Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 11/13/18 in all areas

  1. 11 points
    The Golden Horde (TGH) and Knights Templar (KT) have agreed to end hostilities with The Revolutionary Front (TRF) under the condition TRF moves off the color sphere black. TRF has agreed to do so and will move to another color sphere once our collective beige expires. Here’s to turning the page. o7 Tagged for The Revolutionary Front Jane, co-Visionary Réjs, co-Visionary Signed for The Golden Horde Buorhann “Ockey loves dicks”, Orbis’ Great Hippo Khan Sketchy “Ockey is a dick”, The Beklare-Bek Shiho “Ockey wants dick”, Khan of War Hodor “Ockey draws dicks on the map”, Khan of Diplomacy Partisan “Ockey snek dick”, Khan of Discipline Signed for Knights Templar Grand Master: Keegoz ? --------------------------------- Grand Seneschal: Thalmor ☭ Grand Chancellor: Vince McMahon ★ Grand Almoner: Theodosius ? Grand Marshal: Horsecock ?
  2. 8 points
    Atleast when i make suggestions that are blatantly biased to helping me, I admit it.
  3. 7 points
  4. 6 points
    Then don't hold them down for 5 days in a blockade and hit them when they rebuy once a day? The whole point of attrition straight from the mouth of IQ leadership back during Git Gud Friday was that attrition warfare was done with express goal of boring people out of their minds to make it unpleasant for anyone to fight IQ. If you want to have fun, try beiging your opponent and waiting for them to come back after you so you can fight them properly again. If you don't want to challenge yourself or take any risks, don't be surprised when its not as enjoyable. Also don't change resistance per war type sheepy that is stupid.
  5. 6 points
    What? No no no no NO no noNO no. No. What possible thing do you imagine that will solve? Sure, if you want to think purely conventionally then it would make certain wars last longer, but more critically to my view is that it would mean that ordinary and attrition wars cannot be won by unconventional weapons. This would make the victor of a dogpile merely need to declare ordinary wars, and then they can pin their opponents even worse then they already can! 5 day blockades with the opponent being able to do very little is bad enough, but to remove what few options they have to force a beige in the other direction? And to increase the amount of airstrikes they can potentially be hit by before the pin finally has to weigh the options of one last airstrike but causing a beige in the process? JUST NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO For the love of everything, just rework the beige/loot/defeat/victory condition from being first-to-zero to being first-to-zero OR lowest-resistance-at-expiration. And for goodness' sake keep it at 5 days so both nukes and missiles can still potentially force a beige themselves. This will solve the problem of 5 day blockade pins with airstrikes keeping the underdogs down, without compounding it a hundredfold. Bear in mind which alliances are suggesting and endorsing this change, also. I'm not saying it's politically or selfishly motivated necessarily, but the suggestion is mostly being encouraged by one particular side in the current conflict.
  6. 4 points
    All I see here is NPO complaining about unconventional tactics. Here's the thing. The suggestions provided by NPO would effectively make nukes and missiles totally irrelevant, dragging us back to the "6 grounds to beige" meta tactics wise. As a person who played back then, let me say that if you got dogpiled back then, you lost period. You couldn't do jack against superior numbers of conventional units. There were no paths to winning through some bizarre combination of tactics. Even worse, if we maintain current mechanics, that means that there wouldn't even exist the old-school nuke-beiging mechanic to win. At least in the current meta, you can do things being outnumbered in every conventional military category currently and win a war or two. Any change to the war system must maintain this, otherwise, the game will literally go to a I do war and sit on my enemies, and they can't do anything. That's not a multiplayer game that anyone would enjoy on either side, as there would be literally nothing to do after round 1. Literally what would happen is after the first few rounds and conventional military has been wiped across the board in some tier, you abandon those nations completely until the war is over. Currently, you can try for a nuke beige or a missile beige, such options do not exist in your suggestion. That's not a game, that's literal boredom for both sides in that tier. Congratulations, you've killed the game. Also in regards to Frawley's claim of x damage. You really think that alliances go into a war thinking that we're gonna cause x damage to the enemy and then end the war? That's BS. Also, as stated by others, even if you did, I assure you you won't succeed, as Alliances may want specific terms such as white peace or reps or whatnot, and decide to stick it out longer for that specific reason. Also the claim that TGH is the successor of Mensa is BS. Most of Mensa is in Guardian. Edit: Forgot to mention that I would've liked the auto-beige mechanic in the wars against TGH/KT and Nuke bloc. That would've made things interesting as I'm sure hippo would've been able to do a off-time blitz on some of our less active folk in round 3/4 with conventional units, forcing us to counter them out of the blue. IDK if nuke bloc could've taken advantage of it, but it would've made things more interesting, as one would have to play around such mid-war blitzes.
  7. 4 points
    Also, just one other point. This isn't even true. You could have fully militarised and hit their upper tier this time around since you have a legion of other alliances supporting you. You'd likely have had more fun and you'd have done better as a coalition too. Oh and the war would be shorter. You instead chose the option that best protected your bloc from damages, and let your upper tier support take all the damage instead. Pragmatic and in your self interests? Yes. Fun, fast and effective? Not so much.
  8. 4 points
    You are saying that to someone who co-founded an alliance built on the idea of doing things against our economic self interest in the pursuit of our personal enjoyment of the game. Alliances have different priorities, and those priorities come with different sacrifices. You are asking the game developer to offset the downsides of your particular strategy, to cater to your own subjective version of what constitutes fun. Pragmatism has a cost. If your foremost priority was fun, this wouldn't be a problem, because you'd adapt your strategy to maximize that at the expense of other priorities. You can't be ultra pragmatic, plan wars to the extent at which losing is not a possibility as many alliances do, and then blame the game for not being suitably "competitive". If people want competitive wars, take risks, don't be ultra pragmatic. Perhaps you might be in the wrong alliance?
  9. 4 points
    Exactly, so we agree, it is a result of your actions. Case closed...?
  10. 4 points
    Believe me, there will be no winners ever under such a stupid system. Yes, the point is to grind your opponent down. You really don't need any more mechanics beyond the 3 defense slots to make that any easier, and you damn well shouldn't GET anything that makes that more painful for the losing party than it already is! And I'm speaking from experience on both sides of dogpiles. Now, sure, it's "punishing" to "win" a war. Well, I'm sorry that loot and extra damage in your favor is such a burden to you, but this isn't the kind of game that should EVER be "won" in the way that every damn dogpiler has been trying to since war was implemented. Not ever. You should not have a lasting, complete, game-ending victory, because this isn't a tournament or a match or even a game in the strictest sense; rather it's a multiplayer political sandbox and must remain balanced so that even after "losing", everyone still has the chance to win again at a later time. Otherwise, we might as well have our cities destroyed, our infrastructure captured or our accounts fricking banned as soon as we lose a war, since there's no possible gameplay to be done after getting rolled even once. I've seen multiplayer sandbox games like this one bow to suggestions like yours wherein the dominant faction could permanently and forever annihilate their rivals beyond all possibility of competition, and it's never fun for anyone. Not even the supposed "victors", since guess what: They succeeded in removing all possibility of actual gameplay! They had no opponents! It ends up just as a stupid circlejerk where there's no possibility of anything happening! Once a temporary game like TF2 or chess is won, the game is over and can begin again from square one, but here the game persists, whether anyone is playing it or not. Whether anyone CAN play it or not. There's no fun to be had in a TF2 match wherein one side spawncamps the other forever without actually completing the match. Anyway, yes, beige is indeed a mechanic set up to allow the losing party to recover and potentially compete despite being outmatched in resources and available nations/cities. That still doesn't mean that either the dogpiler or the dogpiled are "forced" to sit around and do nothing. You're just doing that because you're exploiting (in the sense of utilizing, not necessarily in the sense of cheating) the fact that wars that end without either side technically reducing the opponent to 0 end in a forced peace, which allows an immediate replacement attacker to continue blockading and pinning the defeated and depleted nation. Your opponents aren't doing that at all, since they have nothing whatsoever to lose by hitting you back until you cough up loot and infra damage for their team. Sure, another nation from your side will just jump right back into their defense slot, but that was going to happen anyway since you weren't going to beige them in the first place regardless. This is absolutely true. You really do have to think what's better for the actual fundamental game balance long-term, not about what'll help you out right now... which is exactly why you really need to THINK about these things before you suggest them! Your suggestion would enable dogpilers to declare wars wherein they get even more airstrikes than they already do, allowing them to do more damage to potential rebuys and to infrastructure, and even more easily prolong the stupid 5 day blockades that you're already complaining about. Despite your team abusing the crap out of them. There's absolutely NOTHING about what you're saying that would do ANYTHING but double down on the problems you're complaining about. No, if you want something that will actually solve the problems you're having, and will really help the "OOC game longterm"... then ask Alex to change war expiration to result in war victory/defeat/loot/beige based on who has the highest resistance at the end of the war rather than a simple forced peace. If you truly want something that's better, on an OOC level, even when it objectively prevents your team from abusing the mechanics that your team is right now abusing to your benefit, then that change is something you will not disagree with. Yes, it will harm NPO's war effort in this war, which you are winning and will win even if the change goes through as I've described. It will also help NPO's war effort when you guys aren't winning, which is a thing that has happened to your alliance before and will happen again in the future. And this is how it should be; both victory and defeat must each be mitigated and forced to be temporary in nature in order to to keep the game playable at all! As for buffing unconventional weapons, that particular thread had absolute nonsense in it about cutting the damage of unconventional weapons but increasing how often they could be produced and fired, which I really didn't like and certainly wasn't a buff. They don't really need a buff (as much as I would like a buff to muh missiles, that'd be admittedly a self-serving suggestion), they just need to remain as powerful and as useful as they already are. By which I mean able to win a war, on their own, even in a dogpile/zero military situation. Because that is how we can prevent the game from being forever won and lost, never to be played by anyone again.
  11. 3 points
    From the desk of Uncle Traveling Matt Leader of the best nation, Fraggle Rock Greetings Friends!! We in Fraggle Rock hope all the nations of Orbis are doing half as well as us. It has been a bountiful and productive year. We are finishing up phase five of our grand plan. Once done, we shall shiftly enter into the final phase; The End of Fraggle Rock. It has taken time, money, patience, giggles, tears, plenty of radishes, and crazy Fraggles to accomplish this. It is now a good time to thank our friends who support us no matter how many times we have Fraggled them over. El. What a fella. Smokes weed all day and I make him laugh. He's been a good friend to the Rock. Zeebs. We are proud of you. You've grown up around a bunch of weirdos and somehow made it through. Congrats Daddy Critters. I got ya food Daddy. I won't be late. Soup: You're good people, nobody all the trash people say about you. Apeman/Hayley: weirdos that some how always back together. Ok. Jroc, SmithHole, Bet: Sure. Thrax: Bloodlines. Others: You know who you are ? Now onto this year's fund raiser. The theme: Doggos of Orbis!! That's right, Fraggle Rock will be holding the first official dog show. Here are the rules: 1) Must be a picture of your dog. 2) Only one submission per nation. 3) No cats allowed. 4) Entry fee of 7 million must be paid to Fraggle Rock. 5) No humans in the picture. 6) Winners will receive cut of the entry fees. 7) If you win, be a good winner to the other Doggos. No hard feelings. Categories: Action, Sleeping, Silly, Creepy, Creative. That's all. Many hugs, Uncle Traveling Matt
  12. 3 points
  13. 3 points
    Players Online: Radoje, Princess Seshat, Darth Revan, Spaceman Thrax, TheNG Rising, Admiral General Aladeen, Thalmor, Senpai, Sephiroth, Sphinx, Justin076, Shiho Nishizumi, Settra, Ling Yang, Maia, 8mrgrim8, Shadowthrone, Balish, Jeric RNG: #3, Pantheon Do we win?
  14. 3 points
    Who are you talking about? Felkey has said he went into VM for vacation.
  15. 3 points
    Every day I'm more grateful Mensa quit this game.
  16. 3 points
    I didn't say I took the money. I said it wasn't any worse than you looting people and that if I could airstrike 4m, it was worth it.
  17. 3 points
    No, the express purpose of beiging them was truly to give them a chance to do something. We knew full well that regardless of what they did, they'd get smashed, but at least giving them the opportunity to do stuff was more interesting (and personally, I was curious to see if they had picked up anything from the 69DW) than to just cycle/deny beiges and sit on them, which is not particularly fun for the one doing it (and even less so for those who're on the receiving end of it). Loot is indeed wealth transfer... if there's any wealth to transfer, that is. If WC's and wartime taxes are adjusted to account for it, then the loot bleeding can (and in fact, is) substantially mitigated to the point where it isn't substantial. Considering that loot is one of the few incentives for beiging at all (the other few being infra destruction, getting rid of someone nuking/missile'ing you, or doing so to avoid being beiged yourself, amongst others I may be forgetting), I don't see the 'wealth transfer = inequality gap widened' as being a substantial issue, especially when you consider that it's often forfeited anyways for the sake of keeping an opponent down, and particularly when it's only a potential circumstantial issue (given that inequality is only increased if the loser happens to be impoverished while the winner is well off, and you could very well be in the opposing case wherein the loser is quite rich while the winner is the one that doesn't have a penny to his name), as opposed to the one being put forth in the thread (idle time while sitting on someone due to low resistance), which is bound to always happen when you go with the lowest risk, pragmatic approach. And for the record (might as well address the issue originally presented), the only thing that a change as proposed would achieve is simply make wars like this more fun for the winning side (due to slots being more frequently freed up being able to attack more times in the same war), at the expense of the losing side's amusement (due to being bombed more constantly while there's often little they can do in such a situation). If we were in the business of making things more interesting/fun across the board, rather than to pick a self-serving suggestion presented by either side of a conflict (or rather, individuals belonging to either side of a conflict), I'd just go with the suggestion Sketchy made back in March/April, of making beige happen automatically by the time a war expires (if it didn't happen already). It'd actually generate a scenario where there's conventional action (the kind people tend to seek) every round, as opposed to the current setup where it's usually it's the first few (if not the very first) rounds where you fight conventionally , while the following ones are, for the most part, a matter of keeping someone's head down, while the one being pinned tries to find ways to fight back, usually by unconventional means. If loot has to be tweaked/nerfed (alongside infra destroyed in all your cities) to make up for it, then so be it. It'd be a small price to pay for the benefit it'd bring in terms of making alliance wars actual constant back and forths, rather than round one knock outs followed up by constantly stomping on the guy who got downed.
  18. 3 points
    I still can't believe someone would get so salty about this thread.
  19. 3 points
    Mixed feelings on this. I like the fact that the 5 day period ends up being a defacto beige towards the end if someone just doesn't want to beige the other person but sits on MAPS. It adds more strategy and tactics, which I think is generally good. But I can also see how that is boring and a weird incentive. Maybe one way to approach this isn't to reduce resistance damage but to make successful attacks restore resistance to the attacking nation, to the tune of 50% of the normal resistance destroyed. So if people are actually slogging it out, the war will go longer, but if it's completely one-sided it will end quicker. I also like the idea of the nation with the higher resistance winning if the war expires. In any case, I'd encourage people to look at this outside of the current war. I'm pretty sure Alex would wait till there was no war going on to implement a major war change.
  20. 2 points
    Alex, When the game started 100k was a fine lower limit on the reserved amount of cash a nation had safe from looting, now that we have nations nearing 40 cities, upkeeps etc are high enough that this limit no longer makes sense. I'd like to propose that you get 100k of unlootable cash for each city you have. e.g. I have 16 cities, the last 1.6m would not be lootable. Someone with 32 cities would not be able to have the last 3.2m looted.
  21. 2 points
    Pretty simple, make it so Utter Failures cost resistance. This is more realistic and makes the war progress more naturally. It would also discourage losing nations to cheat the system and send in a few planes or ships to waste the winner's WC. Nothing crazy, just a 5 resistance loss would do.
  22. 2 points
  23. 2 points
    The sigs for TGH cracked me up. I wish you good luck in your future endeavours.
  24. 2 points
  25. 2 points
    Ronny I know you're new the the whole war thing, but NPO has actually fought in numerous wars since it's inception (and lost all of them) and is relevant to the game community, GoB has had the luxury of doing nothing for 780 days...stop comparing the two and stop spouting stupidity that makes me actually defend NPO.
  26. 2 points
    Meet Copper, my best boy. Category: Silly Just got back from the groomer and was feeling handsome AF. (cash sent)
  27. 2 points
    The real way to make the wars fairer, more interesting and actually have strategy and tactics involved is it have unit sub categories. Each sub unit has strengths and weakness against others for example a Sam tank that hits planes but is a ground unit that defends poorly against normal tanks. Maybe a naval boat that targets infantry but take big damage from a destroyer type naval ship etc etc. This will make any wars a better challenge and a lot more fun.
  28. 2 points
    They were basically loot pinatas, so it was just inviting them to spend more. I don't think it's particularly more interesting, but it's a matter of perspective. TRF besides Oberstein and Big Brother are mid tier more or less, so there's virtually no risk in beiging them. It's a 27 man alliance so none of the avalanche effects are really there. A coordinated and experienced larger alliance can do a lot more when given a large beige as opposed to an alliance that isn't as capable. It depends on the loot percentage. I saw TRF across the board lose tons of resources in the initial wars, making the war not too expensive for you. If beiging becomes the point and the loot is increased it'll eventually impoverish losers further. I get being sat on isn't fun but there's no incentive to fight if you don't accomplish anything or basically self-own in a more contentious war. Edit: Here's an example. VE in SRD's day ran 5% tax, so that meant a lot of their members had tons of cash on hand. This meant people that fought them like TKR(They bragged about most cash looted in NPOFT) and then later Mensa made bank off them and it contributed to their future domiannce. It's a huge assumption that it wouldn't turn the tide of the war and it would make people less willing to fight larger opponents. People who are declaring up keep bigger people down so they can't build up again to their full capacity. Let's say everyone was forced to beige GOB and Guardian constantly despite the updeclares taking effort to do and put together, it would start to get pretty annoying. The updeclares on the remaining super tier are working their way up 1 or 2 a time. Can they do that if the ones already hit can't be kept down at all? A large part of the later parts of war are fighting double buys by a larger nation. If you have to beige and they can always go back to their original strength, it's a huge issue and becomes virtually unviable to updeclare. It eliminates the point of there being a limit on what you can rebuy each day.
  29. 2 points
    This is outright wrong. It would have made practically no difference except wasting steel. There was never a reality where IQ bulking up first round would have made a huge difference. The majority of the upper tier setbacks was dished out by nations 22+ cities and 25-30 in the case of upper tier Guardian and GOB. We ate the infra damage anyway, but we weren't going to build up pointlessly. Realistically up to 21 was in IQ's grasp in the first round and that's what we went for. I I don't know a single world where IQ militarizing would have had an impact in the real upper tier. There's a reason people who had bulked up at first submarined subsequently because it made the most sense once GOB showed a willingness to sell down and downdeclare/double buy. . We never forced anyone to bulk up and take damage. This propaganda that we threw everyone under the bus to avoid damage to ourselves is BS. This isn't the case at all. I mostly airstrike money because someone has money and I don't want them to have it. I would do it even if you weren't blockaded. It's only worth it because I can get 4m in the airstrike. It wouldn't be worth it for me to target your infra instead given it's not worth much, so it's my best option. It's no different from your loot stats. Do you think all the loot you've gotten off your opponents is all hunky dory in comparison to airstriking money? I know a lot of TKR members have made fortunes off war loot and I don't see how it's any better than airstriking money. Next time quote someone's exact post. No one complained about updeclaring. It doesn't mean that at all. Assuming the same nations exist and that it was the average in the first place is your big mistake. This isn't a comparison at all given the difference in member compositions. You're just being disengenuous as hell. This is the least informed post on the forums I've ever seen to be honest. They could all delete their nations tomorrow and it would still be dead. As Edward and others said it had long suffered from inactivity across the board. The reason NPO is on top in CN is because of everyone else's inactivity Their lack of willingness to do the same level of organization and make the same sacrifices is the reason. It's not an easy affair to grow and organize the tech flow like they do. It's dead because the people keep their nations around even when they're done with the game and most have been done with the game for a long time. This means virtually every alliance is a husk and is unable to deploy resources effectively and in the last war NPO lost, there was a growing increase of lack of willingness to put in effort by various alliances on the victorious side and that has always created openings for those willing to put in the effort to bounce back. It has nothing to do with the politics. Most of the players in nationsims never are interested in the politics. It's part of their life at one point and then when it's no longer, it's a good keepsake. I don't know who you were but it's clear your perception is flawed. It's what a lot of people have said. You're making it seem like an NPO-only desire. We don't want a political climate where there's an appeal to crowding around alliances with an upper tier advantage and them continuously build up. There's a similar sentiment by a lot of people. I don't know anybody who isn't interested in checking the power of other people. People wanted to do it with IQ and have constantly posted as such and your own posting about how we're going to try dominate is a way of trying to check our power. We're not trying to eliminate all competition and become the safest or friendliest alliance for pixel building in their stead. --- As for the actual suggestion, it's kind of ridiculous to say it's an official suggestion on the part of NPO to make it easier for us. Frawley doesn't like the resistance system forcing you to either sit or beige and he had that opinion two wars ago as well. He's always posted his ideas even when there wasn't an NPO like he said. It's kind of funny how everyone tried to enforce strict no beiging discipline when it wasn't inconvenient to them to do so(pre-resistance) and now think it's the best thing ever to beige because it serves their interests. The other hilarious thing: "hey guys we're beiging TRF an alliance that has never fought a real war how sporting" The whole beiging and glorifying of loot theme in terms of making it the goal I"m seeing in the topic is also problematic because loot is essentially a wealth transfer from a loser to a winner. This increases inequality in the game when the loser isn't well off in comparison and makes it fundamentally less competitive.
  30. 2 points
    Honestly, this is the only statement that matters.
  31. 2 points
    Its impressive how many things wrong you were able to pack into such a small post. > Complains strategy his alliance is using is boring and the game should be changed to make it more fun > I suggest perhaps instead of trying to change the entire game, you should pick a more enjoyable strategy > "The fact some alliances follow a strategy you don't like doesn't change that its a good strategy" You truly redefine the limits of ones ability to completely lack self awareness. Bravo Also, just because you call your strategy good, doesn't mean it is. It obviously isn't in fact, given your coalition has such a narrow lead in the largest dogpile in the games history. I'd suggest you let the grown ups talk buddy.
  32. 2 points
    -spoilered for scarfposting-
  33. 2 points
    Sure, sitting on your opponent and doing things indistinguishable from slot-filling is valid... but it's also boring, unfun for them and you, and is absolutely "constant cyclical nonsense of cookie cutter tactics". You know that. The pattern is dogpile, airstrike, gain control, blockade, and cycle airstrikes to always maintain the blockade forever. If that's not boring bullshit cookie cutter tactics then seriously, what is? You're being really disingenuous right here. Downdeclaring is fair, fun, and only a bit unbalanced due to being able to instantly rebuild their military units. Updeclaring is fair, fun, and balanced. Doublebuying is fair, fun, and balanced. Missile/nuke spam is fair, fun, and balanced. Dogpiling is less so on all counts, but not entirely outside the bounds of fair/fun/balanced; and since it's mostly a product of the meta and politics, that strategy shouldn't be denied. Hiding your bank in a spare alliance and/or a beige nation is kind of unfair, but provides a critical balancing mechanic and is certainly not unfun. None of these are game-breaking cheese. However, letting wars expire without actually fighting them in order to maintain the war permanently with no recovery nor even victory? Just sitting on your bored ass for a week and then making another set of guys sit on their bored ass for another week after that, and so on and so on without actually fighting nor claiming any victory at all? That's game-breaking cheese since you're not freakin playing at all! So yes, THAT is abusing game mechanics, since it is unfair, unfun, and unbalanced. Just because the administration doesn't issue nation strikes for it doesn't mean that it's in any way fun or fair for anyone, yourself included. This is called a "maladaptive behavior" because you're choosing to do things against your own best interest. For Dio's sake you have 4 times their number; just beige them and counter them as they pop out. That's what we're doing against TRF and because of it both sides are having tons of fun (or at least we are), and we're not doing any worse for our beiging tactics. It's more fun this way. For reference we outnumber them by about the same proportion as you outnumber TKRsphere, so seriously, just give up on the cheese and fight properly.
  34. 2 points
    Some people just have no class.
  35. 2 points
    This seems like a more elegant solution. I'm not opposed to this by any means, but I would really like to see a lot of feedback before making such a significant change.
  36. 2 points
    Either wars need to be shorter or Res damage needs to change, ever since fortify was nerfed 5 day war lengths have become incredibly braindead and boring. Holding someone under a 5 day blockade and hitting their rebuys once a day is enjoyable for precisely nobody in that interaction.
  37. 2 points
  38. 1 point
    Was fun liquidating infra gents. Would do it again. ❤️
  39. 1 point
    You've made many whiny and passive-aggressive posts on this topic, argued with several people, said Settra had the reading comprehenion of a squirrel, and made accusations of voter suppression. If that's not grieving and anger, I don't know what is.
  40. 1 point
    I agree. Especially because there's already a "Largest Nation by Land Area" award ingame which is currently held by Rose/Endiness from Church of Spaceology. So makes sense to have a leaderboard together with it.
  41. 1 point
    I honestly don't see that happening (mostly due to the extensive amount of effort and balancing it'd require), though I can suggest you to pick up Wargame: Red Dragon if you're interested in that sort of stuff .
  42. 1 point
  43. 1 point
    Is this really going that far south...over a war name? y'all need Jesus
  44. 1 point
    Uh... are you SERIOUSLY !@#$ing about that? Look at my wars you mouthy fool. What, you think a 13 city updeclare isn't just as bad for a 19 city as it is for one of your 14 or 16s? Well, it is. If you don't notice, even despite my targets being at low military, i lost one war, because i had to hold the guy without ships, because the other two blasted them to kingdom come. You're complaining about 8-10 city updecs, i just recently was fighting updecs of 12, 13, 10, 12, and 13, at the same time of course. Yet, here i am, doing it anyway. Following orders to harpoon the whales, even if i am fighting 10+ city updeclares. Oh, and the best part? THE BEST PART. I don't have like 150 other people right around my city range backing me up either. Actually between TEst/CoS, i'm pretty sure there's less than 10 of us below 20 cities. See, this ^ is what Sketchy was talking about when he said you're just letting your upper tier allies take all the damage. Woe is NPO if they have to updeclare 8-10 cities, but who gives a damn if Rose, Syndicate, CoS and TEst updeclare 8, 10, 13, 15, hell i might be in a 17 city updeclare in the future. My only complaint is that i'm very low on money to buy things, yours is that anybody would insinuate you do the same. God for-frickin-bid NPO has to build up and do the same as us huh? Thankfully for you we're much less selfish about our pixels while not being trash, so we'll just forcibly kick their heads down low enough for you to swat at them without ever having to build a tank. We know you couldn't Roq's disapproving glare for building such heresy anyway. A nation you shouldn't be fighting anyway. GoB targets are supposed to be speared down by your generous, non-selfish upper tier allies. You actually took that slot away from somebody supposed to be fighting them, who'd *only* be in a 14 city updeclare. He was rather upset about it too. Because you see we've been told to just drag them into 2000s range where you folk are cause yah dont like building tanks and ships too much, Ripper infact turned over all the GoB we slapped down there for that reason. I don't mind doing it for you, i'd just prefer nobody, particularly Shadow here, complains that anybody would suggest they do the same to speed it up. Not their fault they're tellin the truth.
  45. 1 point
    Of course they do, those goals are obviously tempered by political realities, motivation (in long wars), stockpiles and ally temperament, and your enemies temperament, but all wars to date (bar perhaps the IQ-KT War), have ended when the winning coalition is ready (aka achieved their goals)
  46. 1 point
    Absolutely. Mayor beat us to the idea, though.
  47. 1 point
    What Scarfy said Fortify adds some res + lowest res get beiged if war expires are already a good change Also units killed in every attack should be reduced and ground/air control should be harder to get imho, every war has 1 day of unit killing and 4 days of sitting and watching the clouds pass by
  48. 1 point
  49. 1 point
  50. 1 point
    KT - Now with tech support. Join today!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.