Charles Bolivar
-
Posts
1381 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Charles Bolivar
-
-
Dunno about anyone else but I'd have more respect for NPO and company if they were attempting to form a hegemoney. I can respect someone with ambition who fails in their goals more than I can respect someone prepared to just be a punching bag every few months.
Man up, grab your nuts, show some pride and assert yourselves and you might one day just become a credible opposition.
-
1
-
-
Haha I think it was proxy that I was thinking of when I made the list. Gov let us coordinate our counters and I was just trying to remember who some of the peeps helping the coordinations were. I don't think Hodor was Syndicate at this time.
He wasn't, it was more the last war when all of us were still together when Hodor put in that stellar effort and decimated all. He inflicted infra damage higher than a lot of Test who had an advantage due to fighting infra inflated Pantheon even.
Still one of the best wars I have fought in.
-
ilu
The most lit wars I've been in were dumb lit because of the people that helped coordinate the coordinations for war when I was in Syndicate. There was a quite a few of them, but here are some of the ppl that I would be more than happy to clap ass with.
1.) Critters
2.) Charles
3.) Katie
4.) Big Brother
5.) Wilhelm
Even tho everyone had their little cliques and what not, when it came to war, everyone clapped ass like cray. S/o to the fam bam.
You have no idea how annoying it was for partisan who can't fight for sh*t telling me he had been nominated and I hadn't
You missed hodor though.
-
1
-
-
You are describing an idealistic and impossible to achieve economic state of affairs. Central command economies and 100% taxes go hand in hand with inefficiency simply due to it being for all intents impossible to maximise economic growth due to the human factor.No it doesn't and no it wouldn't. The problem is they are intentionally building their members with poor builds. A proper command economy could just assign better builds. Higher tax stops nations sitting on cash while they save up for their next city/infra bump and reallocates it more efficiently to the people who need it.
With the correct planning, a 100% tax alliance could be more efficient for growth on an individual level for each member than a 0%/low tax rate alliance ever could. NPO is also in the unique position of being setup for that, all their members are already tiered evenly, it would be much easier with that as the starting point.
If we had some bot capable of perfectly organising an alliance's economy to reach maximum efficiency under 100% taxes with a focus on maximum growth of revenue and production then I agree, it would be better but we don't have such a thing.
Within the realistic boundaries of the human factor in this game in regards to 100% taxes and central command economics, it's simply idealistic to think that such a thing is possible in it's perfect form.
Case in point, Hogwarts, 0 % taxes and members are freely able to request loans in large amounts with minimal interest or get interest free loans from larger members who are saving for more costly cities. Is it perfect ? No, but it achieves better results than economic policies implemented elsewhere, perhaps everywhere, in this entire game.
Heck, we will probably end up supplying significant rebuilding funds for half the alliances involved in this war so the 0% taxes and economic style we employ must be doing something right. Wouldn't be surprised if rose was one of them actually.
So yeah, stop being a silly commie and embrace the joys of free market capitalism. The inherent problem is that the money you take away from a talented player to give to someone who is smaller player who isn't as talented will usually end up in the long run generating less long term revenue and resources simply due to the more talented player being more efficient in their own nation's economy.
Case in point, if Jess and Abbas or any other player in this a game had identical nations, same continent and same starting conditions and each received 100 million and neither were involved in a war, you could 100% bet that 6 months later jess's revenue and production would be significantly ahead of anyone else. The 100% tax imposes a cap on more efficient players and forces them to grow at a pace which limits not only their own revenue but also the alliance as a whole which would receive an income boost far larger than anything they would under a 100% tax capping an entire alliance if they instead adopted a economic system which rewards efficient and talented players.
It's like a repeat of cold war economic policy arguments in here or something
-
100% taxes, poor builds and poor redistribution all go hat in hand champ. Where you find one you will always find the others.Lowering the tax rate would be stupid. If they actually have the ability to run 100% taxes without it hurting morale, then running a proper efficient and well planned out growth plan under a command economy would literally be the best possible form of growth.
100% taxes aren't the problem, its poor builds and poor redistribution of funds and silly caps that stagnate growth.
If they had lower taxes , their own members would have the funds to reach better efficiency in their own nations and maintain better builds but they simply don't have the cash to achieve any of that and therefore the entire alliance's suffers for it both during war and between wars.
-
.Unless you're trying to suggest it's our fault that most of the upper tier alliances have a built in incentive to be a part of a complete nother circlejerk?But yeah, turns out that after pursuing a strategy of not being a convenient upper tier target for a larger sphere actually encouraged that other sphere to splinter worked, we can't just splurge and get three new cities for each of our members. If yall feel as though us doing so is important to you, feel free to fund it.
Your members would probably grow quicker and add more cities to their nation if NPO had lower taxes. If you truly were worried about keeping everyone at the same tier then you could simply implement a lower tax rate to help fund the stragglers. Better that that effectively putting a cap on the entire alliance's growth in order to remain dominant in a tier which simply does not decide wars and can easily be dominated by lower amounts of nations with higher city counts anyway. What's even worse is that the more talented players among your ranks are also prevented from reaching their full efficiency and potential and are unable to play a more decisive role in conflicts.
You would have higher nation revenue leading to higher amounts of taxation, more resources and greater military capability. It's a no brainer.
Just saying....
-
Eh, I'm gonna play devil's advocate here and say if tTO doesn't want to get involved in an extended crapfest which this war is likely becoming and they don't feel like they have a stake in the outcome in this war or don't particularly care for the outcome for whatever reason then why bother continuing to fight?
No shame in not wanting to be part of something and opting out when involvment offers nothing but negative consequences. I know I wouldn't want to be involved in any manner to the inquisition's war effort as it stands so can't really fault anyone else who feels the same.
-
Git adikted.
-
From what I gathered from my side of the war, the upper tier of IQ was vastly outnumbered by the upper tier of Syndisphere. If you look at Pantheon and t$ for example: and see how their upper tier handled, only very few of them entered into a defensive war despite being on the defense.
It looks like mistakes from last war were made again, not properly managing strikes on the important targets but settling for easier picks which is where getting countered really screws you over.
Nonetheless, while impossible to source via code, I would like to see what percentage of the blitz was successful according to victories. While I won the wars I fought I was out damaged because of consistent nuke strikes. Not arguing against the data, it clearly failed, but I would still like to see the outcome of the wars.
From what I gathered from my side of the war, the upper tier of IQ was vastly outnumbered by the upper tier of Syndisphere. If you look at Pantheon and t$ for example: and see how their upper tier handled, only very few of them entered into a defensive war despite being on the defense.
It looks like mistakes from last war were made again, not properly managing strikes on the important targets but settling for easier picks which is where getting countered really screws you over.
Nonetheless, while impossible to source via code, I would like to see what percentage of the blitz was successful according to victories. While I won the wars I fought I was out damaged because of consistent nuke strikes. Not arguing against the data, it clearly failed, but I would still like to see the outcome of the wars.
Mistakes from the preceding 5 or so wars haven't been learned you mean? People just keep repeating the same mistakes over and over with the main one being sending too many attackers at one or two alliances leaving themselves overextended and wide open to counters.
Plus we still have clowns who think inflicting infra damage on day one or two is a priority.
-
Put your money where your mouth is and declare war on them...
Or you can be like VE and just embargo people. These embargoes really hurt, such actions will clearly be the death of Hogwarts.
.
-
4
-
-
i don't declare wars on ppl with nothing to kill b/c i care too much about the leaderboard ranks tbh
Eh, it's keegoz though.
-
I'm not quoting back to the chain, but a massive problem with a lot of people perspectives on war performance is that they are focused solely on stats and are forgoing the context of those stats. Also, everyone is only looking at the war damage and paying zero attention to the political ramifications of this war. I'm going to lay out my perspective here, starting with strictly military.
Best war performance: TKR.
The Knights Radiant may have fought on easy fronts, but holy shit did they fight on a lot of them. They also set themselves up to be one of the most impactful in the second round. Consistent high performers who delivered again.
Runner up: Rose.
First time in a long time Rose has been great rather than simply passable, but we're finally back. Hit by an alliance with almost 100 more members than us, we fought our way back with only minimal help from a pantheon that got dog piled and a WTF with only 10% of the members of BK. Decentralized milcom went a long way for us this war.
Third: Zodiac.
Pinning Mensa, even briefly, is no easy task. I've heard the Chola half was far superior to the BoC half, but haven't paid too much attention myself.
Fourth: Syndicate.
Recovering military after a seven AA dog pile. Wozzers. The intial planes only strat may not have worked out as planned, but the recovery is incredible.
Fifth: Pantheon.
Last minute blitzes and getting dogpiled are not recipes for success, but Pantheon has dug deep and stayed on top of things. New gov members have giving Pantheon a taste for blood and they've proven that they are a force to be reckoned with.
Now the under-performers.
Fourth: Cornerstone.
Bad econ set them up to lose billions, and they did. Very early on they were the worst for net damage, and there is almost no way to recover. And when LPS actually graces us with his presence, that stat will just get worse.
Third: Black Knights.
Given a target they should have beaten by sheer size, BK's blitz was mediocre but their follow up was non-existent. Chewed to pieces, BK fell apart on a critical front, even with a fair amount of help.
Worst: SK and VE
Tied because they were neck and neck in the race to irrelevance in this conflict. Almost broke Rose's record in 168 for fastest to neutralized.
Alliances needing comment:
NPO. Spending billions in lost income to keep yourselves in the lower tier makes you annoying, not unkillable. And what's been done with the limited resources hasn't been spectacular.
Lordaeron. Being the sixth man on a seven man dog pile and rolling smaller targets without even posting a DoW is not impressive, no matter how hard you shit post. Uncountered and untested, lordaeron might impress later, but I doubt it.
Now for the winners of the current and post war foreign affairs landscapes.
First: Rose. Everyone wondered if new Rose could fight. Allies, opponents, third parties. It was the one thing that clouded everyone's perception of us. Now those clouds have been !@#$ parted. "Rose can't war" was sort of accurate when we were in the upper half of Paracov, but now it's the battlecry of losers referencing years old wars because they've run out of shit to say. We hit like trucks and are hung like horses. We got a swagger that's earned and I can't wait to spend the next 3 months politely turning down MDP offers.
Second: Pantheon. They'll get shit for the VMers, but they, like Rose, have finally proven undoubtedly that they can throw their weight around when it matters. A solid ally not just in intention but action, they'll get shit from IQ for a couple of wars, but they've proven to those who actually pay attention that they can hold their ground.
Third: Hogwarts. TEst, but run by someone with finesse and nuance? Terrifying. HW is set up to be king makers in the post war landscape.
Now for those with much worse outlooks.
Third: Black Knights. The days of the fun meme loving goofballs are over. Former allies scorned, BK finds itself playing back seat to an NPO that might have been looking to swap it out at one point. BK is in a very constricting position, and it's their own doing.
Second: VE. The plotters are back in control, Milcom is garbage, FA options are to get vassalized by NPO or die in a vacuum. All the work done on VE since Silent has been undone, and then some. Survival is on the line, but old names don't fade that often.
Worst: Lordaeron. Dropping then undropping NPO, begging to join syndisphere then back tracking, shitposting uncontrollably, bragging about a war performance that wasn't that impressive and mostly a matter of circumstance, openly plotting against a war partner (polaris) and unceremoniously dropping an MDP ally in their announcement thread of another treaty. Maybe NPO is desperate enough for more lower tier advantage to keep them, but they're going to keep the leash short.
Edit: CF is my special smol friend who always steps up and Satisfriend is bae.
Thread over , everyone can go home.
-
5
-
-
BK acting like that needy GF constantly nagging her man for a ring and then complaining when she gets dumped as a result of all the nagging.
It's over girl, go to the gym, look after yourself and you might find someone new.
-
Aww hippo you're so cute. Please continue. I know this is a jab at me because that's what TKR thinks of me. If you have something to say to me then say it to my face. Or are you too much of a coward? You messaged me in-game but then stopped responding. Do you need Lordship to hold your hand?
You need to calm down and woosah.
-
Why does the Syndicate and every allied alliance with the Syndicate in almost every war it seems to be winning? Is there a good curse on it?
Different leadership styles and membership compositions I'd say. Plus like roq said above, it's easier to retain members and treaties as well as attract new members and allies once you have some wins under your belt.
Can't really fault people for not wanting to be a member of or tied to an alliance which has suffered a few defeats. Alliance leaders answer to their respective memberships and their positions of leadership become hard to justify if they continually make decisions which lead to defeat after defeat.
Alliances are essentially made up of memberships who have confidence in their leaders to ensure the membership's security is provided for. If they lose confidence in their leaders then they will usually vote with their feet and go elsewhere where they feel their investment of time will be better protected against potential threats with this decision being largely based upon an alliance's track record of wins and defeats.
It's a perfectly natural and normal state of affairs and I certainly don't fault anyone who wants to be associated with the winning side. The onus lies upon the defeated to attract new members and treaties and this can be done by offering more attractive internal policies, a couple of wins in some capacity against some minor AAs/spheres or some other pull factor.
I don't believe for a second that tS and allies will always win and personally I view this war as the beginning of the end given the divisions which have clearly presented themselves within the treaty web. Just a natural cycle of the treaty web in that everything comes to an end eventually.
-
2
-
-
The only rule about treaties is there are no rules. People can make a treaty last as long as they want and discard it when they please.
-
Also, just putting it out there but this conflict marks the first time in a long time that keegoz didn't get his ass handed to him.
Deserves a round of applause I think
-
1
-
-
I mean, I'll always be happy to see Ibrahim get rolled.
Joehu Akbar!
-
Imagine leaving after one round.
Topkek
Heartless person!
Don't you care about the average joes of this realm?
-
Think of the average Joe!
-
Can't really blame kastor, I don't think he has ever actually been on a winning side so the concept itself is simply something beyond his limited understanding.
-
i never thought I would see a triple flank attack but now I have. It took a decade but finally its moment has arrived
-
Not too shabby if I do say so myself.
-
I didn't know wizards are jingoistic, warmongering imperialists. /s
-
4
-
The war so far - v3
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Actually gonna defend roq here but these goons members pulling that sort of crap eventually got rolled and stomped by NPO for precisely that sort of behaviour. Plus that is going back just under a decade so it's kinda irrelevant to current events in this game.
Plus no one "forced" anyone to eat Dog food. I would say anyone prepared to eat Dog food to achieve peace or any goal for that matter in a nation simulator has bigger issues to worry about.