Galerion

You may feel that way but the purpose of protectorate treaties is for the protector to intervene in your affairs until you're in a position where the treaty can be upgraded and you're more capable at fending off threats for yourself.

A protectorate treaty unlike most other treaties can have one alliance concede a amount of sovereignty to another, if sovereignty is indeed being conceded then they are a extension. The question is if sovereignty is not being conceded then what is the point for the protector to agree to such a treaty, I would say they should be using a different treaty type if sovereignty is not being conceded. As for your example a child or pet is a extensions of the family with the parent or owner ultimately responsible for the child or pet, when applied to this instance; CotM is responsible for OM and therefore OM's defeat is also CotM's defeat.

So this means Aevum defeated CotM as protectorates are essentially extensions of their protector.

The reason I'm differing from you is that if something happens to effect your nation in the space between purchasing infra and getting to what I'm saying is recouped then you may have lost out by purchasing the infra, so now the number of days to my what I'm saying is recouped is useful. If you have a 20 day back collect ready and it's going to take another 40 days to get to my recoup point and you know your alliance plans war is 20 days then it makes no sense to purchase that infra. The higher the amount of infra you buy the longer it takes to recoup, the greater the risk that your investment won't pay off.

Who invests in something only to regain their investment?

or Recoup = to recover Spending on anything is a setback on warchest growth and so to recover is to return or exceed that growths projected path before the setback.

It's not that the numbers are nonsense, it's that we differ on what the point at which you have recouped is. I am looking at recouped as getting to a point at which your total money is the same as it would have been had you done nothing different, you are looking at it as when you get it back what was spent without earnings over time being taken into account.

What was done for this to be 1v1 was done through 3rd party communications and ISX has done everything in line with those communications, your claim is spurious.

note that I said "days of collections" not "days" on it's own and although my example gives a 1k jump for a nation with plenty of wonders, the nations on AM I linked to in the post before have far less wonder and were 8k+ infra, when they shouldn't be up that high with such small warchest. Really they should be down at 4999.99 build there wonders and warchest up. To go 4999-8k+ and then to recoup and build a warchest would take a good amount of time with the wonders they currently have, my example was to give idea of what a more ideal set of wonders would yield in recovery time.

Um no that isn't correct, it had nothing to do with the update on the 11th.

$150 is taxes paid by your citizens to you if their gross income is $500

For a nation with my wonders and a 3br the cost to go 4999.99-5999.99 is $114,677,409.98, lyricalz comes up with 12k extra citizen and at $150 income per citizen your collect goes up 1.8mil a day. So 114.6/1.8= 63.6 days of collections without factoring in the bill increase and if you jump higher the costs and therefore the number of days to recoup increases. You can effect your net income and extra citizens with tech and wonders but although they increase income they are also adding to warchest recovery time due to their costs. The nations highlighted above won't have $150 income per citizen as they don't have the wonders to get that high, nor do they have all the sources of population increases they could have, so recovering their costs will take much longer.

The guy with the $702 warchest was never a member of SNX and neither was the one with a 26mil warchest and 8.8k infra. That only works if they are not constantly buying infra and if they stay out of war for several months to regain what they spent. Only then do they start to see the benefit from the extra infra, if they don't have the tech and wonders to protect that infra then they are just burning money.

Don't know what you've be telling your guys but a $702 warchest isn't what I would expect a 8k infra nation to have.

Interstellar is fine, if it didn't have flexibility it wouldn't have been workable all this time.

o7 Minc o7 ISX

Go tell that to admin and see how that works out for you.

That would be up to the membership, if they want to keep it it's up to them. You having the .com address registered doesn't make you entitled to it on Bob, all it does is prevent them from using the .com but there are plenty of alternative urls.

Last I checked Bob doesn't have any copyright or trademark rules. The authority of any alliance comes from it's members, I don't see many of them moving to your alliance so you have no claim to make about authority.

In case you are not aware there is a bonus for having 1:0.5 infra/land ratio

You are always meant to blame Junka for everything its in the script, do try and remember your lines.

There would be no benefit to them doing that and even if it didn't cause them any issues now it might in the future. You are thinking of yourself as normal rather than others, you really should get a grip and accept you are not cut out for any kind of leading role.

You high? They have Kindle as their senator on brown.

Could do what someone from the Elvenar playerbase has done, take out some ad space and advertise CN as a porn game.

Oh we knew there would be people who wouldn't be happy, there always are but that's not going to stop us getting on with business. Yes they did but that was related to previous governance not current or Junka for that matter. Alienating non allies a bit is hardly anything catastrophic, there have been examples of people alienating there own allies which has a far more dramatic effect on how things turn out