HeroofTime55

Lift caps on destruction in wars. Make attacks do an uncapped % of infra/tech/land/money damage. Destroy money spy ops should destroy and uncapped % of money. Or, alternatively (implementing both of these would probably be too far), allow nations to be hit with more incoming wars/spy attacks/navy attacks/nukes dependent on their size. Why do the biggest nations in the world only get to have 3 defensive slots, can only take 1 nuke per day, etc, same as the tiniest nobody state? If you have a wider range of assets, you should expect a wider range of attacks. You have a bigger land border to defend, after all, don't you? Defensive slots, nukes you can eat, incoming spy attacks, and defensive navy ops should all be increased depending on the size of the nation. More land should mean more incoming navy and war slots. More tech and cash should make you a priority target for spies. More infra means more cities in your nation that people might lob nukes at. Make war expensive, make it hurt. This game is stagnant because those at the top cannot be touched, not even by each other.

Joined '07. Got my first nation banhammered, allowed back in like a year and something later. Back in that day if you looked at a mod funny, you got a warn level for it. It's much more lax nowadays. Was probably inevitable back in that day that I'd get myself banned. Was good times though. Miss a lot of the people who are gone. Miss a lot of my enemies as well.

You're going to make me start liking Polaris again with announcements like this.

Each of those are about 10% of the game apiece to me. 80% is the politics* - which neutrals also mostly avoid. I don't get why they're here, might as well just punch +1 on a calculator to watch the number tick up. *Not that there are politics anymore

Use of emotes every 10 words is a valid CB.

No, I'm the one who said that. Also, the policy only applies to you, personally, because you are that awful of a person. And it's still a valid policy. Probably 75% of CN agrees.

This post gave me depression. God I miss what this place used to be. How many legendary names have we lost over the years?

Well, I can drop more bombs and keep my promise to kerschbs so that's all that matters to me.

Hell yes, 13 days means I can get another round in on NoR! Thank you for these terms!

No, let us back up for a moment here. It absolutely IS your responsibility to discuss with allies, which we were at the time, what is going wrong that is making things not work, what those differences are, what can be done to mend the course (or, after this discussion has taken place, then, and only then, decide that it isn't working, and invoke cancellation). Polaris completely skirted their responsibility. Polaris has 100% responsibility to discuss what wasn't going right. And I assure you, RIA most likely would have gone along with your wishes and what direction you desired - you were, after all, our most important and cherished ally. So no, it wasn't "our" choice, "our" decision that you decided to completely disregard the responsibilities and respect that come with being allied by an MDoAP level treaty and a legal acknowledgement of our friendship. We did NOTHING to warrant an unprovoked, surprise cancellation. That was 110% on Polaris. All of this is entirely on you, no matter how you want to revise history to pretend that it wasn't. The best argument you can muster forth is that we weren't magically able to mind-read intentions you kept hidden from us.

I understand your reasoning but I want to nuke turret on NoR for as long as I can, so this is unlikely. I would if I had GCs but I never got back up to an infra level where I could buy GCs without selling improvements, and I certainly am not doing it now. So it's been turtling all the way. Sorry about that.

The difference is there was genuine friendship there and you stuck a knife in our back. It parallels the themes touched on in the other thread, which is to say, how the Orders reward loyalty. Not a single diplomatic word of what was going wrong and what we could do to fix whatever you perceived as going wrong. We knew we were on the chopping block after that moment, and this war is the culmination of those events. It's the bus you threw us under, and we're certainly not going to forget that as the war is still ongoing - in no small part, I might add, because you decided that we weren't getting enough of a beatdown, and you better enter so as to drag out the war to a further unnecessary length. Am I playing into your accusation? Perhaps, but my point is that our anger is completely, 100% justified.

Still isn't helping to interpret whatever jumbled nonsense you tried to say. Amusing that you picked a war where you launched a bloodthirsty preemptive strike against your former ally, though. Not really helping whatever case you were attempting to make. Just proving my point, really.

Please rephrase this word salad.

I love how butthurt you continue to be. I wish I had done the same as him and slapped you. You are a bottomless wellspring of tears.