Jump to content
Prefonteen

$yndicate treaty cancellation

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Sardonic said:

Actually everything is about GOONS now.  Everything that occured prior to our arrival (B.G.) must rightly be discarded as apocrypha.  Since our holy arrival, everything can and will be viewed through our lens.

Well one of the reasons the TKR-NPO relations went bad is bad blood/mistrust between Roquentin and Infinite Citadel and I that largely began during a CN war where MK (IC/me) and Umbrella (Roq) were in a bloc with GOONS and how hard GOONS/MK were fighting compared to Umbrella was one of the points of contention.  It was against NPO too.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

Well one of the reasons the TKR-NPO relations went bad is bad blood/mistrust between Roquentin and Infinite Citadel and I that largely began during a CN war where MK (IC/me) and Umbrella (Roq) were in a bloc with GOONS and how hard GOONS/MK were fighting compared to Umbrella was one of the points of contention.  It was against NPO too.

As always thanks for putting the "tKr doEsN't HOlD GrUdgEs AgAInst NPO frOm cn" propaganda nobody buys to rest. ?

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, James II said:

False, I spoke with t$ gov, as well as you (as you know) about trying to keep the treaty alive. While reluctant, they were willing to humor me and had decided not to cancel the treaty. You however, as admitted previously, decided the treaty was dead the day you assumed t$ was out to get you when we declared war on grumpy and Guardian. You consistently deny equality at the table unless an alliance is a macro like BK. You've threatened your own allies with war if they don't comply, you've gone against the wishes of a vast majority of your allies by forcing the continuation of this conflict as outlined here: 

False. I spent months trying to chat up Leo/Sisy and got nothing. I spoke to HS about continuing the tie and they stepped and attempted to mediate, and we got nothing. The treaty was dead to us when the OWR/Carthago signings were made, followed by the actions of Leopold right after. 

tS was always an equal partner at the table, given how we followed all their demands to make N$O work. We consented to it, because we believed HS/NPO/tS are equal partners in the project and did our best to compromise with all of them in the hope that the project would work out. tS on the other hand refused to communicate for months, and any and all communication since then has been accusing of leaking, or OOC mental health jabs.

5 hours ago, James II said:

and you continue to pretend to be the victim of some elaborate plot. BK and NPO are the sole reason this conflict rages on, and you choose to only listen to the few micro loyalist to prop yourself up on the throne of morality. Implicating that all the other voices of dissent are not relevant, and don't have a seat at your table. If anyone disagrees with you, you throw them out. The moment someone tells you no, you've decided they're your enemy, just like you did with t$. 

Once again not true. BK and NPO are but two members of a coalition of multi-varied alliances. If you're bringing up the topic of OWR/Carthago etc, their actions were problematic to the coalition and were warned early on, that any such agreement would be a valid CB. It isn't the shutting down of dissent, but making the framework of operations clear and transparent. 

Dissent itself exists within the Coalition, and its why the work of all the leaders at the table is to listen and build consensus. We've spent hours as a Coalition, discussing and debating steps forward and it is pretty cute that you proclaim that BK/NPO somehow has full control and kicks out dissenters. That's simply false. 

36 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

Well one of the reasons the TKR-NPO relations went bad is bad blood/mistrust between Roquentin and Infinite Citadel and I that largely began during a CN war where MK (IC/me) and Umbrella (Roq) were in a bloc with GOONS and how hard GOONS/MK were fighting compared to Umbrella was one of the points of contention.  It was against NPO too.

I'm saving this post. This is honestly the first time any TKR member, especially one from the old guard has been honest of the breakdown of TKR-NPO relations in years. Whenever this is mentioned as a stumbling block, your present FA gov waves it off, as some sort of not true claim, and it's all in our heads kind of defense. So to see a TKR member being honest about something is truly refreshing. 

Note: Azaghul also publicly chided Kayser back in early 2018, when Kayser was trying to build bridges between TKR-NPO that was leaked and next thing we know the talks were canned. So it's nice to see that you finally agree that your problems with us, and planning to roll us in this game stems from activities that happened what 7 years ago now? 

21 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

It’s not like NPO is innocent in that either.

Please show me where NPO has ported in dislikes and FA position from another game! We've worked with almost everyone here in Orbis at one point or another, except with you of course @Buorhann, but I'm yet to see where we've ever conducted FA actions here in Orbis, based on stuff from another game? 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

Please show me where NPO has ported in dislikes and FA position from another game! We've worked with almost everyone here in Orbis at one point or another, except with you of course @Buorhann, but I'm yet to see where we've ever conducted FA actions here in Orbis, based on stuff from another game? 

To be fair you only worked with me due to our deep connection in CN. You were very upfront in that all of my CN enemies would be my enemies here and I don’t disagree 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Leo the Great said:

To be fair you only worked with me due to our deep connection in CN. You were very upfront in that all of my CN enemies would be my enemies here and I don’t disagree 

Yes yes, all of our deals were made seven years ago, and we're finally carrying out the long game here in another world. This is the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Azaghul said:

Well one of the reasons the TKR-NPO relations went bad is bad blood/mistrust between Roquentin and Infinite Citadel and I that largely began during a CN war where MK (IC/me) and Umbrella (Roq) were in a bloc with GOONS and how hard GOONS/MK were fighting compared to Umbrella was one of the points of contention.  It was against NPO too.

Can't beat an ancient history lesson!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean when NPO first joined and we were suddenly drawn back into the CN shit between Syndicate, NPO, and Alpha?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Buorhann said:

You mean when NPO first joined and we were suddenly drawn back into the CN shit between Syndicate, NPO, and Alpha?

Which was? The NPO took no actions in Orbis because of CN or vice versa. It was a different alliance that did things not particularly related to Orbis or the NPO here whatsoever. 

And you also mean when the NPO joined and was treated to every major bloc in the game with no real grudges/plans?

Edited by Shadowthrone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, James II said:

False, I spoke with t$ gov, as well as you (as you know) about trying to keep the treaty alive. While reluctant, they were willing to humor me and had decided not to cancel the treaty. You however, as admitted previously, decided the treaty was dead the day you assumed t$ was out to get you when we declared war on grumpy and Guardian. You consistently deny equality at the table unless an alliance is a macro like BK. You've threatened your own allies with war if they don't comply, you've gone against the wishes of a vast majority of your allies by forcing the continuation of this conflict as outlined here: 

and you continue to pretend to be the victim of some elaborate plot. BK and NPO are the sole reason this conflict rages on, and you choose to only listen to the few micro loyalist to prop yourself up on the throne of morality. Implicating that all the other voices of dissent are not relevant, and don't have a seat at your table. If anyone disagrees with you, you throw them out. The moment someone tells you no, you've decided they're your enemy, just like you did with t$. 
 

You may have your timelines mixed up. At the point where they signed additional treaties with alliances that peaced out abruptly, it was clear they were not wanting to keep the sphere together. It seemed that for tS it was dead the day they pulled out of the war without informing us and started ghosting us and that it would take them vastly adjusting their stances going forward to make it viable as it is not possible to have a sphere when one alliance actively dislikes and distrusts the other to such an extent that it can justify cutting communication.  They were coaxed by third parties into trying to resolve it yes like your alliance and another alliance, but they clearly did not have much interest. It was made clear by someone else close with tS that they were just going about ending the tie the wrong way. You gave them the benefit of the doubt because you wanted their upper tier heft, but let's not pretend otherwise.

It has nothing to do with size. A more politically involved alliance will just see more of the bigger picture so we are trying to not give any wins to KERTCHOGG. For many less experienced people, they don't immediately see the consequences and since it's not their names being listed as the evil people, the consequences of a less advantageous outcome aren't as apparent to them. War fatigue is more likely to impact people who haven't had fought as much and one of KERTCHOGG's main strategies has been to tire out/drain out our side. Our pathway to victory is more grindy so it requires a tougher mentality that we have had to cultivate.  As Keshav said, we have worked to build consensus on the basis of a comprehensive victory. A bad peace that  for us is worse than war. Your plans aren't exactly a secret so we don't really need to delve into your motives here.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

You may have your timelines mixed up. At the point where they signed additional treaties with alliances that peaced out abruptly, it was clear they were not wanting to keep the sphere together. It seemed that for tS it was dead the day they pulled out of the war without informing us and started ghosting us and that it would take them vastly adjusting their stances going forward to make it viable as it is not possible to have a sphere when one alliance actively dislikes and distrusts the other to such an extent that it can justify cutting communication.  They were coaxed by third parties into trying to resolve it yes like your alliance and another alliance, but they clearly did not have much interest. It was made clear by someone else close with tS that they were just going about ending the tie the wrong way. You gave them the benefit of the doubt because you wanted their upper tier heft, but let's not pretend otherwise.

It has nothing to do with size. A more politically involved alliance will just see more of the bigger picture so we are trying to not give any wins to KERTCHOGG. For many less experienced people, they don't immediately see the consequences and since it's not their names being listed as the evil people, the consequences of a less advantageous outcome aren't as apparent to them. War fatigue is more likely to impact people who haven't had fought as much and one of KERTCHOGG's main strategies has been to tire out/drain out our side. Our pathway to victory is more grindy so it requires a tougher mentality that we have had to cultivate.  As Keshav said, we have worked to build consensus on the basis of a comprehensive victory. A bad peace that  for us is worse than war. Your plans aren't exactly a secret so we don't really need to delve into your motives here.

 

Would coalition B's doctrine of turning on/threatening to turn on anyone who leaves the coalition be a potential factor playing into t$' decisionmaking process with regards to not telling you- particularly considering the clear deprioitization of t$ which NPO displayed when it opted to defend BK?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Prefonteen said:

Would coalition B's doctrine of turning on/threatening to turn on anyone who leaves the coalition be a potential factor playing into t$' decisionmaking process with regards to not telling you- particularly considering the clear deprioitization of t$ which NPO displayed when it opted to defend BK?

It could have played into it, certainly but that just means it was a clear provocation which is how it was taken especially given the justifications provided at the time. As for the "deprioritzation" narrative, that's been addressed countless times, so not bothering again.

 

  

6 hours ago, Buorhann said:

You mean when NPO first joined and we were suddenly drawn back into the CN shit between Syndicate, NPO, and Alpha?

Um, that was someone in Alpha who wasn't gov who wanted to troll people that were going to get hit anyway independent of the Alpha war. There were people in tS who were in alliances that hit MI6 even. lol

Edited by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Elijah Mikaelson
8 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Once again not true. BK and NPO are but two members of a coalition of multi-varied alliances. If you're bringing up the topic of OWR/Carthago etc, their actions were problematic to the coalition and were warned early on, that any such agreement would be a valid CB. It isn't the shutting down of dissent, but making the framework of operations clear and transparent. 

I am kind of lost on this, why would two former allies of BK who fought for BK be a valid CB for leaving the war and signing T$?, if they had enough and no longer wanted to fight how would that be a valid CB, sorry i just don't understand that? Unless they did something I do not know about?

When I was head of Yakuza, I know I asked Leo if we could sue for peace and was told no, to the point he hinted that if we did that any NAP signed wont protect us from either side.

I just do not think an alliance wanting peace should be a a reason to hit them, they are independent and should be able to make their own choices?

This is based on what I know, now if they did something like TFP who i believe made an agreement to beige people and passed it off as something else, then yeah that would be a valid CB as its helping the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

It could have played into it, certainly but that just means it was a clear provocation which is how it was taken especially given the justifications provided at the time. As for the "deprioritzation" narrative, that's been addressed countless times, so not bothering again.

 

  

Um, that was someone in Alpha who wasn't gov who wanted to troll people that were going to get hit anyway independent of the Alpha war. There were people in tS who were in alliances that hit MI6 even. lol

Fair, We'll skip the NPO-t$ topic this time around.

 

With regards to it being a clear provocation: We definitely do not see eye to eye on this, as I don't believe in holding alliances at war under threat of repercussions, and by virtue of that... I can't rally indulge your point.

4 hours ago, Roquentin said:

You may have your timelines mixed up. At the point where they signed additional treaties with alliances that peaced out abruptly, it was clear they were not wanting to keep the sphere together. It seemed that for tS it was dead the day they pulled out of the war without informing us and started ghosting us and that it would take them vastly adjusting their stances going forward to make it viable as it is not possible to have a sphere when one alliance actively dislikes and distrusts the other to such an extent that it can justify cutting communication.  They were coaxed by third parties into trying to resolve it yes like your alliance and another alliance, but they clearly did not have much interest. It was made clear by someone else close with tS that they were just going about ending the tie the wrong way. You gave them the benefit of the doubt because you wanted their upper tier heft, but let's not pretend otherwise.

It has nothing to do with size. A more politically involved alliance will just see more of the bigger picture so we are trying to not give any wins to KERTCHOGG. For many less experienced people, they don't immediately see the consequences and since it's not their names being listed as the evil people, the consequences of a less advantageous outcome aren't as apparent to them. War fatigue is more likely to impact people who haven't had fought as much and one of KERTCHOGG's main strategies has been to tire out/drain out our side. Our pathway to victory is more grindy so it requires a tougher mentality that we have had to cultivate.  As Keshav said, we have worked to build consensus on the basis of a comprehensive victory. A bad peace that  for us is worse than war. Your plans aren't exactly a secret so we don't really need to delve into your motives here.

 

Returning to this:

A lot of the rhetoric since our initial post on peace progression has, rather than addressing the core issue of negotiations being trolled/delayed, focused on chastising us for seeking the public fora.  We've also attempted to keep our forum dialogue relatively clean, at multiple points allowing for conversation. The problem is that there were events which led us to that decision.

What exactly constitutes a "less advantageous outcome" and a "more advantageous outcome" to you? At least on the t$ end, the entire issue for us is that you haven't been able to give us any framework to work in, nor any terms or milestones which should be fulfilled before you are willing to peace out.

So far, we've been given 2 concrete requirements for peace:

- Signal our surender

- Do so seperately

We initially fulfilled them both. If you had been or are now willing and able to provide us with your *other* requirements for peace, perhaps a dialogue can be started. Until you give us that though, it's hard for there to be any progression.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best wishes to both parties. I can't offer anything more cliche than that.

 

Also, the only history that matters is the history here. If you're bringing unrelated nonsense into your arguments here you have lost the narrative. Nobody cares about what happened 6 years ago somewhere else. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

if they had enough and no longer wanted to fight how would that be a valid CB,

Everything violates BK's sovereignty. If the wind blows from the front instead of the back then their sovereignty is violated. You see, BK is so sovereign that they've taken other alliance's sovereignty as their own so when an alliance does something they don't like, that alliance violates both their own sovereignty as well as BK's.

What a mess.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elijah Mikaelson said:

I am kind of lost on this, why would two former allies of BK who fought for BK be a valid CB for leaving the war and signing T$?, if they had enough and no longer wanted to fight how would that be a valid CB, sorry i just don't understand that? Unless they did something I do not know about?

When I was head of Yakuza, I know I asked Leo if we could sue for peace and was told no, to the point he hinted that if we did that any NAP signed wont protect us from either side.

I just do not think an alliance wanting peace should be a a reason to hit them, they are independent and should be able to make their own choices?

This is based on what I know, now if they did something like TFP who i believe made an agreement to beige people and passed it off as something else, then yeah that would be a valid CB as its helping the other side.

In a war such as this where the stakes and nature of the conflict is inherently different to that of any previous one, the Coalition triumphs all. The reason is that as the other side early on tried to do, was push the narrative that the Coalition is untenable and those who break from it will be given an easy way out so that they can continue damaging the rest of us.

 

Fundamentally if that is their approach and used for PR heavily, any surrender especially one in the manner done by OWR/Carthago is actions taken directly to damage all of us fighting this war with them. Those political actions have material damages and also legitimizes the idea that being a turncoat is okay here as a FA policy because there’s always a greener pasture.

This was a warning given simply because this war is different to others. There’s no going back or some sort of mulligan given the lines that have been crossed. When you make a commitment to an ally, you see that through or don’t sign it all. Everyone knew BKs fighting style when they signed them, it is similar in nature to the NPOs that it requires time to take effect. If you didn’t want this, don’t sign the treaty. But if you do and attempt then to harm us as a Coalition because you feel like, it constitutes a valid reason to hit you. 
 

Simply put, there should be no greener pastures. No easy way outs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/27/2019 at 4:04 PM, Epi said:

We're we ever really multi-polar if there was only one polaris? 

There are two. 

One fake, and one real. I've already made a post admitting which was which on this subject. @Buorhann can attest. 

Edited by WSxPhoenix
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:
15 hours ago, Azaghul said:

Well one of the reasons the TKR-NPO relations went bad is bad blood/mistrust between Roquentin and Infinite Citadel and I that largely began during a CN war where MK (IC/me) and Umbrella (Roq) were in a bloc with GOONS and how hard GOONS/MK were fighting compared to Umbrella was one of the points of contention.  It was against NPO too.

I'm saving this post. This is honestly the first time any TKR member, especially one from the old guard has been honest of the breakdown of TKR-NPO relations in years. Whenever this is mentioned as a stumbling block, your present FA gov waves it off, as some sort of not true claim, and it's all in our heads kind of defense. So to see a TKR member being honest about something is truly refreshing. 

Note: Azaghul also publicly chided Kayser back in early 2018, when Kayser was trying to build bridges between TKR-NPO that was leaked and next thing we know the talks were canned. So it's nice to see that you finally agree that your problems with us, and planning to roll us in this game stems from activities that happened what 7 years ago now?

He said "one of the reasons," implying this is a simplification of one aspect that led to a break of ties.  It is important to note though that none of our current FA has any of those CN ties, nor does the person with absolute authority, Adrienne.  I don't think it is productive to talk about IC who last lead our alliances years ago and has since fully departed to take of IRL events.  I have recognized that we have a troubled history, but rather I just see dwelling in the past as pointless as you seem intent on doing.  I don't need any defenses for just being way too new to have any experience with grudges from half-a-decade ago.  Now, I will continue on with attempting in good faith to repair this damage.  It's up to you if you want to hold me and our gov accountable for actions that long predate all save 2 or 3 of us.

Also, I think @Azaghul can confirm that nowhere in his statement were there any references, implied or otherwise, to "planning to roll [NPO]."  Don't spin something out of nothing.  Its sad that you seek to capitalize politically on every statement made, but nonetheless that's the world we live in, I guess.

 I continue to have my ears open for when y'all are willing to put the past behind.  I am ready and willing when you are :).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Pop said:

As always thanks for putting the "tKr doEsN't HOlD GrUdgEs AgAInst NPO frOm cn" propaganda nobody buys to rest. ?

Please stop bringing CN into the game.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all are putting way too much stake on a post that was meant as a joke about GOONS influencing events even before they moved to this world.  It was clumsy I admit, but it really wasn't meant to be about NPO.

Also I'm far down on the list of TKR members whose opinion matters.  IC mattered way more, but he's sadly/happily given up this world to better pursue RL opportunities.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

He said "one of the reasons," implying this is a simplification of one aspect that led to a break of ties.  It is important to note though that none of our current FA has any of those CN ties, nor does the person with absolute authority, Adrienne.  I don't think it is productive to talk about IC who last lead our alliances years ago and has since fully departed to take of IRL events.  I have recognized that we have a troubled history, but rather I just see dwelling in the past as pointless as you seem intent on doing.

It's not pointless. IC has come back several times to aid in negotiations and for most of his "retirement" he's wielded substantial influence within TKR. If he doesn't anymore because he's now completely inactive, fair enough, but it's not incumbent on us to immediately change our opinion of TKR or its government every time there appears to have been a changing of the guard.

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

I don't need any defenses for just being way too new to have any experience with grudges from half-a-decade ago.  Now, I will continue on with attempting in good faith to repair this damage.  It's up to you if you want to hold me and our gov accountable for actions that long predate all save 2 or 3 of us.

You don't need to defend your relative newness, but it's also not a free pass for you. You chose to join and represent a major alliance with years of history rather than, say, start your own micro. Continue doing whatever you feel is best for you and TKR, but don't expect NPO or anyone else to treat TKR like it's as fresh-faced as you are.

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Also, I think @Azaghul can confirm that nowhere in his statement were there any references, implied or otherwise, to "planning to roll [NPO]."  Don't spin something out of nothing.

He's not spinning anything, he's referencing common knowledge. TKR has plotted to roll NPO several times, some of them successfully, and all of them more recently than the events which Azaghul mentioned.

2 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

Its sad that you seek to capitalize politically on every statement made, but nonetheless that's the world we live in, I guess.

I continue to have my ears open for when y'all are willing to put the past behind.  I am ready and willing when you are :).

That job will be easier for you if choose not to write off so much of what we say as unfair to you or TKR. If you want to put the past behind, you'll need to have your ears open for more than just what you want to hear.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Edward I said:

 

That job will be easier for you if choose not to write off so much of what we say as unfair to you or TKR. If you want to put the past behind, you'll need to have your ears open for more than just what you want to hear.

Just going to quote some advice from a wise man to you, friend!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carthago not only plotted to roll Camelot but they recorded OOC conversations between me and Dusty and spread them throughout the coalition. Compromising our privacy. We don't conflate OOC actions with IC actions and didn't attack Carthago in-game. Instead we tried to resolve things in private and when this proved fruitless, ultimately gave up interacting with them for the sake of the war effort and sphere cohesion.

All that said, ? Camelot interprets the attacks on Carthago as defensive. Regardless of whether that was our coalitions intent or not.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Prefonteen said:

Fair, We'll skip the NPO-t$ topic this time around.

 

With regards to it being a clear provocation: We definitely do not see eye to eye on this, as I don't believe in holding alliances at war under threat of repercussions, and by virtue of that... I can't rally indulge your point.

Seeing as you have never been in a coalition war where allies ditched for greener pastures, I'm not sure you can understand. This is the first time you have ever been on the losing side. The stakes are too high to take such soft stances on betrayal.

Quote

Returning to this:

A lot of the rhetoric since our initial post on peace progression has, rather than addressing the core issue of negotiations being trolled/delayed, focused on chastising us for seeking the public fora.  We've also attempted to keep our forum dialogue relatively clean, at multiple points allowing for conversation. The problem is that there were events which led us to that decision.

What exactly constitutes a "less advantageous outcome" and a "more advantageous outcome" to you? At least on the t$ end, the entire issue for us is that you haven't been able to give us any framework to work in, nor any terms or milestones which should be fulfilled before you are willing to peace out.

So far, we've been given 2 concrete requirements for peace:

- Signal our surender

- Do so seperately

We initially fulfilled them both. If you had been or are now willing and able to provide us with your *other* requirements for peace, perhaps a dialogue can be started. Until you give us that though, it's hard for there to be any progression.

tS is a later thing and the concerns people have there are different as was noted, tS members were still at large militarily until fairly recently. When people feel they're ready to move forward with tS, then they will. Peace isn't an inherent good. tS had more to lose than everyone else so that plays into it too as it had been relatively unscathed compared to the other combatants. PM bombing people to take advantage of the less involved players' war fatigue doesn't help though.

 

 

 

Edited by Roquentin
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • 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.