Is NPO Proof Communism Doesn't Work?

[Keegoz]

Guess NPO can build up now

[Buorhann]

Guess NPO can build up now

 

Ha!  Touche.

[Ripper]

The real question is...

Is Lordaeron/Kastor proof that God does exist?

 

Ι thought that you were venerating/worshiping Kastor as a god.

[Azaghul]

To what endgame?

 

Putting NPO into proper war range for rolling 4.0? Growth remains irrelevant without security. It's been proven so many times

If you build up and then get rolled, you can still end up more powerful at the end of the growth/war cycle, especially at the low levels where NPO is at.  Cities and projects can't be destroyed.

 

NPO is doing more damage to itself by not growing than getting rolled would do.

 

Why is it that NPO's opponents are so determined to force them to play a style they don't prefer?

I don't really care.  Just arguing against the idea that it is a smart strategy.  If NPO wants to play in a stupid way, no skin off my back.  I just like to argue and get triggered by people making stupid arguments lol.

 

In this conflict, allies would be involved. Why not force NPO's hand by curb stomping their allies?

 

I don't think NPO should grow just to get their asses kicked. It's that being in the "middle" so to speak allows them to be flexible in supporting their allies, whether it's down declaring or up declaring.

 

Sure, it increases their chances of getting ganged up on, but I value the flexibility over limitation. That's how Mensa has been valuable to our allies.

 

We were able to down declare and up declare as a war changed over time.

 

This reply also answers Milton's post too.

 

Lots of wasted potential with NPO. I just don't take them serious as an alliance.

Same with TKR.  It wasn't just smart politics and winning wars that led our sphere to eventually overcome our opponent's advantages in the top tier, but smart growth policies.

[durmij]

If you build up and then get rolled, you can still end up more powerful at the end of the growth/war cycle, especially at the low levels where NPO is at.  Cities and projects can't be destroyed.

Case in point, Rose. We spent half of 2015 and most of 2016 getting stomped in the dirt, but we learned to rebuild and manage funds so we didn't lose too much ground. We would have lost way more following a policy like 1200 infra cap or something that stupid.

[Azaghul]

Case in point, Rose. We spent half of 2015 and most of 2016 getting stomped in the dirt, but we learned to rebuild and manage funds so we didn't lose too much ground. We would have lost way more following a policy like 1200 infra cap or something that stupid.

That's one reason we saw so many repeat wars that were relatively close, and it took so long for us to decisively come out on top.  Winning a war gives a marginal advantage over the alliance you beat but it still damages both parties.  A lot of the alliances we beat in wars sat out the following war and continued rebuilding and catching back up to us, while most alliances on our side fought every war.   That erased much of the relative advantage we obtained from winning wars, because two winning wars was about as damaging and costly for us as one loosing war for you.  Y'all were largely able to stay competitive with us over 5-6 war cycles.

 

Even near the end of a long series of wars, we still could have been beaten if our opponent's politics and strategy had been better, our numerical superiority was never overwhelming and we were frequently outnumbered.  That's one thing I enjoyed so much about that period.  The sides were relatively even.  Most of the wars were in suspense and we really had to work hard to win.  There were a bunch of points where we could have lost.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Azaghul

[Roquentin]

If you build up and then get rolled, you can still end up more powerful at the end of the growth/war cycle, especially at the low levels where NPO is at.  Cities and projects can't be destroyed.

 

NPO is doing more damage to itself by not growing than getting rolled would do.

 

I don't really care.  Just arguing against the idea that it is a smart strategy.  If NPO wants to play in a stupid way, no skin off my back.  I just like to argue and get triggered by people making stupid arguments lol.

Same with TKR.  It wasn't just smart politics and winning wars that led our sphere to eventually overcome our opponent's advantages in the top tier, but smart growth policies.

 

 

 

End of the day, it's a difference in mindset and goals.  When it was no longer possible to do the low infra high cities thing that was used by Arrgh after the first round of wars, there were two approaches to being on the losing end: nuclear or lower city counts. Nuclear can work, but it's a huge upfront investment, expensive upkeep and doesn't scale well when dealing with a fluid playerbase. 

 

Some people see growth as an end itself.  Growth isn't  all that great if it entails an alliance basically being ZMed and at the mercy of their opponents for however many rounds they decide to keep it going. For people who have been around for years and can't avoid it due to city count like myself, it's part of the game, but it is better to avoid it if possible.

 

There isn't really a point in arguing on it when it's a difference in paradigm.

 

 

Case in point, Rose. We spent half of 2015 and most of 2016 getting stomped in the dirt, but we learned to rebuild and manage funds so we didn't lose too much ground. We would have lost way more following a policy like 1200 infra cap or something that stupid.

 

There are some important differences here. Proxy War wasn't an extended affair. Rose wasn't in Oktoberfest and as far as I know the rebuild from 168 day wasn't as simple as you describe and Rose had help from relatively unimpacted nations that couldn't be reached effectively. Given we all saw the leaks and saw Rose wouldn't have been prepared for the Alpha war, things didn't go super smoothly all the time.

 

In contrast with a less established playerbase and far more incidents, it was an entirely different situation. Case in point, getting mass raided right when we paid off initial building loans we had taken out. Then after within a few months, having  deal the Alpha situation with limited warchest due to having focused on growth.

 

I don't have an axe to grind here, but the situations aren't comparable.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Roquentin

[Azaghul]

End of the day, it's a difference in mindset and goals.  When it was no longer possible to do the low infra high cities thing that was used by Arrgh after the first round of wars, there were two approaches to being on the losing end: nuclear or lower city counts. Nuclear can work, but it's a huge upfront investment, expensive upkeep and doesn't scale well when dealing with a fluid playerbase. 

 

Some people see growth as an end itself.  Growth isn't  all that great if it entails an alliance basically being ZMed and at the mercy of their opponents for however many rounds they decide to keep it going. For people who have been around for years and can't avoid it due to city count, it's part of the game, but it is better to avoid it.

 

There isn't really a point in arguing on it when it's a difference in paradigm.

 

 

 

 

There are some important differences here. Proxy War wasn't an extended affair. Rose wasn't in Oktoberfest and as far as I know the rebuild from 168 day wasn't as simple as you describe and Rose had help from relatively unimpacted nations that couldn't be reached effectively. Given we all saw the leaks and saw Rose wouldn't have been prepared for the Alpha war, things didn't go super smoothly all the time.

 

In contrast with a less established playerbase and far more incidents, it was an entirely different situation. Case in point, getting mass raided right when we paid off initial building loans we had taken out. Then after within a few months, having  deal the Alpha situation with limited warchest due to having focused on growth.

 

I don't have an axe to grind here, but the situations aren't comparable.

I repeat: NPO is doing more damage to itself by not growing than getting rolled would do.

 

You're way too afraid of loosing a war.  Long term, NPO is unlikely to remain politically isolated forever.  When that day comes, you'll be a lot weaker than you could have been if you hadn't been so afraid of loosing.

[Roquentin]

I repeat: NPO is doing more damage to itself by not growing than getting rolled would do.

 

You're way too afraid of loosing a war.  Long term, NPO is unlikely to remain politically isolated forever.  When that day comes, you'll be a lot weaker than you could have been if you hadn't been so afraid of loosing.

It's not about losing, it's been about being able to fight semi-effectively even when losing and isolated and being able to do so on a large scale.

 

It takes basically everything out of the war aspect of the game, which is the main fun for many, to not even be able to do much of anything after getting ZMed if you can be effectively kept at war by militarized nations without being able to remilitarize yourself and essentially offer yourself up as a convenient snack. Weaker is a relative thing and reliant on a lot of presuppositions.

[Holton]

I repeat: NPO is doing more damage to itself by not growing than getting rolled would do.

 

You're way too afraid of loosing a war.  Long term, NPO is unlikely to remain politically isolated forever.  When that day comes, you'll be a lot weaker than you could have been if you hadn't been so afraid of loosing.

 

Heh. This conversation has gone full circle more than once. Don't know what left to be said. NPO is purposefully sacrificing growth in order to be more effective in war and potentially turn a losing political situation into a winning mechanical one.

 

No they can't still do that by growing past 2k score.

 

I get your argument, I just disagree and think NPO is doing the right thing.

[ComradeMilton]

If you build up and then get rolled, you can still end up more powerful at the end of the growth/war cycle, especially at the low levels where NPO is at.  Cities and projects can't be destroyed.

 

NPO is doing more damage to itself by not growing than getting rolled would do. As they rightfully choose to do. If you don't like their system don't copy it. But tt's not at all likely to be changing.

 

I don't really care.  Just arguing against the idea that it is a smart strategy.  If NPO wants to play in a stupid way, no skin off my back.  I just like to argue and get triggered by people making stupid arguments lol. Same here. Says something about your opinions.

 

Same with TKR.  It wasn't just smart politics and winning wars that led our sphere to eventually overcome our opponent's advantages in the top tier, but smart growth policies. I don't think NPO is ever going to want to copy anything TKR did.

 

 

I repeat: NPO is doing more damage to itself by not growing than getting rolled would do. Why is that your concern? Do they nag you to change to their method?

 

You're way too afraid of loosing a war.  Long term, NPO is unlikely to remain politically isolated forever.  When that day comes, you'll be a lot weaker than you could have been if you hadn't been so afraid of loosing. I can't speak on behalf of NPO anymore, but if I were I'd point out that that's fine.

[Auctor]

I suspect our current period of political fluidity has something to do with us not being a convenient target for an entrenched hegemoney. This is a bit like arguing that the Imperial German High Command should have built a larger navy in the lead up to WW1 in the sense that being effective in the area we're effective in while also attempting to challenge an area in which we aren't able to be effective in by necessity creates a geopolitical counter that doesn't benefit us and doesn't really get us enough to change the balance of power.

[greatkitteh]

Case in point, Rose. Likee NPO, We spent half of 2015 and most of 2016 getting stomped in the dirt, but we learned to rebuild and manage funds so we didn't lose too much ground. We would have lost way more following a policy like 1200 infra cap or something that stupid. and we lost like ten spots on the leaderboard when NPO didnt.

Edited March 11, 2017 by greatkitteh

[durmij]

The break even time on infra 1200 through 1500 is like what, a month? Even if half of your alliance lost that in the hell storm of peace we've been dealing with since last year, you would have recuperated it easily. Those 6 slots would have gone a hell of long way to adjusting for the fact that you run 4 barracks per. And it's only 7.5 more score for each city, which is like, 60 score for each nation in your AA. 

 

You can piss and moan about the "hegemoney" and presume on mine and everyone else's politics, but math has never supported a single one of your arguments.

[Keegoz]

The break even time on infra 1200 through 1500 is like what, a month? Even if half of your alliance lost that in the hell storm of peace we've been dealing with since last year, you would have recuperated it easily. Those 6 slots would have gone a hell of long way to adjusting for the fact that you run 4 barracks per. And it's only 7.5 more score for each city, which is like, 60 score for each nation in your AA. 

 

You can piss and moan about the "hegemoney" and presume on mine and everyone else's politics, but math has never supported a single one of your arguments.

I mean your politics was "Sign Mensa"

 

Also, they are in the hegemoney now and it is easy to presume when they pretty much say what they intend to or would like to do.

[ComradeMilton]

Which is stupid because our side also has alliances with a strong lower tier presence, such as BK, TKR or Chola. NPO is just falling behind in terms of average city count when compared to their traditional enemies.

 

If they stay this size they'll have to compete with the likes of BK, TKR or Chola, if they grow they'll have to deal with the likes of Mensa and t$. Staying small won't prevent NPO from facing strong opposition when tensions rise. It will probably just get them rolled by a different set of alliances.

 

I'm sure NPO's system has its advantages, but it turns their players into mindless drones who end up giving their gov more influence on their nations than it should have. Even in logistical terms it's weird, as I imagine NPO's gov must have their hands full allocating resources in wartime. Plus I'm pretty sure their nations' inability to generate substantial income has caused NPO nations to be caught with their pants down when war erupts, due to the difficulty to accumulate enough resources.

 

At the end of the day you should be responsible for managing your cash and resources the way you see fit (based on your game style and alliance needs). It ain't rocket science - you just need to make warchest your number 1 priority so you're ready for an unexpected defensive war.

 

Jess is hands down the most talented player in this game, as far as economics is concerned. So if she doesn't believe high taxes for a long period of time is sustainable and efficient (with the sporadic contextual exception of course), then I have no reason to believe NPO's system is the way toe go. But if their members are happy with it, hey... good for them!

If you think it's necessary NPO plays your style, are you going to switch to NPO's style to get to know it a bit better and sound less dumb when discussing it?

[Insert Name Here]

I mean your politics was "Sign Mensa"

 

Also, they are in the hegemoney now and it is easy to presume when they pretty much say what they intend to or would like to do.

 

NPO isn't on our side. Apart from protectorates, 2 of their 4 M level treaties are with alliances traditionally on the opposing side of our wars. And they have one with Lord A Aron, who's clearly positioned outside of our sphere.I want no connection whatsoever to NPO thank you very much.

 

If you think it's necessary NPO plays your style, are you going to switch to NPO's style to get to know it a bit better and sound less dumb when discussing it?

 

Where have I said it's necessary that NPO plays our style? Hell, I'm thrilled they keep stalling their growth deliberately. Also, you don't have to use that kind of derogatory adjectives to describe other people. It's not my fault NPO's side doesn't understand simple math, no need to insult those who of us who do just because you disagree with their point of view. Take a chill pill or maybe get a tampon if it's that time of the month.

Edited March 11, 2017 by Insert Name Here

[ComradeMilton]

NPO isn't on our side. Apart from protectorates, 2 of their 4 M level treaties are with alliances traditionally on the opposing side of our wars. And they have one with Lord A Aron, who's clearly positioned outside of our sphere.I want no connection whatsoever to NPO thank you very much. I'll relay your request. (Relayed; you should now have no information regarding NPO or this sphere if NPO is involved per your request.)

 

 

Where have I said it's necessary that NPO plays our style? Never specifically just an enormous amount of passive aggression.  thrilled they keep stalling their growth deliberately. That's a nice change. Also, you don't have to use that kind of derogatory adjectives to describe other people. It's not my fault NPO's side doesn't understand simple math, no need to insult those who of us who do just because you disagree with their point of view.  I'll stop when you do so I should have plenty of time.  Take a chill pill or maybe get a tampon if it's that time of the month. Relax your throat so I'll fit better down it.

[Insert Name Here]

k

[Buorhann]

I mean your politics was "Sign Mensa"

 

Also, they are in the hegemoney now and it is easy to presume when they pretty much say what they intend to or would like to do.

Hi Keegoz.

 

If people leave Mensa alone, we don't bother them. When a person raids us, I'll come knocking.

 

It's pretty easy if you don't want to deal with some "!@#$" attitude from Mensa. If the 'hegemoney' truest broke the game, we'd be steamrolling alliances left and right. We don't. I won't disagree with the fact that we're blunt in politics though. We have no reason to be 'nice' when people decide to step on our toes.

 

If a war hungry alliance like Mensa can keep their members from haphazardly raiding others, you sure as hell can too.

 

Also, do we need to make a long list of your dumbass antics as Emperor? Don't call out Mensa again, you're not too innocent in your actions either.

[Kastor]

NPO isn't on our side. Apart from protectorates, 2 of their 4 M level treaties are with alliances traditionally on the opposing side of our wars. And they have one with Lord A Aron, who's clearly positioned outside of our sphere.I want no connection whatsoever to NPO thank you very much.

 

 

 

Where have I said it's necessary that NPO plays our style? Hell, I'm thrilled they keep stalling their growth deliberately. Also, you don't have to use that kind of derogatory adjectives to describe other people. It's not my fault NPO's side doesn't understand simple math, no need to insult those who of us who do just because you disagree with their point of view. Take a chill pill or maybe get a tampon if it's that time of the month.

I came back to this thread to state, -yet again- that Lordaeron is a member of Syndisphere and the hegemoney.

 

Thank you.

[Insert Name Here]

I came back to this thread to state, -yet again- that Lordaeron is a member of Syndisphere and the hegemoney.

 

Thank you.

 

 

gg

[Prefonteen]

I suspect our current period of political fluidity has something to do with us not being a convenient target for an entrenched hegemoney. This is a bit like arguing that the Imperial German High Command should have built a larger navy in the lead up to WW1 in the sense that being effective in the area we're effective in while also attempting to challenge an area in which we aren't able to be effective in by necessity creates a geopolitical counter that doesn't benefit us and doesn't really get us enough to change the balance of power.

 

Impressive analogy. Well done.

[Eumirbago]

I came back to this thread to state, -yet again- that Lordaeron is a member of Syndisphere and the hegemoney.

 

Thank you.

You're gonna git rolled

[Buorhann]

I came back to this thread to state, -yet again- that Lordaeron is a member of Syndisphere and the hegemoney.

 

Thank you.

 

 

We can very easily fix that.