lonewolfe2015

Did I read foreign affairs in your post? The only FA tools an alliance needs is explosives and bullets if I do say so myself. Also, seeing as this looks like a pre-planned coalition war without the coalition war, I'm only going to assume someone is trying to flag run this round among the G-6/GR crowd, and I am looking forward to ruining their plans.

Looks like your first war should have expired today (5 days) and it didn't, but it still let you declare as if it had.

Walford is the true leader of None. I do not recognize this illegitimate government.

Like a fine wine, this war is only getting better with age. Thanks for this.

Most of these are ideas designed for TE... almost 100% unlikely to fold into SE the same exact way.

Still think we need [i]something[/i] to be done about nuclear anarchy, in a game all about war, one nuke can shut you down for almost a week.

[quote name='admin' timestamp='1297923647' post='2636432'] [list=1] [*]You can purchase up to 100 levels of infras and land at a time instead of 50. (not really a big deal) [*]Nations start out with $5 million startup funds instead of $1 million. (neat) [*]Wars last for 5 days instead of 7 days. (interesting) [*]Nations can change their native resources once every 7 days for free. You can change them immediately after creating your nation instead of having to reroll. Trades get automatically updated to reflect a nation's resource change, so if you're trading for Sugar and Cattle and your trade partner changes to Rubber and Oil now you get Rubber and Oil. (magnificent or chaotic, depends on how you coordinate) [*]Added peak infrastructure and peak land purchased. If your land or infrastructure fall below your peak levels (minus 100 so that you can't cheat) then the purchase cost to replace it is reduced by 50%. [/list] [/quote] [list=1] [*]Remove Nuclear Anarchy and shorten the economic penalty from 5 days to 3 days. To compensate for lack of ground forces nations will have to be strategic about being on at update or purchasing a FSS or deploying their militaries to enable defenses when they are nuked. [*]Change wonders to 7 day purchases, this will increase diversity among them and make it a little bit more strategic, allowing for 8 a round and giving nations a 4 day buffer from the beginning to end on their wonder window if they don't have the money to buy a wonder at the time. [*]This is a bit more time consuming, but I'd like to see war events either triggered during peace time or during war time, where you gain 3% ground defense or offense, gain 5% missile damage, etc. They last for 48 hours, max of 2 at a time. Random of course. [*]Increase the Manhattan Project requirements if you intend on keeping us at even 5 mil starting cash. 2000 infra, 250 tech and 500 land for instance. That way it will still take at least 5 days for people to get them, and will delay any potential coordinated alliance build ups and rolling over other alliances immediately beginning the round with nuclear weaponry involved. [/list] Thank you so much for what you're doing... now I'll include things that are a bit less ideal but would be interesting. Since everyone else is saying it, I've been around since the beginning too [list] [*]Increase the caps on units by 10 fold, keep the cost. We're looking at some major military might here if this happens, allowing for massive wars, casualties and more room for things to happen. Only question is how to handle the soldier numbers due to their tie in with population density. [*]Future rounds, potentially test out new weaponry and improvements/wonders? [*]Senate system, enable nuclear weapon sanctioning on one nation every three days, this would make one nuke 5x the cost, similar to how in real life nuclear sanctions on nations make it more difficult, but not impossible for them to get the weapons. Perhaps it will also eliminate 25% of the stock that nation has. Makes it a little bit more tricky to win that flag if you're on a hostile color. Since as it stands, colors are useless. [*]Have wars auto-delete if a nation drops below 50 infra, make nations unable to sell infra below 500. First part allows lop-sided wars to end and slots for war to open up. Second part makes sure nations can't sacrifice themselves to those levels, and makes sure people can't delete infra to the point of zero bill payments and just be nuclear rogues without having a semi-decent warchest. [/list] That's all I got. Looking forward to see what happens. E: Drat, he finished before I posted!

[quote name='PMoses' timestamp='1297795967' post='2634563'] How bout you guys learn that when you attack someone your in the wrong, and don't go about saying give us proof or F your alliance? The good thing for you is my tri wouldn't allow me to push the war.. Or you would be in fact rolled by this time good sir. [b]They openly stated they seen a protectrait in Weezys bio, but knowing we are just coming out of war with Sparta, RIA, and we don't have a screen shot of the exact time he changed his bio to protected by exodus. They pretty much said you can't do nothing about it, so F.. Exodus. So yes many of you are giving them a little too much credit. [/b] They claim the log dump was of ooc personal family stuff. Which if you go read Weezys log dump, the only thing in there is of \m/ plotting on riding DH's coat tails to attack NPO to look cool, and mean something.. There is no personal OOC stuff in there, had there been originally, guess \m/ should have gotten a screen shot of it. Like you tell everyone else. When you have real members that can talk, instead of clowns. Come hollar at me. No worries though, Every "dog" has their days, and I am sure \m/ will come soon enough.. You couldn't just leave a good alliance dead, you had to bring it back and make it fail. Sad times indeed for the reformation of dead alliances. [/quote] I'm a third party of this all, and I watched this from day one. Weezy had 'protected by Asgaard' in his bio as a remnant of being on Asgaard Applicant while we granted him and his friend temporary protection for them to plan a new alliance. Weezy didn't go along with Gotham, told me he was joining another alliance, then made Crimson Guard, all in the course of less than 48 hours. He did not ask us for protection in Crimson Guard, therefore he was not protected by us, and he was free for EM to settle his problems with. Exodus meanwhile came out of nowhere aside from the fact Weezy engaged in an unauthorized war while on Asgaard Applicant with a nation of Exodus (never cared to find out why as it didn't comeback to us so we ignored it) and started trying to threaten \m/ over the war, which was perfectly fine because Weezy was unprotected. It took at least 48 hours from the beginning of the war to the point in which Weezy held 'Protected by Asgaard and Exodus' and another 24 hours until he removed Asgaard entirely from that. Besides, we both know why you guys backed off, so why don't you put your comments aside and walk away with your tail between your legs before you damage the image of your alliance any further.

Make it stop, please. I feel like we're moving back in time slowly.

I have a feeling Asgaard and Ragnarok are destined for eachother, as one is the end of the other.

I went 25/28 on all ground wars and still barely managed 53k casualties...

[quote name='Jerahoam' timestamp='1297178953' post='2625706'] Afraid so, all because i don't want to have to care about the update anymore (and because i deleted my SE nation after I merced for pacifica) which if i have a nation i will. I am sure you'll do fine without me clash, after all you have your casualties to keep you company. [/quote] Best wishes my friend.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297118991' post='2624587'] Because we don't 'defend' anything, 90+% of the war is treaty chains out the ying yang. Phrases like "defending our allies" is a cop out, an excuse to stop thinking for yourself while making it look like you possess some other redeeming quality like loyalty, as if anything made up for complete lack initiative. That's not to say one shouldn't stand by their friends, but people need to start choosing their friends rather than letting a treaty chain choose their friends for them. Every war the treaty web splits somewhere, somebody faced with a choice of sides ignores one set of treaties and goes with the other. They chose what they wanted. And that I can respect, no matter who they chose, because they had the stones to actually make the choice so many let others make for them. [/quote] A good discussion I can enjoy, let's take this a bit further provided we've not taken this topic out of its original purpose too much. I believe your perspective of defense is very subjective to the situation at hand. The thing is, some people don't sign treaties for them to simply be paper connections for tools during war. Some alliances see treaties as a visual representation to the rest of Bob to legalize a friendship that already had come to a point of defending each other no matter the circumstance. The problem comes when that same alliance who signed that treaty, finds them self split by the fact two very strong allies of theirs decide to go opposite ways in a large scale war. While that alliance may not have any investment in the outcome nor care how it turns out, they do wish to support their allies and not watch them burn for their beliefs or burn for supporting their allies. So that alliance decides rather than choose an ally, a decision they cannot rightfully do as neither ally deserves any less respect than the other, they choose to fight and defend both (or more than 2 if that's the case) under any and all circumstances. This is a decision that is right in my eyes and many others out there who are watching or have engaged in this conflict. For it does not put you into a neutral trance where you help no one because of your personal feelings, abandoning your allies and using a 'cop out' like "We'll rebuild you later". [quote] Its a coalition war, it doesn't work that way. You don't just fight for your ally, you fight for allies, friends, and people you don't even know. If you support a treaty partner you also support all the treaty partners of that alliance, and so on down the list till you go back to the first DoW's. Its not as simple as 'cover an ally's back', when you declare you pick a side. You can try to forge a middle ground, but that's tricky and usually backfires. GATO tried, and did an OK job of it in my opinion, but notice how the rest of the side they were nominally fighting for then started hating on them? GATO made a decision, they did what they could for their allies but decided they didn't want to burn for Polar. But people hate alliances that make decisions, most want nice tame little allies they can manipulate around who won't think for themselves. Sad thing is, most people are nice tame little allies who won't take initiative on their own. Don't misunderstand though, this is not the same as deciding to align yourself with another, that is a choice too, and respectable, despite how similar it looks to the behavior I just criticized. [/quote] I've been a part of both coalition wars and as a fringe alliance not involved in the big picture, it is therefore possible to not fight for some ally of an ally of a friend you don't even know nor care about. Indirectly, perhaps you're helping the original alliance that the wars chained off of, but again perspective is a key issue here. Many alliances not part of the central conflict don't give a crap about why the war started if their allies come under attack and need their help. Perhaps this is their "decision" you believe they need to make regarding alignment. They don't align to a party or a side, they align to the nearest ally who needs their help. Whether those allies all represent one single coalition, or every side involved. It's not a cop out if they don't care for either party who started the original conflict to simply decide that they will defend their ally, because they are making a decision to not align them self with a coalition out of their beliefs.

[quote name='Keve69' timestamp='1296859737' post='2619584'] Actually it was your triumvir, Rajistani, getting UED nations to attack wF and then using that as a CB to roll UED. Sorry but I guess the 'big LOL' is on you and all the time you spent on that 'research'. [/quote] Shows just how much you know about that situation. There were two people who started the destruction of UED, and Rajistani (as useless as he is/was) was not one of them.

[quote name='TypoNinja' timestamp='1297085688' post='2623954'] This kind of thinking is just plain silly. Let your foreign policy be dictated by who can chain a treaty to drag you into a war first? More people need the stones to stand up and decide which side they agree with and make a stand with them, regardless of who manages to chain where. Saying you just follow treaties is another of saying you have no spine. Leaders are leaders to make decisions, not to let others make them for them. [/quote] Since when is determining that an alliance's best course of action being to defend their allies, no matter the front, no matter the cause, a result of having no spine? Some people simply don't care for the shenanigans being thrown around and decide that their best option is to cover an ally's back. Also, Battalion, so a leader of Asgaard telling you we're on no side isn't good enough for your wisdom? Did anyone ever even point out you spelled your own name wrong?

Oh look, they are giving Doomhouse free tech... how nice of them.

We're on no side thank you very much. E: Best part? You placed us opposing some of our allies... fail.

So when does Doomhouse get bored destroying everyone and realize they didn't wait long enough for a credible threat to arise and have effectively put another year long wait on the next war?

Keshav is still in office? How does the tyranny continue without people catching on by now?

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1296965911' post='2621278'] Personally, I didnt know what the hell you guys were up to when you moved to NB, and by that stage you were way too big for everyone who had been in real war, so it wasnt like anyone was gunna go toe to toe with you. Perhaps if people knew that what PS intended to do was offshoot to NB after growing unopposed, only to launch aggressive AA wars then maybe they would have engaged you earlier. Because lets face it, PS and NB are one and the same. You dont have different forums or different Irc rooms as far as I am aware. [/quote] What did you think the rest of us uninvolved folks were going to do? We were the defense, then we had nothing to do. There were some, like OP, GR and the various affiliated rogues out there, who were going to attack us. Might as well make ourselves useful and attack others, seeing as the roguing had begun anyways. NB and PS are different entities, we originally held 2 boards during the first NB run (On Asgaard and Basketball Ninjas) for example. Don't know why you're upset either, unless you were looking for a flag from one of the GR runners we destroyed.

[quote name='StevieG' timestamp='1296941182' post='2620954'] Sorry, but in my opinion, switching AAs from PS to NB does not take away from the fact that those nations had all that time to build up in PS without being attacked. Also, it seems you have gone against what you said when declaring yourselves "nuetral" for the round. Then again, I can understand your large nations getting bored and wanting to war, but damn, did you really need so many? And couldnt you predict that by having so many nations not participating in the tournament would lead to them growing crazy big due to your "hands off" message? Also, GR seems to have pulled some stunts which some dont like I guess. [/quote] At one point, there was about half of Pork Shrimp in the tournament. As people began losing, more piled up. We switched to NB at about halfway into the round in order to declare our separation from Pork Shrimp to not confuse people. We waited until the final 3 or 4 guys were left if I remember correctly, to even engage in war to make sure as little was interrupted as possible. We didn't declare neutrality for anyone but those in PS, those in PS didn't war outside. If you weren't prepared for NB to go to war on you once we were on that AA for a couple weeks, not my fault. And if you attack an alliance not involved in Steve warfare because you were hit by someone else, kinda sad you can't read the AA differences. We did our job protecting them, then changed our AA's to make sure people saw the distinction, what more do you want, a big post where we declare our independence and a big welcome sign to declaring on us? There has to be some sort of strategy involved once you're no longer neutral.

I quite enjoyed the fact that they have down declared on us and hit a few of the remaining tournament players. If any of our adoring fans wouldn't mind protecting Pork Shrimp while we engage in this war along with anyone we send over there, we'd appreciate the sentiments. I am curious though, what's GR going to do now? They began roguing us early on in the night to try and take us out, but it seems to have backfired. Guess we rolled em the wrong way? Oh, and btw, I guess they can't read between alliances? Nordic Ballers is not Pork Shrimp... but we did destroy their flag runners too, poor guys must be upset.

[center][img]http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu110/JackShepardLostIsland/NBflag.gif[/img] [i] Testing... is this thing on? Mic check... cacoo, cacoooo. [/i][/center] Ok, Ladies and Gents, tonight we bring to you a meeting of heavyweight rivals and division champions Gayrollers and Nordic Ballers. The newcomers Gayrollers have been under the impression that they could beat the veteran presence of the newly reunited Nordic Ballers, and so the challenge has been met. When we woke up this morning there was lead being boiled for our cereal and bombs being baked into our biscuits. We're born for this over at Nordic Ballers, a rare breed of Viking Basketball Warriors, the NBA got it's name from us! (Nordic Ballers Association for the mentally crippled out there) No longer will these youngin's clamor around like they run the place. To arms I say! And let us fight... for our... freedom! Cliche's aside, we're really just looking to blow stuff up. So while we're rolling the gays and the UCLA prepares a class action lawsuit against us, just remember, All Your Balls Are Belong To Us. Oh yeah, and a shoutout to OP, did we steal your targets again? [img]http://flashwarner.com/images/300px-Kool-Aid2.jpg[/img] E: TFK is declaring too Platypus.

Just because you believe in honor doesn't make you a fool, you just believe something, and people have the right to not believe it and attack you. Then you have the same right to defend your beliefs. It's not that difficult, nor was this thread needed. You must be new to Steve and/or Bob, because this concept has been hashed out time and time again throughout the ages.

My suggestion? Get some sleep... it's nothing personal and you're blowing up something insignificant for no reason.