Prefontaine

One that won't be fought with military might, but dollars and cents.

A few weeks ago, the leader of DEIC ordered that their alliance issue an embargo towards a member of Guardian, Kangaroo Ocean. The reasons listed varied from "orders", to "for being a market manipulator", and so forth. When approached on the matter, it was revealed that the cause was Kangaroo listing buy offers for a little less PPU ($100-$200 in most cases when posted) while selling for higher prices. So providing an outlet for nations looking to make instant cash rather than waiting on the market and risking prices dropping anyway is considered market manipulation by DEIC. Now, some of the prices grew in their gap, as listings stay for 10 days and some times the market jumps radically in that time period. I spoke to Diabolos privately on the matter, requesting the sanction be lifted, but for the "protection of his members", he refused. Guardian stands as one, and if you act against one of us, you act against all of us. I informed Diabolos that failure to revoke his order would result in Guardian embargoing all of DEIC. I provided plenty of time for this to happen, but the most Kangaroo received were attempts from DEIC members to make money of the situation: http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/3311-deic-embargo-extortion/ Meanwhile, Diabolos himself lists buy offers for mass amounts of steel for $1, and calls them "donations". I do hope he has his alliance embargoed to protect them against such an unfair resource buyer.

So, you think you're being a good alliance leader? Because all I'm seeing are desperate attempts to personally attack me, and when that's all you have? Well, you truly have completely lost. Sad.

I've not jumped into the verbal minutia of the whole war much on the forums, but I need to call you out on this. You rolled over and died. You didn't launch a single attack. You could have saved your turns and at least killed some soldiers, planes, tanks, anything to try and help your alliance mates who are fighting. You don't just simply give up and leave your alliance, regardless of getting hit how you did. I mean, you've basically given up even logging in as well. You're in game account says it hasn't been online in the last 24-72 hours, yet you've been on the forums during that time and posted. I don't know what you're doing behind the scenes of course, you promised some surprise days ago and I don't believe anything's changed, but in front of the scenes you're letting your alliance mates down as their leader. I don't care how minor the damage you could have done was, you could have done some. If you're going to give up this utterly, meet TEst's terms and vacate leadership.

If you want to be an active part of the IRC/Forum community of these games, you'll have to learn to have a thicker skin. I mean, what I said on IRC before I tried to help you was just me messing around. If you considered that to be one of the slights against you, then perhaps you're better off not posting and IRCing much. Most people here have been in these games a long time and are heavy handed with their word choices a lot of times. So, you could take your ball and go home, or you could stick it out. No one will fault you for changing your mind. At least in earnest.

I also thought of it as the winner is semi-occupying the losers lands and is looting some residual cash/resources as they withdraw.

You can't redeclare on someone within 5 days of defeating them, and if you're inactive, you seem to get kicked from beige to grey faster than the auto-beige 5 days.

I've brought this up before, I've mentioned it on the radio show, and look at any war with intelligent people winning it. Ending a war, and by that I mean winning a war with ground attacks, is a bad thing if you're the winner, good if you're the loser. Currently the only downside to being beiged from a war is the final attack hitting some resources and a small % from the alliance bank. Players will intentionally not beige someone so wars can continue, and they can inflict more damage. There's no reason that the correct tactic in winning wars should be not to win wars. The solution? Make getting beiged hurt some, or make it benefit the person sending them to beige more. How about this? The person who gets sent to beige from war loses 10% for each day left in forced beige (50% the first day, 40% the second, etc..) and those cash/resources goto the winner. Seems harsh, but it's effectively 5 days of having a 25% tax on your nation. Not that brutal, and gives incentive to actually win wars, because a war system where you don't actually win an war, and let them expire is fairly stupid. Winning the war? Careful, don't actually win any wars.

We starting this shit again?

I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself. A bird will fall frozen dead from a bough without ever having felt sorry for itself.

Please get the pissing contest out of this thread.

There's currently steel listed for sale on the market from the 4th, today is now the 11th. There's also currently a gas listing for buying posted on the 3rd. 3 days is definitely not the case.

Simple, it's a one sided war. If both sides were losing units en-mass then there would be a higher demand for resources. Also, TEst only has 10 people, and they're only fighting about the top 10-15 nations in SI. Not enough nations involved to cause serious market fluctuations at this level.

You going to pursue any action to try and end this war anytime soon, Hereno?

Please give us feedback as well. We want to make the show better. What do you like and dislike?

I don't think we need more ways to blow them up, just a way to make them unlaunchable for some period of time.

There's a chance a ground attack destroyed that improvement, or a missile strike if you've been hit with one. Check your war notifications, there should be a note about it if it happened.

http://7kingdoms.net/radio.html Broadcast starting in about 15.

I have no clue what you're talking about. Did Lambda leave a farewell address?

With missiles returning to gameplay as evidence from Phiney launching them, we should bring up being able to defend against them. The main problem scenario that comes to mind is the following: I'm fighting nation X, nation X is kicking my ass militarily, but I have missiles. I've virtual no troops, no planes, no navy, and he's just pounding away. But here I am every 8 action points dropping a major source of damage on nation X. That is what I think needs to be addressed. You can lose a war, but do much more damage from missiles. So how do we address this issue? Lunar Wars had a system called "Economic Depression". The way it worked was every successful ground attacks against a nation with no troops (or taking them to 0 troops) would add 2 days of Economic Depression, which meant you'd lose some income/resource production, but the higher it got, it would limit some military actions you could take. The second being the key feature. Now, we know it takes 6 uninterrupted ground attacks to win a war. Perhaps it takes something similar to launch a missile/nuke? If a nation has 6 successful attacks against you, you cannot launch a missile, this isn't just ground attacks, but navy/air/AND ground. So if you get 6 total overwhelming victories you have neutralized their ability to turtle and launch missiles at you until they interrupt that streak.

Not quite, it would benefit more established alliances though. Basically larger alliances that have been around a while could drop several million on a newer nations to instantly get him several cities.

Hmm.. I think Jodo was under Guardian's protection.

Obligatory: Blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne.

Think you could put your gov positions somewhere noticeable in game? Since you have so many it'd be nice to just look there to see who's what. Silly alliances needing so many gov people. Also I plan on declaring war on you guys soon so I can give you Shellhound, since war is apparently your recruitment strategy.