Guest Epi Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 (edited) 625 Edited February 16, 2021 by Epi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Do Not Fear Jaz Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 Alliances being forced into the idea that having a good, perfect, or even reason CB is required to hit someone is how we will all end up huddling around throwing shade at each other but not doing anything about it. Personally, I like CBs, and I like knowing why certain alliances are at each other throats (as I'm sure most non-gov, non top-15 alliance members do), but at the end of the day there is no moral high ground to be claimed by having a better CB than any other party in a war. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.A.Goldington Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 I agree with this statement, if we're to argue and try to invalidate CBs of any kind, we're only setting up a perpetual stale state of the game. The recent trend of no globals and long times of peace is being fueled by this notion that you have to wait to nail a strong CB of war with someone before you're allowed to attack them. I hear people all the time complaining about no wars, then complaining about a war not having a valid or strong CB. Let people find their own reasoning for a CB and treat it as a valid reason, no matter if you agree with it or not. At the end of the day, this is a game for fun and it is a game called Politics and War, not Politics and Valid CBs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raphael Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 1 hour ago, J.A.Goldington said: I agree with this statement, if we're to argue and try to invalidate CBs of any kind, we're only setting up a perpetual stale state of the game. The recent trend of no globals and long times of peace is being fueled by this notion that you have to wait to nail a strong CB of war with someone before you're allowed to attack them. I hear people all the time complaining about no wars, then complaining about a war not having a valid or strong CB. Let people find their own reasoning for a CB and treat it as a valid reason, no matter if you agree with it or not. At the end of the day, this is a game for fun and it is a game called Politics and War, not Politics and Valid CBs. One could argue that the root of the problem is a lack of anything to truly compete for. Our world is unique in that there has to be a true *drive* to fight. The only thing we have to fight for is the de facto "on top" spot. Many recognize this for what it is: a target on your back. Many others recognize that they can only achieve this by doing avoiding fights. The only other reason to fight is responding to insult or a threat. We need something to compete over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 2 hours ago, J.A.Goldington said: I agree with this statement, if we're to argue and try to invalidate CBs of any kind, we're only setting up a perpetual stale state of the game. The recent trend of no globals and long times of peace is being fueled by this notion that you have to wait to nail a strong CB of war with someone before you're allowed to attack them. I hear people all the time complaining about no wars, then complaining about a war not having a valid or strong CB. Let people find their own reasoning for a CB and treat it as a valid reason, no matter if you agree with it or not. At the end of the day, this is a game for fun and it is a game called Politics and War, not Politics and Valid CBs. It's not called just "War" either though :P. The CB aspect is inherent to the "Politics" part of the game. One thing I'd note as well is that I don't think the lack of war is caused by any drive for CB's. On the contrary, CB's used to be far more well constructed and thought out in the past when there was more war. The correlation does not really hold up. The lower frequency of wars can probably more easily be attributed to simple cost-analysis and the tiering of the game. With nation sizes now larger, wars are more destructive and people have more to lose. Since most people are risk averse, that lowers probability of war. At the same time, we've seen people try to mitigate this by clustering around specific tiers, making war an absolute headache to plan. That's not just for IQ- it applies to both upper and lower tiers :P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doughnuts Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 18 hours ago, MonkeyDLegend said: 50% of orbis be like: 50% be like: MDL be like: Seems your math's might be a little off, 50% agrees, 50% does not understand that's 100% of Orbis, where does MDL come in ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyDLegend Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 11 minutes ago, MoonShadow said: Seems your math's might be a little off, 50% agrees, 50% does not understand that's 100% of Orbis, where does MDL come in ? 9030 Nations in-game, I ain't even 0,1% of it 1 Quote Former Manager t$ and Director of R&D Former Director of Finance, Security in e$ Founder of The Prate Syndicate(test server) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doughnuts Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 4 minutes ago, MonkeyDLegend said: 9030 Nations in-game, I ain't even 0,1% of it Damn it are still apart of it Monkey King 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kadin Posted June 13, 2018 Share Posted June 13, 2018 This seems like the kind of thing that would belong in Orbis Central. But, heck, what do I know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kastor Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 14 hours ago, Kadin said: This seems like the kind of thing that would belong in Orbis Central. But, heck, what do I know? Nothing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™ Posted June 14, 2018 Share Posted June 14, 2018 How can CBs be real, if our nations aren't real? 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beatrix Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 I disagree. CBs add another layer to the game and arguing for their justification or lack thereof is engaging. Constructing a CB and using it is also a fun aspect of the game. Complaining about its validity is part of PR wars which I like very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avakael Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 This thread: 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.