Jump to content

War. War Never Changes.


Lordship
 Share

Recommended Posts

Believe it or not, in my experience it is actually much harder to rebuild a bunch of 9-12 city nations than a bunch of 18-22 city nations.  Even tho it costs much more to rebuild a larger nation, they are also much more self sufficient than a small nation and it doesn't take long for them to start pumping out cash again, where a 9-12 city nation isn't large enough to be able to really pump out cash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still don't see how they behave like commies even socially, because there is no chance NPO and TKR are ever going to treaty. They've been opponents way before you were here, and it's going to take a lot of time for it to change.

 

This game has wide swings in allegiance from one war to the next.  Just because people fought against each other before doesn't mean it's implausible to fight with each other afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Believe it or not, in my experience it is actually much harder to rebuild a bunch of 9-12 city nations than a bunch of 18-22 city nations.  Even tho it costs much more to rebuild a larger nation, they are also much more self sufficient than a small nation and it doesn't take long for them to start pumping out cash again, where a 9-12 city nation isn't large enough to be able to really pump out cash.

 

 

That's the issue though, they shouldn't have been 9-12 city nations still.  By now they should be averaging around 13 cities if NPO intended for them to grow at all.  They stagnated to 9-10 city average on purpose.  If they had grown through the drought time of no wars, then their income would have drastically increased and they would've been in a much better situation to support their newly formed sphere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This game has wide swings in allegiance from one war to the next.  Just because people fought against each other before doesn't mean it's implausible to fight with each other afterwards.

 

But they aren't random and sudden swings. There is a lot of FA involved in switching sides. Through basic understanding of certain major alliances it's very unlikely for certain alliances to ever switch;  if there is a switch there is almost always either major change involved (such as a new gov) within the alliance or they're looking out for their own interests. If we were to interpret NPO's goals in a very simplified way, they are tired of having one bloc dominate the game and wants to oppose them, and so getting a treaty with TKR is very illogical. This also goes the other way; throughout history NPO has always been TKR's enemy throughout a good deal of their history and so they have no reason to treaty with them at all. 

Z98SzIG.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the issue though, they shouldn't have been 9-12 city nations still.  By now they should be averaging around 13 cities if NPO intended for them to grow at all.  They stagnated to 9-10 city average on purpose.  If they had grown through the drought time of no wars, then their income would have drastically increased and they would've been in a much better situation to support their newly formed sphere.

Um what, do you know the costs of that? The liquidity to do so didn't exist to grow that many people for it to be a 13 city average and that's without taking into account other expenses. Given there were multiple potential scenarios where we would have to had to fight during the drought, it wasn't exactly conducive to growth along with the fact that a bunch of people historically positioned against us could hit those nations. Just rebuilding to pre-war infra took a long time. If we grew just say 20-30 people to 13 cities, you'd just be able to give us the SK or Lordaeron treatment and beat them up on a lazy sunday.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I want to tell NPO how to live their lives, but maybe, if their size is keeping them down, they might just be too big to succeed.

 

Food for thought.

Edited by Talostastic

☾☆

 

Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they aren't random and sudden swings. There is a lot of FA involved in switching sides. Through basic understanding of certain major alliances it's very unlikely for certain alliances to ever switch;  if there is a switch there is almost always either major change involved (such as a new gov) within the alliance or they're looking out for their own interests. If we were to interpret NPO's goals in a very simplified way, they are tired of having one bloc dominate the game and wants to oppose them, and so getting a treaty with TKR is very illogical. This also goes the other way; throughout history NPO has always been TKR's enemy throughout a good deal of their history and so they have no reason to treaty with them at all. 

 

Mmmm... I'm not sure NPO would continue with that stance if it dominated.  It's a very empirical and historical alliance that likes to learn from experience about the facts of what it takes to make things work.  If it rose to the top, it would expect others to follow its lead as much as anyone else.  

 

The only motive for NPO and TKR to not ally is real life politics in emphasizing left versus right politics that really shouldn't apply here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I want to tell NPO how to live their lives, but maybe, if their size is keeping them down, they might be too big to succeed.

 

Food for thought.

Having been in a compact AA rolled several times, the only deterrent we'd really have is to buy a lot of nukes and since Mensa and other similar alliances don't care about  taking nukes, we'd have to pretty much be like "hey, if you hit us, we're going to nuke your whale friends," and i don't know how much oomph that'd really have. This way is at least more fun and let' us have a bigger community by being more inclusive rather than elite.

 

edit: oops

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having been in a compact AA rolled several times, the only deterrent we'd really have is to buy a lot of nukes and since Mensa and other similar alliances don't care about taking nukes, we'd have to pretty much be like "hey, if you hit us, we're going to nuke your whale friends," and i don't know how much oomph that'd really have. This way is at least more fun and let' us have a bigger community by being more inclusive rather than elite.

 

edit: oops

To be frank, it's more annoying to take a nuke now that it doesn't buy a beige for any amount of time. In the end, still no big deal if it doesn't hit an NPP, just slightly more annoying. Edited by Talostastic

☾☆

 

Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I want to tell NPO how to live their lives, but maybe, if their size is keeping them down, they might just be too big to succeed.

Food for thought.

Then when's an alliance too big to fail?

 

tfw when alliances are corporations

Z98SzIG.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rebuilding is also hard when you spend an extra month at war spending billions of your rebuilding funds nevermind the billions in lost potential revenue during the aforementioned month.

If you leave damage on the table when you still have the ability to do it, it makes the war almost consequence-free for the other side. The other side will always endeavor to make the war long enough to do a lot of damage  but try to limit damage to themselves. If we had peaced a month ago, Syndisphere side would have taken a lot less damage while being much further ahead. If wars are undamaging for one side, they are able to essentially move on with zero difficulty with little war fatigue, which is worse than rolling over to try to have more for rebuilding. Rolling over simply fuels a faster cycle of curbstomps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you leave damage on the table when you still have the ability to do it, it makes the war almost consequence-free for the other side. The other side will always endeavor to make the war long enough to do a lot of damage but try to limit damage to themselves. If we had peaced a month ago, Syndisphere side would have taken a lot less damage while being much further ahead. If wars are undamaging for one side, they are able to essentially move on with zero difficulty with little war fatigue, which is worse than rolling over to try to have more for rebuilding. Rolling over simply fuels a faster cycle of curbstomps.

This is actually one of the truest things I have seen Roquentin post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you leave damage on the table when you still have the ability to do it, it makes the war almost consequence-free for the other side.

 

You have to assess whether the losses you take while inflicting damage upon the other side is worth the trouble or not. Judging from the aftermath of this war, I doubt it was worth it for you.

 

 

 

The other side will always endeavor to make the war long enough to do a lot of damage  but try to limit damage to themselves.

 

Limiting the damage you take while maximizing the one the other side takes is a basic of warfare. Hell, the concept of 'making the most with the least amount of resources possible' is certainly not limited to warfare. I'm not sure as of why you are trying to portray this as a an unique trait of 'the other side'.

 

And two-three weeks is not a whole lot of time for a war of this magnitude (measuring the length of the war prior to peace channel). It lasted another month because of us wanting you to surrender, and you being stubborn not to surrender. Not because we wanted to deal as much damage as we could for the hell of it.

 

 

 

If we had peaced a month ago, Syndisphere side would have taken a lot less damage while being much further ahead.

 

You would have also taken a whole lot less damage. Even if the damage dealt gap was shortened in that period between peace chat and this thread, it's not accounting for how the war got relatively more expensive for IQ than it did for Syndisphere, simply because you were spending resources and money that you had a harder time getting your hands on than us.

 

So instead of having one side be moderately damaged and the other be extensively damaged, you opted to have one side suffer extensive damage, while the other suffered crippling losses. We're still ahead, and in relative terms, we have a bigger advantage over you now, than we would have had if peace had been signed a month ago.

 

 

 

If wars are undamaging for one side, they are able to essentially move on with zero difficulty with little war fatigue, which is worse than rolling over to try to have more for rebuilding.

 

This sort of goes back to my first and third replies.You having some money and we having plenty of money would have been better for you, than you having basically no money and we having somewhat less money than we would have otherwise had. Attrition wars works in favour of those who have the largest stockpiles.

 

 

 

Rolling over simply fuels a faster cycle of curbstomps.

 

Gross power disparity can also fuel that, and that's what prolonging this war has netted.

Edited by Shiho Nishizumi
  • Upvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Karl VII

You have to assess whether the losses you take while inflicting damage upon the other side is worth the trouble or not. Judging from the aftermath of this war, I doubt it was worth it for you.

 

 

 

 

Limiting the damage you take while maximizing the one the other side takes is a basic of warfare. Hell, the concept of 'making the most with the least amount of resources possible' is certainly not limited to warfare. I'm not sure as of why you are trying to portray this as a an unique trait of 'the other side'.

 

And two-three weeks is not a whole lot of time for a war of this magnitude (measuring the length of the war prior to peace channel). It lasted another month because of us wanting you to surrender, and you being stubborn not to surrender. Not because we wanted to deal as much damage as we could for the hell of it.

 

 

 

 

You would have also taken a whole lot less damage. Even if the damage dealt gap was shortened in that period between peace chat and this thread, it's not accounting for how the war got relatively more expensive for IQ than it did for Syndisphere, simply because you were spending resources and money that you had a harder time getting your hands on than us.

 

So instead of having one side be moderately damaged and the other be extensively damaged, you opted to have one side suffer extensive damage, while the other suffered crippling losses. We're still ahead, and in relative terms, we have a bigger advantage over you now, than we would have had if peace had been signed a month ago.

 

 

 

 

This sort of goes back to my first and third replies.You having some money and we having plenty of money would have been better for you, than you having basically no money and we having somewhat less money than we would have otherwise had. Attrition wars works in favour of those who have the largest stockpiles.

 

 

 

 

Gross power disparity can also fuel that, and that's what prolonging this war has netted.

Every dead syndi-soldier is a gud soldier. Was completly worth it. Ur arguments are invalid.

Edited by Karl VII
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to assess whether the losses you take while inflicting damage upon the other side is worth the trouble or not. Judging from the aftermath of this war, I doubt it was worth it for you.

 

Limiting the damage you take while maximizing the one the other side takes is a basic of warfare. Hell, the concept of 'making the most with the least amount of resources possible' is certainly not limited to warfare. I'm not sure as of why you are trying to portray this as a an unique trait of 'the other side'.

 

And two-three weeks is not a whole lot of time for a war of this magnitude (measuring the length of the war prior to peace channel). It lasted another month because of us wanting you to surrender, and you being stubborn not to surrender. Not because we wanted to deal as much damage as we could for the hell of it.

 

 

You would have also taken a whole lot less damage. Even if the damage dealt gap was shortened in that period between peace chat and this thread, it's not accounting for how the war got relatively more expensive for IQ than it did for Syndisphere, simply because you were spending resources and money that you had a harder time getting your hands on than us.

 

So instead of having one side be moderately damaged and the other be extensively damaged, you opted to have one side suffer extensive damage, while the other suffered crippling losses. We're still ahead, and in relative terms, we have a bigger advantage over you now, than we would have had if peace had been signed a month ago.

 

 

This sort of goes back to my first and third replies.You having some money and we having plenty of money would have been better for you, than you having basically no money and we having somewhat less money than we would have otherwise had. Attrition wars works in favour of those who have the largest stockpiles.

 

 

Gross power disparity can also fuel that, and that's what prolonging this war has netted.

 

It was more worth it than peacing out with the limited damage done. The aftermath would have been the same either way.

 

I was using the other side as a general term as it's fit the trend. 

 

2-3 weeks is usually enough time for the Syndisphere side to do most of the damage it will. In most wars where Syndisphere was in control, they've tried to shut it down after 2-3 weeks with them being ahead in damage. It's just generally been the dominant powersphere and that's how they've handled wars, be it Paracov, Paperless, and now IQ.

 

Wouldn't really say the losses were crippling in terms of just this war. At least for us, this was relatively mild compared to the previous two wars. It doesn't help with the prior disadvantages, but the arms race was long lost. Peacing fast to try to maintain the illusion it wasn't  is worse, tbh and that helped keep the illusion of Paracov being scary back when it was a thing. The war trimmed a lot of the fat alliances had and now  everyone has a much clearer picture of the landscape.

 

I mean, I know Pantheon had a lot of money, but the alliance that took big hits on your side couldn't just replace their losses as easily as they would have a month ago. I don't think it would have been better from both a morale and long-term standpoint. There are dimensions other than the pure material costs to how long a war goes on. A resolution before we did everything we could wouldn't have gone well.

 

Gross power disparity existed before the war in many ways. The war just made it evident and there'll at least be a gap.  Again, a phony parity is worse than a disparity everyone can see.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, from an economic standpoint it is irrelevant if you have your infra fully depleted or not because infra at 0-1000 is incredibly easy to build back up. It is far easier to build from 500 to 1500 than it is to build from 1500 to 2500. Also, infra per city almost proportionally goes up the more cities you have for maximum efficiency. I'm not econ but it does cost far more to rebuild a 15 city than a 10 city. 

 

Though IQ did suffer more economic damage, and it does have more nations than Syndi, so it's not related to the amount of infra lost but rather the quantity of nations who had taken damage. 

 

 

 

 

The only chance that TKR could even ally with NPO is in an alternate reality. Correct, IMO, but not for your reasons. The last time NPO was treatied to TKR, TKR's government violated the agreement and is not trusted.

 

 

That's the issue though, they shouldn't have been 9-12 city nations still.  By now they should be averaging around 13 cities if NPO intended for them to grow at all. (If they did, they would have already)  They stagnated to 9-10 city average on purpose.  If they had grown through the drought time of no wars, then their income would have drastically increased and they would've been in a much better situation to support their newly formed sphere.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like the length of the page numbers and the amount of salt here impresses me surely the most. 

<Dragonk>Like I drink beer, nto it

 

"You couldn't live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was more worth it than peacing out with the limited damage done. The aftermath would have been the same either way.

 

I was using the other side as a general term as it's fit the trend. 

 

2-3 weeks is usually enough time for the Syndisphere side to do most of the damage it will. In most wars where Syndisphere was in control, they've tried to shut it down after 2-3 weeks with them being ahead in damage. It's just generally been the dominant powersphere and that's how they've handled wars, be it Paracov, Paperless, and now IQ.

 

Wouldn't really say the losses were crippling in terms of just this war. At least for us, this was relatively mild compared to the previous two wars. It doesn't help with the prior disadvantages, but the arms race was long lost. Peacing fast to try to maintain the illusion it wasn't  is worse, tbh and that helped keep the illusion of Paracov being scary back when it was a thing. The war trimmed a lot of the fat alliances had and now  everyone has a much clearer picture of the landscape.

 

I mean, I know Pantheon had a lot of money, but the alliance that took big hits on your side couldn't just replace their losses as easily as they would have a month ago. I don't think it would have been better from both a morale and long-term standpoint. There are dimensions other than the pure material costs to how long a war goes on. A resolution before we did everything we could wouldn't have gone well.

 

Gross power disparity existed before the war in many ways. The war just made it evident and there'll at least be a gap.  Again, a phony parity is worse than a disparity everyone can see.

 

Disparity was going to happen regardless. Prolonging it just widened the gap.

 

Fair enough.

 

Or rather, it's because by then, the course of the war has more or less been already decided, and to keep it going is just a waste of time/resources for both sides.

 

NPO didn't suffer as much as the rest of IQ. Then again, I was talking about IQ as a whole and not any particular IQ alliance/co-belligrent.

 

Well, yes, it is harder to rebuild the alliances that were hit hard in the current scenario than it would have been to rebuild them a month ago. This does hold true for IQ as well, so it goes both ways. As for morale, I'm not sure how a whole month of getting beat down to sub 1.3k ns if you dared go 1.5k+ somehow affected morale less than it would have had to peace out.

 

The disparity was already known before the war. Syndis dominating the high tier while IQ had the low tier on their bag. It was a matter of who could secure the in between. All this war did was widen the gap.

 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
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.