Commander shepard

No, it is ok to say we're not really stopping someone from defending our ally. Should have entered a week earlier if they wanted to relieve the pressure.

To be fair TLR didn't do much to defend NG which makes them little to no assistance to NG. If you're going to war then you should attack the main threat to your ally you're going in for, not a small side show.

You have so many misconceptions but you forgot to mention IRON also killed some babies. We're baby killers.

I think maybe it was a joke, I can only assume it was given the popcorn eating. There again maybe not, but probably not though.

o/ War against Rush

It should be noted that IRON doesn't sign MDoAP's.

We were going to get rolled? who was going to do that? I have to wonder why you have non chaining treaties if you treat them the same as chaining treaties.

The percentages of what alliances lost is probably a better thread.

Why would IRON be cowards?

Why should IRON be apart of the NG coalition? Under what circumstances do you come to that conclusion? I don't think a remark about how a coalition can not get an alliance with allies of both sides of the war on their side is a coalition problem. If that was the case any alliance that is fighting against the coalition their allies are in or sitting on the sidelines and assisting neither side would be a coalition problem, there would be many things classified as coalition problems. I think it is better to refer coalition problems as actual issues confined within the coalition alliances which would affect their internal structure and not potential assistance they could get from people sitting on the sidelines. What is the coalition problems with your side?

Your book is terrible and you should feel bad.

But they just arrived, please don't leave for some unknown reason.

My review of MI6 would be everything I said in their DoE

Just ask for more war aid or do tech deals, I'm sure you will get rebuilding aid after the war ends. And mistakes like this can not be reversed as they set a bad precedent where player errors ingame do not have consequences. And it is very likely you would lose a lot of that 40 million through war anyway so at least you gave it some use.

Could have been a leak instead of spying. This is probably a set up like that time Myth was supposedly booted, you never know.

I most definitely was not decrying it and I was very anti-DH.

Lol, NPO is not preoccupied fighting against other alliances? And you think CIN is actually using nations to attack the NPO? I can't see any CIN nations attacking NPO while on the aa. That would prove it was not bandwagoning if that is your false reasoning for believing it is. Oh wait there was three who left the/a AA to declare war(I'm not sure sure if that makes it more or less valid considering they're also attacking other alliances) You're always wrong, you can be wrong together.

I think DH done that in a previous global war, I think they hit CRAP, CSN and TTK without any sort of treaty use in Grudge global war after the initial DoW set the global war in motion. I think that is accurate and I don't remember many people decrying how it was not a valid entry into the war.

No, you're interpreting valid as meaning a treaty. :psyduck:

Yeah they had a valid entry, you interpreted that as me saying they had a valid treaty chain. Valid is not a word with a definition that implies it can only be valid if it used in conjunction with a treaty. Evidently pieces of crap can use treaties to enter a war, I would not call them entries valid by definition.

Are you saying that the current global war is invalid? And no I did not say it was a valid treaty chain, don't know why you're having a go at your own idiocy.

And for some reason you have a problem with AE with their valid entry into a subsection of this war.

>Does some of the hardest fighting in the previous war >Gets called lazy by a micro

Not all fronts are going to have 3 nations per a target. Overall the numbers give the polar coalition a margin of less than twice the Sith nations and I imagine on average there will be less than 2 Polar coalition nations per 1 Sith coalition nation. And I think the ratio will decrease for the Sith coalition even more as the war goes on. In EQ the losing coalition was outnumbered by 2 and half nations for every 1 nation they had.

That's an understatement.