Jump to content

Them

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    182

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Them

    TJ vs IQ: who won?

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    Hi John. Nice to see that you've joined the ebil anti-IQ OWF circlejerk as well. Enjoy the kool-aid. :P 

    3 hours ago, John Smith said:

    Essentially, BK received 8 billion in damages and only dealt 4.5 billion. You didn't gain anything from the war. Take the L given to you by our Lord and savior Buorhann the cultural hippopotamus and be on your merry way.

    The stats currently displayed on Ripper's spreadsheet make some questionable assumptions about infra cost. I think he's updating the damage for individual nations, but the alliance performance sheet seems the same. Considering that the bulk of the difference in damage dealt and received for BK is in infrastructure, assuming constant infra costs for all belligerents heavily skews the perception of the war. Also, when have we decided the victors on damage stats alone?

    BTW, the in-game stat tracker gives  $2.8 billion for infra destroyed and $2.4 billion for infra lost for BK (2/6 - 2/23) if Sheepy can be trusted.

    3 hours ago, John Smith said:

    There has been no evidence from IQ arguing that these statements are false. As can be seen in the spreadsheet, the band of 28 members known as Terminal Jest has dealt nearly $43B in damages, while the entire IQ bloc, consisting of more than 450 members (of which 174 members were involved in the conflict), has dealt a little over $19B in damages. If your argument is "TJ disbanded, therefore they lost", then I'll remind you that WW2 was won by the allies, but they both pose very different situations. In the second world war, the Axis powers were defeated and rendered incapable of causing any more damage, as well as a division of Germany among the allies (The era of partition). In the TJ vs IQ war, TJ was neither defeated nor rendered incapable of causing further damage. They can strike again whenever they like and there is nothing stopping them. If you are so confident that IQ won the war, I welcome you to explain why.

    If you want to use the WWII comparison, TJest was certainly made incapable of causing damage through conventional warfare, hence why they collapsed. What is that but a military victory? If you can look past the cultural victory memes for a moment, there is nothing contradictory in the idea that TJest outperformed and outdamaged IQ, yet lost.  (Ask the Germans about their K:D ratio on the eastern front) Nobody is denying that IQ underperformed both as the hegemony it is seen as and in general. IQ made mistakes, yes. They could have taken efforts to minimize money lost to looting and have been better at denying TJest nations the opportunity to rebuild. However, this was not an equal war, as everyone seems eager to reiterate. Good performance does not equate to victory and victory does not equate to good performance. A point could be made to argue that IQ not pursuing individual TJest nations after the alliance's disbandment ended the war in a de-facto white peace, but the fact that TJest disbanded remains. If you consider the war to be between IQ and Partisan's merry band of whales, TJest's disbandment is of little significance. Everyone went their merry way and nobody tried to stop them. However, if you see TJest as a political entity, it is undeniable that they lost the war. In the end what does it really matter? TJest didn't attack IQ to win and both sides left equally satisfied.

    Take your cultural victory and take your white peace, but drop the "damage ratios decide victory" narrative.

    • Upvote 4
    • Downvote 5

    TJ-IQ War: Damages Reports

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Ripper said:

    An estimation was made for the average value of infra, as if all infra was distributed in sets of 100 at 1.1k to 1.2k infra cities or so.

    Yeah...I really doubt that's an accurate reflection of the damages taken. Your spreadsheet uses $6009 per level of infrastructure, but most combatants had at least 2k infra at the onset of the war. Assuming that infra-bombing stopped at 800 infra, that's $11313 per level of infra, or nearly twice as much. TJest still outperforms IQ (to nobody's surprise), but the money looted pads a smaller portion of the damage sustained.

    • Upvote 2

    For my friends in IQ

    in Orbis Central

    Posted

    8 hours ago, Abbas Mehdi said:

    You want to eat away our military and not biege us at the cost of the 10 percent infrastructure damage to your nations? Is this a standard operating procedure not to biege us cause I didn't know that. If it is true then please let me know. 

    I'm fairly certain that you fought in the last war, so you should know what the IQ policy towards Beijing is. This isn't a traditional alliance war, but the SOP generally hasn't changed.

    Terminal Jest Declaration of Existence / DoW on (most of) IQ

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    48 minutes ago, ArcKnox said:

    >Doesn't play the poorly thought out, poorly implemented, poorly balanced, poorly coded etc... nation sim game
    >Does play the poorly thought out, poorly implemented, poorly balanced, poorly coded etc... baseball game
    smh tbh fam

    I won't argue on the merits of Sheepy's game as a whole, but baseball is better implemented, better balanced, and better coded than the nation sim part of the game and that's pretty fricking sad.

    • Upvote 4
    • Downvote 1

    Inquisition Flight 420 to Nassau - UPN Removed

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted · Edited by Them

     

    lmfao you triggered af

     

    Rose is still in the war so I assume you are tryna make some point about UPN. 

     

    I feel like everyone is ignoring the fact UPN has fought for over a month in your silly war. 

     

    "the damage to the coalition's negotiating power in peace talks can't be ignored"

     

    What damage? Its not like the terms we've presented have been anything but reasonable, UPN's exit does no more damage to you than Lordaeron or SK.

     

    The terms haven't changed, the terms UPN took have had no effect on the peace talks at all. 

     

    If you are gonna be butthurt at least apply your butthurt equally amongst all the people who have peaced out. 

    The initial part was obviously an bait to show how ridiculous some things you say are  and this is my third time saying that I don't agree with publicly denouncing your colition partners. Is it that far-fetched to defend an idea that you don't completely agree with, but think has some merit? The terms do matter in this case and I'm sure I also stated why in my first post. I'm not ignoring UPN's contribution to the war effort, but suggesting that they didn't want to join the war or are in it merely due to a sense of obligation, as well as insulting their cause for fighting comes pretty close to doing so. I'm not butthurt. I'm trying to explain why some people on my side are.

    Inquisition Flight 420 to Nassau - UPN Removed

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted

    Peace terms get worse the longer you hold out in most cases.  If I recall, the initial offer was a white peace to both UPN and Acadia, but that was awhile ago and wasn't accepted (Or it stalled out).  Then there was the whole infra cap bit, which was different than asking them to pay out reps for dogpiling on Syndicate.

     

    I may be wrong though, as Syndicate reps mostly led those talks since UPN was part of the initial 7 that declared on them.

     

    As a coalition though, we've already dropped down all of our initial requests of reps we had lined up for a simple surrender.  That's the best compromise you'll get from us and we won't budge from that.

     

    But lesson learned on my part:  Next time we'll start off with a list of demands, then work our way down instead of cutting through all the nonsense and getting straight to the point of ending a war.

    Yeah, I've heard the "peace terms get worse over time" thing a few times already.

    Also, although it might piss the other coalition off, initially demanding reps will have them believe you to be more willing to compromise and they might accept more favorable terms for your side. Nobody will take "we cut through all the nonsnse and are giving you the only terms we will, leave them or take them" as a sign that negotiations are worth it. Even if the Inquisition is essentially offering the same thing, they've still attempted to make an effort at yielding to your side's demands.

    Inquisition Flight 420 to Nassau - UPN Removed

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted · Edited by Them

    I didn't frequent the forums then (and I still don't really now) so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I vaguely remember NPO opposing a mutual decom to be part of the CB in NPO's First Time. They made similar arguments with saying that max military was their "peacetime build" and whatnot. If it worked for you then, I don't see why the reasoning is not valid here. Of course, that alone doesn't make a solid CB, but acting like it is immaterial isn't right either.

     

    Edit: This is in response to Buorhann's post to Roquentin,  for clarification.

    Inquisition Flight 420 to Nassau - UPN Removed

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted · Edited by Them

    We'll be sure to get daddy BK and mommy NPO to sign off on the permission slip next time.

    This seems fun. Why don't I also completely ignore the point of a post and take a portion of it out of context to misinterepret for the keks and lels?

    Why is Rose so disloyal to their allies? Do they believe that it's right to leave a war without telling their treaty partners? Why do they pursue their individual interests to the detriment of their allies? I'll tell you. They're a bunch of self-interested pixel huggers.

    ____________

    Anyways, I don't subscribe to the idea that UPN can only leave the war with coalition approval. It's their sovereign right to do as they please. What I am saying is  that the damage to the coalition's negotiating power in peace talks can't be ignored and that Inquisition leadership's grievances against UPN aren't completely unfounded. Pangui made a compelling case that UPN leaving eases the pressure on the remaing coalition members to peace out, although the infra cap expiring at the conclusion of the war seems to be intended to have UPN remain invested in the coalition's negotiations. Negotiations don't seem to be going well anyways and I doubt that much could convince Syndisphere to accept the white peace offer or for the Inquisition coaltion to accept defeat. Meh.

    Inquisition Flight 420 to Nassau - UPN Removed

    in Alliance Affairs

    Posted · Edited by Them

    All you basically said in a ton of words is that it's always someone else's fault besides your own. The perpetual victim. To be the aggressor, getting rekt, and then start a tantrum claiming no reps + admit defeat is literally worth telling your coalition partner, who just accepted the terms, to disband is just playing the stupid card tho.

    While I don't agree with publicly suggesting that one of your coalition allies disband, the problem here isn't that UPN surrendered. tTO, Lordaeron, and SK all managed to exit the war without any public backlash from BK gov. The difference here is that UPN exited the war on objectively worse terms than what the coalition was offered as a whole, as well as the terms Syndisphere was giving for individual allince surrenders. If Lordaeron, of all allinces, could get surrender without terms after the whole surrender camp debacle, there's no reason for UPN to settle for less. Furthermore, accepting such terms validates the Syndisphere's approach to negotiations and suggests desperation among the other coalition members. While this can't be entirely avoided, a simple surrender without terms would have mitigated the damage. I'm obviously not involved with the peace talks, but I doubt that the coalition leadership authorized UPN's surrender (or at least knew the terms), judging from their reaction. Anyways, I've nothing against UPN and am just trying to clarify why the reaction to this surrender was so harsh, compared to the earlier ones. 

    • Upvote 1

    Tier Suggestion

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted

    There's no need to break the game. If the community thnks that downdeclares are a problem, decreasing the downdeclare range to 80 or 85% of score rather than the current 75% should suffice. I've done downdeclares on nations with half my city count while having no military and still managed to get rekt once countered. Between a range reduction and the city score increase from earlier, downdeclares won't be a problem. Better yet, since the community is split here, there's no reason to change the mechanics. 

    OOC Discussion: NatRP Rules and Guidelines

    in Roleplay Discussion/Suggestions [OOC]

    Posted

    Assuming that this last bit is in reference to the proposal that wars be decided by popular vote...

     

    None of this really addresses the fact that such a system would pretty much turn wars into a purely OOC affair. Because, ultimately, what someone posts in a war would become largely irrelevant, all that matters is whether one is well liked enough to get votes. I could go and type up a couple lines saying that I'm invading someone, and pretty much autowin so long as I can get enough folks to back me OOC. At that point, none of the IC politics or actions matter, all that is relevant is whether one is liked OOC.

    ...That was a suggestion? It was in reference to the fact that your actions should have consequences. (and interactions with other RP leaders is influenced by popularity) I don't see the point of RPing in a vacuum.

    • Upvote 1

    OOC Discussion: NatRP Rules and Guidelines

    in Roleplay Discussion/Suggestions [OOC]

    Posted · Edited by Them

    These are all proposals and I'm not really all that invested in the RP, so take the following with a grain of salt

     

    While I have never been involved in the P&W RP, I believe that the Galactic RP run by Curufinwe (hallowed be his name) has some elements which, if implemented, may help fix some of the problems in this RP. The Galactic RP runs more like a strategy game (in some ways, it's a better representation of the "shitposts and spreadsheets" meme than P&W since you're expected to do your revenue calculations yourself) with RP elements than an actual RP and has more rigid rules than the P&W RP, but the P&W RP probably needs some more rigidity to it so it doesn't collapse upon itself.

     

         1. Clear Time Frames

         

    A RP generally has multiple events happening concurrently, and the effects of these events on each other is unclear without a good sense of reference. While resolving events in chronological order may be intuitive, there usually exist irregular gaps between the actions of nations and distinguishing priority by forum activity is not a good basis for a fair RP. Rather, the P&W model will suffice for this problem and all actions ordered during a "turn" will be resolved at the end that turn, before the next turn starts. (you all presumably play P&W, so this shouldn't be foreign to you) Assign an order for actions of a certain type e.g. economic actions take priority before military actions, etc. Generally, this requires oversight (from a GM or whatever you want to call it), but that is already something that you should have the current system. You could continue doing whatever internal RP things the same as before, but actions which affect other nations will be handled this way.

     

         2. Clearly Define "Within Your Means"

     

    This RP doesn't have to require all the participants to run spreadsheets, but a general descriptor (could be something as simple as a range of 1-5) of a nation's economic and military capabilities in a certain province would be useful to have. If you want to count military units, you'll end up with Logistics, the Gameâ„¢, rather than a RP. For RP purposes, "strong military and average economic conditions in Warsaw province" is fine.

     

         3. Standardize Military and Economy

     

    Magic and alien/sci-fi technology is cool and all, but shouldn't be a major factor in conflict resolution, unless clearly defined limits to them are set and balancing measures are put in place so the person RPing Imperial Japan doesn't get their nation blown up by the Death Star summoned by a portal to the 7th dimension of hell. Either you can have everything be the same, with these elements being more of a flair and used solely in RP posts which pertain only to the nation posting (i.e. P&W military customization), or you can have the community decide how to balance it. (maybe nations which use magic gain benefit X at the cost of penalty Y and your "standard" 20/21st century nation will be the baseline) Same thing for Economy.

     

        4. Remove Consent Clause

     

    This is just a really lazy attempt at addressing the lack of a functional conflict resolution system.

     

        5. Politics is Actually a Popularity Contest

     

    Here, you cross the line between a RP and a strategy game. The appeal of a nation RP, to me at least, is deciding how your RP leader would react to certain situations caused by other RP leaders. However, a lack of consequences for your actions is also not ideal. In D&D (clearly a RP), you'll still get killed by your other party members for being generally incompetent or for the keks and lels. If you want to RP literally Hitler, you're free to do so, but don't expect other RPers to not collectively beat you up for it. 

    • Upvote 1

    Change score dependency to population instead of infra

    in Game Suggestions

    Posted

    Eh, the population over score increase for older nations only matters (militarily) when you are below 900 infra and can't meet your military unit caps. Otherwise, it's a purely economic advantage and the proposed change will make it a military disadvantage that is difficult to control without taking measures to lower population. (such as increasing pollution, population density, crime rate, etc.) 

     

    Generally, the increase in score usually won't be substantial enough to affect anything, and the mentality among members of the P&W community seems to be "if it ain't broke, don't change it".

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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

  I accept