Jump to content

War. War Never Changes.


Lordship
 Share

Recommended Posts

But wait, building isn't the point of the game!! If you want to continuously grow for no really useful reason that's your decision and how you choose to play. If you'd just understand not everyone is going to play that style it'd save you a lot of writing.

 

And people say Syndisphere is the one causing the game to be boring -- not the ones deleting or artificially keeping cities low, smh. How would you artificially keep from growth? It's not an automatic thing you have to do for the game to work and you have to make a decision to keep expanding, not a decision to prevent the growth.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Milton is to be taken serious, everybody in that group is ok with wasting their potential while crying about how Syndisphere ruins the dynamic in the game.

 

Ok. You keep doing you.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Milton is to be taken serious, everybody in that group is ok with wasting their potential while crying about how Syndisphere ruins the dynamic in the game.

Ok. You keep doing you.

Stopped reading right there
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Milton is to be taken serious, everybody in that group is ok with wasting their potential while crying about how Syndisphere ruins the dynamic in the game.

 

Ok. You keep doing you.

If it's not wartime anyone's free to leave if they choose. We even accept them rapidly back if they change their minds. So the ones there now are absolutely loyal, love the system and have total faith in NPO high government in general and Roquentin in particular.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I've spent more on my rebuilds over the years than anyone in NPO has and I've been on the winning side every time.

 

Their system simply isn't geared to wealth and growth. It's aimed at being a woefully inefficient Central command economy instead.

 

Would be actually curious to know if all NPOers entirely support their current economic system or if a few wish to reform it. They can be the Hong Kong branch of NPO or something :P

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is -- command economy would be the best in the long-run.  It's just being run poorly.

 

Thankfully Mensa has PhD economists to tell us what to do.  It's our version of a command economy -- listen to Kemal the Kebab and let the rest of the chips fall where they may.

  • Upvote 3

☾☆


And Dio said unto him, "I trust you.  Share my word."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're a little subjective here due to a lot of people trying to manipulate things for their own. You can believe a fact is a fact in the absence of something to prove otherwise.

You can believe that "something" is a fact, not that "a fact is a fact".

 

Like the non-existent CB that Roq keeps claiming exists. In the absence of evidence, it is not a fact. Withholding that "evidence" and not putting enough pressure on the "people" who supposedly have the "evidence" to allow Roq to release it just furthers the narrative that it's BS.

  • Upvote 1

☾☆

 

Priest of Dio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny thing is -- command economy would be the best in the long-run.  It's just being run poorly.

 

Thankfully Mensa has PhD economists to tell us what to do.  It's our version of a command economy -- listen to Kemal the Kebab and let the rest of the chips fall where they may.

If you had a bot capable of handling it perfectly sure. Till that happens the human factor will make it one of the worst economic systems.

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure I've spent more on my rebuilds over the years than anyone in NPO has and I've been on the winning side every time.

 

Their system simply isn't geared to wealth and growth. No, it's definitely not. The only issue with it is other alliances trying to get them to stop doing it because they don't like it. It's aimed at being a woefully inefficient Central command economy instead.

 

Would be actually curious to know if all NPOers entirely support their current economic system or if a few wish to reform it. It's not a democracy, but all are free to leave outside of wartime and they were also offered POW status if they wanted it in whatever the war before the most recent one happened and none left.

 

 

The funny thing is -- command economy would be the best in the long-run.  It's just being run poorly. What data do you have to indicate that?

 

Thankfully Mensa has PhD economists to tell us what to do.  It's our version of a command economy -- listen to Kemal the Kebab and let the rest of the chips fall where they may.

 

 

You can believe that "something" is a fact, not that "a fact is a fact". I can do both, to be honest and so could Roquentin.

 

Like the non-existent CB that Roq keeps claiming exists. In the absence of evidence, it is not a fact. Withholding that "evidence" and not putting enough pressure on the "people" who supposedly have the "evidence" to allow Roq to release it just furthers the narrative that it's BS. I think we've decided as a bloc to stop using CBs because it doesn't seem to affect how annoyed you guys all get about it.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because a system isn't a democracy doesn't give its leadership the right to do as it pleases. Leadership in all alliances be it democracies, dictatorships or otherwise are all accountable to their own memberships.

 

That's arguably the main difference between the competent and incompetent spheres within this game. One side has their leaders held accountable for their actions by a competent membership base and the other side just .....well...doesn't.

 

I don't believe that to be a mere coincidence and indeed to be linked to the talent drain on one side. Why should a talented and capable player after all have to be shackled to an inept leadership who holds itself unaccountable for its poor decisions.

Edited by Nemesis
  • Upvote 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get it plenty. Your strategy isn't new. Mensa had the best tier cohesion for a long time before NPO came along. We started just like your alliance did (Minus the taxes).

 

 

Yeah, no. You've only had 2 wars, and you're still at 9-10 cities. We've been in every war minus SOPA and managed to grow. Your repairs at city 10 (My bad, you're personally at city 12, congrats!) is far less than my repairs at city 16.

 

 

 

You're really missing the point. On the winning side, alliances often don't have their infra fully depleted, making it easier to build afterwards. The first time was after we had pushed a lot of growth without being able to see the returns on it especially given the fact that a lot of people got built up and then moved on from browser gaming. People knew ahead of that war that it'd be a huge liability for us if we didn't win. Our wars have usually been total wipeouts as far as infra goes.

 

Well no shit Sherlock. That's my whole point of criticizing NPO so harshly. You're so narrow minded on only covering NPO's ass that you can't even cover your fellow allies (See latest war) outside of just picking up zeroed out nations and pinning them down. You'd rather work for yourself than for others. This whole time I've been criticizing NPO is because of LACK OF COVERAGE ON YOUR ALLIES. You cover your allies, they cover you. This is why Mensa succeeded alongside with Guardian (High Tier) and Syndicate (Spread out tiers), as well as along with TKR and BK early on (Low Tiers). Mensa was able to be flexible in any area of war. You want to work on defensible boundaries? Then work on solidifying your alliance along with your new sphere mates. You don't even need to keep 100+ people that far down, that's insane, and way too much wasted potential manpower down there.

And like Manthrax stated during the war, you literally gathered more alliances that only made the low tier that much more packed.

 

What use is NPO's potential if they heavily rely on just covering their allies from being "pinned down" and/or having to rely on their allies to drag nations down into their range - when all their allies are thinned out in mid/high tier?

 

Hell, if that's your only goal here, you could do that with just 30-40 members easy. 100+ is just overkill. Way overkill. You also knew exactly what was to be expected too, months in advance, when you began talks with your new allies. You're not fooling me with you feigning ignorance here on the situation you got yourself and your alliance into. Then again, maybe I am thinking too highly of you considering all the stuff others tell me about your "other game" capabilities.

 

 

Pretty sure other alliances that have lost wars continued to grow as well. You're putting way too much emphasis on how losses hindering growth. I'm sure there's some, but it's not catastrophically bad where you're still stuck in the 9-10 city range with 100+ members.

 

Then again, when BK has Milton as a member who got 3 of his cities deleted... well...

It's about the situation rather than just trying to cover our ass. As a fairly big target, increasing incentive to attack us would have endangered our limited number of allies we had before Inquisition. We had no way of combatting Syndisphere before that. The timeframe between Inquisition and the war was very narrow.  I've said it before, but ultimately we were structured to fight BK and TKR's lowers as they were always going to be the go to to hit us from Syndisphere. We had no counter to BK and were more spread out the first war, so it was pretty bad, and I set out to deal with it since in every war scenario BK was slated to hit NPO(going back to Steve's War).

 

It  wasn't an intentional thing. Low tier alliances were more willing to side with us. If anyone who had been upper tier wanted to work with our side, we'd have been happy to get them onboard, but there were a lot of disincentives given the consolidation of the upper tier by Syndisphere in 2016. There were alternative splits that could have happened but didn't. One alliance that was tied to us indicated they'd attempt to tie a major player in Syndisphere and I said "fine", but the alliance they wanted to get close to had no interest in a split at the time. If Mensa had instigated the split and signed someone in our sector, then you would have had us most likely.  It ultimately came down to who was willing to get over their grudges and who wasn't. You guys weren't. 

 

It had a pretty big impact in this last war. I'm not going to overstate it, but we worked with what we had, not we wished to have. 

 

Okay let's recapitulate: we didn't have all this stuff in place months in advance. In case you still haven't figured it out, we were essentially the back-up plan to an OO-tS split when TKR didn't want it. Hope this is abundantly clear. While there were some talks just about easing tensions after OO declined our NAP extension, there was nothing indicating that Inquisition would happen. As for the other game commentary, it's good to know people aren't dancing around carrying stuff over and I'm sure those accounts are totally unbiased and objective. I'm sure I could give you unsavory details on them, too.

 

Most alliances that lose and continue to grow usually had firmer bases to start with and didn't lose every war when they started out.  An issue we have that mass alliances tend to have is attrition since have to restart the process of building people whenever someone decides they're in a place in life where they don't feel like keeping their nation around so it's also not as if it's 100 members who have been here since the start.   For us, we lost every war and the only nations that played P&W before NPO like mine usually came after suffering heavy continual losses, which usually depleted the reserves we had. 

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For us, we lost every war and the only nations that played P&W before NPO like mine usually came after suffering heavy continual losses, which usually depleted the reserves we had.

 

1. Git gud

2. Stop losing every war

3. Win game :v

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Git gud

2. Stop losing every war

3. Win game :v

 

I mean, as GR we won the first war we fought(fighting GPA  at Guardian's request). Also won the Great VE War as Vanguard. Was pretty empty. While our performances could have been better in 168 day and Proxy, it came down to some wider issues. 

 

Usual cycle with Paracov:

 

1. People lose to Syndisphere and become hesitant

2. Don't fully commit to planning to take on Syndisphere and end up losing as a result when it becomes too last minute to be effective, losing advantages

3. repeat step one and two

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somedays, I'm shocked TKR doesn't ally with NPO.

 

On a social level, they basically behave like commies anyway, so there shouldn't be a problem.

 

In all fairness to NPO, the game mechanics are ruined in how there are only so many war slots.  The game prioritizes quality before quantity which prevents human wave tactics from being a viable strategy.  At best, they could spam spies to hit missiles, nukes, and airplanes, but we all know how weak spies are in this too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're really missing the point. On the winning side, alliances often don't have their infra fully depleted, making it easier to build afterwards. The first time was after we had pushed a lot of growth without being able to see the returns on it especially given the fact that a lot of people got built up and then moved on from browser gaming. People knew ahead of that war that it'd be a huge liability for us if we didn't win. Our wars have usually been total wipeouts as far as infra goes.

 

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. 

 

 

Somedays, I'm shocked TKR doesn't ally with NPO.

 

On a social level, they basically behave like commies anyway, so there shouldn't be a problem.

 

In all fairness to NPO, the game mechanics are ruined in how there are only so many war slots.  The game prioritizes quality before quantity which prevents human wave tactics from being a viable strategy.  At best, they could spam spies to hit missiles, nukes, and airplanes, but we all know how weak spies are in this too.

 

 

The only chance that TKR could even ally with NPO is in an alternate reality. TKR and even NPO have nothing to do with communism; TKR taxes their nations normally and it's possibly closer to BK's econ system, and while NPO does tax at 100%, aids and grants are not distributed equally and there is score and city variation within the alliance, albeit narrower than usual. The latter fits under the definition of a command economy.

 

You should pay more attention to P&W affairs, because you got a lot of ideas mixed up. 

 

Edit: grammar and extra statement

Edited by Anneal

Z98SzIG.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only chance that TKR could even ally with NPO is in an alternate reality. TKR and even NPO have nothing to do with communism; TKR taxes their nations normally and it's possibly closer to BK's econ system, and while NPO does tax at 100%, aids and grants are not distributed equally and there is score and city variation within the alliance, albeit narrower than usual. The latter fits under the definition of a command economy.

 

You should pay more attention to P&W affairs, because you got a lot of ideas mixed up. 

 

I agree that they're economically different.

 

What I said is on a social level, they're compatible.  That's how alliances ally in this game - social compatibility, not economic compatibility.  

Edited by Argotitan
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. 

 

 

 

That wasn't the argument I was making. It's not irrelevant because if you don't lose all  or most of your infra, you can still produce income while at war and your cities don't go unpowered and you don't have to spend as much rebuying during war. If you're getting curbstomped, you also lose improvements depending on how the war goes.  I didn't say it was harder to rebuild a 10 city nation than a 15 one. The argument is people who don't lose don't end up having rebuild everything and can get back to pre-war infra levels faster and then move to growth. 

 

If both your infra and your savings are also limited, then it's a lot harder to get back up. Alliances that get curbstomped tend to have take out loans if the liquidity is available if they didn't already have a lot of savings especially if they were funding a lot of growth beforehand.

Edited by Roquentin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, basically, the argument for why it's been hard for you to rebuild is the exact same argument we were making during the war about why you were getting stomped so hard -- low infra, negative income, etc.

 

I guess it wasn't such a "narrow win" after all.

 

Also, I don't think you know what the word "capitulate" means in your post above.

☾☆


And Dio said unto him, "I trust you.  Share my word."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that they're economically different.

 

What I said is on a social level, they're compatible.  That's how alliances ally in this game - social compatibility, not economic compatibility.  

 

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. Seriously, I know we're baseball bros but you should actually be asking other nations or your fellow Arrgh members before you say something improbable or false. 

  • Upvote 1

Z98SzIG.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.