Jump to content
Lordship

War. War Never Changes.

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Yay

Snuggles the bunny

Edited by Felkey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Placentica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone say rebuilding? Hogwarts offers great loans.

 

The best loans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did someone say rebuilding? Hogwarts offers great loans.

 

The best loans.

YUGE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NNNNNNNNNNNEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

 

You don't like racing?  :-P

 

 

You cannot reset gudness.

 

Perhaps, but you can always make things go from good to better.  :D

 

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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...

  • 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.