Drai

This was a real thread on the MK forums. I copied all of those posts to a notepad file and changed the names back to the whatever name the users commonly went by. I was also living in Australia at the time so I modified all of the timestamps back to the American Central timezone to avoid standing out. That was a pain in the ass and I realize now I could have just changed my timezone on the forums... I posted the content on paste-bin and set it to expire after a month just to see who might come across it. It ended up taking 2 weeks to surface. No real reason other than being bored, and probably why I'm posting this now.

How about you write a book about it

[spoiler] Please note I have typed words.[/spoiler]

The defense of a neutral alliance against a disbanding/deleting alliance is always a top priority around these parts. It's a good thing TTE is here to take charge.

My favourite CSN announcement

It has been an honour to fight in the name of allarchon. [center][/center]

Fly away forever. ALLARCHONU ACKBAR

8-16-2013 Added the ability when declaring war to disable XP gained by both the attacker and defender during the course of a war. This option will useful for war games or for those who do not necessarily want their opponent to gain XP against them. I know Marx posted a similar thread but it didn't ask the same question, and the thread was locked before I had a chance to ask this: Isn't the reasoning for this change backwards? People would be way more likely to have war games (that is a positive thing, right?) if they could get experience from it. Or is gaining experience from war games frowned upon? The log should be a bit more specific if that's the case because as it is, the update seems counter-productive when explained this way. Thanks

I think it's a bad thing because there's more hesitant parties to start a war and it just complicates things with treaty conflicts.

Doxa Grata

I just want in the 20 mil club.

This is one of the few times Mushqaeda will support the Kommune. Lay waste to the democratic abomination.

I'm glad you live in some reality where our upper tiers don't have nearly all their defensive slots open.

I don't suppose this rings any bells: I'm not the person who makes peace mode jabs but you do realize that those top 3 nations we beat up last time also happen to be in peace mode right now?

Are jihadi memes actually a thing? Mushqaeda has been doing this for at least 2 years now and I haven't heard of "jihadi memes" before. This thread was worth it if only for Mark Reynold's post.

Well thanks for ruining that streak.

That precious sub-80k range that everybody dreams of reaching some day!

[center][/center] We know who the true god is. Time for the infidels to burn once more. ALLARCHONU ACKBAR

Charity: Water would be great.

We can't get the bronze medal because we've already secured the gold. Darn, looks like we're losing out there! So are you just ignoring your lower tier nations post-war then? You're going to have even more people in the lower tier (whether they were beaten down or were already a lower tier nation) so I don't see where you get the idea that what's left of your higher NS nations will have all of these free slots to import tech. If anything the demand on them for rebuilding aid will be much higher than the demand on ours due to a combination of sheer numbers of lower tier nations existing on your side, plus the fact that some of ours in that range post-war will have good warchests from being a top-tier nation previously. I agree with the sub-100k nuking, I said in my post that because of SDIs it really balances out in the end. It's not much of an advantage either side really. Probably wasn't worth mentioning in the first place. But it's certainly not the "omg your lower tier nations are getting beaten down while ours are immune" argument that's been going around.

MK had the highest of any alliance above 100 nations for a while (since King Brandon took over the Treasury) so I don't know where you're getting your numbers from. Umb has consistently been above 35%, often above 40%. AI never had anything like that, although NPO was always pretty good. I'm not sure completely about IRON but I think they were somewhere between AI and NPO. Then take a look at TIO, they were rarely pushing 20%.

I don't dispute what you're saying for the duration of the war (I've already explained why i feel we have an advantage in the rebuilding part). It just means we have different ideas of what a statistical victory is. Edit: The damage done in the sub-100k range also probably lies in our favour as we have the ability to nuke more than 1 nation if you're 3v1ing us. I know SDIs make that much more balanced but the situation still gives us a bit of an edge in damage output.

Longer rebuilding time just reinforces my point further. EQ is going to have an even longer wait trying to get top tier nations again. The 6 month was a rough estimate but intended to be referencing the nations you've brought down from our upper/mid tier to the sub-80k range. Those are the ones who will still have some tech to their name and money in the bank.

But everything under 80k takes all of what, 6 months to rebuild? To get to 100k+ can take at least a year, or 3. A lot of the nations you have brought down and included in the '1700' have warchests that will allow them to easily rebuild. They have also proven to be more active at buying tech and will inevitably reach the top tier faster than most on the EQ side.

~Round 2~