Arctic

I dont think this is relevant- the conflict had degenerated into a large melee (and I like it that way). @Drai, I am not saying you are wrong because bill lock is not an issue with nations this size, but anarchy is a nice clearly defined objective, so I think it has great value for the fire team. Anarchy<Not in Anarchy, so it isn't exactly a good thing to have happen to you.

This is so awesome, that I am bummed that I didn't think of it first. Good luck Delta- and be sure to keep good records, I want to see you takes you up on your offer.

gl hf SF.

Yeah Pond Pirates, now this is the kind of chaos that I could get behind.

Thanks for the compliments FV, but I am not nearly as good as you describe, even when I am as active as I should be. @Hormones- All that I can speak for is the NAAC, what the rest of the genius alliances do is their call. But for as long as I am responsible for the NAAC, we will fight wars for a week and then offer a white peace. Much of this miscommunication is my fault because I am only active for maybe 30 mins per day. So I have to promote independent minded people and trust them to do their best. Believe it or not, they do an incredible job 95% of the time. From the beginning puppet master and I have had a different set of perspectives. The same could be said for greatmagnus and I. But both of them are military leaders, so their job is to eliminate threats in as permanent a way as possible. I on the other hand am trying to look at the big picture, to see other peoples point of view and even to experiment a bit with this community. As such, we entered a war with a case of doublevision with regard to the objectives. Puppet master went in with the goal of reducing what our MoD staff had determined to be the largest threat to the NAAC vision for the game. Naturally, he doesn't want any of our enemies in this war getting up, dusting themselves off and then kicking the crap out of us. We don't have treaties, so nobody has to show up to help us when two or more alliances decided to give us a beat down. But at the same time our motivation all along has been the NAAC vision for the game, so we have to come back to that, and that is where I come in to this. My vision all along for this game was to make it fluid and very fun. Let people play how they want, but prevent them from attaining a position to where they could dictate to others how they play. That is the experiment that I am working on this round- can an alliance play the game without treaties, but also without being a neutral? Can we convince others by our actions alone that we can be friends and enemies at the same time? I alluded to the experiment here and in other places- I am testing a hypothesis here. Is it possible to balance this game on the razors edge and avoid the positive feedback that seems to crush the life out of nearly every other game similar to this? So far, all I have seen in CN is the bandwagon effect where after a time an alliance gains enough of a lead that everybody else falls into line and the game is over. Every round here is the opportunity for another experiment. If a number of alliances help us to succeed this round, then next round, I might ask my friends/alliance mates to go play for other alliances and see if our not being here allows one alliance to create the bloc that wins the game. Anyway, welcome to the inside of my head- its pretty cluttered with strange ideas. And for the record, I plan to talk with my genius friends and ask them if they need us after Thursday. If the answer is no, then I plan to have our entire alliance peace out and get ready for the next assault on the balance to the game.

This is getting ridiculous. The amount of arrogance displayed by my alliance is nearly enough to make me go back and delete the damned boards and close up the shop. @FV- Drai spent over a year in the old NAAC, he remembers very clearly what we stood for in the other game. I had some spare time a month or so ago and I thought it would be nice to get the old gang together and have some fun. I had some strange ideas about how we would play the game, but given the fact that most of the members are old friends, it didn't seem like it would be a problem. The last day or so has clearly shown me that I am wrong. I am in charge, so this is my fault. If I were willing to spend 23 hours a day on IRC none of these misconceptions would have occurred. So let me clear up a few things. 1. We are here to have fun. 2. We have friends, but no allies 3. We did organize a war between blue and brown+yellow about two weeks ago 4. We did organize a war between genius and idiot about 4-5 days ago 5. We do not plan on pursuing this war past the first week, but we will extend it another week to ensure that our fellow genius alliances can get out of the war without being left hanging 6. It has never been my intention that we would win the round. In fact, we have done the exact opposite from the very beginning. We attacked first so that we would draw the counter attacks, and when we attacked our teams entered 2-3 offensive wars, guaranteeing that we would get pummeled. And furthermore, since we are the only untreatied genius member, we seem to be drawing the bulk of the fire from Murder and CE. 7. If the game ceases to be fun, we will leave- and at the moment, I have no desire to play another round in CN:TE as the NAAC. There is simply too much of a reputation to live up to and all this trolling is only damaging our legacy. That is enough bullet points for now- if somebody in the NAAC disagrees with my perspective on why we are here, you are welcome to try to coup me, but if you aren't Holyone, then I don't see much hope for a favorable outcome for you. And for anybody who isn't so serious- can you believe that I am at war with six nations and still not in anarchy? I have to be the luckiest son of a biscuit to ever play this game.

I refuse to place a gag on the NAAC members. I don't agree with the practice in regular CN and I think that it is ridiculous to try it here on CN:TE where the game is supposed to be about fun. That said- this is going way to far. I started this topic so I can request a lock. So Moderators, please lock this topic, it has outlived its use. @Airme- I give you my word that no NAAC that I am a part of will impose or attempt to enforce a ZI sentence. We will fight out this week as hard as we can and if the objective is not accomplished, we will fight a second week to support the withdrawal of rest of Genius so that they are not left alone on the battlefield. Beyond that, it will go no further. I have always felt that beyond the need to defend your members, no alliance should have the right to dictate how another plays this game. If the NAAC were to attempt to destroy IDIOT, we would be doing something far worse than IDIOTs practice of forced recruitment. It is a reprehensible practice and one that is untenable to enforce.

Puppet planned a really nice war, and wrote a decent wall of text. I need to remind the NAAC members to keep it clean and civil on the public forums. Trash talking is something I can do without. Don't forget that if the shoe were on the other foot, we'd be the ones looking at alliance wide anarchy. Represent us well out here, by being professional on the battlefield and off of it.

In a week, this round will still be up for grabs. None of Genius are treatied with one another, we are not a power bloc and in some cases have done far more damage to one another than we will ever inflict on IDIOT. If all goes according to plan, CN:TE will be nothing like CN:S. I see no WUT, no Initiative, no 1 Vision. There are treaties out there but the game is still wide open. In fact, if the world looks safe when we are done with this fight, I was thinking about taking a week off and trying to set up a WAPA-NAAC vs Citadel and TPA war, just to have a nice old school red vs blue week long contest. Think of the nostalgia associated with a TPA and NAAC war? We grew up in this game fighting those guys and they are riot to play against. Check out this logic: If FUN>POLITICS, then CN:TE≠CN:S

Uther- as an alliance we have restarted 2-3 times already. Once in the middle of the war with Citadel and Superfriends, once after the war and for some of us, once after our last war with Brown and Yellow. When a huge portion of your alliance rerolls, you just sort into new trade circles and keep playing. The only serious issue is that nation growth is taking alot of people out of a rerolls range- this makes it likely that we will not be able to serve as a deciding factor in very many more wars. Late round, we will only be able to hit alliances that have been brought down a bit. That, more than anything else is what determined our choice of target and timing for this conflict. We can't be a force for balance if the alliance that is likely to win the game simply grows out of our range by aggressively tech raiding and avoiding all damaging conflict.

Thanks for thinking of us, and if Puppet's discussion really made up your mind, then thanks to Puppet for provoking the correct response. Strategically speaking, your decision has made you irrelevant in the conflict- which is exactly where we need you to be in this war. You attack an alliance that led the assault because they have the smallest and most active nations. A week from now, we will be "glowing green" and contemplating our third or fourth reroll in this round. But the strategic objective of this war will be realized and that is all that really matters. I still have on defensive slot open here. You are welcome to it, but you should hurry or an IDIOT will likely snatch it from you. If you have any nuclear nations available- send them in, and I will put you on the Christmas Gift Exchange and even throw in a box of steak knives if you can manage to waste a nuke on a nation with 200 infra.

That is one of the most thoughtful declarations of war I have ever read- Superfriends are such great humanitarians.

The trolls are starting to show, so I am done here. Before I go, I will remind my brothers in the NAAC that we had our turn last night, tonight should be IDIOTs turn, so don't criticize the counter until it arrives. As for fighting one alliance against 4-5, we at least should have some empathy for IDIOT. Skill is a minor thing in a game that is so focused on numbers. If we win, it will be because we brought more to the fight and not because we were so much more skilled than our opponents. That said NAAC, if I catch you getting sloppy and forgetting your fireteam tactics, I am going to get Romanda to come back to the game and start busting asses and assigning pushups.

I don't see us moving to pink anytime soon. As for the word, plotting and lying part. I have been up front about everything that I could be without violating OpSec. You contacted us about a Blue and Black vs Red war, we said no and that we had something else in the works. If I were as clever as Diskord, I would have planned the war for you like I did the Blue vs Brown and Yellow war. And while I did the planning, I would have spied on you before releasing some logs to create a scandal and finally declaring war on you while your back was turned. Instead, I stopped visiting your forums, planned a frontal attack on your alliance and even told you here on the forums yesterday that I would be playing for the other team in this one. I think you are being very irrational about all of this. We are playing a game and I don't want you to win it only half way through and without ever facing a serious challenge. I think that this game should have action from the start to the finish, and what we were headed for was IDIOT on top from day 40 until the end of the round. Somehow the prospect of my friend winning the game before halftime and then running up the score for the second half didn't really appeal to me. Sure you promised not to eat the NAAC and WAPA, and I believed you, but that still doesn't explain why I should be content to be your little blue brother while you take over the world? Two months of random tech raids doesn't interest me. I want a close game with great wars, shifting fortunes and even a touch of high drama. I am truly sorry if you feel betrayed by this. It is my fault to some degree because I didn't recognize how close you were to winning until after I had helped you destroy brown and yellow. The real tip off for me was watching the nuke count. Once I saw that, I felt that I had three options, delete and wait for the next round, play along as the GGA to your NPO, or try to stop you from winning. Obviously I picked option #3, but I honestly did it because I think it is better for the people playing the game and not because I have anything to gain by it (we aren't recruiting your members, just putting them back in range of the bulk of the nations playing the game). If you look at it from an unbiased perspective, you have to recognize that a reduced IDIOT will keep this round interesting for at least another few weeks. Anyway, that's my perspective- you call it betrayal if it makes you feel better, but I am calling it balance. Edit- and one last thing, I had to lol at your "move to pink" condition. You pulling an Electron Sponge is just too funny.

lol We are getting some funny stuff too. The last line seems like classic Airme- polite and rational. But the first part is pretty humorous, with four war slots already filled, its not like you can make things much worse for me.