Schad

Wes the Wise will reach your lower tier pretty quickly...he'll probably be down in the 25-30k range within a couple rounds. However, are few alliances with the sheer numbers of small nuclear-armed nations that NpO possesses; you could have 2-3 nations on him in that range for months without any one nation fighting him for more than a round, if so desired.

Can't say that TIR failed to give them sufficient time to reconsider their stance.

The Spy Who Rolled Me.

A comprehensive study shows this to be the swiftest and most justifiable cancellation in ages:

The War of Schad's CMs is still available.

This is, easily, the most productive interaction between our alliances in ages.

Caveat emptor, I suppose. A random I started a tech deal with a couple months back was several days into the process of reneging on the second tech payment when his nation disappeared. Dunno whether it was self-deletion or rules infringement, but if the latter, losing the first 100 tech in addition would've at least been a good reminder that I should stop throwing money at complete randoms and expecting anything good to come out of it.

At times like this, let us all remember that the power to heal is within reach of all of us. An eye for an eye leaves everyone without cruise missiles.

I rely on the honour of the global community to leave my cruise missiles alone. It would be a travesty if, say, my daily allotment of spy slots were filled with 'destroy CM' attacks from now until the end of this world.

I feel like insufficient attention is being devoted to the well-being of my cruise missiles.

While it would be something like Game of Thrones ending with a winner-takes-all game of musical chairs, I can indeed imagine a point at which the game becomes stagnant enough that it feels worthwhile.

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_bread_mold]Rhizopus Stolonifer[/url]. First, the name itself is excellent; using classical languages never goes out of style, and Rhizopus Stolonifer has some seriously strong syllables to boot. Rhizopus Stolonifer sounds like it either ignites or crushes a slave rebellion. Rhizopus Stolonifer suggests that it has debated with the greatest philosophers the world has ever known, and bested them. Wave your magic wand and cast Rhizopus Stolonifer and the evil warlock will be banished from the lands forever. Rhizopus Stolonifer just does work. Second, because it's the name of a substance that already represents much of what SNX stands for. Like SNX, Rhizopus Stolonifer is generally harmless but unsightly, and you are probably best off limiting exposure. And ultimately, once both have gotten their roots established, you're probably best off throwing both away and starting fresh.

Whyyyyyyyyyy Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ....sorry, wrong figure skater.

Announcement fails because it isn't a fifteen-page slideshow.

Congrats, Goldie. Commiserations, Baltus. I'm fairly sure that we have the co-co-MoFA structure patented, so expect to hear from my attorney.

Lived in Ottawa for a bit. While driving a visiting friend around, doing the touristy thing, discovered that there is a clothing store called Schad. Damned near drove her car into the sidewalk, couldn't bring myself to explain why.

Congratulations, Menotah.

Congrats, TOP.

But in your conception of such, those two things are almost diametrically opposed...signing a treaty (and then defending that person) is much closer to an IC value, namely the willingness to go to the wall for friends, than it is realpolitik. I also hate it when someone makes a mess of perfectly good politics because of a deep and meaningful 1am conversation about how drunk they are, but that's a whole different kettle of tipsy fish. In terms of alliances having overarching values, the biggest problem is that there are so many points of reference there. It's similar to voting; you never find a candidate whose views wholly match your own (unless you've tailored your views to fit those of your chosen candidate...good evening RON PAUL fans), necessarily leading one to compromise on some aspects. Now, multiply that by a factor of "enough to get !@#$ done", particularly once the need to work with the allies of allies comes into play, and you have a melange of often-contradictory beliefs and goals that simply cannot be contained by a coherent statement of values. Thus do even those with strong value systems settle in to realpolitik, unless suitably committed to embark on a quixotic journey through the wondrous hinterlands of micropolitics.

May this destruction be your rebirth. All the best to the fine fellows of DoD.

Guessing Starfox is equally glad about the no-touching policy.

Stop trying to hijack this for your wankery; for the thousandth time, it's OOC. Any more and you'll be irreversibly chafed.

On the raiding/antiraiding thing: grew up in an alliance that had a staunch anti-radiing bent, and that's precisely the reason why we discovered that it made for an inadequate raison d'etre; alliances don't sort themselves by ideology in this game, but rather by more immediate interests. Raiders ally non-raiders; 'serious' alliances ally less restrained ones. Looking for a grand overarching narrative for any given war is purposeless, because most coalitions are comprised not of two dichotomous ideals of the world, but rather several dozen narrowly-focused short-and-medium-term goals.

You are confusing front DoWs with the war writ large. Each DoW need not have a meaning, because it's impossible (and pointless) to have a coalition war in which each individual front need have some greater truth attached. That's like looking at an individual piece of a jigsaw puzzle and bemoaning that it's just a few splashes of colour, without recognizing that it's in fact a part of a greater whole. That greater whole is probably Scooby Doo's left leg or something, but the point remains.