Jump to content

Prefontaine Preponderance Ponderings


Prefontaine
 Share

Recommended Posts

My takeaway and something I've felt since the EoS war on TAC - you don't need the strongest casus belli to start a war. There is nothing shameful in aggression, and it makes the game more competitive. An increase in fighting will serve to increase the value of your pixels far faster than waiting for your next city ever will. Hail to fighting.

  • Upvote 6

Resident DJ @ Club Orbis

Founder of The Warehouse

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would help if people make an active attempt at actually making enemies too. If you already don't have a positive opinion of an alliance, douse the flames a bit.

Everyone too busy tryna finesse everyone who isn't their biggest threat so they can tally up more people in their column come time to fight.

  • Upvote 1

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

This last war was an attempt to break that up. I want to lift the curtain on some of what was planned, and how it failed. The premise of the war was two fold in the original plans, to take the long running leaders of the game for a loss and to shake up the political world to allow for the creation of new spheres. The first part was a success, but the second was a failure. The original plan was to end IQ post war. Part of IQ was in on this plan. Partisan was going to take Syndicate and ally to NPO. Syndicate was going to keep Rose or House Stark as an ally and drop the rest. NPO was going to keep BC or Polaris as an ally and drop the rest. During this period CoS and TEst were going to give them post war protection for 2 months to avoid their upper tier getting steam rolled while they established a new sphere and allowed the game to shuffle up. The war dragged on, Partisan left, and thus the plan died. Thus BK/NPO stayed tied. NPO and Syndicate have a ton of treaties (protectorates largely, sure, but lets be honest about how protectorates go here). Had the war ended earlier, the plan still might not have worked, but both sides are at fault for the peace talks. 

 

As someone who is pretty much an outside observer, I'm just wondering why NPO or any other alliance of IQ doesn't try to continue this form of negotiations. It seems that it worked before, so to say that TKR continued the war too long seems to be an excuse.  I can't say I know Orbis that well, but I do know that NPO seems pretty powerful and people in general like to have powerful allies.  Partisan leaving Syndicate maybe foils that specific route, but in my personal opinion it seems hypocritical to just scapegoat and then wipe your hands clean of any attempt to follow through on the principles you outlined.  

What you are saying and doing seem to be two different things entirely, and this cognitive dissonance contributes to the very problems that you explain are hurting Orbis.  Even for the sake of being dynamic, NPO can't afford to take a risk too?  And before there is any controversy about NPO or any other new bloc would be vulnerable, I believe that the most destructive war ever just occurred.  Now would probably be the best time ever to reevaluate and form new ties.  I'm just a lowly player and I believe that your words about changing up the dynamic (which tbh has been a goal of TKR for much longer) are true and important for the game, but if they really mean something then NPO should back them up too!

2 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Take TGH for example. They have active leadership, experienced fighters, seemingly motivated. We need more of that, and we need more of it in alliances that can make large swings. Imagine what would happen to the political landscape if NPO left BK, allied TGH who teamed up with CoS to then hit someone. IQ's core broken up and possibilities arise. Or TKR/Guardian leave tCW and roll them along side TGH. People often get too held up in the mentality of keeping allies for far too long, or only allying friends. Take a risk.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As time for investments to make a profit increases, so must time in between wars increase.
To berate alliances for making long term agreements to protect their long term investments, is ridiculous. Especially when it's the right move in almost every regard except for some ill-gotten meta narrative.

Edited by Malleator
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 5

Love you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Malleator said:

As time for investments to pay themselves off increases, so must peace time.

Bullshit. You don't need to break even on an investment BEFORE you go to war.

All city investments will make a return eventually. Richer alliances can afford to get larger stockpiles and faster.

Also, investment for investment sake is half the problem in this game. What exactly is the point of money?

You either spend it to fund a war, or you invest it to make even more money. By your logic, we should just never war since why not just keep investing and increase our pixel numbers to high amounts until we can't fight anymore since we are out of range.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

XLL3z4T.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If alliances take your advice and backstab each other to make it interesting, one would think the reliability of their allies would decrease. Also what TKR did with their treaties to try adding to dynamic didn’t go great for them and people don’t think it was enough still.

I didn’t expect to find out what the rumored post war political shake up was with it not happening, but was still interesting to find out what people expected to happen though.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I've found personally is that people are too fearful to seal connections across the supposed IQ / other spheres line. They fear their current allies will find less favor in them, blinding them from the good which could come from the relationship.

Leaders need step out more and put their alliances first. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Avien said:

What I've found personally is that people are too fearful to seal connections across the supposed IQ / other spheres line. They fear their current allies will find less favor in them, blinding them from the good which could come from the relationship.

Leaders need step out more and put their alliances first. 

Not sure it's quite "putting your alliance first" when making a move like that, unless you're alliance favors risks and war. But I agree that reaching across isles is the way to go. Unexpected moves often produce more interesting results.

 

Alliances can get comfortable, it's easier to keep old allies around versus going out to try something new. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Prefontaine said:

Alliances can get comfortable, it's easier to keep old allies around versus going out to try something new.

Again, I agree. It definitely is easier and if the leaders of major alliances were more interested in taking risks, doing surprise moves, and getting off their asses and doing something, we wouldn't have alliances like Acadia and UPN who have been together since the beginning of time itself. I encourage all alliances to make some sort of surprise move in the next few months for the sake of just doing something and making the game a little bit more dynamic, even if just for a little while.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I propose the war of the opposite where we go to war only with our allies

NPO vs BK, t$ vs Rose, TGH vs KT, TKR vs TCW, etc.

If you don't have allies you are lying find another paperless for a fight

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Micchan said:

I propose the war of the opposite where we go to war only with our allies

NPO vs BK, t$ vs Rose, TGH vs KT, TKR vs TCW, etc.

If you don't have allies you are lying find another paperless for a fight

Psh. You would give yourself the easiest fight.

 

You could have given Syndicate v Pantheon XD

  • Like 2

scSqPGJ.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Sketchy said:

Bullshit. You don't need to break even on an investment BEFORE you go to war.

All city investments will make a return eventually. Richer alliances can afford to get larger stockpiles and faster.

Also, investment for investment sake is half the problem in this game. What exactly is the point of money?

You either spend it to fund a war, or you invest it to make even more money. By your logic, we should just never war since why not just keep investing and increase our pixel numbers to high amounts until we can't fight anymore since we are out of range.

Correct, one doesn't need to break even on investments before going to war, but it's certainly the correct move. If ones resources are currently in the form of cities and infrastructure, all those resources aren't in a liquid form or in an engagement ready form and therefore, war wouldn't be efficient or the best course of action for continued unfettered success.

But in my eyes, that's not the real core issue. There issue here is that there's not much point to war beyond growth disruption. This isn't a zero sum game, the complete destruction of one's opponents is impossible through ingame mechanics, and war is often extremely costly for everyone involved with little to no gain. The only reason to go to war is for a meta reason of boredom or the desire to temporarily disrupt an opponent's growth at the cost of one's own growth. War in this game is inadvisable if one seeks purely national success and growth.

And really, if what I was typing in this post and in my previous post wasn't true, then why are pacts made? Why aren't we all at war 24/7?
You guys are trying to fruitlessly kick against the most efficient emergent gameplay and why? Because it doesn't suit you?
If it doesn't suit you, declare war on whom ever you please right now, cause another global war directly solely at you, and maybe then you'll be taught why what's currently happening is the most efficient form of long term success in game and in war.

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Love you

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.