Leaderboard

Ok buddy. I'd also like to note that since Pascal is managing the offshore, he is constantly moving between alliances, some of which were not tracked by CTOwned before they were deleted. Here's his stats according to Locutus, which tracks all of those wars (and yes this is excluding the KT war damage): And here are your Guns and Roses CTOwned stats: Seems pretty clear cut to me, even with the disparities between the two tools. Not until we start making better names for these wars that aren't generic garbage like "Error 552" or "10-Day War".

This is not an us problem, that is a you problem, (remind me, didn't you get hit by KT because you guys were acting like a bunch of pixel huggers) and if you are upset that you guys are taking more damage, talk to your fellow fighters that aren't pulling their weight. I see an Alpha or CoA that has barely tried, I see an leader of RON that is active enough to run a news service but too busy to hit the declare war button. I am sure there are a bunch more upper tier slackers on your side not pulling their weight. So if you want to cry about all this damage you are taking look at your coalition before crying about it here.

Personally speaking, in a game where most the "War" or "Action" is seeing a number go up and down, I would much rather see my numbers go up and my enemy numbers go down, that represents success. The real fun in this game for me is typically the community, little conversations I have in messages with enemies, the war declarations, the community inside my alliance and certain mini-rp scenarios you can create. On a side note, can you please explain what a "Fun defeat" is for you guys? Cause your actions on the forums make it seem like you don't enjoy being defeated full stop and attacking rose (who was essentially un-militarized) in a blitz sounds rather boring, especially when you already had an advantage on them.

Because you're one of the (rare) Grumpy people who isn't a complete pixelhugger and fights more than the first round. You're the fourth grumpy to have taken the most damages in this war out of 30+ in GnR. GnR was also the "hardest" war for Grumpy out of gw15/16/18 so it's easy to take it as an example lmao. I could use your rhetoric and say that only 1/3rd of Grumpy members took over 1 billions damages in gw16. And I could give you countless examples of Grumpy people who took derisory amounts of damages during both gw16 & gw18, like Lafaillette (Trevor Belmont) who took 760m damages in gw18 and 520m in gw16, which is atrociously low. As for myself, it's worth noting that my damages taken aren't extremely high because my infrastructure was lower at the beginning of gw19 as I was already damaged by KT & I didn't have stupidly high amounts of infra like some of your members. And unlike some people, I'm not bleeding hundreds of millions of loot when I get beiged. Now, our damages taken as the whole coalition are quite spread between t$, Rose and Eclipse/Company for whales. Despite that, my point was that it'll take our whales more time to recover from gw19 (in ROI) despite dogpiling you that it took yours to recover from gw15/gw16 or even most likely gw18 while having half of the game against you at that time. Feel free to do the maths if you don't believe me. Try again next time.

Welcome to Orbis, Fellow Leader I'm JadenStar10, Heir to the Alliance called the "Swords of Sanghelios" Why You should join us: Over $2 billion in grants! 0% interest loans We have an automated banking system that’s available 24/7. Full access to the most advanced (and easy to use) discord bot for Politics and War! Lots of experienced staff to teach you the game and give you great advice on how to best grow your nation! What we want from you We’re looking for members who can be active. Discord is mandatory! Our alliance operates mostly from within discord. If you’re interested in joining us, or have any questions you’d like answered first, please join our discord server: https://discord.gg/HcysHG62R9

A majority of wars till date have been dogpiles. While there are few examples of how a side with superior activity and "competence" in general have been able to "win" against dogpiles, dogpiles are generally hated by the community. The reason for the hate is that it is extremely hard to win a dogpile. While there have been a number of changes to solve this problem, none of them seem to have been effective enough. The most notable among these failed changes has been the reduction to causalities for defenders in the war compared to the aggressor. While such a system looks good on paper in a 1v1 situation, nations have 3 defensive slots and hence we really need to look at a 3v1 situation, sometimes at 9v1 situations even. The biggest reason for the failure is that to oppose an invading force, the defender needs to attack the aggressor as well in which case the causality nerf applies to the defender. Plus, having already lost units in the opening hits by the aggressor, the defender is effectively already fighting an up-hill battle.The topic of this forum post however is not to criticize past decision - it is to provide a solution and maybe influence any future ones. Potential Solutions: Ending all wars in beige: This has been one of the most suggested changes to fight back against dogpiles. Dogpiles always rely on two things-Manpower and Beige Cycling. Ending all wars in beige makes Beige Cycling extremely difficult. Even at the current rate of 2 days of beige, at worst, the person on the losing side of a war would be able to get into a situation where he is being sat on by a single player alone and has upto 4 days of beige. Double Buys and coordination by the losing side could easily subdue this single person sitting on a zeroed person, letting them build up to at least some days of military buys and rejoining the battle against the enemy. Moreover, since both beiging and expiring the war would result in beige, players would be more inclined to beige their wars for the loot and infra damage than to just sit around and let a war expire. Ending all wars in beige do have some abusable points like where pirates could use this to get beiged before raiding new targets or slotfilling being hard to detect because the person is doing attacks. But such abuses would be easy to notice and punish. To make getting beiged by expired wars punitive for the defender, the target would lost 4% of their infrastructure as they would in case of being defeated. To make it punitive for the aggressor, a war beiged due to expiry will not give any beige loot to the aggressor. This would also stop abuses by pirates who might attack an inactive player, do a single attack to get their resistance below 100 and then expire the war without doing any more attacks but looting the target. Increasing Resistance Loss due to attacks: A second way to stop sitting would be to increase resistance loss due to attacks. Currently, the least number of attacks needed to beige a person 8 attacks. This implies that if you are attacked, the attacker would be able to do 8 battles against you and you will lose units 8 times. Now, if say the number of battles a person could do to you was reduced to 5. You would in theory lose 37.5% less units. The attackers would have to attack you more to zero you. This makes it more likely for the attacker to beige you and give you time to rebuild. This plus the lower causalities to defender would mean it is harder to zero a nation out without beiging them and giving them time to rebuild. The proposal hence is that the resistance lost per attack be increased. A new resistance table would need to be drawn up for this. However, that is something a person good with numbers should do and not me. The theory is if more resistance is lost, sitting would be harder and beige time would help people recover. It is also possible that the players would enter beige with some military leftover. Decreasing defensive slots: This might be a controversial suggestion and might not be liked by all. However, a 2 defensive slot system could immensely help a smaller side. In a war with say an opponent 10 times larger than you own, the odds would always be 3v1 since that is the maximum number of defensive slots you have. Any person other than these 3 would just be sitting out there waiting for their turn. However, 3 people attacking 1 person might actually be overkill. A 2v1 might be more manageable. Not only this, since 2 people would kill less units, it might be more difficult to sit as well. Plus, upon getting beiged, it is possible the defender would still have a part of their military leftover. As to why this would be a bad thing to do, this would make the whales in the game extremely powerful, especially since it would be very hard to drag their military down and inflict much damage on them. Increasing daily buy limits: Another way to let dogpiled nations fight back is to increase daily buy limits for nations. Being able to buy more military daily(say 25%-33%) of your military daily would allow nations to easily fight back their aggressors, even if they have more military. Even though these attacks would probably be suicide attacks, a well-coordinated team attack could easily help beat down or even zero the aggressors in such situations. The downside to this is that since the aggressor too can buy more military, it might become more of a stalemate war with the winner being decided by whoever has a larger bank or more willpower to keep fighting. To implement this however, causalities would need to be increased to make it worthwhile to fight and double buy against the aggressors. Different kill rates depending on whether you are the aggressor or the defender: I opened with how reducing causalities to make wars even didn't exactly work out the way it was intended to. This is a patch to that change. Basically, depending on whether you are the aggressor or the defender, your causality rates would differ. If you are the aggressor, you would lose more units and kill less units in offensive wars compared to what the defender would. That is to say, if you lose 100 soldiers and 10 tanks and kill 200 soldiers and 30 tanks in an offensive ground battle as an aggressor, the defender would lose 50 soldiers and 5 tanks while killing 300 soldiers and 50 tanks in an offensive ground battle as the defender(the numbers are just examples). The difference in numbers signifies the "Home Advantage" of the defender. This could make chipping at the aggressor by defenders more worthwhile than they are now and give a better way to fight back.

So I was bored and since I only become active when needed (mostly wartime), I decided to reflect on minispheres and how they're put into action in the current meta. For the 2nd global in a row, HM (the only de facto minisphere) is on the receiving end of a dogpile by 2 ,or more, supposedly minispheres. It's undeniable that minispheres promote more wars, seen as everyone isn't tied to the rest of the world. In theory this would be great, but in practical terms what we have is the following: 1 sphere (HM) acting as such and starting as fair a war, in numerical terms, as possible, even moreso because we were expecting counters, just not as many as we got for obvious reasons lmfao. I'm obviously talking about last global where our skill and coordination got us to roll an opponent twice as big, and we graciously gave them white peace, not even the demand for an admission of defeat to spare them the embarrassment. Right now what we have is the aforementioned sphere acting on its own like advertised, and the rest blobbing together to avoid getting rolled in a fair fight, simply because we're more competent than them. That's what we have this war and had last one. The main culprit is obviously Rose, whose weak leadership seems to only know one way of doing FA and war: gather as many meatshields as possible, namely getting military support by sucking !@#$ of everyone (not paper tied to them) they feel they need in order to win. As an old player, I'm not used to this kind of !@#$ approach, I'm used to strong leaders like Partisan or Pre gathering support through respect, which is how for instance Pre managed to put people, that absolutely hated each other at least IC (like Roq and Partisan), together to join efforts vs what at the time had been the longest hegemony the game had ever known, lead by TKR, who by the way have changed a lot since then, especially thanks to Adrienne who got dealt one of the shittiest hands possible and managed to keep them together after several rollings. What this current cowardly approach can cause is a return to a bipolar world, where 1 far more competent sphere (in this case HM) see themselves always getting dogpiled by what supposedly are minispheres like them. That's actually pretty much the story of the old Syndisphere, a group of alliances that essentially banded together as a response to a permanent threat in Paragon, Covenant, Paracov or whatever you wanna call that shit. I for one think our current said minispheres should drop the act and own up to the fact that they can't fight alone, even with equal or slightly favorable numbers, and we can all return to the boring, stale bipolar world. Or we just keep pretending we're dynamic af by looking small on paper and then try to get everyone and their mother to have as lopsided a war as possible. So the question is: do we prefer no war or lopsided wars? Annswer: none, we can have fair wars, just not with weak leadership like we currently have from certain major alliances.

Hahaha ok this is actually pretty good I'll give you that. The important distinction however is that all of these slackers (besides Alpha because they dodge whatever war is too hard for them to fight) is that they get regularly flattened by Grumpy whenever they fight them, except for in this rare instance where Grumpy has been neutralized since the two other spheres with the largest whale tiers are working together. In every war in recent history (and every potential 1v1 sphere war), Grumpy slackers are able to coast by taking minimal damage due to their relative safety in mega-whale tiering. This also allows them make choices too risky for other whales (or any other player really), such as spending all of their cash on cities and saving up for rebuild during the war.

224

223

Very sadge,just playing games for 3 hours sucks

Yea I hab eaten everything possible

222

221

220

219

It’s tradition for t$ to bring top tier to its knees

Is TKR really trying to convince people that being dogpiled by TKR is fun? That's some new levels of spin here. I approve.

Why are you including yourself? we don't give a !@#$ about you guys, we just want Guardian and GOB. Like I said before, everything I say is fake until it actually happens and they get shit on.

Not sure what this has to do with anything I said. I'm pointing out that going in with a larger force and an eye to win is, always will be, and always has been a tactic used on Orbis. Few start a war without some advantage, whether that's in numbers overall or tiering. Either way, somebody will brand it a dogpile. It's people spinning narratives, as it always is. Don't like the larger aggressor? "ZOMG a 10 vs 1 dogpile!" Don't like the alliance being hit? "Good luck, have fun!"

It's true. Knowing there aren't 700 nations in Nexus fills me with such undue pride.

10 vs 1? Imagine my surprise at discovering Nexus had 700 nations... But yes. We waited until Camelot shat the bed and left itself completely devoid of allies, rather than hitting them while they were party to a bloc we have absolute zero beef with. I'm sorry prudent planning does not meet with your approval.

ok so I'm still gonna very inactive on this acc now and I will rarely get on for no reason

218

It's not about deserving or not, is about giving something fun to do to the players and also putting your younger players where they have to think a bit so they can learn It's so hard to put less firepower on them and see how it goes? You can always have more alliances to join if things go south, you gain in fun, experience, reputation, and there's no risk to lose

If any alliance deserves it, it's Camelot.

Absolutely not. I find the idea of trying to run people/alliances out of Orbis to be utterly repugnant. It's exactly what Camelot an their long-lost allies once tried to do to us.

I don't think you're paying well enough attention to the politics if "secret treaties" is your only take away from the CBs of the last few wars.

I can't really say I agree with this. From history, we can look at the Winter War with Finland giving the Soviets a bloody nose, and how even the greatly outnumbered + outsupplied Confederate rebels held out 5 years against the Union in the American Civil War. From the game standpoint, there's not really any politics nowadays for the last few globals, which have basically amounted to "Find the Secret Treaties!" ever since Duck Hunt. It could easily have been Rose or Blackwater getting dogpiled instead of Hollywood, because everyone's victim of just blaming secret treaties as some stupid CB. Last war I remember with a decent CB was that one war about treasure raiding. Not well thought out, but it at least had reason past fighting for the sake of fighting.

What an epic and strong alliance that I am very not biased towards

I thought Alex has made it so it appears in Notifications, but apparently that change was reversed. If we could have a page that shows all our Espionage Operations and their results.

Only because there’s a serious need to compensate for incompetence.

This is how I know you are full of it. Heavy losses? Please. You cant run around and be like HW doesnt take any damage when they dogpile, and then dogpile us, and be like we took heavy losses to do this. We are both the same size and you have taken less damage this war than I took during Guns and Roses, and that includes you eating a bunch of losses in the first round where we did about a billion in damage to you because you were one of the few we focused on. I have noticed when you take damage its devastating, and when we take the same amount of damage its no big deal. Weird, maybe work on your warchest requirements?

I like this! China did a good thing!

syndi spending all those months crying about rose's secret treaties with the rest of the game against quack and then proceeded to sign a secret treaty against hollywood congrats you spineless f**ks, you've proved to the entire game that you're somehow worse than every other sphere at least others are somewhat willing to stick to a narrative