Popular Post Jessica Rabbit Posted June 7, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted June 7, 2017 It was more worth it than peacing out with the limited damage done. The aftermath would have been the same either way. I like to think of PW economies like race cars. We don't win by cornering at the highest speed. We win by fighting for control of the best line then exiting at the highest speed. I will happily go to ZI with someone if that's what it takes to remove their military and put them on their back. After that, it's all about the rebuild. If I have enough money to rebuild to 1800 infra, and they have only enough to rebuild to 1200, and the war is consuming both our warchests at a rate of $50m per day, for them that's a daily loss of 6k infra off their rebuild while for me it's only 2.6k infra per day. And the longer we go, the more the momentum swings in my favor. Looking at damage stats during a war is a mistake. It leads to bad strategy and poor choices imo. It's best not to look. Hope this was helpful. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felkey Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) I like to think of PW economies like race cars. We don't win by cornering at the highest speed. We win by fighting for control of the best line then exiting at the highest speed. I will happily go to ZI with someone if that's what it takes to remove their military and put them on their back. After that, it's all about the rebuild. If I have enough money to rebuild to 1800 infra, and they have only enough to rebuild to 1200, and the war is consuming both our warchests at a rate of $50m per day, for them that's a daily loss of 6k infra off their rebuild while for me it's only 2.6k infra per day. And the longer we go, the more the momentum swings in my favor. Looking at damage stats during a war is a mistake. It leads to bad strategy and poor choices imo. It's best not to look. Hope this was helpful. YaySnuggles the bunny Edited June 7, 2017 by Felkey 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I like to think of PW economies like race cars. We don't win by cornering at the highest speed. We win by fighting for control of the best line then exiting at the highest speed. I will happily go to ZI with someone if that's what it takes to remove their military and put them on their back. After that, it's all about the rebuild. If I have enough money to rebuild to 1800 infra, and they have only enough to rebuild to 1200, and the war is consuming both our warchests at a rate of $50m per day, for them that's a daily loss of 6k infra off their rebuild while for me it's only 2.6k infra per day. And the longer we go, the more the momentum swings in my favor. Looking at damage stats during a war is a mistake. It leads to bad strategy and poor choices imo. It's best not to look. Hope this was helpful. I doubt it will help them. They are doomed to repeating the same mistakes over and over. You should copy your post and paste it a few months from now when they inevitably repeat the same mistake. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Karl VII Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I doubt it will help them. They are doomed to repeating the same mistakes over and over. You should copy your post and paste it a few months from now when they inevitably repeat the same mistake. U r doomed cus you post stuff only ur syndi circlejerk friends are taking serious. I should copy my post and paste it a few months from now when you inevitably repeat the same mistake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 U r doomed cus you post stuff only ur syndi circlejerk friends are taking serious. I should copy my post and paste it a few months from now when you inevitably repeat the same mistake. You should copy our strategies instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 You should copy our strategies instead. Why do you guys always seem to think everyone should play your style? I'm intensely curious because it comes up so often and people get so huffy about another alliance using a different economic and political system than they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 A better question is why do you lot persist in repeating the same losing playstyle? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lum L Lumwood Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 A better question is why do you lot persist in repeating the same losing playstyle? They did not lose the war; it was an alternative victory. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 I'm not in NPO, but there I'd say it's complete trust in the government. That was my first war with BK where I'm also not government and they seem to know what they're doing too so I do as I'm told for the most part, though if I find something someone doesn't appear to have tried before I'll do it to see if it's helpful or not. It's why I asked Alex to delete three of my cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roquentin Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) I like to think of PW economies like race cars. We don't win by cornering at the highest speed. We win by fighting for control of the best line then exiting at the highest speed. I will happily go to ZI with someone if that's what it takes to remove their military and put them on their back. After that, it's all about the rebuild. If I have enough money to rebuild to 1800 infra, and they have only enough to rebuild to 1200, and the war is consuming both our warchests at a rate of $50m per day, for them that's a daily loss of 6k infra off their rebuild while for me it's only 2.6k infra per day. And the longer we go, the more the momentum swings in my favor. Looking at damage stats during a war is a mistake. It leads to bad strategy and poor choices imo. It's best not to look. Hope this was helpful. You're making a big assumption there: that it's a race to begin with. If it's a race it's long lost. It's an asymmetric struggle. Treating it as a conventional head to head is the wrong way to think about it. In the end for us, as there is no hope of winning one, doing as much damage as possible is the second best thing. You should copy our strategies instead. A better question is why do you lot persist in repeating the same losing playstyle? People tried to compete head to head in the past with the same goals and it didn't work and simply created an illusion of competitiveness, which is why the present situation exists. I don't see beating less active people who were similar on paper, ending up as the winning side, and incorporating upper tier alliances that traditionally sat on the sidelines as a strategy that's available for emulation in this situation. As Ogaden said, if we had had more alliances with the same capabilities as BK, the war would have been different. As BK was the only alliance of its size/caliber willing to risk itself to side with the group at a disadvantage in terms of activity, the natural conclusion followed. edit: The whole BS about how growing a relatively miniscule(when compared to the massive upper/uppermid of the other side) number of nations into mid tier where they could be more easily downdeclared on by the upper and upper mid being a game changer is just that. Edited June 8, 2017 by Roquentin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Karl VII Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 A better question is why do you lot persist in repeating the same losing playstyle? What Strategy? Have a lot of high tier Nations? K bro, gonna copy that lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Bolivar Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 They did not lose the war; it was an alternative victory. If we have a wiki for this game ( too lazy to check) can we please include alternative victory as a result for this war? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica Rabbit Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 You're making a big assumption there: that it's a race to begin with. If it's a race it's long lost. It's an asymmetric struggle. Treating it as a conventional head to head is the wrong way to think about it. In the end for us, as there is no hope of winning one, doing as much damage as possible is the second best thing.Just to be clear, I was responding to your earlier assessment of who was taking more damage at the end of the war. It was not meant as a critique of your goals. That said, I'm surprised to hear you say you have no hope of "winning." Knowing you, you will come out on top in the end because you work 10x as hard as anyone else, and you don't give up. That's how games like this are "won" by the conventional definition. It's only a matter of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placentica Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) This discussion on warfare based on economics is giving me PTSD. 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. Okay, now I'm in the fetal position asking for mommy. (Apeman) Edited June 8, 2017 by Placentica Quote Hello! If you don't like this post please go here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core&area=ignoredusers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Did someone say rebuilding? Hogwarts offers great loans. The best loans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeachBunny Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 Did someone say rebuilding? Hogwarts offers great loans. The best loans. YUGE! Quote ☾☆ Priest of Dio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubayoo Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 NPO just needs to realize this is just a game. You might get setback in-game, but that just gives you more incentive to do other things. Don't punch above your weight when you can't put on more weight faster than the other guy. I like to think of PW economies like race cars. We don't win by cornering at the highest speed. We win by fighting for control of the best line then exiting at the highest speed.I will happily go to ZI with someone if that's what it takes to remove their military and put them on their back. After that, it's all about the rebuild. If I have enough money to rebuild to 1800 infra, and they have only enough to rebuild to 1200, and the war is consuming both our warchests at a rate of $50m per day, for them that's a daily loss of 6k infra off their rebuild while for me it's only 2.6k infra per day. And the longer we go, the more the momentum swings in my favor.Looking at damage stats during a war is a mistake. It leads to bad strategy and poor choices imo. It's best not to look. Hope this was helpful. To be fair, this is right by coincidence. The physics of car racing are symbolic of team management... ...especially when you consider how F1 is only contested by one or two teams every season. Some teams start ahead and they stay ahead. Other teams can't even compete because year after year, not only do the teams with the initial points lead stay in the lead, but the companies with the best performance also maintain their revenue streams and sponsors. This is why Williams and McLaren have fallen out of the running and why Lotus has disappeared. It's also why Mercedes has jumped back on top after being absent for so long by recruiting Nico Rossberg and Lewis Hamilton, and why Vettel still succeeds after leaving Red Bull for Ferrari that hired Michael Schumacher back in the day. On the other hand, it also explains why this game direly needs a server reset. Compare F1 to other sports that have salary caps while the season resets every team's record year after year like American football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. The sports remain competitive and expand their fan bases. Quote My Avie: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/senna/ Shortened versions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9qZu7h5ys0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvVqSpS65VE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 NPO just needs to realize this is just a game. You might get setback in-game, but that just gives you more incentive to do other things. Don't punch above your weight when you can't put on more weight faster than the other guy. To be fair, this is right by coincidence. The physics of car racing are symbolic of team management... ...especially when you consider how F1 is only contested by one or two teams every season. Some teams start ahead and they stay ahead. Other teams can't even compete because year after year, not only do the teams with the initial points lead stay in the lead, but the companies with the best performance also maintain their revenue streams and sponsors. This is why Williams and McLaren have fallen out of the running and why Lotus has disappeared. It's also why Mercedes has jumped back on top after being absent for so long by recruiting Nico Rossberg and Lewis Hamilton, and why Vettel still succeeds after leaving Red Bull for Ferrari that hired Michael Schumacher back in the day. On the other hand, it also explains why this game direly needs a server reset. Compare F1 to other sports that have salary caps while the season resets every team's record year after year like American football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. The sports remain competitive and expand their fan bases. NNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemal Ergenekon Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 To be fair, this is right by coincidence. The physics of car racing are symbolic of team management... ...especially when you consider how F1 is only contested by one or two teams every season. Some teams start ahead and they stay ahead. Other teams can't even compete because year after year, not only do the teams with the initial points lead stay in the lead, but the companies with the best performance also maintain their revenue streams and sponsors. This is why Williams and McLaren have fallen out of the running and why Lotus has disappeared. It's also why Mercedes has jumped back on top after being absent for so long by recruiting Nico Rossberg and Lewis Hamilton, and why Vettel still succeeds after leaving Red Bull for Ferrari that hired Michael Schumacher back in the day. On the other hand, it also explains why this game direly needs a server reset. Compare F1 to other sports that have salary caps while the season resets every team's record year after year like American football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. The sports remain competitive and expand their fan bases. You cannot reset gudness. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insert Name Here Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 NPO just needs to realize this is just a game. You might get setback in-game, but that just gives you more incentive to do other things. Don't punch above your weight when you can't put on more weight faster than the other guy. To be fair, this is right by coincidence. The physics of car racing are symbolic of team management... ...especially when you consider how F1 is only contested by one or two teams every season. Some teams start ahead and they stay ahead. Other teams can't even compete because year after year, not only do the teams with the initial points lead stay in the lead, but the companies with the best performance also maintain their revenue streams and sponsors. This is why Williams and McLaren have fallen out of the running and why Lotus has disappeared. It's also why Mercedes has jumped back on top after being absent for so long by recruiting Nico Rossberg and Lewis Hamilton, and why Vettel still succeeds after leaving Red Bull for Ferrari that hired Michael Schumacher back in the day. On the other hand, it also explains why this game direly needs a server reset. Compare F1 to other sports that have salary caps while the season resets every team's record year after year like American football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. The sports remain competitive and expand their fan bases. Agreed, we should follow the old saying: "If you can't beat them, go cry to the admin". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubayoo Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 NNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD You don't like racing? :-P You cannot reset gudness. Perhaps, but you can always make things go from good to better. Agreed, we should follow the old saying: "If you can't beat them, go cry to the admin". People don't join games like this just to join the status quo. They join games like this to carve a name for themselves. If the status quo wants to be remembered, there's nothing wrong with having a Hall of Fame, but there's no good reason to be biased to the oldest players around. Again, this isn't real life. It's a game. Your account here shouldn't be honored like permanent private property. It should be recognized as temporarily important in the game that's played at hand no differently from how if you play a game of Monopoly, you clean up the pieces and put it all away before the box is taken out again the next time. Quote My Avie: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/senna/ Shortened versions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9qZu7h5ys0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvVqSpS65VE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insert Name Here Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 People don't join games like this just to join the status quo. They join games like this to carve a name for themselves. If the status quo wants to be remembered, there's nothing wrong with having a Hall of Fame, but there's no good reason to be biased to the oldest players around. Again, this isn't real life. It's a game. Your account here shouldn't be honored like permanent private property. It should be recognized as temporarily important in the game that's played at hand no differently from how if you play a game of Monopoly, you clean up the pieces and put it all away before the box is taken out again the next time. Hm, I don't really understand what you're on about, but both sides have lots of veteran players. One is just much more skilled and savvy, strategy wise. The enemy coalition started last war with more combined score, a huge numerical advantage, and they had the crucial first strike advantage. If one side earns their keep, it's pure idiocy to think that the admin must intervene to give the other one a chance to compete. IQsphere have no one to blame but themselves. If they prefer to whine on the OWF instead of trying to improve, it's not up to the admin to make a charity case out of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dubayoo Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 (edited) From what I understand, your opponents were primarily composed of lower tier players which suggests they were younger since they didn't have as much time to spend to develop. Their higher score came from quantity before quality. Even if they're veterans, they're not as experienced as your side. Veterancy comes in levels. Due to how the slot system works in this game, that's actually a disadvantage rather than an advantage since they can't bear all their force onto you at the same time. Their higher score makes them look overvalued. On the side, I actually joined this game myself because of having this exact issue in another game, so I wanted to recruit some players to come over, especially those who had the opposite political perspective of those who are the status quo in the other game (since the other game is loaded with feminists who blur the IC-OOC distinction). I approached several alliances on your side of the war, and they all rejected the offer despite how they have the opposite political perspective. It's almost as if they understand the problem of how old players have an innate advantage, don't you think? Edited June 11, 2017 by Argotitan Quote My Avie: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/senna/ Shortened versions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9qZu7h5ys0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvVqSpS65VE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 NPO (given that IQ is a bloc of several alliances I'm not why this all a big NPO conspiracy. just needs to realize this is just a game. (IQ's usually the nations that don't whine about wars ending soon enough or other petty complaints. You might get setback in-game, but that just gives you more incentive to do other things. Don't punch above your weight when you can't put on more weight faster than the other guy. To be fair, this is right by coincidence. The physics of car racing are symbolic of team management... ...especially when you consider how F1 is only contested by one or two teams every season. Some teams start ahead and they stay ahead. Other teams can't even compete because year after year, not only do the teams with the initial points lead stay in the lead, but the companies with the best performance also maintain their revenue streams and sponsors. This is why Williams and McLaren have fallen out of the running and why Lotus has disappeared. It's also why Mercedes has jumped back on top after being absent for so long by recruiting Nico Rossberg and Lewis Hamilton, and why Vettel still succeeds after leaving Red Bull for Ferrari that hired Michael Schumacher back in the day. On the other hand, it also explains why this game direly needs a server reset. Compare F1 to other sports that have salary caps while the season resets every team's record year after year like American football, baseball, basketball, and hockey. The sports remain competitive and expand their fan bases.A server reset isn't going to do anything but cost Alex a great deal of his current donors with no measurable medium- or long-term changes as a result Agreed, we should follow the old saying: "If you can't beat them, go cry to the admin".IIRC Syndisphere did this last war, not IQ. Hm, I don't really understand what you're on about, but both sides have lots of veteran players. One is just much more skilled and savvy, strategy wise. The enemy coalition started last war with more combined score, a huge numerical advantage, and they had the crucial first strike advantage. If one side earns their keep, it's pure idiocy to think that the admin must intervene to give the other one a chance to compete. IQsphere have no one to blame but themselves. If they prefer to whine on the OWF instead of trying to improve, it's not up to the admin to make a charity case out of them. I think since Sydisphere frequent usage of this you're confusing our few shitposters with one or two governmental offiicials. From what I understand, your opponents were primarily composed of lower tier players which suggests they were younger since they didn't have as much time to spend to develop. No, it really doesn't. Before the war I had 11 cities at very high military levels and I've only recently passed the 1,000 day barrier. I also had Alex destroy three of my cities trying stuff out. Their higher score came from quantity before quality. Even if they're veterans, they're not as experienced as your side. Veterancy comes in levels. No veterans status comes from experience in doing so. Our veterans are veterans whatever happens. It's almost as if they understand the problem of how old players have an innate advantage, don't you think? No, more likely is we already had the formation of IQ proceeding so it would be silly to sign a potentially conflicting treaty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insert Name Here Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 From what I understand, your opponents were primarily composed of lower tier players which suggests they were younger since they didn't have as much time to spend to develop. Their higher score came from quantity before quality. Even if they're veterans, they're not as experienced as your side. Veterancy comes in levels. Due to how the slot system works in this game, that's actually a disadvantage rather than an advantage since they can't bear all their force onto you at the same time. Their higher score makes them look overvalued. On the side, I actually joined this game myself because of having this exact issue in another game, so I wanted to recruit some players to come over, especially those who had the opposite political perspective of those who are the status quo in the other game (since the other game is loaded with feminists who blur the IC-OOC distinction). I approached several alliances on your side of the war, and they all rejected the offer despite how they have the opposite political perspective. It's almost as if they understand the problem of how old players have an innate advantage, don't you think? They have a lot of old nations. Just look at NPO: they could be at 12 / 13 cities by now, for instance. I, and most people here, play to win. My side shouldn't give away any freebies. We're more skilled, which is why we've won several times, some of them as underdogs. It's up to the players to shape the way the game goes, not the admin. As for the low tier thing, they've !@#$ed it up. The alliance pairing (which alliance would attack who) was absolutely atrocious. How on earth do you preempt and leave out TKR? The enemy coalition was clueless at using score ranges during this war. For instance, if my side wanted to go on the offensive, it would have been tricky af, logistically it would be quite difficult. Long story short, IQsphere blew it. You can try finding all sorts of excuses, but in the end they just shot themselves in the foot. PS: As for Milton (who still hasn't learned to quote), I have better things to do than replying to him. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.