Great Lord Moth

Actually, yes. It's a common theme of the isolated, lonely tyrant. Frankly, the right choice would be to not catch up to them at all. If they wanted to not be bored they wouldn't have chosen the unstoppable path. A weaker alliance like, say, the RIA, has never had a chance to be the big guy, so every time a big war rolls around it gets into the s*** with everyone else. We have our fun. We make use of our time. Instead of being able to say "We dominated everyone and always won by nuke turtling the few times we had to go to war." we'll say "We had the greatest adventure a world like this could possibly afford, with friends and enemies both genuine and false, forging a strong identity that every member understands from the moment they join, and a sense of purpose that has gone unshaken for years despite the ravages of time on the world as a whole." (In a sense, the way to fight a tech giant like DBDC is to attack the players directly, instead of their nations, through boredom. I understand the hypocrisy in what I'm saying as someone who has been fighting a DBDC nation for the past month, but still. >_>) If I was DBDC, and I wanted some sense of purpose without sacrificing the ridiculous strength, I'd drop all political ties and declare war on every single nation I could get my hands on. I think it's only a matter of time before that happens.

I'm just trying not to be blindingly naive.

Is it really that hard to determine the implied question in my statement, "Does this document supercede DBDC's global declaration?" >_> There is nothing in their wardec that suggests that a surrender to a coalition implies peace with DBDC on an individual basis.

So, just a thought, but isn't The Legion still at war with DBDC for being a Polar ally?

What could have been. :( The RIA was awash in the political ocean at the time. We were on the objectively wrong side of the second largest coalition line ever to exist in CN, still working out our identity. It wasn't until the Unjust War, after we signed the Superfriends Pact with Farkistan and the ASC, that we came into our own as an alliance. We just wanted some kind of safety from getting raided back then, and we were already friendly with ONOS, so GUARD it was. D:

For one brief glorious moment, the RIA was a member of GUARD. ;>.> Now we're a lot of things, but spineless definitely ain't one. But we don't really count in that case, do we?

Is no one going to attempt an impartial list? >_> Generally, I believe the worst alliances are those whose leadership does the greatest disservice to the greatest number of its own members. 1. GPA under Apriland Perhaps the Woodstock Massacre was inevitable, but Apriland's ill-timed remarks, and abandonment of the alliance shortly before the war began caused many to suffer far more than they needed to. With so many people having little to no combat experience, and the leadership of the alliance missing its most important member, the war hit the GPA far harder than a more experienced alliance its size would've been hit and the alliance deflated like a punctured balloon. 2. GGA Under Jonathan Brookbank's leadership the GGA was semi-decent and stable, but things fell apart rapidly with his first exile. One PR disaster after another assassinated the alliance in the public eye, and they could not recover from their first two major defeats with the Karma War and Second Unjust War. One of the largest alliances ever to disband from loss of purpose. I can't think of any others right now. By the way, that is not to say that I think the best alliances are the opposite of how I described the worst. >_> The best alliances are the ones who provide the fondest memories for its members, and who have the most significant impact, for better or worse, on the planet.

Alliances and coalitions who are consistently victorious tend to burn spectacularly when the right thing goes wrong. It's not a bad thing to have experience in defeat, as long as you persevere. The New Pacific Order in particular knows what I mean in both cases.

Ergo: Lunzania of DBDC isn't a real nation. m i rite?

"He's right because I say so. I wouldn't lie to you." The days of quality propaganda are long gone. :(

In order for you to interpret my explanation of events the way you did, you would've had to ignore the most important point I made in that explanation. As for that remark I made, that was just me giving what I got. ;>.> No hard feelings, though.

Hey, remember the time you said

So you're too lazy to seek the greater context, and you defend your laziness with apathy. You sure are well-rounded! Someone clearly worth taking seriously! I'd be interested in an actual, rational response to my point from earlier. A surrender comes with compliance to terms. We were not unfair. But I also feel like things are getting too derailed here. >_> I don't have a Baldr War thread to post in that wouldn't be gravedigging. Would anyone on either side like to formally re-declare war?

I like my pride and arrogance. In fact, your words make me feel even more arrogant. You must've read, like, only two of my posts here. Do you even know who you're talking to? :D

There were negotiations on private channels. We gave them terms, they refused, so we continued fighting. We have enough dignity to deny our enemy the privilege of making a-lateral decisions on our behalf. A surrender comes with compliance to terms. It's that simple. Also, for the record, I don't speak for the RIA gov. >_> The last time I was gov was during, like, the Unjust War.

Somoza, I get the distinct impression that you do not understand why we attacked DBDC. We did not declare any war on DBDC for this coalition. We are continuing a war between our individual alliances from months ago that never formally ended. http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Baldr_War Several months ago, Baldr was raided by DBDC nations after we were told we would be taken off their raid list. When Baldr fought back, reprisals were made against Baldr's generals. War was then officially recognized by the RIA. After two weeks of war, the last DBDC nation in range, noob cake, bought his way out of range, forcing a stalemate. During the confrontation, DBDC posted a surrender that we neither negotiated nor accepted. When this coalition war caused a doombird to fall within our range, we went right back to where we left off. If you wish to come in on us in defense of AB, fine. If you want to attack RIA nations who haven't attacked AB nations, that's fine too. We won't begrudge you any of the wars you declare on us, because your primary reason for declaration, the defense of AB, is completely valid. But don't pretend that DBDC didn't have it coming, and that you're just defending a friend who got jumped. Your actions indicate a supportive stance on DBDC's tech raids, and that's what would form my opinion of GLOF. I am still waiting for noob cake to make good on his threat from months ago, the one in my sig.

Well shucks, I'm still arguing about the war like everyone else. :D I'm legitimately curious as to why GLOF cares that we're attacking DBDC, though. There's only one possible reason that makes sense to me, and if it is the case then I might have to have an opinion on GLOF post-war.

So they ARE sucking up to DBDC. o_o Or maybe they haven't put much thought into the nature of our conflict with them.

What could he possibly have meant if he misspoke? "We will only attack RIA nations likely to attack AB"? That's a silly claim to make in a war declaration.

Ignoring history, this would be a completely fair assessment. However, keep in mind our last scuffle with DBDC was about Baldr. Indeed it was called the Baldr War for a reason. There is no guarantee Baldr would not just be in hippymode if DBDC hadn't availed itself for attack. And like Baldr has pointed out, "nations likely to attack AB" =/= "nations attacking AB."

;>.> Mogar's like our very own Xiph, for better or worse. As far as the "for better" part goes, he posts pics of cute, legal girls. :D Knock our blocks off, GLOF! o7

Sometimes goofiness is actual stealth seriousness. Like when we had that little spat with the Doombird's Nest Dinner, they were joking about how their wallets were being ravaged, because any self-aware high-end nation should have a proper warchest, but it turned out that we actually did have a significant impact on their reserves. ;>.> But okay, I'll give you that one.

http://cybernations.wikia.com/wiki/Sub-Zero_Accords This is why. o_o Duh.

I question the height of your standards. My present warchest is over 1.5 years of bills, and I'm not even close to RIA recommended levels.