Inquisition Flight 420 to Nassau - UPN Removed

[Bollocks]

Actually, I wasn't saying that all.

> claims no victim complex

> literally everything else in your post and everything else you've said in this thread screams "QQ woe is me"

> ok

 

Roq bb, I've never claimed anyone else of having a victim complex, that honor goes to just you. I can call a spade a spade.

 

You're doing a great job of letting your QQ getting in the way of your allies well-being. And you wonder why alliances like UPN are making the perfectly reasonable decision to step out of the ring with (omg) no reps. And then to deingrate them in public is another thing entirely.

 

It's normal to think you're in the right, but the insistence that your viewpoint is the universal and objective fact is the problem I have.

I'm not insisting anything other than just looking at the facts and then making up your own mind. To me, looking at the series of events where IQ was the aggressor and loses big, and then starts QQing and stating that disbanding is preferable to admitting defeat with no reps is both funny and kinda sad.

 

 

 

 

[Shiho Nishizumi]

Has it been two months yet?

Month and a half iirc.

[Zaxon]

I could go into why we haven't really "lost", but you've already rejected the argument. Either way people don't feel defeated as long and are capable of providing resistance. Like I said, if people don't go into your kill zone, they're relatively safe.

 

 Following this logic why not put everyone in vacation mode then you'll be invincible.

 

 

This isn't a court of law and wars have been started on less. It was the smoking gun for us, but we don't really need it to see your side as a threat.  Like I said, as soon as it's okayed by the parties involved, we'll have no issue disclosing it. The alternative would be to cause unwelcome headaches. I don't think you guys are gonna be like "welp, well tS did it. IQ was right"

That sounds eerily familiar....perhaps because this evidence is most likely subjective.

 

 

 

 

No, this is just your go-to card.

 

Syndisphere set the precedent of attacking people just because they appear to be a threat or they had consolidated too many treaties. If you attack someone, they brought it on themselves and are playing the victim. If someone decides to attack you because you appear to be threat and there are various indications of your intentions, it's not being a victim, it's taking their fate into their own hands. We're not letting you take the initiative, because win or lose that is far worse for the more casual side. With military performance everyone knows the activity levels are very different between both sides, so it's simply a statement of fact. All I've basically said is that you have a vested interest in perpetuating the current dynamics and humiliating the other side, this time in terms of getting people to admit defeat even if they don't want to is a way to show resistance is futile.

 

The CB can be blunt as in "we don't like you" or lulz as in "because it's Taco Tuesday" or subjective as in "Sekrit plotz evidence"  . However the point you seem to miss out on is when you start a conflict you either need the capacity to win the war or you take responsibility when you fail to meet your goals !  There is such a thing called loosing with grace & dignity where you suck it up and accept reality, thank your allies for helping out and own up to the failure to deliver victory, try and learn from your mistakes then make new plans for the next time. 

 

Accepting defeat doesn't mean you are truly defeated and broken.

[Roquentin]

> claims no victim complex

> literally everything else in your post and everything else you've said in this thread screams "QQ woe is me"

> ok

 

Roq bb, I've never claimed anyone else of having a victim complex, that honor goes to just you. I can call a spade a spade.

 

You're doing a great job of letting your QQ getting in the way of your allies well-being. And you wonder why alliances like UPN are making the perfectly reasonable decision to step out of the ring with (omg) no reps. And then to deingrate them in public is another thing entirely.

 

 

I'm not insisting anything other than just looking at the facts and then making up your own mind. To me, looking at the series of events where IQ was the aggressor and loses big, and then starts QQing and stating that disbanding is preferable to admitting defeat with no reps is both funny and kinda sad.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't really think you know the facts here. I don't recall denigrating anyone out here. I mostly referred to a general problem.  You can't say it's me QQing when the comment you refer to wasn't me.

 

You're insisting on being right 100%.Your bias is evident. If you're not willing to entertain anything I say and just mock it, then there isn't much of a point here. 

Wars have been started on less, but those less weren't based on vaporware CB's as opposed to this one.

 

I won't really change my previous stance. Until you throw in the logs solidly proving your CB, I'll just assume that you attacked us to impose yourselves as the dominant sphere, in spite of your fancy discourse of political diversity and whatnot. Facts can be trusted, propaganda cannot.

 

 

I don't think it'll hold up to your standard of evidence regardless. What's good enough for us is likely not good enough for you. If on the other hand, you were willing to grant "While I don't think it's solid, I can see why they acted that way", then I'd be more inclined. Like I said, when attributing such motivations and calling them facts, it's part of the reason why we can't engage civilly. It's kind of a bizarre theory to think we thought we had a chance of becoming the dominant sphere when we wouldn't be able to touch many of your nations in the best case scenario. We don't and didn't have the kind of capacity to be a truly dominant sphere.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Following this logic why not put everyone in vacation mode then you'll be invincible.

 

 

That sounds eerily familiar....perhaps because this evidence is most likely subjective.

 

 

 

 

 

The CB can be blunt as in "we don't like you" or lulz as in "because it's Taco Tuesday" or subjective as in "Sekrit plotz evidence"  . However the point you seem to miss out on is when you start a conflict you either need the capacity to win the war or you take responsibility when you fail to meet your goals !  There is such a thing called loosing with grace & dignity where you suck it up and accept reality, thank your allies for helping out and own up to the failure to deliver victory, try and learn from your mistakes then make new plans for the next time. 

 

Accepting defeat doesn't mean you are truly defeated and broken.

 

That would be abusing the feature and like I said, it's not about being invincible, it's just there's a limit to what can be done.

 

There's a difference between not accomplishing the objectives and losing. I've never claimed we won or anything. You're really painting a rosy picture of how losing has historically worked out, because tbh every time someone has admitted defeat when they felt defeated, it's led to an entirely different trajectory and usually results in the death of political wills of many on the losing side.  I wish it wasn't that way and everyone was willing to just go all out and give it their best  win or lose and not get discouraged, but that's not that how it's worked out here.  In this case, it's different in that plenty of people don't feel defeated, and they don't want to.

[Boony]

The CB "I think you're going to attack me, so I'm going to attack you" is legitimate. Or even "we are bound to fight at one point, so I'm going to start it now on my terms." Both are valid.

[Insert Name Here]

For me the most baffling aspect is how no one in the enemy coalition is holding the leadership accountable. I mean, if t$ attacked someone without a CB and saw it backfire, you can be sure heads would start rolling and leadership would be held accountable.

 

I'm not surprised NPO is fine with this since their members are programmed to be mindless drones who even need to have their econ taken care of for them by gov. Plus they hinder growth which prevents them for pulling their weight in relevant tiers, while the rest of their coalition burns.

 

Whoever subjected the enemy coalition to this kind of North Korean brainwash did an amazing job. Which works for me coz each turn and day that passes is just another nail in their coffin. Unless you're beiged, you can't last a day with more than 1.5k NS. You're bleeding money left and right, which widens the economic gap to our side. As time goes by and war goes on, you jeopardize your future and post-war rebuild further and further, digging yourselves deeper into the hole of irrelevance.

 

I hereby thank the enemy coalition for their leadership's incompetence and suicidal pride. Never change! :*

Edited May 28, 2017 by Insert Name Here

[Shiho Nishizumi]

I don't think it'll hold up to your standard of evidence regardless. What's good enough for us is likely not good enough for you. If on the other hand, you were willing to grant "While I don't think it's solid, I can see why they acted that way", then I'd be more inclined. Like I said, when attributing such motivations and calling them facts, it's part of the reason why we can't engage civilly. It's kind of a bizarre theory to think we thought we had a chance of becoming the dominant sphere when we wouldn't be able to touch many of your nations in the best case scenario. We don't and didn't have the kind of capacity to be a truly dominant sphere.

 

Logs can be either flimsy or solid, depending on their content. If you have logs that firmly show that we were indeed planning to hit you, then I fail to see why you would be holding them back. Granted, those don't exist simply because such a conversation didn't happen in the first place.

 

You likely have (if you do indeed have logs) logs with either rumors or third parties claiming X. Granted, how legitimate these are depends on what's actually in there, and whether your rationale for hitting us was solid or not would come after it's scrutiny.

 

 

 

The CB "I think you're going to attack me, so I'm going to attack you" is legitimate. Or even "we are bound to fight at one point, so I'm going to start it now on my terms." Both are valid.

 

You see, the problem is that you can't go about saying 'I think X' and then refuse to explain why, or provide some sort of backing to it. It's like as if I said 'I think that Nissan is shit.'. People are going to ask me 'Why? What experience or proof do you have at hand to make your opinion be of any worth?'. If I just say 'I'd tell you but I don't think that my reasoning will convince you, so I won't bother.' then they have all the right to disregard or shit on my opinion because it's unfounded.

 

As for the latter one, I think that we all would have preferred that to be this war's CB than the current one. At least it would have been no-nonsense and honest, and spared us of all this discussion about whether the CB is legit or bs.

[Zaxon]

There's a difference between not accomplishing the objectives and losing. I've never claimed we won or anything. You're really painting a rosy picture of how losing has historically worked out, because tbh every time someone has admitted defeat when they felt defeated, it's led to an entirely different trajectory and usually results in the death of political wills of many on the losing side.  I wish it wasn't that way and everyone was willing to just go all out and give it their best  win or lose and not get discouraged, but that's not that how it's worked out here.  In this case, it's different in that plenty of people don't feel defeated, and they don't want to.

 

Well maybe the harsh truth is it's time for those political wills to die and find some new life goals man! That or some stronger anti-depressants.

 

Stop making it your life goal to destroy the other sphere and sit on the Iron Throne.  Why not make some smaller yet more dynamic goals.

 

The CB "I think you're going to attack me, so I'm going to attack you" is legitimate. Or even "we are bound to fight at one point, so I'm going to start it now on my terms." Both are valid.

 

It's not a matter of legitimacy but honesty as in the true intentions behind a CB.  "Just because lol" could be considered legitimate if it's the real reason. It may or may not be politically  and strategically smart but that's another point.

[Felkey]

While I don't agree with publicly suggesting that one of your coalition allies disband, the problem here isn't that UPN surrendered. tTO, Lordaeron, and SK all managed to exit the war without any public backlash from BK gov. The difference here is that UPN exited the war on objectively worse terms than what the coalition was offered as a whole, as well as the terms Syndisphere was giving for individual allince surrenders. If Lordaeron, of all allinces, could get surrender without terms after the whole surrender camp debacle, there's no reason for UPN to settle for less. Furthermore, accepting such terms validates the Syndisphere's approach to negotiations and suggests desperation among the other coalition members. While this can't be entirely avoided, a simple surrender without terms would have mitigated the damage. I'm obviously not involved with the peace talks, but I doubt that the coalition leadership authorized UPN's surrender (or at least knew the terms), judging from their reaction. Anyways, I've nothing against UPN and am just trying to clarify why the reaction to this surrender was so harsh, compared to the earlier ones. 

I mean the point we are trying to make is, the longer you stay in and drag it out, the more unpleasant the terms are going to be for you. CKD and TTO peaced out almost instantly so they got incredibly easy terms.

 

Lordy wanted to wait a few weeks, ok fine, but the terms got a bit tougher with us demanding a bail bond of sorts.

 

UPN waited even longer so the terms got tougher once more with infra caps so that they can't just rebuild and be all cozy while we deal with the rest of IQ's stubbornness.

 

If you want to stay in and fight it out even longer, fine that's your choice, but actions have consensuses and you need to be prepared to deal with them because terms are going to continue to get tougher the longer people want to stay in.

 

It would depend on if it was good enough in your eyes. What's good enough for us, may not be enough for you so you could just dismiss it. Given you would stand to benefit from the political damage of it being released if the parties involved were displeased with the disclosure, the spot it puts us in is a very tricky one.

 

I mean, if that's the case, they just didn't ask because most people know the basic outline of it coming to our attention that tS had been asking people to commit to some sort of offensive action that would take place that week and that setting it in motion for us. I didn't make it up and everyone was perfectly content with the build up being a false alarm like the previous ones and the mutual decom had been offered right before it came to our attention. The VE issues made it so it was a lot more likely there'd be a war, so we had built up, and we hadn't reacted to Syndisphere's constant "defensive" builds up until that point.

Is it really any trickier than forcing both sides to basically perma war? I mean, there are those of us that even though we might not agree with your reasoning, we would be accommodating enough to understand it (essentially put ourselves in your shoes) and say "OK, I might not have made that exact choice but that seems reasonable". As for political damage, I think the parties on both sides know where they stand so I'm not sure the damage will be all that much anyways...

 

Furthermore, I even suggested at one point in the peace chat WEEKS AGO that who ever has the logs, redact the names of the people involved to protect confidentiality. However, that was met with another excuse.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Felkey

[Pangui]

While I don't agree with publicly suggesting that one of your coalition allies disband, the problem here isn't that UPN surrendered. tTO, Lordaeron, and SK all managed to exit the war without any public backlash from BK gov. The difference here is that UPN exited the war on objectively worse terms than what the coalition was offered as a whole, as well as the terms Syndisphere was giving for individual allince surrenders. If Lordaeron, of all allinces, could get surrender without terms after the whole surrender camp debacle, there's no reason for UPN to settle for less. Furthermore, accepting such terms validates the Syndisphere's approach to negotiations and suggests desperation among the other coalition members. While this can't be entirely avoided, a simple surrender without terms would have mitigated the damage. I'm obviously not involved with the peace talks, but I doubt that the coalition leadership authorized UPN's surrender (or at least knew the terms), judging from their reaction. Anyways, I've nothing against UPN and am just trying to clarify why the reaction to this surrender was so harsh, compared to the earlier ones.

 

UPN's path to peace was a little different than any of the aforementioned alliances, as we fielded better peace offers a couple rounds prior, and made the calculated decision to stay in the war in order to do more damage. All of UPN's allies where informed when I started negioationing for peace again. It was easily apparent that the coalition was willing to extend this conflict far longer than what UPN had wanted, and as stated before, we believe a result had been reached. Comparing UPN to Lordearon is also not fair. Lordearon is a new alliance who's entrance into the political scene is fairly new. UPN has historically opposed Syndisphere for close to two years, and opposed the likes of Guardian since the game's inception, it's easy to see why they would be more skeptical about us aiding. Kastor also capiIulated to get his "white peace" on other terms. I don't understand the narrative that this peace is worse for the coalition either. Having an alliance that wants peace within your coalition is worse if the enemy tries to keep them in at the expense of the rest of the coalition. I would agrue that your peace negotiations are at a better spot now since you are all dedicated to the same path. UPN has not put any pressure on its allies to exit the war to help us in mitigating the terms we have accepted.

 

Bank logs are just to see that we aren't aiding you guys while we are disguised as being at peace, it takes 10 seconds out of my day. It reveals who we are and are not sending aid too, it's just something that is hard to keep track of so that is why it is there. The punitive term, the infra cap is based on a timetable, and one that I think is pretty fair. Since we signed up for the coalition, and aided in the destruction that the coalition imposed, we are being held to them for a period of time while they still war. If this last longer than the aforementioned timeframe, then we will see what those talks will yield.

 

At the end of the day, I was not going to jeopardize the future well-being of the alliance because the alliances I was fighting besides didn't accept a reality that I believe was readily apparent.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Pangui

[Roquentin]

Well maybe the harsh truth is it's time for those political wills to die and find some new life goals man! That or some stronger anti-depressants.

 

Stop making it your life goal to destroy the other sphere and sit on the Iron Throne.  Why not make some smaller yet more dynamic goals.

 

 

It's not a matter of legitimacy but honesty as in the true intentions behind a CB.  "Just because lol" could be considered legitimate if it's the real reason. It may or may not be politically  and strategically smart but that's another point.

 

I don't think I said it was my life goal to destroy the other sphere. I would definitely prefer to win but it's not a make or break thing for me.  The issue is this is a war game and the other sphere will try to cut down whoever can present a potential threat, so conflict is unavoidable as long as there are consolidated spheres. I'm fine putting in an all out effort regardless of the odds even if we have to lose.  What happens is most people either try to get out of the way or join when they can't win. For whoever remains on the out in that situation, it's basically a death sentence.  We got lucky here in that some alliances that were in a risk-free position where they could stack infra for all eternity decided to take a risk and I'm very grateful to them for being willing to avoid isolated curbstomps by putting themselves in danger.

 

The true intentions behind the CB is the other sphere was openly hostile and the logs were the tipping point. 

 

 

 

Is it really any trickier than forcing both sides to basically perma war? I mean, there are those of us that even though we might not agree with your reasoning, we would be accommodating enough to understand it (essentially put ourselves in your shoes) and say "OK, I might not have made that exact choice but that seems reasonable". As for political damage, I think the parties on both sides know where they stand so I'm not sure the damage will be all that much anyways...

 

Furthermore, I even suggested at one point in the peace chat WEEKS AGO that who ever has the logs, redact the names of the people involved to protect confidentiality. However, that was met with another excuse.

I don't see how we're forcing anyone to perma war. You could just accept the offer without the CB thing. 

 

It was a good suggestion, but it's still possible to figure out who the involved actors are, so it's a risk they'd have to be comfortable with. If I was in their shoes, I wouldn't really be super eager to allow it, either. When the expectations are that it'll just be dismissed either way, it's a high risk unknown reward situation.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Roquentin

[Memph]

I could go into why we haven't really "lost", but you've already rejected the argument. Either way people don't feel defeated as long and are capable of providing resistance. Like I said, if people don't go into your kill zone, they're relatively safe. 

 

I'm sure it must be quite enjoyable for all those 12+ city nations on your side to have to sit with 0 military to stay out of the kill zone, then get raided by Arrgh or our lower tier, then build a few planes to defend themselves only to find themselves smacked down by downdeclares.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Memph

[Roquentin]

I'm sure it must be quite enjoyable for all those 12+ city nations on your side to have to sit with 0 military to stay out of the kill zone, then get raided by Arrgh or our lower tier, then build a few planes to defend themselves only to find themselves smacked down by downdeclares.

I wouldn't say it's enjoyable, but it's just a product of how the sides are composed. It'd likely happen again regardless of peace and isn't really avoidable. I guess the argument here is you can get back to downdeclaring on them at a later date and they should be eager to get a respite? It's a bizarre comment for someone from Guardian to make given you've done it so many times to most on this side.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Roquentin

[Memph]

I wouldn't say it's enjoyable, but it's just a product of how the sides are composed. It'd likely happen again regardless of peace and isn't really avoidable. I guess the argument here is you can get back to downdeclaring on them at a later date and they should be eager to get a respite? It's a bizarre comment for someone from Guardian to make given you've done it so many times to most on this side.

This is actually the first war where we've been downdeclaring moreso than updeclaring. But considering how many of your uppers seem to be quitting due to the repeated beatdowns I'd say that yeah, odds of the alliances on your side ever having a competitive upper tier are getting increasing slim.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Memph

[Justin076]

I wouldn't say it's enjoyable, but it's just a product of how the sides are composed. It'd likely happen again regardless of peace and isn't really avoidable. I guess the argument here is you can get back to downdeclaring on them at a later date and they should be eager to get a respite? It's a bizarre comment for someone from Guardian to make given you've done it so many times to most on this side.

 

[Roquentin]

 

Yeah, dude let me gin up the tens of billions that would take to correct the upper mid imbalance with one alliance and we're pixel hugging. Totally. Maybe instead of trying to pixel hug you could like not have joined the side with the upper tier advantage if we're going to take shots like that. It's always been a dumb argument as even if all our money had been spent on cities, it wouldn't be enough and that's not even taking into account warchests.  We're losing pixels either way; the difference is if we have a small number of nations in the mid tier than they're just easy isolated targets. That'd be convenient for you. It's not really pixel hugging to still take damage but simply not give the enemy every advantage possible.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Roquentin

[Bollocks]

I don't really think you know the facts here.

 

You're absolutely right, I don't know the alternative facts you base your alternative reality on. How having a CB that sucks so bad you literally try to validate it via peace terms is good rnough to continue to use a rallying cry. How a getting IQ rekt still makes it a "narrow" loss. How no reps + admit defeat is nefarious triumpalism and oppression.

 

Your coalition partners like UPN are all shaking their heads in disbelief and moving on.

Edited May 28, 2017 by Bollocks

[ComradeMilton]

Why do people think we even need a CB?

[Holton]

Why do people think we even need a CB?

 

“Oh, I think not,†Holton said, swirling the wine in his cup. “CB is a curious thing, my lord. Perchance you have considered the riddle I posed you that day in the inn?â€

“It has crossed my mind a time or two,†Milton admitted. “The Emperor, the Ayylien, the whale—who lives and who dies? Who will the coalition obey? It’s a riddle without an answer, or rather, too many answers. All depends on the man with the coalition.â€

“And yet they are no one,†Holton said. “They have neither crown nor gold nor favor of the memes, only a warchest of pointed steel.â€

“That warchest of steel is the power of life and death.â€

“Just so… yet if it is the coalition who rule us in truth, who do we pretend our Emperors hold the power? Why should a strong coalition with a warchest ever obey a child Emperor like Roquentin, or a wine-sodden oaf like Curufinwe?â€

“Because these child Emperors and drunken oafs can call other strong men, with other warchests.â€

“Then these other coalitions have the true power. Or do they?†Varys smiled. “Some say knowledge is power. Some tell us that all power comes from the memes. Others say it derives from Order. Yet that day on the steps of Baelor’s Sept, our godly High Ayylien and the lawful Queen Regent and your ever-so-knowledgeable servant were as powerless as any cobbler or cooper in the crowd. Who truly killed Inquisition, do you think? Roquentin, who gave the command? Curufinwe, who swung the sword? Or… another?â€

Milton cocked his head sideways. “Did you mean to answer your damned riddle, or only to make my head ache worse?â€

Varys smiled. “Here, then. CB resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less.â€

“So CB is a mummer’s trick?â€

“A shadow on the wall,†Holton murmured, “yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow.â€

Milton smiled. “Lord Holton, I am growing strangely fond of you. I may kill you yet, but I think I’d feel sad about it.â€

“I will take that as high praise.â€

[Charles Bolivar]

Yeah, dude let me gin up the tens of billions that would take to correct the upper mid imbalance with one alliance and we're pixel hugging. Totally. Maybe instead of trying to pixel hug you could like not have joined the side with the upper tier advantage if we're going to take shots like that. It's always been a dumb argument as even if all our money had been spent on cities, it wouldn't be enough and that's not even taking into account warchests. We're losing pixels either way; the difference is if we have a small number of nations in the mid tier than they're just easy isolated targets. That'd be convenient for you. It's not really pixel hugging to still take damage but simply not give the enemy every advantage possible.

"When you play the game of pixels, you build or you die".

 

Or to put it more elaborately, you can't win wars with this strategy you are employing and you can't produce enough resources for your wartime needs with it either.

 

Adapt or die.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Nemesis

[ComradeMilton]

“Oh, I think not,†Holton said, swirling the wine in his cup. “CB is a curious thing, my lord. Perchance you have considered the riddle I posed you that day in the inn?â€

“It has crossed my mind a time or two,†Milton admitted. “The Emperor, the Ayylien, the whale—who lives and who dies? Who will the coalition obey? It’s a riddle without an answer, or rather, too many answers. All depends on the man with the coalition.â€

“And yet they are no one,†Holton said. “They have neither crown nor gold nor favor of the memes, only a warchest of pointed steel.â€

“That warchest of steel is the power of life and death.â€

“Just so… yet if it is the coalition who rule us in truth, who do we pretend our Emperors hold the power? Why should a strong coalition with a warchest ever obey a child Emperor like Roquentin, or a wine-sodden oaf like Curufinwe?â€

“Because these child Emperors and drunken oafs can call other strong men, with other warchests.â€

“Then these other coalitions have the true power. Or do they?†Varys smiled. “Some say knowledge is power. Some tell us that all power comes from the memes. Others say it derives from Order. Yet that day on the steps of Baelor’s Sept, our godly High Ayylien and the lawful Queen Regent and your ever-so-knowledgeable servant were as powerless as any cobbler or cooper in the crowd. Who truly killed Inquisition, do you think? Roquentin, who gave the command? Curufinwe, who swung the sword? Or… another?â€

Milton cocked his head sideways. “Did you mean to answer your damned riddle, or only to make my head ache worse?â€

Varys smiled. “Here, then. CB resides where men believe it resides. No more and no less.â€

“So CB is a mummer’s trick?â€

“A shadow on the wall,†Holton murmured, “yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow.â€

Milton smiled. “Lord Holton, I am growing strangely fond of you. I may kill you yet, but I think I’d feel sad about it.â€

“I will take that as high praise.â€

 

K, but that doesn't really answer the question.

 

 

"When you play the game of pixels, you build or you die".

 

Or to put it more elaborately, you can't win wars with this strategy you are employing and you can't produce enough resources for your wartime needs with it either.

 

Adapt or die. Yes, you guys should probably do that. I'm assuming you're referring to yourself as NPO/BK haven't run into any problems.

[Justin076]

Adapt or die. Yes, you guys should probably do that. I'm assuming you're referring to yourself as NPO/BK haven't run into any problems.

[Cypher]

Why do people think we even need a CB?

I don't think that's up for debate. Attacking someone without a CB is far better than attacking under the pretence of a false one (especially if evidence for that CB hasn't been presented to the majority of fighting alliances, including their own coalition mates). It shows someone's true character and will save everyone a lot of time, effort, and a few aspirin pills.

[Buorhann]

I don't think that's up for debate. Attacking someone without a CB is far better than attacking under the pretence of a false one (especially if evidence for that CB hasn't been presented to the majority of fighting alliances, including their own coalition mates). It shows someone's true character and will save everyone a lot of time, effort, and a few aspirin pills.

 

 

Exactly this.  I even said that in our peace talks as well.  Attacking us without a CB or even just a "We're doing it for the lulz" is way better than this dumb shit 3rd party source logs they've given us as a reason.

[Roquentin]

Exactly this.  I even said that in our peace talks as well.  Attacking us without a CB or even just a "We're doing it for the lulz" is way better than this dumb shit 3rd party source logs they've given us as a reason.

I mean, that would imply we would have wanted to launch the war at that point independently of coming into the information when the intention before it was the mutual decom and hoping the build up would fizzle out. That's the part you keep not really acknowledging. It's not that we wanted to move at the time and needed a CB and that we expect everyone to say "yeah, that's 100% proof", it's more that was the actual precipitating factor.