MegaVolt
-
Posts
198 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Posts posted by MegaVolt
-
-
ICP isn't in there because nobody likes them anyway, right?
-
With the odds of being caught and exposed as high as they are, I can't really see any sane nation employing spies as anything other than an adjunct to the attacks available in existing wars.
To be caught, is to start a war anyway.
Agreed. While spy ops are a nice addition to the game the current implementation does not allow for any "cool" stuff like real spying.
Right now the spies are just another kind of war slot and should be treated as such in alliance diplomacy.
-
I like the name and the idea is also a nice one - good luck to you.
I am currently in your IRC ... but I feel very lonely. Is your channel always empty?
-
I have to apologize about the name. I suggested it and it was the one we all picked as second or third choices, and since we couldn't agree on a first choice...
Why apologize for the name. "The Citadel" was my personal favorite, thanks for suggesting it
The treaty name (Lux Aeterna) is also great.edit: shorter quote
-
lol you two
-
Wow. Much
to all signatories! -
Hello all I am a veteran player comeing back to CN. My nation is Crimson Unity. Just made. So any alliances recruting? Looking for the best aid offers for new nations.
You are funny ... not in a positive way. But I guess there will be alliances willing to take you.
-
The last few weeks. I joined right after GW3 so the FAN war was the bigging one I saw in my whole CN-life. In comparison the last few weeks have been very exciting.
Too bad I missed all the GW1-3 drama
-
Usually gravedigging is bad. But this announcement is so full of win that I can't really blame the gravedigger.
A MDP between two of the finest alliances in the whole cyberverse deserves to be on page one
-
Spared? I think I misunderstood I thought gold disbanded. >_>
I mean everyone going NPO PoW effectively means disband right?
Are you trying to get a sanction to NPO PoW ?
-
Yea all those low NS nations ruining our stats. Get yourself some infra ... both of you!
-
Grats you crazy FOKers! Good to see that you had fun
-
Need. Techies. Addicted.
Oh and I think we also got some nice infra
But since it can't be traded it's a lot more boring then tech. -
Yay us.
On to 4m (by the end of next month
) -
Honourable decision, as always.
Sad to see that such an announcement is necessary.
-
Is there a special reason for the 300 member requirement? If an alliance gets into sanction score range with less members I think that's even better and actually one more reason to give them the mask (since they show they can do with few what others can do with many).
I think the audit should be based only on the score, not on the member count.
The member requirement made more sense back when the score was heavily based on average strength - which is obviously no longer the case.
-
Imho MHA was the most lulz. Declaring on themselves - that's what I call honouring your treaties
Legion is a close second for their nice tl;dr to be at war with ODN.
-
Though myself and several of my comrades have been fighting since the beginning, the Byzantine Empire formally declares war upon GOONS. Our alliance is small but we will stand along side our allies in this great conflict.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
---Thomas Jefferson
To be honest I never heared of your alliance ...
Do you have any MDPs or are you bandwagoning?
-
Forgetting for a moment how you Godwin'd the thread in the last paragraph:
An MADP is an expression of the closeness and strength of your bonds with your allies. Even if you think it's ridiculous that WUT alliances attacked VE and didn't really want to, an MADP is a way of showing that you are willing to go the distance for your treaty partner.
Consider an RL example: You're best friends with two guys, but one of them stops hanging out, and your friend catches him hitting on his girl/some other highly offensive thing. You used to be friends with the guy, but you're still best friends with the other, and he's been slighted. A true friend backs him up regardless of personal feelings, because friendship is about mutual consideration, not just doing what you want when you want.
I think VE and WW2 are really, really bad examples of what I think Ejay is trying to say. Yours is a lot better imho.
About the MADP in general: Alliances are sovereign. If they want to sign MADPs, let them. It's their decision.
I personally think MADP with mandatory offensive assistance are dangerous. They make going to war easier and if the friend doesn't agree on your reasons the friendship might seriously get damaged if you force them to war with you. An optional clause for the A part is generally a good idea but if you really can put complete trust in the integrity of your ally then there is no need to keep the offensive assistance optional.
The question is: Is that ever the case? Treaties usually last a while and even if you can trust your ally now for sure - people quit the game, governments change, things might be different in a month or two. But then the mandatory offensive part is still there.
-
i think GOLD is the alliance that has been tried to coup most of all
anyway i wish the members of GOLD luck in this hard times... the coup couldnt have been at a worse time
Except what I read in this topic I have no idea about GOLD but I guess recent events are tied to the coup so it probably couldn't come at any different time ...
I also with good luck to all GOLD members.
On a sidenote: Looking at your total NS I think you guys could maybe buy/sell some tanks to get it to 3.333.333. That would be awesome
And then you could make an announcement just like \m/ did, but saying that you are half-evil 
-
If a nation can be "attacked" by 3 spy missions in a day, then they should be able to conduct that many of their own. As with wars, they should be against different nations, but if 3 enemies are targeting me, I should also be able to target each of them back.
The 1:3 system will place unaligned nations and small alliances at a major disadvantage. Even if I know the identities of all of my attackers, I can only strike back against one of them. Not fair.
Also, will the notification PM go out even if the mission is a failure and the identity isn't revealed? Something like "Unknown nation tried and failed to do X".
this.
In addition: The spy simply walks into the Pentagon and convinces the President to change the defcon level? Yea right ...
Changing the national religion should also be impossible on a spy mission.
I don't like the trade spy feature either. Big alliances get a HUGE advantage since they can have trade cycles, small alliances will be pressured to drop trades in war times which is a very, very bad thing (especially combines with the 3-1 ratio).
In addition, spying not being affected by peace mode is very dangerous in my opinion: We will get "spy rogues" that, in the long run, will even be worse then nuclear rogues. They can hide in peace mode forever, sending a spy out every day.
I generally think a spy feature is a god idea but as it is now I hope it won't get implemented.
-
Buy a donation. Jump done
-
UE: You are doing a great job. Thank you very, very much, those stats are awesome. That you give them out to the public is even more awesome. Lots of
here.A small suggestion: In the (CODE) fields, can you maybe use tabulators? Copy&pasting them should work. The column sizes are all wrong for me.
-
Nice to see you are on TOP of the situation. But please, for the love of Peter Petrelli, stop with those misleading announcement titles. You deserve to have a query pop up on IRC every 5 minutes for the rest of the night for this
The Citadel
in Alliance Politics
Posted
So all those jokes about update-blitzing the GPA ... they were no jokes?