

@Sphinx - "My reasons were much more than just "war rep", its amusing you guys are still going on about that. Haven't you got new talking points yet?"

That's what the allegedly leaked log I read said, man. I wasn't "going on about it", nor did I bring it up as a "talking point", but as an example. Correct?

The point @Shadowthrone made about having a rational geopolitical metagame was obviously lost.

OK.

P&W SK Flag Small.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Hodor said:

I mean this explains a lot. I think as a general rule this is true, but if you treat it like an absolute then I can totally see where your paranoia is coming from. I could also see this being true if you meant that having fun was an obvious benefit, but I don't think that's what you mean. It was pretty clear that many of us just didn't have fun being the hegemonic power else EMC would still be ruling the game.

I believe you when you say but it definitely isn't 100% applicable to everyone you're including in EMC from what has been available to the outside view. You did join Hogwarts and Partisan did try to do stuff but he didn't have as much political capital without the statistical base he had with tS and his scheming usually got his old friends to be against him as they were comfortable with what they had. With say Rose, it was made clear to me that their split was primarily in reaction to being leery of what Kayser was trying to do and that they  trusted Lordship 100% and wanted to work with him for a while.  You know what happened to Kayser.

Under Durmij/Sketchy, Rose had consolidated EMC by signing Guardian when Mensa disbanded and signing TFP. abbas/redarmy did the split and it kept enough third party links and they had helped a few alliances prep ahead of the AC war and a lot of it was facilitated via old connections. There was distrust definitely between some of them at that point, but it was mainly reacting to each other from my perspective. Buorhann had been one of the main opponents of splits beforehand as well.  With Sketchy doing TGH later on and changing the way he did things, I think it's possible he might have felt he had a responsibility to play it safe with Rose but that he'd have everyone going to TGH knowing what they were going into and TGH had pooled together a lot of EMC people. As far as GOB/Guardian go they seemed fairly parochial in their desires to maintain the grouping they had. 

It's totally possible they converted 100% but a lot of the time from the outside  it seems like you're(the group) sort of the predatory carebears where you want the minispheres so you can do rollings of people utilizing the advantages you do have but not having the attrition aspect of longer wars. That's a long with the problematic Rose alumni dynamic that kicked back in, adding people who basically would be untouchable with that taken into account, ties to arrgh, and the bromance with TKR. It basically looks like minispheres are a way for you to moralize your way into gerrymandering divisions to your favor. I"m just saying this is the external perception, just as everyone saw what we did as a hegemonic power play attempt to kill everyone off and dominate.

 

5 hours ago, Buorhann said:

Pretty funny coming from an individual who plotted with NPO to roll the two smaller spheres after they just got done dogpiling one previously.

Let alone dragging in alliances who had very little, if any, involvement in the current war or previously aided your side.

But continue on about the “game health”.  I’d love to hear more.

lol at first par. 

I mean some of the ones hit had actually left the war to spite us and then pulled some slot stuff.

ND0nROR.jpg

d2Bpw0Q.jpg

 

 

But yeah he didn't say he was highlighting it. All I see is one side making bold proclamations and demands when it happens to have the upper hand.

Edited by Roquentin
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

Other than maybe Rose, not really aware of any notable alliances someone can become the new leader by popular vote in periodic elections. So either way I don’t think anyone joins expecting to replace Roq. :P

I said popular sovereignty, I didn't mention democracy or elections. The two aren't automatically synonymous after all unless you apply it strictly in a modern sense which has little relative bearing upon PnW given alliances are a poor comparison to modern nation states.

 

Edited by Charles the Tyrant

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

I mean some of the ones hit had actually left the war to spite us and then pulled some slot stuff.

When you say "some slot stuff" it sounds like multiple slots, but it was a SINGULAR treasure transfer. 

Do you always try to assert the reasoning behind other people's actions? 

Are you psychoanalyzing the "upvote" button now?

Are you psychic? Can you read minds? Are there additional logs that you are withholding?  Because if we look at actions all we see are:

 

An alliance that has "Pacifists" in its name pulling out of a war.

Said alliance buying a treasure from another alliance (the transfer-er very clearly indicating it in his/her war declaration). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CandyShi said:

When you say "some slot stuff" it sounds like multiple slots, but it was a SINGULAR treasure transfer. 

Do you always try to assert the reasoning behind other people's actions? 

Are you psychoanalyzing the "upvote" button now?

Are you psychic? Can you read minds? Are there additional logs that you are withholding?  Because if we look at actions all we see are:

 

An alliance that has "Pacifists" in its name pulling out of a war.

Said alliance buying a treasure from another alliance (the transfer-er very clearly indicating it in his/her war declaration). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Their gov hit for it when it wasn't needed when the nation was actively fighting other people. They were stand off ish. They peaced out on FR peacing out and our entry was given as the reason for FR peacing. It's not a huge leap to make.  When their high gov are the ones doing it, it's not the same as just one lone individual with no gov status.

I don't need to psychoanalyze it. I don't think he upvoted it because he likes Keegoz's avatar and signature all of a sudden. He was the only person on our side to upvote it. it was a clear shot at us. Normally if someone enters a war on the side you are on, you don't upvote a post shitting on them for doing it and pretty much saying they'll be screwed if they don't win. It has no logical basis.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Alex locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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