empirica

Congrats on this treaty. Secksi.

*waves at Lord Squeak*

Wishing someone luck on their new venture = fear? Ya know, it is possible that my alliance, that I help lead, wants to start out with a clean slate with these guys. Not that you would know about this internal stuff. Sorry for the derail Lem. He comes in and bugs us anywhere we pop up, even in someone else's thread.

Welcome back, nice to see you again, and good luck! /me lines up for the treasure hunt

Peace is good to see o/GOD o/ Nemesis o/ AB

Do you need crayons to illustrate good sir? Or will MS paint suffice?

Glad to see Hizzy making announcements. Rank a 11 out of 10, would read again. Good luck to our allies!

Congrats and welcome back. Hope to see relations improve between IAA and TGR, as I am a fan of both alliances. As someone who has made the mistake of over-reacting in the past in a (not quite) similar circumstance, my (non obligatory and probably unnecessary) advice would be to keep your heads held high and be amiable to each other, unless and until more extreme circumstances warrant otherwise.

Congrats to our friends in Invicta and LA!

Good luck on the changes, and congrats to the newly elected gov

Is it too late to say not allowed? Good luck in the future

Congrats on the flag and on the new gov.

Congratulations!

Good luck to our allies in ARES, may you fight well. I can't really tell Avalon well wishes on the battlefield, but it appears you guys are classy opponents. I would expect those who don't know ARES wouldn't get it. ARES has a history of helping friends, with or without paper. I don't see how signing a treaty just before DoWing would make a huge difference. Signing binding treaties just before bloodshed is usually seen as opportunism, same as dropping treaties just before (or during) war. Avalon doesn't appear to consider this move bandwagoning, and they're the ones getting the new declaration of war.

Congrats and good luck! I've had nothing but positive experiences with LA.

Good luck to everyone involved. I am also curious to see the future political maneuvering by all.

Good terms. Congrats on peace.

Congrats on the protectorate tech agreement. I have every faith that NV isn't going to let NoR engage in the type of behavior we have seen in the past.

As usual hizzy wins I you guys

Congrats on peace. With the exception of a couple places where the terms could be clarified a bit further to avoid confusion, the terms are reasonable. Karma hasn't been complaining about the concept of reparations. Karma has been complaining (and doing something about) excessive terms, such as viceroys, PZI/EZI, etc. There are many alliances in the Karma coalition who would be more than justified in taking this opportunity to turn the tables, and put some of these alliances through the same fate which they suffered. Be glad most of Karma are being more reasonable, merciful, and gracious. 10k tech is nothing, particularly when compared to prior wars, such as the noCB war of last year. Also, for those people who think this is a revenge war from the BLEU days, you're wrong. MCXA's treatment of BLEU (I was there, I was one of the many BLEU leadership present, I know what happened) may have played a part in the many reasons for the existence of Karma, but it doesn't appear that MCXA's opponents kept those days in mind when writing/negotiating these terms.

Best of luck going forward, NATO.

Where was the outrage in the noCB war? What about all those alliances who were declared on for no reason, because they were treatied to the wrong people, in the view of those in power? I was afraid of the precedent that would set in CN, and you're here complaining about this? This was a war that had a great potential to be even. It mainly isn't now, because of tactical and strategic blunders on the other side. Not due to bandwagoning and the like. There have been very few bandwagoners, most people have been entering use 'legal' means. For the e-lawyers: Also, TDE's wiki shows a treaty with Dark Fist. I haven't read the text of the treaty, but the wiki defines it as a bloc.

While I won't try to downplay the significance of MHA, Sparta, TOP, and Gramlins entrance.. I can't say that was the biggest shock or problem for the opposing side. (I really hate calling you guys the Hegemony, come up with something different that sticks please!). The biggest problem, from all appearances, is that when strategies were discussed, it was assumed everyone would more or less honor their treaties. When push came to shove, many treaties on that side were canceled instead of activated. While many of the treaty terminating alliances did come to the field of battle eventually, it was a bit too late. Not only did that side lose the element of being prepared at the right moment, but they lost more due to PR and morale. Without knowing the cultures of many of the alliances involved, I don't know that the last played a big part. But I would think it would have an effect. Also, in case I haven't said it elsewhere: I understand and respect Grub's stance on this war. Polaris was put into a difficult situation, and have made the best call they can for themselves and their allies.

I believe it has been broadcast before, but I am quite certain the grouping of alliances referred to as Karma have not been plotting this behind the scenes as I have seen suggested. It's more like an alliance who was heavily connected was threatened, and the rest of the circus unfolded from there. I would not put it in that much black and white. However, it has been proven time and again that those who align with the ruling power and jump through hoops to remain close have less to fear. So far, being in Q or 1V has been a good way to achieve prosperity due to not having your nations destroyed by war. Other nations and alliances have obviously been able to prosper as well, though not as successfully as NPO. The reasons for such could be attributed to any one or more of a thousand scenarios, and I am way too lazy to make that type of response. It is possible for people to turn a new leaf. It's also possible it's political maneuvering. I'm sure nobody on Bob has ever done that before! That's once more than many other alliances have offered it in the past in similar scenarios. I don't get why it's a BS policy, if it is one serving it's alliance well, and the only time it comes into play is during war. At least now I suppose future opponents of DT know what to expect. Generally speaking, once an offer is made to an alliance to get them peace, the starting terms (or lack thereof) are the best set available. Terms typically get worse after that. In a more general sense: I've kept up to date as much as possible with all the broadcasts of late. I have found many things Karma is said to stand for, and many things it is not said to stand for. The way I see it, based on the public postings of Karma affiliated alliances leadership, Karma doesn't care that there are typically terms mandated for peace. It appears to me that Karma is against extreme terms, eternal wars, PZI, EZI, and other things that make Bob a less pleasant place for those who happen to be on the wrong side of a curbstomp. This is only my interpretation of what I've seen and shouldn't be mistaken for official Karma mission statement. If such a thing can exist in a loosely affiliated bunch.

To be fair, AlmightyGrub posted an announcement indicating the stance of Polaris in this war. He also mentioned the well known bond between NpO and STA, and that attacks on STA would not be tolerated. I don't see this move as cowardice. Polaris has conflicting treaties in a couple places, and choosing to enter on one of the many other fronts where they may have, could put them at odds with one or more of those treaties.