Repeated Fortifying

[Kemal Ergenekon]

False what exactly? If it helps just pretend I'm someone else please, stop with these combative responses please.

 

Yes yes and no one has said differently to that. You avoid your stuff being looted and trade that of for being useless for the next round and being no real help to your allies. That may or may not be fine for you and your alliance.

 

These are not combative responses, it is the usual way I argue something.

 

So you concede that the new mechanic allows one to costlessly avoid getting beiged when it is advantageous to do so, the only cost being forgoing the 2 days of protection which is the definition of getting beiged.

 

So now you agree with my initial position. Discussion over. If you wish something to add on top, feel free.

[Rozalia]

These are not combative responses, it is the usual way I argue something.

 

So you concede that the new mechanic allows one to costlessly avoid getting beiged when it is advantageous to do so, the only cost being forgoing the 2 days of protection which is the definition of getting beiged.

 

So now you agree with my initial position. Discussion over. If you wish something to add on top, feel free.

 

Forgive me if I saw it differently. I'm not sure why it requires such an attitude here.

 

What is there to concede? I never said anything different. 

 

So you just wasted all our time by arguing with me over nothing. You never challenged what I said and just repeated something I never said was wrong. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Forgive me if I saw it differently. I'm not sure why it requires such an attitude here.

 

What is there to concede? I never said anything different. 

 

So you just wasted all our time by arguing with me over nothing. You never challenged what I said and just repeated something I never said was wrong. 

 

You had posted:

 

"Endlessly fortifying in a war (so beyond simply a raid) for 5 days is worse than useless. Congratulations, you avoided beiging by acting as a punching bag for 5 days to 3 guys. Your reward is to get your slots reopen immediately while you're at 0 and act as a punching bag for another 5 days to 3 more guys. In short its not a concern in regards to alliance wars."

 

We did establish that this statement is wrong, in that the new system gives an option to prevent getting beiged at will, which in certain situations is extremely useful for the defenders in alliance wars.

[Rozalia]

You had posted:

 

"Endlessly fortifying in a war (so beyond simply a raid) for 5 days is worse than useless. Congratulations, you avoided beiging by acting as a punching bag for 5 days to 3 guys. Your reward is to get your slots reopen immediately while you're at 0 and act as a punching bag for another 5 days to 3 more guys. In short its not a concern in regards to alliance wars."

 

We did establish that this statement is wrong, in that the new system gives an option to prevent getting beiged at will, which in certain situations is extremely useful for the defenders in alliance wars.

 

You established no such thing, in fact you've not advanced your case in any manner. You trade off not getting beiged for having 0 going into the next fight against 3 guys. My alliance is currently in a state of heavy bombardment so trust me when I say I can judge just how useful fortifying is in a war scenario. The guys of mine who decided to fortify are now fighting more guys they have no chance against and what will they do now? Fortify again to then get hit by another 3 guys? Worthless. Being beiged actually allows you to fight back though yes, you should try to make sure that you don't have massive amounts of loot on you for the enemy to take. 

 

Way I see it you're not being truthful here and are just concerned about raids or whatever where fortifying can cancel out your gains. In an alliance war level fortifying is worthless outside some rare chances it can help you avoid a beige to then allow you to beige yourself and of course delaying until cavalry can arrive. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You established no such thing, in fact you've not advanced your case in any manner. You trade off not getting beiged for having 0 going into the next fight against 3 guys. My alliance is currently in a state of heavy bombardment so trust me when I say I can judge just how useful fortifying is in a war scenario. The guys of mine who decided to fortify are now fighting more guys they have no chance against and what will they do now? Fortify again to then get hit by another 3 guys? Worthless. Being beiged actually allows you to fight back though yes, you should try to make sure that you don't have massive amounts of loot on you for the enemy to take. 

 

Way I see it you're not being truthful here and are just concerned about raids or whatever where fortifying can cancel out your gains. In an alliance war level fortifying is worthless outside some rare chances it can help you avoid a beige to then allow you to beige yourself and of course delaying until cavalry can arrive. 

 

*sigh*

 

You should learn to let go of your prejudices and listen to reason.

 

There are two sides in each battle. They are playing a game in the game theoretic sense. The game is nearly completely zero-sum. I will discuss the payoffs:

 

Defender's Payoff: The defender wants to maximize the damage inflicted on the attacker, minimize the damage inflicted on himself, minimize the resources he loses, and minimize the resources the opponent gets.

 

Attacker's Payoff: The attacker wants to maximize the damage inflicted on the defender, minimize the damage inflicted on himself, maximize the resources he loots, and maximize the resources the defender loses.

 

Given other variables, the defender and the attacker's best responses regarding beiging are cut-off strategies. What do I mean by that?

 

For the defender, if he has 0 resources at hand, getting beiged is wonderful. But, say, if the defender was holding $1,000,000,000,000,000 worth of resources, he would rather not lose the stuff as loot, and would not like to be beiged.

 

For the attacker, if the defender has 0 resources at hand, beiging is stupid because it reduces the infra damage that can be inflicted on the opponent. But if the defender has $1,000,000,000,000,000 worth of resources, looting a fraction of that is preferable to the infra damage inflicted, because it is a shitton of money.

 

Both for the attacker and the defender there is a cutoff. i.e. there is such a level of resources held by the defender above which the defender wants not to get beiged, and the attacker wants to beige. Likewise, there is such a level of resources held by the defender below which it is stupid to beige the defender, but above it the loot makes it worthwhile.

 

If the two thresholds coincide (let's assume that for a simple example) there can be only two cases:

 

CASE 1: If the defender has less than the threshold value of resources, he prefers to be beiged, so he does not press fortify at all. But the attacker is not an idiot, so the attacker doesn't try to beige either. The result is a war where the attacker does infra slaughter until the defender's resistance nears 0, then stop. The defender never fortifies. They wait awkwardly for a while, after which the war ends.

 

CASE 2: If the defender has more than the threshold value of resources, he prefers not to be beiged, so he fights as usual in the beginning, but starts pressing fortify after the resistance points fall below a certain number. Since fortify is so efficient in raising the resistance, the attacker cannot beige the opponent no matter how much they want it (and in this case they want it).

 

So what did we learn?

 

1) When the loot is low and it is not worth it for the attacker to beige the defender, fortify has no effects, and the attacker doesn't beige the defender anyway. This is similar to what we had experienced in the old war system.

2) When the loot is high enough, the attacker has all the incentives to beige, but the defender can deny getting beiged at will. This is what Sheepy introduced. This is useful in raids as well as alliance wars, since saving a huge war chest and denying the opposing alliance resources can be as important as avoiding infra damage, especially so if your infra is already gone.

 

Hence the conclusion is that you are wrong. Case II that I mentioned is a counterexample to your wrong statement: "In short its not a concern in regards to alliance wars."

[Rozalia]

*sigh*

 

You should learn to let go of your prejudices and listen to reason.

 

You can say what you like but it doesn't make it so. I'll just ignore your attempts to distract by trying to provoke me.

 

There are two sides in each battle. They are playing a game in the game theoretic sense. The game is nearly completely zero-sum. I will discuss the payoffs:

 

Defender's Payoff: The defender wants to maximize the damage inflicted on the attacker, minimize the damage inflicted on himself, minimize the resources he loses, and minimize the resources the opponent gets.

 

Attacker's Payoff: The attacker wants to maximize the damage inflicted on the defender, minimize the damage inflicted on himself, maximize the resources he loots, and maximize the resources the defender loses.

 

Given other variables, the defender and the attacker's best responses regarding beiging are cut-off strategies. What do I mean by that?

 

For the defender, if he has 0 resources at hand, getting beiged is wonderful. But, say, if the defender was holding $1,000,000,000,000,000 worth of resources, he would rather not lose the stuff as loot, and would not like to be beiged.

 

For the attacker, if the defender has 0 resources at hand, beiging is stupid because it reduces the infra damage that can be inflicted on the opponent. But if the defender has $1,000,000,000,000,000 worth of resources, looting a fraction of that is preferable to the infra damage inflicted, because it is a shitton of money.

 

Both for the attacker and the defender there is a cutoff. i.e. there is such a level of resources held by the defender above which the defender wants not to get beiged, and the attacker wants to beige. Likewise, there is such a level of resources held by the defender below which it is stupid to beige the defender, but above it the loot makes it worthwhile.

 

If the two thresholds coincide (let's assume that for a simple example) there can be only two cases:

 

CASE 1: If the defender has less than the threshold value of resources, he prefers to be beiged, so he does not press fortify at all. But the attacker is not an idiot, so the attacker doesn't try to beige either. The result is a war where the attacker does infra slaughter until the defender's resistance nears 0, then stop. The defender never fortifies. They wait awkwardly for a while, after which the war ends.

 

CASE 2: If the defender has more than the threshold value of resources, he prefers not to be beiged, so he fights as usual in the beginning, but starts pressing fortify after the resistance points fall below a certain number. Since fortify is so efficient in raising the resistance, the attacker cannot beige the opponent no matter how much they want it (and in this case they want it).

 

So what did we learn?

 

1) When the loot is low and it is not worth it for the attacker to beige the defender, fortify has no effects, and the attacker doesn't beige the defender anyway. This is similar to what we had experienced in the old war system.

2) When the loot is high enough, the attacker has all the incentives to beige, but the defender can deny getting beiged at will. This is what Sheepy introduced. This is useful in raids as well as alliance wars, since saving a huge war chest and denying the opposing alliance resources can be as important as avoiding infra damage, especially so if your infra is already gone.

 

Hence the conclusion is that you are wrong. Case II that I mentioned is a counterexample to your wrong statement: "In short its not a concern in regards to alliance wars."

 

A lot of words saying all of nothing. Its not expanded on your view point to any degree, but simply confirmed you're looking at it from a limited viewpoint like I said. 

 

You can avoid the looting and in a raid thats all well and good sure. In an alliance war you render yourself useless as next round you go straight into it with 0 military and get pinned down again. You can fortify again and repeat the process endlessly I suppose until the overall war ends (or hope the enemy simply doesn't have a low enough tier I guess). If you get caught in that situation with a lot of resources then unfortunate if it was a surprise, an error if you had the chance to stash it away and didn't.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You can say what you like but it doesn't make it so. I'll just ignore your attempts to distract by trying to provoke me.

 

 

A lot of words saying all of nothing. Its not expanded on your view point to any degree, but simply confirmed you're looking at it from a limited viewpoint like I said. 

 

You can avoid the looting and in a raid thats all well and good sure. In an alliance war you render yourself useless as next round you go straight into it with 0 military and get pinned down again. You can fortify again and repeat the process endlessly I suppose until the overall war ends (or hope the enemy simply doesn't have a low enough tier I guess). If you get caught in that situation with a lot of resources then unfortunate if it was a surprise, an error if you had the chance to stash it away and didn't.

 

If you were right, no one would ever press the fortify button. Yet people do. Not all of them are idiots, but you seem to think they are. You might want to go an ask why they press fortify. Share your answers here. Bye Roz.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Here is someone who didn't press fortify in an alliance war, when he should have:

 

Olympia looted $2,774,831, 566 Coal, 2,848 Oil, 598 Uranium, 566 Iron, 8 Bauxite, 2 Lead, 5,333 Gasoline, 4,444 Munitions, 4,612 Steel, 1,114 Aluminum, and 42,989 Food. TUGTopia also lost 10% of the infrastructure in each of their cities.

 

He didn't press it because he was drunk at a party, but he should have. This is a tangible case that you cannot ignore. Oh, correction, a case that you couldn't ignore if you weren't a person who ignores facts and believes in his made-up theories no matter the opposing evidence.

[Donald Trump]

If you value your patience, you might want to not debate with Roz Kemal. Though it sadly has to be done as if his stuff is up there, Sheepy might not add a decent suggestion. 

[Rozalia]

If you were right, no one would ever press the fortify button. Yet people do. Not all of them are idiots, but you seem to think they are. You might want to go an ask why they press fortify. Share your answers here. Bye Roz.

 

There are occasions where its fine to press the button, done it myself even. In an alliance war, you know, one that isn't a complete curb stomp anyway its very silly to do so outside the times I've previously noted.

 

Here is someone who didn't press fortify in an alliance war, when he should have:

 

Olympia looted $2,774,831, 566 Coal, 2,848 Oil, 598 Uranium, 566 Iron, 8 Bauxite, 2 Lead, 5,333 Gasoline, 4,444 Munitions, 4,612 Steel, 1,114 Aluminum, and 42,989 Food. TUGTopia also lost 10% of the infrastructure in each of their cities.

 

He didn't press it because he was drunk at a party, but he should have. This is a tangible case that you cannot ignore. Oh, correction, a case that you couldn't ignore if you weren't a person who ignores facts and believes in his made-up theories no matter the opposing evidence.

 

... Absolutely laughable. Mensa is not in a situation where they need beiging to make a fightback as they can safely take the hits from not being beiged if it were to come up in knowledge that the enemy can't effectively take advantage due to a massive numbers edge on your side. I was thinking you were just being obstinate as usual but it really does seem instead you just don't have a clue what you're on about.

 

If you value your patience, you might want to not debate with Roz Kemal. Though it sadly has to be done as if his stuff is up there, Sheepy might not add a decent suggestion.

 

Shut up Spite.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

 

There are occasions where its fine to press the button, done it myself even. In an alliance war, you know, one that isn't a complete curb stomp anyway its very silly to do so outside the times I've previously noted.

 

 

... Absolutely laughable. Mensa is not in a situation where they need beiging to make a fightback as they can safely take the hits from not being beiged if it were to come up in knowledge that the enemy can't effectively take advantage due to a massive numbers edge on your side. I was thinking you were just being obstinate as usual but it really does seem instead you just don't have a clue what you're on about.

 

 

Shut up Spite.

 

Your inability to grasp even the simplest of things still astounds me, but it shouldn't. Now that you conceded that even you pressed fortify in an alliance war, you should just shut up as you have yourself demonstrated that Case II exists, which implies your statement that I challenged was incorrect, and a strawman.

[Rozalia]

Your inability to grasp even the simplest of things still astounds me, but it shouldn't. Now that you conceded that even you pressed fortify in an alliance war, you should just shut up as you have yourself demonstrated that Case II exists, which implies your statement that I challenged was incorrect, and a strawman.

 

The usual blather attacking your opponent to try and claim some victory. I pressed it because it was one of the type of situations I described where it would be fine to. I did not press it to avoid a looting but I pressed it to beige my opponent later on. The idea that me pressing it once thereby proves you correct is nonsensical.

 

Lets put you and whatever alliance you happened to be in at the time in our scenario here for a moment. Now tell me the advantage in fortifying your nations so when the wars time out you get another 3 nations attacking you while you have 0 military. They don't get looted, okay. What is the other advantage? When do they get to fight back?

[Kemal Ergenekon]

The discussion is over, I am satisfied.

[Beatrix]

 

 

Lets put you and whatever alliance you happened to be in at the time in our scenario here for a moment. Now tell me the advantage in fortifying your nations so when the wars time out you get another 3 nations attacking you while you have 0 military. They don't get looted, okay. What is the other advantage? When do they get to fight back?

 

 

Fortifying:

1. Avoid alliance bank being looted forever

2. Avoid nation bank being looted forever

3. Avoid treasures being looted forever

4. Avoid 10% infra damage in all cities(depending on the number of cities, this is more damage than airstriking 0 millitary)

5. Avoid 10% of all resources being looted

6. Extend indefinitely a losing war, until it expires. Also, a minor benefit, albeit still a benefit, is slot filling.(That is, if someone has their slot filled by you, and they want to attack, they can't because you keep fortifying)

7. Another minor benefit - extra units lost. 

 

roflmao

[Spite]

Just posting to point out that unlike some people I don't need to make second/fake accounts and if I wanted to call Roz a waste of oxygen I would.

 

PS this game is really boring

Edited January 2, 2017 by Spite

[Rozalia]

The discussion is over, I am satisfied.

Oh I already knew it was, you have no answer after all.

 

Just posting to point out that unlike some people I don't need to make second/fake accounts and if I wanted to call Roz a waste of oxygen I would.

 

PS this game is really boring

 

Shut up Donald Trump.

 

Fortifying:

1. Avoid alliance bank being looted forever

2. Avoid nation bank being looted forever

3. Avoid treasures being looted forever

4. Avoid 10% infra damage in all cities(depending on the number of cities, this is more damage than airstriking 0 millitary)

5. Avoid 10% of all resources being looted

6. Extend indefinitely a losing war, until it expires. Also, a minor benefit, albeit still a benefit, is slot filling.(That is, if someone has their slot filled by you, and they want to attack, they can't because you keep fortifying)

7. Another minor benefit - extra units lost. 

 

roflmao

 

Did you even read what you responded to? Go back and try again.

 

 

[Donald Trump]

Shut up Donald Trump.

Shut up Pre. 

[Beatrix]

Fortifying:

1. Avoid alliance bank being looted forever

2. Avoid nation bank being looted forever

3. Avoid treasures being looted forever

4. Avoid 10% infra damage in all cities(depending on the number of cities, this is more damage than airstriking 0 millitary)

5. Avoid 10% of all resources being looted

6. Extend indefinitely a losing war, until it expires. Also, a minor benefit, albeit still a benefit, is slot filling.(That is, if someone has their slot filled by you, and they want to attack, they can't because you keep fortifying)

7. Another minor benefit - extra units lost. 

 

roflmao

 

The usual blather attacking your opponent to try and claim some victory. I pressed it because it was one of the type of situations I described where it would be fine to. I did not press it to avoid a looting but I pressed it to beige my opponent later on. The idea that me pressing it once thereby proves you correct is nonsensical.

 

Lets put you and whatever alliance you happened to be in at the time in our scenario here for a moment. Now tell me the advantage in fortifying your nations so when the wars time out you get another 3 nations attacking you while you have 0 military. They don't get looted, okay. What is the other advantage? When do they get to fight back?

 

[Rozalia]

 

 

I'll point it out for you as thats needed apparently.

 

Lets put you and whatever alliance you happened to be in at the time in our scenario here for a moment. Now tell me the advantage in fortifying your nations so when the wars time out you get another 3 nations attacking you while you have 0 military. They don't get looted, okay. What is the other advantage? When do they get to fight back?

[Beatrix]

I literally just told you the other advantages. If you're interested, in most cases beiging will do more damage than 3 players attacking and then having another 3 attacking.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Beatrix, you are arguing with a guy who says fortifying is useless in alliance wars, and then uses fortify himself in an alliance war. There is no curing the stupid and the inconsistent.

[Rozalia]

Beatrix, you are arguing with a guy who says fortifying is useless in alliance wars, and then uses fortify himself in an alliance war. There is no curing the stupid and the inconsistent.

 

Once again, I listed the times it appeared useful which was when I used it. That did not include what you have been saying in it. I did though say that it certainly would be useful if you have all the cards on your side as you do in the current conflict which seems to be what is blinding you completely on this.

 

I literally just told you the other advantages. If you're interested, in most cases beiging will do more damage than 3 players attacking and then having another 3 attacking.

 

Those are not advantages in the scenario I presented. What purpose again is there in avoiding beige if you just then get those slots filled straight away again while you're at 0 military? When does the fighting back happen in that scenario?

[Beatrix]

Yes, in that scenario, when you get attacked again, you at least prevent your alliance from being looted, your infra to be destroyed, your resources to be looted as well as your own money, you also prevent teasures from being stolen if you so please. These are all benefits that you deny your opponent. 

 

Your argument is flawed from its core - given that you're saying "you either get beiged" or "you get attacked again". This is a false dichotomy, you can have 1 person beige you and the 2 other keep wrecking you, then have 1 person declare on you, and have the other 2 beige. In this case, the attacker will get the benefits of beiging, while also preventing you to rebuild, while also doing infra damage.

 

If so, if you're losing, literally the best thing you can do is fortify as of right now. (against a competent opponent)

 

 

 

(to extend on that - no, if you're getting ZId you can't magically fight back, not through beige and not through fortify)

Edited January 2, 2017 by Beatrix

[Rozalia]

Yes, in that scenario, when you get attacked again, you at least prevent your alliance from being looted, your infra to be destroyed, your resources to be looted as well as your own money, you also prevent teasures from being stolen if you so please. These are all benefits that you deny your opponent. 

 

Your argument is flawed from its core - given that you're saying "you either get beiged" or "you get attacked again". This is a false dichotomy, you can have 1 person beige you and the 2 other keep wrecking you, then have 1 person declare on you, and have the other 2 beige. In this case, the attacker will get the benefits of beiging, while also preventing you to rebuild, while also doing infra damage.

 

If so, if you're losing, literally the best thing you can do is fortify as of right now. (against a competent opponent)

 

 

 

(to extend on that - no, if you're getting ZId you can't magically fight back, not through beige and not through fortify)

 

And that is worth not being able to fight back?

 

Finally an actual argument from someone. That one is certainly a valid point but does not seem to be a norm yet.

[Beatrix]

Yes, it's worth not being able to fight back, in many cases. I've done the math, and generally you can do 50-100m more damage if your opponent doesn't fortify, and it keeps rising depending on your infra and city count.