Jump to content

The war so far v2- updated stats


Avruch
 Share

Recommended Posts

100+ members, and he's talking about how he can't compete.

 

I wish Mensa had those numbers close to that again.  That was some fun frustrating times.

 

You have a very opportunistic situation to be the literal foundation of a sphere, but you're too afraid to build up in order to support your allies/friendlies.  You'd rather stay at 9 cities and let them fight a losing battle.

 

Zodiac + BK + NPO should EASILY compete against TKR + Syndicate + Pantheon + Rose.  Notice though that BK and Zodiac are pretty wide spread in all tiers, but NPO is concentrated in a 'low tier'.  If you were in 'mid tier', you guys would do so much better for yourselves and your allies.

 

I don't think you really "get it".

 

Expecting us to have adapted everything within a month of Inquisition signed is unrealistic.  If we were too afraid and unwilling to support anyone else, we wouldn't have bothered building up ground/navy in the first place knowing it'd inflate our score and just continue on soldiers, low tanks, and air and not risked the down decs that have occurred already. 

 

I'm just going to dismantle this case here: if everyone was at say 12 cities assuming that would even be affordable with the warchests to support it,  they would easily get downsold and hit by the upper tier of your side short of the other fronts being won on time.  It wouldn't have been the game changer you're making it out to be and it's disengenuous and an attempt to make us look selfish. We were never going to be in a position to beat TKR single-handedly and it wasn't the plan. We as a coalition were unable to preempt them  and the  other plan we had in mind didn't work out or otherwise the necessary forces would have been allocated there.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>within a month

 

Seriously, Roq?  Pretty sure people have pointed this out to you several times ever since you stalled at the 9 city mark, but you were too afraid of the possibility on getting rolled.  This is why I cannot take you or NPO serious.  Your reasoning throughout pointing this out to you has always fallen back to "We'd get rolled".

 

>never going to beat TKR single-handedly and it wasn't the plan

 

I did not say you had to beat TKR single-handedly, or if even that was the plan.  I'm stating that NPO could compete very easily.  If NPO was higher, this war (for example) would definitely be far different.

 

I just want to note that 2 of the 3 wars you've participated in, NPO was on the aggressor side and preempted an alliance, while remaining in low tiers.  No need to feed me your bullshit.  You're just cowardly.  While yes, it's smart to play the low tier game to avoid taking hits, it also shows that nobody should ever take your alliance seriously as an ally - because you cannot properly support them anywhere else.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

>within a month

 

Seriously, Roq?  Pretty sure people have pointed this out to you several times ever since you stalled at the 9 city mark, but you were too afraid of the possibility on getting rolled.  This is why I cannot take you or NPO serious.  Your reasoning throughout pointing this out to you has always fallen back to "We'd get rolled".

 

>never going to beat TKR single-handedly and it wasn't the plan

 

I did not say you had to beat TKR single-handedly, or if even that was the plan.  I'm stating that NPO could compete very easily.  If NPO was higher, this war (for example) would definitely be far different.

 

I just want to note that 2 of the 3 wars you've participated in, NPO was on the aggressor side and preempted an alliance, while remaining in low tiers.  No need to feed me your bullshit.  You're just cowardly.  While yes, it's smart to play the low tier game to avoid taking hits, it also shows that nobody should ever take your alliance seriously as an ally - because you cannot properly support them anywhere else.

 

I don't think you really get it. The point wasn't to avoid getting rolled it was to avoid making it fun for you or interesting at all and give us the ability to drag out any war for any low tier alliance you enlisted . If you were insistent on having us as an enemy we were going to deny you any pleasure in it.  Let's just face it; you were upset we weren't there for you to roll a few months ago. Your track record is extensive in this regard. 

 

I've already pointed out why it wouldn't have been the game changer you describe. Keep pretending otherwise.

 

I just want to note that both times we were dealing with being severely isolated after losing a war. In one case, we were dropped after losing a defensive war and were left to our own devices with the exception of a few allies, so we weren't going to splurge when your leadership was openly broadcasting its intentions to hit us especially after we were dropped in the Paragone split. In the other case, we lost and barely had any treaties and certainly didn't have any with anyone that would be in a position to take Mensa/tS on, so we were just going to be taking our hits and fighting it out alone until things changed recently, which is why it made sense in that context.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you really get it. The point wasn't to avoid getting rolled it was to avoid making it fun for you or interesting at all and give us the ability to drag out any war for any low tier alliance you enlisted . If you were insistent on having us as an enemy we were going to deny you any pleasure in it.  Let's just face it; you were upset we weren't there for you to roll a few months ago. Your track record is extensive in this regard. 

 

I've already pointed out why it wouldn't have been the game changer you describe. Keep pretending otherwise.

 

I just want to note that both times we were dealing with being severely isolated after losing a war. In one case, we were dropped after losing a defensive war and were left to our own devices with the exception of a few allies, so we weren't going to splurge when your leadership was openly broadcasting its intentions to hit us especially after we were dropped in the Paragone split. In the other case, we lost and barely had any treaties and certainly didn't have any with anyone that would be in a position to take Mensa/tS on, so we were just going to be taking our hits and fighting it out alone until things changed recent, which is why it made sense in that context.

 

So you are intentionally trying to rally all the lower tier alliances on your side? That would just push even more high tier alliances to your opposition wouldn't it?

 

I mean it's just par for the course. I hope it changes eventually, but there isn't really a penalty for pulling out if you're on the losing side, so people are inclined to do it.  If an entire coalition is willing to dig in at some point, they'll be able to accomplish a lot.

 

 

There is no alternative if the other side has an upper tier advantage since alliances with upper tiers tend to tie each other. There could have been more score compression which would have helped avoid  the 17-20 city nations sell downs on 12-15 nations with maxed mil, but that's about it. 

 

Can't really use that as an excuse when you follow by explaining how you intentionally choke your enemies of lower tier allies.  

Edited by Alkaline
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are intentionally trying to rally all the lower tier alliances on your side? That would just push even more high tier alliances to your opposition wouldn't it?

 

 

Can't really use that as an excuse when you follow by explaining how you intentionally choke your enemies of lower tier allies.  

One is in reaction to the other and I don't think we tried to rally any of them. Honestly we were expecting to be fighting OO after the NAP expired until it started getting out that a change was desired by some in it.

 

>Most upper tier alliances flock to Syndisphere due to seeing it as a better deal

>No alternatives

 

The lesson from the first war was we had no effective counter to BK on our side and BK was the would-be alliance hitting us in both the tS-Alpha war and then when they actually did it. If we were likely going to be fighting BK even if we grew a bit more, it made sense to adapt to alliances like that. What I didn't want was the usual "beat up the uppers and mids in first round, low tier comes in and cleans up and locks it down for 3 rounds" to happen again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are intentionally trying to rally all the lower tier alliances on your side? That would just push even more high tier alliances to your opposition wouldn't it?

Unless you're trying to suggest it's our fault that most of the upper tier alliances have a built in incentive to be a part of a complete nother circlejerk?

 

But yeah, turns out that after pursuing a strategy of not being a convenient upper tier target for a larger sphere actually encouraged that other sphere to splinter worked, we can't just splurge and get three new cities for each of our members. If yall feel as though us doing so is important to you, feel free to fund it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One is in reaction to the other and I don't think we tried to rally any of them. Honestly we were expecting to be fighting OO after the NAP expired until it started getting out that a change was desired by some in it.

 

>Most upper tier alliances flock to Syndisphere due to seeing it as a better deal

>No alternatives

 

The lesson from the first war was we had no effective counter to BK on our side and BK was the would-be alliance hitting us in both the tS-Alpha war and then when they actually did it. If we were likely going to be fighting BK even if we grew a bit more, it made sense to adapt to alliances like that. What I didn't want was the usual "beat up the uppers and mids in first round, low tier comes in and cleans up and locks it down for 3 rounds" to happen again.

 

You just said that you were going to drag out the war for any low tier alliance that was enlisted. That wasn't really a secret before the war happened (that you would overwhelm any low tier alliance). Maybe rally isn't the correct word but you are aware of the fact that you are the reason for your sphere being so much more stacked with lower tiers. Whether you admit it or not.

 

I don't think you can just blame your lack of performance this war on BK not being there either, because I can probably find at least 20 nations in your alliance that still haven't done shit in this war. You talk about how it was "easy mode" for the other side, and you seem unsurprised that you are losing the war. Why hold back on your blitz if you felt this way? If you're going to lose at least do it in style. 

 

Personally, I think you are intentionally trying to keep the damage to your alliance minimal which is why you had a half assed blitz. So that post war you will be in a much stronger position than your allies - and you will be able to try and take charge of the direction your sphere goes while they are licking much deeper wounds than you. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just said that you were going to drag out the war for any low tier alliance that was enlisted. That wasn't really a secret before the war happened (that you would overwhelm any low tier alliance). Maybe rally isn't the correct word but you are aware of the fact that you are the reason for your sphere being so much more stacked with lower tiers. Whether you admit it or not.

 

I don't think you can just blame your lack of performance this war on BK not being there either, because I can probably find at least 20 nations in your alliance that still haven't done shit in this war. You talk about how it was "easy mode" for the other side, and you seem unsurprised that you are losing the war. Why hold back on your blitz if you felt this way? If you're going to lose at least do it in style. 

 

Personally, I think you are intentionally trying to keep the damage to your alliance minimal which is why you had a half assed blitz. So that post war you will be in a much stronger position than your allies - and you will be able to try and take charge of the direction your sphere goes while they are licking much deeper wounds than you. 

 

I said that in the context of us being hit before anything happened. If we were going to be constantly goaded by your friends then we were going to be dragging anything out.

 

Again, I've explained this to you. Essentially you would want us to go for updecs we have no chance of winning which would essentially clog up the slots of the nations we'd be hitting and allow them to run rampant. I mean, it happened anyway on some we weren't able to seal the deal on. but it would have been far worse and imperiled the ones we made work. We're not intentionally limiting in the slightest or else we wouldn't have been as high up as we we were.  I'm not really unsurprised that we're losing because it fits the pattern. Fighting Syndiphere is always an uphill battle, but we were still trying to achieve some objectives. 

 

It's really unfortunate you feel this way Pub. I'm glad others are able to see we're not the cartoon villains you make us out to be.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said that in the context of us being hit before anything happened. If we were going to be constantly goaded by your friends then we were going to be dragging anything out.

 

Again, I've explained this to you. Essentially you would want us to go for updecs we have no chance of winning which would essentially clog up the slots of the nations we'd be hitting and allow them to run rampant. I mean, it happened anyway on some we weren't able to seal the deal on. but it would have been far worse and imperiled the ones we made work. We're not intentionally limiting in the slightest or else we wouldn't have been as high up as we we were.  I'm not really unsurprised that we're losing because it fits the pattern. Fighting Syndiphere is always an uphill battle, but we were still trying to achieve some objectives. 

 

It's really unfortunate you feel this way Pub. I'm glad others are able to see we're not the cartoon villains you make us out to be.

 

It's not like NPO has the best reputation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said that in the context of us being hit before anything happened. If we were going to be constantly goaded by your friends then we were going to be dragging anything out.

 

Again, I've explained this to you. Essentially you would want us to go for updecs we have no chance of winning which would essentially clog up the slots of the nations we'd be hitting and allow them to run rampant. I mean, it happened anyway on some we weren't able to seal the deal on. but it would have been far worse and imperiled the ones we made work. We're not intentionally limiting in the slightest or else we wouldn't have been as high up as we we were. I'm not really unsurprised that we're losing because it fits the pattern. Fighting Syndiphere is always an uphill battle, but we were still trying to achieve some objectives.

 

It's really unfortunate you feel this way Pub. I'm glad others are able to see we're not the cartoon villains you make us out to be.

Booooooo booooooo ComradeMilton would have drove this point much better

Lxr4VfE.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not like NPO has the best reputation

It's one thing to say that and another to make the huge leaps you are. Given you've dealt with a similar stigma in the past, I'd think you'd be less quick to jump to conclusions, but oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Expecting us to have adapted everything within a month of Inquisition signed is unrealistic.  If we were too afraid and unwilling to support anyone else, we wouldn't have bothered building up ground/navy in the first place knowing it'd inflate our score and just continue on soldiers, low tanks, and air and not risked the down decs that have occurred already.

 

Just out of curiosity, if you guys were unable to adapt within that period of time why start the war now? Wouldn't it be better to wait until you have adapted?

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

ziggy2.png.d4420dc2f559cbc9aae6aeb0ee713905.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, if you guys were unable to adapt within that period of time why start the war now? Wouldn't it be better to wait until you have adapted?

The decision was based off the information  we had at the time. The choices were: Hit or have our side be hit. I had a plan for some changes if there had been another month.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The decision was based off the information  we had at the time. The choices were: Hit or have our side be hit. I had a plan for some changes if there had been another month.

 

I suppose that does make sense if you really were in danger of being hit. Still, I feel like you could have allocated the firepower of the alliances on your side more effectively. I'm not complaining or anything but dog-piling t$ with seven alliances seems over the top to me. I almost wish we could have delayed all this for another month, just to see if it would actually make a difference.

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

ziggy2.png.d4420dc2f559cbc9aae6aeb0ee713905.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose that does make sense if you really were in danger of being hit. Still, I feel like you could have allocated the firepower of the alliances on your side more effectively. I'm not complaining or anything but dog-piling t$ with seven alliances seems over the top to me. I almost wish we could have delayed all this for another month, just to see if it would actually make a difference.

Well, it was mainly in lieu of not being able to cover other alliances initially that the focus was on preempting tS to blunt the all planes strategy and the goal was to fill all the slots so that many alliances committed. We put in some too to fill it up and got dinged pretty hard on those. I get why people think it was a misallocation but based on various factors, it was seen as the best of bad options. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it was mainly in lieu of not being able to cover other alliances initially that the focus was on preempting tS to blunt the all planes strategy and the goal was to fill all the slots so that many alliances committed. We put in some too to fill it up and got dinged pretty hard on those. I get why people think it was a misallocation but based on various factors, it was seen as the best of bad options. 

I can see this working out if each alliance that were countered the same night we're able to counter attack their counters but I feel like they tunnel vision on t$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless you're trying to suggest it's our fault that most of the upper tier alliances have a built in incentive to be a part of a complete nother circlejerk?But yeah, turns out that after pursuing a strategy of not being a convenient upper tier target for a larger sphere actually encouraged that other sphere to splinter worked, we can't just splurge and get three new cities for each of our members. If yall feel as though us doing so is important to you, feel free to fund it.

.

 

Your members would probably grow quicker and add more cities to their nation if NPO had lower taxes. If you truly were worried about keeping everyone at the same tier then you could simply implement a lower tax rate to help fund the stragglers. Better that that effectively putting a cap on the entire alliance's growth in order to remain dominant in a tier which simply does not decide wars and can easily be dominated by lower amounts of nations with higher city counts anyway. What's even worse is that the more talented players among your ranks are also prevented from reaching their full efficiency and potential and are unable to play a more decisive role in conflicts.

 

You would have higher nation revenue leading to higher amounts of taxation, more resources and greater military capability. It's a no brainer.

 

Just saying....

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

Your members would probably grow quicker and add more cities to their nation if NPO had lower taxes. If you truly were worried about keeping everyone at the same tier then you could simply implement a lower tax rate to help fund the stragglers. Better that that effectively putting a cap on the entire alliance's growth in order to remain dominant in a tier which simply does not decide wars and can easily be dominated by lower amounts of nations with higher city counts anyway. What's even worse is that the more talented players among your ranks are also prevented from reaching their full efficiency and potential and are unable to play a more decisive role in conflicts.

 

You would have higher nation revenue leading to higher amounts of taxation, more resources and greater military capability. It's a no brainer.

 

Just saying....

 

 

Lowering the tax rate would be stupid. If they actually have the ability to run 100% taxes without it hurting morale, then running a proper efficient and well planned out growth plan under a command economy would literally be the best possible form of growth.

 

100% taxes aren't the problem, its poor builds and poor redistribution of funds and silly caps that stagnate growth.

  • Upvote 3

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>within a month

 

Seriously, Roq?  Pretty sure people have pointed this out to you several times ever since you stalled at the 9 city mark, but you were too afraid of the possibility on getting rolled.  This is why I cannot take you or NPO serious.  Your reasoning throughout pointing this out to you has always fallen back to "We'd get rolled".

 

>never going to beat TKR single-handedly and it wasn't the plan

 

I did not say you had to beat TKR single-handedly, or if even that was the plan.  I'm stating that NPO could compete very easily.  If NPO was higher, this war (for example) would definitely be far different.

 

I just want to note that 2 of the 3 wars you've participated in, NPO was on the aggressor side and preempted an alliance, while remaining in low tiers.  No need to feed me your bullshit.  You're just cowardly.  While yes, it's smart to play the low tier game to avoid taking hits, it also shows that nobody should ever take your alliance seriously as an ally - because you cannot properly support them anywhere else.

 

To be fair,  NPO had switched its efforts from building up tiers to simply establishing one giant tier where most players had roughly the same amount of score and city count, and if I think they were given more time would have actually reached the mid-tier rank. Honestly, if they were given more time they would have actually reached mid-tier, and they were ill prepared to join this war to begin with. Even if they're lacking targets, they shouldn't have blitzed TKR and would have done better if they decided to join in after activating our MnDoAP. 

 

And yes, if NPO was mid-tier when this war broke out, they would be doing a lot more. I think they should have been more willing to allow variety in their tiering; rather than completely placing money to balance score and city count, putting more money onto the top nations would have given them a sufficient mid-tier for the war at the temporary expense of more lower scored nations (which is fine). 

 

Really, with their mass of 10 city nations, NPO is in a lot better position to attack BK than TKR.  :P

Edited by Anneal

Z98SzIG.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of what NPO is doing.  That is what Mensa was literally doing when we started here too, aside from the 100% tax bit.

 

However, after the first big war we were a part of (Great VE War), we realized we had to grow in cities some if we wanted to better assist our allies at the time (SK and Guardian), as we had numbers at the time but we didn't have the necessary power to maintain battles properly.

 

Of course it was a entirely different war mechanic too, and some things weren't heavily nerfed or changed at the time.

 

EDIT:

 

Roq's point is to not make war a fun endeavor against NPO.  He doesn't want people to have an incentive to war NPO.  While a fair point, it's also one where I'd wonder why people would bother allying themselves with NPO if it was the main point.

 

What I find funny though, is that he's the aggressor in this war and the past war.  I even acknowledged to him that there were no plans to attack IQ due to it being a headache of a time (Which would tell you that I'm fully aware of the planning nightmare of attacking a low tier majority - his main perspective of what he wants to achieve).  So the whole incentive to war NPO is out the window and he's just merely feeding me bullshit.

 

Once everybody is on board on how to down declare properly, it'll just be a matter of time.  Until then, we're just taking down their allies who are left stranded in higher tiers.

Edited by Buorhann
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lowering the tax rate would be stupid. If they actually have the ability to run 100% taxes without it hurting morale, then running a proper efficient and well planned out growth plan under a command economy would literally be the best possible form of growth.

 

100% taxes aren't the problem, its poor builds and poor redistribution of funds and silly caps that stagnate growth.

100% taxes, poor builds and poor redistribution all go hat in hand champ. Where you find one you will always find the others.

 

If they had lower taxes , their own members would have the funds to reach better efficiency in their own nations and maintain better builds but they simply don't have the cash to achieve any of that and therefore the entire alliance's suffers for it both during war and between wars.

Edited by Nemesis

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100% taxes, poor builds and poor redistribution all go hat in hand champ. Where you find one you will always find the others.

 

If they had lower taxes , their own members would have the funds to reach better efficiency in their own nations and maintain better builds but they simply don't have the cash to achieve any of that and therefore the entire alliance's suffers for it both during war and between wars.

No it doesn't and no it wouldn't. The problem is they are intentionally building their members with poor builds. A proper command economy could just assign better builds. Higher tax stops nations sitting on cash while they save up for their next city/infra bump and reallocates it more efficiently to the people who need it.

 

With the correct planning, a 100% tax alliance could be more efficient for growth on an individual level for each member than a 0%/low tax rate alliance ever could. NPO is also in the unique position of being setup for that, all their members are already tiered evenly, it would be much easier with that as the starting point.

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of what NPO is doing.  That is what Mensa was literally doing when we started here too, aside from the 100% tax bit.

 

However, after the first big war we were a part of (Great VE War), we realized we had to grow in cities some if we wanted to better assist our allies at the time (SK and Guardian), as we had numbers at the time but we didn't have the necessary power to maintain battles properly.

 

Of course it was a entirely different war mechanic too, and some things weren't heavily nerfed or changed at the time.

 

EDIT:

 

Roq's point is to not make war a fun endeavor against NPO.  He doesn't want people to have an incentive to war NPO.  While a fair point, it's also one where I'd wonder why people would bother allying themselves with NPO if it was the main point.

 

What I find funny though, is that he's the aggressor in this war and the past war.  I even acknowledged to him that there were no plans to attack IQ due to it being a headache of a time (Which would tell you that I'm fully aware of the planning nightmare of attacking a low tier majority - his main perspective of what he wants to achieve).  So the whole incentive to war NPO is out the window and he's just merely feeding me bullshit.

 

Once everybody is on board on how to down declare properly, it'll just be a matter of time.  Until then, we're just taking down their allies who are left stranded in higher tiers.

 

 

Who said you were going  to hit us directly this time? All I said was our side. You seem to think this was some sort of NPO-oriented move, which it wasn't. It was a decision made by the parties involved based on the information given. 

 

I did do Silent with Keegoz and Moonpie, but again that's because you made it clear you wanted to war us. After we got hit the first time, we had no incentive to let you take the initiative again when we knew we'd get better results if we could get an offensive agreed to, which was a major issue before the first war because no one wanted to first strike. 

 

When I talk about why we do things, it's important to remember in the context we did them in. If we were going to be the replacement villain for your grouping despite being very isolated, then we were going to make it difficult and uninteresting  as possible to war us. I think most people know the context of our adaptation to that circumstance. Before the Alpha war scare, we were growing endlessly and everyone knew that, the warchests weren't there to back the growth up, and knew any war at any point in the near future would be bad for NPO.  After NPOFT and Pantheon signing TKR, Paragone happening, there was no longer a balance of power and we no longer had an equal force to back us, and we decided since we'd be fighting OO/tS in any scenario to fight on our own terms by having a range we could compete in. The result of the war after that with Paragon disbanding and Rose signing Mensa further increased the incentive to limit things. From a player experience standpoint, no one would like getting pinned down by BK or TKR for 3 weeks and being able to actually fight for over a month was much better than the prior experience.

 

----

 

 

As for all the talk about sub-optimal builds, people seem to think we do them because we like them and enjoy inefficiencies or whatever when it has always been upfront cost, security concerns, and compromising liquidity and we would love to do the 1800 builds of TKR, the 2000  food/uranium or max factory builds of Rose/tS or take your pick of whichever high infra build you want to talk about. There were starting to be substantial modifications ahead of this, but we had something else to do. Most alliances that tier well involve some form of central planning. For instance, VE is normally low tax and then they decided to aim for a certain city count. That involved raising taxes to a high level. If everyone just grew on their own, there'd be no cohesion and it's be a huge mess.  An alliance that has no cohesion is  less effective. Sketchy is most definitely correct that there is more high growth potential with higher taxes than not, but that's only if the conditions are right for it. 

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn't and no it wouldn't. The problem is they are intentionally building their members with poor builds. A proper command economy could just assign better builds. Higher tax stops nations sitting on cash while they save up for their next city/infra bump and reallocates it more efficiently to the people who need it.

 

With the correct planning, a 100% tax alliance could be more efficient for growth on an individual level for each member than a 0%/low tax rate alliance ever could. NPO is also in the unique position of being setup for that, all their members are already tiered evenly, it would be much easier with that as the starting point.

You are describing an idealistic and impossible to achieve economic state of affairs. Central command economies and 100% taxes go hand in hand with inefficiency simply due to it being for all intents impossible to maximise economic growth due to the human factor.

 

If we had some bot capable of perfectly organising an alliance's economy to reach maximum efficiency under 100% taxes with a focus on maximum growth of revenue and production then I agree, it would be better but we don't have such a thing.

 

Within the realistic boundaries of the human factor in this game in regards to 100% taxes and central command economics, it's simply idealistic to think that such a thing is possible in it's perfect form.

 

Case in point, Hogwarts, 0 % taxes and members are freely able to request loans in large amounts with minimal interest or get interest free loans from larger members who are saving for more costly cities. Is it perfect ? No, but it achieves better results than economic policies implemented elsewhere, perhaps everywhere, in this entire game.

 

Heck, we will probably end up supplying significant rebuilding funds for half the alliances involved in this war so the 0% taxes and economic style we employ must be doing something right. Wouldn't be surprised if rose was one of them actually.

 

So yeah, stop being a silly commie and embrace the joys of free market capitalism. The inherent problem is that the money you take away from a talented player to give to someone who is smaller player who isn't as talented will usually end up in the long run generating less long term revenue and resources simply due to the more talented player being more efficient in their own nation's economy.

 

Case in point, if Jess and Abbas or any other player in this a game had identical nations, same continent and same starting conditions and each received 100 million and neither were involved in a war, you could 100% bet that 6 months later jess's revenue and production would be significantly ahead of anyone else. The 100% tax imposes a cap on more efficient players and forces them to grow at a pace which limits not only their own revenue but also the alliance as a whole which would receive an income boost far larger than anything they would under a 100% tax capping an entire alliance if they instead adopted a economic system which rewards efficient and talented players.

 

It's like a repeat of cold war economic policy arguments in here or something :P

Edited by Nemesis

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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