Hasin

Really, if Vanguard only cancelled OUT to DoW on TOP and IRON, they probably would have done it right before they attacked. So unless Vanguard attacks us in the next few days, which I find highly unlikely, my guess is they didn't only dissolve to attack us. Let's stop with silly accusations.

Congrats, enjoy your birthday.

While it sucks that you left, I'm sure it was the best thing for your alliance. This really isn't surprising, so best of luck to you Vanguard.

Or we could all become ebil overlords, and start trying to cement the dominance of our own alliances. As long as we don't have people crying about injustice and honour. I can't take much more of that.

Let's just agree that Citadel and friends vs everyone else would be a lot of fun. And we would get that reset.

I really didn't expect you to place so high. It's really impressive, congratulations.

That would make things fun.

Very nice guys, this is a great achievement. Also praise be to Johan, Generator, or whoever else you like.

We receive 50% of all tech you raid from them. I like it. Also stats.

Whining is what we do, we're never satisfied.

We've actually been discussing this a lot.

But on a large scale they are very important. Wars aren't fought on a nation to nation basis. I mean, when I fight a war I'm trying to minimize damage to myself and maximize to another nation. Also like you said nukes are incredibly damaging, I'd personally rather win a war with 3000 infra destroyed than 7000. I'd only support using nukes if you're at a disadvantage and are likely to lose a war.

I was just going off of ratios. I would say the standard upper tier nation is 11.5k infra 5k tech. A tech heavy would be 9k infra 7k tech. This is up for debate of course. When fighting without nukes the 7k nation does 1.245 more damage to the 5k nation considering maximum possible damage by each nation. Using nukes only in a fight gives you a ratio of 1.2 Using nukes and conventional attacks considering maximum possible damage you get a ratio of 1.21 Now my math may be wrong and I'd be glad to admit I'm wrong if it is. You're throwing in a bunch of variables in there of what could happen so maybe that happens occasionally. I'm just going off the numbers. Anyways please check to see if I'm off, I don't understand the exact equations as well as other people. Edit: Ultimately every semi-even war comes down to activity and coordination, so this is all a little pointless.

Let me explain. With 7k tech and a WRC you can do equal if not more damage not using nukes than a nation using your basic nukes. Thus, if you're fighting a conventional war, having that 7k+ tech becomes especially important. Then if you do use nukes the damage becomes extreme. Obviously always using nukes does more damage, it also brings more damage to yourself.

I know you're just joking, but having 7k+ tech matters especially if you don't use nukes. Then if you do use nukes it's disgustingly effective.

The disparity is troubling.

Congrats to Gre and NSO on biggest gainer

He got in pretty quickly. B)

Looks good

What good does power on a global scale bring? Also assuming Citadel does control the upper tier, if they decide to exert their strength they can essentially cap all other nations at a certain strength. That doesn't equal global influence?

That's just another reason to dislike America.

To be fair, if NSO finds it fun to aggressively recruit and insult neutrals, should we respect that just because it's fun for them? It's a state of interalliance anarchy, and even if you don't want to, you're playing ball. I don't support what NSO did, but as far as I am concerned nobody deserves anything or has any intrinsic rights, neutrals included.

I can't accept any alliance that calls itself Ronin, but has a Shogun and Daimyo's. Seriously though, good luck Airme

I'm pretty sure a massive coalition could roll us. I don't know which option would be easier though.

The two votes is quite interesting, and maybe more complicated than necessary as some people said, but it also serves other purposes. I don't know why they instituted it when the Citadel was signed except as a way to influence percentages. Personally I think it serves to more accurately take the opinion of Citadel membership. By membership I mean individual people and not alliances. As has been annoyingly repeated numerous times in this thread, Citadel alliances are typically democratic, and we like to base our actions on the will of said membership. Thus if we're trying to adequately gauge the will of Citadel members (once again I mean the people) the two vote system can be more accurate. For instance if we all voted to change our charter, and we wanted to see how the people felt about this. Argent, FCC and TOP are all for it, they'd use their two votes for it. Umbrella's entire membership is staunchly against it so they vote twice against it. In Gremlins 52% are against it, and 48% are for it. They could cast 1 for and 1 against to accurately portray their membership's wishes to the Citadel. It's a matter of not viewing the Citadel as composed of 5 alliances, but of 500 people. Like I said, this is just my personal opinion of why it's useful and interesting, and I have no idea of why it was originally implemented. They lawyers over at OBR wrote it . Practically the two vote system is rarely used and most of the time alliances use both votes the same way. This is probably because there's still a lot of the 5 alliance paradigm instead of the 500 people paradigm. Anyways, I hope this can someday be used to more accurately gauge the opinion of a 500 people Citadel, but we'll see. For the most part this post is irrelevant to the topic at hand.