Phiney
-
Posts
2160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
18
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Phiney
-
-
Sigh. Missed the part where a TEst member left for ts ey. Hense making the score graph look like we demilled and ts bulked more.If that's not a DOW, it certainly sounds ominous and threatening. Since this is on the public forums, should this be considered an escalation to a potential conflict?
And let's be honest here, TS didn't spike in score when Sparta's allies were building up. And I'm assuming that TS, being a top 10 alliance, isn't incompetent enough to see mass bulking and not bother militarization when TEst was "threatened." In fact, conveniently enough, it was only after Monday that TS suddenly had a spike in score. Oh? Do I also see a Mensa bulking on the 18th as well? Haha, and TEst demilling, and then being filled in at the potential "defense strategy" bulks back up on the 18th as well? The numbers don't lie.
-
1
-
-
I'm confused, is this a DoW?
DOFA
-
... Pretty easily to be honestHow can you attack with 0 troops, may I ask?
-
4
-
-
Nut up or shut up Ron. And this was all very entertaining good show chaps much more interesting than the recent treaty fests.
-
1
-
-
But how do we know that this isn't an attempt to get us to decom our spartan military so that you can just go out and hit our guys for treasure in a few days? All this subterfuge where is the credibility?
Your lack of belief is all the credibility we need mate
-
You stated something and I told you I've not seen anybody who has said that, instead it being in the other direction. So you linked me it, the one person it seems... nice I suppose. There could be a torrent of them in the CDG I suppose, can't dispute that... but there could also be a ton of bestiality porn on there too, can't dispute that either. So apologies but I ignore any reference to threads or posts in the CDG. Anyway what I don't understand how you can ridicule those talking about max military and state in the same breath that the most compelling argument was someone saying no military was going to be a thing. Very odd, most would tell you it wouldn't considering how you just get a smaller nation to roll over them.
Second bit is simply irrelevant and completely unneeded. The numbers do in fact check out, but there is more to it then just that with how things have now been set up. Not that I feel this is the place nor would such a discussion matter at this point.
Cmon son. Something can be compelling until proven otherwise, I was compelled and now ogaden has shown that to not be true. There's no need to be a bit of a dick about this I'm not saying the points ogaden is making now are wrong, I'm just pointing out it voids another argument being concurrently made by others.
-
The point was actually in regards to the fact that due to city score changes, large nations can downdeclare on Jacob while still with significant amounts of infra and military, whereas before he would have dropped out of range until he rebuilt his army and infrastructure.
The argument Sheepy made in response to this is that, this is fine, because the large number of cities offers enough of an advantage that the 12 city Jacob can easily outbuy anyone and defeat a fully militarized 5 city nation that attacked him.
I am currently demonstrating how this is completely false, and without the ability to "drop out of range and rebuy", any nation, no matter how gigantic in terms of cities, can be held down effortlessly by a much smaller opponent due to the other, existing game rules. Without the rearming window, Jacob is helpless until his attacker has some other, non war related reason to stop attacking (peace treaty for instance).
This demonstration shows how the higher exposure to attacks due to retaining score despite loss of infra and military means that it is impossible to get back up once knocked down, unless the opponent alliance completely lacks even a small presence in the lower tiers.
Because of Sheepy's previous updates (infra requirements to build military, much higher military score) the small increase in fighting capacity of one day rearming and buying a modest amount of infrastructure with which to rearm with puts Sheepy's test nation in range of my, on paper, theoretically much weaker nation, a 5 city nation with full tanks and planes.
Due to the nature of immense victory losses, even though my daily buy is much lower (though competitive since I am not penalized for low infra while Sheepy is) I am destroying all of his military in my daily attacks while taking almost no losses, but once the war expires I can immediately redeclare, because his score has not dropped much, because it is majority from his cities.
Don't worry I entirely understand the point you're making, I'm just pointing out you're also making an unintended point which goes against what a few people have been saying on the other side of things. Both points against the current score system cannot be true as they are opposites.
-
Memph made the most compelling argument against the change I heard here https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10936-changing-the-score-formula/page-8# and there's also a thread In the cdg saying the same thing from others.Who has said this exactly? As far as I've seen they've referred to people will heavy if not full military.
Edit: also your too big with full mil theory was debunked thoroughly ages ago by seabass when he did the maths showing that the vast majority of people that are at the top now have more people that can hit them not less.
-
I think I should have done 3 cities vs 12, 5 is kind of overkill here lol
I have a strong feeling Sheepy is playing really badly if you are keeping him down with this setup. Bare in mind this is the exact opposite argument others are making about why this change is bad when they say a large nation with no military is basically immune from war as the only people that can attack them have much less cities, so whilst you may be proving yourself right here in this scenario where it's definitely not a big problem just a very niche one, you're making great evidence for why the change isn't bad at the top like some are claiming.
-
1
-
-
Someone runs UPN? I call bullshit.
Judging from them deciding to specify a time limit on when they will allow arrgh to go back to raiding them, combined with stating a long enough time for some people to view the terms as harsh, id say not. Not great positioning. Gooooooo groupthink!!
-
Context for newbies/trip down memory lane: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3300-i-provided-the-logs-that-set-off-the-powderkeg-who-are-you-in-all-of-this/
For anyone having a jolly good time reading /rereading this, the war ended by our terms being met and Hereno stepping down.
-
Could at least take daylight savings into account, it's 2am for most of Europe now, definitely worse than it was for European players.
-
2
-
-
It's been removed
-
Wait, he had only 1 more city than you and half your infra. I fail to see how he was "unbeatable". That seems like a completely normal scenario for a 1v1 war. You either failed to have allies that could help you (a big part of this game is working with others and using co-ordination) or you just got beat fair and square. Seabass already proved he hit you and then bought the tanks, so the numbers aren't flawed at all. If you were going to stop people declaring on people with a single city less than them the amount of available targets would be rediculous.
-
Hereno just admit your point completely failed. You've been proved wrong repeatedly, if anything the only point you made was in favour of the change, good work.
-
1
-
-
Terminus Est supports our protectorate and hereby enters any wars we bloody well want to.
-
1
-
-
Sorry seabass Hereno is completely unable to see himself as anything but a shining light of factual correctness. Thankyou for these conclusions and interesting statistics In general though, shines a lot of light on the situation.
-
1
-
-
Whatever for? You're not a player/nation I was talking about. Anyway I'll try to get a good look at what was presented at some point, I've only skimmed it briefly thus far.
By hit me I clearly don't mean in game I refer to hit me with your rebuttal of the post I referenced which you've now twice avoided whilst still replying.
-
Who is to say the war wasn't declared when you were in range and would have been in range even with the changes, just you lost military and they gained military since. Most wars end with the two parties no longer being in range.
-
Just checked out who's in range of me now that my score jumped up by about 500 points. Had a look at UPN since I know they have a bunch of big nations with no military. I see Saru is out of range despite having more cities and way more infra.
So I ran the math for what a typically militarized nation with 14 cities like me could declare on. I would say 2000 infra/city is pretty typical at that level, I only have 1500-1600 but most other nations will be around 2000. So 14 cities + 14x2000 infra + 5 projects + max air and ground = 3040 score, with a down-declare range of 2280.
A nation with 20 cities and 2300 infra/city with zero military would have 2280 score.
So if the 14 city nation has even just a single ship or missile or nuke, he won't be able to declare on someone with 6 additional cities and an extra 18000 infra as long as they have no military. In other words, if you don't want to get attacked, just delete all your military. Sounds logical.
BTW that 20 city nation would also be able to declare on heavily militarized nation with as little as 7-9 cities depending on infra, ships, missiles, nukes, etc. Just do a double buy right after attacking and the 20 city nation could basically match the small nation's military cap.
But has 0 military so would get stomped by literally everyone? as soon as he builds up he's in range of the big guys. Makes sense to me. Using your scenario, declares on a 9 city nation and then builds up putting him with little military and in range of people with much more military than him. Easy counter.
-
Glad to see our strong history with Hereno being revived here. Another convincing post you've made here mate.
-
1
-
-
Um? You'll have to forward it to me, didn't see him respond to me previously on the matter. Oh I'm seeing and reading it now, still have issues with it at a glance.
hit me
-
Not caring about "untouchables", targeting enemies of said untouchable's alliance mates, buffing ships the untouchables think are really good... fair and balanced I think.
did you even read seabass' reply to your post? it completely debunks your bullshit
-
I actually like that one ship can blockade, it forces people to use slots on stuff other than the main three units forces decisions and variety. Just FYI ships are about to get a buff in terms of destroying improvements but I like number 1, just stealing a little bit of income as a nice little buff.
-
2
-
Hello to the Syndicate
in Alliance Affairs
Posted
It's what he'd do