Sir Scarfalot
-
Posts
2985 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
13
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Sir Scarfalot
-
-
Go attack them and see; empirical research is the only way to get a real answer.
I mean, almost every single alliance says in their description 'raiding isn't tolerated', but they still have beige nations sometimes, so why trust words?
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Thalmor said:
It's really not. If Person A shitalked Person B, it's not justification enough for Person B's alliance to hit Person A's alliance.
If OOC slurs or threats were used, then that's a lot more understandable.
BOOOO! No! Talk shit get hit isn't just a rule, it's a law of nature.
Avoiding using a CB as strong as that is just abject cowardice and pixelhugging.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Partisan said:
You'd have lost.
I don't know man; with a cause as worthy as his, the very idea of 'losing' shouldn't apply. People need to start going to war over these things, or else we'll all be subjected to more consolidation, pixel hugging, and worst of all, crap treaty titles.
Tl;dr: why don't you prove it, huh?
-
54 minutes ago, Buorhann said:
Stop sticking things too large in your butt.
no
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, Henrich said:
This is the optimal city set-up you plebs. tTo are the absolute masters of this game. Don't build up when you are about to be hit, declare war on every alliance that raids you, and delete all improvements during a war.
>kept hangars
>removed power
Was he not quite finished with his scorched earth when you took the screenshot, or...?And for that matter, keeping 3100 infra still leaves income to be looted by ground battles...
-
42 minutes ago, Malichy said:
No derailing. Just discussing potential directions the current situation may be likely to see...and how the holidays might relate to such events.
>no plutonium
smh tbh fam -
In Civ 3, greece without doubt. Their hoplites are solid units all the way up until gunpowder.
In Civ V, Babylon. I know, I know, but come on; they're one of the only nations with any kind of science bonus at all. I like muh science :<
-
I like it, spies are underpowered so this would give them another real use.
-
On 11/15/2017 at 1:51 PM, Alex said:
Does this really add anything new or interesting to the game? Or is it just another way to min-max and make the game easier?
IMO Land isn't that expensive as-is.
Oh come on. EVERY option that has mechanical effects can be 'min-maxed'; looking at options and making decisions about them is practically the whole mechanical side of the game. It doesn't make the game 'easier', it just allows players to choose something else that they want a discount on. If they chose the cheaper-land policy then they wouldn't have a discount on cities or infrastructure, or extra money income, etc. If anything, it makes the game somewhat harder because we'd have another choice to consider.
On 11/15/2017 at 3:39 PM, Conner Temple said:And no reason to even use it. Using urbanization or manifest destiny is far more of a money saver than land ever would be.
It's called farms. They scale entirely by land area, whilst all other improvements have no equivalent scaling.
-
This was a thing before, but it was moved to 'domestic policies'.
Also dictatorships would be OP as all hell in your example, I mean jeez
-
1
-
-
On 11/22/2017 at 10:39 AM, superfalconpunch said:
Without replying and clogging up this poor forum page more, let me build a scenario.
salt assumptions emotions salt arbitrary statistics salt
Look, first and foremost, you're going to get attacked. That's a fundamental fact, and if you don't want to be attacked then your options are vacation mode or have a buddy beige you every week.
Second, you are going to lose. That's also a fact. If you think that 'good progress' involves 'being at some percentage of max military' or 'having a certain amount of infrastructure', then you're thinking like an pixel hugger, and you're part of The Problem™. But even if you have max military, and a big alliance, and don't declare war on anybody... wars are still very much a threat to you. And they should be. If you get attacked by 3 nations that are identical to your own, then you're not going to win without help. And even if you are top nation with the most military and most infrastructure and most cities in the game, you're just going to get hit by attrition. There is no way for anyone to defend against a dedicated nuke/missile/spy campaign, and more importantly there shouldn't be. There must not be a 'winner' if the game is to persist as a dynamic experience; this isn't that kind of game. If the stable equilibrium is lost, then the game will fall to ruin. I've seen it happen dozens of times to dozens of promising games, and I do not want it to happen to this one.
Third, you should be willing to lose. Your scenario, even prior to the nation being attacked, has that nation declaring low-risk wars for profit. That's fine, but 'low risk' is very different from 'no risk'. If you think that 'raiding unaligned and neutral nations' is easy money, then you're welcome to raid me. I can certainly explain the fallacy of that mindset through example. Furthermore, if you get to declare low risk wars... then so do your enemies. You can profit off war, but you still have to defend yourself from others that do the same thing. Sometimes, you're going to even lose, because your enemies are more numerous, more wealthy, more dedicated, or more skilled; whatever the factors may be. Even so, you should take risks. The game is most fun when you have things to do and enemies to fight, and sometimes, if you're lucky and skilled and willing to be commit to the long haul... you might even win. But you cannot, and should not win or be able to win if you aren't taking risks or weathering costs.
You need to have the right mindset. What matters in case of a hopeless military situation is maintaining your presence of mind and managing the loss as effectively as possible. Call pacts or allies, buy time, spend or stash or destroy your money and resources, fortify, possibly even meet demands or just allow yourself to go beige. It all depends on the circumstances and what you want to try to preserve. The most important part of this is to remember that it is not "just a game", it is in fact a long-term and dynamic game. Sportsmanship matters, because if you win graciously then your enemies are less likely to seek emotionally-charged vengeance; similarly, if you lose, then be gracious about it and maybe you'll have the chance to win the next round, or even ally with that enemy when facing against another enemy. Making a big scary nation and beating up other players isn't the point of the game; having fun is the point of the game, and it's more enjoyable for everyone involved if it's enjoyable for everyone involved. It's counter intuitive, but true: if you're a bad sport, then people are going to be bad sports to you, and then everyone suffers for it. If you're a good sport, then some people will be bad sports to you anyway, but not everyone, and then only the bad sports suffer for it.
-
15 hours ago, Holton said:
Quite right.
Anyone knocking KT for avoiding war better triple check to see if they're doing so from a glass house.
Hint: If you're not in Arrgh, you're in a glass house.
What about Roz Wei and Sparta?
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Justin076 said:
Lmao, Kastor seeking protection from Polaris? Whatever little credibility you had left, is now gone... Off to a great start my friend.
He had credibility?
j/k, the line was just too good to ignore
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Thalmor said:
Nice treaty name, but...
"The intent is to provide alliances with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different treaties.
As for terms, we selected initial values based upon data from the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before signing our signatures. Among other things, we're looking at average per-alliance credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that alliances have obligations that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay.
We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on the OWF, our Discord and across numerous social media outlets.
Our gov will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can."
Here's the original, for reference:
-
3
-
-
This... is exactly what I stand for. The Department of Opposition will gladly launch missile raids in support of this cause if any targets are within our range. (Good luck ducking below the DoO!)
-
1 hour ago, Zed said:
They were a trash-tier alliance in some other online gaming community which gets censored on these forums.
Generally people get pretty buttmad over those kinds of legacies, even in different games. *shrugs*
That's lousy. It's hardly the fault of the alliance theme that any alliance is trash or not, it's up to the players in it.
-
2
-
-
3 hours ago, NewOttomans said:
" We have a permanent casus belli against Islamic-themed alliances. " -KT alliance page
Shouldn't that be changed to " We have a permanent casus belli against Islamic-themed alliances and the Assassin Brotherhood"?
Considering the etymology of the word "Assassin", I'd say they're covered already
-
-
Oh blah blah blah, you've literally gone on this derailment for longer than the posts about the actual topic, pls stahp
-
4
-
-
>no happenings
BOO -
So, a more dedicated effort to give me more infrastructure to blow up? Yay!
-
1
-
2
-
-
Surely nobody's stupid enough to click that link so soon after the same exact attack was made and publicly posted about on the same forum?
...How many ate the bait already
-
2
-
-
On 11/3/2017 at 10:46 PM, Ogaden said:
This world sucks and is boring, and those with the power to change that, refuse to do so. They like the stagnation, the dullness, the endless spreadsheets and circlejerks in backchannels.
The powerful scheme and plot and plan, but do you know what those plans are? The plans are to increase stagnation, increase dullness. More treaties, more maneuvering, never any fun.
I propose a simple solution to you, the bored warrior. I propose that we burn the planet to the ground. Leave your tired and fearful alliances, go rogue, friend. Tear off your shackles and go on a rampage, all of you, all at once. Sow seeds of chaos upon the world and reap the whirlwind. Pull the cap off the big red button that says "Do Not Push" and push that shit anyways.
It doesn't even need to be everyone, indeed it doesn't even need to be many. All that this noble cause requires is that a few people change their strategy, their mindset, from "gather as much stuff as possible" to "use what we have to fight for what we want to, costs be damned". Sure, we'll lose resources along the way. Losses are inevitable. But play smart, and your enemies will lose more than you ever do.
-
1 hour ago, Ripper said:
I mean... nothing stops you from doing wars.
True, but the consolidation and pixelhugging stops said wars from being destructive and widespread enough to result in the tabula rasa that he describes.
The only thing that can is a widespread rethinking of strategy and goals; is it better to A. gather as much stuff as possible, B. take as much stuff as possible, C. destroy as much stuff as possible, or D. use what you have to fight for what you want to fight for, costs be damned? Most choose A or B. I say we should explore C and D, and I'm actually doing it.
Purple rain, a Rose gardener’s Dream come true
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
I'm a guy that's worked to make the game playable and active since I joined, you're a guy that's making noises without actually causing game drama.
I'm asking you to put your pixels where your mouth is. Will you?