EViL0nE

As far as I can tell, a few of the nugoons didn't like a comment made by a Farker that Fark has now outlasted two iterations of goons and decided to jump over to the oldgoons AA and attack us. Sadly, the few that jumped have almost no warchest, no interest in actually fighting with any intensity, and were all too small for our largest nations to have any fun. As for UE's request for assistance, I'm just an old fogey who had to clear the cobwebs off his throne in order to find the declare war button and have no idea who they talked to or what specifically they asked for.

I don't know that they'll face repercussions, per se. The physics of this world make such things less likely than they should be. They will likely realize at some point in the not terribly distant future that they were doing all of this to defend those that will most likely destroy them once the boredom sets in.

Cuba had 82,513.75 tech on 2015-01-22 and has 65,825.91 right now. Hime had 88,772.50 tech on 2015-01-23 and has 91,992.50 right now. Though, as oya stated, I'm not sure how many more nations WTF can even get into Cuba's range right now. They only have ~5 nations with enough tech to buy infra into range if they can afford it, and all the me-too's have done a good job of covering nations, so this is likely close to the end of the fireworks in the supertier.

In related news, Cuba has now dropped to #3 in tech and is dangerously close to #2 in NS.

I'm sorry, but this is cute. Are you really this delusional or are you just trying to showboat? I've seen the conversation where you said you were leaving XX and canceling all of the individual treaties. You knew you were about to be kicked out (and had already been told by Dajobo that he was canceling your Polar treaty) and "made the decision" to pretend like it was all your idea.

You're missing the point, I think. As far as I can tell, it's not about winning or losing to WTF. It's about maximizing the cost that DBDC (and especially Cuba) will pay for their attacks. In 49 days, Cuba went from 82.5k tech to 68.1k while constantly receiving 100 tech aid packages and stealing tech in GAs he can virtually never lose because of his land. Considering how large of a nation Cuba has and all of the mechanics help to ensure he will do more damage by a wide margin, WTF is succeeding in what I perceive to be their goal. Does that mean they're "winnning"? No, but I don't think I've seen anyone from WTF discuss winning.

As far as I can tell, WTF is succeeding in their goals. Not only have they have managed to consistently cause enough damage to Cuba for the past 49 days that his incoming tech/donations/GA wins are not enough to increase his tech levels, they've destroyed 14.4k of his tech. He has lost roughly 260 days worth of incoming tech so far. That's a pretty impressive accomplishment fighting against the strongest nation in the game with the second highest amount of tech. Yes, he's done *far* more damage to WTF than they've done to him. Their damage is spread across X nations, they can rebuild their tech X times faster than he can. They are also not the type to use their nation size to declare war on whoever they feel like whenever they feel like, so the damage done to Cuba is far more important to his foreign policy than theirs is. As for ODN's shenanigans and threats, I'd almost buy the "throw away comment by random member".. if their gov immediately corrected his statement in the embassy. I don't have an account on WTF's forums so I'm not sure if they did or not.

I don't think there was any consensus in that topic. Many members of the XX/TOP side of the war agreed that it was an act of war. Many members of the DoomSphere side of the war agreed that it was not an act of war. A nation who agreed that is war an act of war could continue to deal with WTF (or DBDC) and still not be a hypocrite. "Yes, it's an act of war.. I'm going to continue tech dealing" is a valid statement. A nation who agreed that it is not an act of war could not start attacking those dealing with WTF (or DBDC) and still not be a hypocrite. "No, it's not an act of war.. I'm going to declare on you for committing an act of war" is not a valid statement.

From an embassy where I railed against moving to 6/100s when they changed the aid limits. I'm by no means an expert on the math around here, but this was my best understanding at the time: With a 3/100 50 tech increment deal, there's somewhere between 26.6k-50k profit for the seller per slot-day. [table] [tr] [td]Cash[/td] [td]Tech[/td] [td]Days to complete[/td] [td]Profit per slot-day[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]6[/td] [td]100[/td] [td]20[/td] [td]187038.75-221017.49[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]6[/td] [td]200[/td] [td]30[/td] [td]49385-94689.99[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]12[/td] [td]200[/td] [td]40[/td] [td]187038.75-221017.49[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]12[/td] [td]300[/td] [td]50[/td] [td]104446.5-145220.99[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]12[/td] [td]400[/td] [td]60[/td] [td]49385-94689.99[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]12[/td] [td]500[/td] [td]70[/td] [td]10055.36-58596.42[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]18[/td] [td]300[/td] [td]60[/td] [td]187038.75-221017.49[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]18[/td] [td]400[/td] [td]70[/td] [td]128044.29-166877.14[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]18[/td] [td]500[/td] [td]80[/td] [td]83798.44-126271.87[/td] [/tr] [tr] [td]18[/td] [td]600[/td] [td]90[/td] [td]49385-94689.99[/td] [/tr] [/table] Assuming I'm not missing anything, it seems a 6/200 with 100 tech increments is significantly more profitable than a 3/100 ever was when you compare slot-day profits. Meaning a seller using all 5 (assuming no DRA) slots for 6/200s will make 7,407,750-14,203,495 every 30 days where they would've previously been making 4,000,000-7,500,000 every 30 days with 3/100s. Edit: apparently the table tags don't work here. Pretend that's a pretty table that's easy to read.

I must say, I'm quite confused about how WTF accepting CT changed *ANYTHING*. DBDC declared war on WTF. CT declared war on DBDC and joined WTF. There's been a mix of SPATR involved here and there, but honestly, certain SPATR nations seem to regularly get involved with DBDC's shenanigans without the target alliance doing anything to warrant it beyond existing.

You really are doing a poor job of representing your alliance right now. He was making a joke by doing exactly the same thing Finster did. Finster referred to an ex-emperor of NpO as the emperor, so he referred to an ex-president of IRON as the president.

:popcorn: Color me unsurprised.

There's much less drama in the logs of Sparta canceling their treaties with fark/polar/mha than there was in the logs posted.

I thought I did? I tried to be a bit more subtle about it, though. :P

Really? I would think this thread alone tells you a lot about where Sparta's head is at. //In changing their FA direction, obviously. ///What did you think I meant?

Not a chance. Anyone who regularly communicates with the individual members know that the three remaining members are as close as ever.

No coalition has ever been built of only mid/low tier nations, so giving you an answer would be impossible. I can tell you that the only reason the peace between Umb/TLR/Deinos and Fark in our little sideshow of the Dave War was worded the way it was (including the most awesome clause in any peace treaty every (wars may continue until they expire)) was because we are a mid/low tier alliance and they weren't equipped to force anything else on us without having to call in more of C&G. As for the 9/100 price... It's not something I would choose for myself as a buyer or seller, but if they're all happy with it I have no reason to tell them to do it differently.

This should end well.

And *THIS* is why we can't have nice things.

Wow.. considering that Sparta's connections are gone to the majority of alliances that were dragged into a war with what I've heard was a major goal of getting to TOP and Sparta, you'd think there would be more drama related to that then whether or not DA's personality is backed up by ability to war or not. Good luck on whatever path you've now chosen, Sparta.

Well, I don't know if anything could've been defined as an 'XX front' but either way, glad the war is over for us and our allies and we can all get back to paying bills. I mean rebuilding! ODN made a commendable effort to coordinate and defend nations quickly every time I declared new wars. Good work, guys.

MadMax of CoIS was talked to about their tech deals with DT and stated he would put up notice that all deals with DT were to be suspended until peace was reached. Later MadMax stated that the person continuing to send aid packages to DT faced possible expulsion over his actions in "line with our Disciplinary Action Rule of 'Three Days Notice'." You know, like Fark attempted diplomacy first (as they did with WFF) and spoke a reasonable leader. As for Riot Society, I don't see any aid going from them to DT. So I'm not sure how 0 is more than 0?

So someone in this thread says they know a guy who said some things and that's your proof? You notice the post you quoted intentially excluded any specifics, right? Wonder why that was. Even if specifics were available, the fact that his post also stats that we sent diplomats to discuss the matter with his secret alliance indicates that we did do something about the aid. Fark and RIA are both at war with DBDC. We are aiding an alliance we share an enemy with. I asked for an example when we aided an alliance who did not share an enemy with us. So this example fails as well. I asked for proof of Fark aiding an alliance that did not share an enemy with us.

Not all acts of war require retaliation to make them acts of war. Do you disagree with that? Sending aid is sending aid. It doesn't matter *why* the aid is sent. Here's the deal. This thread clearly shows that there are several large alliances remaining in this world who view sending aid to be an act of war. So I'm curious as to how you can view the content of this thread and come to the conclusion that this matter was settled five years ago. You continue to state what Fark has or hasn't done in the past. I'm demanding that you back up your statements with data. It's really easy to type a bunch of nonsense about how Fark has done something in the past or how our policies have changed and hit post. It's a lot harder to actually back up those words with data. So, unless you can provide the following I will assume you have Fark confused with another alliance and/or are suffering from some sort of dementia 1) An example of an alliance not at war with Fark aiding an alliance that is at war with Fark and Fark doing nothing about it. 2) An example of Fark doing tech deals with an alliance that is at war with an alliance that Fark was not at war with. 3) An example of Fark's supposed policy of finding the act of sending aid to our enemies to not be an act of war. These three examples would have to exist somewhere for your arguments to be based in fact. Since my argument is that your accusations are false, I'm not sure if someone has solved the prove a negative problem yet. I'll wait.

Really? It took you 20 pages to realize that Fark is the attacking party? You're kind of slow there, sparky. Let me run through this one more time for you. Sadly I have no crayons to draw you a diagram with. WFF aided an alliance we're at war with. This is an act of war. Fark asked WFF to stop and explained our position (that aiding alliances we're at war with is an act of war) WFF responded by stating they would find more nations Fark was at war with to send aid to. Fark waited until new aid packages were sent by WFF to an alliance we were at war with. Fark attacked WFF nations sending aid to alliance we were at war with. It's really not rocket science. Please, just show me *one* example of Fark agreeing that the practice of an alliance not at war sending aid to one that is should not be considered an act of war. Show me Fark's old policy so that we can compare it to their current policy. I'll wait.