Banksy

[quote name='flak attack' timestamp='1340596560' post='2995071'] Whoa, Methax might get to fight two rounds this war. Bet he never expected that to happen. [/quote] and yet he still manages to evade damage... LUCKY DUCKY

[quote name='Cerridwyn' timestamp='1340588586' post='2994908'] Yes, Banksy's was unique, but does anyone know if anyone has done a standard war graphic yet this time around? There are usually several out there. [/quote] yeah sorry it's out of date and there was confusion over who RIA was, it's updated now [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lQxYH.png[/IMG]

ODN this is just unfair.

that OP is quite the novel.

- tR is a terrible alliance and an insult to its ancestor - NPL is just a terrible alliance - LSF is a lost cause and a political sham I really don't think there's an issue here

[quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1340358195' post='2992610'] I like the visual style of this one in particular but they're all pretty great. [/quote] yeah it's similar to some i drew a couple of wars ago i think, i really like that style but I haven't used it since. [b]Just some tips on image work for people here.[/b] Message: The one thing which i never like about propaganda is when it's "rar rar rar we are destroying our enemies" when the alliance in question clearly is not. I think my favourites from this thread (and all threads really) are when they make fun of the enemy or some claim of the enemy rather than "we will crush you." It'd be cool if people did that more often as that is generally the best. Backgrounds: The other thing is to not clutter your images. d34th does a good job of having blank backgrounds with a minimal amount of textures. What i find works is if i download a 'rust pack' or some other sort of texture pack (you can find these on sites like deviant art) make it black and white, and 5-10% transparency and place it over a block of colour to give it some depth, but not cluttered. Font: For text, find a good font. i've found a few free ones which are nice and bold, with good lettering shapes and, of course, are free. Using the basic photoshop/gimp fonts looks a bit amateur, i find. Images: If you can't draw them then you want to get something either cartoonish so you can easily cut it out with the pen tool or go to a site which has pre-made renders (i think this is what d34th/world conqueror have been doing itt, someone like Gairyuki (in MK, hasn't done much this war i'm afraid, generally draws them)). Make sure to not have too many. Size: 150x450 is the maximum size on these forums, but I think 120x400 looks an awful lot better. experimenting with the size is good. You don't need massive, cluttery pictures to get your point across. example: so while it's fine to use 150x450 sizes, think about what you're putting forward. Examples (mainly mine i'm afraid). None of these require any sort of real technical skill except perhaps the final one, especially if the alliances already have .pngs of their images and symbols [spoiler]NB: I went through some old sigs I have on this computer and realised most of what I was saying here goes back to these sigs we did 2 years ago [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/I168X.jpg[/IMG] They had a simple message, text, image etc. It wasn't cluttered and people remembered them. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/2RIxg.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/zxYev.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/qb3RU.gif[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/fqLT8.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/fhHNV.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/PPkKn.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/lVStz.gif[/IMG] (admittedly this one is a bit cluttered due to the drawing but it's the simple message it's illustrating [/spoiler] It'd be cool if d34th could supply some of his older ones too (the pepsi/coke one still gets a regular mention even 3 years later) as he's had a good graphical style, especially in the last 2 years. NB: yeah that got really long and I imagine it seems very self-promotional but it started off with the best intentions!

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1340523525' post='2994291'] Your side says that Sparta are horrible fighters and at the same time make 3 alliances declare on them while ignoring GOD, go figure... [/quote] - criticises alliances for 'no cb wars' - criticises alliances for not attacking uninvolved parties - is d34th

[quote name='Geerland' timestamp='1340527153' post='2994309'] Yes, because we had agreeded with MK beforehand that we would stay out... Oh wait, I don't think that happened, and Sparta attacked an MD ally of ours while holding no treaty with us. Of course we are not allowed to hit them. [/quote] look son, 4 years ago you didn't follow your polaris treaty and 5 years ago you balked on gda (or whatever) so don't you tell d34th what's what.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1340523543' post='2994292'] IRON, lapdogs as ever. [/quote] - user d34th is unable to distinguish past from present across these forums for the last, what, 3 years? - user d34th is in sta - user d34th calls out other alliance for being a lapdog [img]http://i48.tinypic.com/261kfes.gif[/img]

[quote name='kingly' timestamp='1340517850' post='2994259'] I think we really need a graphic of the current declarations [/quote] I imagine this will clear everything up [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/sSfgH.png[/IMG]

This is so great.

[quote name='Starfox101' timestamp='1340333646' post='2992356'] You did that [i]all[/i] by yourself? [/quote] yeah sorry ttk is a good alliance they lasted 19 hours against mk [i]and[/i] goons [i]and[/i] 3 umbrella nations.

[quote name='LittleRena' timestamp='1340317577' post='2992172'] We've got another parrot in here. He's not going to answer that question, so you might as well stop asking, you look silly. [/quote] he's not going to answer it because it clearly isn't true.

[quote name='berbers' timestamp='1340316908' post='2992160'] Omni, get out. [/quote] berbers who from our side asked you not to enter the war?

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1340315536' post='2992145'] I do know 10 digit war chests make fighting easy for large nations once they get knocked down so the war in regards to my plan would be difficult but it is at least different than what is currently happening. The goal would be to shred MK tech levels as much as possible. Perhaps I assumed too much from what was my coalition, but I think it could be done if it was coordinated properly. How much tech would a 10k tech nation lose per day fighting 3 enemies? Conservatively...100 tech/day loss? 700 tech/week? 2800 tech/month? 4 months wipes out that 10k tech. YES, I know those are very rosy hopes and expectations. I would rather try this plan rather than continue the conventional plan that led in the past war to defeat and is leading to another defeat. The VietSF is the term I used to describe their plan when I heard it; it is not my plan (Banksy, you said I forget. No. [i]They[/i] forget). My plan would inflict more real damage to at least one AA compared to very little damage being inflicted to several AAs. Their plan is to destroy the lower tiers with nations that get knocked down and out of range of higher tier enemy nations and force attrition and war fatigue to the point that enemy nations 20k and below will be begging or demanding that their leadership bring the war to an end. Those smaller 20k and below nations may be easy to destroy but just as easy as they are to destroy, they will just as easily be rebuilt. Meaning that the long VietSF war they plan to fight will be pointless. There point is not to win the war, however, they do believe all they have to do is not lose and they think they can accomplish not losing with this, as I call it, VietSF war plan. I still like my plan better. The 20k nations their plan destroys will be rebuilt in 3-4 months, destroying MK tech levels if done with "zeal" (hey Heft ) could take much more time to rebuild perhaps as long as a year or more. Banksy, I don't care if they don't want me in their coalition channels. They don't listen anyway. Proof is in this conventional war they are rolling out. NATO and Sparta join the war to do what? I assume they joined the war on MK to do damage. How can damage be done on an alliance using good peace mode tactics and that has many slots full already making declaring wars difficult. I surely would have advised against NATO and Sparta going in. This is where wars are lost. Piss poor planning. It would be similar if ODN and International declared on CSN. What would be the point? This is why your coalition wins because you roll out to war properly and your opposition fails because they roll out just to roll out and have no clear objective. I may not be as respected or whatever regarding military tactics and war planning, but I think I have more of a clue than those leading this failed coalition. [/quote] lol it takes far longer than 4 months to strip 10k tech. when the infra goes, the only nations who can attack these 10k tech nations have 2-3 themselves. you really have no experience in war planning and i can see why no one listened to you. [quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1340315907' post='2992151'] I addressed the point of political capital mattering. If you want to keep pretending that it doesn't matter than go right ahead. I have no reason to try and convince you otherwise, and I don't expect you to consider what I have to say anyway, because you won't. Realize, you are responding to me, but it's the people who are lurking in the shadows I'm trying to reach in my writing, not MKer's. Feel free to keep responding though, it gives me reason to come out of my hole. [/quote] the people lurking in the shadows are really going to listen to the guy in no wars about how to fight wars and listen to the guy in the alliance which is a global joke about 'political capital' rather than the one who is in an alliance who has oyababy in it. [img]http://1000words1000days.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/GOB-ComeOn.jpg[/img]

[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1340314991' post='2992138'] You guys already know you won't last forever. Your leaders have already admitted that. I don't really need to say more, but good try. [/quote] no you do need to say more because you haven't addressed any of the points.

[quote name='Enamel32' timestamp='1340314238' post='2992123'] Yeah, that's entirely possible. I never said it wasn't. That doesn't mean you're coalition won't still bawwwwww, though. And I think you are just considering pixel loss, not political loss. MK and friends have a substantial amount of political capital to lose, that SF really....doesnt. That's more what I was really factoring, I guess. But now that I think about it, SF does have less pixels to lose as well. [/quote] mk has declared a war with no traditional cb for the last three wars in a row, clearly either this 'political capital' is limitless or it doesn't matter. sf does have fewer stats to lose, but all that means is that post-war you will be even more of a statistical irrelevancy than you are now. i'm sure next time everyone over 50k NS will go into PM and you'll be bragging about how you will dominate us in the 10-20k NS range, "which is the only one that really matters anyway."

[quote name='o ya baby' timestamp='1340313961' post='2992116'] thank you for your selective reading, mr dahl but the fact that he has less than 33% of the tech of his opponents and is keeping up with them in daily damages is quite pathetic for your front and makes us look amazing [/quote] so far every one of my 5 opponents has lost more NS than I have and I haven't done my attacks today or rebought (after someone nuked me with 100% of troops at home). these guys are useless.

[quote name='salsabeast1' timestamp='1340313207' post='2992100'] Shove your !@#$ back where it came from. Your alliance is a joke. [/quote] Alliance Name: The Templar Knights yeah this guy is the authority on joke alliances.

[quote name='Vol Navy' timestamp='1340311541' post='2992084'] Despite protestation from them, you can't discount the attention span factor in MK. They did indeed lose interest in DH/NPO to the point that many didn't bother fighting back despite having 1bn+ war chests. There isn't a way to take down their top tier due to UMB/TOP/NG having the balance of non-neutral ns at the top. [/quote] our enemies weren't fighting back either so there wasn't much point. the same thing would happen here, the war would scale down and we'd still be on top. @brehon, i'm always correct.

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1340300116' post='2991957'] I have logs, unfortunately, about the "war plan" being implemented which amounts to just sit there getting wrecked so top tier enemy nations our out of range leaving the fight to smaller tier nations where a numerical advantage supposedly exists. Attrition and nations begging their leadership to end the war...I came up with VietSuperFriends because it will be basically like VietFan only self imposed. You fungi are lucky no one listens to me or that the opposition is led by stat huggers and cowards. If an entire coalition were on board I would do a VietFungi and just tear you guys down for months even if it meant all coalition nations would be in peace mode and only coming out when it was there turn to fight to keep you well staggered and nuked. I wouldn't be afraid of your 70k+ nations. I would tear all MK nations down to well under 500 tech. MK crushed would be good even though it would lead to an eventual coalition defeat and the sacrifice of the coalition's top tiers. What other option is there? The current war plan sucks and building a bigger coalition to actually win a conventional war is years away if it ever happens at all. No risk, no reward. This no risk business gets them rolled anyway, might as well do something different and effective while you're at it. [/quote] Oh I was just linked to this post. While it does show initiative, it wouldn't actually have worked out the way you think because of a few misconceptions you've made (I don't know if you've had a large nation before so this properly isn't your fault). When large nations get knocked down to ~4k infra they have tiny bills compared to where they used to and their 1B+ warchests can last for months. The people they will be fighting will be 20-30k NS nations who have tiny warchests comparatively. Because of the tech difference, they get slaughtered and tend to turtle, nuking and sending CMs. In the end, the people 'winning' have a worse time of it because they actually have to be active etc. Besides, tearing down MK nations to 500 tech, while it would take well over half a year on some (we have a large number of 10k+ tech nations), wouldn't be that effective. As we've been hearing [i]ad nauseum[/i] on these boards, "mk is a terrible alliance at war who have been propped up by their allies." While it's obviously not true, it does highlight the fact that we do have some rather excellent allies. If you're not attacking them (and remember, you can't because they've hugely dominant right now) then at the end of this war, we'll still be allied to them. In addition to this, we have no incentive to go for peace with your guys. Going "VietSF" or whatever is all very well before the war starts, but it's a two way deal and you have to match us. We've consistently proven that we are probably the most active alliance on the planet (we still regularly have over half the alliance on irc at the same time during war, ~70 which I doubt anyone else could beat by numbers and almost no one could beat by percentage) and we are in a far better position to deal with an extended war than you are because we've had two of them post-karma. So really, any VietSF attempt is futile and fundamentally flawed because you forget that you're dealing with mk who are rather good at this war and politics thing and you clearly aren't (because it appears that no one wants you in their coalition channels).

[quote name='EgoFreaky' timestamp='1340309636' post='2992052'] I guess everyone will make sure to keep 1 gov member in PM at all times now. It's almost as if you don't want them to come out. [/quote] Is it a going concern that your government will try to surrender individually?

[quote name='Topside the Hun' timestamp='1340295787' post='2991893'] Spoken like a great warrior. A great warrior with no soldiers, no tanks, no ships, no planes, no tech, no nukes, and no chance. [/quote] yeah unlike you he's actually at war though right?

[quote name='jerdge' timestamp='1340257632' post='2991503'] As long as people find it funny and it's harmless, what's the problem with it? (Not saying that you shouldn't have asked about it, Heft.) [/quote] good old neutral opinion there

[quote name='lebubu' timestamp='1340276740' post='2991718'] lol at everyone targeting our lower tier [/quote] look at this upper tier eLLitist