TBRaiders

3m sent to Chairman Vasily.

After reading a couple pages of replies just wanted to post that I like it. To me, it's NSO letting everyone know they will enter any war they believe is in their best interest to do so. You'd think every alliance would do the same, but history has shown different.

Retired 1SG, US Army. Retired after 22 years active duty in March 2007. I just wanted to post to say thanks to everyone else who also served.

I always enjoy reading the State of the Alliance to see how one of my favorite alliances is doing.

Congrats and Happy Birthday TOP!

Very true. Congrats on your milestone.

Congrats. Does this mean only with Hizzy? I'm trying to compute sexier than Hizzy and all I get is an error message.

I have pigs and fish and will switch to blue. http://tournament.cybernations.net/nation_...tion_ID=1001706

Ha! Awesome reply.

Boy, that sure sheds new light for those that are complaining. My favorite term for an alliance who surrenders would be to have them pay back any tech they extorted through terms from offensive wars they've been involved with for the last year. If you beat an opponent and demanded reps, now you have to pay them back. Hard for anyone to cry about those "terms" because you aren't demanding anything other than what they've stolen to be returned. I know nobody would actually put that term out there, but I'd still love to see the totals for some of these guys. I have no problem with the 3 mil/100 tech terms because it does help both sides, but agree with whoever posted before that it didn't need to be a part of terms and the alliances can just work those deals on the side. If Karma really wanted to do this right, we'd see an announcement soon stating that if you want white peace you have until XXXX date to get it. That way when those who continue to fight to support NPO in it's aggressive war do end up paying reps to pay for damage caused, they can only blame themselves for pushing this fight well past the date when the outcome was already decided. White peace was cool for the people who got pulled in by treaties from their treaty partner who got pulled in from another treaty partner, but if you are directly tied to NPO and choose to continue this fight, the "white peace" flag should have an expiration date.

And I believe that. I was merely using it as a comparison. We had an ex-NPO member who decided to go back to NPO just a couple days ago after we were already in the war. I just wanted to make it clear that we all saw the Fark blitz and it was after the IRON DoW. I know IRON and TOP have been friends for a long time and I do hope fences get mended after all this is over.

Fark, as most other alliances, was on high alert. They posted their counter DoW four minutes after your declaration on ROK. If you are talking about the two Fark rogues or jumpers (not sure which they are) I will also point out that IRON also had two nations attack VE on the 22nd. Are you at war with VE without posting a DoW? It's pretty clear to everyone that Fark did not blitz IRON until after you made your DoW against ROK and already had eight in-game declarations on ROK nations. I just clicked and looked at all IRON wars and it is plain to see. Fark's blitz was very obvious. As for the rest of your post, I don't buy it and don't see why anyone else would. NPO was never going to be attacked by a Karma coalition. NPO attacking OV brought the creation of the coalition. Too many alliances currently fighting on that side would have never opted to join an offensive war. MHA and TOP would have came to NPO's defense and had anyone attacked either of them GRE and many other alliances would have been there as well. This just wasn't well thought out by NPO leadership and anyone thinking otherwise just isn't seeing the bigger picture. Your "5 to 1 alliance ratio" odds doesn't mean a thing without looking at total NS. Last time I checked, this is the fairest war I've seen IRON or NPO fight since I've been a citizen of this planet.

IRON attacked ROK and then FARK declared on IRON in defense of ROK. I can post an exact timeline with links to DoW's if you need it. Maybe some of this unwarranted aggression against TOP is simply a matter of some of you guys not even knowing what the heck is going on. 1) NPO pulls off a sneak attack against OV during the middle of peace negotiations without posting a DoW until more than 30 minutes after their assault began. 2) Several of OV's allies and MDoAP partners of those allies declare on NPO in defense of OV. One of those alliances was ROK. 3) IRON declares on ROK in support of NPOs aggressive war against OV. 4) Fark and friends declare on IRON in support of ROK. 5) Many alliances declare for both sides. If they declare for the side you want to win, they are honorable but if they declare for the other side they are the spawn of Satan and broke at least 37 treaties. This applies to both sides of this war. Some more random thoughts: - Hundreds of the same people who have either stated in the last year how this world is boring or how they need a challenge decide maybe boring or less of a challenge is better. - Optional means optional no matter how disappointing the definition of the word reads. - Standing up for allies who are on the defensive side of this war is a good move even if you don't care for all of the alliances who are also clumped into that same coalition. Jumping in with the aggressors even though you don't agree with their actions is a lemming move. - Having so many "brothers" with different ideologies and political goals is what got us here in the first place. You can't have a MDP with everybody and then expect nobody to disappointed when you can't come to their defense. - This applies to the entire mess called the treaty web.

I enjoyed reading it. Needed more swords and dragons and maybe a princess.

Congrats on peace and best of luck to those involved.

TBB needs a stern talking-to.

This is rich. You were trapped by Karma into declaring on OV during peace talks? Yes, very rich. Trapped can be better defined by many of your current allies who are disgusted with your actions and find themselves on the losing side of this conflict with no justifiable reason to their members. How many are currenty debating behind closed doors how much longer they must continue to see their nations get destroyed for your own arrogance and foolish mistake?

IMO, Nobody in this conflict is fighting for the "defense" of Pacifica. There are only two sides to any conflict and Pacifica was the aggressor. Everyone can do treaty-speak and play words games, but if you are fighting for the side currently labeled as the Hegemony you either believe their cause is just or you allowed your nations to be drawn in through poorly worded treaty obligations and mostly likely misguided pride. Even under your own definition of defensive and offensive obligations, TOP has violated nothing. They are defending an ally who entered this fray defending an ally. I know how difficult this has been for TOP with treaty partners and friends on both sides and realize there was no action they could take, to include inaction, that wouldn't draw criticism. I would have respected TOP no matter what decision they made because I know it would have been one they considered carefully and one they realized was correct for them.

Good show MCXA and congrats on elections.

TOP coming in with a big splash. Nice blitz guys and welcome to the fight.

Didn't read the whole thread and don't care. That first ground attack in the OP was pretty amazing. - 105,749 soldiers and 17,066 tanks

First one is much better now with the colors. I like them both a lot. Great job to both of you.

True, but the +2 environment enabled me to purchase 7k additional soldiers which is kinda handy right now. I also have two other events with a total of -$8.00 citizen income so it was nice to get a positive event for a change.

Cybernations GRL: As serious as a farmers crops. You need a cool event like this: 4/25/2009 - 5/25/2009 Your closest advisor has died and you need to find a replacement, someone who you can trust to lead both you and your nation in the right direction. Option selected. See Current Response. Option 2: Appoint a prominent environmentalist. 2 points of improvement to environment.