Kemal Ergenekon
-
Posts
1326 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Kemal Ergenekon
-
-
Beatrix, you are arguing with a guy who says fortifying is useless in alliance wars, and then uses fortify himself in an alliance war. There is no curing the stupid and the inconsistent.
-
The discussion is over, I am satisfied.
-
There are occasions where its fine to press the button, done it myself even. In an alliance war, you know, one that isn't a complete curb stomp anyway its very silly to do so outside the times I've previously noted.
... Absolutely laughable. Mensa is not in a situation where they need beiging to make a fightback as they can safely take the hits from not being beiged if it were to come up in knowledge that the enemy can't effectively take advantage due to a massive numbers edge on your side. I was thinking you were just being obstinate as usual but it really does seem instead you just don't have a clue what you're on about.
Shut up Spite.
Your inability to grasp even the simplest of things still astounds me, but it shouldn't. Now that you conceded that even you pressed fortify in an alliance war, you should just shut up as you have yourself demonstrated that Case II exists, which implies your statement that I challenged was incorrect, and a strawman.
-
Here is someone who didn't press fortify in an alliance war, when he should have:
Olympia looted $2,774,831, 566 Coal, 2,848 Oil, 598 Uranium, 566 Iron, 8 Bauxite, 2 Lead, 5,333 Gasoline, 4,444 Munitions, 4,612 Steel, 1,114 Aluminum, and 42,989 Food. TUGTopia also lost 10% of the infrastructure in each of their cities.
He didn't press it because he was drunk at a party, but he should have. This is a tangible case that you cannot ignore. Oh, correction, a case that you couldn't ignore if you weren't a person who ignores facts and believes in his made-up theories no matter the opposing evidence.
-
You can say what you like but it doesn't make it so. I'll just ignore your attempts to distract by trying to provoke me.
A lot of words saying all of nothing. Its not expanded on your view point to any degree, but simply confirmed you're looking at it from a limited viewpoint like I said.
You can avoid the looting and in a raid thats all well and good sure. In an alliance war you render yourself useless as next round you go straight into it with 0 military and get pinned down again. You can fortify again and repeat the process endlessly I suppose until the overall war ends (or hope the enemy simply doesn't have a low enough tier I guess). If you get caught in that situation with a lot of resources then unfortunate if it was a surprise, an error if you had the chance to stash it away and didn't.
If you were right, no one would ever press the fortify button. Yet people do. Not all of them are idiots, but you seem to think they are. You might want to go an ask why they press fortify. Share your answers here. Bye Roz.
-
Such a low amount would not prevent it.
-
You established no such thing, in fact you've not advanced your case in any manner. You trade off not getting beiged for having 0 going into the next fight against 3 guys. My alliance is currently in a state of heavy bombardment so trust me when I say I can judge just how useful fortifying is in a war scenario. The guys of mine who decided to fortify are now fighting more guys they have no chance against and what will they do now? Fortify again to then get hit by another 3 guys? Worthless. Being beiged actually allows you to fight back though yes, you should try to make sure that you don't have massive amounts of loot on you for the enemy to take.
Way I see it you're not being truthful here and are just concerned about raids or whatever where fortifying can cancel out your gains. In an alliance war level fortifying is worthless outside some rare chances it can help you avoid a beige to then allow you to beige yourself and of course delaying until cavalry can arrive.
*sigh*
You should learn to let go of your prejudices and listen to reason.
There are two sides in each battle. They are playing a game in the game theoretic sense. The game is nearly completely zero-sum. I will discuss the payoffs:
Defender's Payoff: The defender wants to maximize the damage inflicted on the attacker, minimize the damage inflicted on himself, minimize the resources he loses, and minimize the resources the opponent gets.
Attacker's Payoff: The attacker wants to maximize the damage inflicted on the defender, minimize the damage inflicted on himself, maximize the resources he loots, and maximize the resources the defender loses.
Given other variables, the defender and the attacker's best responses regarding beiging are cut-off strategies. What do I mean by that?
For the defender, if he has 0 resources at hand, getting beiged is wonderful. But, say, if the defender was holding $1,000,000,000,000,000 worth of resources, he would rather not lose the stuff as loot, and would not like to be beiged.
For the attacker, if the defender has 0 resources at hand, beiging is stupid because it reduces the infra damage that can be inflicted on the opponent. But if the defender has $1,000,000,000,000,000 worth of resources, looting a fraction of that is preferable to the infra damage inflicted, because it is a shitton of money.
Both for the attacker and the defender there is a cutoff. i.e. there is such a level of resources held by the defender above which the defender wants not to get beiged, and the attacker wants to beige. Likewise, there is such a level of resources held by the defender below which it is stupid to beige the defender, but above it the loot makes it worthwhile.
If the two thresholds coincide (let's assume that for a simple example) there can be only two cases:
CASE 1: If the defender has less than the threshold value of resources, he prefers to be beiged, so he does not press fortify at all. But the attacker is not an idiot, so the attacker doesn't try to beige either. The result is a war where the attacker does infra slaughter until the defender's resistance nears 0, then stop. The defender never fortifies. They wait awkwardly for a while, after which the war ends.
CASE 2: If the defender has more than the threshold value of resources, he prefers not to be beiged, so he fights as usual in the beginning, but starts pressing fortify after the resistance points fall below a certain number. Since fortify is so efficient in raising the resistance, the attacker cannot beige the opponent no matter how much they want it (and in this case they want it).
So what did we learn?
1) When the loot is low and it is not worth it for the attacker to beige the defender, fortify has no effects, and the attacker doesn't beige the defender anyway. This is similar to what we had experienced in the old war system.
2) When the loot is high enough, the attacker has all the incentives to beige, but the defender can deny getting beiged at will. This is what Sheepy introduced. This is useful in raids as well as alliance wars, since saving a huge war chest and denying the opposing alliance resources can be as important as avoiding infra damage, especially so if your infra is already gone.
Hence the conclusion is that you are wrong. Case II that I mentioned is a counterexample to your wrong statement: "In short its not a concern in regards to alliance wars."
-
-
Forgive me if I saw it differently. I'm not sure why it requires such an attitude here.
What is there to concede? I never said anything different.
So you just wasted all our time by arguing with me over nothing. You never challenged what I said and just repeated something I never said was wrong.
You had posted:
"Endlessly fortifying in a war (so beyond simply a raid) for 5 days is worse than useless. Congratulations, you avoided beiging by acting as a punching bag for 5 days to 3 guys. Your reward is to get your slots reopen immediately while you're at 0 and act as a punching bag for another 5 days to 3 more guys. In short its not a concern in regards to alliance wars."
We did establish that this statement is wrong, in that the new system gives an option to prevent getting beiged at will, which in certain situations is extremely useful for the defenders in alliance wars.
-
False what exactly? If it helps just pretend I'm someone else please, stop with these combative responses please.
Yes yes and no one has said differently to that. You avoid your stuff being looted and trade that of for being useless for the next round and being no real help to your allies. That may or may not be fine for you and your alliance.
These are not combative responses, it is the usual way I argue something.
So you concede that the new mechanic allows one to costlessly avoid getting beiged when it is advantageous to do so, the only cost being forgoing the 2 days of protection which is the definition of getting beiged.
So now you agree with my initial position. Discussion over. If you wish something to add on top, feel free.
-
Postfontaine
This.
-
2
-
-
Why would I need another when that one sufficed?
If they do as you say it is true indeed (never said otherwise) that they would avoid the looting to happen. At the same time they are now at 0 military with 3 open slots which will quickly get refilled. That in an alliance war scenerio is worse than simply being beiged and coming out of beige ready and armed.
False. This is an option a defender has at their disposal to use at will. The defender will fortify at the end when it is beneficial and not fortify when it is not beneficial.
When would it be beneficial? If you have a significant amount of resources on your account that you cannot move away due to a blockade. What would be significant? As I said, I would lose 40m worth of stuff to a single attacker right now if I was beiged. 3 attackers x 40m = 120m. They win what I lose, so the net damage is multiplied by two to 240m. That's not a small amount. If I was also losing 5 offensive wars at the same time 8 x 40m x 2 = 640m. That's more than half a billion.
So there are quite plausible scenarios when it is useful to use fortify to avoid getting beiged in an alliance war. Namely if you have a large war chest trapped on your account. Another scenario is defending a treasure as you like as has already been mentioned somewhere. Basically it makes treasures unlootable.
-
Bloody hell, I've really got all of you still triggered don't I. Oh boy. You've yet to actually to respond to what I said in just what you gain by doing as you are saying so I'll take it this is your usual tactics. Why you use them in game suggestions of all places I don't know.
I don't get what you don't understand. I can fight as usual, and start fortifying at the very end if I am losing. Thus one can prevent getting beiged with no cost. Do you have any other argument?
-
Calm down lad, we're in Game Suggestions. You may not get beiged and lose some value, but you wipe out your usefulness for the next round which in an alliance war is a big no no.
I am calm. Your argument is debunked. Ta-ta Roz.
-
This is a quality of life suggestion. Given the war logs, anyone can tally how many MAPs any side has at a given point in time. However doing so is a waste of time. You could simply show the remaining MAPs of all sides in all battles without forcing us to calculate them using the already public information.
This statistic is useful to know given the new war system.
-
Strawman? Come now. Only thing I can see beyond you just being jumpy and not knowing when to use terms is that you think my post was in response to the 10% loss at the war which it wasn't quite no.
Edit: In regards to fortifying only at the end you're still letting your opponent get free hits in and if losing that translates to you then having less units for the next guys. If winning then you could do it yeah and I could see an issue there but... I don't think that issue is what you're advancing. You'd have to be clear.
You are not making any sense. You used "endless fortifying in a war is useless" argument, which is a strawman, because you don't need to. If you don't want to be beiged, you just do what you usually do, and at the stage when your military is completely annihilated, you press fortify and lose out on nothing except lobbing a missile or a nuke. By doing so you save your war chest. In my case, it is saving 40m per battle from going to the other side's hands.
-
What was the exploit we used to beat you?
We exploited planes, tanks and soldiers to beat them. Totally unfair, Sheepy pls ban planes.
-
Endlessly fortifying in a war (so beyond simply a raid) for 5 days is worse than useless. Congratulations, you avoided beiging by acting as a punching bag for 5 days to 3 guys. Your reward is to get your slots reopen immediately while you're at 0 and act as a punching bag for another 5 days to 3 more guys. In short its not a concern in regards to alliance wars.
Don't even require an ally for it. I was able to use a fortify to avoid being beiged and to then beige my opponent.
You can fight as usual and start fortifying only when close to the beige threshold. Thanks for the strawman though.
-
I had pointed this out earlier, and it is working "just as intended."
-
1
-
-
Yes, me reporting exploiters is crying to the admin. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to to justify your exploit attempt. Hahaha..
Yes it is crying because there was no exploit. Strategies that you cannot think of are not exploits, but nice try mate.
Do you want a free plane and tank rebuy for those "airstrike" exploits you suffere? xdxd
-
Exploiters gonna exploit.
And crybabies will cry. I suggest sending a PM to Alex and asking to reduce defensive slots to 2 or 1.
-
Not my fault you needed to exploit to beat us, along with 9ish other alliances <3
It looks like the only real exploit we used was to attack an alliance led by a manchild who cannot distinguish between an exploit and a valid strategy given explicitly stated rules. But the tears are enjoyable, I'll grant you that.
As for whether the side needed any advantage, you can see that I couldn't even find a slot. ez win no re pls xdxd
-
1
-
-
exploit
-
Terminus Est declaration of War.
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
Stop exploiting FA! Alex, please spawn allies for us!