MrMuz

Maybe they have 10B because they chose to stay small and not buy infra? Also, the neutrals have a lot.

Lol, fail roguery. If I had a 6b warchest and someone were to force me into 6 months of reps, I think it'd be alot easier to just hit the alliance asking for reps for 3 months or so, until they give white peace. Or just join an alliance and use your current status to start a war with GPA. You're no Dave, but it could be worth a shot

I blame all of you for defrosting hell.

A lot of balls on Invicta for being the first to the front.

No protectorate?

It might not even be a global war.

[quote name='RedPhx' timestamp='1339826989' post='2985638'] I see it as a type of death penalty really. Reading the Courts part of the CRAP forum it says that the Zeal should only be for extreme cases [/quote] Don't think it's that serious. You're thinking of the eternal zeals. A zeal is more like getting stripped of all your property, which you can maybe sentence on rogues and people who owe tech.

A winning tactic only on the surface. People will end up treating you like a meatshield, and should you fall under direct attack, they're likely to do the same to you. But you'll still get a lot of PR for winning a lot of wars.

I thought it was generally accepted that ODPs are worthless because of this? People often sign them as the equivalent of PIATs.. to symbolize a greater agreement. Some alliances instead insist that a MDP is actually an ODP and only sign ODPs but treat them like alliances treat MDPs. In reality, if you have two conflicting MDPs, you should actually defend BOTH alliances instead of defending neither (even though the results are probably the same). But CN chooses to take "ODP = small treaty, MDP = big treaty, MDoAP = really big treaty, MADP = stupid" Easier said than done. People will just hammer you with social pressure. You can't ignore them, because then they start talking to your other friends, bringing it up on the OWF, and it's just so much easier to lose NS. Which is why you see a lot of people honoring treaties, then unfriending them almost immediately after wars. Plus, MD treaties are mandatory defense, regardless of what your moral and personal views are on the situation, you'd still have to defend someone you don't believe in. And while non-chained treaties are meant to be optional, they don't actually work that way because it's really hard to legally tell the difference between a direct attack and a 'chained conflict'. Like the Umbrella-Fark war right now is most likely coalition warfare, and thus chained... but there's nothing in the DoW that says so.

I find it amusing that this whole thread has been about someone giving attention to someone they call an attention whore.

LSF = freedom and liberty don't be a MK toadie. save LSF.

IMO, it's all a big chess game. The best players will play it as so, because it is well... advanced strategy. In the end, it is a game, it's all about seeing who gets rolled, rather than 'defending friends'. But many alliances choose to have an agenda, and when war hits, they get pissed because they've been trying to use everyone else, yet are the ones who get used. Most alliances choose to take the role/image of the loyal ally so they usually go along with this. It's just an easier way to play the game, rather than sitting around the whole day on IRC trying to plan out and force the war into a certain angle.

You don't get to interpret treaties if you don't have any

A bit later than expected

Good alliances, good treaty link. Deserves a mindless hail o/

[quote name='Matt Miller' timestamp='1339175193' post='2979457'] That is quite impressive, but isn't he the guy that surrenders immediately and leaves alliances that go to war? How many times has he done that? [/quote] The irony is that you just can't roll someone who deserts a war with a warchest like that because his warchest is too big for anyone to do any real damage to them.

There seems to be nothing saying that anyone is bound to fight for a certain period of time to honor a treaty. You could technically just honor the agreement and fight for 12 hours and then surrender, whether or not the treaty was canceled, though that would certainly get your treaty canceled either way. As for Scenario 2, I don't think it's that important, because people do tech trading with everyone. If tech trading was considered relevant in treaties, then everyone is bound to inform each other. But if alliance B had a chaining MDP+ with alliance C, alliance A would have to inform them. If alliance B had an ODP with alliance C, I'd say information would also be kinda optional. Depends on how deeply the intelligence clause runs. Also, yeah, there's no real legal enforcement of these things, so it doesn't really matter. You'd probably be shunned for treaty lawyering if it doesn't apply in context.

[quote name='Neo Uruk' timestamp='1339002951' post='2978281'] I mean, sure, they have a community, but what alliance doesn't? You need stats or good allies one to be a "solid" alliance, really. [/quote] Depends entirely why you're playing. If you're playing it as a game and nothing but a game, stats are everything. But if you wanted to just purely play it as a game without thinking of the people, you'd be on TE. It's a social game, so community matters as much, if not more. You won't see < 400k NS alliances with a strong community disbanding, but even the huge inactive ones will break apart and go their own way. You won't see people stick around or go out of inactivity without a community. You won't get people putting their time into boring !@#$ like IA without others who appreciate that kind of effort.

[quote name='D34th' timestamp='1338944571' post='2977979'] To be fair alliances aren't responsible for their members tech deals, the exception being when alliance want to protect the nations who don't fulfill their tech deal obligations. [/quote] We tend to be pretty harsh on those who are tardy on tech (if they're in range)

Agreed with the OP. Also liked what Sardonic said about it. [quote]1) It's not what you know, what you stand for, or what you believe. It's who you know, who you stand for, and who you believe.[/quote] > This is true outside CN as well. Look at religion. Or anti-religion. Or nationalism (but nationalism isn't as interesting). People will pick up a belief somewhere. They'll learn to live with it for a while. It's not really true, it's an interpretation of something which lacks evidence. I mean, who the hell knows whether or not a God exists, nobody has seen one, but if He's outside the scope of someone's senses, there's no way any evidence can disprove him either. Who knows whether VE really did spy on Polar? The visible evidence is weak, all you have is your side's interpretations. So something attacks your beliefs. But they can't prove it. And you're under immense social and mental pressure not to believe them. Who likes admitting they were wrong? So, you're not going to believe it until they can prove it. And they're not going to believe you until you can prove it. But there's not enough evidence for either. So, it's "cheaper" to go against what your instincts say. I've bent around some beliefs in CN because they were convenient to where I wanted to go politically. [quote]2) I don't want to get hurt, I don't even have a stake in this fight.[/quote] Mostly, it's because everyone has their own agenda. They want to drag as many "allies" along with them to fulfill their agenda, rather than actually be dragged into an allies' conflict. That's why I don't think that treaties should be signed on friendship - they should be signed on political direction. If someone downgrades a treaty that was signed on friendship, people would think that they're no longer friends; the equivalent of unfriending. Some alliances do try to be elite warriors though. They have no real direction, but try to get in as many wars as possible and do a good job protecting an ally. [quote]3) It's just a game, so I'll treat it like one and have no real views.[/quote] IMO, this is the wrong approach to it. The game gets too easy that way. Join Pax Corvus (because the bigger neutrals are favorite rogue targets), build a 150k NS nation and 3B warchest, then leave and join the most powerful alliance in the game. Automatic win. But you'll get bored as hell because you miss out on all the 'bad' stuff. There's some fun in being in a doomed situation or trying to work towards a treaty without having 100k ANS. My favorite moments in CN was flagchasing in TE. You have a solid purpose - to win the flag for an alliance. And you basically pull every nation building trick, every internal motivational, every contact, spy, double agent, rogue, ghost you can do get the job done. You have your pacts, you have your deceptions, you have your morals and everyone else's morals that you have to work around - some will insist on playing ruthless, others may insist on total chivalry and would never hit less NS than they take. There's some true leadership and politics involved in a TE flag run, and it's actually a game. With CN:SE, it seems to boil down to just rolling alliances you don't like or trying to cut yourself out of a losing war. I think TOP plays it right, by picking specific targets they want to destroy and moving towards it. I like Bal Masqué too because there is a goal, a RP-ed reason to go for this goal, some kind of measure of progress, and not simply the goal of gaining as much NS as possible or trying to claim victories for losing NS. So, if you want some kind of 'solution' to all this, I'd say find an alliance culture. Find out how it interacts with the world. Stick to it, even when it puts you at a disadvantage. Disadvantages don't look good on paper, but they're fun.

[quote name='Feanor Noldorin' timestamp='1338307180' post='2974078'] People bragging about their little stats. How cute. [/quote] What else are people supposed to brag about?

[quote name='Jaiar' timestamp='1337978416' post='2972332'] As far as Colin40...compete why? It's not a race for the biggest most infra/tech heavy nation. It's a political competition between alliances. [/quote] Don't think it's a matter of competition. It's more like feeling unappreciated for putting time into building a nation. After a few years, it just chips away at you.

Goodbye, Colin. A shame to lose you. You're probably one of the best warriors I've ever seen in this game. Any alliance would take a huge loss without you, and in more than just NS. You're big enough to cripple a whole microalliance all by yourself (probably have the warchest to do so too). Would be a waste to just delete. Live by the nuke, die by the nuke

[quote name='Schattenmann' timestamp='1337350514' post='2969084'] Golf clap for rolling Polaris, but really, that's child's play; Cult of Justitia could roll Polaris. [/quote] Uh, no. The stats on both sides were relatively equal in that war, Polar's side lost mainly due to a lower ANS and a side inexperienced in war. Compared to 90% of alliances, Polar had a superb military; it was stronger than any individual PB alliance at the time, with a very good nuke and military wonder count and above average warchests. I would've ranked it at around top 5 in military strength at the time. Polar would've easily rolled CoJ back then, without the help of allies. Factoring in full allied support, Polar would've crushed CoJ like a bug within a month, and not have taken any real dip in NS. Heck, IIRC, CoJ failed to roll even the [i]weakest[/i] member of PB, even with the help of several micros. The only reason why Polaris is considered a weaker alliance today is because of the impact the PB-NpO war had on the Polarsphere. PB had wrecked the balance of power in that war and the somewhat related DH-NPO war, which had strongly affected Digiterran political climate for months to come.

You can ignore bullying all you want. But other people won't, especially with slander. That's my point. The more you 'toughen up' and ignore it, the more damage it causes. I've seen people who were ostracized IRL just because someone accused of being child molesters. There's absolutely no chance for such people to get a job working with children if they pop up on even a prank 'sex offender registration' app. If you have a reputation as a rapist, and a dozen trolls who would attest to it, you're going to have a hard time trying to get engaged to someone or trying to get a job when the first google search for your name turns up a blog criticizing your sexual preferences. Things like the Biodad controversy crosses the line when it starts becoming real. Trolling and teasing is within someone's rights, but when people actually start believing the accusations put forward - especially with character-based accusations like being bad parents - it starts to have very real results. They lose credibility, people won't trust them, it strains relationships with family and friends. Words can have a very real physical effect.