lonewolfe2015

Working on all this.

THe nukes should stay how they are, or else nukes are useless... I could get hit with 7 nukes and lose maybe 4-5 day's growth in total? Not supposed to be that way.

No, I just find it funny your posts are the type I want to reply to, because you're complaining that they wouldn't declare to defend you in a game I find treaties to be pointless. Seriously, I'd have no problems if you canceled without posting your final words into this to try and discredit good people.

Whining about a treaty not being honored because the alliance had the decency to not attack their own friends who stuck out their necks for them before? Doesn't surprise me, nor does it surprise me to see treaties causing more stupid issues on Steve. Is it so impossible to rid Steve of treaties beyond protectorates which I can at least see some remote usefulness to? At least this way when you go to war it's not because some treaty forced you, it's because you believe in the cause or believe in your friends. PS: Obligatory, MHA has no treaties.

I'm on Firefox, and I've yet to install the recent update, I keep denying it the right to do so... Could be any number of things, but just started happening a day or two ago.

This occurs for me as well, when I reset my password though it worked by copying/pasting anything I changed. Are you sure you can't use the reset to get access back? Because my password didn't work until I reset it back to the original password.

So TGR 2.0? Alright, I can get behind that.

Well one senator can only sanction 5 I believe? I forget since the last time I was senator. Although, I think the use of sanctions in TE is stupid, trades are hard enough as it is, getting hit with a sanction sucks if you know what it's like. Wish we had other senate options to avoid them "being the only tool"

But you both hold treaties with similar/same alliances through chains if I am not mistaken? I'd assume if a war broke out it'd cause you two to end up on the same side of things. Thus attacking TPF & attacking RE was merely a strategic choice that allowed for the other side to get the upper hand or seemingly the upper hand in the war.

Thanks for the bumps guys.

This will not fall.

Back to the top with this.

You completed a 5BR circle, we'll send messages soon

A bump for Asgaard. -Sellers note: We handle everything for you. Just sign up and get paid

Well, I suppose I'm in the minority in this opinion. I know it is slightly possible through hard work... but until I see more than the brand name players making a difference in CN I'm not sure I can feel my opinion isn't credible. No matter what I do, I won't have a grand effect on CN for quite some time. I could very well in 1-2 years, but the majority of potential gets squashed out and used as meat shields, tech farms and merges. I guess the way I handle things is differently, such as treaties you mention Grub. I wouldn't work to create a large side of a war even if I wanted to change the political landscape, why do it? It's pointless to have a grand war when you can have a smaller war, both get the same job done. And Thaone, I began leading an alliance about 14 months ago, in that 14 months I guess I could consider myself a borderline tier 2 leader, probably tier 3. What do I mean by that? It means that given enough time I've barely cracked into anything worth mentioning or caring. Some have had more success, but not many if any. CN I feel still caters to quite a few at the very top of CN that try and play Chess with us through the treaty webs Grub mentioned which cause large scale wars.

In my experience, and from those I've met, the younger alliances tend to have difficulty playing the game without being made pawns by the precious leaders above us. Grub may say it isn't true and to deal with it, but I doubt even his quick wit could solve something this complex in a decent time frame. It's not a massive issue in the sense small alliances get squandered or can't play the game, it's something looming over the game where if they want to get involved they have to simply be the best. I know a lot of smaller alliance leaders that are 100x more capable than the junk that sits at the top of the game sometimes, but it's tradition that keeps them from having a larger say, I just wish some of them would begin to think for themselves than be pawns. Being a good ally does not mean you have agree with everything someone else does. That's how I've found things to be in my time here, I've met people from everywhere in the game, leaders, government, members, rogues, multis & rerolls and in the end those that actually care about the game but were never a part of the original historical side of CN have the least luck in getting anywhere unless they were brought up within one of those historic alliances. What I'm trying to say, is I think that while it's all good and natural for the best to be at the top, I think the new generation of CN is being used more than they are accepted. We see it everywhere, anything "new" is immediately disapproved of and if you have a differing opinion than the masses you're shut out. Not sure how you can really argue with that opinion more than you can point out what I'm missing, but this is all from experience and I'd like to say I have a very good grasp of CN considering I know both the game mechanics and politics pretty well for how I play. Also bear in mind: Silence was made up of two older alliances. And alliances which treaty with the bigger alliances really doesn't change what I think because you don't know the treaty relationship. Don't kid yourself in thinking that leaders don't make treaties based on their ability to control another alliance as their own asset.

Perhaps our definition of an alliance's age differ then. Alliances under a year old, around a year old or not much older than a year is what i meant by new. Is that what happened, or does it change nothing?

The problems I feel stem from tradition not giving way to change. I've been playing CN actively for I think around 17-18 months now, a leader for 13. And from my point of view it doesn't matter what you can do, who you know or how much you bring to the table, the older entrenched leaders and alliances shut you out and then try and play chess with you later using you as a pawn in their games. Wars are too much of a good vs evil thing, one side versus another. When in all honesty we've got multiple sides to CN that all hate each other but they come together to work on a war together? Why can't we have smaller more frequent wars without chaining the treaties when it's a fair war? Why can't we accept that there is a future in CN outside of the major alliances before us today or the ones of old days being resurrected?

Forget it man... just because I post something saying I see no reason to be upset over this you instantly attack me over it, including I referenced another war when my post was nothing more than something describing it's no big deal. TE seriously has lost it's flare... I almost miss the days when Tiberius and I went head to head compared to this melodramatic craphole we see here.

I must be deaf dumb and blind too, but it sure seems like some whining going on when someone complains they brought a friend to the fight... I think you just don't stick to a consistent opinion on things very well.

You'd fit in Circle 16, but we will not accept applications unless you come into our program alone, and remain out of other programs or else it causes issues.

Everyone will find a way to complain when they are caught with their pants down and in a precarious situation. But this war seems to be the most even of any. The OP-TPF war has become fairly even, perhaps in favor of TPF with its allies but I've yet to check the exact numbers on any war. Not sure how you could be upset about the odds you're facing CTA, this is one of the more tame ones in TE History.

Everyone still loves you Omni

Up to the top with this!

Nope, they shot down my attempt at increasing sphere importance and relevance to the game that would generate more wars and political swing within spheres... it was something I was proud of making too. In some ways I do agree with the OP. I'd like to see colors play a more indepth role ingame and not simply as a color with which people can identify you and decide your trade bonus from. But in the same regards I don't want a color to become a bloc basically, which it feels like your vision would lead us.