Lincongrad

Can we not, you know, get into the epeen warchest comparing thing? Or at least I'm going to request that Legionnaires don't.

[quote name='Feldheim C' timestamp='1296155956' post='2605937'] Thank you very much. Always enjoy the support. Also, still nothing. And to echo my alliance mates once more, you Scared NPO, TPF, 64D, Legion, Invicta, Sanatarium, NAC? [/quote] Look man, I generally really dislike addressing nations on a personal basis, since I think it's rude and tends to devolve into trolling and personal insults, but you've got one offensive war against an unaligned. You do realize that you can declare on our guys, too? It doesn't have to all be one way.

[quote name='Velox' timestamp='1296155097' post='2605913'] its a figure of speech in order to show how unprepared you are. i'm not at liberty to say a thing. [/quote] Don't try and use falsified statistics, it's confusing to people who don't realize you're making em up. There's a word for that: slander.

[quote name='Velox' timestamp='1296150987' post='2605818'] okay this is "reason","The Legion" has 345 members,therefore what i meant was your members have WC's with less than 345 of that nation's currency,get it? on top of being terrible terrible fighters you're quite uneducated. [/quote] I find that very hard to believe, unless you're talking about some extremely small nations. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though: let me know which Legionnaire has a warchest of less than $345. I'll go yell at them.

[quote name='SiCkO' timestamp='1296110068' post='2604959'] Best of luck Legion, It's a shame we had to end up on the same side. [/quote] I must be missing something.

[quote name='KingEd' timestamp='1296107981' post='2604853'] Whatever the "strategy" [size="1"]It's Legion, can't give them too much credit.[/size] it will not change the outcome simply because they are Legion. [/quote] Such brilliant repartee. Such creativity. Such wit. Such thought provoking arguments.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1288136935' post='2493853'] Oh lord. Not only does that war hardly highlight legion's ability due to the fact it was fighting an outnumbered [i]\m/[/i] (iirc) but it was in [i]2007[/i]. [/quote] And Vanguard v. Legion was in 2008. I figured so long as we were dragging up dirt from forever ago we should do it on an even footing. I don't have statistics from the more recent wars, but if someone would like to bring those up that would be fine, so long as we attempt to stay on topic.

Apologies, double post.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288090872' post='2493493'] Look, this is getting repetitive, so I'll leave it at this. If you think that the idea of a victory is to have 11x more damage dealt to you than you dealt out, to have all of your demands for peace rejected, to have the final peace resolution be discussed in a process that you were not involved in, and to receive a fraction of one nation's warchest simply so both your opponents and your own allies would no longer have to put up with your idiocy, then The Legion has more problems than most people realise. I guess it shouldn't surprise me that The Legion have such a warped view of what actually went on in the war; not only did you fail to put up any form of fight, but the peace process was conducted by other powers because of The Legion's incompetence. Keep on aiming high, Lincongrad. [/quote] I think we're pretty much agreed here. Legion performed poorly in the war, and poorly in the peace talks. Despite this, we recieved a nominal sum and a nominal victory. Thus, while technically Potato is wrong, you are correct in pointing out that the example of the Vanguard/Legion was is by no means a sparkling example of Legion fortitude, and it would have been better for Leo to focus on some of the other far more comprehensive victories of the Legion in recent times. The UjW, for instance. Leo, I believe, arrived relatively recently in the Legion and thus was not sure which example could be best used. [quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288090872' post='2493493'] What? [/quote] In order to show a lack of improvement, a before and after comparison is generally a good idea. Stating that an alliance is terrible at one point does not show a lack of improvement. [quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288090872' post='2493493'] Looking at fighting ability and efficiency isn't an oversimplification of the issues when fighting ability and efficiency is exactly the topic of discussion! [/quote] Ah, ok. So you were just focusing on that section of the debate. Understood. [quote name='goldielax25' timestamp='1288098936' post='2493536'] It can be two years after NoCB, and 6 months after they disbanded, but as per this thread Vanguard still seems to be taking Legion behind the woodshed. The difference in the rationality and intelligence of the two camps' arguments is striking. [/quote] I appreciate the insult to my intelligence. I have been attempting to keep an open mind, make reasonable concessions, and, although I am a member of one of the parties being discussed and thus it goes directly against my patriotic instincts, admit where I see flaws. Sometimes I wonder why I try and debate reasonably, instead of simply resorting to personal attacks. It seems to be the most successful mode of debate around here. Classy. Thank you Denial for NOT doing what goldielax25 just did. Cheers.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288083037' post='2493465'] Where exactly was I every saying potato was correct/incorrect? That's irrelevant. I was taking issue with the claim that The Legion 'defeated' Vanguard and the idea that any of the hardships that The Legion have faced have forced any sort of improvement whatsoever. Edited for clarity. [/quote] The whole reason Legion's performance against Vanguard, which resulted in an at least nominal Legion victory (don't pay reps if you don't think you've been defeated! Again, look up the definition of defeat!), was brought up was because it was used as a counterexample to Potato's assertion. You're saying that the entire reason that Vanguard is at all being mentioned in regards to the OP is irrelevant? I guess we've been arguing different points for a while, then. In addition, a proof against improvement would involve a change or lack thereof element in your statistics, yes? Also, solely looking at fighting ability as an area of potential improvement is a vast oversimplification of the issues. Edited for (relative =P) clarity as well.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1288074841' post='2493433'] I could add in Universalis and PAIN, who consituted an additional 25 to 30 nations against you. In turn, it would only be fair to add in UPN and Invicta, who constituted an additional ~500 or so nations against ours. The statistics I provided, if anything, put The Legion's performance in a more positive light. The fact that The Legion's military performance is still horrendous by all measurements even after a slightly positive spin has been put on your war capabilities really does say something. Though, I must admit, Invicta and UPN don't really count as real opponents, what with the anarchying of [i]themselves[/i] on the first night and all. This is really a piss-poor argument, as Banksy has already outlined rather well. Vanguard couldn't stand the test of time? Ha. This assertion really does give insight into the core driving force of The Legion; the pursuit of mediocrity above all else. If the only measure you can use to praise your own alliance is merely that you have [i]existed[/i], then all I can do is laugh. You want to know the difference between Vanguard and The Legion, and why the former was far more successful than the latter? Vanguard had a purpose, a driving and uniting ideology, and overall goals. The Legion, however, has always lacked these. There is nothing that defines The Legion outside of merely existing as a useless, impotent collection of Cyberlard. Once Vanguard reached its rather lofty objectives that were set in stone from our very founding - that is, to topple Pacifica and the Hegemony - we set in motion the necessary processes to develop a structure that would be most capable of enforcing the new order we had fought for. The solution found, by both Vanguard and the Mushroom Kingdom, was to merge and amalgamate our talent, experience, and power. I would say it has worked rather well. Merely surviving as a useless shell does not validate, legitimise or compensate for The Legion's long history of myopic leadership, lack of foreign policy independence, ignorant members, and piss-poor performance by every gauge of efficiency and activity. Nor does the fact that an alliance that has previously bested you in the field of battle has now merged mean that members of said alliance cannot call you out on misinformation and remind you of this history. In four and a half years of existence, all The Legion has accomplished is simply that: existence. You have had less impact than alliances one quarter of your age, and one tenth of your size. Congratulations. We paid roughly $150m to The Legion. We paid this sum after The Legion initially put forth the figure of $3 billion, which according to your government at the time, was only a fraction of the damage we had done. We sought peace due to the request of Universalis that we do so, and because we did not wish to see our other allies - Ragnarok and Echelon - be fighting on two fronts. Your own allies blasted your alliance for its ignorance, and forced you to accept this paltry total, lest you be left alone to face not only Vanguard/PAIN/Universalis - who were firmly handing your ass to you on a platter - but the combined force of Ragnarok, Echelon and (surprisingly enough) GGA. To put the reparations in perspective, $150m was only a fraction of the warchest I personally had remaining at the conclusion of the war, and took us all of two weeks to pay. That never happened. Check the peace accords; there is no admission of defeat nor recognition of surrender. We paid a measly sum of money to free ourselves of having to speak to the likes of Blissy, Assarax, and Konkrage. Vanguard entered this discussion because what constitutes a victory for The Legion appears to be taking several times more damage than your opponents. To use your words, that is why we affirm that The Legion sucks. And see my above points regarding your 'survival'. Would you like to re-enact the war? I would happily take another 14% off of The Legion's strength, while only losing 2.5% of our own. It could be a gentlemanly duel over the course of a week. We could select ~100 or so Mushroom Kingdom members to battle against the entirety of The Legion, as this would represent the previous disparity in numbers between Vanguard and The Legion quite well. [/quote] In an attempt to stop the derailing from getting too far out of hand, I'm going to go ahead and connect this back to the OP. Potato claimed that Legion has almost no victories under our belt as a means of invalidating the OP. He was wrong (sure, let's count the Vanguard war as a Legion defeat despite every definition of defeat! And let's go ahead and claim that paying reps aren't a symbol of admitted defeat!... even so we still have 4/9 victories or 5/10 victories, depending on which scale you use). Therefore, the example of the Legion supports the OP when the says OP that going through a lot (victories OR defeats) hardens an alliance and makes it stronger in the long run. In other words, despite your statistics, despite your revisionism, and despite your lack of a dictionary, Potato is still incorrect. EDIT: If you would like to continue to discuss Legion's goals, war performance, etc, contact me by PM or on IRC. I'd welcome a chance to discuss the Legion's history and goals with you. I will be the first to admit the Legion-Vanguard war was not our shining moment, although I tend to be more concerned with reasons that you seem to have missed. But the mods have spoken, and further derailment on my part is most likely a poor idea.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1287985662' post='2492603'] Nowhere did Potato say that Legion had only one victory. Therefore this [i]"Leo's point was countering the assertion that Legion has only had a single victory"[/i] is clearly false. [/quote] Wars of the Legion (from CN Wiki): The Prussian War - Legion Victory Second Polar War - Legion Victory WSA War - Not counting this one since it's pretty much purely a rogue action GWI - Legion Victory GWIII - Legion Defeat Dove War -Legion Defear UjW - Legion Victory Universalis/Poseidon War - Legion Victory (although, as we can see, this one can be debated) Karma War - Legion Defeat Second UjW - Legion Defeat That's 5 victories out of 9 wars if we don't count the WSA war, which was also a victory. So Potato is wrong regardless. Leo assumed that Potato was accusing us of only winning a few wars, and decided that he (Leo) would draw the line at one and seek to prove Potato wrong at that point. Since that wasn't enough for you, I've dug up what relevant information I could find.

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1287953074' post='2492229'] The argument you give would certainly be valid if vanguard was given as an example of an alliance that "stands the test of time." Vanguard actually came into the story when leo countered potato's assertion that Legion has a poor military record with the fact that Legion defeated Vanguard two years previously. As you can see, Vanguard was used by leo to claim that Legion had a strong military because they defeated them. Denial pointed out that Legion and their allies managed to do 13 days worth of damage to Vanguard despite a huge NS difference, so counting it as any Legion victory was ridiculous. [/quote] Leo's point was countering the assertion that Legion has only had a single victory, not saying that Legion was a great military power. This is incorrect. GWI. UjW. Vanguard conflict. Yes, I count the Vanguard conflict as a victory. Even though Vanguard and her allies did vastly more damage to Legion than Legion did to Vanguard (again, I'd like to see the statistics counted with all of the combatants involved with both Legion and Vanguard. I'd also like to reiterate that Legion continued fighting after Vanguard peaced out.), the Legion still won. Unless you've changed the definition of defeat.[OOC] Were you aware that according to wikipedia the battle of thermopylae was a greek defeat?[/OOC]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1287918772' post='2491950'] I find it simply hilarious that you are still spouting this rubbish that you somehow defeated Vanguard because they merged into MK.[/quote] Not what he said. [quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1287918772' post='2491950'] you turn around and claim that somehow Legion is superior than Vanguard because years later they decided to merge.[/quote] This is what he said, in the context of the OP. Those are two different things. He's claiming we defeated Vanguard because they surrendered. Now, the point I'm trying to make here, which is a separate point from Leo's and which is not meant to necessarily back his, is that dismissing Legion in this thread because of a page of skewed war statistics which don't show the whole picture, while pushing Vanguard as a huge success, is very puzzling to me. I think Vanguard did pretty damn well for themselves, yes. They merged into a powerful alliance and now the former leaders of Vanguard continue to influence the cyberverse from a position of power. However, since the OP concerns the survival and resilience of alliance, using Vanguard as an example of why Legion sucks is simply a poor idea, and meaningless. In otherwords, I think you may be interpreting Leonidas' point as an attack on Vanguard as opposed to a post meant to point out the oddness of bringing up Vanguard's successes in a thread about survival.

[quote name='Denial' timestamp='1287807450' post='2491077'] Let us examine [url="http://uevil.maybe.net/2008-08-22_R.png"]some statistics[/url], shall we? [b]The day prior to the outbreak of the Vanguard/Legion conflict, the 15th August:[/b] [i]Total strength.[/i] [color="#FF8C00"][b]Vanguard:[/b][/color] 1,514,650 [color="#9932CC"][b]The Legion:[/b][/color] 3,038,090 [b]The day the peace settlement came into effect, the 22nd August:[/b] [i]Total strength.[/i] [color="#FF8C00"][b]Vanguard:[/b][/color] 1,476,191 [color="#9932CC"][b]The Legion:[/b][/color] 2,627,294 [b]Losses between 15th August and 22nd August:[/b] [i]Total strength.[/i] [color="#FF8C00"][b]Vanguard:[/b][/color] -38,459 (-2.54%) [color="#9932CC"][b]The Legion:[/b][/color] -410,796 (-13.52%) Bit of a difference there, wouldn't you say? Now that we've examined the damage done during the war, let's take a look at how long both alliances took to recover following it. The relevant statistics can be found [url="http://uevil.maybe.net/2008-09-04_R.png"]here[/url] and [url="http://uevil.maybe.net/2008-11-12_R.png"]here[/url]. Keeping in mind the standings on the day prior to the war, the 15th of August: [b]The day prior to the outbreak of the Vanguard/Legion conflict, the 15th August:[/b] [i]Total strength.[/i] [color="#FF8C00"][b]Vanguard:[/b][/color] 1,514,650 [color="#9932CC"][b]The Legion:[/b][/color] 3,038,090 [b]The date Vanguard and The Legion regained their pre-war strength:[/b] [color="#FF8C00"][b]Vanguard:[/b][/color] 4th September (13 days after peace was reached) [color="#9932CC"][b]The Legion:[/b][/color] 12th November (82 days after peace was reached) So, between the 15th of August and 12th of November, let's take a look at the gains by each alliance: [b]Difference in strength between 15th of August and 12th of November:[/b] [i]Total strength.[/i] [color="#FF8C00"][b]Vanguard:[/b][/color] +495,036 [color="#9932CC"][b]The Legion:[/b][/color] +2,439 I love pulling that analysis out every now and then. [/quote] Question: what do the statistics look like if you add in the other people Legion was fighting and the other people Vanguard was fighting? I'm not saying we did particularly well, but I'm pretty sure that's a quite skewed set of statistics there. Then again, I've been wrong before. EDIT: Also, in regards to the regaining of prewar strength we had the fun of dealing with quite a few nuclear nations (11, I believe?) who unloaded into our ranks and continued to fire after Vanguard peaced out. We had a longer war. EDIT EDIT: Now that I think about it, I'm not even sure why these stats are relevant. We're still alive, therefore our example works. Saying we suck isn't a counterpoint. Now if you want to rage against Legion, try making a point like CRex, that we've never led CN. That's a lot more valid and relevant.

GOONS is welcome to discuss their case with me at any time. I'll be in #thelegion a lot or they can simply send someone over to the forums and shoot me a PM.

[quote name='Drai' timestamp='1284810221' post='2457163'] Activity maybe? You had your alliance pm'd to vote for us, and have likely had the help of a number of OWF voters yet you still can't get much more than 100 votes thrown in our direction. [/quote] Pretty sure most of those are MK voters. We have a rather small presence on the BBs, and I'm pretty sure some of us voted for ourselves instead of MK. Or other alliances. I personally voted Sparta, although I'm reconsidering after seeing some of their posts about the improvements they've made since Karma/BiPolar. [quote name='Drai' timestamp='1284810221' post='2457163'] And just because you're trying to get better doesn't mean you are. At least not at a very good rate. [/quote] Sure, but it makes the 'Why don't you just listen to us and improve yourselves' argument a little odd. While we don't think we're as bad as you lot say, we recognize that we have faults, and are trying to fix em.

I'm always slightly puzzled by what people want us to change. Military performance? Of course, we will always be trying to improve that. Average Nation Strength? Duh, it's going up all the time. WRCs? Manhattans? Of course, we're working on it. It seems to me that many of the reasons we're disliked are political, which isn't surprising at all, and which I tend to discount, given our current side of the treaty web. There's a reason we're here, like it or not. So... what can we correct that isn't political, and isn't simply a matter of time and efforts at more effective growth?

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1284497774' post='2453895'] Anyone remember the time Legion had threaten to call in Q because they were getting flattened by Vangaurd, an alliance around 1/6th their size? I sure as hell do. [/quote] Wow. Revisionist history much?

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1284436318' post='2453260'] You tried to 'get to know the ODN better' completely out of the blue after months of not talking. At the time, we said "Uh, look who you're allied to" and then suddenly you dropped Valhalla and BAPS and said something on the lines of "there are more on the way." Either the treaties were dropped as a response to Nemesis or the ODN or some other alliance on our side of things, but it doesn't exactly tie in with your story, sorry. [/quote] ...or the Valhalla and BAPS treaties were dropped as a result of us disliking various actions/attitudes of the alliance in question. Val and BAPS were not dropped in order to please anyone. We don't let others dictate our foreign policy. If you look at the history of attempts to rekindle ORRPLE, that's how it tends to go. There are long periods of not talking, occasionally interspersed with one side or the other attempting to reach out.

[quote name='wickedj' timestamp='1284421975' post='2452921'] you mean like ODN? Also stop !@#$%^&*ting you tried to kiss up to Nemesis [/quote] Our various attempts at rekindling relations with ODN were, to my knowledge, not intended to try and switch us onto the other side of the treaty web. In fact, if I remember correctly, the main block to rekindling relations is that it would involve us switching sides of the treaty web. Apparently. ...we liked Nemesis. We wanted a treaty with them. I'm not sure what else you're trying to imply. I've personally never liked being piegonholed onto one side of the treaty web. I like having lots of friends, with lots of opinions, and lots of non-chaining treaties.

Catch me on IRC sometime, LF. We need to talk about your application/what exactly happened there. I never heard anything about that.

[quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1284407267' post='2452547'] 1. Didn't help IRON when they were fighting Gramlins. [/quote] We were kept out by our terms. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1284407267' post='2452547'] 2. Kept the UPN treaty when I was saying it should be dropped even before I posted that thread, and then had them cancel it, making you look like fools in the process. [/quote] Dunno too much about this one, but I assume we had the normal reluctance to drop an ally. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1284407267' post='2452547'] 3. Threatening GATO over accepting Clockwise. [/quote] Yup, stupid move IMO. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1284407267' post='2452547'] 4. Approaching Nemesis and asking for a treaty based off the fact that "we need to show that we can work with people on the SG side" which was a laughable attempt at trying to suck up to the powers that be. [/quote] We liked Nemesis, and had been interacting with them a lot. It seemed logical to try for a treaty. If we wanted to suck up we'd go grovel directly to the powerful ones. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1284407267' post='2452547'] 5. Re-signing the NPO treaty without the knowledge of the general membership or even senior staff. At the time I was incensed enough by the fact that you guys re-signed it, which caused you to lose OMFG as an ally, and likely played a part in losing IRON. But then I found out from MatttheGreat that he hadn't even heard about the treaty until it was on the OWF and there was a thread made in Legion Discussions, and he was a Senior Envoy in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. [/quote] I knew, and the discussion had been going on for a LONG time, both formally and informally. Pay more attention. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1284407267' post='2452547'] 6. Oh, and then you cancelled on BAPS and Valhalla, two of the most stalwart allies out there, insinuating that some other alliance was playing puppet master and wanted you to drop them so that you could sign a treaty. And then no treaty was forthcoming. [/quote] No, we cancelled on BAPS and Valhalla cause we didn't like what they were doing/their attitude/their treatment of us. That was Arb's flubbed delivery. As I said, he is no longer in gov. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1284407267' post='2452547'] 7. General incompetance also caused the cancellation of the Nueva Vida ODP and the TOOL PIAT [/quote] No, that would be called having KWIV leave a long time ago and then contact going downhill. I guess that could be viewed as incompetence, but I'd say it was more an issue of losing the connection that he provided. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1284407267' post='2452547'] 8. You decided to finally drop Purple Unity simply because you were to lazy to maintain the pretense of being involved. [/quote] ...no. We tried, several times, to ressurect it and only left once it was clear that it was already far gone. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1284407267' post='2452547'] 9. In addition, you had the general mayhem caused by Feibelman and Arbiter, with cries of racism and nazism being thrown around, and respected members like LMC and Gunnar being run out of the place in public displays. [/quote] Two points: First, LMC is possibly the biggest drama llama around, and disobeyed a direct order backed up by the entire gov. That was not Arb's fault. The situation with Gunnar, however, should never have happened. Strong warnings were issued, and like I said, Arb is no longer a member of gov. [quote name='Lord Fingolfin' timestamp='1284407267' post='2452547'] 10. You made this thread, pulling a textbook "feed the troll", generally making yourself terribly foolish, and allowing those who have a distaste for you to once again come out and mock you. [/quote] Not really interested in answering this one... I'll just say that it is quite unsurprising that those who dislike us mock us, since they do that with or without an excuse such as this thread. EDIT: I haven't done my fact checking on this stuff, this is all direct from memory. If any of the points are contested I'll definitely look them up.

Apologies, double post.

The GWIII section of my post was in regards to the Paper Tiger label (a label which stemmed from that era). See my above post regarding Pez. Of course we weren't trying to go above and beyond during Karma and the BiPolar War. We thought the reason for war in both cases was pretty much complete bull, which helped contribute to our lack of will to die for dumb decisions. Nonetheless, we never joined the ranks of the CoC and were unwaveringly dedicated to honoring our treaties. Now, few things I'll go ahead and address: 1) Our performance against Sparta was good, not just based on growth charts (which, as you say, were influenced by other alliances), but also on constant reports from our nations as well as various wartime statistics such as anarchies, lack of enemy warchests, destruction caused on a personal level, etc. While it is of course risky to generalize from merely some reports, when one pushes forward across the board one feels a little safer giving generalizations. In addition, keep in mind that we were being hit by several small but high power, and some not so small, alliances in addition to Sparta. 2) Correct we were fighting Sparta. Note that I'm not claiming that we're ZOMG THE BEST MILITARY FORCE EVAR!!! 3) The false peace. Ah, the false peace. This is pretty much a perfect example of everyone simply seeing the worst in the Legion just because of bad rep. I've explained this a few times now, but I guess I'll go again. Legion goes to Sparta et al discussing white peace. Sparta demands reps. Negotiations ensue. Sparta et al decide that white peace is fine, but fail to get a yes on white peace from Legion (assuming it was implied by our initiation of the discussions themselves). Legion, not ready to quit, rushed a cabinet vote to overturn the peace decision, a decision which had never in fact been made. Legionnaires got very defensive over the fact that we were being unjustly accused of sucking/screwing over the peace talks. Hostile words ensued (and this is the only place in the incident where I think things were out of line on our end), during which Sparta decided that white peace was unacceptable and that reps would be imposed going on. I find it quite odd that people who never took the time to look at the logs claim to have full knowledge of the story. 4) LF was out of line, and LF was fired and then left the alliance. End of story. That said, I really do appreciate the relatively succinct and proactive nature of your criticisms. We are taking action to assure that several of these problems cannot happen again. For one, we're going to make it so that the alliance who surrenders is the one who posts their surrender. Easy fix to a bad situation there. And of course we're working on improving our military, ghost busting, and attempting to improve the quality of our OWF posters. We've had a rather long tradition of radio silence on the BBs, and it's taking us time to find our stride. Also, Arbiter is no longer gov, if he's the one you're referring to as the 'unique' one. That information, though, should be taken in alongside the fact that many of Arb's detractors are by no means the best nation leaders in the world. Questions? Disclaimer: I will admit, my memory of the exact statistics of the Karma and BiPolar wars are hazy, and therefore my views on the war against Sparta are merely recollections of alliance battle reports, my own opponents, and a few other factors.