Jump to content
Buck Turgidson

Wasn't that a party?

Recommended Posts

On 8/20/2019 at 11:07 AM, Micchan said:

It is for a good cause, helping the brave and beautiful knights to have positive net damage

Hint: They already do. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Buorhann said:

What's the point of keeping Infra if your air is zeroed out?  Explain that to me.

KdJK1ho.gif



Don't you have to sell your improvements to sell down? Having them get blown up saves your improvements, especially when it's exclusively from air. This is a very real reason for keeping the infra.

From what I can see the only reason you all would want us to sell our infra is to lessen the damage stat padding going on from it. To which is the point of my post in the stats thread about Yarr not being listed on the stats. We're in neither coalition A or B, and shouldn't be accounted for as such. I suppose you could be hoping we'd sell down and more quickly help engage a lower tier front -- but Yarr is not part of your coalition. Our goal is not to slug it out. We are truly retired. 

Please note I don't speak for Swagrr. They are their own alliance and I wish them the best in however they carry on during this conflict. Yarr's goal is a swift end to our conflict and a return to our retirement beach hammocks. 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Prefontaine - As I told others in the chat, if Yarr wants to feed stats, that’s entirely your decision.  Doesn’t phase the overall war effort at all.

(Especially since you can see where those stats come from, mostly TFP and Yarr)

I certainly didn’t mind it, but you’re right - you do keep your Improvements.  Just hope they don’t hit a NPP or 2 with nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
2 hours ago, Buorhann said:

As I told others in the chat, if Yarr wants to feed stats, that’s entirely your decision.  Doesn’t phase the overall war effort at all.

Indeed it does not. "Our" coalition is so far past any chance of victory, it won't make any difference.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


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

Explain to me the rush to sell infra. Why on earth would you not milk it as long as you can?

Yes that's a good point too. But here is another one: we have nothing to do with this war. To be frank, this is not even 'our coaliton' - we only got identified as such because we were protected by Rose, who are our friends. We were retired and at peace for 2 years. #notmywar

you've mistaken my response for something serious - I was just pulling the hippo's leg.

I don't care tbh.

War be war and we be warring and it be ok.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 8/21/2019 at 11:03 AM, Prefontaine said:

KdJK1ho.gif



Don't you have to sell your improvements to sell down? Having them get blown up saves your improvements, especially when it's exclusively from air. This is a very real reason for keeping the infra.

From what I can see the only reason you all would want us to sell our infra is to lessen the damage stat padding going on from it. To which is the point of my post in the stats thread about Yarr not being listed on the stats. We're in neither coalition A or B, and shouldn't be accounted for as such. I suppose you could be hoping we'd sell down and more quickly help engage a lower tier front -- but Yarr is not part of your coalition. Our goal is not to slug it out. We are truly retired. 

Please note I don't speak for Swagrr. They are their own alliance and I wish them the best in however they carry on during this conflict. Yarr's goal is a swift end to our conflict and a return to our retirement beach hammocks. 

Actually, while it is completely true that you keep your improvements when infra is destroyed by air, that is also the problem: You keep the upkeep costs of your improvements as well. Unless you keep your infra topped up, fairly quickly commerce and civil improvements will end up costing more then they give in value. At that point, you have to sell off those useless things or they'll easily keep you in bill lock. Manufacturing can work, but you still need to somehow maintain the cashflow in order to prevent bill lock, at which point you can only run raw materials, which don't help your war effort at all (outside of possibly uranium, but you still need piles of cash for nukes on top of the uranium anyway).

If you get unexpectedly declared on from a high infra peacetime build and you can't realistically turn the war around on a conventional basis, swapping to a 40 improvement build with low commerce, max military, and high manufacturing is easily the most important first step. That said, selling down the infra may still not be the best idea: just fill out the remaining slots with NPPs to store cash and ensure security from lucky nukes.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

"Our" coalition, @Buck Turgidson?

Either you're in, or you're not.  You came into our coalition chat and started acting like a drama queen right off the bat.  Granted some others didn't help, but you absolutely refused to hear anything.

It's clear from here on the boards that you didn't want to be part of this.  If I were you, I'd focus your attention on those who tried to force you to our side.

Edited by Buorhann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Buorhann said:

"Our" coalition, @Buck Turgidson?

Either you're in, or you're not.  You came into our coalition chat and started acting like a drama queen right off the bat.  Granted some others didn't help, but you absolutely refused to hear anything.

It's clear from here on the boards that you didn't want to be part of this.  If I were you, I'd focus your attention on those who tried to force you to our side.

I was invited to the coalition chat, and asked for advice. Literally the only thing I got was "sell your infra". When I disagreed, the groupthink turned into ridicule and bullying from the gov'ts of other coalition members. Sell infra to deny those other folks their satisfaction - one was even proud that her alliamce had sold more infra than our whole alliance had. LOL

But here is the advice or plans I did not get: 

- focus on this list of players and put them in reach of friendlies

- play defensive and milk what you can from your infra. It will come in handy

- a single offer to help because no one is in range. More on this below.

- take down the top tier of a specific alliance

- spy these nations

- get youself beiged

In fact it was the total absence of any aggressive actions recommended or aggressive qualities from the mindless drones in that chat room that shocked me the most.

I get it. You have all been persuaded to make the same strategic error. So, either you all admit it was stupid and cost you the war, then turn on each other consciously or not, and blame creates division. Better to keep dreaming that you are winning, and stay friends with your cellmates.

The coalition leadership has lost the will to fight, and has so reinforced its losing doctrine ('more focus!) that it has additionally lost the flexibility and imagination to use a serendipitous opportunity to its advantage, such as a neutral being caught in the crossfire and being defaulted to its side.

For saying that much and being abused a second time, Keegoz banned me from the room. What a leader.

As for the faults of the strategy itself, which may well have made sense at one time, they are obvious. The coalition (side note, arewe A or B?) has yielded the upper tier and the middle to a lesser extent. It has yielded the high ground (not to mention the air), and what the 'bad guys' are currently doing is shaping the landscape of peace for years to come. We apparently will be lumped with the bottom half.

Now NPO has brought in their meatshields, some of which will bore a hole through 'our' coalition, fuelled by the upper half, and be joined by more like them. You make big money higher up. I was printing 30mil per day, not bothering anyone. I am still doing well and my improvements are largely intact.

Strategy is about objectives, and the coalition can only think in terms of tactics. Don't tell me that willingly stepping into a cage is strategy...

The point is that at this point, you either change strategies or surrender. And almost anything I can think of is better than the current one, so imagine how much better you can do.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you're a master strategist as a pixel hugger.  Looking back at the chat, not once did you offer any suggestions outside of your complaining.

We have our objectives, and we're currently working on them.  I get it though, you were focused more on the drama than the actual milcom who were attempting to explain it to you (Not only that, the one person who you did reply to, you basically waved him off so he stopped bothering with you to focus on those who are listening to him).

 

I wonder what makes you say that the coalition leadership has lost the will to fight?  I'm in the leadership chat with many others.  You became a major distraction, so you were banned.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Buorhann said:

I'm sure you're a master strategist as a pixel hugger.  Looking back at the chat, not once did you offer any suggestions outside of your complaining.

We have our objectives, and we're currently working on them.  I get it though, you were focused more on the drama than the actual milcom who were attempting to explain it to you (Not only that, the one person who you did reply to, you basically waved him off so he stopped bothering with you to focus on those who are listening to him).

 

I wonder what makes you say that the coalition leadership has lost the will to fight?  I'm in the leadership chat with many others.  You became a major distraction, so you were banned.

I literally do not care about pixels. None of us do.

I did make several suggestions, then after being ridiculed, went out and proved it. Did you see what happened to Odin when his attack on me put him in range of GOB?

The coalition has already achieved its objectives - to put itself into a cage. The one person who was going to write back the next day, McMaster, did not, hence the second run.

I spoke up in a sleepy gov't channel - for an hour the first time, and maybe 30 mins the second time. Imagine how much more efficient it would be if the coalition respected the people who are forced to fight for them enough to have a conversation without trolling them. If I recall, you were one of the worst trolls, talking about the weather or something just to bury my valid comments. You forced this here.

If you want to know why it is clear that you have lost the will to fight, let me copy and paste it for you here:

******

I was invited to the coalition chat, and asked for advice. Literally the only thing I got was "sell your infra". When I disagreed, the groupthink turned into ridicule and bullying from the gov'ts of other coalition members. Sell infra to deny those other folks their satisfaction - one was even proud that her alliamce had sold more infra than our whole alliance had. LOL

But here is the advice or plans I did not get: 

- focus on this list of players and put them in reach of friendlies

- play defensive and milk what you can from your infra. It will come in handy

- a single offer to help because no one is in range. More on this below.

- take down the top tier of a specific alliance

- spy these nations

- get youself beiged

In fact it was the total absence of any aggressive actions recommended or aggressive qualities from the mindless drones in that chat room that shocked me the most.

I get it. You have all been persuaded to make the same strategic error. So, either you all admit it was stupid and cost you the war, then turn on each other consciously or not, and blame creates division. Better to keep dreaming that you are winning, and stay friends with your cellmates.

The coalition leadership has lost the will to fight, and has so reinforced its losing doctrine ('more focus!) that it has additionally lost the flexibility and imagination to use a serendipitous opportunity to its advantage, such as a neutral being caught in the crossfire and being defaulted to its side.

Edited by Buck Turgidson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

I literally do not care about pixels. None of us do.

I did make several suggestions, then after being ridiculed, went out and proved it. Did you see what happened to Odin when his attack on me put him in range of GOB?

The coalition has already achieved its objectives - to put itself into a cage. The one person who was going to write back the next day, McMaster, did not, hence the second run.

I spoke up in a sleepy gov't channel - for an hour the first time, and maybe 30 mins the second time. Imagine how much more efficient it would be if the coalition respected the people who are forced to fight for them enough to have a conversation without trolling them. If I recall, you were one of the worst trolls, talking about the weather or something just to bury my valid comments. You forced this here.

If you want to know why it is clear that you have lost the will to fight, let me copy and paste it for you here:

******

I was invited to the coalition chat, and asked for advice. Literally the only thing I got was "sell your infra". When I disagreed, the groupthink turned into ridicule and bullying from the gov'ts of other coalition members. Sell infra to deny those other folks their satisfaction - one was even proud that her alliamce had sold more infra than our whole alliance had. LOL

But here is the advice or plans I did not get: 

- focus on this list of players and put them in reach of friendlies

- play defensive and milk what you can from your infra. It will come in handy

- a single offer to help because no one is in range. More on this below.

- take down the top tier of a specific alliance

- spy these nations

- get youself beiged

In fact it was the total absence of any aggressive actions recommended or aggressive qualities from the mindless drones in that chat room that shocked me the most.

I get it. You have all been persuaded to make the same strategic error. So, either you all admit it was stupid and cost you the war, then turn on each other consciously or not, and blame creates division. Better to keep dreaming that you are winning, and stay friends with your cellmates.

The coalition leadership has lost the will to fight, and has so reinforced its losing doctrine ('more focus!) that it has additionally lost the flexibility and imagination to use a serendipitous opportunity to its advantage, such as a neutral being caught in the crossfire and being defaulted to its side.

We do have an entire channel dedicated to spy operations and requesting counters... there's absolutely no point in "playing defensively" outside of the extreme opposite of a conventionally outnumbered fight... why would you want advice to both "play defensive" and expect "aggressive actions"... Any "takedowns" of any "top tiers" that we haven't already achieved would be a short-lived and far too expensive pyrrhic victory, and would give the enemy an opportunity to achieve a morale boost that they desperately need... and the idea of getting yourself beiged should really go without saying at this stage in the meta.

There's no strategic error in going for achieveable objectives. There is very much a strategic error in expecting a relatively small strategic difference (Yarr being blitzed) to be worth shifting doctrine to such a degree.

What cost us the conventional war was our success against t$ interference scaring NPO into betraying their own statements and allies. More to the point, that has cost us nothing else. We haven't lost in any real sense, only in a fallacious sense. We have our plans, and we're not going to throw away all the work we've done just to pursue a pipe-dream. Sorry if that's a disappointment.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

We haven't lost in any real sense, only in a fallacious sense. 

Go home, Scarfy.  You're drunk.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Curufinwe said:

Go home, Scarfy.  You're drunk.

It's a matter of perspective

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

We do have an entire channel dedicated to spy operations and requesting counters... there's absolutely no point in "playing defensively" outside of the extreme opposite of a conventionally outnumbered fight... why would you want advice to both "play defensive" and expect "aggressive actions"... Any "takedowns" of any "top tiers" that we haven't already achieved would be a short-lived and far too expensive pyrrhic victory, and would give the enemy an opportunity to achieve a morale boost that they desperately need... and the idea of getting yourself beiged should really go without saying at this stage in the meta.

There's no strategic error in going for achieveable objectives. There is very much a strategic error in expecting a relatively small strategic difference (Yarr being blitzed) to be worth shifting doctrine to such a degree.

What cost us the conventional war was our success against t$ interference scaring NPO into betraying their own statements and allies. More to the point, that has cost us nothing else. We haven't lost in any real sense, only in a fallacious sense. We have our plans, and we're not going to throw away all the work we've done just to pursue a pipe-dream. Sorry if that's a disappointment.

Yes, I have been to the cricket channels. Perhaps I did not make myself clear - here is the order of priorities when faced by an opportunity like us being forced to war:

1) Figure out who can be attacked/spied serendipitously. I mean, if no one can reach us, that MUST mean we can reach someone you can't as well. It's an opportunity. 

2) Determine how to slow Yarr's descent for obvious economic and strategic reasons: bring in the cash and preserve force as long as possible,

3) .... 999) Other variations on attack and withering defense

1000) Sell infra and yield the upper tier to the people who attacked you, in permanence.

The point is that advice to play defensively is more aggressive than capitulating by selling infra. Since capitulation IS your doctrine, it is worth challenging if you want any hope of victory. The problem is that it is too far gone because you have stuck rigidly to an ill-conceived strategy that could only be effective in a 2 week war. You have to face up the the fact that your 'war plan' are not working, and as Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

There is a reason Scipio is more famous than Fabian, you know. At no point did we think we could preserve our infra - more than 3 rounds in, we have yet to receive targets from our enemy-appointed leaders.

 

Share this post


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

There is a reason Scipio is more famous than Fabian, you know.

And yet, the most famous of all is Hannibal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, there isn't a single Dr Hook fan in PnW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

And yet, the most famous of all is Hannibal.

Hannibal had a lot of initial success, but no staying power and eventually ended up losing the war in devastating fashion. Why does that sound familiar?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dad said:

Why does that sound familiar?

Some people have weird role models. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Also Fabian strategy was effective, so even if Fabius didn't get name cred, it worked and people used his name for other stuff like the Fabian Society. I'd say it's sort of the metaphor for how strategies work in PW. They don't seem intuitive when you have to suicide yourself or sacrifice and can wear on people's morale if they're not fully committed to them, but they do work.

Edited by Roquentin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you ketog nutsacks infringing on yarrs sacred sovereignty? Let them run their own war. What're you gonna do next- hit them if they don't comply like you did terminal jest? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Roquentin said:

Also Fabian strategy was effective, so even if Fabius didn't get name cred, it worked and people used his name for other stuff like the Fabian Society. I'd say it's sort of the metaphor for how strategies work in PW. They don't seem intuitive when you have to suicide yourself or sacrifice and can wear on people's morale if they're not fully committed to them, but they do work.

Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory; Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. - Sun Tzu

Actually Fabius' approach failed miserably, as evidenced by his replacement. Playing the long game and skirmishing was handily countered by Hannibal's attacks on other Roman holdings, resulting in erosion of support. Hannibal was camped out in Italy, living off the land, and had Fabius been allowed to continue, Hannibal would have adapted - you know, because he was a good military leader.

The narrative rarely told was how easily Hannibal defeated Fabian tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Either way, attempting to correlate historical warfare to P&W gameplay is doomed to inaccuracy regardless. Unless someone can point to a historical situation in which complete tactical defeat was consistently something to strive for rather than avoid, there's a hard limit to the relevancy of any historical metaphor.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, there are a lot of such examples in history:

- Leonidas at Thermopylae

- Viet Cong vs US

- The Charge of the Light Brigade 

- The very expression "forlorn hope"

- The bombing of Coventry by the Nazis, even when Churchill knew it was coming

- Ghandi vs the British Empire

In each of these cases, taking a beating demonstrated resolve, and losses at the tactical level were firmly part of the grand strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Buck Turgidson said:

Actually, there are a lot of such examples in history:

- Leonidas at Thermopylae

- Viet Cong vs US

- The Charge of the Light Brigade 

- The very expression "forlorn hope"

- The bombing of Coventry by the Nazis, even when Churchill knew it was coming

- Ghandi vs the British Empire

In each of these cases, taking a beating demonstrated resolve, and losses at the tactical level were firmly part of the grand strategy.

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.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/22/2019 at 5:12 PM, Sir Scarfalot said:

Actually, while it is completely true that you keep your improvements when infra is destroyed by air, that is also the problem: You keep the upkeep costs of your improvements as well. Unless you keep your infra topped up, fairly quickly commerce and civil improvements will end up costing more then they give in value. At that point, you have to sell off those useless things or they'll easily keep you in bill lock. Manufacturing can work, but you still need to somehow maintain the cashflow in order to prevent bill lock, at which point you can only run raw materials, which don't help your war effort at all (outside of possibly uranium, but you still need piles of cash for nukes on top of the uranium anyway).

If you get unexpectedly declared on from a high infra peacetime build and you can't realistically turn the war around on a conventional basis, swapping to a 40 improvement build with low commerce, max military, and high manufacturing is easily the most important first step. That said, selling down the infra may still not be the best idea: just fill out the remaining slots with NPPs to store cash and ensure security from lucky nukes.

You can sell the improvements that are costing you money while keeping the rest. 
You can quickly swap over to raw production when you see you're fubar'd in the war and still make reasonable income.
Making them bomb away the infra costs them additional gas/ammo if the infra is going to go away regardless. You can also squeak out some wins as they try to war lock you with letting wars expire.

The only 2 benefits to selling off your infra is to deny them war stats. The second being to unite at a lower tier and attempt to take ground there. 

To the points of the benefits, Yarr doesn't care about the war stats. I view the stats as being a large reason as to why we were declared upon based on information gathered. Not the only one, but definitely a big enough factor. To the second, we're looking for a quick solution to the conflict, not to join either coalition and join this extremely prolonged war. 

 

tl;dr The only reason for Yarr to sell infra, in relation to what is good for Yarr, is if a requirement for peace is us at a certain infra level in this scenario and selling it gets us there quicker. While I understand the advice to sell our infra [and would probably offer the same in your position], it's advice that makes sense members of your coalition. Yarr is not a part of such.

  • Upvote 5

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.