Rafael Nadal

The fact you can't "justify" our attack in the current "political climate" is the entire point it. I don't know how this happened, but TOP was actually PROGRESSIVE and ahead of it's time with their pre-empt of us. This games is choked with the guise that a war can only be started in a certain manner, that a war must unfold in a certain manner, etc. Over the years here, the more defensive you are the more ~HoNoRaBle~ you supposedly are. This has been taken to such extremes that there is a massive effort to mediate conflicts to put them out, or at least keep them from expanding. This goes hand-in-hand with the fact that, because of the narrowness of the game itself, every cb (because there are relatively few that can be generated) already has a page in the playbook. From their, it's a battle to be more defensive, and each time you have to feign a more defensive nature than the last. This is has gotten ridiculous. The game is narrow enough already, we need to break down the player imposed boundaries to open game-play back up. If you want to consider us the bad guy for being aggressive and spicing things up, then do so, we have no qualms. Ultimately, this war, singularly, won't make CN interesting again, because it's not about one war, or one period of peace. However, I do hope this war is at least the start of us attempting to reign in the expanding cycle between wars that we have seen grow from a few months, to 6 months, to where we are now where we might have one war a year. In my mind, about once every 6 months was the best balance was the best cycle for the game.

[22:40] <Xiphosis[GOD]> People simply have to think long-term, not what is fun or tempting in the short term. Pretty much sums up what is wrong with CN, disregarding mechanics issues. GAMES ARE NOT MEANT TO HAVE FUN WITH!

It's all becoming clear now.

Orly? TOP, not counting any nations they might still have off AA, has 463k tech. Please provide me with the information that we have asked for more than 463k tech. Thanks babe.

That's not what the definition says. The definition has no numbers. You're now applying your own subjective logic to the objective definition. YOU LOSE, GOOD DAY SIR. This topic, lol.