Lord Emares

[quote name='Lenny N Karl' timestamp='1323127904' post='2864538'] Good luck to you and IA if she is still around there [/quote] she is

woot cakes

War, sweet sweet war. How I have missed thee.

linode = awesome

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1295956705' post='2599906']Note: The way Archon, speaking for himself, uses the pronoun "I" while Roq, speaking for Doomhouse, uses "we."[/quote] Archon as the sovereign of MK has it within his power to use MK to further his own interests, more specifically "actively wanting to see BAPS burn". However you are saying that the precedent set by Doomhouse, in attacking NPO "because we want to see them burn", isn't cause for wondering whether or not BAPS will be hit by MK in a preemptive strike in this "brave new world". Since BAPS is in Duckroll and Doomhouse is a chaining MDoAP why should we not draw conclusions of Duckroll potentially "being next" from the precedents set here?

I don't condone what Peggy did, and think it was a pretty awful and childish thing to do. A more apt analogy is "someone" leaving their car in "another"'s driveway rent free. "another" then tells "someone" get your damn car out of my driveway, you have a month. "someone" then proceeds to be hostile towards "another" in their dealings and "another" decides screw this your car is getting it's ass towed today. UPN should have had the presence of mind to move the forums within days of being told "you have a month". The majority of the fault for the forums being defaced lies with Peggy, however some lies with UPN for deciding not to find a host sooner.

I worked it out a few days ago but could only confirm it today -66,-111 is the 100% spot however to actually get 100% you need to input this lat: -66.00000001 lon: -111 The reason for the .00000001 is to take account of floating point errors (someone worked out all of the latitudes that are affected by the floating point errors in the Moon Hotspot thread).

Try Lat: -67 Lon: -113

Should be at: Lat: -67 Lon: -111

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='19 July 2010 - 03:56 PM' timestamp='1279551384' post='2378832'] What do BAPS have to do with ANYTHING? Your logic is seriously flawed, because we bailed on BAPS(don't quote me on that, I cannot be bothered to history right now) we're not allowed to comment on an alliance taking a new FA direction and how stupidly they're going about doing it? What? [/quote] Didn't say you couldn't. Was just pointing out the hypocrisy of Quinoa Rex on his high horse when he said "I guarantee that had MK done such a thing" referring to the (in his view) objectionable nature of cancelling on allies who went to bat for you. Sure criticise away, I don't really give two beans whether or not you criticise people, but if you are going to criticise don't do it in a "hurf durf we're better than you" way when your alliance has done precisely the same thing in the past. so tl;dr I wasn't attacking the message, but the delivery of said message. Now back to your regularly scheduled criticisms please.

[quote name='Johnny Apocalypse' date='19 July 2010 - 02:07 PM' timestamp='1279544839' post='2378773'] Good observation. Less treaties = more good, although you could've just been patient and cancelled them all one at a time over a certain time period. But this is IRON we're talking about here. [/quote] I guess sarcasm doesn't translate well over the intertubes. Read up on your own history, particularly the bit about how you bailed on BAPS when it was at the wrong end of a beatdown. (also I'm not in IRON )

[quote name='Quinoa Rex' date='19 July 2010 - 12:39 AM' timestamp='1279496360' post='2377919'] I don't think you could have missed the point any more if you tried. It's not about making multiple posts, and it's clear a lot of the alliances who were cancelled on don't view IRON as a friend. The meat of the matter is thus: cancelling on your allies en masse has [i]never[/i] been an acceptable move. I [i]guarantee[/i] that had MK done such a thing (not that we ever would), you would be skinning us alive. I'm disappointed that anyone is trying to make it out to be fine and dandy. I mean, hell, I hold no love for any of the alliances IRON cancelled on, and I [i]still[/i] think it was a rotten thing to do. Blah, blah, realpolitik, whatever. Bailing on your friends will gain you no respect when push comes to shove. [/quote] Because MK has never bailed on any allies ever.

[quote name='Emperor Marx' date='12 February 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1265978508' post='2177459'] Perhaps you should instruct Lord Emares on how to properly win a ground assault before making such childish claims. [/quote] That would have been a miscalculation of how many soldiers you had deployed...I thought you had a lot less than you had, so I'd only deployed enough to deal with that. Mistakes happen *shrugs*

More lamenting the fact that you would send in a 4k infra nation with no SDI and a warchest like that against a nation with a WRC, MP and SDI and nearly 1.5k more infra than said attacker... Nation in question: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=267681 Nation attacked: http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=197861 Nations @ 4k infra with Warchests like that should be spending time in Peace Mode getting their WC built up.

[quote name='Starfox101' date='11 February 2010 - 10:53 AM' timestamp='1265885597' post='2174473'] Personally, I wouldn't call a veteran alliance with 600 nukes a soft target, but hey, whatever floats your boat and makes you sleep better at night. You'll just wake up to a nuclear attack and a surprise from your "soft targets". [/quote] Well when the "veterans" you send in have warchests like this: [quote]Total Money: $16,815,132[/quote] ...

[quote name='Sande' date='10 February 2010 - 11:50 AM' timestamp='1265802606' post='2172452'] The game allows that to happen. Nothing unusual. [/quote] The game shouldn't allow that to happen...his deployed soldiers should have been returned home instead of his defending soldiers being put into negative numbers

I was attacking [url=http://www.cybernations.net/nation_drill_display.asp?Nation_ID=75972]jgator[/url] and I got this message: [quote]You have received an error trying to view a page. Here is the detailed error code: Your battle odds are too high to wage ground war at this time.0[/quote]. Notice the 0 at the end of the message?? When I went back to view the ground attack screen he somehow had 0 soldiers and 0 tanks, despite the fact that when I launched the attack he had 7k troops and I had battle odds of 85% against him. Before any attacks were launched jgator had over 10k troops and 1k tanks. I was only able to launch 1 attack against jgator in which the following were killed: [quote]To: jgator From: Lord Emares Date: 2/10/2010 3:54:34 AM Subject: Battle Report Message: You have been attacked by Lord Emares. You lost 5,874 soldiers and 1,289 tanks. You killed 5,849 soldiers and 806 tanks. Their forces razed 5.411 miles of your land, stole 6.967 technology, and destroyed 27.869 infrastructure. Their forces looted $1,000,000.00 from you and you gained $0.00 in your enemy's abandoned equipment. In the end the battle was a Defeat. Any existing peace offers that were on the table have been automatically canceled. [/quote] No defeat alert was sent (as the battle odds weren't above 95% and he has had a nuke launched against him) but all of his troops disappeared and I can't attack him now as I've got 100% odds.

^^

I suspected as much. Thank you for the clarification.

Lemme see if I got this right: If someone declares on RoK for the purposes of supporting TPF and your treaty partner gets dragged in you won't back up that treaty partner unless they are getting screwed over in surrender negotiations. If however someone declares on RoK for the purposes of retaliating against RoK's spying activities you will defend any treaty partners that get dragged in via their own treaties with IRON/TOP/NSO/GC. Should any treaty partners of yours end up retaliating against the second group then you won't back them up unless they are getting screwed in their surrender terms. Finally if anyone attacks Athens/GOD/\m/ and drags your treaty partners into war on the opposing side to Athens/GOD/\m/ then you shall not support those treaty partners unless they are getting screwed over in surrender negotiations. This should be fun... Question, how many of your treaties are specifically non-chaining and thus after any of the first two waves of separation would default to the oA clause or not give you a by into the war?

http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=60464 http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Revenge_Doctrine http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Moldavi...acific_Order%29 Reading & Research = good

I'd just like to point out that while the act of sending a splinter alliance to spy on, and disrupt the community of, may be an intolerable act by the current standards it is not an OOC tactic. The alliance exists as an IC entity not an OOC one, and thus disrupting the bonds from within that alliance using an IC splinter alliance is an IC act, provided that OOC actions are not resorted to (such as DDoS attacks/violations of the ToS/hacking/multis/etc). Just because an action bypasses the defences set up by the alliance to protect itself does not make it an OOC act, it simply makes them a particularly effective act, if one that most find abhorrent. tl;dr spying is seen as a bad bad action, it is not however an OOC action, but merely a particularly hard to defend against IC action. EDIT: Apparently I was having a "bad spelling/grammer" day

From reading this topic I got the impression that you changed from a government that gained you an environment point to one that does not (Republic -> Revolutionary), this can account for a good portion the large drop in income as it would reduce both population and happiness.

Only Purchased Land contributes to Nation Strength, thus the graph shows the strength contribution as 0. The splitting is due to the way these types of graphs process 0 width slices.

Of course telling you to read the thread is a terrible thing it do? Also Sileath, an officer? What is he an Officer of may I ask? Random comments combined with an admittance of not reading threads will ensure that you go far. Sileath isn't in TPF...