Wait, I don't even remember the guy accusing me of being a colour in that thread; as far as I know its only been you that has called me that on AT. Also the same Helmet who spent years fighting RD and moved SoF away from the game because of it... its just ludricous. Also even though we were prepared to offer RD to outpost in SoF, there are three or four ex-RDers max in SoF, there are probably more in other alliances.

Last set was nowhere near an even war. You can use the numbers to manipulate it anyway you want. We had never planned to fight on even terms and in the end it was us fighting uneven numbers; its the way the cookie crumbled. We've already had offers of arranged wars rebuked, so it's not happening.

Actually Xyle and Dragon were working towards a FDP and it was mainly a bit of fun to keep two warprepped alliances occupied. And yes, those 60 members were active, because they signed up.

I don't get it, you claim we are the worst alliance ever, because we usually have more numbers and have reliable strong allies, but isn't that part of an alliance's war strength? The ability to recruit active players and the foresight and diplomacy to have true allies.

Yet even when we drop members and fight on even terms, there is always some excuse. SoL had more members that war and if you remove the less actives (not totally inactive) we had five more actives. And as I mentioned, we had already fought a war. Yet even if you claim we had an advantage, the war wasn't even close, we agreed to CF after two weeks, due to the gap. Then the set after we warred TIE/MD when they had a slight numbers advantage. Ofc MD wasn't warprepped, but thats another excuse where you claim our victory doesn't count.

The set after was last christmas; a celebration set. Many vets returned and half were planning to net, while the other half were going to have a late arranged war. We had made it clear that we'd call in allies if we got hit, we used our political advantage to ensure that our leaders could relax during christmas and our netters could grow off MD land, while our warriors could hit. But apparently... we're not allowed to use the 'we were not warprepped' excuse while MD the set before used the same excuse.

I really can't comment about the RD boards. I never read them, despite your delusions that I'm a colour and that Helmet is some dual leader of SoF/RD, despire him posting in Earth once every two months or so. I had member access there one set. But, really, you are off your rocker if you think we are some kind of LaF vassal, leaching off their strength. I personally developed a strong bond with LaFs leaders and later Xyle did the same. We fought together in many tough wars and SoF has made many sacrafices while LaF has been in trouble over the years, while they've helped us out of tough spots. You ignore everything that is inconvinient to your argument. Also, to become number #1, there are other ways than dropping your pact and beating your rival down. There is no reason why you cannot work on improving yourself too. Also, SoF and LaF are two very different alliances, we like doing different things.

Finally, wargaining is a huge part of the game, especially with the changes. It's been a while since we've done it due to early wars; it used to be a strength of ours. It's something we need to work on in the future. This set we have 70 active players and are all motivated; I personally think we could fight anyone 1vs1 this set... But I guess because we recruited well it means none of those wars would be even; hence we are fluff........

You all misunderstand the way SoF works. In the past we've fought different kinds of wars. Some wars have been for the challenge and the thrill of testing our ability, others for getting revenge agaisnt alliances who opposed our interests and others have been to maintain our political power and that of our allies. In the latter cases we've had no problem using overwhelming numbers, especially during the periods where SoF's leadership has been less active. The truth is like most alliance's our strength varies from set to set and a lot of that is down to activity. However, when you are able to maintain a strong position in the game even during less active periods, it gives you the option to pick and choose oppenents and times etc. Just as the opposite is true when the other unforgiving side is in control...



You make it appear that everyone was lining up to fight LaF 1 vs 1. The only alliance which did this was MD. And the way they achieved it was to secretly FDP their allies' enemies, while keeping their current FDPs in the dark, and other manipulative actions. SoL on the other hand was targetted by LaF 3 years ago, when SoL decided to dissolve their FDP with SoF and go after us with RD. SoL tried to recruit an overwhelming coalition, but had pissed off most of the server including LaF, who they had beaten around a year prior while they were a pure netting alliance under Pang.

Nethertheless, why would we pick a fight with our FDP and our closest ally? I know it's a strange concept for alliances like MD and SoL, but we don't believe in undermining allies and chopping and changing pacts to advance our status. Our leaders became friends inside and outside the game. I do believe we offered an arranged war at some point two years ago, which never got off the ground, though I don't dsipute that throughout most of the sets during the last three years (especially during the Hanlong era) they would have most likely won convincingly.

If we were really serious about being number #1 at all costs, we could have accepted MD/SoL offer to turn on LaF, after the scandal, which would have been much easier that fighting SPERM. However, we chose to stick with our friends.




SoL did outhit us last set; big achievement. We had one of worst sets. We had many inactive vets, because it was a reunion set, our leadership wasn't very active due to rl reasons and our plans, backup plan and second backup plan went down the toilet. Once it became painfully clear how the war would turn out, we gave the choice for many members to take a break after two all set wars. And the set before... SoL outhit and outkilled SoF?

SOLidify RIVAL 17,294 27 641
SOLidify SoF 56,132 106 530

SoF EVOtella 19,939 40 498
SoF MONSTERS 7,507 18 417
SoF SOLidify 55,775 112 498

Ok SoL's HMP was like 50 more, but your claim that SoL outhit and outkilled SoF is a bit of a stretch... Furthemore, this was a war where SoL and allies surprise FSed oop and SoF choose to grow, instead of kill during the first week of the war.

You are also very selective about our war history...

We had an arranged war with SoL, where we even dropped members to be even. We didn't even have a selective tag either, we just let the first 60 or so who signed up fight, while the rest netted. We had also already fought a war that set. We also fought plenty of close coalition wars, fought more wars with MD, and had fights with PDM and NA when they were our size or even bigger. We've just about fought everyone we weren't good friends with.

We've had so many tough wars and just as many easy wars, but it remains the fact that we've lost like 3 times in 3 years and after each defeat we've been motivated to come back stronger the set after. But in the end I stand by point that SoF is the best 'war alliance' in the game, especially as we are the only true war alliance left :)

SoF is now the worst war alliance in this game... But we are also the best war alliance.

http://sof.earth2025.net

Yea, play in SoF, its simple, build a country, kill stuff, don't worry about nw :)

Очень плохое слово.

The changes to gs/br were enough of a deterrent for at least the first 500 turns, maybe it could be extended further 1500, but i think hurting ABs (maybe returning them to the low -> high -> low returns for the first 1500 turns)

I believe SoF is the only exclusive warring alliance now...

http://sof.earth2025.net/

Like GS/BR, weaken ABing dramatically during the first 1000 turns.

1) This will really diminish the likelyhood of oop wars, without making them totally useless.
2) It will hurt suiciders in the first few days.

What kind of alliance are you looking for?

War/net, big/small?

I wasn't aware that the counter was reset, just read 'Total defends all reset' and assume it was for the person.

Still think 40-50% would make more sense.

I'm in agreement about it being too high. Actually, it's so high that it completely changes the dynamic of warring.

Given that GS kills will be around 250-400 hits for most countries with the DR removed, you'd steal no more than 20% of the enemies goods with GS. A day 30-40 techer could easily have a powerfully stocked country with 500m busels on the market. If it dies it is still going to have 350m bushels to play with, which is usually more than enough stock to break anyone in the game.

ABing and then killing it is better than not doing anything, but in the grander scheme it will make later wars almost unconcludable if everyone remember to keep their stock on the market. This more than anything will push warring alliances to early war.

There is also the possibility of abuse here. A 70 member alliance could easily arrange something so that they could hit their top 5-10 breakers enough over the set to raise their total defends to the 95% threshold. That is a really scary thought.

I personally think that it should be set at a range more like 40% with the possibility of it rising to 50% depending on defends. Maybe this is even a bit too high... it'a still more than enough to make a restart useful, more than useful, but it is also enough of a pentalty to make an alliance want to kill it.

Да, это понятно.

Остановите говорить по-английски!

Both sides have been ABing and been doing some gs kills which take much longer.

True, also we've walled very well in the last 2 days.

No, it's just easier to grow when you're not being targetted.

I've made it clear in the past why I don't like MD as an alliance ingame, but my real problem with your alliance stems from your opinion that I'm a cheat.

Within the last two weeks I've had former MD leadership / advisers / mid-leader openly accuse me of cheating in this game. This is all because I've known that Hanlong has had Boxcar access and you falsely accuse me of knowing he had database access. I mean everyone forgets that Pang accused him of having EE database access and then revoked that claim, because there was no evidence. Yet, the accusation stuck as did the belief that I was some kind of accomplice. Furthermore, you don't care that Pang knew about Hanlong's boxcar access and that he didn't take action until LaF opposed his interests. Yet, you happily worked with him and let him design your new site.

People spying on other sites, IRC chats has been in the game since the very start. It's immoral and a sort of espionage, but it's not cheating. If it is, you are equally complicit to cheating.

I also believe that cheating in a game betrays peoples' personality traits, therefore your accusations grate on me as I try to live my life as honestly and as generously as I can.

No, basically after a world war I publicly flamed Sanct for being cowards and letting us die and I flamed iMaG for entering against us, which cost us our uNaP with them the following set.

I was very passionate, loyal, but politically naive. IX had been doing what they did best. Playing politics and playing the long game to get revenge against everyone. I didn't understand this at the time. I was demoted and had all my perms removed. It was the final straw after a bunch of events. Everyone was being promoted in front of me, including morons, and #ixwar being occupied by criminal retards like Lowman who spent their time insulting others, etc. I joined WoG in Rage.

The following reset I played in Rage and managed to warn them of an IX FS. We won that war, but I was booted at the end of the set, because floyd convinced Rage's leaders that I was an IX spy in Rage... Deity and other WoGers left that reset in protest of their treatment against me and Rage did the Ninja Vanish thing.

I tried to join TIE, but floyd made them boot me again after 15 mins of playing there. That's when I dedicated my time to suiciding on SLIT for a few sets. Following that I joined Rival for their final 2 sets in Earth, then joined in with their untagged crusade against LaF.

I eventually joined Hells Saints and I remember one set where we farmed IX for 10k land after they got FSed. It was revenge for IX trying to bully HS during my first set there. Our 15 member alliance got a big one up over an alliance of 100.

Eventually WoG/Rival decided to create a new alliance. I was still in HS during their first set, but I managed to convince RedX that it was in the alliance's interest to merge into SoF, while I took up a HC position in WoG. The rest is history.

My views have changed a lot over the years, but that's no surprise since I was a 16 year old boy when I first started. I currently have strong views about how I want to play the game, but I won't really deny that I'm a hypocrite in certain cases. It's just a game.

I rage quit IX when I was 18 or something and joined WoG.

Oh well, more time for девушка.

I really have no moral objections in gangbanging alliances who let in disgraced former SoFers and the example above.

Actually the more I play, the more I realise trying to be fair and helping neutrals is more likely to bite us in the ass than just destroying them. The majority of people are hypocrites anyway.

Oh I never knew about that. Seems like SoL's current incarnation is as douchey to their allies as MD currently are. They are a match made in heaven.

Ahh, that war, the set where MD got pre-warned that if they ruined our 70th celebration set, they'd go to hell and back.

MD surprise FSed us out the blue, with half of our alliance netting. SoF followed though with that we said we'd do and MD went splat.

... )

There have been a few times we've fought after receiving a FS and other times were we fought arranged wars... and this war will be fair again once MD enters.

That being said there are times where we don't want to play fair. Situations where getting revenge and destoying our enemy is by far more important.

Luckily, once MD enters, we'll get a challenging war, but still win.)

You know alliances don't win many wars when they start trying to bring up moral victories.

At least you weren't the second target; that n00b died online.

Did Apollyon return to SoL?

If we have no formal relations, don't like them and don't have good relations with the police, then we reserve the right to.

The opposite actually... Our policy says we hold the right to disregaurd policing action. It also states that we would back up to the hilt any alliance who asked us to police.

Confirmed.

dagga mark 50

Siberia is easy for me.

Punish /= get killed by

Punish - Verb - Inflict a penalty or sanction on (someone) as retribution for an offense, esp. a transgression of a legal or moral code.

Killed - Verb - 1. Cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing). 2. Put an end to or cause the failure or defeat of (something).

Yes, IX members... you can either join SoF and play with Scarface, or join SoL and play with your good friend Dagga up there ^

For all those SoF-haters, I also encourage you to die with SoL next set.

I'll sign up, PM me.

Well it made a war that was all but over, interesting again. SoL/LCN/DK have the nw and a big number advantage now, but that nw is concentrated in DKnights who are not on the same level as SoL.

It really is in the balance; it depends how active DKnights are and how fast/effectively RD/Rival can kill DKnights. If RD/Rival manage to win this one, they can consider it a major and well-worked victory. If SoL manage to win, then they can consider it an impressive tactical and strategic victory.

The EU countries will act outraged to appease their domestic audiences. In practice they will still toe to the US's line like they did when they forced the Bolivian President's plane down.

France will try to use it as an opportunity to sabotage the EU-US trade deal, because they are protectionist. Germany will try and separate the two, because they are pro free-trade.

It all depends how you see things. 'In theory' all US citizens have complete right to privacy from their government, but non-US citizens don't have the same right. If you believe that a governments job is to protect its own, then allies, and everyone else in that order; this isn't very controversial. The European mentally though is more towards a government trying to aid all of humanity rather than just their own, and will just chalk this up as another crime the US government has committed.

SoL had a good restart rate last set. RD had an average rate.

SoL/LCN are continuously recruiting during the war; of course their restart rate is high.

Rival/RDs 90% rate is hardly terrible.

Which violates SoFs self farming policy. Wahoo for free land!

suiciders.

Discuss.

RD/Rival have requested that we police for them in their war.

I have accepted, therefore SoF will retal any alliances according to their policies and kill any suiciders/tagjumpers and dissuade any 3rd party intervention.

Signed,
Flamey.

Bah they took it down:

http://i.huffpost.com/...E-LODGER-ADVERT-570.jpg?6

http://www.gumtree.com/...odger-required/1021568193