Tywin Lannister

The difference is though this is someone else attacking you so you still need to think out your strategy depending on how many points they have, more so now given the race to 0 resistance! The war mechanic is still fairly basic and this adds a little extra challenge which most people do not actually take into account, or mess up. A little extra fun thing to calculate on how the other might respond, something many still don't do. I mean, we could also display the rebuild enemy has left, technically it can be calculated too via casualties, I know I do it at times, it's quite tedious too and is a similar counting skill mostly. A tiny bit different concept though but just adds an extra flavor to the war module.

I honestly think let's make the other person have to manually calculate this one out to not make it too easy. Adds in a bit of complexity.

That's a nice troll reply but I was serious. Rose really can't be going around making git gud tapes until they prove themselves. It's how it is. Mensa and Co are welcome to make one.

So naturally you won't be making it then!

I can't help but find CS a nice bunch, despite the very stupid communications blunders and absolutely silly policies, you guys seem fun in your own way.

They can fortify to go over 100.

That's true, and if a good strategy emerges from it, that's a good thing, regardless of Alex's intentions behind it. However, if it doesn't really have any real strategy going and is more of exploitative nature, then obviously that becomes a different thing. I'm not sure about Alex testing updates like this on the real server, better to think it through instead or letting it live, but fair enough, let's give it a run now.

Oh the eRep memories of saying it, and knowing when not to say. FYROM too. Because this war is just short of friendly faces!

It was put in the test server though. What you're missing is that fortifying allows you to completely destroy an opponent's infra. Otherwise, it's not possible. So you've two choices, you can either fortify and lose all your infra most definitely, or not fortify, get to beige fairly quickly, limiting your infrastructure lost. Keep in mind air/ships attacks previously did not count towards a beige, now they do. Hell, in many instances, I would be happy if the opponent keeps on fortifying himself. It will cost him a lot more in infra than it would in resources! I think it opens up opportunities to lay out strategies by such holding out till help can arrive, limiting your infra losses, sacrificing infra for resources, going early into beige for hitting again opportunities, etc etc.

Nope, you can get a good immense triumph worth 2-3 times casualties in one air to tank attack.

I actually want a clarification over this way. You say it wasn't planned this way. What is it? Were you called in to help because 580 nations weren't enough or you wanted an easy fight? I'm curious. It would've been different had you not posted this to begin with. @Bourhann, hey look, that almost the only alliance has messed up too.

This seems to be working as per clearly outlined in the changes, and now that the changes are live and fully implemented, I guess we can only see a tweak post wars now if the change isn't too desirable. Target may not get beiged but they do take a shit ton of damage.

Maybe not today, but some day indeed.

Agreed, rethinking does needs to go into the changes to be improved in future. Tank casualties need to be tweaked and so do the air casualties. Perhaps a shift towards easing out the military caps on infra a bit needs to be thought on.

Hey! This seems like an average Rose blitz. Kudos on sticking to that.

I didn't literally mean to quote him. If you look around at the posts on the forums, that has been the general response. One quote was it's "hard mode", that wasn't sarcasm for example.

I think this is the biggest compliment possible that a war where we have such terrible odds for victory and people still consider it a nailbiter.

Agreed. There is respect for each other on both sides and let's not destroy that moving forward. All of us have a proven history of warring and let's enjoy this without the whole propaganda machine this time, from either side.

Cornerstone? I think when I was in Mensa they did something really shit and low along with VE I think. I remember ranting about the "Christians" with everyone. I'm pretty sure it was CS, might have been someone else though.

WRYYY!

"Fortify is a military action that digs in your forces in preparation for an enemy attack. While Fortified against an opponent, that opponent will take 10% more casualties when attacking you. Fortifying will increase your Resistance by 10 points, prolonging the war. You can use Fortify more than once, and it will increase your Resistance by 10 each time, but the increase in opponent casualties will not stack. The Fortify action requires 3 Military Action Points to execute. If you attack your opponent after Fortifying, your forces will no longer be Fortified, and your opponent will not receive additional casualties." From test server. EDIT: Nmv. Question still stands I guess. Does an opponent attacking you cancel fortify or it stays until you attack?

I was posting more on a general point tbh, wasn't directed at first. I respect alliances like The Syndicate and Mensa HQ a lot too, enough to say that you guys have a very good chance against us. I'm all for meeting on the battlefield instead! It will be fun whichever way it goes!

He warned against doing it though. You guys literally went ahead and did what he had specifically promised to disrupt. If anything, this increases predictability that he fulfills the promise of disrupting any strategizing over it. Also, as far as changing rules mid-way, if you read his original post, he clearly said update wasn't final and it might be changed before implementation. Which genius decided to plan out an exact strategy over that by doing exactly what Alex had said he will disrupt? That's who you should be asking all the questions. This whole ugliness wouldn't have arisen to begin with really had you listened to Alex's original post.

Honestly man, look at the numbers, I've spent my entire raiding career figuring out who can win against me/alliance I'm in and who can't, trust me, you guys can with all the numbers if you all do teamwork and coordination right. I really don't think you guys need additional support of mechanics to do it and it's really not hard mode. I don't know if you have my posts on block or just don't want to read it man. He's not betraying any confidence, if anything, he is living up to his promise of disrupting any strategizing in regards to the update, that's exactly what you guys did. If you look at it, betrayal happens if he doesn't live up to his promise. He already said that the changes weren't final. He promised to disrupt. You guys risked it and tried to disrupt by strategizing about it, and he lived up to the promise. How can you blame him for that?

As demonstrated above though, Alex doesn't owe anything to the people who exploited the mistake. I don't want to sound harsh but he did very clearly say he will try to disrupt any strategic planning to that and that update was not yet final. He's disrupted it now and as he already said, the upcoming change is a bit different. So yes, while the first mistake is of Alex's lack of foresight, there is not much of a second mistake since people knowingly took the risk and wanted to find a loop hole against something Alex promised to disrupt. I believe he succeeded in disrupting it. Perhaps this serves as good precedent for exploitation in upcoming updates for future in a way, since Alex just might make some mistake again..