Rhizoctonia

Devildogs/Jarheads I believe would fit this bill for not only their short existence, but their actions

No, trust me, you've already taken the complete idiot role. That's saying a lot when you have some stiff competition with the likes of Tywin

Congratulations on this milestone!

Congrats to both on peace.

QFT He likes to think people do though. The damage he causes can be undone 100x over by a simple aid drop, but he likes to brag as if his wars mean anything

We fully grasp the plan of slow playing that your side has implemented in the hope the longer this drags out and the longer it took to get more alliances in, the more likely our coalition would start to fall apart. The difference is, you continue to spit propaganda about what Umbrella/Aztec are trying to do or plan for which is not the case, and just a load of crap.

Find me a coalition where everything has always been rainbows and butterflies? When you're dealing with two large coalitions, not everyone is going to be 100% happy with everything that happens. I would imagine that's a common theme on both the winning side and the losing side, it's hard to please everyone's wants or wishes. Just look at the last two wars for example. You can keep spitting out this narrative/propaganda all you'd like, your hope of trying to cause turmoil in our coalition is not going to work though. In regards to changing target selections...that also isn't uncommon. As war progresses and how things domino, there's always discussions about making sure the setup is the not only what alliances want, but that it's also the best way to cover alliances on the other side. And those discussions weren't solely done by Aztec and Umbrella, but by many alliances within the coalition.

Lol...now that's comical. Everyone knows your comment was in regards to this war not last, but since you talked yourself in a hole, you try to find a way out. Good attempt, but quite a fail

And yet you skip Samus's question he asked you all together

To be perfectly honest, at the current moment, FTW has 1 aggressive war against Polar and 1 defensive war against Polar. Sure, Val may have stopped another alliance from declaring on FTW, but MHA hitting them would be helping out Sparta/TOP a lot more then you. If MHA was looking to support you, then there are a lot better alliance options out there that are attacking you then an alliance who have 1 active war aggressively engaged with you'll.

You have openly said you will/already pushed for cancellation from Valhalla following this war because they didn't come to your aid, and then you come out and say that you fully agree with their current stance because they have conflicting treaties. So what one is it? Either you can understand where they're coming from and why they don't want to commit to one side or the other and thus you calling them out and wanting to cancel makes zero sense, or you don't understand or respect the position they're in, and thus your last post would make zero sense. I could understand if the reason you would want to cancel on them is different FA paths, but that's not the reason you've openly said/portrayed for pushing for a cancellation. I would agree that this type of post would of been a lot better if it was posted earlier on. How far along the war is already, I believe they would of been better off not posting anything and just remaining neutral, as they've now opened themselves up to being bashed by some publicly, but nonetheless you either understand their situation and why they want to stay neutral, or you don't. You've basically have called them out for not coming to your side, along with saying you understand their reasoning for wanting to stay out of it. They could of entered on either side of this war in defense of an ally, and we all know had they picked to come in for defense of someone like IRON who is on the "winning side," they would of been treated as they're now and worse for choosing the winning side.

Yea Starfox, you better not forget it! Know your damn place, or Tywim will put you in it. This response from Tywin may be the best I've read. I certainly laughed reading the first sentence. Tywin trying to act tough is funny as hell.

If that's what they wanted to do, and they put themselves in a position where they felt a good advantage of preempting us right after this war, then kudos to them. Would I care? No not really, they are free to make the choices they want to, just as anyone else. Now if that involved breaking peace agreements that were made after the conclusion of this war, then they'd have to live with the consequences of that, but that's a ways off. You act as if most of the CB's are anything more then the interest in rolling another alliance. That's all the cbs ever are, so anyone pulling such a move would not be anything of surprise nor a reason to get pissed, it's all it ever has been.

I would agree with this. Most times, it's pretty evident how things are played out the reasoning one alliance is hitting another, or why certain alliances are on one side or the other, but it's not, as you mentioned, always boldly said. It's really become how to manipulate the treaty web so that things can fall as one would hope, and looking to find the best entrance which may not be directly hitting the one or multiple "main" targets, but causing the targets to get chained in. This can be pretty evident by Disorder and the current conflict. Though I think some just wanted something to happen, and willing to fight whoever just to have some excitement. That comes back to the mess that is the treaty web which is the primary cause of the lack of wars per year, and the reasoning of why the aggressors in wars look for the best strategic entrance into a war in regards to the web and how things will domino, and set it up so the alliances who are really the target to be chained in, and then countered by alliances with a grudge with them. As wes the wise mentioned here, grudges can't be settled between just two alliances killing one another either. Usually one alliance has a bigger advantage, thus the underdog calls in an ally which gives them the advantage, and then the back and forth happens, and is why there's only one real important war a year, because people know if they look to settle a grudge, it's bound to become something a lot larger and have to plan for the expected counters.

If you're looking for every war to have a relevant CB, you're going to be continually disappointed. In this game, there's never hardly anything really one alliance or the other do that actually deserve to be attacked for. The game mechanics doesn't allow for something heinous to really be done for an alliance to say, enough is enough. Sure, if a team color senator went on a sanction spree on one alliance or the other, or a spy is caught stealing information for another alliance, or even some could say "poaching" members is a plausible reason to go to war (which obviously isn't enough to cause one since MI6 was never declared on for such actions). The reality is, there's hardly ever a real CB besides just to settle a past grudge, or some bad ending to past relations. You act as if many of the past wars besides this one really had much of a real reason to start besides one side looking to settle a beef or a good opportunity has shown itself to weaken a possible threat in the future This war, be it no CB or not, is being fought for reasons. Many on the aggressor side of this war have their many reasons for this war to happen, and the whole "why are we fighting this war," is likely more on the losing side of conflict, not the winning. You may look at it and ask yourself, why are we fighting this, but others have plenty of reasons to be doing so, be it settling grudges, boredom, etc. This war began without looking to scrape together some half ass CB to make a reason for it to start. Is this a bad thing? Unlike you, I do not see this as a bad thing. The whole idea you're trying to push would only cause this game to become a bigger bore then what it already has, because waiting on some alliance to do some "grievance" is like watching paint dry, because there's only a few things an alliance can really do to "warrant" an attack by another alliance. In my eyes, one of those "grievances" could be some alliance just goes and attacks another. Wouldn't that be a grievance? So, what DS did was a grievance and gave Invicta's allies a CB to attack in defense. There's your CB right there. DS caused a "grievance" and thus this war started. I have no clue what you expect an alliance to do to another to give them a good reason to attack other then a past beef. What CB are you looking for to be substantial enough for someone to go to war with them? Hell, if someone wanted to really start a war, one could purposely get caught spying on another to hope the victim alliance attacks the spying alliance. But even then, what's the point? So you go to leaps and bounds to instigate a war on purpose...how is that any different then just saying screw it, lets just declare. If an alliance wants to go to war with an alliance, why go to so much trouble to force a reason for an alliance to attack, instead of just doing it? We're stuck to the confines of the game in what an alliance can do to another besides declare war/attack and !@#$ talking on OWF to instigate it. War is driven by grudges, and one or a group of alliances seeing an opportunity to strike a enemy and get revenge for some past grudge from years ago that one side felt wronged. Waiting around, for some reasonable CB on this game to start a war is going to drive people away quicker then it already has. We're already on a trend of having really only one major war a year because everyone knows if an alliance hit another, especially a larger alliance hitting another, is not just going to stick to just those alliances, but spread out.

Rofl, thanks for the good laugh on all your answers. This right here might win you comedian of the year.

It was a good battle. Shoutout to both Doch and Gibson from MI6, both fought hard even with odds and numbers stacked against them and some good coordination with attacks on our side against them both. Had some great dialogue and conversations through it all, and though both lost about 50% of their original NS & ZIed , both remained in good spirit and friendly through it all. By far some of the funnest to fight, and both kept fighting instead of turtling, so can't ask for more then that. Maybe we'll meet again later in this war!

Congrats on joining the "Ihave nothing to add to anything but I need to post something for a larger post count and feel special" club. You even got me to do the same with your pointless posts all over

Because he tries so hard to become relevant in every topic that he must post stupid shit to turn the focus on him.

Wow just an insightful post, please tell us more

Have fun FTW! Enjoy the casualties

Congratulations to everyone involved. Well fought *edit - damn autocorrect

Bot wars in 3,2,1...

TOP's Upper Tier

Don't worry, Mogar forgot we took any (more)