Jump to content

[MULTIPLE] GOONS On Vacation


Do Not Fear Jaz
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

I'm not so sure it's that dumb.  IMO wars cost a lot of money, especially when you keep buying your way out of trouble.  As an aside I wonder if you've had any dealings with loan sharks?  Anyway, imo net damage, though not the whole picture, can provide a useful yard-stick to measure relative cost.  For instance, of the 7000+ attacks made against TKR you've managed a whopping great $118 mil net damage!  I do indeed recognize you as a high performing military alliance (for sure you are doing well against an opponent already outnumbered and militarily depleted), though how your exceptional abilities will translate to long term economic management remains to be seen.  Love your work guys, and spare me your notoriously humble responses!!

A combination of Win/Loss and Mil/Infra NS over time would be a far better metric. 

ribbon - golden steak.png

Feeding the alliance, one conquest at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Valid User Name said:

A combination of Win/Loss and Mil/Infra NS over time would be a far better metric. 

No it wouldn't because winning individual wars is actually how you lose the big war. Nobody beiges for that reason. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree, when a nation's soft NS is flatlining and they're trapped in a beige cycled blockade chain they're pretty much defeated. Meanwhile the winners are capable of rebuilding any losses they incur.

ribbon - golden steak.png

Feeding the alliance, one conquest at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Valid User Name said:

I disagree, when a nation's soft NS is flatlining and they're trapped in a beige cycled blockade chain they're pretty much defeated. Meanwhile the winners are capable of rebuilding any losses they incur.

Good for you, please note the first 2+ months of this war where the only beiging was accidental mistakes. Congratulations your brilliant new system leaves out accounting for the most damaging part of any war, the beginning. Don't forget mil and infra losses actually favored the people losing at about 2 months.

It's also shit because your submerged opponents will be beiging 5 raids every two days. Or however many they can find, or maybe none at all if they went inactive. But the fact that even some of them doing means this as a metric would be absolutely useless.

The mechanical functionality of war in this game means nobody really loses unless they choose to. If your enemy is arrgh, or well, old arrgh, they're happy to keep raiding everything like they always did. It's why TKR had multiple 'wars' on arrgh that did nothing.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

I'm not so sure it's that dumb.  IMO wars cost a lot of money, especially when you keep buying your way out of trouble.  As an aside I wonder if you've had any dealings with loan sharks?  Anyway, imo net damage, though not the whole picture, can provide a useful yard-stick to measure relative cost.  For instance, of the 7000+ attacks made against TKR you've managed a whopping great $118 mil net damage!  I do indeed recognize you as a high performing military alliance (for sure you are doing well against an opponent already outnumbered and militarily depleted), though how your exceptional abilities will translate to long term economic management remains to be seen.  Love your work guys, and spare me your notoriously humble responses!!

Did you just completely ignore what I posted?

You're not going to have much net damage against an alliance like TKR that's already bloodied and beaten down. There's nothing left to "damage", you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

The difference, as I already said, is that we can afford to maintain it. We're generating income at near peace time levels and continuing to grow our nations, while our opponents aren't. 

So yes, net damage is a dumb way for a nation reduced to glass to claim they're "winning", just because they're so destroyed that the opponent is spending more on keeping you down than what your nation is worth.

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

56 minutes ago, Of The Flies said:

Did you just completely ignore what I posted?

You're not going to have much net damage against an alliance like TKR that's already bloodied and beaten down. There's nothing left to "damage", you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

The difference, as I already said, is that we can afford to maintain it. We're generating income at near peace time levels and continuing to grow our nations, while our opponents aren't. 

So yes, net damage is a dumb way for a nation reduced to glass to claim they're "winning", just because they're so destroyed that the opponent is spending more on keeping you down than what your nation is worth.

Exactly. Gross income isn't being factored in; losing a million is a much higher blow to an alliance making millions than it is to one making billions. We're basically churning out revenue and can shrug off minor financial losses. Meanwhile, Typhon purged a ton of its members, some of whom are still active, to reduce net losses and dropped way down the nation rankings as a result. Also meanwhile, one of their leaders gave up and vacationed out for a few weeks to avoid getting beaten any harder.

Edited by Valid User Name

ribbon - golden steak.png

Feeding the alliance, one conquest at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Of The Flies said:

Did you just completely ignore what I posted?

You're not going to have much net damage against an alliance like TKR that's already bloodied and beaten down. There's nothing left to "damage", you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

The difference, as I already said, is that we can afford to maintain it. We're generating income at near peace time levels and continuing to grow our nations, while our opponents aren't. 

So yes, net damage is a dumb way for a nation reduced to glass to claim they're "winning", just because they're so destroyed that the opponent is spending more on keeping you down than what your nation is worth.

I find it curious that you've ignored the meaning of my post, within which was notably absent any statement suggesting net damages were an indicator of 'winning'.  FYI I do not believe it possible that anyone can make a valid claim to having won in this war based on monetary cost alone, or for that matter any statement of sustained economic activity, as it totally ignores the multiple other reasons war was declared.  After the many years PnW has been in existence with no generally accepted metric for 'winning' a war (beyond an admission of defeat), I'm not inclined to acknowledge that Goons have got if all figured out after a couple of months of existence, mostly spent parading around on forums trolling everyone else.  The continuous crowing about your battle prowess against a 'bloodied and beaten...' opponent speaks more of your collective character than most of the egotistical nonsense you've explicitly articulated.  All I can say at this point is that time will tell more of the strength of your alliance than your own self-advertised performance in this war. 

  • Like 2

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Etatsorp said:

I find it curious that you've ignored the meaning of my post, within which was notably absent any statement suggesting net damages were an indicator of 'winning'.  FYI I do not believe it possible that anyone can make a valid claim to having won in this war based on monetary cost alone, or for that matter any statement of sustained economic activity, as it totally ignores the multiple other reasons war was declared.  After the many years PnW has been in existence with no generally accepted metric for 'winning' a war (beyond an admission of defeat), I'm not inclined to acknowledge that Goons have got if all figured out after a couple of months of existence, mostly spent parading around on forums trolling everyone else.  The continuous crowing about your battle prowess against a 'bloodied and beaten...' opponent speaks more of your collective character than most of the egotistical nonsense you've explicitly articulated.  All I can say at this point is that time will tell more of the strength of your alliance than your own self-advertised performance in this war. 

I'm pretty sure reducing resistance to zero is the game mechanic that determines when wars are won. Also, pay your baseball debts.

  • Downvote 3

ribbon - golden steak.png

Feeding the alliance, one conquest at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Etatsorp said:

I find it curious that you've ignored the meaning of my post, within which was notably absent any statement suggesting net damages were an indicator of 'winning'.  FYI I do not believe it possible that anyone can make a valid claim to having won in this war based on monetary cost alone, or for that matter any statement of sustained economic activity, as it totally ignores the multiple other reasons war was declared.  After the many years PnW has been in existence with no generally accepted metric for 'winning' a war (beyond an admission of defeat), I'm not inclined to acknowledge that Goons have got if all figured out after a couple of months of existence, mostly spent parading around on forums trolling everyone else.  The continuous crowing about your battle prowess against a 'bloodied and beaten...' opponent speaks more of your collective character than most of the egotistical nonsense you've explicitly articulated.  All I can say at this point is that time will tell more of the strength of your alliance than your own self-advertised performance in this war. 

"Winning" seemed to be a common thought amongst your coalition, based primarily on stats such as the ones you brought up, like net damage. If that's not your own view, perfect. I'm just explaining why net damage is not a good indicator of how the war is going.

I'm not touting any sort of great military prowess. I know full well that TKR had already been through months of war before we even existed, and you can thank your friends in TGH that we're even involved in this war, but we were given a strategic task to perform, and I'm confident in saying we've done it well. 

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

45 minutes ago, Valid User Name said:

I'm pretty sure reducing resistance to zero is the game mechanic that determines when wars are won. Also, pay your baseball debts.

Yet you don't stop to ask why nobody seems to do it, stop being a dumbass noob and go learn something. Beiging does not win wars, contrary to what simple logic and game mechanics suggest.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Akuryo said:

Yet you don't stop to ask why nobody seems to do it, stop being a dumbass noob and go learn something. Beiging does not win wars, contrary to what simple logic and game mechanics suggest.

Hush, I want my beige time.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Valid User Name said:

I'm pretty sure reducing resistance to zero is the game mechanic that determines when wars are won. Also, pay your baseball debts.

Sure in individual wars.  I was of course referring to the global war.  As far as baseball debts are concerned, I will pay them when I will not be funding your planes and ships etc.  If you're an a$%e, no tips are paid.......simple!!

3 hours ago, Of The Flies said:

"Winning" seemed to be a common thought amongst your coalition, based primarily on stats such as the ones you brought up, like net damage. If that's not your own view, perfect. I'm just explaining why net damage is not a good indicator of how the war is going.

I'm not touting any sort of great military prowess. I know full well that TKR had already been through months of war before we even existed, and you can thank your friends in TGH that we're even involved in this war, but we were given a strategic task to perform, and I'm confident in saying we've done it well. 

It is not for me to comment on any position that TKR, or any other coalition A alliances have on what constitutes a 'win'.  I do try to make general comments about subjects that are in the public space about which I have an opinion.  The discussion around stats and how that relates to 'winning' has been at the very least equally robust from coalition B, and I'm not of a mind to go down that path.  Statistics will always support whatever argument you're making and thus leads nowhere in these sorts of debates.  That does not necessarily mean they have no value however, and within your own alliance or personally you may indeed deny or accept the value of net damage, it matters little to me.  I am merely providing a perspective on how some may see it.  Have a great day ?

Celer Et Audax

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How about a game,

Nobody in your coalition thinks GOONS shouldn't be able to handle Kingslgaive on our own. If you guys request Coalition B Assistance, you lose the game & respect from Coalition as being somewhat capable. (This would be a loss for you guys in many respects & win for Kingsglaive.)

If you guys fight Kingsglaive on your own until December, we can just end the raid war with white peace if you guys stop with the spam embargos (I've decided its as valid a CB as any) & I'll admit you guys aren't completely dependent on NPO.(Draw, earn a little respect fighting on your own)

If you guys manage to actually make us disband with your own power (Never would happen); although I'd admit that's a loss.

The game already began, so lets have fun. Player 1 accepts challenge from Player 2.

Edited by Noctis Anarch Caelum
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

 

How about a game,

Nobody in your coalition thinks GOONS shouldn't be able to handle Kingslgaive on our own. If you guys request Coalition B Assistance, you lose the game & respect from Coalition as being somewhat capable. (This would be a loss for you guys in many respects & win for Kingsglaive.)

If you guys fight Kingsglaive on your own until December, we can just end the raid war with white peace if you guys stop with the spam embargos (I've decided its as valid a CB as any) & I'll admit you guys aren't completely dependent on NPO.(Draw, earn a little respect fighting on your own)

If you guys manage to actually make us disband with your own power (Never would happen); although I'd admit that's a loss.

The game already began, so lets have fun. Player 1 accepts challenge from Player 2.

lol

  • Like 3

ribbon - golden steak.png

Feeding the alliance, one conquest at a time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Viva Miriya
4 hours ago, Noctis Anarch Caelum said:

 

How about a game,

Nobody in your coalition thinks GOONS shouldn't be able to handle Kingslgaive on our own. If you guys request Coalition B Assistance, you lose the game & respect from Coalition as being somewhat capable. (This would be a loss for you guys in many respects & win for Kingsglaive.)

If you guys fight Kingsglaive on your own until December, we can just end the raid war with white peace if you guys stop with the spam embargos (I've decided its as valid a CB as any) & I'll admit you guys aren't completely dependent on NPO.(Draw, earn a little respect fighting on your own)

If you guys manage to actually make us disband with your own power (Never would happen); although I'd admit that's a loss.

The game already began, so lets have fun. Player 1 accepts challenge from Player 2.

It's quite amusing and pathetic that any of you think you can dictate terms, let alone insist on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Viva Miriya said:

It's quite amusing and pathetic that any of you think you can dictate terms, let alone insist on them.

lol, just an offer. So there might be end, although I expect you guys will beg others in Coalition B for help as soon as things go poorly for you guys. Although I think most of them consider it separate and think you guys should be able to handle the war with us yourselves; although I'm also anticipating some in Coalition B might decide to help you guys anyways & paint a target on themselves.

Although do what you want, I'll still consider it you fail at war if you need Coalition B to try bailing you out & expand the war in unpredictable ways for you guys. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sunbeam said:

You know there's only three of you who aren't beige or inactive, right?

You realize despite how many nations you have in your alliance, only 2 of them have cities which fall out of the extreme micro range? I expect in the extreme micro range they'll have it tough; although those who stick through it prove themselves worth aiding up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imageproxy.php?img=&key=39caf403ed909de8https://i.ibb.co/KqFhbmd/goons.png

I'm almost certain no one in coalition b thinks we couldn't handle you. I'm also curious as to who you think coalition b (who isn't a blabbering loudmouth) actually would think that beyond just trolling you to get you to hit GOONS since you're very easy to manipulate.

 

Also, as said previously, I do not care about you or your shit micro, go away.

Edited by Do Not Fear Jazz
  • Upvote 1
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.