Starcraftmazter

Happy to see all parties come to resolve their differences :)

Give this man some screenshots! Conjecture. IRON isn't just treatied to DBDC, at this stage they have treaties with allies of DBDC.... What do you propose is going to happen, everyone just backstabs IRON on a cold night all at once? After railing on them so hard for their actions relating to NG? Do you honestly put forward this as your master theory?

Pot calling the kettle back.

If only your nation was big enough to attack us... then you wouldn't have to coerce others to do your dirty work :facepalm:

We'll have to agree to disagree on that, not much more I can say - if you choose to not believe, that's up to you.

Indeed I'm not.

We look out for our friends, even when they make mistakes. We also have no interest in a war with GPA, hence why we really wanted to avoid any sort of confrontation like that (quite to the contrary of the picture some would like to paint...). That sort of "stuff" simply does not exist.

Prior to reading that statement, I had no idea things were not right between DBDC and RIA? Certainly the first I've heard of it.

I really do hope that people attack us, right now life is just too easy. While I have no doubt a full blown out war against GPA would be fun, I highly doubt we'd be the ones starting it.

I think to play the game like that, so as to build up your nation and avoid war is a challenge in itself, and I think the fact that there's always a possibility of war adds to that challenge and only makes it more fun and rewarding. Also to add is the fact that quite often war can give your nation a leg up in it's growth and development.

Why seek safety if the purpose and fun lies with war? Nobody who fears an uphill battle will find us as their allies, this is a fact. Taking that further, if you seek safety, the only thing you will find is war and defeat at the hands of those who seek battle. That being said, I do want to emphasise before the above is taken out of context, that no actual technically neutral alliance has been touched by DBDC.

Perhaps you and others in your alliance should find a hobby which does not involve meaningless trash talk and discussion hijacking against us and our allies and their allies. We aren't the sort to make any plans to act based on the butthurt of some people, but I just thought I'd let you know how pathetic it looks for your group if you engage in such pitiful activities.

Welcome to the world, a fine protector you have there.

It doesn't matter how much money it is, what matters is how quickly you accumulate tech. The standard is 1 slot of money (how much ever money the seller can accept) for 2 slots of tech. Only slot efficiency matters, nothing else does.

Just a note on one improvement, some alliances have their names abbreviated in some questions, and full names in others - this seems quite inconsistent and could potentially skew results, as those alliances where their name is not abbreviated stand out more if all or most of the rest are abbreviated.

With you. Communicate with you.

Oh, why won't anyone please think of the children? Might be waiting a while.

I think, "there's no right or wrong, it's just for fun" is more appropriate. Peace is not fun for anyone relevant. In my view this is the healthy attitude to take. If this is your understanding of history then it is deeply flawed, the commonly agreed upon to version is that after Karma (the ending of a period where might makes right was by far the strongest), people got bored, and that is when the numbers started strongly dwindling. It definitely has nothing to do with DBDC which would not come for many years after. Quite frankly, I think you lack a basic understanding of our world or simply choose to ignore it. You thoughts are disconnected from reality.

I can't really argue this because I do not share your belief system with regard to that statement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction About as relevant as anything else you post. That's quite a wild claim, and one without historic precedence. The number of nations has nothing to do with DBDC or this war. Once again, nobody is forced or coerced into fighting, alliances fight because they want to, because their members are bored. To that end, everyone loses as much as they want, they can pull out anytime, or participate to whatever little extent they deem necessary. And what in CN history serves precedence for these accusations?

Like all coalitions, most alliances aren't really overly involved with each other, it's just the way the treaty web plays out. Whatever the next war will be will probably look from at least somewhat to totally different, it's just the way it is.

You are really quite delusional. No, we actually don't keep track of the precise level of activity and experience of every single nation in every single allied alliance, as well as allied allied alliances and so forth, nor are we aware of all the external circumstances which may prevent them from being active at that specific time. I would have no problem at all fighting along side my friends regardless of whom was or wasn't on our side, and I'm sure we'd still win. That being said, if other alliances want a slice of the pie, we are not going to withhold it from them. Every alliance is sovereign and has it's own decisions to make, there is zero interference nor pressure. Every alliance has the right to go to war if they so choose, and as far as I am aware, it is generally favourably viewed and an act to be desired - not an act that brings "suffering" and "losses. If your side views war as a circumstance which results in bad outcomes, I am not surprised at the results it is producing for you. For us, war is a time of excitement and fun. If you believe your empty words will break the bonds that bound us together you are deeply mistaken. Alliances like AZTEC or DT-DBDC have much tighter integration and communication than anything comparable on your side. To even fathom betrayal is a laughable concept. Ultimately our record speaks for itself.

I have no idea what you mean by "outer ring of the coalition", however; - Nobody has been promised anything - If alliances don't want to participate, then they shouldn't, and wouldn't, and nor would I care if they didn't - How "well trained" people are, as always, depends on the circumstances, the alliance, the individual experience, etc - it cannot be so broadly generalised about as you would proclaim As per above, nobody is being exploited. Way too serious, take a chill pill.

I don't think anyone cares about any "credit", nor "losses". Most people I know would jump at the opportunity to break the boredom and fight a war, nobody has been coerced or manipulated into war... I also don't think its' accurate to describe fighting a war as "suffering". It does seem like we can, not that we want to. It's an effect, and outcome - not a cause nor a goal.

Who's a pawn? In any given war, a DBDC nation takes far more damage than anyone else, that's just how it works up there in the ranks. Bigger nation = more damage, both dealt and given. So DBDC gets hurt more than any of it's allies. Furthermore, in order to have fun and interest, there must be conflict. In order for a fun conflict, there must be two opposing sides. DBDC does not have anything to do with this rule. This isn't Harry Potter bro, calm down.

Not sure why you think you can dictate to us (or anyone) how to run our alliances, and how to engage in the world of politics. So far, a lot of land and tech.