Seerow

I didn't attack it until you asserted it was better than MK's. Just sayin'. I'm frankly not impressed with NSO's growth. If you start tracking from about 2 weeks after it was founded you'll find the growth was much less explosive than you claim. Getting a personality cult flocking to Ivan starting a new alliance (no insults intended here, I joined you guys for a time at the beginning, even if I was forced to go innactive for a large portion of my stay) I don't count as growth. And following that point NSO has had a relatively steady climb, but not anywhere near as drastic of one as you would lead others to believe.

Voted Mushroom Kingdom. Was honestly surprised it wasn't winning.

He coulda been fighting PC or one of the others instead.

Looking at NSO's nations, I'd say my point is pretty accurate. They join up and stay where they are more or less. NSO's strength gains tend to come from recruiting new nations rather than growing existing nations, which is why I argued they could have made a play for best recruitment (something MK admittedly is abhorrent at, we tend to hover around the same number of nations at all times, gaining a few here, losing a few there, generally staying the same), but best growth is beyond their claims.

Point me to any military operation in the last year that has been anything close to impressive and I'll give you this. If anyone beat us, it was damn close. We have people watching aid slot efficiency across alliances closely, and we average higher than just about everyone there. And if you want to argue the effectiveness, look at the strength of our mid ranks. If you want to argue that you deserved best recruitment above UPN, that would be your argument for it. Your growth had nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with recruitment. I'll give you NpO has a good argument to claim the same title, but on a per member basis I believe MK did better. That said I'm not sure NpO was even on the ballots to be voted for. You can't blame MK for beating out an option that wasn't there. I didn't see anyone attacking Athens afterwards, did you?

In what timeframe? We have several wars under our belts and I really thought that best military would be the least disputed category there. We have good nations and activity and coordination to back it up. Trade swapping has been around since sledding was invented, the problem is that it's too much of a PITA to get people with the right trades to swap regularly. But there's always been some people that have done it. OBR may have popularized the practice however, and if so I give them credit, it's more effort than Id want to go through for a few mil extra every 20 days. Are you ignoring the point of relative growth? Coming into this year MK was still pretty low after noCB, we've gained a -lot- in the last year. Our growth efficiency per member is top class, compared to NSO who recruits a hundred 0 NS nations who do nothing and grow about as fast as molasses in winter time. It worked, didn't it?

This. And more importantly to the people bawwwing: Many of the votes were close enough had your alliance been active enough to vote even half as much as MK did, you could have turned things to your favor. The point of a poll is for everyone to vote, that MK made up 50% of the people voting isn't our fault. It's yours for not voting yourselves.

Aww no mention of me from RV, I feel so loved. Mind you at this point I don't even remember what battallion I was lt. of anymore, but the war came just as I got a job as one. I know my nation was somewhere around a massive 10kns and I was just short of qualifying for nukes (I finally got them just shy of GW3 at a massive 16kns). Warchests at this point in time were a thing unheard of, and back collecting was a new thing GOONS were just starting to play with, so like RV mentioned nobody had money laying around... except NAAC who were ready to eat us alive, but were kept from doing so, much to our relief. However since things didn't go nuclear we were all loving the 1million loot on ground attacks though, I believe I came out ahead in that war money-wise, never having to pay more for bills and military than I looted, man back in the day you could do that sort of !@#$. I miss it, we need higher looting. But yeah, comparing GW2 to this is just a sad thought. Back in the day we at least had wars when we had a large scale war, even one that's just setting the stage for another one down the line. Someone needs to pull the hippies out of power and just get everyone nuking each other. Because honestly, the game is way more fun around 10k global average ns, and if we could ever get a war harsh enough to get us back there I'd be very happy. But then again )): Neutrals )):

Even with half of Athens/RoK in peace (not sure how accurate that percent is but I'll take your word for it cause I don't feel like looking it up and it's probably close enough), and probably closer to 75% of the attacking alliances in peace, I'd argue it is a disappointment. Seriously, it averaged to something like 1.3 wars per alliance that declared. Some alliances posted a DoW and didn't put forth a single actual war. Most got only 1. Even if you're fighting conservatively and don't want more than 1 war declared per person to limit the damage of a counter attack, I would expect the alliances to have more than one person online at update to hit. Or even within the next 24 hours. Especially with a 6 day notice. If the issue was all the active nations being in peace mode, why were the declarations not postponed another day or two, when those peace mode nations were able to come out? You'd already sat on the sidelines for 6 days 1-2 more days couldn't have killed you. My speculation: TPF et al were genuinely surprised by RoK, Athens, etc agreeing to a white peace early on. Since it was claimed above mhawk was cool to accept white peace and set an example anyway, it seems like war declarations were put up ahead of schedule, so it could look like CoC actually did something (instead of escalating a war to achieve what was already on the table). Really I want to believe this over the alternative: That CoC was really the worst coalition in history.

18 alliances secure 24 attacks. You think people were scared off by that? Of course it had nothing at all to do with white peace being agreed upon -before- the DoWs came in from the other alliances. That would just be crazy.

GGA declares support, can anyone still doubt that CoC has been in the wrong all along?

Man if I could dodge bullets the way you dodge questions I wouldn't be afraid to walk out into a battlefield butt naked.

I'm curious, is this actually a war? I don't see any war declarations from Valhalla, no indication of what alliances Valhalla has grievance with, or why. Just a vague reference to the coincidence coalition. Everyone o/ing war needs to take a step back and see what's actually happening here. This is nothing more than another empty Declaration of Support. And well, Tyga already addressed this better than I could: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=77478 Also seriously, do you need to sign with every person in your alliance? Your signatures have more words than the rest of the post combined. wtf?

I like your line of thinking, may I interest you in a spot in MK's FA department (which as a disclaimer I have no authority to promise)?

If you think tanks suck, try running a few ground attacks without them. They make a huge difference in your battle odds.

You are aware that the 25 day limit is only for deletions, and collections are still capped at 20 days, so if you wait until day 25 you're actually losing 5 days of collections, right?

No they're just not important enough to consider for this theoretical war.

lol if anything when MK was newer activity was higher. I remember right after starting at MK we would regularly have 50% of the alliance on. Meanwhile STA has been around even longer than MK with less activity, same with others. The age of the community has no correlation with IRC activity. That's just a poor excuse.

Streaks of days without a loss.

If that's your logic I see how you lost your tech race to us not once, not twice, but three times.

You're not making this any easier.

Took long enough

It really tempted me to go rogue. Id love to see him cry after being forced to collect from nuclear anarchy.

Excuses. People like you are the reason why GATO was so widely hailed and WAE.

Funny thing about treaties. They tend to chain. If 4 alliances had a treaty with OV, and each of those 4 had 3 more treaties, that gets you 16 alliances. (I'm sure it didn't actually work that cleanly, but it's the gist of it). A treaty is a treaty. If Sparta is attacked, and Athens defends them, the rest of CnG is going in with Athens because we have a mutual agression pact. That doesn't make CnG opportunistic, it's honoring a treaty. As for the ones that canceled on NPO, yeah it's pretty low. There's just cause to remain neutral if you have treaties with two different parties in the war, but dropping a treaty and joining on one side attacking your former treaty partner is low. However, I'm not aware of that happening, as generally when a treaty is dropped they join on a different front. Did anyone who dropped the NPO directly hit the NPO, or were they fighting on other fronts?