seabasstion

Tkr and Co saying it's not a low blow. Test and Co saying it is a low blow and they should own up to the reasons for it

this is fantastic work

i think its quite telling that you equate one losing war with the total failure of the 'paperless bloc'. i suppose it actually explains a lot of how/why you guys think what you think. we lost a war shut er down boys!

originally i thought that was a bit unfair to say but if the expectation was for us to be able to properly defend and potentially win against the majority of the top 10 alliances in the game simultaneously coming together to deliver a beat down and we failed to do so; perhaps you are right and we are overrated in that sense

if alex is looking for ways to allow people to 'fight back' fortification isn't the answer. the looting limit needs to be raised from 100k to like 100k per city. or something like if they ground attack one of your 10 cities, they steal 10% of the cash on hand. 1 in 20 cities = 5% cash on hand. attackers would still get incentive to fight from the now increased looting at the end (which is why looting was originally increased if i recall correctly) and defenders now have more cash they can spend to try and mount a comeback when those aggressors come to take their birthday cake (which is what fortification was originally intended for...i think...still im not really sure) in the end, that extra cash being held on wouldn't matter if the nation loses as it would get largely taken out when they are beiged. you retain the incentive to fight, you retain the ability to fight back, and you regain the ability to actually have a decisive war. im one of the ones fortifying perpetually. its a crummy system. i would rather be beiged like i deserve to be than take advantage of the only mechanic i have right now. the only thing stopping me is my ego not wanting to see 'defeat' on my war screen when anyone that looks at the metrics would clearly see i am. the 100k limit may have worked at 5 cities. it doesn't work at 15+ there was plenty of times i could have done a double buy and potentially gotten back into fighting shape with my ships. but because i never really eclipsed 1M in cash (2 turns for me) without getting a ground attack i could never buy more than 20 at a time. 20 that would have just been destroyed right away. if each city is making money and one city is attacked...why does every city get looted? i guess thats where im going with it. this fortification thing is borderline nonsense. all it does is serve to prevent active people from being beiged. it doesn't give a realistic ounce of a comeback. now instead i have wars im getting crushed in for 5 days, no beige time to rebuild (admittedly my choice - but more so because of economics), and 3 more will instantly swoop in to continue attacking me for 5 days. repeat until they get bored i guess lol. so if you want to make wars more fun and less of a dogpile type thing - yeah remove this fortification so wars have to be decided (or at least make it worth 1 point where you get boosted damage from the next attack but it DOESN'T add resistance), and actually allow nations working capital to finance a comeback. i feel like most of the math in this game was designed with 5-7 cities in mind. it doesn't really hold up when scaled up to the top 250 of the game

can someone from GOB declare on me next round id like to feel a grumpy one up my butt for a change

yeah its definitely not good. i came a ball hair away from winning a few of my wars when i had no business doing so because of the 1-2 chip shots with ships. i also had my 250+ ship army with blockades on all 5 of my opponents destroyed because of this 'rerouting' behavior. im not saying it is a good war mechanic - i'm just saying it isn't realistic. since this report is based on things not being realistic i was merely presenting the counterpoint the other way

i also agree with this point. which is why it is hard to code for realism in this respect. i was merely pointing to the other side of this situation where the game does not model a realistic behavior. i believe the game != realism argument has been had many times on this forum

if we are talking about being rational or realistic one could argue it isn't realistic for someone to be blockaded with several hundred ships and expect to get their airplanes across that front unimpeded to do their airstrikes on tanks/soldiers/ships

why would you even need to vote if you have a mutual defense pact. you already voted you would go to war when you voted to sign that treaty

Speak for yourself I lost my balls when I went post op. Those things are gross

Awe shucks LPS gave me validation!! Maybe I am good at something oh maybe I am good! With the power of your empathy I can do anything now!!! I'm gonna go call my dad and patch things up now that someone in medical school with the largest gdp in an online browser based political simulation has given me the strength by God I'm going to do something in this world oh boy am I gonna do it!

Oh I see you're going to be a doctor so that makes you better than me. How very humble of you

Jodo used to lead test? Huh I never knew that. Til. Was it like a couple weeks 2 years ago or something?

You dont need to try and explain your past behavior. I'm sure we all know you were really really really busy those last 6 wars you went into vm

Let's get honest. To those saying this isn't a bandwagon is lying. To those saying we dont deserve this is also lying lol

Wow you guys are really brave

Hues

Hopefully tto makes better decisions on the battlefield than they did with their acronym

I've been bad boy commerce the spankings ja

We talking about LPS? He's not in vm yet? I wouldn't know since I never think to look at him as he is more or less an NPC in this game

Pardon?

Postfontaine

submarines?

to all the naysayers its still a large amount of commitment considering only 1 can be bought a day and 3 can be spied away. i find it to be a significant in it's own right