Kemal Ergenekon

It means I need to change the numbers and arrive at a quantitatively different but qualitatively similar conclusion. Which we math-people call changing the value of a variable. Math is never wrong. As I shared my experience before the change, I am aware that this was an issue before the current change. It does not change the fact that it IS an issue. Given that air is now weaker against ships, the lack of bite in damaging infra vis-a-vis missiles in a situation where ID is not present is now even more obvious. I have no subjective statements whether ships *should* do this or that. They got a lot more durability now. Previously they were air-fodder. So I predict they will be more useful from now on.

I guess none of those who replied to my airforce vs missiles post took into account that I used 900 planes for the experiment. That requires 10 cities with 5 AFBs. Against a target without Iron Dome: 1 Missile destroys 350ish infra and 1 building for 6 AP -> 58 infra damage per AP + 1/6 building 720 uncontested planes destroy 230ish infra and 0 buildings for 4 AP -> 58 infra damage per AP So against a target without ID, chugging a missile does more infra damage than a build with 8 cities with 5 AFBs. Notice that you also need ground control, and must have destroyed all air defenses of your opponent to pull this trick. Missiles on the other hand can be chugged even when you have zero army and losing the war. So winning or losing the conventional war becomes pointless: The side with the missiles inflicts more damage per AP with less material cost. Against a target with Iron Dome: 1 Missile destroys an expected 175 infra and half a building for 6 AP -> 29 infra damage per AP + 1/12 building 360 uncontested planes destroy 130 infra and 0 buildings for 4 AP -> 32 infra damage per AP Against a target with ID, chugging a missile does more infra damage than a build with 4 cities with 5 AFBs. Which seems more reasonable, but still recall that you also need ground control, and must have destroyed all air defenses of your opponent to pull this trick. --------------- What does this tell? In the very high end where people have 8-10 cities with full AFBs, since everyone is expected to have an ID as well, planes might still be better for destroying infra. However at the middle tiers where people don't have maximum AFBs per city and no ID, MLPs do more infra damage than actually winning the conventional war. This is consistent with my experience in the last war. I won all my conventional wars except the last two, but received much more infra damage from my "defeated" (zero army) opponents than I dealt against them. This simply makes the game too dependent on MLPs and their counter IDs. If there were an option to destroy the opponent's missile launching capacity by military strikes, I wouldn't point this out. But there isn't one.

I'm an air specialist, so it's the other way around. Still, even with the ID, I would consider chugging missiles instead of wasting 225 gas/mun to do around 300ish damage. The building destruction of a missile is an added bonus on top, and you can chug them even when you are losing.

900 uncontested planes do less infra damage than a missile. Seems legit. The ships are no longer air-fodder either. Looks like missile-whoring with zero military will be an even more valid tactic to hurt the enemy.

I don't think I have to post my flight itinerary to make a point, but I have an overseas flight, and then I will attend a conference for 3 days and present my stuff. I know P&W is more serious business but I cannot convert Orbis dollars into a paycheck, xdxd. Anyway, as I said, you and Farovia will continue to destroy my pixels with no resistance, and I already won or cease-fired all other wars I had (10 of them).

Cry me a river. You are my 10th in this war. This prevents Mr. 11 and Mr 12. Enjoy destroying my pixels.

Oh, I took " unable fight existing wars" to work for both sides. Thanks.

I'm in vacation mode and this happened: 05/25 11:11 pm The Great Daloaf of Farovia ordered a ground attack upon your nation of Incistan. The attack was an utter failure. The Great Daloaf's forces lost 3,372 soldiers and 0 tanks, while your defenders lost 1,030 soldiers and 0 tanks. You used 3.45 tons of munitions and 0.00 tons of gasoline defending the attack. The attack destroyed 0.00 infrastructure in the city of Sao Paulo Ulku Ocagi. The Great Daloaf stole $0.00 in the attack and destroyed 0 improvements. 05/25 11:10 pm The Great Daloaf of Farovia ordered a naval attack upon your nation of Incistan. The attack was an immense triumph. The Great Daloaf's forces lost 0 ships, while your defenders lost 0 ships. You used 0 tons of munitions and 0 tons of gasoline defending the attack. The attack destroyed 20.04 infrastructure in the city of South Carolina UO. This loss has resulted in a naval blockade on your nation. To break the blockade you must execute a naval attack that is a success, another player must achieve an immense triumph naval attack on your opponent, or you must destroy all of your opponent's ships. All pending trade offers you have created have been cancelled and refunded to your nation and you will be unable to trade with other nations until the blockade is over. 05/25 11:10 pm The Great Daloaf of Farovia ordered an airstrike upon your nation of Incistan. The attack was an utter failure. The Great Daloaf's forces lost 27 aircraft, while your defenders lost 19 aircraft. You used 22.80 munitions and gasoline defending the attack. The attack destroyed 0.00 infrastructure in the city of South Carolina UO.

Thanks for resolving this.

I agree. Besides Isolatar, tS seem to be a cool bunch.

War of the Leak

kek

If condescending troll posts were weapons, Mensa HQ would be ZI'd before the war began. Troll harder babes.

Build 2 Iron Domes, xdxd.

CG is our village idiot lesser genius.

*yawn*

This is not consistent with my experience. I had a friend destroy all ships of the nation blockading me. Then I tried to get some supplies from the bank, but I couldn't. Checking the war tab, I noticed that I was still blockaded by the nation whose ships were destroyed. Checking his nation page, I saw he rebuilt some ships.

I liked your alliance, TEst. A shame that we are in opposite spheres. In any case, good luck. See you at the trenches. Apparently we are not fighting you, disregard.

Why don't you start recording your voice and give yourself "the ear full"? xdxd

If this turns out to be a feature rather than a bug, I will simply incorporate it into my strategy. Establishing and maintaining blockades with a single drydock will be fun indeed, xdxd.

"This loss has resulted in a naval blockade on your nation. To break the blockade you must execute a naval attack that is a success, another player must achieve an immense triumph naval attack on your opponent, or you must destroy all of your opponent's ships. All pending trade offers you have created have been cancelled and refunded to your nation and you will be unable to trade with other nations until the blockade is over."

Attack me and get rekt or shut up. Tyvm.

When you are blockaded, you can end the blockade by destroying all the ships of your opponent. However, when your opponent builds even a single ship, you are still blockaded. In my opinion, they should need a new naval victory to reestablish the blockade. Why? Think of the following scenario: You destroy the ships of your opponent. He builds a single ship and reestablishes blockade. You spend another airstrike to destroy the single ship. He builds another single ship and reestablishes blockade. ... He can blockade you indefinitely until an immense naval triumph by wasting zero points. Meanwhile, he can attack you from other directions.

Yeah, when we are not in the middle of a war, it is AWESOME. We all RP as if we were trapped in a neverending session of United Nations and whenever someone starts a war, we look very disapprovingly at them, crying about casus bellis this and justification that. You would think the game is called United Nations Farmville Edition.