Jump to content
Sphinx

Do Ayyliens and Whales mix?

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Placentica said:

Kinda surprised BK gets any shit.  Seems like they are the one alliance that routinely mixes it up despite being on top. And that's not treaty ass-kissing either, I'm just surprised they don't get more respect for the amount of interesting FA moves they've made over the past several years.  Like them or not, they have been really good for this game.

Never change Steve. Keep on showing everyone why you are the sharpest mind in PW!

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Placentica said:

Kinda surprised BK gets any shit.  Seems like they are the one alliance that routinely mixes it up despite being on top. And that's not treaty ass-kissing either, I'm just surprised they don't get more respect for the amount of interesting FA moves they've made over the past several years.  Like them or not, they have been really good for this game.

They do change it up.  There's no denying that.  It's the way how they handle some of the FA issues that clouds the moves they make.

As for "been really good for this game" - Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh................  We can debate on that one.  I can see both sides of that particular statement.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Frawley said:

It's not really up for debate either.

Political sims are all about people executing plan's within a political narrative, a key driver of which is how people feel about other players. BK generates strong feelings that one one way or another drive people to act on those feelings and create a narrative. Anyone who generates strong feelings tends to be good for these types of games (within reason).

Yes, building up a frickyuge consolidated tier with multiple alliances tied together is good for the game.  That's where the most "feelings" have been generated from.

How did that work out for CN?  That's a dead game, right?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you have done well. Word wall. Word wall. Word wall 

Begins cackling manically

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 11:51 AM, Keegoz said:

Never change. Keep on showing everyone why you are the sharpest mind in PW!

Have to admit, I wish I'd changed many years back when we were allied. t$ would've been a much better path for us than Rose. You are just confirming what I'd reluctantly assumed about you. I've only defended your alliance when we were allied in losing wars and then didn't make a stink when you didn't defend us when we needed you or when you backed out of post-war aid you promised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Placentica said:

Have to admit, I wish I'd changed many years back when we were allied. t$ would've been a much better path for us than Rose. You are just confirming what I'd reluctantly assumed about you. I've only defended your alliance when we were allied in losing wars and then didn't make a stink when you didn't defend us when we needed you or when you backed out of post-war aid you promised.

Are you talking about SALT?

Yes how dare Rose not fight TKRsphere AND IQ simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Are you talking about SALT?

Yes how dare Rose not fight TKRsphere AND IQ simultaneously.

No. I'm a grandpa.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Placentica said:

Have to admit, I wish I'd changed many years back when we were allied. t$ would've been a much better path for us than Rose. You are just confirming what I'd reluctantly assumed about you. I've only defended your alliance when we were allied in losing wars and then didn't make a stink when you didn't defend us when we needed you or when you backed out of post-war aid you promised.

Your alliance was doomed wherever you went. You were leading it after all.

Going inactive for over a week, without letting anyone know. Coming back and shrugging it off. Hoarding power for yourself. Being paranoid at every turn. Add in the fact that you're down right an idiot and really it is no surprise Alpha was a failure but if it makes you sleep at night. Please blame me.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2019 at 6:55 PM, Buorhann said:

They do change it up.  There's no denying that.  It's the way how they handle some of the FA issues that clouds the moves they make.

As for "been really good for this game" - Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh................  We can debate on that one.  I can see both sides of that particular statement.

I wish I had more control over our FA as well, but guess they know what they’re doing if there is any fuss over this being OP. Doubt us aligning Syndicate before NPO treatied them or Rose after they broke off would have had any less saying it’s to strong either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2019 at 2:23 AM, Keegoz said:

Your alliance was doomed wherever you went. You were leading it after all.

Going inactive for over a week, without letting anyone know. Coming back and shrugging it off. Hoarding power for yourself. Being paranoid at every turn. Add in the fact that you're down right an idiot and really it is no surprise Alpha was a failure but if it makes you sleep at night. Please blame me.

Lmao, murdered by words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/19/2019 at 1:56 PM, Hodor said:

Which I would say was the issue. I think that long wars really have only one scope and it is cutting your opponent down to size through a thorough beating. This tends to have a humiliating effect which then incentives the war dragging out for issues of pride and/or the hope that the loser can somehow flip the damage or cut the deficit as they reach a point of having nothing to lose.

Shorter wars with limited scopes are less toxic, albeit perhaps less satisfying, because you'll always exit knowing more damage could've been done, but also the knowledge that the next war will come quicker.

The early stage of the war is by far the most destructive, when people are loosing expensive infra and are most likely to be going in fully armed up.  Half or a little over half the damage done last war was done in the first two weeks.

After that it's a slow slog and mostly fun for the most active people who in a position to fight the guerrilla war and enjoy it.  But for the most part the loosing alliances can choose how much of their resources they invest into fighting back, there isn't any way to force people to buy stuff that can get destroyed.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Azaghul said:

The early stage of the war is by far the most destructive, when people are loosing expensive infra and are most likely to be going in fully armed up.  Half or a little over half the damage done last war was done in the first two weeks.

After that it's a slow slog and mostly fun for the most active people who in a position to fight the guerrilla war and enjoy it.  But for the most part the loosing alliances can choose how much of their resources they invest into fighting back, there isn't any way to force people to buy stuff that can get destroyed.

And that's exactly the way it should be; that kind of war makes the less consolidated side have the more fun, and rewards activity. Both of these things encourage dynamism, minispheres and activity.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 3:22 AM, Curufinwe said:

Huh.  And people are accusing Leo of getting triggered.  I'm just going to break this down since there's a lot to unpack here:

There's been three major wars since BK left Syndi-OO; Tiers, AC and Knightfall.  In Tiers BK was on the offensive (though of course we lost that one), in AC we preempted (so technically we did hit first, but as you say, it was coming anyways) and in Knightfall BK was on the offensive as well (but I guess that doesn't count, since you say dogpiles don't count).  Meanwhile, Rose was on the defensive during Tiers (and I seem to recall you were running it at the time), CKD didn't participate in any major conflicts during your time there, TGH entered against Vanguard following our preempt (so I guess we'll call that 0.5 offensive wars each, since technically we both struck first), was on the defensive against TKR during DDR, hit TRF for a couple of weeks when no one was looking (which hardly qualifies as a major war, but we'll count it as another 0.5 since we're keeping score) and sat out the main war against TKR and friends entirely.  So by that reckoning, BK following the formation of IQ engaged in 2.5 offensive wars in the traditional sense of the term (Tiers and Knightfall, plus preempting during AC) and alliances you occupied a leadership role in engaged in 1 (0.5 for AC and 0.5 for NRF, though again the latter wasn't exactly a ground shaking move on your part).  So while, sure, according to the very narrow definition you've put out, I guess BK didn't engage in more than a few wars during that period, but I'm not sure why you feel you're in position to criticize others for a supposed lack of going on the offensive.

As for your tiering comment, BK is currently averaging 16.36 cites per player, compared to 13.86 for TGH, so it appears we that we are building higher on average than your AA is, although you guys have a higher proportion of small players than we do at the moment.  Still, if you run the stats, you'd notice that BK is primarily tiered in the 17-18 range, compared to the 18-20 range for TGH and KT, so again I'm not sure why you feel you have grounds to criticize an AA with tiering only slightly lower than your own.  The topic of upper tier consolidation re:TKR was already talked to death in the run up to the last war, so we'll just let the record show that Sketchy feels that TKRs upper tier consolidation totally was a thing that a bloc whose largest member was 24 cities prior to the last war should have been able to handle completely on its own and all the AAs that felt threatened by it (which is why the coalition came together, by the way) should have stood aside, apparently. 

By what measurement was BK the worst AA in Syndi-OO?  I'm sure we can find stats from Oktoberfest, 168 and Pacifica in Orbis Central to demonstrate that we more than pulled our weight in those wars, as well as in Paperless.  And I don't recall Rose (which you were a part of at that time and gov in after October 2017) covering itself in glory in any of those conflicts;

1) Looks like you all had a separate peace in Pacifica, leaving your allies to surrender later:

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/13543-announcement-from-the-coalition-known-apparently-as-the-leeroy-jenkaaylmao-coaltion-and-the-empire-of-rose/

2) Surrendered in Silent:

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/16718-roses-surrender/

Though of course your nation page says you were only lower Econ gov, so Rose's not-great blitz against TKR that war probably wasn't your fault.

3) And, of course, 168 was a war initiated by your side that ended in white peace, so you can't really say the AA you were a part of achieved its goals there either.  

Then, as I recall, when you actually became upper gov in Rose you guys switched sides courtesy of a tie with Mensa and played a fairly peripheral part in Paperless (although I'm sure we can dig up stats for that as well if you like), though according to your definition of what constitutes an acceptable 'offensive' war (IE not a curbstomp), I guess that really can't count as a mark in favour of Sketchy-in-gov era Rose as well, since that was most definitely an example of everyone coming together to take down TEst.  Meanwhile, while it's true that BK did have a tough first round in Silent, that was mostly because we were prioritized by NPO, UPN, Polaris and HBE due to our performance against NPO in Pacifica, rather than getting the famous two-man blitz treatment like some other people did.  Fortunately, we did manage to keep them busy enough that they couldn't switch to other fronts while our allies mopped up the rest of the enemy coalition (including the AA you were fighting for at the time) and ended up with a win for our side.  For the record, I did take the time to dig up the stats for Silent and, while it definitely wasn't our finest war, we did do okay considering we took a harder hit than many of the AAs in our coalition early on.

But yeah, Silent stats for those who are curious: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BVOQv4r2MYPZEfQoJgcokGrZagxqL1oeJxNMSdZsnh0/edit#gid=5604508

At any rate, perhaps someone else can dig up stats on Oktoberfest, 168, Pacifica and Paperless (the stats pages aren't as clearly marked for those wars as they are nowadays), but if you're talking performance wise, I don't think you have much ground to stand on, especially since it was Sketchy-in-gov era Rose that people had doubts about performance wise after you switched sides, rather than BK (or at least that's what I recall from the coalition servers where we discussed you guys coming over to our side - someone who was Syndi-OO gov back then probably has logs from the relevant server, since I didn't bother keeping them).

As for your meatshield comment, you'll notice that BK & Co is one of the weaker of the six spheres upper tier wise, which is the same issue IQ had prior to the split.  If we look at Theodosius' stats... 

unknown.png

...you'll see that the upper tier is concentrated in Chaos/KT spheres, with the two combined having 48/120 of the 24-26s, 50/89 of the 27-33s and of the 10/12 34-39s, meaning almost 50 percent of the larger nations in the game, and virtually all of the largest ones, are in two of the six spheres.  You'll also notice that signing TCW (which by and large has more high city count folks than BK) only brings BK & Co to fifth place in the number of higher tier nations (behind Rose but above Pantheon), so rather than 'stacking meatshields' it provided us with a capacity that we have traditionally lacked relative to other spheres (and which certainly was an issue for IQ).  So it's up to other people to decide if having half of the largest nations in two of the six spheres constitutes consolidation, but it is hardly an overwhelming advantage that BK & Co has acquired.  I'm sorry that an upper AA being willing to work with us is so upsetting to you though, I guess.

BK has actually cut 7 of its 16 treaties (which I believe is the largest amount cut in-game so far, though I suppose it also says something about the number we'd signed) and signed 1 since IQ dissolved, which is a 7:1 ratio for dropping versus retaining ties.  More importantly, the BK/NPO treaty was ended which, at least according to its critics, was the single worst treaty ever and almost solely responsible for stagnating the game due to our cohesion in the middle tier, so you're welcome for that.  While I realize that it may feel odd to not complain about BK FA constantly (that was a scary week or so for us, too - we had feared you'd forgotten about us), the fact remains that BK, NPO and GoG voluntarily broke up a sphere that most people outside it felt was problematic and that created a space for new politics to take place: whatever you might feel about BK as an AA, I doubt even you can argue with the fact that IQ voluntarily dissolving has changed the FA environment we're all operating in.  And yeah, much like TKR, tS, NPO, CoS, Guardian, GoB, SK, TGH and KT, BK has made a new friend after shedding some old ties.  Maybe more will go in the future (that's not my decision to make any more, thankfully), but for the second time in two years BK has completely reoriented its FA, making Orbis a different place in the process.  You can complain about the pace of the change if you like, but we've done more than most to shake things up during our time as one of the larger AAs in Orbis.  So again, I'm not sure you have a lot of ground to criticize us when we've more than once taken the lead in making big changes in our FA, even if the pace or form it takes isn't necessarily to your liking.

Wasn't the whole point of everyone dropping previous ties to make friends with new people, including former enemies?  Guardian was allied to TKR during DDR (and GoB was informally aligned with EMC in general) and I don't recall anyone ranting in your treaty thread about how you signed someone who formerly wasn't in your immediate sphere of influence.  If we're serious about trying new things people are going to have let go of beefs from past wars, so criticizing BK for burying the hatchet with TCW while many other AAs as busy signing former opponents (or in TGH's case, people who were allied to your most recent major opponent) seems a bit baseless coming from you.

As for the 'BK & Co is OP' numbers, looking at them shows that we don't dominate any particular tier in the manner IQ did; we're about equal to NPO/tS in the fearsome 1-9 tier (205/734 nations), stronger in the only slightly less irrelevant 10-12 tier (203/595), do have an advantage in the lower mid tier (198/498 13-16 folks), are about equal to NPO/tS in the upper mid tier (collectively, 294/379 of the 17 to 18s are in one or the other sphere - funny thing about how the two large AAs that tiered to that level still have most of the people at said level two weeks later), and then start to fall off dramatically at 19 and up (only 130 people over 19, which places us behind Chaos, KETOG and NPO/tS in that area, even with TCW added into the mix).  So yeah, your numbers essentially state that BK is still strong in the mid tier (shocking I know), but instead of the upper middle tier being concentrated almost exclusively in IQ, it's now split between tS/NPO and BK/TCW (again, you're welcome for that).  It also says that almost half of BK & Co's terrifyingly terrifying 800 or so nations are below the 13 city mark, a range that is pretty much irrelevant against any sphere other than Pantheon and NPO/tS and certainly isn't much of a threat to the two blocs where almost half of the upper tier nations currently reside.  So yeah, I'm not going to accuse you of pushing a narrative (since you were just stating facts, as you've said), but the fact remains that the numbers BK is currently bringing to the table don't really suggest the kind of tier consolidation IQ was always criticized for in its heyday.  We're about equal to tS/NPO sphere in capacity currently, with an advantage lower down and a growing disadvantage the farther you go up the tiers, while KETOG/Chaos are about equal upper tier wise and larger than the other spheres in terms of big members (overwhelmingly so among the biggest).  But hey, we have more noobs than Pantheon, so that's kind of neat.

So I realize this was a pretty large text-wall, so here:

TLDR: Sketchy got triggered and spouted a bunch of nonsense that isn't really supported by facts, meaning that Leo isn't the only angry guy typing away in this thread.  Personally, I regard that as the first victory of the BK/TCW alliance.

Is this really about Ayyliens and Whales? If so I'll go grab some popcorn!!!

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.