Jump to content

LukeTP

Members
  • Posts

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Leader Name
    LukeTP
  • Nation Name
    Comtona
  • Nation ID
    124083

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

LukeTP's Achievements

Active Member

Active Member (3/8)

95

Reputation

  1. I don't mean to be "that guy", but rather than restarting the whole conversation time and time again until you get a response that you like... given that this is clearly a mechanic that needs to be discussed, perhaps we could have a single conversation, and try and get something meaningful out of it. Reason why i'm saying this is I can't be bothered to keep having the same conversation, making the same points, having the same arguments, time and time again. We had a thread about Beige mechanics three months ago which I think was productive, and had more substance to it than this one (it had actual proposed solutions for one thing), and was possibly starting to get somewhere. Now it just feels like we're back to square one again. I've not been involved in these conversations many times and i'm already sick of it... i can't imagine how bored others might be with it. On to this thread specifically... I do not really have much to say other than something needs to be done, either to the beige mechanics, or a total rebalance of the whole war system, if you ever want to remove the recurring issue of wars being won/lost on day one and being un-recoverable. In my opinion a total rebuild is not necessary because that would drag wars out massively (when they don't need to be) and just makes it a whole new set of blitzes every time. A small rebuild window is basically the current situation, nations generally get between 0 and 12 turns to rebuild after each beat down. A medium rebuild would be good in my opinion as the "winning" side from the opening blitzes still has the advantage, but the "losing" side has the potential to turn things around with some decent tactics.
  2. Nations at war should always be able to spy attack each other (regardless of beige). At all other times intel ops only would be fair in my opinion. I voted as close as I can but there isn't a pair of options that matches that exactly.
  3. I can see what you're trying to do with these proposals and i'm not entirely opposed to them but do think they could be balanced a bit better. First up, dogpiles suck for everyone, it doesn't matter whether you get to hit the attack button every day or not, they're boring, they're unproductive and they just cause the losing side to sit there doing nothing for anything from a week to a month or 6 months or however long before the winning side decides it can't be bothered any more. Anything that has the sole outcome of increasing the likelihood of a dogpile happening should be tossed in a bin, that bin should be burnt, then nuked, and then whatever is left should be launched into some distant star. Regarding the points in the original post: 1. I like the idea that all wars end in beige. It stops the perpetual beige cycling that exists at the moment. 2. I like inactive wars automatically expiring. If you aren't fighting, it isn't a war. 3. If beige timers do not start until the last war expires, then I think we should reduce the length of beige. If a nation has 5 offensive and 3 defensive wars, loses all of them, but the fighting is done around the time of the first beige, the nation would get basically 212 turns of nothing (over 17 days). My thinking is either beige starts immediately and stays at 2 days per war, OR reduce to maybe 1 day, but start when the last war ends. 4. Makes it impossible to fight back against a dogpile (leaving beige early is almost the only tool you have to try and surprise the enemy and get back at them). 5. This just makes dogpiles easier. if you have 5 offensive wars that you finish on the same day, that's a 225% rebuild straight away.
  4. I can agree with that to a point, and in all fairness, there are some alliances that you can have a joke around with and it's actually enjoyable to play with/against, unfortunately there are others who are not. You guys for example are an alliance that is nice to engage with. I'd probably think wars were more fun if the server didn't fall apart every time there was a blitz and if dogpiles were not a thing.
  5. I'm not saying that you would tell us who you're going to hit. What I am saying is that until we know who is going to be hit, it's only natural for us to prepare to defend ourselves, just like everyone else would if they think that they, or one of their allies, might be the target. All of the MInc alliances that were involved in GNR are no longer in MInc. I do not know if those alliances and Oasis had planned for "3 hours", and quite frankly I don't care, as I was not involved in it.
  6. I read them, the point i made was that it didn't show whether they were forced on anyone or not. Yes it does happen outside micros. I've been in top 10 alliances my entire time on PnW and I have been involved in said wars in the past. The point I have made is that we did not who the actual target was, all we knew was that you were building up. We did not know who the target originally was until after the MDP had already been signed and it was too late. How can we know that it's going to be a friendly/fun war if we do not even know who the target is, let alone if the aggressors are a couple of alliances or a whole bloc? We're not mind readers. The fact that two sizable blocs were able to prepare a coordinated and fully militarised blitz within 3 days of the temporary MDP being signed suggests that our fears were not entirely unfounded as there was clearly already a level of preparedness from the two blocs.
  7. There are treaties all the time that do not get used. Except we would... which was the point I made... The scale of the war may not have been to the level we expected, but we would have been at war nonetheless. Cataclysm have already admitted that they were going to hit us. Clock is 30-40% larger than our bloc, should we have just let them hit us? They claimed, after this war started, that it was only going to be two alliances attacking. We have no way to verify this other than their unsubstantiated claims. Thanks for the one example that does not really prove or disprove my point. It does not suggest that the war was forced by one on the other or if it was mutual so was kind of a pointless contribution.
  8. The tiering has been widely shared, mainly by people trying to justify their offensive against Oasis and MInc so if you haven't seen that then I would suggest you do a bit of reading. If you don't see how it is hypocritical to say tier consolidation is fine if you are doing it but not if someone else is doing it then there's no hope for you and we're all just wasting our time here.
  9. No one is placing any restrictions on what offensive coalitions can be used for though. The people in the current "offensive coalition" were in the same "offensive coalition" that was dogpiling a few months ago.
  10. Noone made you militarise. If BW/Clock had just left it be for two weeks, the MDP would have expired and we would have been back to how we were before. Besides, if you're allowed to have an offensive coalition, why aren't we allowed to have a defensive coalition? The only difference between the two is who fires the first shot.
  11. If you're not qualified to talk about something that does affect your alliance, how can you be qualified to talk about something that affects someone else's alliance? The basis that people are applying to whether it was reasonable or not to move to defend ourselves, is whether we should have assumed that part of a bloc militarising in readiness of hitting part of our bloc, was not a precursor to the entirely of that bloc from militarising to hit us. Friendly/fun/etc. wars are not without precedence (indeed i've been in a couple myself in the past), but when they were friendly/fun/etc. wars, they were discussed by both sides, rather than being forced by one on the other without any kind of context. On dogpiles, I cannot speak for others in MInc or elsewhere, but within TCW, we have been on both sides of a dogpile on many occasions in the past, and we have been clear that we think they are wrong, and more importantly, boring, regardless of which side of it you are on. We refused to join the war against HW earlier this year, when asked to enter, on the basis that if we did we would have been contributing to a dogpile. Facts simply do not support your fiction. I'm not from Oasis, i'm in TCW, therefore MInc. So my point stands.
  12. By that theory we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. If we make the treaty public, we get slated for it. If we don't make it public and then trigger it after getting attacked, we get accused of holding secret treaties. The simple fact is, the war was going to happen regardless of the actions we did or did not take. Also, nothing was said of my point regarding the tier consolidation that your own side partakes in.
  13. If that's the case, why did Oasis try and cancel the temporary MDP and hang us out to dry as a result? The only reason Oasis are currently being attacked as well is because they didn't do it quick enough...
  14. If all levels of tier consolidation are as important as each other, what are you doing to reduce the tier consolidation that sees your bloc as having a massive advantage over everyone else at the 31-36 levels, and likewise regarding Hollywood who completely owns the highest tier (40+) with double the number of nations of the nearest bloc (Clock), and 10x the number of nations in your bloc? You say this is all about tier consolidation, yet the majority of your wars are against MInc. nations. Pray tell, which tier is it exactly that you think MInc. are consolidating? With the exception of the lowest tiers where MInc. and BW are comparable, BW is larger than MInc at every tier.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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