Wasn't that a party?

[Buck Turgidson]

On 8/26/2019 at 10:46 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

Ghandi I'll accept as the lone exception to the rule and the one situation in which tactical defeats were specifically the intended goal, but Leonidas and the Viet Cong accepted the tactical defeats as an unfortunate necessity due to their opponents' strengths rather than defeats being the actual goals. What I'm saying is, if they'd had the capacity to achieve tactical victory in those situations, they would have been happy to have done so. As for the Light Brigade, their charge was straight up a miscommunication in the chain of command; that's well documented. It never was meant to be a show of resolve at all, it was simply a useless defeat.

Coventry is much more ambiguous, but in any possible case the goal still wasn't to make sure that Coventry was destroyed, it was to achieve an entirely separate objective. Meanwhile in P&W, the most prevalent strategy is to complain that your enemy isn't killing you fast enough while desperately holding fire, even going so far as to consider fighting enemies to be literal treason. Did the VC or the Light Brigade cry that their enemies weren't killing them efficiently enough? Did the Americans keep their artillery in boxes and send soldiers in with the specific objective of dying uselessly? No, of course not, because those situations are completely different to P&W gameplay.

Leonidas knew he and his men were going to die. He understood that as a king of Sparta, dying this way was a call to arms for the Greek states, in the ancient way..

As for the Viet Cong, general Giap's speech to the Kuomintsng in 1965 spelled out the whole strategy that was followed for a decade; survive, don't lose, demonstrate the will to fight, and ''we' will win in a decade.

I'm a little fuzzy on the Light Bregade, but if I recall, they knew they would be killed. I am sure they would not have done so if they did not think their side had a chance to win, and should win.

Churchill knew that Coventry would be the target of a massive Nazi bomber raid, but did not muster extra defense, for fear of tipping them off to the fact that the British had cracked their code. He accepted a tactical loss to achieve the strategic goal of victory.

As it all translates into P&W, @Prefontaine has it right. Even if all I hold onto is my improvements, that's a lot. Most improvements are good at 1200 infra or less,  To sell infra would be to sacrifuce all of your excess improvements, and all earnings on the downslope. Reconstruction is expensive. It's stupid.

Furthermore, we are neutral.And economist. Pacifists. I cam;t argue the casus belli on paper, but it os clear that someone else's identity is being confused with Yarr's.

Unless, you want to deny stats to someome. In that case, just sell infra.

 

[Sir Scarfalot]

5 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

Leonidas knew he and his men were going to die. He understood that as a king of Sparta, dying this way was a call to arms for the Greek states, in the ancient way..

As for the Viet Cong, general Giap's speech to the Kuomintsng in 1965 spelled out the whole strategy that was followed for a decade; survive, don't lose, demonstrate the will to fight, and ''we' will win in a decade.

I'm a little fuzzy on the Light Bregade, but if I recall, they knew they would be killed. I am sure they would not have done so if they did not think their side had a chance to win, and should win.

Churchill knew that Coventry would be the target of a massive Nazi bomber raid, but did not muster extra defense, for fear of tipping them off to the fact that the British had cracked their code. He accepted a tactical loss to achieve the strategic goal of victory.

As it all translates into P&W, @Prefontaine has it right. Even if all I hold onto is my improvements, that's a lot. Most improvements are good at 1200 infra or less,  To sell infra would be to sacrifuce all of your excess improvements, and all earnings on the downslope. Reconstruction is expensive. It's stupid.

Furthermore, we are neutral.And economist. Pacifists. I cam;t argue the casus belli on paper, but it os clear that someone else's identity is being confused with Yarr's.

Unless, you want to deny stats to someome. In that case, just sell infra.

 

I knew you wouldn't understand what I was saying. Here's another way to put it: If any of those armies suddenly had access to a miraculous superhero soldier that could sneeze their opponents out of existence, they'd have gone for it. Leonidas and his dudes would have been perfectly happy to return with their shields, as the saying puts it; the VC would have been completely willing to attack and kill americans without dying for it if possible (and more often than not, did); the Light Brigade would have been rather pleased if their opponents' artillery suddenly went silent and the enemy army all had simultaneous heart attacks, and Churchill would probably have been totally fine with the situation if the Nazi bombers all managed to crash in an implausible tornado. For sure, not a single one of those armies would have considered tactical miracles like those to be acts of treason at least!

Ghandi is the exception that proves the rule; he specifically needed to get beaten/jailed/etc. and never allow any of his followers to ever opt for violence because of how important it was that his revolution be morally unimpeachable.

As for translating it to P&W, mechanics as they currently are have it so that achieving a miracle tactical victory is very often a major problem. Say you want to suicide airstrike someone when they're at 10 resistance just to chip off some of their air, this happens a lot, and accidentally get an IT because they ran out of gas. They're now beige, they get to rebuild and they're now better off, and you'd have actually preferred the 'miracle' to not have happened. There's no way to translate that to IRL, because there's no such thing as beige IRL, and it changes things on a fundamental level.

Now, as for selling infra, I actually haven't advocated doing that. What I have been advocating is changing improvements around to a wartime build with the expectation and intention of ultimately sustaining your nation at the inevitable low infrastructure level that you'll end up at, with low (but not non-existent) commerce, high manufacturing, and any extraneous slots filled with NPPs for money storage purposes. Reconstruction is expensive either way, there's no way around that short of VM, so you might at least get tactical value out of your doomed pixels.

....And did you even read the poem? "Theirs not to question why, theirs but to do and die" does not exactly translate to "I think we have a chance, so let's go for it" in my analysis...

Edited August 28, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot

[Buck Turgidson]

17 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

I knew you wouldn't understand what I was saying. Here's another way to put it: If any of those armies suddenly had access to a miraculous superhero soldier that could sneeze their opponents out of existence, they'd have gone for it. Leonidas and his dudes would have been perfectly happy to return with their shields, as the saying puts it; the VC would have been completely willing to attack and kill americans without dying for it if possible (and more often than not, did); the Light Brigade would have been rather pleased if their opponents' artillery suddenly went silent and the enemy army all had simultaneous heart attacks, and Churchill would probably have been totally fine with the situation if the Nazi bombers all managed to crash in an implausible tornado. For sure, not a single one of those armies would have considered tactical miracles like those to be acts of treason at least!

Ghandi is the exception that proves the rule; he specifically needed to get beaten/jailed/etc. and never allow any of his followers to ever opt for violence because of how important it was that his revolution be morally unimpeachable.

As for translating it to P&W, mechanics as they currently are have it so that achieving a miracle tactical victory is very often a major problem. Say you want to suicide airstrike someone when they're at 10 resistance just to chip off some of their air, this happens a lot, and accidentally get an IT because they ran out of gas. They're now beige, they get to rebuild and they're now better off, and you'd have actually preferred the 'miracle' to not have happened. There's no way to translate that to IRL, because there's no such thing as beige IRL, and it changes things on a fundamental level.

Now, as for selling infra, I actually haven't advocated doing that. What I have been advocating is changing improvements around to a wartime build with the expectation and intention of ultimately sustaining your nation at the inevitable low infrastructure level that you'll end up at, with low (but not non-existent) commerce, high manufacturing, and any extraneous slots filled with NPPs for money storage purposes. Reconstruction is expensive either way, there's no way around that short of VM, so you might at least get tactical value out of your doomed pixels.

....And did you even read the poem? "Theirs not to question why, theirs but to do and die" does not exactly translate to "I think we have a chance, so let's go for it" in my analysis...

If you can't make yourself understandable, the onus is on you to express yourself more clearly. We don't know wach other except through this very topic, and only in these last few days. I do recognize your name, but the disparity of our post counts may explaon if you do not recognize mine. I can only respond, like anyone, to my undrstanding of the words you type here. If you wish to convey an idea, you should be checking, and continually clarifying and adding precision to shape the idea. That usually means shortening and summarizing main points.Your stuff is getting longer and more confusing.

So let me ask: the question was whether sides in a conflict willingly accept tactical losses? At its core I mean.

If tyat is true, then my points stand. Every soldier knew he was off to die.

If it's about selling infra, then the answer is no way. I'll keep my 8mprovements thanks.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Buck Turgidson

[Sir Scarfalot]

2 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

So let me ask: the question was whether sides in a conflict willingly accept tactical losses? At its core I mean.

Accepting losses =/= seeking losses.

And you didn't even read my post, since you somehow still think I'm trying to tell you to sell infra. I'm done with this conversation.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Sir Scarfalot

[Buck Turgidson]

On 8/29/2019 at 1:07 AM, Sir Scarfalot said:

Accepting losses =/= seeking losses.

And you didn't even read my post, since you somehow still think I'm trying to tell you to sell infra. I'm done with this conversation.

No one asked you to contribute your nothing, so by all means go on your way and learn how to better communicate your ideas.