Jump to content

Buck Turgidson

Members
  • Content Count

    238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

164 Excellent

3 Followers

About Buck Turgidson

  • Rank
    Large Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    The space between a wave.
  • Leader Name
    Buck Turgidson
  • Nation Name
    Darwinium of Slugs
  • Nation ID
    12118
  • Alliance Name
    Yarr

Recent Profile Visitors

1758 profile views
  1. Likewise. I hope you learned your lesson.
  2. No one asked you to contribute your nothing, so by all means go on your way and learn how to better communicate your ideas.
  3. If you can't make yourself understandable, the onus is on you to express yourself more clearly. We don't know wach other except through this very topic, and only in these last few days. I do recognize your name, but the disparity of our post counts may explaon if you do not recognize mine. I can only respond, like anyone, to my undrstanding of the words you type here. If you wish to convey an idea, you should be checking, and continually clarifying and adding precision to shape the idea. That usually means shortening and summarizing main points.Your stuff is getting longer and more confusing. So let me ask: the question was whether sides in a conflict willingly accept tactical losses? At its core I mean. If tyat is true, then my points stand. Every soldier knew he was off to die. If it's about selling infra, then the answer is no way. I'll keep my 8mprovements thanks.
  4. Leonidas knew he and his men were going to die. He understood that as a king of Sparta, dying this way was a call to arms for the Greek states, in the ancient way.. As for the Viet Cong, general Giap's speech to the Kuomintsng in 1965 spelled out the whole strategy that was followed for a decade; survive, don't lose, demonstrate the will to fight, and ''we' will win in a decade. I'm a little fuzzy on the Light Bregade, but if I recall, they knew they would be killed. I am sure they would not have done so if they did not think their side had a chance to win, and should win. Churchill knew that Coventry would be the target of a massive Nazi bomber raid, but did not muster extra defense, for fear of tipping them off to the fact that the British had cracked their code. He accepted a tactical loss to achieve the strategic goal of victory. As it all translates into P&W, @Prefontaine has it right. Even if all I hold onto is my improvements, that's a lot. Most improvements are good at 1200 infra or less, To sell infra would be to sacrifuce all of your excess improvements, and all earnings on the downslope. Reconstruction is expensive. It's stupid. Furthermore, we are neutral.And economist. Pacifists. I cam;t argue the casus belli on paper, but it os clear that someone else's identity is being confused with Yarr's. Unless, you want to deny stats to someome. In that case, just sell infra.
  5. Actually, there are a lot of such examples in history: - Leonidas at Thermopylae - Viet Cong vs US - The Charge of the Light Brigade - The very expression "forlorn hope" - The bombing of Coventry by the Nazis, even when Churchill knew it was coming - Ghandi vs the British Empire In each of these cases, taking a beating demonstrated resolve, and losses at the tactical level were firmly part of the grand strategy.
  6. It took some doing, but when Yarr stepped into the war, things quickly came to an end. Given our senselees slaughter, I ask that the above sentence be included in any history/epic about this conflict.
  7. Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory; Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. - Sun Tzu Actually Fabius' approach failed miserably, as evidenced by his replacement. Playing the long game and skirmishing was handily countered by Hannibal's attacks on other Roman holdings, resulting in erosion of support. Hannibal was camped out in Italy, living off the land, and had Fabius been allowed to continue, Hannibal would have adapted - you know, because he was a good military leader. The narrative rarely told was how easily Hannibal defeated Fabian tactics.
  8. Yes, I have been to the cricket channels. Perhaps I did not make myself clear - here is the order of priorities when faced by an opportunity like us being forced to war: 1) Figure out who can be attacked/spied serendipitously. I mean, if no one can reach us, that MUST mean we can reach someone you can't as well. It's an opportunity. 2) Determine how to slow Yarr's descent for obvious economic and strategic reasons: bring in the cash and preserve force as long as possible, 3) .... 999) Other variations on attack and withering defense 1000) Sell infra and yield the upper tier to the people who attacked you, in permanence. The point is that advice to play defensively is more aggressive than capitulating by selling infra. Since capitulation IS your doctrine, it is worth challenging if you want any hope of victory. The problem is that it is too far gone because you have stuck rigidly to an ill-conceived strategy that could only be effective in a 2 week war. You have to face up the the fact that your 'war plan' are not working, and as Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. There is a reason Scipio is more famous than Fabian, you know. At no point did we think we could preserve our infra - more than 3 rounds in, we have yet to receive targets from our enemy-appointed leaders.
  9. The performance reminds me of BBS days.
  10. I literally do not care about pixels. None of us do. I did make several suggestions, then after being ridiculed, went out and proved it. Did you see what happened to Odin when his attack on me put him in range of GOB? The coalition has already achieved its objectives - to put itself into a cage. The one person who was going to write back the next day, McMaster, did not, hence the second run. I spoke up in a sleepy gov't channel - for an hour the first time, and maybe 30 mins the second time. Imagine how much more efficient it would be if the coalition respected the people who are forced to fight for them enough to have a conversation without trolling them. If I recall, you were one of the worst trolls, talking about the weather or something just to bury my valid comments. You forced this here. If you want to know why it is clear that you have lost the will to fight, let me copy and paste it for you here: ****** I was invited to the coalition chat, and asked for advice. Literally the only thing I got was "sell your infra". When I disagreed, the groupthink turned into ridicule and bullying from the gov'ts of other coalition members. Sell infra to deny those other folks their satisfaction - one was even proud that her alliamce had sold more infra than our whole alliance had. LOL But here is the advice or plans I did not get: - focus on this list of players and put them in reach of friendlies - play defensive and milk what you can from your infra. It will come in handy - a single offer to help because no one is in range. More on this below. - take down the top tier of a specific alliance - spy these nations - get youself beiged In fact it was the total absence of any aggressive actions recommended or aggressive qualities from the mindless drones in that chat room that shocked me the most. I get it. You have all been persuaded to make the same strategic error. So, either you all admit it was stupid and cost you the war, then turn on each other consciously or not, and blame creates division. Better to keep dreaming that you are winning, and stay friends with your cellmates. The coalition leadership has lost the will to fight, and has so reinforced its losing doctrine ('more focus!) that it has additionally lost the flexibility and imagination to use a serendipitous opportunity to its advantage, such as a neutral being caught in the crossfire and being defaulted to its side.
  11. I was invited to the coalition chat, and asked for advice. Literally the only thing I got was "sell your infra". When I disagreed, the groupthink turned into ridicule and bullying from the gov'ts of other coalition members. Sell infra to deny those other folks their satisfaction - one was even proud that her alliamce had sold more infra than our whole alliance had. LOL But here is the advice or plans I did not get: - focus on this list of players and put them in reach of friendlies - play defensive and milk what you can from your infra. It will come in handy - a single offer to help because no one is in range. More on this below. - take down the top tier of a specific alliance - spy these nations - get youself beiged In fact it was the total absence of any aggressive actions recommended or aggressive qualities from the mindless drones in that chat room that shocked me the most. I get it. You have all been persuaded to make the same strategic error. So, either you all admit it was stupid and cost you the war, then turn on each other consciously or not, and blame creates division. Better to keep dreaming that you are winning, and stay friends with your cellmates. The coalition leadership has lost the will to fight, and has so reinforced its losing doctrine ('more focus!) that it has additionally lost the flexibility and imagination to use a serendipitous opportunity to its advantage, such as a neutral being caught in the crossfire and being defaulted to its side. For saying that much and being abused a second time, Keegoz banned me from the room. What a leader. As for the faults of the strategy itself, which may well have made sense at one time, they are obvious. The coalition (side note, arewe A or B?) has yielded the upper tier and the middle to a lesser extent. It has yielded the high ground (not to mention the air), and what the 'bad guys' are currently doing is shaping the landscape of peace for years to come. We apparently will be lumped with the bottom half. Now NPO has brought in their meatshields, some of which will bore a hole through 'our' coalition, fuelled by the upper half, and be joined by more like them. You make big money higher up. I was printing 30mil per day, not bothering anyone. I am still doing well and my improvements are largely intact. Strategy is about objectives, and the coalition can only think in terms of tactics. Don't tell me that willingly stepping into a cage is strategy... The point is that at this point, you either change strategies or surrender. And almost anything I can think of is better than the current one, so imagine how much better you can do.
  12. Indeed it does not. "Our" coalition is so far past any chance of victory, it won't make any difference.
  13. Oh man what hangover. I feel like Trumpies will in 2020.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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