Dio Brando
-
Posts
830 -
Joined
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Dio Brando
-
-
I feel as if (purely my own opinion, please list out any problems) there should be a member cap on alliances. Between 90-110 members.
This would achieve little.
Although having 100+ members under one alliance's jurisdiction is quite something, nothing stops an alliance from branching out, signing MDAPs, and doing whatever the government decides.
Scenario:
Alliance 'A' reaches its member cap of x members. Alliance 'A' has a Leader, and a Regent. The Leader tells the Regent to create Alliance 'B', and thus Alliance 'A' expands its memberbase by simply shifting the 'extras' to 'B'. Sure, this plan has its inherent risks, but overall, it can theoretically work.
I feel as if (purely my own opinion, please list out any problems) there should be a member cap on alliances. Between 90-110 members. This would allow other alliance to be created since alliances would then become "Quality>Quantity".
This is an artificial way of controlling politics; clear red mark.
Alliances would kick out more inactives and non contributing members, and in turn allow those who do play the game to join.
That's something they should already do; IA policies often have this. Hell, I've yet to see an alliance that doesn't have this unless they're tax farming. *cough* NPO *cough*
In addition, in order to become a top 10 alliance, they would have to concentrate on their members.
This is already present in the current mech. An alliance needs to focus on their members, otherwise they leave; score drops. Members don't grow - other alliances take the top 10 spots. New members don't come - alliance stagnates.
-
2
-
-
is everyone who plays p&w 13
Ilysmrn.
Protip: Catsby just stop posting for a while. Lay low for a few weeks, and your 'misdeeds' just won't be as important to cackle at as they are right now. You might wish to grasp for attention, and be in the limelight, but trust me this isn't the one you wish to be under.
-
Why exactly would you even send just 50 tanks for a ground battle?
Also think logically: has there ever been a battle with just tanks and no troops?
...A load of reasons tbqh. If your tanks equal or outnumber the enemy's, but you have less soldiers, and wish to conserve soldiers as meatshields for defense, go ahead and try 50 soldiers + full tanks. It'll likely give you an utter failure, but the attack will shred through the opposition's soldiers and tanks.
Don't try it for cutting resistance, it'll rarely work.
I think Rahl's irritated because soldiers can get killed quickly, leaving you with 10k tanks and no way to use them.
Protip: Don't recruit your daily soldier cap, leave it at -200 so you can recruit more in a pinch if you have to.
I go with ~550 below the cap. 11 ground attacks without worrying about getting the defending soldiers shred
-
Go to your notifications.
You'll find an entry with that spy op there under 'Espionage Notifications'. Screenshot the entry and paste it here.
-
If I remember correctly, the continents on a map are determined by set rectangular shapes. If you fall in them, although you're technically part of another, you'll receive that continent's resources. I don't think it would be hard for Alex to move you below Europe's 'rectangle', so to say, moving you to a place where you receive Africa's bonus.
P.S: For future reference, you'll wish to cut out your 'warchest', or in layman's terms, the stockpiles of resources you have from screenshots you send/post. Doesn't particularly matter at your level, but it can be exploited later on.
-
I don't know what's going on but that wall of text is great and I am super pumped. Hail!
-
1. We will hold your new players and mid tier down as long as we see fit.
2. Syndisphere's mid-tier seems to lose players to low tier everyday.
3. Meh.
4. Sounds like you.
5. Meh.
6. Same to you.
The main issue with 'we will hold your new players and mid tier down as long as we see fit' is that it's based on the premise of you actually being able to continue sustained fighting, arguably at a tier that's far below what your original war-chest was designed for (But let's be honest most alliances prepare their war-chests for 2-3 rounds, this will exceed beyond that).
Besides that, the longer the period of time you spend in the lower tier, the wider the economic gap between their side and yours grows. Recovering from that would be quite the hassle, especially if they see fit to keep you at war, and you expend more funds than you're taking in (i.e. from loot); less rebuild funds lying around, the more the time taken to grow back to where you once were, if that even happens.
What stops Syndisphere from keeping you down, injecting member's with influxes of cash and resources once they're out of blockades, and continuing sustained warfare at your level? They have the upper-tier on their side; more bills to throw around ---> capability of winning the war of attrition ---> continuing to keep the enemy at war and thusly ruin months of growth ---> peace out with you when you're at a point where you rebuilding with the funds left over would still not get you back on your feet quickly.
-
4
-
-
The liquidated money, mostly, is gone. You can try and liquidate your assets after your blockades from wars most certainly coming end, but what would that accomplish? Buy infra? Cities? Land? Without infra and improvements, your cities would merely prove to be score bloaters, getting you in range of attackers. Your members would be anathema to most, if not, all alliances that have leaders with more than one brain-cell.
Sure, although some arguments may be cogent enough to get some of your members in a few alliances that don't know better; unless you somehow prove to have had abjured your current policies, your alliance has reached its short-lived 'political career'.
Say hello to perma political irrelevance, if you aren't at that stage at the moment.
-
It'd be a shame if that money couldn't salvage the tarnished reputation your alliance had in the past, and will now continue to possess; alongside every member of yours, whether they leave your alliance or not.
P.S: If you really wish(ed) to look for a protector, you couldn't have had made that wish clear in a shittier place.
-
1
-
-
Tingling in my pants. I love you Coalition.
-
Official nation name: MegalopolisPopulation (P&W numbers): 120,241GDP per capita (P&W numbers): $1,043.82Population density (sq. km): 60.21Form of Government: Dictatorship.Politics & War Wikia link (leave blank if you don't have one):Describe your Nation IC: The nation of Megalopolis is an anomaly. The leader, Aristodemus 'The Good' Tyrant, is given carte blanche in handling any and all affairs of the nation, relating to both internal and external matters. His authority is limitless, and decisions esoteric. Idiosyncratic laws and legislation make up the country's constitution, which may be torn apart by the Emperor if deemed necessary. His word is panacea to all problems related to all fields; challenging his beliefs is heresy. To this effect, Megalopolis is but the playground of the Emperor, and is as living as the Emperor; changing with his will. Machiavellian manoeuvres are as common as day in the upper-class, while the rest of the nation lives a Spartan life; stoicism ruling supreme.Describe yourself in OOC terms: Just another guy looking to RP. Have done a few in Nationstates, but that was boring.Have you read, and do you agree to abide with, the rules? (Yes/No): Yes(You must not have a history of continuous rule breaks in the national affairs subforum!)Where on the map do you want to be located? (Using real-world geography/nations, or a self-provided map):
Nation flag link (if you have a specific one you want to be used):
-
On a scale of 1-Russian, how drunk are you right now?
-
@ LPS........like Aristodemus said......he's new.......he hasn't gotten to know you, or see all your little hide and go seek adventures like all of us old timers.
Oh trust me, I've seen more than enough to believe that he's a pixel-hugger. Just kind of annoyed at him acting as if he doesn't know why we think what we do. >.>
-
1
-
-
Bumpity Bumpity Boo
Enlist at Knights Templar today!
-
I've no idea who she is nor do I care. All I know is she came up more often on a quick search with her abuse, doubtless there were many others such as yourself would also have been worthy. I didn't even know this thread existed at the time. Age and gender are no excuse. In hindsight there may have been others more suited for the post but I lacked the incite into quite how far the poison had spread here.
In terms of quitting, nothing I say or do will change any of your minds (do you really think me fighting would change it? I did last war and the lies still stayed. If I were to allow myself to be rolled as many of you wished then these lies would still be around as well with the added boasting of how you took me down (honestly not a hard feat to accomplish if you have the numbers on hand). You seem to have created an image of what you think I'm like and stigmatized me so much over the last few months that you actually believe your own lies. Unfortunately I haven't been around to defend myself until now due to RL. I see no reason to continue putting up with this abuse. This community has turned pretty sick and toxic. I wish no part of it.
I'm a new guy here - been searching the forums for a few days, though.
As far as I can see, none of Zeebrus' posts were 'abusive', per se, though I suppose they can be taken as 'offensive' assuming you can't take jokes. In terms of the 'Would it change your mind', last war was seen as a massive dogpile - and some even refuse to call it a war. It can easily be seen as you simply joining in on a fight you thought was easy - mind you I'm not saying that's what you did.
Being very fair, getting a player out of the community isn't the best thing to do - personally, this VM issue is something between you and CS Gov. Not us. Let's be real, though. Anything remotely interesting that creates even a minute amount of drama automatically becomes a topic of speculation and flat out gossip for some players. You entering VM when there were wars generate that interest required for people to shittalk you. So yeah, I'm not going to say we haven't created a certain image of you, that we haven't said that you're one of - if not the - greatest pixel-hugger.
But can you, being honest with yourself, say that your actions, whether unintentional or intentional, do not point to exactly that? Players are more likely to say 'This guy's a pixelhugger' than say 'No, it's definitely a RL issue that needs to be given priority to'. Why would someone say the latter? It's harder to defend. Why would people say the former; it's easier to say, to 'prove', and at the end of the day, jumping on the bandwagon is what we like to do.
I'm inclined to believe them because of the amount of times you've gotten into VM when there was a war nearby. Whether it's coincidence that you're always busy when there's a war nearby, yet seem to find the time to play the game otherwise, or if it's intentional, it's ignoring human nature and being plain stupid to say that this doesn't look like you're a pixelhugger.
Alliance member caps
in Game Suggestions
Posted
Aye, true. It would, I assume, add a certain flavor to intra-alliance politics
However, my point is that this 'mechanic' can very easily be circumvented, though the execution of the circumvention will still be in the hands of the alliance leaders, and open for further faults by the alliance leader. Personally, I see the action as inhibiting to the alliance's policies as a whole. Sure, these can add more intra-alliance upheaval, but is that the game's duty to do, or is it the players?