Jump to content

Frawley

Members
  • Content Count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Frawley last won the day on November 10

Frawley had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

307 Excellent

3 Followers

About Frawley

  • Rank
    Glorious Leader

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Alliance Pip
    New Pacific Order
  • Leader Name
    Frawley
  • Nation Name
    Stangerites
  • Nation ID
    14102
  • Alliance Name
    New Pacific Order

Contact Methods

  • Discord Name
    Frawley

Recent Profile Visitors

977 profile views
  1. Frawley

    Lower Resistance Damage

    Akuryo, I have not seen you post thus far in this thread, so I'm not sure why you are getting so worked up about a mechanical argument with Sketchy. I think there are a few things you should consider here. 1. NPO & BK are mass member alliances, that have very different growth styles because of that 2. Even if we wanted to, at the moment we don't have the cash to move 50, 100, 150 nations up to the mid 20 city range, a lot of that is because we have lost every war we have been in since we started (NPO), and because relatively speaking our nations are younger than most of the games established upper tier alliances. 3. We don't run tanks because in the entire time NPO has existed I still don't think we have generated enough steel to compete with the 4m steel that TKR has already spent in this war. At some point NPO will have nations in the tiers where you are and can help, the few nations that we do have down that end of the game are helping where they can. Regarding the nation I'm fighting, yes you are dead right, I missed the memo unfortunately, and apologized for it. But it doesn't discount the fact that where possible we were trying to pick up higher city nations in order to assist allies and have been doing so, ever since we locked down TKR. Certainly no-one is trying to diminish your contribution to the war effort, but if I gave that impression, accept my apologies. What I am arguing about is that the game mechanics don't support the way alliances play the game in reality.
  2. Frawley

    Lower Resistance Damage

    Of course they do, those goals are obviously tempered by political realities, motivation (in long wars), stockpiles and ally temperament, and your enemies temperament, but all wars to date (bar perhaps the IQ-KT War), have ended when the winning coalition is ready (aka achieved their goals)
  3. Frawley

    Lower Resistance Damage

    Well, suspicious timing or whatever it was, it set us back a long way. How many times can I say this. Scenario 1: Alliance X wishes to do 100 Damage Each individual war takes 5 days and does 5 damage The total conflict will take 20 days Scenario 2: Alliance X wishes to do 100 Damage Each individual war takes 5 days and does 10 damage The total conflict will take 10 days I have repeatably stated that alliances adjust war savings and war lengths to account for game mechanics in achieving their objectives. War Length is a alliance objectives within the existing game mechanics. I have had money bombed while under blockade in plenty of losing wars, perhaps you are a saint, but most are not. Yeah sure, lets fully militarize, only to be in range of nations who can buy more tanks daily than we can buy total, and get our asses permanantly handed to us. Instead of wiping the middle tier, keeping them off our allies, and now that many nations have been dragged down, assisting in the Upper Tier fight. You might notice I'm presently in a war with a 32 city nation, while I have 16 cities. As above, our strategy is is pragmatic for the coalition, if we were still dealing with TKR/TCW on the ground, we couldn't assist our upper tier coalition partners, and they would have more TKR/TCW hitting them. I have never said I don't enjoy war, or think that it is not competitive. I think war makes no sense in the way it is used by all alliances.
  4. Frawley

    Lower Resistance Damage

    Which are a result of others actions. All alliances act in their own self interest, that is the point of alliances. Our submarine strategy is the only good mass member alliance strategy that we can do to combat the city gap, its that simple.
  5. Frawley

    Lower Resistance Damage

    The NPO had been existence for a month. (Mensa Christmas Raids) No, the express reason we focus on a plane tier strategy, is to make hitting us painful. Previously alliances could come in, do 3 rounds and set us back to square one, the point was to make sure that even if we still lost, the cost of conducting that action against us was sufficient to make it hurt. We are not volunteering ourselves as the eternal punching bags of PW, so no thanks, keep your beiges.
  6. Frawley

    Lower Resistance Damage

    You clearly missed the point of my post. Winning and losing wars, isn't about the war system, it is about preparation, both in material and in allies. No matter what the rules are around wars, the length of time to save for and conduct those wars will scale to meet the political objectives of the winners. This is not an NPO issue alone. All alliances, including your own, have objectives, and they will use game mechanics however they are presently constructed to achieve them. When the NPO was still young, TGH's predecessor rolled the top 30 NPO nations for a single round, immediately after we borrowed money and built infra. Do you think that was for funnies, no it was to set us back a long way, and they were successful in that, we struggled with debt repayments and lower income for a long time. Our present pet strategy of run planes, only works because we adopted a second pet strategy of tier cohesion due to the fact we were easily rolled into the ground multiple times. Our tier cohesion strategy was a response to our political enemies strategy of cutting our heads off everytime we popped our heads up and grew a bit bigger. Our strategy is counter-able as well, we built a mid tier to submarine attack, if someone wants to counter that they just need to build a lower tier to do the exact same thing to us. In fact there are people in TKR quite successfully doing this to us, right now. How are shorter, more damaging wars, inflicting permanent damage to anybody. I expect to lose 100% of my infra that is worth anything every single war. Yet day two of peace, I will probably have 1,200 infra per city, and a week later 1,600, and a week later 1,800. Damage in this game is cheap and nearly instant to repair. TKR will probably grow 150,000 Score within a week of peace being declared, we both know this, the savings that all major alliances have banked, are there to ensure this. We didn't kill the other game, a game breaking upper tier, as well as a lack of a bad guy (after NPO was killed off), killed that game. The player count in that game had been dropping for years, and the game was on its last gasps well before Oculus came to be. My theoretical speculation is just that, as is your speculation that slightly longer wars will permanently lose the game for some. However I know what I would do if I was running an upper tier alliance under your model, and I'm not alone in thinking like that. No-one plays these games to lose. Perhaps this change is too on the nose, but if we want shorter wars, that don't cost so much that we spend 10 out of 12 months saving up for them, then some change is required, and it's not throwing in weeks of rebuilding time mid war.
  7. Frawley

    Lower Resistance Damage

    Firstly, lets get a few minor issues out of the way, I have consistently made suggestions since I was in Vanguard years ago about making wars less dumb, from making Resistance a single number representing the balance of power, to lowering/adjusting loot mechanics for close wars for adjusting how beige works, and when you get it etc. This is the first war the NPO is winning, and the first war where I have been on the winning side. Every other suggestion I have made (which has sought to address this and other problems) have been made while I have been on the receiving end of dogpiles. The suggestion that I simply want these changes to hit TKR harder is ridiculous. I just want wars that make sense. The war system is broken, everyone agrees with that, a 5 minute chat with any PW player on discord will tell you that much. People hate beige mechanics, people hate the loot mechanics, people hate planes, people hate how locked down a blockade makes you, people hate that dogpiles are hard to recover from people hate the 75% updeclare range, people hate the 25% downdeclare range. etc etc. Yet for some reason, no-one wants any change to the war system every time something is proposed. As Azaghul has already said, during alliance wars, many alliances already sit on nations for the full five day period, saving enough resistance and MAPs to keep them locked down. They don't do the damage they want to do, so the war continues. The status quo is the mechanics force alliances to engage in longer, more expensive wars, in order for alliances to achieve their political objectives, being the weakening on their political adversaries. Those objectives are not likely to change. Alliance wars are almost never competitive either, this is by design, people are not deliberately stupid and typically do not make the decision to go to war, if they think there is a chance they will lose, particularly as losing aggressors often have to pay reparations. One sided wars are not likely to change. However, as is very obvious, despite the fact that the above two conditions don't change, alliances break, new alliances are forged, new strategies are formed, and new leaders emerge. What the present system does however is extend two things: 1. The length of the war required in order to achieve your political objectives 2. Following on from that, the length of time required to save, in order to conduct war over such a period This change doesn't forever end a nations ability to play, it just makes overall wars shorter. Now, onto your beige suggestion, lets play it out. Scenario One: Two or more sides plot against each other, the side with the temporary political upper hand (today IQ/tS, Yesterday Radiant-sphere, Tomorrow who knows), knows that in order to achieve their fixed political objectives they will need to engage in a war where between each round there will be a rebuild of every single player they have brought down. In order to afford to do this they will need to stockpile, so the war is held off for six months while everyone saves sufficient resources to do so. Result the war will take longer to start and will take longer to finish. Scenario Two: Exactly the same as above except the side with less numbers are all much more highly tiered, established players. Result, between each mandatory beige the entire sum total of three co-ordinated lower tier attacks is reversed instantly by massive rebuys available to higher city members. Upper tier dominance, no point in competing. As a lower tier alliance, your change would frick us, and entrench those with cities and pre-existing wealth permanently. So please THINK BEFORE YOU POST SUGGESTIONS. Beige's don't help the lower tier, dropping out of the upper tiers range helps them. Beige only helps those fighting down.
  8. Frawley

    War Stats - Knightfall

    We know what caused this, and we are fixing it presently.
  9. Frawley

    War Stats - Knightfall

    Unless everyone wants to give us their spy attack reports no... We have the count, but the data doesn't say what they are. See above, we can't track what we don't see.
  10. Frawley

    City based protected loot

    Alex, When the game started 100k was a fine lower limit on the reserved amount of cash a nation had safe from looting, now that we have nations nearing 40 cities, upkeeps etc are high enough that this limit no longer makes sense. I'd like to propose that you get 100k of unlootable cash for each city you have. e.g. I have 16 cities, the last 1.6m would not be lootable. Someone with 32 cities would not be able to have the last 3.2m looted.
  11. Frawley

    Lower Resistance Damage

    Hi Alex, Most wars only seem to reach about 48 hours in length, given that wars expire after 5 days, I don't think this was your intention. Could you consider halving the amount of resistance damage each attack does in order to make wars last a more reasonable 4 days?
  12. Frawley

    War Stats - Knightfall

    Added, pretty sure the page renderer will just move all your prior wars to the new AA though
  13. Frawley

    War Stats - Knightfall

    Added. We have an idea for this that might suit people better, stay tuned.
  14. Frawley

    War Stats - Knightfall

    I'll check the code when I get up but it only bothers summing up tables for people who have actually attacked or been attacked. UPDATE: This should now update automatically every 30 minutes at 20/50 past the hour.
×

Important Information

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